Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toddst1 (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 23 June 2009 (Undid revision 298176691 by DoyleCB (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Catalan people

Hello, i don't know if this is the appropiate place for asking it, but in this article we have had a problem of POW that has been solved, reaching a consensus. Unluckily one anonymous user who has never had the intention of reaching any consensus or to show their POW is vandalising the article. Could you please semi-protect the page so only the registered users can edit it? The vandal is only one person and anonymous, so it's probablby enough with a semi-protection. Thanks. --Coentor (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bangelo510

Why did you remove this user from AIV? They have been doing nothing but vandalizing since they registered last week. The moment they vandalize again I am gonna report them since they should have been blocked earlier today. TJ Spyke 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor was not blockable as they were not currently active (among possibly other reasons). Every administrator who looked at the list from 15:22 when you reported the editor to 19:14 when I removed him/her declined to block, including me. At that point it was stale. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Catalan people

If you accuse me again of violatiing WP:3RR you are pushing too hard! You know the anon keeps vandalising the article even if a consensus was reached. On your part you are not doing anything to prevent it. The anon has edited many more times than me and another bunch of users is also reverting the vandal anon. Why am I the only warned by you? Is this a personal fixation against me? Watch yourself Toddst1... I'm thinking about opening at Misplaced Pages:RFC/ADMIN an Appeal to the Arbitration Committee against you. Are you going to block me again for asking them for help? Or will you prevent the article to be vandalize? Probably your only interested in getting another banstar to your collection instead than making your job as admin? You are so conceited. If you protected the article we would not need to revert the anon. I do not salute you. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Linas/Arbatsky's principle unmasked

Hi. Thank you for removal of personal attacks from the article. Now it is much better. But I feel that some problems remain.

• The article disparages its subject (now the scientific conception and its author), so it is still an attack article. So, formally, it is still subject to speedy deletion.
• Phrases like "This principle is claimed to supersede Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. It does not.", "it is not very deep, it is a fairly trivial manipulation.", "Up to this point, the derivation is kosher; the controversy arises when Arbatsky suggests that this last form is a replacement for, or is somehow "better than" Heisenberg's uncertainty principle." are unacceptable in an encyclopedia article. (All negative phrases must be removed.)
• Phrases containing the word "I" must be removed also. They prevent other users from constructive work on the article.
• Linas ignores suggestions to improve the contents of the article. Currently, I do not want to do it myself. It should be clear, that now it is not a "battle" for scientific merits of the article. It is a question of general administrative policy here. So, I would ask you to remove those phrases.

Possibly, Linas is not interested in that article at all. (?) So, you should also take into account that:

• The article was created 3 years ago, and minor changes were made later.
• Currently, the article works as search engine spam; in fact, it is not devoted to the topic claimed in the title.
• Article breaks WP:NOT and WP:POVFORK. All valuable and verifiable information must be transfered to regular articles, all other information must be removed.

Thank you. Hunshi (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird ad nauseum

Hello - User B9 hummingbird hovering is back to its old tricks again, this time on Apperception despite its assurances that it would not engage in edit wars and would try to reach consensus when adding contentious material. As the un-blocking admin, who unblocked based on these assurances, what's next?

Dfwaviator...

...has accused you of "abuse of Adminsitrator privleges" here. It would seem he has found the "garden path to destruction" despite the efforts of others to steer him in a more proper direction. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: accidental block

apology accepted. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

who actually created User:Packers Pro Shop?

Twinkle couldn't seem to notify the page creator, and when I checked the history, the only change shown was my CSD nom. Whoever created it is obviously a sock of User:Packers Pro Shop, but somehow their creation of the page is invisible to me, maybe you could use your admin superpowers to figure this out? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the logs are out of sync. Here's what I can see:

Deletion log
    * 22:08, 18 June 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Packers Pro Shop" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)
    * 21:31, 18 June 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Packers Pro Shop" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)	
Page history
    * (diff) 21:31, 18 June 2009 . . Beeblebrox (talk | contribs | block) (3,266 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
    * (diff) 21:30, 18 June 2009 . . Packers Pro Shop (talk | contribs | block) (3,254 bytes) (←Created page with 'Since 1989 the '''Packers Pro Shop''' has been the official retail store of the National Football League’s Green Bay Packers. The 8,500 square foot two-story reta...')

Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Alrighty, that was weird. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had similar occurrences when tagging with TW, it happens when the page is deleted during the split second between when TW downloads a copy of the article, and when it saves it. This creates a new page, with all the previous content, but (due to the page deletion) the only edit showing in the history is that of the tagger, who (unknowingly) recreated the article. TW could not download the page history to notify the original contributor, because there was no history to download at that instant. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Disallowedfromseeing

If you havent noticed this is the pov pushing sock of ip 24 aka molecularsphere and et al I was just reverting all his removal of sourced content which he did not agree with hes a vandal and his edits must be undone 86.160.112.112 (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note on User talk:205.154.237.150

I have an e-mail from the school's sysadmin on OTRS (ticket:2009061910004077) that addresses two of your reasons for declining the unblock. Since the school year is now over, and since the school is discussing alternate means to prohibit future contributions from this IP, I think it's safe to lift the month-long block. - Jredmond (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are right. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Schmeater

If I were closely involved in swearing at J Greb why didn't I do it when Blackest Night: Batman got deleted. Think about that. --Schmeater (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. You were plenty close enough to fail the WP:Duck test.

"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm"

— one of them old proverb things

Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sperezlaw (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC) My unknown fellow, I beg to differ in your mischaracterization of my edits as not being liked by anyone. One user edited my page and clearly indicated their approval.

Is there any truly democratic way (and please, spare the insults, I am not a fifth grader) that I can submit my proposed edit to "peer" review on a large scale?

Thanks in anticipation of a civil response.

I said think about it. Do you just do things just to make other people feel bad. If you do that one of us Wise Men suffering harm is you. I mean if you response like that, think before you do. Also think how you would feel if this happend to you. AND why is this Sperezlaw getting involved he doesn't even make sense. --Schmeater (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: IP user

eh, actually this is a long term abuser who keeps entering misleading labels into infoboxes (see his yet another IP userpage and contributions; Justicialist Party (see page history) being his favourite target). Sometimes blatant vandalism, sometimes more sneaky 'biasing'. I frankly don't care much, which rubbish he invents each day. As for the particular addition, he has been explained some one hundred times already, that left-wing is not a suitable addition to the position of ideology markers; it's just a provocation by his side to do it again. it's totally unsuitable stuff that time; I'd call it smart-ass-vandalism. --Miacek (t) 10:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, I do suspect we have more than an individual's very persistent POV pushing. given that the same IP addresses continue similar soap-boxing in the corresponding spanish wiki pages, I tend to believe there are some political opponents and their money bags involved ;-). Tarring one's opposing political forces in wikis might be a tempting idea for some, xexe. --Miacek (t) 10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to blocking the IP for persistent IP pushing if you document a case. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there's not one but tens of dynamic IP addresses involved. He also had sock puppet accounts, mostly indef blocked now: . A solution would be indef half-protection for some time for the articles most 'affected', but this has been declined a number of times. Specifically, those article history pages show the situation is terrible. More recent piece of wanton introduction of errors: . --Miacek (t) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have range-blocks. There's a similar problem going on with a bunch of catalan-related articles as well. We need to establish what the IP range that the editor(s) are using and weigh blocking that range that against the problems they are causing. Usually we need folks like yourself who are familiar with the articles, history and IP's behavior to document a case. The problem with things like this is if the non-ip editors don't respond in a constructive manner, they often end up running into problems and frequently find themselves blocked. I think channeling the energy into a case is far more productive. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Toddst1's Day!

User:Toddst1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Toddst1's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Toddst1! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You have the userbox for this on your userpage but you're not in my archives for this prior today. Did I give this to you under a different name or something? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what's going on. Take a look at User_talk:Toddst1/Archive_3#Happy_Toddst1.27s_Day.21. Either way, I'm doubly honored! Toddst1 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Bibliomaniac's award. He started doing his after I started mine. Yesterday you had both his user box and mine on your user page before I gave you mine, so I was wondering if you'd changed names since you don't show in my award archives. Sometimes he and I give the award to the same people. Anyway, not a big deal now that you have one from both of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no name changes. FWIW I haven't touched the user page since the 18th, and that was to add the quote. Thanks again! Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice! You really deserve it! Abce2|AccessDenied 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SallyFord

As the blocking admin, thought you'd want to know that she came back with a sock Sallie Ford (talk · contribs). Didn't even make an attempt to pretend otherwise, jumping right back to the same articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My username.

You say it sounds like a Organization.

i assure you its not my name "MeteorProjekt" is my Gamertag for Xbox, as well as MULTIPLE accounts for different websites. I use it because its easy to remember than putting multiple different usernames. Thank you! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteorProjekt (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Warning

I find it frustrating that you apparently acted by auto-pilot and issued editwar warnings to both me and User:jægermester. Firstly the editwar on Kuupik Kleist had ended because he finally had provided quotes for some of the possibly defamatory material he was inserting and he had agreed to remove the ethnic slurs. I had done three reverts to the consensus version and after that I stopped reverting and sought help to enforce consensus from administrators. At One Ani Page I was told to go to the other where I was finally warned and the non-consensus version stayed in place. This is frustrating. Secondly I think you should have looked into the situation and seen that one version was determined by consensus by 6 editors on the talk page and another (Jægermesters) was unilaterally being pushed - you could also have lookd at Jægermester's edit history and seen that his only edits since he registered a couple of days ago have been ichanging the same politically sensistive terminology to something he likes more. In short I feel that your warnings were not a helpful remedy for the situation and I encourage you to look a little deeper into edit disputes before you take action in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had a very similar experience. I wonder why? Well... Wow. --DoyleCB (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars are edit wars folks. You should know that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense - and any way it doesn't answer the concern. While it may have been an editwar the waring was over when you stepped in (I had stopped to seek advice and left his version in place). And the concern was how to make an editor respect consensus decisions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps enlighten me about what would have been the correct approach here instead of doing as I did: reverting once, then use talk page to form consensus, then revert the non-consensus version when inserted two more times, then ask for assistance at ANI?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know what WP:DR is. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratuitous condescension. The editor in question was not discussing. He was inserting his version over the one arrived at through discussion. I appreciate that ANI may have been the wrong forum but where should I have reported it at the Edit 3RRR notice board? When? Before or after reverting his edits? If I did it before then it wasn't an edit war and if I do it after then I was editwarring too. Notice that before i posted at ANI part of the issue was repetitive insertion of unsourced possibly defamatory material including inappropriate ethnic denominations in a living personj biography. This was why I found it to be a matter of urgency. He only suddenly introduced sourced and started discussing after I posted on ANI. The point is that I took the steps towards dispute resolution - the editor did not repond. One of the steps in WP:DR is to ask help form an administrators notice board thats what I did and I got a block warning for it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, If you blocked CBDOyle for this edit and see this as a personal attack then I think i understand what's going on. Don't worry I won't waste more of our time here.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I have never blocked that editor. Saying his edit war opponent has been on a witch hunt violates WP:Civil. Good day.Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DoyleCB Complaining

Doesn't it take two to edit war? I also asked for assistance at ANI before I was blocked. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two or more. Perhaps you should come to terms with your block (which I didn't make). Otherwise you're heading back to the same level of disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words, shut up or I'll block you? Are you editing from Iran? Why the combativeness? Are you ever going to address any of my comments?

(There are four questions for you to answer. No need to be rude, by the way. Sorry you seem to be having a bad day) --DoyleCB (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. Let me clarify: you don't seem to understand that your block was legitimate and haven't modified your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)