He won't let up. Maybe consider protecting the page indefinitely, or at least until this most recent rush of disruption subsides. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed 66.94.192.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had a {{schoolip}} and {{schoolblock}} on the talkpage. A whois check listed it as belonging to an office address for Family Video. I changed the first to {{Shared IP corp}}, but your block notice still has it showing erroneously at Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions. Could you either change your notice to {{anonblock}} or remove it entirely? Thanks.--Auric talk 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. I'm not sure what the info I had when I tagged the IP as such, but Family video is the ISP and behaviorally it sure does quack like bored schoolkids. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be kids using a parent's office connection, but thanks.--Auric talk 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And since it looks like the petty vandalism is continuing, I've re-blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd, I wanted to let you know that the block of User:Indigo Tourism is being discussed at Editor Retention, and ask if you might wish to join the conversation. - Khazar2 (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to reconsider, and lift, the ban on User:Indigo Tourism. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Tourism (talk · contribs) is not banned. S/he may request unblocking, which I (or any other admin) would almost certainly grant if s/he indicated that the account was to be renamed and used within our policies. However, I have no indication that Indigo Shire's Tourism department has any interest in editing anything on Wikipedia besides promoting tourism to their area. Toddst1 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page "pending changes" and indef. semi-protected at the same time? --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wasn't paying attention. Thanks for pointing it out. I've dropped the PC. Toddst1 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Toddst1, I was thinking that User: Shoka1234 deserves a longer block due to this comment, the user was blocked for personal attacks and harassment before, and frankly the user frequently violates WP:V and probably deserved a longer block then 12 hours from the beginning. Telling two editors to quote, "kill themselves" seems like it definitely jumps a boundary to me. STATic message me! 04:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol you nerdy little morons are just mad because you know i'm right. It was certified 2 days ago but now you're butthurt because you see that it's directly on the website. And I won't get unblocked because all the admins suck each other off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoka1234 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, Vape. Toddst1 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also just want to apologize, for coming at you so hostile time before this that we discussed. I was in a stressful situation with that user I reported, which affected my response. I do respect you as an editor and administrator and have always noticed you do a lot of good around here. Cheers, STATic message me! 07:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. Thanks for the kind words. Toddst1 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago as a novice wikipedia contributor, I opened an account and started developing an article about a subject that was both my research work and one in which I had an admitted pecuniary interest. Perhaps my first error was using the wikipedia editor directly to develop my article rather than writing the article and submitting a near final draft. Even before I'd learned enough to properly wiki-cite or reference my work, the wiki-lawyers descended upon me in droves. At least I had an AfD trial for a day or two, but by then, there was really nothing that I might have done to overcome my initial blunders, and while I had an important contribution to make, both my account and the subject article, subject matter which I am both uniquely knowledgeable about and in which I continue to have a pecuniary interest in, are now subject to prejudice if and when I'd care to resubmit a draft. Furthermore, during the AfD trial, at least one contributor had advanced scientific training, and given the quality and quantity of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles which have been published one the subject matter since my feeble first attempt, I had hoped to elicit his help in reviewing and resubmitting an article under same name, but I don't know how to find the original AfD trial manuscript to identify and approach him. The AfD was entitled 'IsoSproutPlex,' and you were the admin who ultimately approved the deletion. I need help and don't want to take the same "bull in a china shop" approach that I took last time. What would you recommend I do? How can I find the original AfD manuscript? Thank you RGK (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I've restored the article to User:/Toddst1/Sandbox/IsoSproutPlex so it can be worked on. I'm glad to help you with this. First off, there was no AFD. It was speedily deleted as advertising without an AFD. I'm traveling right now, so have limited time but feel free to edit that page at will. Probably good to review WP:COI and WP:Advertising before you start. I'll be home later this weekend and will pitch in too. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have to take that back. That was a clear copyright violation of several websites including [1] and I had to delete it again. May I suggest you review Wikipedia:FIRSTARTICLE and start a brand new article at Wikipedia:Afc? Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway Toddst1, SODZyme = IsoSproutPlex, so maybe that was a version of an article that was speedily deleted, I cannot remember. My preferred starting point was not that article anyway, but an article I had developed under User:Robert Kavanaugh/IsoSproutPlex that was deleted by another admin whom I've recently asked to restore the deleted content to my user area. I don't have a wikimedia markup version of that user area article so I'm hoping he'll restore it. I'd very much appreciate your help and input, so I'll write more here when the draft is either restored or I have to fumble through a new, scratch version. Anyway, I found the name of the another admin whom I'd fiercely debated over the merits of my original article, it wasTim Vickers. I'll want to solicit his aid and support after updating some important new references in a sandbox version. Thanks again Toddst1. RGK (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of whether "pending changes" prevent further sockpuppet, COI and POV edits, but this page has been infrequently edited recently. Are there any bad IPs willing to do the same thing others did? --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase please? Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been protected long enough from sockpuppetry and content disputes, and I don't think many IPs will do the same things that cause the page to be semi-protected. Lower to "pending changes" to allow IPs to edit? George Ho (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure. I can do that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least level-2 is better than unprotection, right? I've not thought about PC2, but this is more a brilliant idea than either PC1, semi-protection, or unprotection. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our "friend" (whom you thought was me) WilliamT29 (talk · contribs) is back making disruptive edits I warned the right way (by talking it out on his talk page instend of templeting him like you suggested) but I might need your help I just want to get blocked for trying to the right thing...again. Digifan23 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh he's not listing to us could you block him please you do you want me to report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎; or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or something else Digifan23 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamT29

WilliamT29 is the same as blocked user William569, who is a sockpuppet evading a previous block. See here. Regards! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've returned under several names, and their sockpuppet case is not being looked at. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does editor User:UTChattanooga deserve to be blocked for his comments on my Talk Page? If so, I would be obliged if you would do it. (I had reverted his edit to Red coat (British army)) Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On its own, I'd say that was a seriously dickish personal attack and I've left a 4im warning on the user's page. I'll look further into the matter tomorrow but as it stands, any further bullshit would be grounds for an indef. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you - another attack on my Talk Page from User:UTChattanooga just occurred. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and appropriately blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: paid editing- Nope, just spent time researching him to write an article. read quite a few of the articles written. Wasn't close to done but accidentally hit save. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aluer11 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd,

On this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrestrial_fibre_optic_cable_projects_in_Africa) you placed a notice about "misplaced WP:ELs strewn throughout article". Can you help me understand what I'm doing wrong with external links or perhaps give me an example of how one of the entries might be done better? Thanks. Also, you placed a note about the article needing "more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources". I wish there was a reliable independent source of information on terrestrial fibre projects in Africa. The references you see are about as authoritative as it gets to my knowledge. What should I do? Stevesong (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this info on where to put external links. If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user you referred to in a recent block log for another IP user does not in fact seem to be blocked as you stated (unless there is some range block I'm not aware of or something). Furthermore, I'm unsure as to any possible connection between the IP addresses - you seem to have connected them based on a single edit but such an edit is all too common around here (again, unless there is something I'm not aware of, such as deleted contributions). Could you please look into this? (As someone who thinks the Wikipedia community can be far too strict at times, I really don't want to see yet another user treated too harshly.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the block expiry of 108.27.128.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before blocking 108.14.181.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They're both dynamic Verizon IPs from Queens making the same edit to an article with a very short history. There is no doubt that they are connected. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I particularly liked the brevity of your closing statement. Often less is better. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have sources for his edits. Not sure why you blocked. John Reaves 02:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S/he should understand now. I've expanded the comments at the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. The user was correcting a mistake in the article. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. As a fan of Hägar the Horrible, Wikipedia:Verifiability and particularly WP:BURDEN must be optional in your book. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Not terribly urgent - from before. Go Phightins! 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A new mail from me. - Jayadevp13 06:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your attention to this matter. While nominating the article for GA, the instructions were to purge the talk page. I think I made a mistake. Thanks for correcting me and your polite message. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Note that you can WP:Archive a talk page if it is clear where the archive is and that older messages have been archived. Toddst1 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll keep that in mind. Thanks again and I'm glad that we met! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your attention. I have updated my comments on the talk page. I would really appreciate it if you could help in restoring the content of this article and also invite a list of critical comments for me to address them one by one and also incorporate the relevant changes through consensus. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

brevity
Thank you for quality articles, biographies, buildings, Murder of James Craig Anderson, for teaching, for your "willingness to help out editors in difficult and thankless situations", for brevity, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 May 2009, 22 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]