User talk:Toddst1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion of new Katharine Gorka BLP on same day of creation.[edit]

I see that SPEEDY deletion was successful derived from a consensus of editors. Would you please move the deleted article and talk pages to Draft or sandbox space? There were significant new news events that would have further distinguished her notability and worthiness for this revised BLP article. What is the a procedure for formally contesting this deletion? This action, deletion, does not "sit" right with me and a wider consensus of editors is warranted, in my respectful opinion. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot restore or move the article. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1, your edit to Wikipietime's talk page yesterday, plus this unhelpful response, is really rude. I can tell from their talk page the user has a habit of creating bad articles, but that doesn't mean they're all bad. Your attitude (along with your questionable interpretation of the discussion outcome) is downright terrible. I don't agree with the user's claims about censorship, but your actions (and other users on this topic) certainly don't help to dispel them.
To answer your question, @Wikipietime:, you can request a review here or request User:Metropolitan90 (the deleting admin) to move the article to your sandbox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: If you think either of these two edits ([1], [2]) were rude or otherwise unhelpful, I suggest you develop much thicker skin. Toddst1 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think your response above was akin to a person asking for directions to a restaurant you had been to before, and you saying that you weren't hungry. Your statement at face value is true and accurate, but in no way helpful to the person asking the question. But hey, feel free to suggest I be the one to re-evaluate my behavior when I was the one expanding the article in question and providing the requested information. That's cool too. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Your point is taken. I may have been more verbose if I had had my coffee before I replied. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented" -Wiesel

As recipient of;

"... If you can't go along with this consensus, re-creating this article, you may be blocked from editing..."

I do interpret as a threat which bothers me none. Maybe I get it, due to you familiarity with my contributions, most lately the failed attempt to creat an article on Steve King's son Jeff King. That is why I would have wanted a broader consensus with a more objective history. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You could interpret warnings about violating Wikipedia policy and the likely consequences of your actions if they continue as threats to be blocked. These "threats" are fully appropriate and in line with our policies, and you almost certainly will be blocked from editing if you ignore our policies.
However, your recent editing and posting of quotations smack of WP:BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion of the article should have stayed on the talk page of deleted article, not spread on multiple talks. Excuse me if you feel a personal attack; but in case you may not have noticed I am battling for inclusion into Wikipedia a BLP who has obtained stature deserving of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime (talkcontribs) 16:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but calling those that hold differing opinions from you "bullies" is personal. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
was something about skin thickness that may have sparked the outrage. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That comment wasn't directed towards you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi -- I'm unclear why you made this change. It was better before. It was accurate before -- though the word currently is not needed. We don't say in Trump's article "he is president as of ..., using that template." Why do it here? Plus, it inserts the British date format. Improperly, for a US person, where we did not have the British date format before. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F9A5:6FB5:9D46:809F (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ASOF? Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
First -- that does not explain why you would force a British date for a non-British, American person. Isn't that flat-out wrong?
Second -- It says "The "as of" technique is a method to deal with information that will date quickly." But we don't know that it will date "quickly." We know that it is an interim appointment, and that there is intent to have a full-time person (but the last full-time person in that position lasted only 10 days, so the title is not all-telling). People in interim positions can last for long periods of time. If there were a person replacing a President for example 10 days before the President's term ended, then we would know it would date quickly. We don't know that here, just because the appointment is "interim" in name. Given that the goal is to make sure people will update it in the future, I don't think there is much risk here that people will fail to do that here -- it is a very prominent article. I just don't see the real-world reason to use that. And the British date thing is awful, and simply wrong. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F9A5:6FB5:9D46:809F (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You're kinda worked up over this trivial edit, huh? What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the "let's use British dates for an American in the White House" bit is somewhat open and shut in my mind. One rarely is able to comment on open and shut issues! Beyond that ... blame it on two cups of coffee? 2604:2000:E016:A700:B5FF:B936:D6B1:D1D2 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I kind of agree on the date thing, but WP:SOFIXIT applies. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Jay Town[edit]

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. That was a mess! Your efforts there are appreciated as well. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
As is often the case, it's a mess again, with much of the same content, poorly sourced. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please respond[edit]

The wiki page was not put up by me. I do not understand why you have removed the page. I merely added some minor edits yesterday to make it accurate. It is now not accurate after your changes.

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Thanks for tending to the COI editing on Jay Town the last few days! Marquardtika (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)