User talk:Toddst1

edit count | edit summary usage

Why are you attacking me?

Tonight, someone tried to out personal information about my username. When turning to wikipedia admins for assistance because this is considered harassment you then decided to delete two pages I put up that meet all notability requirements to be on wikipedia, I have worked with admin's on to improve content and be sure they met all the required guidelines for a wikipedia article. They are not advertising or anything of the sort. They are information about two people who are notable and active in the computer security world. I do not understand why you have decided to not only tag for speedy deletion but to go ahead and delete without discussion as well as threaten my ability to edit anything on wikipedia in the future. I have done nothing wrong and have worked with other admins to be sure the information that I add to wikipedia has appropriate referencing as well as third party sources and meets required notability. I would appreciate an explanation as to why you feel both these articles need to be deleted and why the harassment I am experiencing is merely being furthered by an administrator.

Thanks Rpelton (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful about accusations of harassment. The articles were deleted as promotional. Toddst1 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The person put a personal name and title of a job attached to my username. This is most CLEARLY harassment by this user. The only way you would remove those as promotional after other admins had looked at them and passed them as notable and no other argument had been put up about them at all-- would be if you believed the personal information that was put up about my username. I believe that is very unfair as a basis for deletion. Put the speedy delete tag on it and let some other people weigh in on it before removing it is all I ask. It's a consensus that should be reached, not the assumption of any one person based on information that is uninformed. Rpelton (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, the personal info was deleted along with the information about your bosses. You're confusing WP:BIO with WP:Advert. Read the part about "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." Toddst1 (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response obviously shows that you believe the information that was posted about my username. Interesting because the harassment page says:

"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information."

Which I have followed and you have apparently assumed the accuracy of the information by the use of the term 'your bosses'. As an admin, shouldn't you be assuming the information is false, or at least discounting it somewhat and not allowing it to weigh into your decisions for deletion? It would not be hard to allow a week for comments on these pages by people other than ourselves before deleting them. That's all I'm asking you to do. Rpelton (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter what happened to draw my attention to those articles, in my opinion they read like PR pieces with footnotes. If I had looked at your edits without any outing, I would almost certainly come to the conclusion you were being paid by the company even if you had a completely cryptic name. We see this all the time. If you disagree with my deletion of the articles, take them to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Toddst1 (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will most certainly take them to deletion review, however I still believe that review should be handled on a tagged page rather than my fighting to have the entire page retrieved. There was no need for that excessive deletion without further review from outside opinions. Rpelton (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is just that - speedy without discussion. That doesn't mean they can't be appealed and overturned. You really need to stop making accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:GenderChristianity

Hi. Can you remove the protection from this template? Issues with it seem to have been resolved just fine on the talk page. I don't know what made you protect it for a month anyway, seems like overkill to me.--Atlan (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the case of WP:EWs on the numerous ethnic conflicts or religious differences waged documented on Wikipedia, protecting for a long period of time sometimes preferred to prevent further flare ups. These conflicts have been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years and a month of protection is not going to hurt, but it may save a few folks from blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rpelton

Hello! Thanks a lot, I wasn't aware of the policy, WP:OUTING. Nevertheless, quite obvious, Rpelton's username already "outs" them. Cheers,  Barocci  16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance

Greetings and thank you for looking into the issue with Reliefappearance. I will of course be more careful about signing my warnings. Reliefappearance seems to have a history of problems. At what point does a user like this get blocked? Regards, Pdcook (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point s/he has been given what I consider a final warning and an ip sockpuppet identified. Report to AIV upon the next instance of vandalism. If you find WP:TE, you'll need to go back to ANI and reference the previous (probably archived by then) discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)r

I did notice this discussion on ANI from before. Hopefully s/he will be constructive in the future. Thanks again for all your help. Pdcook (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Tan has taken a more WP:BOLD approach than I have. I like it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:AlfonseLaw_LLP

Would you mind looking at this again? The user in question, while unblocked to change his/her name, is back to deleting materiel from articles, claiming copyright. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm 3 minutes ahead of you: [1] Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, in fact, were it not for the edit conflict, I would have left you a note saying just that - and thank you! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

66.244.98.91

Hi Can I ask you to take a look again at the block of this IP? I realize that some of the insertions of material were quite inappropriate, but then so was the tone and content of aspect (e.g "notorious incidents" and threats of violence) of the article when the editor started making changes.[2] I realize that you gave some useful advice about better ways to go about things, and that it didn't have immediate effect, but per BLP, and assuming the IP editor is Lee (which seems likely) then maybe we should try a bit more to help educate? --Slp1 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've unblocked 66.244.98.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate shows this ip registered to INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Not likely the subject of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well she lives in Indiana, so I don't think is so very unlikely, myself. Given the details the editor (very problematic though they were) added, and what was removed, I'd be inclined to think that it is her and that we might want to give the IP the benefit of the doubt for now. But I leave it up to you.--Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

129.35.81.19

Just a note: Your talk page comment indicates a one year block, while the block log indicates a one month block. Not sure which you intended, but you might want to sync them up. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Todd. Thank you for your message, but I am really not interested in entering this kind of debate. I am happy to provide interesting material regarding instances of cultural interaction through the ages, but it is clear that some people will never appreciate that kind of stuff, whatever the argument. Let it be. Best regards PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BizRate

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

Hey Todd,

Was just reading through your comments, and you are correct, we are not in the top 3%, and our math is definitely the same.

"Congratulations to our 2009 Platinum Circle of Excellence Winners! Platinum winners received outstanding ratings across all 7 metrics and represent the top 4% of all merchants in the BizRate network."

I'd like you advice on how to best word this. While we are not in the top 4%, we are definitely noted here. Also, any assistance you can provide at making our entry correct would be appreciated.Just let me know what kind of sources you would recommend. Since we are public company, most of the information is in our SEC filings. Thanks again and appreciate your comments. Lalitd (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Lalitd

Moving this discussion to User talk:Lalitd as important information will be posted. there

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.

Ha!

Somebody doesn't like you, you must be doing something right! =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have my fans. Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kedco

Firstly I’d like to apologise for getting dragged into an edit war recently on the Kedco page. My tactics, while the result of frustration, were totally inappropriate and your ban was completely justified.

Not trying to justify my tactics, I would ask you to consider banning Hiberniae for the following reasons:

1. The user account was set up solely for the purposes of abusing Wikipedia to discredit this company. (All user activity is on this one topic)

2. He persists in quoting his own personal blog as the reference for one of his biased points of view

3. One of his first edits was vandalism, personally attacking the CEO of the company

4. He more or less admitted here that this is a personal agenda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kedco#My_agenda.3F_The_truth ...This is also the tone of his blog which contains numerous negative references to Kedco.

You might ask if I also have an agenda? I have no connection to Kedco, but I do know 2 people who work for the company and have been watching the page since the vandalism last year. I have no problem with the points being made if made using neutral language and appropriately referenced. However, my attempts to neutralise the language and remove inappropriate references, and to discuss these, have not been successful. When he engaged in rapid reverts on Tuesday last of my edits, I was drawn into the edit war out of frustration. I should have taken a different approach and not engaged him. If you will not ban him, can you advise on the best approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus72 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your impartial intervention on this topic. I should have asked an administrator for an independent viewpoint from the beginning rather than engaging someone determined to use wikipedia for their own personal agenda. I've learned my lesson, thanks Seamus72 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re The Balkans issues

I really have no idea how an article on phonology could be related to the current imbroglios on the Balkan peninsula. But then, why don't you correct the mistakes or find someone else to do so? After all, what are editors for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan val (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this is very ironic given that you blanked the page yesterday and then accuse others of vandalism. I haven't seen anything explaining this rather odd contradiction. Care to explain? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I only tried to write the page anew and that's why deleted it. But was of course prevented by your editor or administrator or whatever you guys are. Just one thing more: Wikipedia proclaimed itself to be an "open encyclopedia" but it's firmly going in the oposite direction. Maybe to be just merged with the "Britannica" someday... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan val (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1's the admin, I'm just a nosy n00b. If you're going to rewrite the article, rewrite it. Don't blank it as that is always considered vandalism (with the only exception being if the original author is the only one to have edited it and they want it to be deleted). Simply rewrite it in a single edit or bit by bit if you don't have time. Failing that, make a subpage in your userspace, work on the article there (or on the page's talk page to discuss any changes) and then copy-paste it over into the true article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Laz17

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

Toddst1, I have something to ask you. You've given me a rule of 1 week revert over the anything in connection with balkans. I'm accepted that (hell, discussion pages should mean something:). But I have an felling that user Laz follows my edits and intentionally reverts them. This has happened only once for now (I'm unfortunally not very acctive editor, I made just one edit in the previous week) he even asked another user to help him in bloking me? This has happened on [3] pages, onto which user Laz did not have any previously edits. I've would like that this guy stops stocking me. Do you have any advice what to do? I usually do accept everything on wikipedia in good faith, but this is a bit too much. I do not ask that user Laz17 is blocked or something like that. But I would be most than happy if he would stop his current behaviour or at least be warned against it. Any advices are also welcomed. Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you make a conclusion, read what I have to say. In the article that Ceha feels that I followed him, what can be seen is that Ceha has made some bad editing. You can see his edit here, [4] and thank god that I undid that awful thing. He changed the number of Croats from 131744 to 135,623. Naturally as this was not sourced, I had to undo it. Thank god I did. This guy is a confirmed frauder. In fact, he made a map of bosnia and herzeogvina, by settlements in which he grossly over-represented the croat population to the detriment of serbs and croats. I you are interested in that nasty discussion let me know. But, thanks to me following him, and then arguing with him on the talk page of the canton page, he decided to calculate stuff and got that there were 131791 croats. Whoops, where did his 135 thousand fraud go? Several thousand is a difference, and his materials which regularily have no source are not acceptable for wikipedia standards. This guy is simply angry because I fix his fraud. Why should he overrepresent the croats? Just because he is a croat? No, that is no excuse for his unsourced data. Thanks for understanding. (LAz17 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

I putted the first numbers onto those pages and also putted the second numbers. My excel at home is not functioning and that explains the error. Laz it would not be a problem that you revoked something that is wrong, but it is a problem when you stalk somebody trying to cause edit wars, or when you ask other users to support you in the intention off banning that awful wikipedian just because of your POV. If you made cooperative edits, I would not mind, I wrongly added figures, but you stood there on discussion pages, inventing the reasons just to undo my contribution and start another edit war. This is unwikipedian. And your fraud theories are just in your nationalistic mind. Admin Ricky81682 [5] warned you against that. Again I do not ask for user Laz to blocked, but it would be good that someone explains to him that stalking and provoking edit wars is not right. Btw I think that 1 Balkan revert rule would do him also good :)

Toddst1, sorry for this argue on your pages, but can you please help ? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My fraud theories are based on the fact that it took you a year er so to deal with a very problematic map in which croats were grosely overrepresented. You showed no will to cooperate with me and only cooperated in slightly improving an unsourced bullshit map after a third party, Direktor, came to mediate. And what you fixed was not much, as there are still many issues with the map. Your refusal to cooperate and to ignore my criticism of the map - which you did not when Direktor was mediating - is my conclusion that you are about fraud. You do not cooperate in the map problem if I am left alone with you. Hence the conclusion to the fraud. As Direktor himself said, "That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"?" That is Direktor's quote. Map is incredibly biased, so fraud is an appropriate word. Cheers.

It does not matter if you added data first. The point is that you changed data from about 131 thousand croats up to 135 thousand croats. You again tried to over-represent them. It's a slippery slope, if you get away with it once you might do it again. I simply reverted that problematic edit. You then removed all data and after some arguing on the talk page put back a number close to the initial number, of 131 thousand croats. So you are complaining because I reverted your fraud on the page. I do not know if your intention was fraud. I suspect it was. Maybe it was not. In any case, I did the correct thing, to remove your 135 thousand number. (LAz17 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Well this is the root of all the problems. User Laz concluded that I'm a nationalistic warior and tries to inflame me into his edit wars. His swearing words and uncivil behavior are a grave problem. As for CB canton changes, I gave the sources to the guy and than he started staling and basically to bable. Can something to be done onto this user? Something like restriction notice? :) I would like that the guy leaves me alone or at least start behaving like a normal wikipedian. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of filling up DIREKTOR's talk page, my talk page, ANI, WQA, and other WP:CANVASSING, you two should go to the map's talk page and discuss this there and avoid the ad-hominem arguments please. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack other users? huh?

What are you talking a bout? Your link doesn't work bud... --Львівське (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Picturefilms

You blocked Picturefilms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently for spam and related violations. They appear to be at it again. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you wanted to escalate. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Belay my last - they're still blocked. Sorry! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 19:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow

That's incredibly brilliant. Just saying. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that's sarcasm or genuine. Either way, use it for what it's worth. I haven't moved it into the main space because I figured it would piss people off. Comments/suggestions/additions welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid sarcasm; it's genuine. :) It probably will piss people off, but social commentary frequently does. After all, generally its purpose is to be provocative to get people to question established thought patterns and behaviors. Even when social commentary overstates its case (as some satirists are wont to do), it does its job when it achieves that goal.

I think this is particularly astute: "Through our culture, we encourage folks to make such accusations." I have seen a number of admins hampered from action because they feared being perceived as involved when an outside review suggested to me that their only involvement was being attacked for enforcing policies. And I believe you're very right that we have a double standard about addressing established contributors...not only in matters of civility. To some extent, I have to guard against this myself in working the copyright problems that I do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It will piss people off. Thanks for the validation. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Door34

Hi Toddst1! I just wanted to let you know that your block of Door34 (talk · contribs) has been raised in a thread at WP:ANI. Singularity42 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you miss it at at ANI, I realized I was only looking at the contribution list, without taking into account deleted edits. I apologize. Singularity42 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Zymo Research

The part of the article you deleted was actually edited by an admin of wikipedia to making it more neutral. It shows on the talk page that I have contested the first deletion but no one every responded about it, so i placed it back on after a month of no reply. You can look through the history that the admin that the admin rewrote that entire part. I was trying to put the science magazine as the source for the first area, but currently need to get another copy of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.73.26 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)