User talk:Toddst1

This page, Toddst1 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

Archives

2017

2016
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008

before 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Current time: November 15, 2024, 00:28 (UTC)

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of March 2010.

This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 3 days

The contents of this page changes. This is the version displayed at: November 15, 2024, 00:28 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lefty101 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, as it happens, you have gotten away with harassing me, again. As you failed to take heed of my last request, I shall ask you again, please do not leave another message on my talkpage for any reason ever again. Lefty101 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of docuganda

This was an article from a third party Christian Science monitor that defines a new film genre, which includes An Inconvenient Truth, and Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore. Why was this deleted? happy to delete the links. but the article itself is worthwhile and valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albagodas (talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One source does not make it notable neologism. Per your request, I have restored it.

Besides - Docuganda.com is your website. Try facebook. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimulTrans

Hope you're enjoying your semi-retirement. :)

Just a friendly heads up on SimulTrans, an article you proposed for deletion. I've restored it as a contested prod, per a request at WP:REFUND. However, I've warned the requester that notability hasn't been established and that the article can go to AfD at any time. Feel free to proceed however you'd like. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty lousy at being semi-retired. Thanks for the heads up. It's at AFD now. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user blocked by you now using a different name

Hotel4500 (talk · contribs) (blocked by you for malicious redirects) for is now editing under Hotel5500, and writing some negative info about a California school district without any citations. To me, it appears this person has a grudge against this district. They also threaten to block users who revert any of their edits under the 5500 name. I am also concerned about some of their edits about their insistance on including the UK version of Law and Order in the Law and Order Franchise and it's universe. Now, I do know and understand you are "semi-retired" - but I take this to mean you do check in here occasionally. So I politely ask you to check this out if you do have the time when you visit, or at least forward to someone who is more active than you. Thank you very much Todd. I hope you are enjoying your break, and hope it does not become permanent as I have great respect for you as an admin and editor for your intelligence and fairness - and also ability to remain civil when others are not (which is the main reason I am bringing this to your attention rather than attempting to deal with it myself...I am fully aware my Irish temper can get me into trouble!) Cheers, Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've got the right user name? Hotel5500 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be making edits on school districts. Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the quick block. Leaky Caldron 20:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Docuganda

I don't see this as meeting a WP:CSD. What do you think? Dlohcierekim 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I had deleted and then restored it for that reason. I left the CSD tag there for someone else to think about. I think it's a WP:NN neologism and could probably do with a {{prod}} or an AFD. Of note is that the creator owns the website http://www.docuganda.com/. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an IAR at best. Glad I'm not the only one that deletes these things and has 2nd thoughts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy. Got G-hits Don't know if it would survive AFD. Dlohcierekim 22:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

75.170.161.149

You were the blocker on 75.170.161.149 previously, so I am bringing this to you. The user has been vandalizing the WGGH page from many 75.170. IPs. At present the user is now using 75.170.193.114 and continues to vandalize the same page. Is there anyway to lock down the WGGH page and range block the 75.170. range? I think this would keep most of the vandalism at bay. The last block the user had was 1 month. Is there anyway to make this rangeblock a 2 month'er in the spirit of the escalation of the blocks? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it's dealt with Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was. My apologizes for not notifying you of that. Had a couple other things on my plate and it slipped my mind. My thanks for looking into it as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:THETRUTHPROTECTOR

Thanks for the swift Whack-a-Mole action. Edison (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bag'em, we tag'em~! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, could you please pre-empt block User:DaveNov85 and User:DaveNovember85 as well? Second time this had happened to me and I must say that he's really a no-lifer. Thanks and toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't block someone who hasn't edited. Perhaps you should sign up for the names and never use them, just to take them out of circulation. Toddst1 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the help. 173.11.92.206 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splash Pad

Why is it you are blocking the history of a Splash Pad? How is urparks more relevant to a splash pad then a splash pad. The page has little to no actuall information about splash pads. Google it find out actual information about splash pads instead of blocking in favor of old text about irrelevant topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.184.91 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is your company and you are here only to promote it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong it's not my company. The company splashzone created the residential splash pad . I'd say it's relevant. Do you think the page about coca cola talks about the company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.45.136 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought on a recent anon block

Perhaps in light of the abuse of multiple accounts by 128.163.229.32 the original 31 hour block on 128.163.229.36 should be modified? - Schrandit (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a dynamic IP which means the editor is unlikely to get the same IP twice, so blocks have little effect. It just means they have to turn the DSL unit off and back on to evade the block. If it continues, we should set up a range block. I'd be glad to do that if I'm around, but if not (more likely), ask for it on WP:ANI. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - it looks like they were still hopping, so I issued a rangeblock on 128.163.229.0/24. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So all anons on that range have been temporarily blocked and there is no purpose in me firing up a sockpuppeting investigation? - Schrandit (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so - if I did it correctly. It would be good to watch to see if my range was wide enough - that is if s/he pops up on another IP address, we will need to widen the range. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2#Oppose

Just fyi - I couldn't figure out how to get the numbering to work with {{quotation}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Didn't mean to f things up there. Toddst1 (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

Don't you see that's the same person again and again. That article is vandalized without any reference. It says" . The Albanians objected the anthem because they demanded the verse "our mother Montenegro" replaced by "our house Montenegro" for the Albanian populations' sake.". That was just one time said by politician of Albanian ethnicity more than 2 years ago. You can't say it is what Albanian people want, when one politician just said it once, and never mentioned it again. I mean he always stands up like all Albanians in Montenegro to the anthem. Furthermore, look at other anthems on Wikipedia, none one has controversy. There can't be controversy about official anthem of country. It also says it's in procedure of getting shorter text which is not true. When it comes to parliament, then that someone can add it. And to all that, Montenegrin is official language, not Serbian. Rave92^(talk) 09:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote him if he wants so radical changes, he needs to show arguments, references and reasons on Talk Page why it should be added on that article. I guess that's ok? Rave92^(talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, of course information matters - that is what the Wikipedia is for! Secondly, that is because there is an ongoing controversy regarding the Montenegrin anthem. All the media in Montenegro are discussing it on a daily basis. It's a hot topic, especially considering the very sensitive and controversial issues discussed (authorship of a Nazi collaborator).

The answer might be that Rave92 isn't following the news, however this is no justification to refuse to check the cited sources himself and get information about Montenegro, Montenegrin matters and its anthem and all the numerous controversies that circle around it.

Rave92, the article is referenced and your actions have included either direct lying or something else. Considering the rapid speed of your reverts, it is a high possibility that you perhaps did not even care to read the article, the added content, or you would've noticed the references. In that case that is a very reckless act and indecent towards me, also a part of your personal campaign of obviously wanting to own the article for you and yourself alone as its history very clearly suggests. That is almost as bad as intentionally lying and trying to deceit an uninformed third party (for example Toddst1) who would come up and read the edit summaries, and - God forbid - believe in your false accusation. It is especially a worrying matter since you continued with your accusations even after it was clearly pointed out to you that they are incorrect. You have also resorted to something really ridiculous, that I really do not know how else to characterize but as childlish games.

If there is anything precise that you hold against the article (your edits only depict that you hold a personal grudge against me), I suggest you lay them out, as you say yourself, at the talk page.

Montenegrin is official language, not Serbian.

This is yet false claim. Both are official.

Firstly, text what they want to delete is the text which glories Montenegro as state, they don't care who wrote it. Also there are no proves that these text wasn't used before he added it, but never mind that, let's get back on "topic".

I am incorrect? You firstly here say about reckless actions towards you, accusing you etc... but when I revert it, you are saying I want to own article, to lie, that I am incorrect. Now you are being hypocrite. I don't think Todd or anyone else is "uniformed" or anything you mention here.

Montenegrin is official language, not Serbian.

This is yet false claim. Both are official.

Read the Constitution. Rave92^(talk) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. According to Article 13, the official languages are Montenegrin, as well as Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian. --MNEFORGER (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]