User talk:Toddst1/Archive 8

This page, Toddst1/Archive 8 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

• Current time: May 14, 2024, 04:21 (UTC)

Ownership Inquiry

You left a warning on my talk page about ownership of the Anthony Johnson article and I'd like to know why. I read the link you provided about ownership and I haven't committed any of those violations to my knowledge. I've never edited from a mindset of "my way or the highway" and almost always cited specific wikipedia policies that were being violated or engaged discussion on the talk page. If anything, my actions are more closely aligned to stewardship and not ownership. There have been many changes made to the page that were in line with wikipedia policies and were perfectly fine. One editor even deleted one of the sources I added citing that it wasn't strong enough and he was completely right. Never have I demanded that people stop editing the article so I could have time to rewrite it in my own words, which is more than I can say about other editors who do actually show tendencies of ownership over the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You editing history speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My editing history speaks to stewardship not ownership. Please provide diffs to support your accusation.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ownership Inquiry

I'm still waiting for you to actually discuss my behavior that's in violation of WP:OWN. According to WP:PERSONAL "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." is considered a personal attack if evidence is not supplied. Here are a couple of examples of how easy it is to supply evidence in the forms of diffs:

"The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."[1] [2]

"I created/wrote the majority of this article." [3] See the section under "Articles that are predominently my work"

So I'm interested to see what diffs support your accusation of ownership on my behalf. Every revision or edit I made was explained and never did I remove justified information. I only removed unjustified information that was either not supported in the given source or a violation of WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, or WP:Editorial and addressed these revisions in the talk page.Scoobydunk (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

He is back editing his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.32.147 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Carlington edit

I made two changes to the Carlington page which you reverted. 1) I removed reference inaccurate demographic information from the introduction. In fact the numbers were not even consistent with demographics contained further in the entry. 2) I removed a reference to a dated article refering to the crime rate in Carlington.

Can you explain why you so quickly changed my entry?

Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.11.74 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure: It's not clear how your edits are different from blanking vandalism. If the info there is inaccurate, correct it. If the source is stale, update it. Blanking information, without consensus on the article's talk page is generally not acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. New to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.11.74 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Victorian Railways wagon pages

Hi Todd,

I'm splitting the box, louvre and iced van pages. The original idea was to merge the three, but the stories are too complex to generate a proper narrative.

Dave

Dave. That sounds reasonable but it would be a good idea to note that on the article's talk. Feel free to undo my change. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius has changed the page into a disambiguation, without any reference in the talk page. I don't mind leaving it like that, even if it isn't very neat. In any case, I'll be deleting the link from the Victorian Railways template (which I was planning to do on the 8th when the page vanished). Anothersignalman (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bombe

Citations from later in the article added to lead. Was reversion really necessary when there are such good sources cited in the body? --TedColes (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Christianity on Wikipedia

I just realised that you left a comment when you removed my new picture I uploaded.

My reason for replacing the previous picture was because Christianity doesn't support nudity, therefore a nude picture shouldn't represent a Christian topic. I know you're probably not a Christian, so you probably won't understand. If I was a Jew, I wouldn't want a Hitler salute as the topic picture for the Holocaust with a caption saying some derogatory things about Jews. Likewise nudity is not advocated by Christianity, What's wrong with replacing the picture with a generic picture showing the two genders?

God hates fornication, likewise God clearly wouldn't like an "artistic" nude and crude(perverted) picture representing Christianity. No way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus is King of Kings (talk • contribs) 00:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

God hates fornication? Move on. Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pathetic

Because I brought up a POV-pushing vandal who replaced that Amwar al Awlaki was from al Qaeda with him being from the Pentagon. Tátótát (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

70.53.97.28

While I think the temporary block of 70.53.97.28 was appropriate, you may have been a bit harsh with your comments, especially this addition to their block notice. Noncommunicative autistic users, while problematic, are not quite the same as uncontrolled vandals. Trivialist (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The parent is blaming the edits on their disabled child and saying that their kid can't handle editing on Wikipedia. Ok fine, s/he should keep their kid off Wikipedia then, but if that wasn't WP:BROTHER enough, the parent is saying the kid's reaction is the Wikipedia community's fault. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would note that in addition, this 'parent' mentioned how their 17 year old child 'adores' the Wiggles and Barney like most children. I'm sure there are 17 year olds who like the Wiggles and Barney and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm also sure most parents, even parents of children with autism, will appreciate that it isn't common among 17 year olds and are not going to talk about their 17 year olds as if they are 7. Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about autism. The parent brought up the autism, I just acknowledged it. It's about a disruptive IP and (potentially a parent) saying their kid should be able to do whatever the hell s/he wants and that we bad people on Wikipedia shouldn't make him/her cry. Sorry, I don't buy that bit, whether the kid (if it is a kid) has autism or not. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK that's up to you I guess. I recognise the IP was disruptive (I even said so in the ANI discussion). But at the same time I honestly don't think that the first thing that enters the mind of a parent of a child with autism is "How can I let my son get away with disrupting wikipedia just to annoy the admins?". Furthermore, "how can I make the Admins assume bad faith by figuring out "whether the kid (if it is a kid) has autism or not"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not about admins either. This is either a situation where the vandal switched personas, saying s/he was a parent, or truly was a parent outraged by the fact that we're dealing with their kid like we would anyone else who disrupts this place (with warnings and blocks), and the kid couldn't handle it. Either way, that IP needs to be blocked, and if it's the latter, well that's unfortunate because nobody is here to hurt kids' feelings. However WP:CIR, no matter what.

Either way, I'd like to figure out how to work with you more effectively. This isn't the first time you've complained about me on ANI. I don't think I have an anti-autism bias. I think I have an anti-excuse bias and I suppose if it's close to home, could be interpreted differently. Ideas? Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of time taken to reply, I realised I needed to get up quite early this morning.

I appreciate it can be difficult. I work in an area which requires adherence to legislation and people often accuse us of being petty when they see things they don't like, or say that they have been caused stress etc. and sometimes it's difficult to know where to strike a balance, one thing I do know is that I have to be careful what I say to people whom I don't quite believe.

With regards to this particular user though. I guess I am thinking that from what I saw, it didn't seem like vandalism. Short term disruption, yes definitely and I think the 'mother' also perhaps naively came to her sons defence hoping that it would diffuse but it seemed to make things worse, but that may have been more of a lack of understanding of the disruption and possibly how to avoid it. Autism is difficult to understand even if you have it and I appreciate the community doesn't have a duty of care to accommodate everyone (which would be extremely difficult to apply given how many different people use/edit the English Wikipedia).

I also don't know how easy it would be to encourage the user to edit constructively, because I would be assuming that persons level of competence without any reference to how this user would act if positively allowed to edit on WP's terms. Everyone is different but most Autistics end up living by a set of rules, someone who specialises in education may have a better answer, however I do think the suggestion by Trivialist regarding the scratchpad was a good one. Whether it was since employed by the mother/son I guess we'll never know. I guess that's the extent of my 'ideas' for now Badanagram (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. More broadly, I'd like to change your opinion of me. I suppose the only way to do that is by empirical data. I hope I can do that. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I am genuinely not 100% sure what that means. But go ahead... Badanagram (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

By which he means that he hopes his actions and their results will change your opinion of him. Toddst1 isn't really that bad. :p Blackmane (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MV Cape Ray (T-AKR-9679) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |Ship propulsion=two Diesel engines (Kawasaki-MAN 14V 52/55A<br>1 shaft<br>, 28,0000hp<ref name=NIGSAUSF%2F>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control

You appear to have (a) reverted the removal of new content added to the article without consensus, and then (b) protected the article. Could you explain why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - never mind, misread history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Truman Crawford

Dang! I got done running my new article through toolsaver.org for reflinks & you had already tagged it for bare links. You might at least wait a few minutes... ;) GWFrog (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jakandsig Sockpuppet

Thanks for taking action on this guy. Looks like he is resorting to sockpuppetry now with the sole intent of launching personal attacks on the talk pages of the articles he has been disrupting [4]. Indrian (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Query about a block

Hello, Toddst. I see at User talk:92.11.195.84 that you have blocked the IP address. I Had just declined to block that IP address, as you can see in this edit. I wonder if you have any comment to make about why you blocked the IP, and whether you disagree with what I wrote? I really cannot see any justification for a blcok on a new editor when nobody had made any attempt at all to explain what was wrong with his or her editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen either the report or your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I came across the edit war on Home Rule Crisis independently and you are correct - the edit at 20:26 was not a revert. I should not have blocked and have unblocked accordingly. Thanks for pointing that out. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages

The discussion you linked to is about block notices, not sanction ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to "Blocks"

I removed the blocks section from my userpage as requested. I was goofing off past the limit back then. Let's just forget it... -- Veggies (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Noticeboards discussion

Hello, Toddst1. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is First Colonial Slave.

There is also currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding the same issue. The thread is John Casor and John Punch.

Scoobydunk has taken the issue to the noticeboards, which I applaud as the articles may finally get closure. As you took action previously I hope you can bring your expertise to the discussion as there has been a marked lack of interest in previous requests for outside views. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitary and Wrong

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

I request that you reopen the discussion on the Original research message boards because they are two separate incidents. I clearly defined the distinction in violations on both of the respective noticeboards. Wayne is in violation of WP:OR AND WP:NPOV which are two completely separate things. He's been committing OR violations and NPOV violations on this topic for months,so I require community feedback as to substantiate my claims on both aspects independently. It's quite possible that his edits are a violation of WP:OR but not WP:NPOV, vice-versa, both, or neither. They are two separate behaviors and I'm seeking assistance in identifying what constitutes OR and what constitutes NPOV which is why there are two separate noticeboards to begin with. I also ask that you recuse yourself from further involvement since you've shown a clear partiality to Wayne and have ignored my concerns and questions multiple times over the past week or so.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:OR AND WP:NPOV are two separate things. However, they're not completely separate - in fact, they are very related in this case.

Having two separate but related discussions about your issues with the same editor on the same articles is not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It is constructive and it is necessary. The OR claim has to do with Wayne's addition of "Some historians" and "Many historians" which is a violation of WP:OR as per WP:WEASEL because he provides no sources that make a claim to the majority, minority, or quantity of historians that hold that view about Punch's status. So if the OR noticeboard comes to a consensus, that does nothing to solve the issue of WP:NPOV where Wayne uses the word "slave" when describing Casor and "servant" when describing Punch as well as a different tone and narrative when referring to Punch, which is against WP:IMPARTIAL. The latter issue is not against WP:OR but it is against WP:NPOV. They are two separate and distinct behaviors, I clearly defined both, and a consensus on one does not affect the other. I'll also refer you to WP:FORUMSHOP which says " Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." <--I did exactly that. On the second noticeboard I posted on, I disclosed that the edits made by Wayne were also being discussed on the OR noticeboard and took the time to explain the multiple issues, why they are different, and why they require attention from their respective noticeboards. Your arbitrary closing of one is what's not constructive as it ignores the issue and gives the editor free reign to continue editing based on original research. Though the issue in question refers to the most recent incident, Wayne has been adding OR edits for the past 4 months and closing down the OR discussion is not constructive.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, the point is that the discussion about the issues will continue and hopefully reach consensus. No discussion about any issues has been closed down - rather, redirected to central place.

You're somewhere between splitting hairs, WP:TE and WP:GAME trying to start a meta-argument about the location of the discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We've already been through the Dispute resolution notice board and had third opinion and Wayne has ignored the previous consensus made between editors and has started editing against that consensus which is a violation of WP:TEND. I already reported this but you ignored it and closed the discussion. You also haven't acknowledged that these are two separate issues and that the WP:NPOV noticeboard isn't designed to give any consensus regarding violations of WP:OR. So any consensus reached on NPOVN will have nothing to do with the OR violations.

I also suggest that you stop with the unsubstantiated accusations as it's a violation of WP:PERSONAL and WP:AGF. No where has my editing been tendentious nor am I gaming the system. I'm merely following the instructions I was given after you closed my Admin Noticeboard discussion without investigation and ignoring the content of my post. I'm also well within the rules of WP:FORUMSHOP that specifically says it's reasonable to post in multiple noticeboards for multiple different issues. I'm not testing multiple noticeboards and dispute resolution in hopes my position is supported.

My position has already been supported twice and now I'm pursuing other appropriate remedies. Please restore the OR noticeboard discussion as you've inappropriately claimed to combine them but didn't combine anything. The conversation and content under the ORN is completely different from the content in NPOVN, and since you didn't add the discussion from the ORN to NPOVN you didn't combine them. For you to claim that the discussions are "combined" goes against the WPOVN guidelines which specifically says "If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, use the No original research noticeboard instead." I have questions about the material that constitutes both OR and NPOV which is why I used both noticeboards as I'm suppose to do. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2014 (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.

Some advice

Hi! I recently opened a NPOV dispute at Talk:...And Justice for All (album), in order to iron the differences between me and Dan56. However, I'm getting a feeling we're not going anywhere since the other side repeats his arguments again and again and makes references that are out of the question. I'm asking you as a more experienced editor, what is the best thing to do? Should I report the dispute on some noticeboard or should I wait for additional comments?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ravishyam Bangalore

Hi

This is about User:Ravishyam Bangalore who you unblocked. I was sorely tempted to join User:Unfitlouie on Aadhaar and Talk:Aadhaar while the recent reverts were taking place but refrained, although I followed it all closely.

Now please see the following edits today - all of which violate 5 pillars by User:Ravishyam Bangalore on UIDAI.

1) [5] = clearly removal of well sourced content from reliable sources. The edit summary is "(Deleted false and defamatory part. No Sale Deed and money payment done.)"

2) [6] = insertion of controversial unsourced Original Research. He classifies it as a "minor" edit with the edit summary "(→‎Impediments: completed the partial truth.)"

3) [7] = Note the source [8] clearly says "The UIDAI enjoys no legal backing either." but the edit summary for this deletion of relevant sourced text from a reliable source says "(→‎Description: RBI and Passport office cannot accept AN without legal backing. Hence deleted.)". Once again he marks it as a "minor" edit. The source does not use the words "RBI" or "passport office" so the misleading edit summary is clearly original research.

4) [9] = Deletion of a sourced criticism (which BTW is only 1 of 100's of sourced criticisms like this from eminent people). The edit summary says "(→‎Description: deleted obsolete and politically motivated comment.)" and once again he marked it as "minor".

5) [10], text like "Some people want to block all positive information on the anti-corruption tool like Aadhaar from spread. They want only false, negative and disinformation. because they are afraid of anti-corruption drive in India which had been blocking its progress for centuries." is used as post facto justification for these edits.

Now in view of your policy of blocking 3RR deprived editors who interfere with RaviShyam's grand designs, The ball is squarely in your court to sort out this editor/issue, as I don't want to be blocked again and since you let the beast (no AGF here) out of his cage, and communication is impossible. Notabede (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, you sure as hell smell like a sock of Unfitlouie‎‎ (talk · contribs). When I get a moment, remind me to file an SPI. Toddst1 (talk)!

@Notabede:

1. If UIDAI or Aadhaar Number (like SSN of USA) were illegal/invalid/void the Passport department would not issue passport, 2. Banks would not open bank accounts based on Aadhaar. 3. If people report problems para-wise on Aadhaar and UIDAI and help resolve it then it would be constructiove. 4. Blanking the right info by redirection to disinformation campaign is disruption.

Therefore, info is false reporting. There cannot be bigger logic and proof than this. Yes, we understand that a section of Indians associated with a political party are very much upset with anti-corruption tools and initiatives like Aadhaar and are busy only with blocking the right info and spreading disinformation.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Toddst1. If you are free now, please also deal with this pile of duckpoop User_talk:Unfitlouie#Examples_of_POV_pushing_on_Aadhaar, this OR/SYN + value judgments + list copyvio in [11] at Aadhaar#Status_of_AN_enrollment_and_generation in your preferred version of the article. Notabede (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ravishyam_Bangalore. section of Indians associated with a political party - any more conspiracy theories ? Read [12], [13] to see your error. Notabede (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportsmansguide

You informed Sportsmansguide (talk · contribs) that he was permanently blocked based on his promotional user name. However, based on this user's block log, which indicates he has never been blocked, I suspect you may have forgotten to carry out the deed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Duh. Fixed. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

You rejected my report of an IP for edi-warring and vandalism on this article, saying that it was a content dispute, not vandalism. I'm sorry, in my opinion, repeatedly adding the phrase "He resembles an Indian and can be mistaken for a Sikh, because of his turban and beard" to a biography of a living (Arab) person is indeed vandalism. This person has been doing this, using numerous IPs, for several months. However, despite reports by Gareth Kegg[14] and myself[15], the only action taken was temporary protection of the article. This has now expired, and the same editor is repeating the same BLP-breaching edit. Please re-examine the situation, and reconsider your decision. RolandR (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. This page needs protection, as we cannot engage with the multiple IPs. This isn't a content dispute as the 'content' added is nonsensical and the 'citations' bear no resemblance to the content added. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio

Don't you think you're overreacting? Why are his previous nominations kept, while unsourced, but today's not? You could as well remove everything since there's nothing to back all these nominations... Plus, "you" said I could provide a reference, if I wanted to (via your kind automated message) and I was willing to do so, but now you've made that impossible with the protection of the page, which was too extreme. Instead of removing people's good additions and making it impossible for normal contributors to edit the page, maybe you could have provided the source yourself. That would have been more useful. --Sofffie7 (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Did you notice those big box at the top of the page? They're kind of a hint. Semi-protection has been in effect for quite a while because of IP edits like yours, but with established editors like yourself repeatedly adding more unreferenced material, full protection is the only option. If you want to make a change to the page use {{editrequest}}. Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Toddst1 get over yourself. I edited DiCaprio's awards' page only once. So your point of me "repeatedly adding unsourced information" does not stand. Plus, it was true information. I did not invent it. Like Mtmelendez I watched the Oscar nominations and saw the information was missing so I edited the page. I hadn't seen in the history that you had already undone a similar edit from another user. Why don't you even delete the page, seriously, nothing else is sourced either. The point that you removed our edits because it wasn't sourced makes sense according to wikipedia's policies, but here it doesn't as the rules were not really in application. And even when you had the right to remove our edits based on that point (because you want to apply the rules regardless of the article's shape), you totally overreacted with full protection. I agree with Mtmelendez that this move was ridiculous.

And no I won't make an edit request, I don't have the heart to thanks to you. I don't want to feel like I have to beg from an admin to see what I want appear in the article. I leave this to someone else. --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the page history? I hate to break it to you but this isn't about just you. And I'll remind you to be civil. Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No I hadn't because I've just logged in. I'm sorry for the "get over yourself". I see you've changed back the level of protection after another admin told you so (yes I've now looked at your contribs and seen that others agreed it was unnecessary ;) ). In the meantime someone else added the requested sources. I consider the matter closed. --Sofffie7 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody told me to do anything. I voluntarily did that with good faith. Really, why so much vitriol? Try citing your sources and stop getting huffy when you don't. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

editing fully protected articles

Ok, I've just logged in. For the sake of a little background, I haven't been editing Wikis regularly for a few years, just adding or improving whatever I find that needs fixing or updating. So, about my edits: I was watching the Oscars nominations broadcast, and saw that the subject of the article was nominated. While reading the article about him, I went to the page in question and saw it wasn't updated with the recent information. So I edited it.

Now please explain what's wrong with all this, without diverting into instruction-creep arguments. I thought full-protection is reserved for situations of controversial topics or edit-warring. Protection is also used against Vandalism, but including unsourced information in good faith is not vandalism. Now, I made the mistake of editing a fully-protected article, but my edits were made in good faith with current and common knowledge information. I should have included my source ([16]), or the thousand others now public. But instead of creating administrative posts, reverts, apologies, article talk discussions, messages between users, etc., can't we just update the article with a source and move along? Perhaps a more important discussion is what kind of vandalism-deterrent this article deserves, and whether full-protection is being too aggressive in the spirit of open editing in Wikipedia.

I will be offline for a few hours, so please understand my responses will be delayed. Thank you.- Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Pages are protected for a variety of reasons including repeated addition of unsourced material. As an admin, you're not allowed to edit fully protected pages unless you're doing so in an administrative capacity -i.e. removing vandalism, BLP issue or replying to a {{editrequest}} on the talk page that is uncontroversial and within policy, etc. Editing the article during full protection outside of administrative duties is not allowed. Editing the article in violation of the reason it was protected is an abuse of your administrative powers and can be grounds for removal of administrative privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, is there a clear notice for admins that they are about to edit a fully protected page? Because I can imagine admins editing while oblivious to full protections being in effect (and have in fact seen this happen).--Atlan (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

yep -there is a big red pallor over the page and a message that says something to the effect of "Hey admin, you're editing a fully protected page. Do you know what you're doing?" And I'll 'fess up - I've almost edited through protection more than once. It's that big red thing that stopped me. Kind of hard to miss. Toddst1 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving rants on the yoga trainer AFD

Thank you. I should have thought of that rather than collapsing things. I forget that there is a talk page associated with a discussion page. Seems redundant most of the time, but makes perfect sense here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of most-listened-to radio programs‎

Explanation of page protection

You have protected the page List of most-listened-to radio programs‎ with the comment "‎(Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: / WP:EW)". Could you please explain this action? There have been no reports of edit warring. Likewise, the content is more than adequately sourced, and there has been no talk page discussion questioning the reliability of the sources. aprock (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could review the recent history of that page [17]. It was easier to protect it than block you and possibly others for edit warring. I've unprotected it. Let's see how it goes. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain your edit summary? There was no addition of unsourced, or poorly sourced content. It's not clear why you would add that in the protection comment. aprock (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Toddst1 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have an explanation, and just threw that summary up without thinking, that's fine. aprock (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The edits don't appear to be sourced - certainly not using <ref> tags identfying where the material came from and you were edit warring. Please move along. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring accusation

The following discussion 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.

---

WP:EW states very clearly states: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Unless you are able to provide evidence that I have "repeatedly overriden somesone's contribution", I request that you strike that assertion from you ANI post as well as the word 'partisan', which has very negative connotations. (please see the fourth bullet point under WP:NPA#WHATIS). Thank you.- MrX 16:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:STICK comes to mind. Toddst1 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:MrX, please don't forget the rest of the policy - for example, it goes on to say "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" ES&L 16:50, 19 January 2014 (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.

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ridiculous_blocks_of_MrX_and_Sportfan5000_on_Duck_Dynasty. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just full edit protected the article for 3 days. I believe this was a minimum first step to a better solution to the problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have noted at the ANI discussion, I have unblocked MrX per the consensus there. I have not taken any action regarding Sportfan5000 since the consensus for an unblock was not yet apparent. Fram (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow

The Holdek situation is troubling. I don't need educating on proxying for blocked editors, but there was nothing fishy or even sideways about his/her email; it was only a response to the pings on the RFC to clarify his/her vote (which was the reason for the pings to begin with, since the RFC became so muddled). Well, I suspect there's something else going on there that I'm not privy to, but I wanted to clarify that it was quite an innocent email, in response to my ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on Holdek's talk and restored email. Thanks for clarifying the situation. I think you're privy to all the info - it's all there in plain sight. Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at AKS.9955's talk page.
Message added 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:jakandsig

Hey,

Just dropping a line because you gave this user a 48 hour block for edit warring earlier this month. I am sure you have not kept up with his activities since, but he has continued to push disruptive edits across wikipedia while launching personal attacks against multiple editors. As a result, I believe I will be launching an RFC/U regarding him in the next few days. I am not asking you to do any heavy lifting, but I was hoping you might be open to endorsing the RFC once I get everything in order. Indrian (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that edit warring and personal attacks are indeed occurring. I also see that you're edit warring as well. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I know that you do not edit video game articles so you are not going to be up to speed on the issues, but Jakandsig is pushing bad edits through POV pushing and adding incorrect information, misrepresenting sources, removing sourced material with no attempt to discredit the sources, generally refusing to discuss controversial edits on the talk page, and launching personal attacks on every editor that disagrees with him. I and a number of other editors have been protecting the integrity of those articles from one rogue user, which is not edit warring. None of the other video game project editors I have discussed this issue with consider anyone but Jakandsig to be in the wrong here. Indrian (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh?

Why does it say to me "Your edit on [No page] has been reverted by Toddst1."? TDFan2006 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted User:Bonusballs. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I left it as a redirect to his page because it was vandalised by a sock related to this guy. TDFan2006 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I figured that out. At first blush, I couldn't understand why you would mess with someone's user page and reverted. Then on further examination, I realized that it was a hostile creation, so I deleted it. Your actions seemed completely reasonable. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! =) TDFan2006 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Please see WP:ANI#Review of block and admin authority. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked Aprock. That was a silly, heavy handed block with very little justification. Please consider trying to talk to well-meaning editors in future if you disagree with how they source content. Using your admin tools in this way is only going to upset people and alienate them, it does very little to project Wikipedia articles from abuse. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said 80.1.107.208 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)