Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 28 February 2009

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Personal Attacks

Regarding your comments on User talk:Scripturalreasoning: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Re "Exactly how loud can this WP:Duck quack? Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)" --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I fundamentally reject your assessment that this was a personal attack. Rather, your warning is a breach of Misplaced Pages guidelines and an indication of your continuing disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Todd. He has God on his side. ;) HalfShadow 23:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "admin-Wiki-guidelines warning" anywhere in your comment. Purely direct personal abuse. When I provided an explanatory reply (without responding to your abuse) you directed me to a page containing statements to "fuck off" by HalfShadow and others. When I responded to that behaviour as that of "arseholes" unlike other Admins on that page who had the decency to block those who initiated the provocation, you later chose to issued a "Final Warning" to me for using those words. Double standards - and your comment above was clearly personal and abusive. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nickcoop's edits

I hope that you have read through his edits. It started as large scale deletion. After an initial warning, he switched to cut and paste. First citing lack of references. Now it is simply cut and paste. Please read the content or forward it to a medicine administrator for review. He has been driving his agenda first by large scale deletion of the Mohs surgery article and basal cell cancer page since April 2008. It recurred again in Jan 09, and he has had several warnings concerning his edits of Mohs surgery, and basal cell cancer - basically driving his own agenda.--Northerncedar (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you truly feel there is disruption, take it to WP:ANI. It doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism, yet the edits might (or might not) be considered disruption. WP:AIV is for obvious vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Canvasing? I am just frustrated to see continued "under the table" edits by someone to drive his own political agenda, and continued unsubstantiated edits that is repeated again, and again. I don't understand's wikipedia's methodology. I am not sure the process is working as intended?--Northerncedar (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping is frowned upon. Please open a discussion on the talk page and if disruption is the consensus of the discussion, take to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking/Michael.suede

This guy goes beyond sock puppeteering. He's now engaged in deliberate disruption, creating socks as fast as they can be blocked. I'd appreciate it if you could help.JQ (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Univision Texas

Well, KUVN-TV, KAKW-TV, KWEX-TV, and KXLN-TV have to be in boldface because they're owned-and-operated. Fran46 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An edit summary explaining that would have been helpful. Where in WP:MOS is that? I haven't come across it before. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Can i ask you a question? Fran46 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

uh.. sure. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore him -- Fran46 is a suspected sockpuppet of Dingbat2007. -- azumanga (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marks

it would be highly appreciated if you would stop deleting the Bob Marks page. He is a meaningful, and highly eduacated teacher at West Genessee High School.24.58.32.129 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also

Can you let Ikip know he didn't make the MfD nomination properly? It's not on the MfD page (assuming that it shouldn't be closed per WP:SNOW). Thanks. THF (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you do that directly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IP 24.187.132.126 block evasion

Hi, you blocked this IP but there was immediate evasion. He openly scorns attempts to block him and has returned to edit warring the same issue that earned him the block in the first place. I suspect he has also created the username Zooplibob (see contributions) to edit war the exact same thing (can you do an IP check on that user to confirm?) So I'm requesting a range block and/or a longish semi-protect on the Drudge Report page. Thanks ► RATEL ◄ 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to do an WP:RFCU for that, which I don't have privileges for. You can request one yourself as part of a WP:SSP report and request a range block. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

24 hour block? With that block history? Surprisingly lenient.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm not known for lenient blocks. That being said, I will go change the block. Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have blocked him at all. He was reverting an incorrect edit - whilst he shouldn't have broken 3RR because it wasn't obvious vandalism, he was obviously acting in good faith. Black Kite 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect request

Hi Toddst1

Could you please have a look at recent edits to Rescuecom and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KyleBuckout? Then (if you agree), could you please (1) semiprotect the page; and (2) revert the latest edit by Specmanfun?

Thanks. Bongomatic 02:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

You banned my IP address (71.169.162.244) for "disruptive editing." All I was doing was updating The Office episode pages to reflect the correct episode numbers as shown in the infoboxes. How is trying to make the episode numbers match "disruptive?"

StyrofoamChicken (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me you've evaded a block, correct? Toddst1 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was investigating his unblock requst at User talk:StyrofoamChicken, and looking at the original block on the IP address, I cannot find where his edits were disruptive there. Additionally, he claims that his IP edits were made while inadvertantly logged out, which is plausible. Could you please explain why the IP was blocked initially, which could go a long way towards explaining why this whole mess started... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:StyrofoamChicken Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left additional comments and difs at his user talk page myself. Please review my arguements, and consider an unblock of both his IP and his account. If you look at the totality his edits, it doesn't look like vandalism; he clearly had a good-faith purpose in his edits, and his boldness is all that caught up with him. I am not saying his edits should have stood, but he was NOT randomly vandalizing. I will agree that it certainly appeared that way, looking at random edits, and in your position I would have likely blocked him as well. But please consider the evidence I have presented at his talk page and consider supporting an unblock based on that evidence. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded File

Can you please help with the uploading of a file. I have uploaded an image/logo, the filename appears but the image does not, can you assist with that please by letting me know what exact steps to take in making the image appear. Thank you! Abcdefg35 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you gone through Misplaced Pages:Uploading_images? Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

Regarding your comments on User talk:Ikip: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Your accusation of bad faith, especially when I moved the conversation to the relevant talk page personally offends me. I appeciate if you remove this baseless personal attack. Ikip (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a warning from an uninvolved administrator about your edits, not a personal attack. You are allowed to be offended, but a better response would be to change your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out that I should have notified THF, Toddst1. Based on what you have posted on our respective talk pages, I see that you only have the best interest of wikipedia in mind, as we all do. I didn't know this is the prefered behavior of editors on the Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring, can you point out this behavioral guideline for this page, for future reference? Ikip (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Procedure_for_this_page:

*Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.

Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you have taken the role of impartial adminstrator/diplomat, which can be clearly seen in the way that you treat me and THF equally, can you remove the hidden tag that THF added Talk:Business_Plot#Deleted_material_of_User:THF? And ask THF to answer at least one of the questions I pose to him?

To reinforce that you are an imparital adminstrator/diplomat, I would appreciate an apology, and a removal of the personal attacks and threats to me. Ikip (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning disucssion to User talk:Ikip Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC) 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.

Question: Have I done something wrong? If so, I'd like to know so I don't do it in the future. And if the answer is that I haven't done something wrong, I'm curious why you're suggesting I walk away from an article where I haven't done anything wrong just because another editor is being disruptive about my good-faith edits. Since Ikip's apparent intent was to drive me away from editing the article by making it unpleasant for me to do so, your suggestion seems to have the perverse effect of rewarding his bad behavior. Thanks. THF (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 since you refuse to remove the false personal attack and threat, despite my repeated requests, I have removed the section, as I have now answered you, this is within policy. Ikip (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deleting 1400 well referneced words yesterday, changing the article name with no discussion in the midst of an edit war, hiding other editors talk page contributions repeatedly, refusing to answer neutral questions in an attempt to gain consensus qualifies as something wrong. Ikip (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Take this to your own talk pages. This isn't about me. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but given your warning that I have adhered to, how much of am I supposed to take before registering a complaint? He's also deleting my talk page comments on Talk:Business Plot. THF (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Toddst1, THF is tenancious, and despite being asked not to post here, he continues to.

I am on the talk page only, I have not edited the main page for over a day. Collect, who shares your same POV is happily editing the article and talk page. This is really a three person edit war.Ikip (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit one, two: "This obnoxious chart by User:Ikip" Calling another editors edits "obnoxious" is a violation of no personal attacks, it can be removed, as I did. You also hid all of my comments.

Edit three: Comment on your talk page, as Todd asked, "Take this to your own talk pages. This isn't about me," above.

In addition, Toddst1 accused me of bad faith edits and threatened me based on false accuations. Despite 3 times asking him to remove those false claims, he refused. Ikip (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

216.100.95.90 unconstructive edits

Maybe I'm unclear on what constitutes vandalism as opposed to unconstructive edits. The edits made by 216.100.95.90 in the past four days include randomly changing dates and numbers, as well as adding "germany sucks" to the Immigration article. This isn't vandalism? I actually am asking in good faith, as I'm relatively new to editing WP. --Gotophilk (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to be vandalism. This appears to correct an error in the article. Also, no recent final warning. That's a shared IP meaning the person that got the warning yesterday might not be the same person today, and have never seen the warning. Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this and this, but fair enough. I'll keep an eye on the page. --Gotophilk (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Thanks Toddst1 for looking into my report. I don't enjoy wasting people's time, and I don't want to continue this on the discussion page in question for fear of setting off Magkantog (do you like the mockery last-shot-over-the-bow on the discussion page, real civil, even after a warning), so I'm going to ask for clarification here so I don't make the same mistake again. I know you must be busy, and seeing what other edit wars and vandalism are going on, this must seem really minor. As you might already know, I'm a new user, having only made minor edits before now, and I'm trying to get straight on this. I don't want to dispute content or character here. I'm not denying that there were explicit or implicit personal attacks in the discussion by both parties; however, once I researched the core content policy, I tried to just edit the page with respect to those, and I think I was pretty cool headed then, referring back to core content policy, even quoting it so that we were all on the same page, and asking others to do the same (which I think is pretty reasonable). I tried to stay sharply focused on content not character from that point on, per the WP:3RR. What confuses me is that you didn't address the issue of content policy violation, so I want to make sure I'm understanding protocol here. My reasoning was that, according to the WP:Vandalism page, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." I then thought that content policy was established in order to ensure integrity on the site. Thus, my reasoning went, if there were violations on core content policy (verifiability, neutrality, and original research), they would also be violations to the integrity of the site. So, when there was what I saw as pretty clear content violations, I either made the edit myself to bring it more inline, or I pulled the content, explained on what grounds I pulled the content, namely content policy, and asked editors to justify the content or rewrite it so that it was not as gross a violation (in one case, the editor with whom I had a dispute even committed a copyright violation, but instead of accusing him of such, I even told him how he could restate the same sentence so that it was not such). Nonetheless, the editor in question would just argue about about things not relevant to policy. To, me, that's implicit admission to a violation, and an intentional violation at that.

So, in your judgment, did you feel that there was a content policy violation? Do you feel that there were violations in content policy but that they did not constitute vandalism? Is it inappropriate for one to make a vandalism notification for suspected core content policy violations (even after WP:DR)? Are you putting a hold on it and then revisiting it later? Thanks in advance for your time. Lhakthong (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)