User talk:Toddst1

Thanks

Thanks for jumping in on the StratoLaunch Systems I am in need of as much help as I can get with this page.MathewDill (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. This template: {{cite news}} will probably be helpful to you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah I will have to get those going soon just wanted to get the basics in that I was really excited when I read this and wanted to share right away. :) MathewDill (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of ConBravo!

I'm afraid I don't understand why the ConBravo! article is being deleted. The convention is easily as notable as Con-G or G-Anime and those have established pages without issues? Further, the organisers of these two conventions and the organisers of ConBravo! are related to each other and regularly support each other's conventions. -- Hidoshi (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Dondegroovily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstarbob

Just curious, under what reasoning do you consider Barnstarbob's own comments on his own talk page to be vandalism? I was under the impression it's ok for someone to edit their own page, however they'd like. Having watched this cycle of events repeatedly, the one month block is the longest I've ever seen him receive. It seems both welcome and overdue. Still, is cussing on your own talk page considered vandalism? What was he vandalizing? 842U (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you can not put whatever you want on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How does that make his words vandalism? Did you mean something else?842U (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. However, I think you're being pedantic. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. 842U (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible edit war,Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

Thank you for your attention in this matter, you may also wish to send a notice to the following users, who may also be engaged in this edit Waring Vyselink and Jeffro77 as Blackcab and Vyselink appear to be, in my opinion, WP:meatpuppet's of Jeffro77 who also has demonstrated WP:COI in regards to editing pages in a manner that is defamatory towards Jehovah's Witnesses.Willietell (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Page for "Larkin Love" has been deleted

I'm new to creating articles in Wikipedia, but have gone through the basic introduction. Today I've created a page for an American porn actress with the stage name "Larkin Love" and gathered all the required information which're genuine in nature – sadly, the page has been deleted. Kindly give me more information on "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." and help me retaining that page. Please verify draft page at User:Unknown.freelancer/Larkin_Love. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

That draft would also be deleted under A7 - it doesn't assert any importance of the person. Beyond that, you shouldn't re-create that article unless it can pass WP:PORNBIO. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Cheese or Font?"

Dear Toddst1,

I was wondering why the page I wrote "Cheese or Font?" was deleted. I believe it is worthy of mention as it is an existing game which does in fact have a cult following. Also, it was referenced in a BBC Radio 4 documentary presented by Stephen Fry called "Fry's Planet Word". If you still believe this game is not worthy of mention on Wikipedia, please let me know. If not, I'd be grateful if you'd undelete the page. Many thanks. MikeyMikey667 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as web content that doesn't assert any importance. As a courtesy, I've restored it to your userspace at User:MikeyMikey667/Cheese or Font?. Please don't re-create the article unless it passes WP:WEB. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heiko Schmidt

you have deleted the page "Heiko Schmidt" with the argument this isn't relevant because it is a person. a) it is relevant as Heiko Schmidt is named in many wiki articles regarding SWEETBOX and others and b) Heiko Schmidt is a public person. If your rule is not having an article about a person, you need to delete the following page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Reid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.178.198 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article about Heiko Schmidt is that it didn't assert the person's importance - and hence it was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I'll restore it to the author's user space if you'd like to work on it (that would mean assert importance and better yet add some citations from reliable sources to verify the claims). Are you the author? Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

cease and desist

Toddst1 consider this a cease and desist notice. I am not a sock, troll or vandel. You have failed to provide evidence to your assumtions. Please stay away from me and off my talk page. No further notice is needed. 24.52.237.81 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you seem to be trolling fairly well, actually. –MuZemike 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This, this, this, and this make it bloody obvious of your intentions (as well as this). In any case, you can forward any additional legal documentation to the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, located in the Court of Law in Trenton, New Jersey. –MuZemike 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the IP has engaged the services of the eminent attorney Charles H. Hungadunga. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Log

I am sorry I accidentally tarnished your block log while trying to block Barnstarbob. Please forgive me --Guerillero | My Talk 07:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's funny how an editor can go from "Cease and Desist" to "Hissed and Deceased". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's better than I could manage; 18 months ago I blocked myself. –MuZemike 08:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock fixed

Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

no prob. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Exx-cell-enttt. Thx much Toddst1. I'll ask you tomorrow how you did that. :) Franamax (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

By magic. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You blocked me in what I feel is an abuse of administrator authority

long section collapsed for readability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Toddst1 I am somewhat confused that you would choose to block me for edit waring and not at least also block the other editors involved when I was the one to come to you bringing to your attention that the disruptive editing and edit waring that was going on. I came to you in an attempt to get some resolution on the matter to try to stop the waring while at the same time I appealed to another editor for help in trying to invite other editors to make changes to the page in question so that this very defamatory page could be presented in a more honest way below is the request. Disputes on a couple of pages-Please help if you can: (posted to the talk page of user:LWG) Hi, I'm a relatively new user to Wikipedia and I ran across your username while investigating the talk page for Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. Since your user page states that you specialize in WP:NPOV disputes, and you seem to have little or no affiliation with the editors I am currently having an issue with, I thought it might be a good idea to ask for your help in a matter with a couple of pages that I have been having difficulty editing since I got here. I will advise you, in advance, that I might not have proceeded in the wisest pattern of edit practices, partly because as a new editor I didn't know the rules, and partly out of frustration of having to deal with editors who cannot seem to be objective themselves(they even falsely accused me of being a WP:Sock) when it comes to material related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The problem of greatest concern is a series of web pages related to Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses that are written in a very defamatory manner, filled with half truths, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and tend to misrepresent the source material to a great extent, by it seems, editors who have a WP:COI when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and also the utilization of source material that is the very definition of WP:fringe. The primary page of dispute at this point is the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs at which I have made more than a few attempts at "adjusting the page" to a less negative and defamatory article(remember what I said earlier about not always in the right manner, but I'm trying to learn the rules and follow them). I most recently made an edit that I think should be left intact, however one of the 3 disruptive editors who have continually fought against any objective change to this negatively written page reverted it, I filed a WP:ani complaint against him for disruptive editing and received a warning for Edit Waring, though I hadn't edited the page for 2 days. I had previously requested that the page be deleted, due to the pact that I felt that it would be a hopeless situation to try to convert the page into creditable material because I felt that I would never receive any real co-operation from the 3 editors in question( Jeffro77, BlackCab and Vyselink, two of which, if not all three, are members of Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. So if possible, please help. Maybe you could invite several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure. The second page is one on Bible Chronology, where I first encountered these editors and their WP:COI WP:NPOV with regards to material related to Jehovah's witnesses after correcting an incomplete and inaccurate chart on bible chronology, I would also like to possibly reach some type of compromise there with an editor who I believe just honestly wishes to have her material presented, she is Lisa, however, I feel that Jeffro77 has made it clear he will continue to revert any edit that I make that contains any material presented that is sourced by material written by Jehovah's Witnesses, even to such an extent that he seems to have become an "online Stalker" by following me from site to site reverting whatever edits I make, regardless of content or accuracy. The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible any help you provide would be appreciated as I know that this will take a bit of your time to sort out.Thanks.Willietell (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC) To which you posted, without any evidence to support the accusation, in what I feel is a violation of WP:AGF As well as WP:Personal, this; As an univolved administrator, I find it hard to believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. Beyond that, WP:Canvassing is not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Which is a very inappropriate and untrue comment, as I am in fact a new editor, and I'm not sure what WP:Canvassing is, but I will look it up. Perhaps there also needs to be a rule on WP:Online stalking to be applied editors who follow other from page to page reverting every edit they make? I don't know and perhaps you could inform me on just how to go about suggesting that one be put in place. However I feel that I am getting off topic. I have only been making honest efforts to correct a page that clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR by editors who have clearly shown WP:COI . IN any case, 1. I am no more guilty of edit waring than the editors whom you chose NOT to discipline. 2. I have expressed evidence that I am looking for ways other than edit waring to make the needed changes to the page 3. I was the one to come to you about the edit waring in the first place, thus I and at this point of all the parties involved, only I, have demonstrated good faith in trying to correct the situation. Also having looked at WP:canvassing, I noticed it states this "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour". (behavior, by the way, is technically misspelled in the rule) Surely, by reading my request to LWG it is clear to see that I am seeking "to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." as I requested that he invite "several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure.", I thus requested that he invite editors who would conform to WP:NPOV in hopes of editing the page to be more in line with reality instead of being overrun by those who displayed that they indeed have a WP:COI , so your concern with regards to WP:canvassing seem unwarranted from what I read in the rules. Your block seems to have been for edit waring on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ which confuses me because I have been in discussions with the editor on the page regarding the edits, and have posted messages on their/ his page in an attempt to present an edit he/they feel is acceptable, as is noted below Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible: I am somewhat confused by your continued revert on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible. You have reverted to an edit that has NO CITED SOURCE MATERIAL, and yet, you state that you are reverting my material because you view it as OR....I'm at a loss for what basis you are using in 1. Preferring one edit over the other 2. Declaring that the edit I posted required any additional source material than the bible, which is what the overall article is based on to begin with and therefore the best source for the material under consideration. Please explain, I do not wish to, nor will I continue to engage in an edit war with you over this material, but I would like a reasonable explanation of you actions and your line of thinking on this edit as so far something seems amiss. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC) DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) I think this as well at the conversation posted on the talk page for Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ clearly show that this is not an edit war, but an honest attempt to reach consensus on what source material is considered acceptable and properly cited. I received no warning for edit waring on Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ and therefore don't think that any of the editors involved felt that I was attempting to edit war, Additionally, the last edit I made to the page was prior to you issuing a warning for edit waring, so I am confused again as to this block and must wonder if it is related to your possible relationship with the editor(s) in question on the page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs , please explain as as I am considering filing an ANI complaint for abuse of administrator power.Willietell (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) You were warned about edit warring here, and continued edit warring here. I'm not sure what your issue with the block is, and the two other admins who reviewed it both endorsed it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) One of my issues is that my last edit of the page other than in talk, came at 12:38 AM on December 16 shown here; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466114890 Your edit waring warning, the only one I ever received, from you or anyone else, came to me at 4:27 PM on December 16th, a full 16 hours after my last page edit, as shown here; You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC) and I was blocked by you after making no additional edits at 8:35PM on December 16th as shown here; You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Pharaohs in the Bible. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (U Which shows that I first of all received only a single warning, and secondly, that you blocked me even though I made no edits after the warning was given...to me, this indicates that you were committed to blocking me regardless of what I did, and it is of no consequence that other administrators failed to overturn the block, since administrators are directed not to do so without discussing this with the blocking administrator first without very good reason, and I doubt that either of the administrators took the time to conduct a through investigation into the block, one even stating it was only a short block, so take a walk or something. Anyway, I would like a reasonable explanation for your unjustified actions and an apology would seem in order as well.Willietell (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Warning at 04:27, 16 December 2011, more edit warring at 05:38, 16 December 2011, block at 20:35, 16 December 2011. I don't know how much plainer to explain it to you. We're done here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (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. Abuse of administrator authority continued: The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I am restarting in a new section, because you collapsed the other section on the basis it was a "long diatribe" One of my issues is that my last edit of the page other than in talk, came at 12:38 AM on December 16 shown here; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466114890 Your edit waring warning, the only one I ever received, from you or anyone else, came to me at 4:27 PM on December 16th, a full 16 hours after my last page edit, as shown here; You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC) and I was blocked by you after making no additional edits at 8:35PM on December 16th as shown here; You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Pharaohs in the Bible. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (U Which shows that I first of all received only a single warning, and secondly, that you blocked me even though I made no edits after the warning was given...to me, this indicates that you were committed to blocking me regardless of what I did, and it is of no consequence that other administrators failed to overturn the block, since administrators are directed not to do so without discussing this with the blocking administrator first without very good reason, and I doubt that either of the administrators took the time to conduct a through investigation into the block, one even stating it was only a short block, so take a walk or something. Anyway, I would like a reasonable explanation for your unjustified actions and an apology would seem in order as well.Willietell (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Warning at 04:27, 16 December 2011, more edit warring at 05:38, 16 December 2011, block at 20:35, 16 December 2011. I don't know how much plainer to explain it to you. We're done here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC) We are not "done here", the messages are time stamped and clearly the time you would like to assign to my edit is incorrect as it is time stamped as having been completed at 00:38 AM on December 16th and NOT at 5:38 PM as you indicate. Together with the fact that NO ONE editing the page filed any complaint about edit waring and that you chose to "take it upon yourself" to determine that this was taking place without anyone mentioning it to you makes your motives seem questionable at best, I am still awaiting an explanation, not a history log, but an explanation for you apparent misuse of the authority entrusted to you by Wikipedia. Again, please explain.Willietell (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I've explained the block as have 2 other admins. It's time to move on. Please don't continue to post here regarding that subject. Continuing to do so will likely be considered WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2011 (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.

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is protection_request. Thank you. causa sui (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Now, I'm not quite clear on the current status of User:LAz17's limited topic ban, but from what I can make out from the description on WP:ARBMAC, LAz17's is not supposed to engage in "contentious editing on the historical demographics of ex-Yugoslavia". I could be missing something here, but if so, on Yugoslav Partisans he's not only posting edits he knows are opposed on the talkpage (on the basis of WP:OR), but he's also enaged in an edit-war to keep those edits in [1][2][3][4]. Could I ask you to please clarify the situation? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Toddst? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Started looking at this and had to slip away to a meeting. Stand by. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just want to inform that the article has actually a long-standing dispute, and as much as Laz´s edits are oposed, the edits of the "oposing ones" are also disputed. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Laz is the only one in the wrong here. However, he violated the unblocking deal and has now been indeffed. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#protection_request Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know, no problem at all. I was just saying this as sometimes non-involved admins may assume the principle that a blocked user is automatically "wrong" in a dispute. :) FkpCascais (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pork pie hat edit summ. & crazy IP

Hi, I wish you had not deleted that summary because I was hoping to cite it against this IP editor. This IP needs to be indefblocked but how do we work our way up to it if the behaviour is deleted? Djathinkimacowboy 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IPs aren't indeffed for stuff like this. They're just blocked for successively longer periods of time. I'll be glad to undelete it but not further action can or should be taken wrt the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course; I appreciate that. I was hoping to approach this through proper channels if the time came, that's all. It is pretty clear the IP is gunning for future trouble but we cannot second-guess these editors. Cheers. Djathinkimacowboy 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've un-deleted it. Knock yourself out. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Todd, did you examine the edit history? I smell a sock, and it makes me nervous to see in IP specifically 'gunning' for Salvio. Salvio blocked IP 58, as you'll see, for silly disruptions and I have to wonder who this weird IP actually is....In any case, I do not have the time or the respect I should have to try to get this IP in trouble. I hoped you would do something. Djathinkimacowboy 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The socking isn't extremely apparent. Please {{ipsock}} tag the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how/where to tag. I'm willing, because I think it is proper, but I just don't know where that goes...on the user pp.? Djathinkimacowboy 20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Everyone can see what this is for, hope it brightens your week. Djathinkimacowboy 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Who do you think the ip is a sock of? Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, happy to do it. I think actually IP sock of another IP: beginning with 58, which IP was blocked by Salvio. Then this one immediately popped up, looking for Salvio. Ended up cursing another editor and I think was blocked for a week. You know, anons hop IPs to do this and that is what I think happened. Djathinkimacowboy 00:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

About editing issues

Hi, there!

I have some editing issues and need some help from you. Is it okay with you if I write some questions on your talk page??

Thanks in advance.Jsyun true (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Again...

Sorry, but you are familiar with the situation. All and everything i see is WP:DE, even without any special example. See for your self. Constant removing of everything that is not Albanian, diff, diff adding of Albanian where is irrelevant, diff, or not quite true diff. Bad faith reports diff (WP:BOOMERANG)... As you blocked this user just over month ago, for similar nationalistic removal of Serbian related data on Kosovo, it looks like user is not willing to cooperate, despite WP:ARBMAC warnings and block. This is simply too much. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:176.92.120.167

Hi, are we certain that the quoted edit was vandalism? The Real Madrid website here (click on Statistics) appears to support the IP's edit? Best, TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. Unsourced number changes reported to AIV are usually taken on face value as number vandalism - especially on the heels of a previous block. I have unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; if he really is a vandal I suspect that this is only temporary but I think that we need a clearer example. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the infobox includes figures from home league matches only, not European matches, Cup matches etc, but the IP insists on adding these figures despite being told not to do so. He's been doing this since 13 Dec and doesn't seem like he plans to stop. What's the best course of action here? El0i (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, Laz, and subsequent problems

Sorry to bother you Toddst1, but I am having unfortunatelly some problems regarding the aftermath of this earlier discussion. As agreed, a discussion on article talk page is taking place, however some participants are not behaving adequatelly. Initially, the thread opened by Laz was not taken seriously by User:DIREKTOR and some other participants. Subsequently, I took the initiative to discuss the issues that brought the article into that state in order to archive progress. Despite the agreement of some users that the article needs to be worked out, DIREKTOR has decided to invade the thread with a series of large comments in which he limited himself to make personal observations including unfounded missinforming semi-personal attacks (not quite WP:PA but almost). Making myself an effort not derail the discussion I tried to take the discussion into specific article content. I opened a new subsection where specific issues could be worked out, however for time being, while I did my part of analising sources and citing appropriate policies, DIREKTOR has been using a disruptive behavior which absolutelly provides nothing to problem solution, and as cherry of the cake, it adds trolling to the discussion. Just as note, I will like to say that it is preciselly this behavior of DIREKTOR that often gives a wrong message to new users on how disruption is allowed on WP discussions, and as DIREKTOR is more familiarised with WP procedures, it allways ends up being a trapp for other users disagreing with him for them to be blocked. I am not talking specifically about Laz19, but he has certainly also experienced that, just as many other users in the past. I dare to say that DIREKTOR´s behavior is being disruptive, as it makes dispute resolutions impossible.

If you feel more appropriate for me to take this thread to some other venue, please tell me, I just came to you as you were already involved in the previous discussion, and hoping you could spare us some time to help us, as I am not being able to put things going there. FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just forgot to let you know where the discussions are taking place, here: Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation followed by next thread Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute. FkpCascais (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

MESSAGE

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Dealing with Underhill postings

Hello, I am an expert in the Underhill family, having spent literally hundreds of hours researching the origins of the family in England and their spread to America. At many times along the Wikipedia has been a helpful tool to organize my research, and to make connections with other researchers/writers/scholars that I would not have otherwise made. In every instance where notability has been challenged, I've worked to add sources and strengthen articles. My intention is to continue doing so, though it would be helpful to have specific recommendations about areas to improve in each article, instead of simply flagging every article with RFD's. When improvements have been made, it would also be helpful to remove existing RFD tags such as on the Estelle Skidmore Doremus which has been greatly improved. I am a fairly patient person, though if we are unable to come to some kind of an agreement here, I'm like to stop making contributions to Wikipedia out of discouragement. Placepromo (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication of notability - specifically in-depth coverage other than an obit or primary sources. That's a good place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a close look at the Wikipedia notability guidelines. They are very clear that notability does not depend on things like "fame, importance, or popularity." I believe that I have demonstrated "Significant coverage" beyond just obituaries for Estelle Skidmore Doremus and Underhill Society of America. I would appreciate if you consider removing the RFD's those pages. Meanwhile, I hope you realize that I am really to meet the standards of Wikipedia and to be fair in my dealings with you and others. I am a highly educated person with a deep commitment to this subject matter and a determination to get it right. Hopefully you will see that and we will be able to work together. Thanks.Placepromo (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the AFDs will give you the answer if they are notable enough for articles or not. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi

Hi, user Twafotfs that you blocked is now harassing me and threatning me on his talk page [5]. It seems the user will continue to be like he was before the block when the block is removed later. I dont like being threatend with reports by anyone so I find that this behaviour should lead to an extension of the users block. The user has also tried to evade his block yesterday via an IP which was blocked for a week. Sincerely--BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way Merry Christmas to you and your family.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Amanda Lindhout

See my edit there. Shame this wasn't found by one of the involved editors, as it makes it clear that the statement she worked for France 24 was indeed made but only to help her and was not in fact correct. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though Dougweller is right about the particular edit,in my opinion that doesnt justify the user in questions harassments and threats from earlier today on his talk page towards me. And the block was correct. Anway if the user is prepared to behave and move on like I will I dont see a problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:La goutte de pluie". Thank you. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:La goutte de pluie. I am concerned that you saw fit to block her given your involvement in the dispute. The first block appears to have been a reaction to her restoring an edit you had reverted - as it was far from unambiguous vandalism - that block was unacceptable. A 1 month block in response to the later editing was then disproportinate and, in any event, you should not have been the blocking admin. I suggest you leave any future admin action in relation to User:La goutte de pluie to others and concentrate on resolving any differences of opinion as to what material should be tagged on the appropriate talkpages etc. WJBscribe (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for clarification, ~WJBscribe: why "you should not have been the blocking admin"?  Chzz  ►  04:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Underhill articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placepromo (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the AFD process not sufficient? It looks a bit like WP:Canvass but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Because other than yourself the articles have not elicited special interest. This is especially true since they have been updated. Honestly, I have half a mind to remove the AFD's where I feel they are spurious, though I realize that would invite even greater scrutiny which would not help. I'd really appreciate if you'd come half way here and consider revisiting your position. Everything is not black and white. Often there are shades of gray. Placepromo (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I've never seen discussion moved out of AfDs like you are doing. I do not believe it is acceptable. Policy discussion is part of how AfDs are evaluated. I request that you restore the material. If you don't, I will. You have no permission to move my comments. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've restored it. If you move or remove comments again, I will take it to WP:AN/I for review. Yworo (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. No intent to disrupt. Explanation of basic policy is sometimes moved or collapsed. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

LAz17

Per what request is LAz17 unblocked? You unblocked a user that had created a sockpuppet shortly after he was blocked and admitted the matter on his own talkpage GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs). [6] I'm curious to know how many times users are allowed to cross the line which they are told not to. I'm also curious to know whether this request is the discussion in which he, sneakingly through a file he links, refers to me as "PRODUCER ustaska govnarcina" = "PRODUCER the Ustase shithead". [7] As for his misinformation: I had doubt that he had the source because previously he defended ethnic makeup figures that were manipulated by an IP from the same source as being accurate. [8] [9] Also, it was only after he was blocked that he provided the relevant requested section. While discussion was ongoing he simply provided a scan of the front page. Your decision is truely bewildering Todd.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Producer was doing tenacious editing and removing sourced information. After I gave sources - multiple sources too, and went as far as scanning things to prove that I had the materials and was not making things up, Producer still went out of his way to disregard that material. He does not have good intent, or assumes that I do not have good intent. Whatever the reason might be, I feel that for me it is not worthwhile pursuing matters with him because he feels he and his views are correct, despite what any sources may say. There is only one solution when it comes to this, and that is mediation. That page has had problems for a very long time. Time and time again sources have been used improperly and have been miscited - not by me but by other people and by anonymous users. The talk page shows a lot of problems, mostly between direktor and me... to sum it up it's basically his threats at me and pointless discussion and his denial of his bad sourcing. Even when obvious things show that I am correct, what I think gets shunned. My only goal has been to get to the bottom of things by providing correct information with good sources. What I got in response to that is rude behavior and content blanking of sourced information. I had good intent. I tried. It failed, and these guys have been very rude and not supportive in improving the article. But that's okay, as I trust that mediation will limit their ability to say "no" when the sources say "yes". I will proceed with mediation after the holidays pass... orthodox christmas is on january 7th so I figure that anyone who might be willing to participate would be back by january 10th. In the meantime I would ask that Producer stops harassing me and looking to ban people - he recently requested user FkpCascais to be banned.[10] (LAz17 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

Regarding producer's comment on ethnic make up and his editing... I did not defend things that were put by an IP. I defended complete blanking done by Producer. I did not know that an IP edited stuff, what I knew is that the information was there for a long time and that it's not fair to simply delete something so blatantly. The least that one can do is to investigate it and look into weather or not it is correct. If it is cited falsely then it should be cited properly. If producer had his way that would still be blanked. What's worse, he put false figures in and a source which does not even mention ethnic composition of the group. When I added a correct source he deleted it. Bad intention from him, or he thinking that I had bad intentions... whichever it is, mediation will solve the problems as it will limit him in his tenacious editing. Also Toddst1, do look right under Producer's own link, [11]. It mentions something about a Sisak uprising. Direktor inserted that into the article and claimed that this was the first partizan unit. This is a common myth that some croatians believe in. In fact direktor's own source says that this group in Sisak had nothing to do with the partisans. What does he do when I tell him that this is wrong and should be removed? He threatens me! [i]Touch it and you will find yourself immediately reported for POV content blanking. That is all.[/i] was his statement. So I hope you see what is going on here. We have an extremely unencyclopediatic article which is in desperate need of mediation. Producer does not want this to happen and is trying to get all users who disagree with his ideas banned. Because quite frankly, if FkpCascais and myself get banned then there is nobody to file a mediation, as it seems that other users have not been too interested in the article. That's his goal, to avoid mediation and fixing of the page. If you indeed think that producer is right in his requests to ban me, then at least do it after the mediation has started. I want to be able to submit all my sources first, to present the case. My only goal is a good solution, a good article on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

AE

This unblock was mentioned on WP:AE (in the FkpCascais section) it would actually be of benefit to us uninvolved sysops who are reviewing the FkCascais issue to see the agreement/request/reasoning behind LAz17's unblock (to see what the state of play is in this wider dispute) if you get a chance--Cailil ^talk 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI

LAz17 has apparently created a sock account for evading his blocks. I've reported the case here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The sock was blocked too, so your evasion theory is somewhat flawed. (LAz17 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).