User talk:Toddst1

This administrator believes the SOPA/PIPA blackout was absurd and has signed this protest against the blackout.

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

User:PPdd

Hello. I happen to have User talk:PPdd on my watch list after we interacted a few weeks ago: I am otherwise quite uninvolved with them. I was surprised to see that they have been blocked for sock-puppetry, and in particular I am concerned by your analysis of their behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart. As far as I can tell there are only two anonymous IP edits at that page, [1] and [2]. One of those is openly adjusting one of PPdd's previous edits with summary "modify comment", and the other is responding to a comment by User:Location by asking for clarification. In neither case could this be described as an attempt "to appear as a different user supporting your positions": indeed editing while logged out is perfectly legitimate and I see no attempt to deceive in either of these two diffs. I have not reviewed the situation at Talk:Allied Artists International but I suggest on the basis of what I have seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart that you may have been precipitate here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Additional: I have looked at Talk:Allied Artists International and I think the mixture of logged-in and logged-out comments, while not ideal, did not seem to me to be deceptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, things have got distinctly weird now. I'm content to leave it all in your hands ... Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanthalas39 was right. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote on my user page - and no I'm not referring to you (no more pronoun problems :) Tan was an admin - one of the best. Toddst1 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see -- thanks for that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Regarding your note on such-and-such's page that was recently commented on by user so-and-so... let's just say I thought your comment on such-and-such's page was remarkably restrained. :) P.S. If this message does not self-destruct within seconds after you read it, feel free to destruct in manually. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable how that clique closes ranks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Although, just to show how little attention I've been paying, it's been 2 months since such-and-such left, and I only learned about it a couple of days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Vocalcom

Hi Toddst1. The deletion log. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered salting it when I deleted it, but I suspect the company might pass WP:CORP if we get past this promotional nonsense. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If it passes the guidelines, then "the neutrality of this article is disputed", not "the existence of this article is disputed".--Shirt58 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You there?

Are you sure? Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs) is a constructive editor, and the IP's edits did look like vandalism and he reported them to AIV. Our articles List of U.S. states' largest cities by population and List of U.S. states' largest cities by population say NO is the largest city, and the edits did look like vandalism. And did you see the insult to Hiero on the IP's page? Blocking an experienced editor with no warning doesn't seem a good idea at all. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, multitasking here and was away. Let me try to tease the issues out:

Heiro has had a ton of 3RR warnings. S/he knows the issue pretty well and tends to push it like in this case. EW is the one issue that tends to get experienced well-intended editors in trouble. I'm sure you know this.
I don't see the IP's edits as a deliberate attempt to disrupt wikipedia. That's just not evident. Maybe push a POV, sure but that's not an exemption to 3RR.
The insult is inexcusable and has earned that editor a 4im warning for it. I've watchlisted the page and will quickly block the IP if disruption continues. I understand s/he is pissed off and has a right to be (and I should have caught the 5 yo comment) This is a pretty obvious case of WP:BITE on heiro's part.

Let me know if you still disagree with this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe pov, he's from that area. The IP is from Baton Rouge which explains I guess why the IP was replacing New Orleans with Baton Rouge. The last 'warning' was a reminder from me, the one before that from someone who said they had a right to 3 reverts and that I'd warned - as I recall, Hiero wasn't at 3RR then. Heiro usually listens to me, I'm sorry I didn't know about this as I probably could have prevented it. But as you've seen, he's ok with the break. I still wish it hadn't happened (if for no other reason than I needed his help with some Native American stuff!) Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to unblock if you see fit. (not that you needed it). Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Heiro earned that insult. He/she handled the situation entirely wrong. No, I won't ever dish insults like that again, but giving me a first and final warning? This was my first foray into editing a Wikipedia article. I can tell you right now, given my treatment by people like Heiro, it is definitely my last attempt at an edit. 174.75.118.177 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)KodaKarr[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FWIW, Fry has apologised for his behaviour and is now begging for you to cut him some slack. Supreme facepalm of destiny... Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You should probably have a look at this. → ROUX ₪ 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sigh. Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of hoping for more of a slap on the wrist than an indef, but I suppose he made his bed. → ROUX ₪ 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock deals are just that. If you blow them then .. Toddst1 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways unblock deals are like the unbreakable vow from the Harry Potter series; only except of ending up dead you are just indef blocked. Good block; they had made their bed and now they have to lie in it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say I'm not known around here for being lenient. Let's hope this doesn't become a pattern. :) Toddst1 (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that the restrictions will have the effect of you never having to hit the "block" button for that user again. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) His rope just keeps getting tighter and tighter but yet he wonders why and how come? In the final analysis, he only has himself to blame when the very noose he keep tightening finally strangles him, eh? See also his edit summary (and I quote him: I resent you accusing me of "damage") when removing my advice to him and you'll see what I mean... *sigh* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors who Bully Newbies

I made my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article this week. An editor very quickly responded to my changes and, eventually, reported me to the higher ups, and I got a pop on the wrist. If any of you have the opportunity to review the exchange between me and this editor, please do so. It's clear that his experience and knowledge of Wikipedia far exceeds mine. In my opinion, he used that knowledge to bully and bruise me. This was not unlike using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. This editor was out of line. When I responded, accusing the editor of behaving a like a five year old (gasp), and suggesting that he get a life (gasp), I was warned that I could not make comments such as these because it denigrates the overall culture at Wikipedia. I wonder, though, what are the consequences, if any, for the editor who provoked this incident. Apparently it's a minor thing for an experienced editor to bully and slap around an inexperienced editor, but it's another entirely for someone who's been mistreated to accuse his attacker of childish behavior. Given my treatment by Wikipedia, I will never again make an edit on this website. There's just too much drama and too many mean-spirited people. This is a real shame. I have a long career in academia; unfortunately, the culture on this website, particularly among editors and administrators, is hardly the culture that I've grown accustomed to. Folks, really, look at people's behavior on here. Ask yourselves the questions that you should be asking: when an experienced editor bullies and abuses an experienced editor, is that right? Shouldn't that editor, at least, attempt to educate inexperience users - not by walloping the person upside his head, but by talking out the issue. I am very, very disappointed with the entire situation. What's more, I am shocked that "get a life" and "you are acting like a five year old" are considered "unforgivable" comments. Ask anyone - these are pretty tame. 174.75.118.177 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)KodaKarr[reply]

I'm tempted to say "If you feel that way, then 'stop acting like a 5 year old' and 'get a life'." using your own "tame" expressions but I won't. :)

Seriously, you were treated roughly by Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs). There's no question about that. However, that's not an excuse for namecalling, statements that the editor needs therapy, etc.. We don't tolerate personal attacks here, not even against folks who have treated us poorly. Toddst1 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why did you blank my privacy/civil liberties info

I spent like two hours compiling and editing that data. The "About the Board" section was way out of date, not mentioning anything since 2007. That was lame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerpants (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error. I meant to back out only one of your edits - not 3. It should be better now. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok no worries. I haven't done this in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerpants (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I still fuck it up pretty frequently. :) Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover

Is it possible for you to review my request here? It's just that I have made quite a large number of media rename requests which haven't been completed yet and I am eager to start moving them to the appropriate names. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sure, you seem to be doing decent work. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted revert

What happened? There was NO "vandalism". So what exactly are you talking about or seeing? You totally disrespected me and my edits (and actually think I would put up with it). You reverted my edits, with NO explanation except to say "identified as vandalism". Huh? ?? no vandalism... your revert was vandalism. As it totally violated WP policy, on so many levels. No joke. You slandered me, by calling what I did "vandalism", which it wasn't (not in ANY sense). My guess is that you did not even really see my edits most likely. And because of some personal bias (probably), you disrespected me, with no regard at all to the validity of the edits and good-faith fixes. There were refs that were not showing correctly, I merely fixed them. What's with you? Was that some kind of a weird joke? Or were you just weirdly mistaken? There was no "vandalism" at all. I never do that. So not sure why you're hallucinating that in there, and disrespecting me like that. I do not "vandalize" articles. I work hard on them. I put a ref per discussions...and I fixed messed up ref displays. How was that "vandalism"?? My guess is that you did not even bother to actually see the edits, but have some personal bias against me (for whatever reason) and that it has NOTHING to do with actual valid WP policy, examination, or practice. Not cool. I did not "vandalize" anything. I've been contributing and working on this article for a while, putting good-faith and accurate edits and fixes, and modifications. Why the hell did you do that? Where exactly was the "vandalism"? Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You attacked me by slandering me, and calling my accurate good-faith edits and fixes "vandalism". And reverted me unwarrantedly. Admin or not. Thanks for dodging my point about "where was the vandalism, and why did you do that?". It's very simple, Todd...there's no need to do what you did or to follow me like that, or assume things, because of past whatevers, that you may or may not even right about. Personal bias has no valid place in WP edits or assumptions. I'm serious. Stalking, and baseless reverts, and slander, are grounds for for blocking, according to WP policy. Admin or not, you seem to have issues. Personal biases. You never explained why you did what you did. There was NO "vandalism". Yet look at what you did, to me and my edits. Disrespecting me and my hard work, that you reverted (with no real specific explanation of what was wrong with them) calling them "vandalism". For others to see? I fixed ref displays that were not correctly showing. What was "vandalism" about that? I wasn't sure what was going on. I thought maybe it was a mistake. But I'm only human, and naturally upset. You dissed my edits. As "vandalism". Not sure exactly why, or what you saw. But it was uncalled for, sir. So my natural reaction. I did not even know you were an Admin. But seeing that you are, it just makes me wonder more so why you did that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geez pal, done with your rant yet? Sure reject my apology. Fine. Enough with the personal attacks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What apology? I did not see any... As I said, I thought it was maybe some mistaken assumption, because of being busy, and not seeing it correctly, BUT mainly from some pre-bias against me. But the problem with that is I NEVER "vandalize" articles. Not even un-intentionally. But again, I saw no apology. Maybe on my page, I don't know. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, saw it now. This is what I wrote back:

Ok, not sure why you saw it that way. My guess is some pre-bias against me from months ago. I'm a sincere editor, not perfect, but I do try hard. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember anything about interacting with you months ago. What was the context? I came across your edits on that article on Special:RecentChanges. this edit did not make sense and did not match the source you were citing. I meant to revert that - didn't mean to revert all three of your edits. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a chapter IN that source, to make it more clear where to go. It was a chapter link, on the left side of that page. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks; I've been asked to comment as an uninvolved admin. Please give me a little while to read myself into the situation. TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I have now read myself into the discussion. The trigger for the concerns was this revert which was marked as 'vandalism'. I am satisfied that this was a constructive edit that should not have been reverted. This is fully accepted by Toddst1. I understand that Hashem sfarim is upset, entirely reasonably, by the edit summary. I have taken two steps to repair the situation. Firstly I have removed from public view two edit summaries [3][4] so no non-admin editor can see the suggestions of vandalism. Secondly, I have reformatted the reference here in a neutral, and hopefully more helpful, format. I am satisfied that the contentious revert by Toddst1 was an error caused by a misreading of the edit, of a nature that we have all been guilty of when working under pressure. I am not privy to the previous history between the editors but I see no evidence of bad faith on either side. Toddst1 has profusely apologised and I hope that that apology can now be accepted and that we can now move on. I am happy to help with further concerns. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1946-47 WIHL season speedy deletion nomination

Hey Todd, I saw what appeared to be a non-notable article with no references about a particular season of a regional sport league that had been identified as written from a fan's point of view. To me speedy deletion seemed appropriate under A7. Clearly to you A7 does not apply here. I edit in good faith, and I'm familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion. Could you explain to me how A7 is not applicable here, or in other words, how does this article "indicate why its subject is important or significant" let alone satisfy the requirement for verifiability. Thanks for your time, Johnathlon (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a season of a professional sports league, the the article inherently asserts importance, just as stating someone is a professional athlete asserts importance of an athlete. I'm not saying we should have a stand-alone article about that season (I suspect we could do without it), but it's clearly not an A7. WP:AFD is the proper channel to delete it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet

Hi Toddst1, you blocked User:Heronbird1961 and the IP User:81.159.239.75 for edit warring on Echo & the Bunnymen and sockpuppetry. Well it appears he may be back[5]. May not be a problem yet, but could become one. --90.220.200.125 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am aware of the fact that you are not uninvolved with respect to Hashem sfarim. But given that you may be aware of his background, could you please point me in a suitable direction for help. I have had issues with this user over references being WP:RS or not, etc. and the responses have been quite unexpected - to put it mildly. I did ask him not to follow me around any more, and this edit clearly breached civility, calling my edits "...." etc. This user seems to breach civility very easily. I did warn hm about it, but he does not seem to want to heed the warning. I really, really do not want to interact with this user. And I do not want him to follow my edit trails, but he thinks he has a right to do it. But I do not like to interact with him at all. And in my view his comments are just uncivil, and he seems to think he has a right to use "..." words. Your suggestions as a user (rather than administrator) will be appreciated. What do you think I should do next apart from quitting Wikipedia so I do not have to interact with this user. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since I'm involved in this, I felt it necessary to speak here. No disrespect intended. Hi Todd. There was that misunderstanding from days ago that Todd admits was an error on his part. No biggie. It happens. I thought it was over something else though. But anyway, just before I saw this that History2007 wrote to you here, I already wrote to History's talk page calling a "Truce"...and this below is what I wrote to him...

== Truce ==

Hi. Look, I'm sorry things got like this. It was not my intention. Maybe you're right in a way. Maybe it would have been smarter or better for me (for the time being) even if I meant it in a neutral or cool sense, for me not to peruse other religious articles (that I may be interested in) that other editors that I know (such as you) have been dealing with. But again, I did not mean it quite the sense that you probably assumed. Meaning that you really did NOT have to react the way you did. I know I'm not perfect necessarily. But iff you think you were perfect here, then there's not much I can say to you, and I will try hard to steer clear of you. Though we did have a decent working relationship in the past. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there was nothing precluding me from perusing religious articles that I may find interesting, that editors I know were writing in, just out of curiosity (with NO malice at all intended), and by chance to lend my thoughts in a respectful manner (as I did in my FIRST comment regarding "Mediatrix"), with no hostility at all or meant. And it was a comment meant for ALL to see, not just History2007. But he reacted VERY UNCIVILLY and coldly to my well-meaning chime-in and comment. Naturally I got upset, because I was already over the stuff from before, but apparently he wasn't, and he assumed I meant something that I didn't. His reaction was not really cool or called for. Hence my reaction back. But I wrote him again as you see calling a truce. He and I always had a decent working relationship over the months. So it's a shame that nonsense like has to happen. I'll make sure to respect his wishes though. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I harbor no ill will towards Hashem. It appears there is history here that I don't remember. Given that, I'm recusing myself from any commentary or administrative action against or in favor of him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not vandalism?

Hi Toddst1, regarding this, I have replied on my talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism, Hookers, and Secret Service?

Hello Mister, In good faith I write in opposition to your revert of my edit to the Secret Service Page. You was saying that it be "Recentism." yes, the hookers were recent. But nothing like this has never happened in the past. It is a really big deal for these people to be hiring hookers and you have a bunch of people from the agency making public statements about it. Basically: the hookers are part of the Secret Service history. This be a wiki--it isn't any old promo bid for the government. Thank you, in good faith, assalaamu alaykum.