User talk:Toddst1

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

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Re: 3RR Warning

In response to the warning you left on my talk page, I'm confused as to how I've violated the three-revert rule. I reverted an edit twice by someone who continuously adds unsourced material in spite of being warned, but at no point did I engage in any sort of edit war. Friginator (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, you have just admitted to a violation of edit-warring. The concept is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't edit warring when the edit being undone is disruptive. Friginator (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your definition of disruption. A content dispute certainly does not count as disruption (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this count as a content dispute? This isn't someone trying to make a coherent argument we're talking about. This is a genre-warrior, using their IP to make over a dozen unsourced POV edits in less than an hour. I don't even know what "Black Holes and Revelations", (the page I'm accused of having a content dispute over), sounds like. And I couldn't care less what people think it is. However, when someone, such as the IP in question, adds unsourced material to it based on what is solely their own point of view, and when that person adds this info in a place where it could be interpreted as sourced when it is not (there was a citation listed in the "genre" parameter that didn't reflect the content being added), that is disruptive. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two (or more) to genre-war. A genre war is a content dispute. You might have noticed that the genres you warred to maintain are not supported by the citation given. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another 3RR warning

And here's another one for you to explain. Please explain how you can possibly justify giving me this 3RR warning for List of programs broadcast by Playhouse Disney. Did you look at the article and the history? The first sentence of the article is "This is a list of television programs currently or formerly broadcast by Playhouse Disney..." That's it. An alphabetical list of current (and former) programs. Why would anyone need to insert an additional, unsourced section listing current programs, as the IP keeps doing? I clearly stated in my edit summaries why the edits were being undone and how the information could be added. The IPs were correctly warned and I added additional explanations to the template warnings. It's not a content dispute, it's 2 months worth of vandalism by the IPs, and reverting that is not subject to 3RR. Consider yourself warned for abuse of warning templates. Meters (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you may have been confused by the unfortunate edit summary that TW left. You were warned for EW, not 3RR.

Maybe you should read the warning:

"Your recent editing history at List of programs broadcast by Playhouse Disney shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing..."

You may misunderstand the difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW - which could be a real problem for someone with Rollback. I also think you may be confused about what is obvious vandalism and exempt from edit warring. I suggest you read WP:EW carefully, and you should be aware that continued edit warring can also result in loss of rollback.

In any case, WP:RFPP and/or WP:DR is a better solution. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You were mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lurulu regarding a block where the blockee wasn't notified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the SPI, but for the record, the notice may have been overlooked :User_talk:Lurulu#Blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input on fixing article without edit warring

Following on your particular take on WP:EW, I would appreciate your input on the situation [here]. I have already reverted this IP editor once (as have two other editors) because of the totally unsuitable unsourced tone, and the fact it covered the same ground as what was there already. They appear willing to listen to what has been said, but have still left the article in an unsatisfactory state;

They have replaced something that used to be cited, with something unsourced, vague and badly written.
It is in the wrong position on the article using the football project's guidance.

Frankly, the article was better before this edit which, although in good faith, has removed information. Would you consider it edit warring if I was to revert again? I realise I could try and discuss with the IP editor, but the chances are they ;

don't care that they're already past 3RR
are long gone
are not going to agree to remove what they did, despite what everyone else says
if reverting, are only going to struggle to do what I can do myself

Do I leave the article in its unsatisfactory state? Is anyone else who chooses to fix it edit warring, as you suggested previously? How long should it be left like this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not my take on EW, it's policy.
Second, you could start by posting something on the talk page and establishing consensus that the IP's edit is or is not acceptable. Once consensus has been established, that should guide the content.
Third, you should warn the IP about edit-warring, which I have done for you.
Fourth, failing that, you could ask for page protection.

This is elementary WP:DR. Yes, anyone choosing to "fix" the article without establishing consensus is participating in an edit war. Thanks for asking and not continuing that edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is your interpretation. WP:EW says "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring", whereas you say "(if you) make a single revert that is being made by other user(s) then you are edit warring". (My emphasis). What "repeatedly" means could be a matter of opinion, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean "once".
Secondly, is the fact that three editors reverted the edit (attempting to follow WP:BRD) not an indication of consensus? Is the fact that the previous content has been there for months/years previously, fully compliant with policy and guidelines, not even a suggestion of it being in line with consensus? Consensus can often be disputed, so what point is there to it if reverting to it is still edit warring?
Thirdly; warning a passing IP editor, who is long gone, does nothing to improve the article while no-one is allowed to touch it. The IP editor has achieved what they wished, against the wishes of other editors their edit is left as it stands, without consensus and often without any discussion. So what do they care about 3RR and blocks? The damage is done in minutes, and we sit around for days scared to repair it.
Fourthly; what point is there to page protection when, again, no one is allowed to to revert to the last good version?

A hypothetical example. Joe is honestly convinced Obama is a devotee of furbies. Coming across Wikipedia for the first time, Joe edits the Barack Obama article in good faith to state in the lead that "Obama loves furbies." An editor reverts it as unsourced and dubious trivia. Knowing nothing of Wikipedia policy or rules, Joe puts it straight back in. Are you telling me that Wikipedia policy is that Joe's edit should remain until the matter is discussed in full on the talk page, consensus is established, and then someone makes the bold step of reverting it a second time, hoping no-one thinks they are warring? Meanwhile, Joe has been warned for two edits, 3RR regardless. But what does he care? The Wikipedia page on Obama now says what he wanted, at least until someone works up the nerve to revert it.

That's what you are suggesting should happen, but I can tell you, that is not what would happen in practice. The edit would be reverted again within seconds, possibly by the same editor, and Joe would be invited to take the matter to the talk page. No-one would be accused of edit warring, apart from possibly Joe.

I am not being argumentative for the sake of it, I'm trying to demonstrate your interpretation of WP:EW would inevitably mean poor quality edits to articles (all be it done in good faith) by any passing IP editor would remain, while no one can, in good faith, revert the article to its previous condition without fear of being taken to task about edit warring. Even if the edit was patently not an improvement. Even if their revert was their first, and even if they are unaware of previous reverts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to answer my questions, but could you at least explain more clearly your understanding of what "repeatedly" means? It's kind of important. If it can mean "once" then I really think the policy needs urgent rewording if it is to be understood. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On your first revert, you should explain to Joe on his talk page why you are undoing his edit and what policy he is running afoul of and you should ask him not to restore it. If he persists in restoring it, then he is being disruptive. If you haven't discussed it with him and you undo his work, wouldn't you expect him to be indignant and want it restored? You've set it up to be a test of wills, hence the edit war.

Most folks, once they have a friendly explanation of why their edit is unhelpful will be responsive to coaching. Believe me, I've done this a few thousand times. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New account

Hey Todd, Snobygravt (talk · contribs) was just created by Snobygravy (talk · contribs). Is this something worth noticing? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what they do. AGF for now. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

Um? The page says it won't let me post, and I keep removing words so that the filter will finally permit me to post. How can I get an only warning for trying to find out what the filter will and will not let me post? That's stupid even by Wikipedia's nonexistent standards.

As to WP:CIV/NPA, please check the civility waiver in Nableezy's talk page editnotice:

Civility does not exist on this page. If you feel the need to say something uncivil to me feel free to do so. Personal attacks too, though if you say somethi ng be prepared to either back it up or have a large collection of insults hurled at you.

--87.79.133.18 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were nipped by the edit filter for good reason. [1] Toddst1 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddo, look at Nableezy's waiver. Then look at my question again: How can I get an only warning for trying to find out what the filter will and will not let me post? At any rate, I'll keep trying to find a formulation that passes the filter. And when push comes to block button, an all-fresh IP is two clicks away. Now go find something remotely useful to do. Why don't you go take a shower? --87.79.133.18 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have rangeblocks. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that during the more than three years that I have now been evading the indef block of my former account (He openly admits it! Get the pitchforks!), some people have at points considered a rangeblock, but it never got greenlit. I like to believe that one of the reasons is that I'm only offensive when I'm offended by someone else's barefaced POV pushing. More to the point you haven't yet answered: "Deliberately triggering the edit filter" is a blockable offense? So in other words: I am not allowed to see what the filter will permit me to post. My thoughts have to be clean. Wow. Digital Stalinism has arrived at Wikipedia. Open POV-pushing by contrast is all good and fine by you. Good. You're doing great. You're a sensible person, and an even better admin. Two big thumbs up for you. --195.14.204.246 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you cant block me because I can start socking isnt generally a smart way to endear yourself around here. nableezy - 18:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this about something that happened on my talk page, I dont mind. In fact, I would very much like to see what the attempted message was. nableezy - 18:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit filter log. Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cant see the edit, and the actual filter is hidden from public view. No worries though, not that big of a deal. nableezy - 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Difficult to know what the world looks like outside of the admin lens. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, it was a complaint about an edit you made, restoring an image at Template:Islamophobia. It was accompanied by words of personal abuse that did not suggest any particular ethnic or religious motivation, though they showed little imagination. By the way, there is a risk of an edit war regarding that image. I wonder if a consensus has been found anywhere regarding the use of the mosque with a stroke through it as a symbol of Islamophobia. Conceivably there might be an argument for protection. A month of semiprotection (due to socking) expired on December 9. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new comment above indicates that an admin would be justified in restoring the semi on {{Islamophobia}} with the notation 'Socking by User:Everyme'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. I'm surprised you didn't do that yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to have a consensus. Plus, your knowledge of the record allowed you to do a longer semiprotection than I could have. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012_Quebec_student_protests

Hi there,

I'm working to bring the article Anarchopanda up to Wiki standards. One thing it needs is to be linked to, and I would like to add to the events section a line for May 8 marking the first appearance of Anarchopanda. Anarchopanda is a visual icon of the recent movement and should be mentioned in the article on the 2012 student protests (in fact he appears in the top image of the article). I understand there's a sysadmin lock until April 2013, I find this a little extreme. You can see my account is quite old (if not recently active). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themindset (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article, by its subject, attracts extremists. Follow the instructions at WP:GOLDLOCK if you want to suggest an edit to that page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for pointing me in the right direction! And sorry for not signing before. Themindset (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rverting and troubles

Thank you for clarfying that to me, illl amend my pratices from now on as i was told long ago that the summaries where a way to convey things to other editors and if it content dispute to ask them to take it to talk, but i will now take it to talk after reverting.

Troubles, i had to check this myself after it was added, it do with teh secterism of the article teh torubles relates to the catholic and prodesent issues and anything regarding religion so isnt revelent to the hsitory article at lesa tnot unless it starts to contain religion stuffAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it has to do with the rivalry with Celtic. Toddst1 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yip but it goes deeper down to the rivalery of the fans them and there regliouss beliefs, from wha ti read of it, it to do with something that happened in ireland and that then steems to the rangers and celtic articles and there supporters articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]