User talk:Toddst1

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

• Current time: October 31, 2024, 14:56 (UTC)

The content of this page changes. This is the version displayed at: October 31, 2024, 14:56 (UTC)

Alice Ayres

Oh, I was just trying to get that page back to an earlier state. Amandajm (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There is a silly bit of vandalism, (not to mention a silly bit of bloodymindedism) left behind. Amandajm (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are aware...

that it is TFA on the main page right? (Don't get me wrong, I think it (and all TFA articles) should be (semi) protected) but I just wanted to note it here in case you weren't aware. Cheers, Tommy! [message] 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't edited since applying protection and these concerns were raised, I've taken the protection setting down a couple of notches, but left some protection as a compromise. You have permission to undo my action at any time. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with changing protection and all. What is TFA? Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TFA. Wikipedia's way of keeping new blood circulating, by ensuring that anyone putting in the effort to get an article up to a reasonable quality is then subjected to such a tedious time reverting vandals that they don't come back for six months. – iridescent 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Had no idea. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

User: Gun Powder Ma has repeatedly forum shopped by accusing me at different forums of the same contente dispute after getting a negative result at multiple forums here, here, here and here. Is this an example of WP:FORUM SHOPPING that should not be allowed? As I see you have interacted with this editor in the past and am an Admin, I hope you can help clarify wiki's policies on this matter. I acknowledge I am currently in a content dispute with said user, but I wish to know whether this kind of forum shopping should be allowed. This forum shopping was repeated in a previous instance 1 and to me at least it seems increasingly disruptive.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible. Two of them aren't obvious to me. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At two of them he raised the content dispute, and at 2 others he accused me of disruptive editing in relation to the content dispute(through misrepresentation of diffs) so it is quite similar.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then in that case, perhaps you should raise this at WP:ANI. I haven't sorted through the issue, but that would be the venue to raise it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Phoon

Hey todd,

I'd really prefer if you lifted that block. I think the AN/I section was unfounded (As my comments make clear), but we can't be to hard on some guy for being heated he didn't get the response he wanted. I think a better path would be to let this peter our naturally. If it doesn't and tomorrow or the next day he is banging the drum, then we can call it gaming. But I think it is fairly harmless at this stage. Protonk (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done per request. See User talk:Daven200520 Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I was going to say something too. Good block but better to give them a second chance here, in my opinion. --John (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall now take time to applaud you on your prescience. Protonk (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have dropped teh stick, at least for now. Prolly just in time, too ;) Jack Merridew 08:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Toddst1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Catsquisher

Hello Toddst1, I have reviewed the unblock request of Catsquisher (talk · contribs), and have placed it on hold for the time being, as I am inclined to grant it, but would appreciate a comment from you before taking further action. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup - all good. Thanks for the courtesy. Replied at User talk:Catsquisher. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite all good. Your comparison between my username and "child-molestor" was highly inappropriate and offensive. Consider such an association made towards you. In the future please choose your words more carefully. --Catsquisher (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're so offended, change your offensive name. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how hostility is constructive. I simply asked you to try a little empathy and take more care in your posts. --Catsquisher (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any hostility. Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe it a coincidence that you submitted my user name to WP:UAA for reblock review within 30 minutes of my request that you take more care. In the context of your other comments and actions taken in regard to my Wikipedia account, I smell hostility. Perhaps I am confusing it with overzealousness. --Catsquisher (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because the user name is offensive. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I like his name its very original. --Cat strangler (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice WP:BAIT. Bye. Toddst1 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Mind going through there? There are a few old entries. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Gotta run soon though. Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're still there, could you also speedily delete David Kempf? Totally non-notable and vandals are attacking it. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Can you please stop stalking me and harassing me? Should I cite some wiki policies for you to remember that that is against the rules. I found you comments on my page quite irrelevant. Thanks. --Phoon (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has been on wikipedia for 3 years and appears to be accelerating toward banishment. He would be well-advised to do something else for a few days. (It has worked for me!) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs is right, Toddst1 you need to go do something else for a few days. --Phoon (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment reaffirms what I just said to you on your talk page. Walk away for awhile. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back, barring a nuclear holocaust, in which case wikipedia will be the least of our concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Daven, I'm pretty sure Bugs wasn't talking about me. Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More harassment?

Hello Todd, this guy is at it again even after being told by you to drop the stick. Methinks Bugs might be interested too, be nice! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Easyblock acting up?

Just noticed this block notice but the user was never blocked. Just a script error?  7  05:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

...also [1] and [2] ... strange  7  05:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume that I was momentarily stupid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - was not trying to dump the work on you - just wondering if there was a reason or problem that should be looked at... cause there are others (many?). I'm just on the B's and here are some more User talk:Aardvarkfootwearuk, User talk:AlliancePreciousMetals, and User talk:Buy to let property ... I'm going through a user category with a formatting script in place to show users who aren't blocked. Are you okay if I just block them as I find them?  7  06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I've blocked them too now. Please let me know if you find any more that I've fouled up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clarion Alley

An article that you have been involved in editing, Clarion Alley, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarion Alley. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

[3] Did you mean to remove the topic I started? Justin talk 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, no! Very sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK no worries, mistakes happen. Justin talk 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately removing it seems to have encouraged him to continue to be disruptive.  :( Justin talk 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To keep you apprised

Hello Toddst1, This is for your information and just to keep you apprised. I hereby inform you that in my communication to Jimmy Wales and ArbCom pertaining to getting my block removed and further for punitive action against the dishonest administrators (including yourself )who have blocked me, which is still pending and I am awaiting a response from Jimmy Wales and ArbCom, I have referred to your conduct. I am reproducing the latest email communication sent to Jimmy Wales dated 9 June 2010 20:48 titled "Conduct of Toddst1" hereunder:

Conduct of Toddst1

In my previous correspondence with Jimmy Wales and Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), notably Roger Davies who has been replying purportedly on behalf of ArbCom, Roger Davies has been pretending that my correspondence has been pertaining to issues pertaining content dispute when it has definitely been regarding conduct , where as Jimmy Wales has evading the profound and pertinent issues pertaining to Conduct that I had raised and harping on content issues when I had specifically contacted him only on the issue of conduct and he apropos the issue of content, he has ignored my suggestion that since the issue of content dispute pertains to law, the issue may be placed before a legal panel and he does not reply. There is a conspiracy of silence!

But now coming to conduct of Toddst1, He has stated, "You have not been allegedly blocked, you have in fact, been blocked. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour. You've had enough appeals here and you have now lost your ability to edit this page”. He is indulging in misrepresentation and lies. I am definitely blocked. It is the reasons given for the block that is alleged. He is lying when he says that in my messages contesting the block, I have not addressed my behaviour. I had explicitly inter alia stated that “I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus when Abecedare blocked me”. “I as a Lawyer myself, was planning to get in touch with Wikipedian lawyers like NJA for their third opinions but before I could do that *I have been blocked by Abecedare and these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for consensus”. “I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”.

Further he says “You've had enough appeals here” . My earlier message was allegedly declined not on merits because my earlier “request” was allegedly “far too verbose”. Besides, even in the previous 1 month block dated 27 July 2009 , I had asked Toddst1 to “ Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures” and “I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka” . But he did not, and he willfully ignored and evaded the issue and now he again states, that “Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour”. How can such a despicable perverted behaviour be countenanced? I demand that you take action against him.

If FisherQueen says, “ You were offered a fairly reasonable condition for your return” or “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles”, then the “fairly reasonable condition” should be applicable to both (all) the parties and “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles” should also be applicable to both the parties. What does she mean when she says, “You've given a lot more information that I needed in this request”, or “I didn't read most of that”? She is lying. She has not just read all that I had stated and she has also perfectly understood what I had stated. Just because she very well knows that what ever I had stated therein is perfectly true and she cannot refute it, she is making such statements. I cannot give her information in a platter which is tailor made to suit her whims and fancies! I give information which is relevant to me pertaining to the true reasons for my block and if she is not interested, then she should just not interfere and let some honest administrator to deal with my contest.

Toddst1 has not just removed my ability to contest the block for false reasons. He has also removed my ability to edit my own discussion page. This show how much prejudiced and mala fide his action is. I will pin point the reason why he removed even my right to edit my own page. It is because of the new subsection “Basis” that I created which angered and irritated him! I demand that I be given a chance to contest the block in the manner Ottava Rima was given. I am not necessarily stating that he, i.e. Ottava Rima was given a fair chance. But he was the only one to have the guts to challenge RegentsPark, and all of us know what happened to him! If you are going to not give me a chance to disprove the statements of RegentsPark and his colleagues, rather than making unilateral and arbitrary unsubstantiated prejudged statements like, “However, the evidence you have provided tends to confirm that you edited outside policy; were reasonably blocked for it; and rejected a good faith offer of conditional unblocking. I have little more to add, I'm afraid”, I will have to do what is necessary to expose you. Your article on ArbCom states that, “A statistical study published in the Emory Law Journal indicated that the Committee has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct.”

Why don’t you just confess that Wikipedia has a policy to support the Chinese and has a bias in favour of the Chinese on the issue of Chinese territorial claims in India and for that reason, I just had to be necessarily removed and the allegations of disruption are just a pretext! Your appointing the first ever Indian Board member is not at all going to change all that. The issue is not just about the Hindutash pass in Kashmir. It is also for example about my contribution in inter alia the Aksai Chin article where in I had added immense information which are neither my original research nor my point of view but are extracts or quotes from acclaimed research books and supported by verifiability which are not being retained by the coterie who want the article to be in their preferred version. The POV version of the article refers to Arunachal Pradesh which, but for the fact that Arunachal Pradesh like Aksai Chin are both parts of India, has nothing to do with Aksai Chin in order to serve the ulterior purpose of the racket involved. Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.55.185 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I confess. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

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. The discussion is here [4]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is a important page for Pakistani people because it tells us the information that our media doesen't tells us and it shows the inner Pakistan