Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 24 October 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

The content of this page changes. This is the version displayed at: January 8, 2025, 14:08 (UTC)

Whore of Babylon

Good call. I tried to sort that pair, their POVs and their edits out without much luck. --A. B. 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amy Cahill (character)

Hello Toddst1, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amy Cahill (character), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Fictional characters are not eligible for speedy deletion under A7; try PROD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And how much sense does that make? dōmo arigatō misutā Robotto. BTW, was that a template? Toddst1 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies (yes, that was a template used by WP:CSDH). As for my declined speedy, I don't see how my rationale doesn't make sense, as WP:A7 is quite clear. I did consider redirecting (as another user has done now), but wanted to give the author a little more time to perhaps bring the article up to snuff (not that I had great faith it was going to happen). Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bum wiper

JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

science

Todd, Hello, how are you? It would be favorable to wikipedia's credibility if posts made to contribute to articles were discussed before being deleted. The claim that petroleum is a hydrocarbon of organic origin is the exceptional claim. My claim isn't one of origin, but one that the organic origin assumption isn't tenable and needs more evidence. Samples of petroleum taken from organic rich regions tell us nothing ... think about that. As for the deposition issue, Einstein's fundamental metric Tensor of General Relativity is pretty exceptional evidence, I'd argue. That's why organic material thousands of feet above hydrocarbons doesn't add up. If the hydrocarbons originated from above they should remain below. Whether or not one finds hydrocarbons in areas that some theorists claim is supposed to be an environment for creation of hydrocarbons is a red herring. I'm not trying to establish how it is created, only that it occurs deeper than originally thought and is not of organic origin. My reply was objective and was not advocating a "theory". The onus is on you to explain how it was created organically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BariumBasin (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:V Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your last message is cryptic. Can you explain? There is nothing to verify. Nothing is being claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BariumBasin (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant "the fact that petroleum has been already verified to be of organic origin, removing that would required a new verified, credible scientific claim otherwise." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks B. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy lives

Might be a good idea to inform Newyorkbrad of your restoration. As I recall, he was rather keen on it remaining deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've left a note to that effect on ANI. and will notify Brad. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also asked for LHVU's input as he was the deleting admin. Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. FWIW, I agree with your restoration. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please reverse that decision. You should not be reversing an ArbCom decision without going to ArbCom. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He has informed Brad. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me an arbcom decision and I'll self revert. All I hear is hearsay and the action being requested is in contravention of policy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with something like this or does it need an official Arbcom stamp on it? Hans Adler 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that statement from NYB, but his qualification was "at this time." Since then, the editor has returned and is actively editing. That changes any RTV, and I'm still not sure that arbcom has acted. Unless arbcom has ruled, NYB has to follow the same rules the rest of us do. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Todd, no blocks, please. The issue will be sorted out one way or the other. SlimVirgin 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page again for now, Todd, and dropped you an email. I think we should try to clarify the RTV guideline so that we know what to do in future. My own view is that talk pages should never be deleted, but should be moved in the case of RTV (or left as is), but I know there are lots of exceptions to that. Pinning things down in the guideline would help. SlimVirgin 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Slimvirgin - Todds1 is completely abusing his admin tools. Badanagram (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC) He had reconstructed my old userpage which I asked to be deleted for very good reason if the logs are checked Badanagram (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Don't sweat it. Been called worse by better. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Todd, I don't think we've interacted. I've edited here for four years and have about 7000 edits. Do you consider it normal that when I post a request on AN/I, an administrator responds with nothing but asking whether I am gunning to be the first editor sanctioned under the new regime? I wonder how anyone can be expected to post a request to AN/I if that is the type of response they can expect to receive. Mackan79 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Todd, please see also that Looie has now withdrawn and struck the remark which led to my complaint. I would request for this reason that you remove your close which accused me of "trolling," since with this clarification I would not have made the request and would have withdrawn it. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Todd, I was hoping for you to respond. In my view it's rather problematic when editors can't expect to get a reasonable answer on notice boards around here, because admins jump right in with insults and implied threats before looking carefully at the situation. Looie's comment here was completely unexplained and in my view bizarre; credit to him for retracting it. Still, you have not retracted your accusation that I was "trolling" to say so. If there is something that led to your response I would at least appreciate knowing what it was. Mackan79 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding

You are being completely over the top. I removed my old userpage for very good reason. You are abusing your admin status over one comment I made about some of your edits. Tell you what, block all of the accounts and delete them altogether because people like you have completely put me off editing wikipedia since it started, for better or for worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop this admin power nonsense and remove the link from my old account to my new account? Badanagram (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is there as part of a proven {{sockpuppeteer}} notice noting evidence of your abuse of the IP address 86.11.254.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which you have used to make personal attacks. You cannot walk away from that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My reason for deleting it (if you check the logs of why it was changed and the fact that this change was ACCEPTED) outweighs the need for the redirect.Badanagram (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect, per your request. However the evidence of the sockpuppetry must stay. Toddst1 (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's something confusing going on at User talk:Sandstein#Admin behaviour. Could you comment? Why did you block that person's IP, but not their user account? Thanks,  Sandstein  19:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock investigation

You previously commented at a sock investigation on this user, now there is another one, at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiLubber. Perhaps you may have some prior knowledge, experience and expertise to impart, with this particular case. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look this afternoon. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bum/hum

In view of this and this, you may be interested in seeing this. It seems that our disagreement was irrelevant, as unblocking has made no difference anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. :) Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AtomicMarcusKitten

Hi there, taking a look at this user's talk page, I see that you recently blocked him for incivility. He's starting up again at Talk:Lady Gaga discography (I had to remove one message that consisted of nothing but attacks) and my own talk page - you might want to keep an eye on him. –Chase (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you so much! I'll leave it on my talk page for a bit and then move it over. Very kind of you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Urdu

Why isn't proper legimitate citations enforced for the Urdu page in particular to Hindustani references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.234.140.18 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Service Alliance

Global Peace Service Alliance and Global peace service alliance have been recreated... need protection made be?Teapotgeorge 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Real-Life Barnstar
		For your swift and sane reply to the most recent threats of violence. Keep up the good work! Basket of Puppies 00:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's situations like that where I wish I was a CU. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardy Bucks

you nominated it for speedy deletion

Articles for deletion nomination of Hardy Bucks I have nominated Hardy Bucks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hardy Bucks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

i think you have been proved wrong to do so by the success of the show and the tv show, alot of valuable information was lost due to your hastiness —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati16 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're gloating? This is the second time you're mentioning this. Perhaps you should find something else to focus on. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Death threat case

So did Indiana Wesleyan University Police find User:Finmcaley12? Was he/she arrested? TomCat4680 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Got your email. If the case is closed the edits need to be rev/deled. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Done. Good work on that BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erice statement

The facts, stated in the articles, with relevant sources, that 90.000 scientist and eminent politicians signed the statement is not enough for notability? --Pastore Italy (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of sigs is not a criteria for WP:NN. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

IP:119.224.20.163

Hello, 119.224.20.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was only blocked for account creation and not for editing. That IP has been warned 8 times in the past 3 months. Veriss (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems blocked to me. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just doesn't have the normal template I'm used to seeing...I'm probably just revealing my lack of knowledge. Thank you for taking care of it and for getting back to me. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I've added that. They were blocked either way. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

MIRK (band)

Since you're the last one to delete this article I thought you might like to know: it may have been recreated at Mirk. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Orijentolog

Wants to be unblocked -- see my talk page. He's been trying to cooperate, I might support an unblock because of that. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and perceived legal threats

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;" is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be considered as new editors, as well as because it was Justus who started his legal threats first, I request you to re-consider your decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)