User talk:Toddy1

Your contributions to Wikipedia have been good, especially your tireless work on the addition of naval history data Mike Young 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Toddy1/Archive 1

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Incident

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. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

Toddy, while the use of the hyphen in article titles has been a little controversial of late, the use of hyphens in article prose is not (at least not at the moment). WP:HYPHEN (use 3) explains about compound modifiers and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Ship_class_articles requires the use of a hyphen "when using the name of a class as an adjective". I've reverted the textual changes you made to a number of articles, and User:Sturmvogel 66 got there before me at Admiral class battlecruiser. Yours, Shem (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war over this. However in the article on the Halifax class frigate my original edit not only got rid of the needless hyphens, but also corrected the capitalisation of some of the titles of citations. I have therefore reverted your revert on that article.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC) - see also my posting of 08:24

With Barracuda class submarine and Narwhal class submarine, since the articles linked to do not have hyphens in the article names, it is not appropriate to have hyphens in a list page. The list page functions in many ways as a disambiguation page (though it is not exactly the same).--Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the following article you reverted me on. Since the hyphen before the word "class" is used acceptably, I am content to let things stand. In my personal opinion, the hyphen is not necessary. But the hyphen is not wrong.

• Gato class submarine‎
• Pennsylvania class battleship
• Lexington class battlecruiser‎
• USCG Defender class boat
• French Barracuda class submarine
• Wickes class destroyer
• United States Porpoise class submarine
• USCG Bay class icebreaking tug
• Crater class cargo ship
• Indiana class battleship
• Passaic class monitor
• River class torpedo-boat destroyer‎

To be conciliatory and avoid edit wars that are of no value, I have gone through the article on the Halifax class frigate and restored hyphens in the places where Halifax-class was used as an adjective. There were many places where it was not, where no hyphen is correct. I have also inserted inverted commas in the many places that are missing.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Toddy. Regardless of your personal opinion, the guidelines are against you here. I personally do not agree that the titles should be hyphen-less, but unlike Kwami, I am not about to go moving articles without consensus, because the guidelines are against me, so I suppose we agree at least on the primacy of consensus! I have however restored the hyphens to Barracuda class submarine and Narwhal class submarine; they are not DAB pages, but set index pages, for which other rules apply, and this is precisely the use for which hyphens are required - is that a French-Narval class submarine, a French Narval-class submarine, or a French Narval class-submarine? It leads the reader's eye to interpret the relationship between adjacent adjectives. Shem (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was I who moved it, based on what appeared to be consensus to use the hyphen in that context. Where is this guideline of which you speak that suggests otherwise? Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding having a hyphen between "Halifax" and "class" in the name of the article, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Bot request. Another user asked for permission to do mass moves of articles from the existing XXXX class format to the XXXX-class format. There was no consensus for this, but he started making the moves anyway. He was asked to stop; agreed; but continued doing it anyway - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#User:Kwamikagami moving_ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 .28Result:.29. It really would be in the interests of harmony if you reverted your move of the article back to Halifax class frigate. Please consider doing so--Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of this mess. I thought that when you and the other guy both added hyphens in the article in appropriate-looking places the matter was settled, and the move was the next logical step, so I did it. I don't understand the alleged technical issues you pointed to, and I didn't do any mass or contentious moves; but if it needs to be fixed, go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved the article back, with an explanation.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really agree with your "with agreement of Dicklyon"; it was your call to use the grammatically incorrect form as title. Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you wrote: "and I didn't do any mass or contentious moves; but if it needs to be fixed, go for it."--Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Днепропетровск

Какая причина удаления информации на странице "Днепропетровск"? Зачем добавили рекламные ссылки ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VASDU (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See Comparison of versions of 08:50 28 April 2011 and 07:36 6 May 2011

• You will see that the data you added about the 2011 population is there - complete with a citation to a source that your provided, which contains the information
• Other than that, the page is pretty much the same as it was on 28 April 2011.

See Comparison of versions of 00:00 6 May 2011 and 07:36 6 May 2011

• You will see that I reverted your deletion of the citation for who was mayor. Wikipedia has a policy that citations for information are a good thing.
• As mentioned above the population figure has been changed to the 2011 value.
• Ah - I forgot to update the population density - my mistake - so I did it at 14:28 6 May 2011
• I preserved the original order of the Russian and Ukrainian language names for Yekaterinoslav. Petty changing them round causes nothing but annoyance. Please do not do it.
• I did not include your updated figure for the population of the Dnipropetrovsk Metropolitan area because the source did not quote that figure. If your contention is that by adding the numbers up, you arrived at your figure, then you need to explicitly state in the citation which data you added up to arrive at the figure.
• I added the 2011 city population figure mentioned above to the population table complete with citation.
• Your additions on railways, the "overstreet cableway" and trams were uncited. If you think that they belong in the article, by all means add them back - but do so citing sources. Incidentally, what you call an "overstreet cableway" is normally called in English "cable-cars"; what you wrote about them is misleading. We both know that Monastery Island is very close to the right bank of the Dnieper. People reading what you wrote would probably imagine that the cable-cars would take the across the Dnieper to the left bank.
• One of your preferred photos is of a road going through open countryside outside the city. It is not relevant to an article on the city.
• The other of your preferred photos is a composite photo - it lacks licensing information so will probably be deleted soon. The composite photo makes perfect sense to you and I, because we have both used the station. However two separate photos with different captions would be a lot easier to understand for the readers of English language Wikipedia.

Please write in English on English language Wikipedia. Spasibo.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Corvette

Corvette - Hello
I see you deleted the Summary sections; just to let you know I’ve added an explanation of the summary deletion, here, to keep it above board. Keep smiling, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This

This - Don't. pablo 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hansard knows ...

Toddy
If Hansard "know" all about the hyphen, how come they use both "Trafalgar class submarine" and "Trafalgar-class submarine" in the same adjacent paragraphs?

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the final Trafalgar-class submarine will go out of service. [235625]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: On present plans, which are routinely updated as required, the last Trafalgar class submarine to be withdrawn from service will be HMS Triumph in 2022.

Shem (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• The title is not hyphenated in the source - so when referencing by the title it is incorrect to reference a 'corrected' version of the title.
• There is a very simple explanation for the apparently inconsistent use of hyphens in the text. These are written answers (this is revealed by [1]). Presumably Dr Lewis wrote his question with a hyphen, and the staff at MoD wrote an answer without one.

--Toddy1 (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, exactly - you can't rely on sources for style, since they get it wrong all the time. In any case, rather than disagree about this, I'd rather concentrate on keeping Born2Cycle from damaging the encyclopaedia. Any thoughts? Shem (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• The other day I made a well-intentioned suggestion to him [2]. As a result I got warned not to make personal attacks [3]. Perhaps it was stupid to write what I did - but I meant well.
• Today Ykraps made what I thought were quite reasonable comments on Talk:Corvette, and been forced to make retractions and apologies. (There were some trivial inaccuracies, and a big issue was made out of them.)
• You need to be very careful what you write - one way to win on Wikipedia is to bait a mousetrap - I have seen users like Ludvikus get permanently blocked because they rushed into mousetraps.

--Toddy1 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about mousetraps. What is the item between 'logs' and 'upload file'? I assume it's turned on in preferences, but beyond that I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Shem (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

US spelling

Hi,

Please can you give an example? Lightmouse (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Following your comment, I've looked very hard to an examples where Lightbot added US spelling that wasn't there before. Do you have any examples? Lightmouse (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The two I found were: [4], [5]. Once I realised what was happening, I contacted you. You are right that it would have been better for me to have deleted the "sp=us" - I am fallible too.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We all make mistakes. Please could you remove or negate the comment and picture on the Lightbot talk page? I could remove or contradict them myself but it's more believable in an audit if the allegation of error is withdrawn by the accuser, rather than the accused. Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I need to think about what to say here. Has your bot been instructed to remove the presumption of US spelling that was made?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The long answer involves a conditional 'sometimes'. My focus is units and spelling is a troublesome secondary issue. The issue only arose when User:Ezhiki told me that the old template defaults to US spelling and the new template defaults to non-US spelling. It's ironic that you reverted articles edited by him, but you and he had mutually incompatible complaints. As he correctly implied, I'm obliged to add 'sp=us' to make the edit spelling neutral. I go to considerable effort to identify articles with British English and sometimes withhold 'sp=us' by exception. Invalid criticism is always frustrating but doubly so when I'm already doing as much as I can. If you look at the User:Lightbot, User:Ezhiki and my talk pages, you'll see plenty of discussion and some other false accusations on the same topic. Let me know if you need more clarification. Lightmouse (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Are you still thinking about what to say? I can think of a variety of short neutral phrases suitable for reversal of a complaint but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion, please email it to me. --Toddy1 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people follow up on false accusations with something conventional like: "Sorry. I was wrong." Please consider writing something like that.Lightmouse (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that it was a false accusation? It wasn't. However the reality was more complicated than I realised when I posted the comments. Your attitude is not particularly helpful - basically if I don't like what you have done I can go through and check as many of the thousands of articles you have altered and manually change parameters on a template on them. You say it is not appropriate to simply revert. I think it would be better if bot-editors were banned.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a false accusation. In fact, I went to considerable trouble to remove US spelling in some cases, despite it being outside my scope. You said I added US spelling but you haven't provided an example of where I did. I'm not your enemy, I'm actually on your side. Lightmouse (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, it seems a bit unfair. Are you responding to the facts? An apology might be in order. Tony (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Toddy, could you send the e-mail again? I've just enabled the e-mail function - especially for you. Shem (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Never-Ending Story

Fair comment, I’ve replied here. As far as FP's page goes, I’m not sure what is best. It seems a bit left-handed to take it back; what do you reckon, post an apology? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot take the award back. You apologised to B2C. I think that is all that you can do. What B2C chooses to do concerning the barnstar is up to him. As you do not have clean hands concerning the barnstar, you should just let him.

I thought your responses explaining why the adjudication went the way it did (and why it could have been more harsh on B2C's position) were excellent.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that; Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW I noticed your comments about mousetraps, above; an interesting point, and something to consider, but there is maybe another side to it. Have you read this? I think in the two we have the difference between entrapment and a sting operation (or, giving them enough rope with which to hang themselves). Xyl 54 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"FTINT"

Hi, I saw you corrected the name. The only reason I changed was that I tried to make the spelling identical in all the links (hopefully, the article will be created one day). If you have a strong opinion about the correct name, could you please change it everywhere (e.g. using the "What links here" option)? Thank you very much, Sasha (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Until an article on the Institute is created, there is no easy answer to this. The articles that link to Kharkov Institute for Low Temperature Physics and Engineering seem to refer to it in the past. I expect that this was the name at the time. However it is not the name that it calls itself now on the source quoted.

A good answer to this would be for someone to create the article, under whichever name they prefer and create a redirect for the other name.

If you want the article on Kharkov to use the same name as it was in 1961, then you need to provide a source that calls it that.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. Would it contradict any guidelines to change it everywhere to "TWO SQ BRACKETS" NEWNAME|the name relevant in the article "TWO SQ BRACKETS" (with the hope that the name won't change again before the article is created)? Sasha (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want, why not.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

well, I see you are not quite sure, so I guess I will postpone this until there is consensus (or leave it to the person who will create the article). Making all the links point to the same place once took some effort, so the next time I want to be sure it's the last one :) Sasha (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

re: Poop

Oh my goodness. I haven't been on Wikipedia in forever (editing-wise, anyway) and just logged in due to insomnia... and realized that edits were made on my account. I'm pretty sure that if it's on the Battle of Trafalgar page, it would be my history-buff (but mischievous) little brother. Sorry for the mess and thanks for the revert! --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 05:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at Robsinden's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hyphen discussion

Toddy

I don't suppose you'll agree with me at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes, but it's only right you know the discussion is taking place. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!

Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which you expressed interest in earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pork

I think that might be adding insult to injury in a dispute centered on Islam, but it sure does look good! — kwami (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When my dad was young, he really did drown some new-born kittens for a female friend. His friend considered it a kindly act. It was a sort-of post-natal abortion.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. About this edit [6], How can an expression "the great majority" be grammatically correct? Please analyze it again. Anyway I won`t insist, but to say that this expression is grammatically correct :). Greetings. Adrian (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a perfectly normal English-language expression. The "majority" means more than 50%. The "great majority" means very much more than 50%.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Hello, I would like to ask you to stop reverting my edits and to stop accusing me of with anything you might think I am doing... If you continue with insults like this [7]; [8], I will be forced to make a report. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead--Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. Also I have made reqest for third opinion here [9]. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please could you consider modifying your Third Opinion request to include your other disputed edits.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NP. I will do that to, but that seems to be another subject since we have a consensus about that issue. I don`t know how to present that case ? Adrian (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a second, I will try to find that on the admins`s notice table. Adrian (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have found a reference to that consensus 1 but can`t manage to find the where the consensus discussion itself is. Maybe User:Biruitorul can help on this issue, he seems to be familiar with this [10]. Adrian (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian names in Transylvania

Hello,

I am contacting you regarding our problem about Hungarian names in Transylvania. User Biruitorul was kind to give me the link about the consensus about 20%< rule.

• Biruitorul response
• [consensus] , sections Compromise and Summary where it is stated that in places with 20% less population Hungarian language names should not be present in the infobox of the article.

Also I have contacted a respectable Hungarian editor just to be sure about this [11].

I hope this input from other users and the consensus built by other editors solves our problem at Sigisoara and Sibiu articles. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Adrian - thanks for the links. I started reading it yesterday. There is a lot here for me to read, and to think about. I will reply in due course - but it is going to take time. This stuff is important, and cannot just be skimmed.

I am glad that other people are commenting on this issue. It is good to have other points of view. What a pity that guy removed you request for a third point of view.

When the discussion about these issues is over, let us move the comments from your Talk page to the talk page of one of the articles or a project talk page, so that it is accessible in the future.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don`t get this the wrong way, but the consensus is valid and it should be respected from the moment you were informed of it WP:CON. Consensuses can change over time of course, but until that, this is valid. I just provided evidence for it for you so you can see it, not to wait for your validation of it.

About the Transylvanian Saxons I believe that we have a solution there too, but please be free to invite some other uninvolved editor to comment too.

Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't bulldoze me Adrian.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dind`t "bulldoze" you, I would rather say it was the other way around :). If I "bulldoze"-ed you in any way I apologize. I was just trying to inform you about the Romania-related articles. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I need time to read the documents carefully and to analyze other editors contributions. I think you recognise these words from your post of 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC). There is a lot to read, and also to think about. There is every reason to take time.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is really getting out of order. It implies that the discussion is over when I have informed you about the rule about places with less than 20%. I will revert you, and hope that`s it. Please respect the consensus you were informed of. Adrian (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have formed a consensus with yourself, and with editors you invited into the discussion for the sole purpose of supporting you and helping you find documentation to "prove" your case. I include in this the guy that you had email me, in the hopes that I would reply by email and reveal whether I live in Hungary or speak Hungarian.

I am not convinced that there is any kind of real consensus here. The documents you sent are interesting. The 2010 is probably the most relevant, and its conclusions suggest the complete opposite of what you would like. This was why you then went back to the earlier move discussion with, which you claim is the final decision on the subject. During the 2010 discussion, MJ Roots seemed to reject the notion that this earlier "consensus" bound people in 2010, which was why the conclusion in the 2010 discussion was different.

I am really tired of explaining the same things to you. You have the links, everything - think what you wish. It is up to you to respect it or not. I am only surprised that other users implement this, and to everybody is clear but only I have a problem with you. Adrian (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello. I just reverted an edit of yours at a humor page on bad faith. It looked like a valid example. I'm not saying it was a good idea to put it there though. (WP:AOBF) Where could I maybe provide a third opinion on something? Could you link me to a page discussion? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is, I guess the problem is that it is written by me. Adrian (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it could be seen as a sideways and public way to AOBF. It seems like you could have waited until after the edit warring-ish behavior phase had passed. Jesanj (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, maybe it wasn`t the best time to add this to the list but I did`t expected for him to track my edits.. Adrian (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

*This page was on my watch list long before I ever heard of the existence of Adrian.

*The example by Adrian is clearly based on the edit summary in [12]. Given that this is an on-going dispute, I think Adrian's edit is itself an example of bad faith editing.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling an uninvolved editor "not neutral" without clear evidence is bad faith itself. I have changed it a bit not to be accused of this, but when found in a position like this I guess it was just a matter of time. Adrian (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus was not an uninvolved editor. I have an email from him that pre-dates his reversion of Taivo. I do not know whether Taivo knew this, though he may have deduced this from a history of Hobartimus's talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let`s assume that is correct. How could I know about this e-mail contact ? Adrian (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You could not. Don't attack people all the time. Maybe they know things you do not, and are making fair comment.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don`t accuse me again for no apparent reason nor evidence. I did`t said anything to any of this users, for a matter of fact to anybody about bad faith or anything, I just modified an example that seems valid to me and added it to the list. Adrian (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Hello, please stop violating consensus on Romania-related articles. Consider this a friendly warning. If you continue with all this I will consider writing a report. Adrian (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not go to an ANI now.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that is the plan from the beginning. I have informed you kindly about everything yet you refuse to respect it. If forced, I will. Adrian (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we just step back a moment from the threats and rancor, because I have a question for Toddy1. What standard would you like to see applied? The current one seems rather fair: Hungarian (and other minorities, but we're really talking about Hungarians here) names in the lead section for every Transylvanian city, town and commune (because they were once part of the Kingdom of Hungary and usually have at least a few Hungarian residents), but Hungarian names in the infobox only if Hungarians are at least 20% of the population, because then the language is co-official on the local level. If not that clear-cut rule, then what standard would you prefer? Hungarian names in every infobox for every Transylvanian locality? I'm sorry, but you won't be getting consensus for that approach. Take for instance Blăjeni: 100% of inhabitants are ethnic Romanians. It's appropriate to include the Hungarian name in the lead, for historical reasons, but not in the infobox. Same goes for Dognecea, which has 8 Hungarian residents, Sita Buzăului (13), and so forth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have formulated no demands. I have expressed concern at some edits that Adrian did to remove Hungarian elements from articles, and currently wish to have a reasonable discussion of three of them.

• Sighișoara‎ - on 12 August Adrian merely wanted to delete the Hungarian name for the city from the infobox, but his demands have expanded to wanting to delete the German language name as well.
• Sibiu‎‎ - on 12 August Adrian merely wanted to delete the Hungarian name for the city from the infobox, but his demands have expanded to wanting to delete the German language name as well. He had earlier said [13] "it is considered a center/capital for the German minority in Romania, and as such it should have German name present in the infobox even if there isn`t a single German man living in that city"
• Transylvanian Saxons‎ - Adrian wants to delete the Hungarian names from a list of seven Medieval fortified towns populated by the Saxons of Transylvania (the Siebenburgen). He is currently content to allow the German language names to stand.

I think these things need to be discussed, and that it would be a good thing to involve more editors. The elements that Adrian wants to delete have been present for a long time. I am not convinced that it is right to delete them.

I am interested in your statement that "if Hungarians are at least 20% of the population, because then the language is co-official on the local level" - on 11 August Adrian deleted the following statement from nine articles "In the commune both Romanian and Hungarian languages are used in public signage, education, justice and access to public administration." See for example [14]. The reason given by Adrian was "removed unsourced statement - the only official language is Romanian". Do you think Adrian's edits to these nine articles should be reverted?

Personally I find Adrian's style of writing threatening/bullying. Adrian has told me that I am a vandal, and has given me warnings that my behaviour is unacceptable and that he will go to ANI over it if I continue.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note -I am not threating, if it looks like it please excuse my behavior. I just don`t know what to do when an editor behaves like this and by ANI noticeboard, it is somewhat a requirement to warn the other party of a possible report or else a report is not valid. Adrian (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If those edits were the problem you should say, I would explain that too. Also, did`t you notice/compare that only those articles have that text and places with 80%+ Hungarian population doesn`t ? Ex: Miercurea-Ciuc ? On the other hand I have never insulted you nor called you a vandal except when I reverted your edit when you choose to ignore everything we talked about. Adrian (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of sources attest to the 20% law ([15], [16], [17], etc). In those places, at the local level, Romanian and Hungarian are official, and have been so since 2001. However, since it may be a little repetitive to put the exact same text in hundreds of articles, we could try another approach. We could, next to the Hungarian name, put in a footnote to that effect ("In the commune both Romanian and Hungarian languages..."), following the Kosovo model. (Currently, all articles that mention Kosovo have a footnote clarifying the province's disputed status.)

In terms of Sighișoara‎ and Sibiu, I think it's probably best that the 20% rule be respected there as well (ie, German and Hungarian names only in the text), for consistency's sake.

At Talk:Transylvanian Saxons, I've stated why I agree with Adrian on this issue. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All I am demanding is that there should be a discussion on the matter involving more editors than just Adrian, which is what we are doing.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954). 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.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No I am not edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the article on Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954), I have made:

• One edit to the article page.
• Three major and one minor edit to the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation or discussion once it is known that there is a back-and-forth conflict on an edit is edit warring (and no, answering a talk page comment that was made after your revert was preformed is not a discussion, discussions take place before). One does not have to violate 3RR to edit war, and even a single edit can be edit warring, if it furthers a disruptive back-and-forth in order to restore a "preferred" version without discussion. Please keep this in mind. - SudoGhost 06:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that you are the disruptive editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Our thoughts are not forbidden to us; you are welcome to think what you wish. I don't ask that you mind your thoughts, just your actions. Please discuss before reverting, since that article is as heavily back-and-forth as it is right now. You may want to also take the time to read WP:Edit war, since you seem to be unaware that you can edit war (and be blocked for doing so) without being anywhere close to 3RR. My notification was not a "malicious accusation", it was simply a notification alerting you that you were, by definition, engaging in an edit war that is occurring on the article. You would not be blocked for the single revert, the notification was to alert you of something you may not have been aware of, to avoid any confusion concerning the article, and to avoid any chance of you being blocked for any subsequent reverts made without explanation or discussion. It was not meant in hostility, and I would ask that you please not take it as such. Thank you, and take care. - SudoGhost 06:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removing content from talk page

I assumed that insulting others (accusing me of hating English people without any basis to that claim is an insult) would be against Wikipedia policy. If you agree with that, I would be grateful if you could remove that content again. Kind regards, Clumpytree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.32 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have written to Τασουλα, on User talk:Τασουλα, asking his/her permission for me to remove the offending words.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You will be pleased to know that I have removed the words "the English" from the talk page with Τασουλα's permission.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

USS Indiana (BB-1)

Yes it does. Armour placement was supposed to be 3 ft above and 1 ft below water line based on a 24 ft design draft. When actual draft with full load turned out to be 27 ft the belt was thus submerged. Please read the article, it is all there. Note, I took the 24 from an old revision of the page as I don't have Friedman on hand. Yoenit (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

-

Sorry, it seems I got confused about which version was which.

We seem to be writing messages on each other's pages at the same time.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Toddy, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Toddy, I've left you another reply -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

verifiability

you do realise the policy on verifiability means 'reliable sources' don't you? Vexorg (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE case

See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of DIGWUREN Discretionary Sanctions

Toddy1,

This a warning, by an uninvolved administrator, that discretionary sanctions may be applied against you, including but not limited to area editing restrictions, revert restrictions, blocks up to a year, or other methods devised by an uninvolved administrator, as described in Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. This is due to your editing in the area of conflict. Please read the linked section especially, and the case in general for a complete understanding of the nature of such sanctions and the appeal of the same.

--Tznkai (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)