User talk:Toddy1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The user Arcillaroja

Dear Wikipedian,

I am Marina. I am writing to you in order to clarify my fears. One of the users have been reverting my edits on Western Europe, as well as other European-related issues. I noticed, that his or her page is full of talk page entries related just to that. Would you mind to stay in touch with me? I read about vandalism on Wikipedia and I fear this is one of these cases... I hope, of course that I am wrong but... the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. By evidence I mean Arcilla's talk page as well as entry, and the fact that rather than move a critical comment from user page to a talk page, it was simply reverted. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Muawiyah I was technically the SECOND Umayyad Caliph.

I had provided the literary source for this which was Al-Tabari's 9th Century epic biography of Muawiyah I. Technically, Muawiyah was the 2nd Caliph. Uthman bin al-Affan was ALSO of the Umayyad clan and a close kinsman of Abu Sufyan (Muawiyah's biological father). Even though, the concept of the Rashidun Khulafa (Counselor or Rightly Guided Successors) was instituted by the Abbasid caliphs Harun al-Rashid and his son Mamun al-Rashid. The Abbasids labelled the first four standard Islamic caliphs as Rashidun (Counselors or Rightly Guided). Uthman falls under this category as well, but technically he was the very first Caliph of Islam of the House of Umayyah. Muawiyah was the one who actually established the Umayyad Dynasty, which was a HEREDITARY dynasty of Caliphs which were no longer ELECTED by the Islamic Shura (Council). Uthman was appointed as successor (caliph) by Umar but this appointment was not based upon genealogical inheritance. So from that perspective, Muawiyah was the one who ESTABLISHED the Umayyad Dynasty as a hereditary dynasty, to keep it within the House of Umayyah. Similar to Abu Al-Abbas, who founded the Abbasid Caliphate, but it was his brother and immediate successor Al-Mansur who was the one who ESTABLISHED the Abbasid Dynasty. It was Al-Mansur who founded the Abbasid capital city of Baghdad. When I stated that Muawiyah was technically the second Umayyad caliph, that is a fact, just as the following statement that he was the one who really ESTABLISHED the Umayyad Dynasty. Maybe it should be re-phrased as that Muawiyah was technically the 2nd Umayyad Caliph, but the one who really established the Umayyad Dynasty. You see, Muawiyah violated the term and condition of his being handed over the Caliphate by Hasan ibn Ali, which was that he cannot appoint his offspring as Caliph on his own accord, without the approval of the Islamic Shura (Council). Just before Muawiyah passed away, during the days his health was deteriorating, Muawiyah issued his wasihat (will) that his son Yazid become Caliph with or without the approval of the Islamic Shura (Council). It was this violation of policy, which caused the Civil War when Yazid took the seat of Caliph (further aggravated by Yazid's un-Islamic, hedonistic lifestyle). Yazid's mother was an Arab Christian who encouraged him to adopt many customs that were Christian (among of which was drinking wine). One of Yazid's best childhood friends was a Syrian Christian named John of Damascus (Yuhannah al-Dimashqi). Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Не нужно для этого.

==Speedy deletion nomination of Dévastation_class_ironclad_floating_battery==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Dévastation_class_ironclad_floating_battery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.

забыть его, мне понравилась ваша новая править на этой странице. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Joker16 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at User:Toddy1 you will see that I used tables to improve the layout. Why not experiment with tables on User:DJ-Joker16?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the page on Porta Nigra. I understand how to do that now. and also, I am going to New Trier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Joker16 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I give you my american treat. Thanks for being very supportive to me. You are a truly unique wikipedia member. I congratulate you. Bravo! Bravo! Haberneroboy16 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Toddy1. You have new messages at DJ-Joker16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February 2013

Hello! Information was deleted because it was redundant. Ukrainian language is the only official language of Ukraine, so there is no reason for Sumy, Obukhiv, Irpin etc. names to be translated into another languages. MAXXX-309 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

English language Wikipedia is not an official Ukrainian Government publication. It is useful for English language Wikipedia to have the name in the "official language" of the Ukrainian Government. But it is not useful or necessary to restrict English language Wikipedia to the "official language". About half the population of Ukraine speak and write in Russian as their native language. It is useful to readers of English-language Wikipedia for the articles on Ukrainian cities to have the name in both languages. The information is not redundant.

You know this - you have seen the name in Russian in the infoboxes of articles such as the one on Kiev. (I know you have seen that article, because you contributed to the talk page.)

If you want to promote your ideas, do so by campaigning on people's doorsteps at elections. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to promote your nationalist ideas.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Small remark about Zas2000

I think it will be interesting for you to know, that Zas2000 was blocked ten times and eventually indefinitely blocked in ru-wiki for war edits and too controversial edits. Just for information. --Movses (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: refactoring

On the contrary, I appreciate the efforts to edit for clarity. Some users might be upset, hence your preemptive apology was prudent, but in my case it won't be needed. Thanks for the helping hand! MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Salafi/wahabi edits

Dear ,I am much thankful that you have been really helpful in spending your time on these Articles to guide me and making an atmosphere of discussion.My most of the concerns are related to difference between Salaf and Salafi.The bias I complained in most of the sources is that Salafi bias through which they praise salaf in order to deceive or to give an impression to readers that they are from them.This is most biased and non neutral, POV found on Salafi sites.Where as, there is clear history available of this movement on various neutral sites I am objecting Salafi Publications and few other Salafi sites due to this blatant POV.The salafi movement must have information and headings on this 19th century Salafi movement only.The article must start from its own history not by taking the name of old Salaf.I hope u understands.Thanks Read here and here Shabiha (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Annunziata Rees-Mogg

Toddy:

• 1) "Deleting the citation is not OK" -- the citation (as pointed out in my edit summary which you apparently didn't bother to read) is a dead/invalid link.
• 2) In any event if that were your sole concern, you would not have made a wholesale revert of all the edits I made, unless you either:
  • oppose them all but cannot justify the opposition
  • or are simply too lazy to bother

I will return to the article once I can do so without violating 3RR as my edits are perfectly fine. You removed Matthew Glanville's occupation, you changed the lede's MOS format, and you restored info regarding the couple's minor child, when minor children biodata is not supposed to be included. Quis separabit? 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If the citation is a dead link, the correct thing to do is to mark it dead link. Deleting it and replacing with a fact tag is the wrong thing to do.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK fine. What about the rest?? Quis separabit? 23:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

British English

Hi! {{British English}} should not be added to articles, only to talk pages or editnotices. For edit notices, {{Use British English}} is probably better, cheers, 83.254.128.245 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Displacement Growth of RN 1st Class Battleships 1630-1950.gif missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Displacement Growth of RN 1st Class Battleships 1630-1950.gif

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam

Regarding this revert, of course Jesus is not a a purely Islamic figure, but the Jesus in Islam article is about not about Christianity, and WikiProject Christianity's scope is limited to articles about Christianity.

The Jesus work group perameres were [[[Template_talk:WikiProject Islam#Jesus_work_group|reacantly added]] to the WikiProject Islam template. Before this articles about Jesus, even those such as Disciples of Jesus in Islam which had nothing to do with Christianity, were forced to use the Christianity template. This is why those articles are tagged as being part of WikiProject Christianity. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk blanking

(As someone just pointed out to me), think you should be aware that of WP:BLANKING, regarding User_talk:174.91.70.135. Widefox; talk 18:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Is 174.91.70.135 your IP?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

huh? no. I repeat, technically your edits on that page are WP:3RR. I made the same mistake recently, so thought I'd share that with you, else you may get blocked. Widefox; talk 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Doing exactly three reverts over a period of two days is not a technical breach of that rule.

In any case the edits occurred between 28 and 30 March. You posted your message more than two weeks later on 15 April, which seems a bit pointless.

If you read [1] you will understand what this issue was. The IP editor stopped making unhelpful edits, but for some reason blanked his talk page. I am well aware of the rules, which is why I complied with them.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well at least you know now that users can blank their talk pages. Widefox; talk 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Which I have known for some years.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Salafi

Am Not New/Dil e Muslim is a part of the Barelvi movement, just like Shabiha. Over the past seven years, more or less every open follower of this movement I have encountered on Wikipedia has displayed the same POV pushing and lack of concern for site policy. Just a reminder, request and thanks for your attention to the article. Aside from myself, there are at least four other editors stuck reverting his tendentious editing across half a dozen articles and it's a lot of work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Diagram of early scholars in Islam and their books

What do you think of the diagram now in the talk section of the Islam page--Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am giving the matter thought and will reply in a few days.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yazid I Talk Page

I would have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of my response to Sayom. Being described as a shill is not being abusive. First of all, I stated that he sounded like a Saudi-Salafi shill...I didn't openly state that Sayom WAS a Saudi-Salafi shill. Please make note of the syntax and semantics of the English language. Also, the Merriam-Webster/Dictionary.com definition of shill are the following excerpts:

shill noun Definition of SHILL 1 a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

shill [shil] Show IPA Slang. noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Consequentially, the definition of shill is really not abusive...It is certainly not flattering, but it is not abusive or profane. It is more of an unfavourable criticism, if anything else. I also would appreciate it if you would re-evaluate lecturing fellow WP editors such as myself. You have probably never even been to Saudi Arabia. If you had, then you would know that it is Saudi law that a woman cannot even drive a car there by herself and has no individual legislative rights. I have been there a few times. Here is a clip from a WP article itself:

For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan, real estate investor

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

When you are in a hole, stop digging deeper.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto,, Be polite, If you hate Saudi Arabia, and it's people IT'S YOUR PROBLEM. (as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses) not only women, even men do this, So no one can LIE. Don't use my country low to justify your bad talk.__Sayom (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What hole are you implying ? Please clarify...Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First law of holes.

In my opinion, the best solution would have been to just delete the words I suggested from your post. (i.e. climbing out of the hole). Instead you tried to justify what you wrote, which had a different effect than you intended. Instead of showing that you were right (I assume that you intended this), it made you look really bad (digging yourself deeper in).

I should add that we ALL do this some of the time, and it is best if our friends point this out to us, rather than have our enemies report us to WP:ANI. I once got a DIGWUREN warning for an unwise comment.

I think that we should encourage Sayom to use the sources to improve the article. There are lots of editors who write from the rebel-POV. Some editors who use sources to show the other side would be helpful. Remember the history consists not only of what really happened (historians like Tabari are good secondary sources for that), but also how the events are perceived. It is relevant that some people regard the rebel leader as a hero, and write fantasies in which he killed hundreds of men. If some people are writing from a pro-government viewpoint, it would be useful to to record this in the article. I agree with you that it is relevant who is writing some of this stuff - and claims by modern political or religious figures about events in Yazid's time need qualifying.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I now understand what you mean by digging myself deeper into the hole. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that Sayom or anyone who uphold the POV pushing of what is essentially and accurately Salafi ideology, should be encouraged to write opposing views. However, Sayom has not cited anything that is accurately documented by the Islamic scholars he is name-dropping. The very scholars he is mentioning wrote mostly (not entirely) the opposite of what Sayom is touting. I cited Ibn Katheer, Tabari, Ibn Al-Athir, Al-Dhahabi, Baladhuri, etc., to their very famous works. Guys like Khoei and Sallabi are modern political fundamentalist who, if you were to actually read some of their works, would be bewildered at their logic and rationale when virtually REINVENTING long-established historical narratives by the likes of Ibn Ishaq, Abu Mikhnaf, Tabari, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Baladhuri, etc...However, I'll tone it down and allow our friend Sayom to dig himself/herself into their own hole of delusion. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yazid I

I will do it after I complete "Yazid I" Arabic page (His life as a crown prince is remained).__Sayom (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Muawiyah page

Hi Toddy I have added some references as requested.

I did not add the "Sunni scholars interpret.." that has been there for a very long time. Its possible I may have moved it. The history goes back to 30 August 2010 and it was there then and must have been there before that point. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Salafi movement 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Difference between mean and average

Hey) The mean and average are two different figures. For example, if you have the series of numbers 1, 5, and 15, the average number is (1+5+15)/3 = 7. But the mean is 5 - the middle number in the series. Regardless, in the Lviv article it states "The average temperatures are −3.1 °C (26 °F) in January and 18.3 °C (65 °F) in July" but that's not accurate. According to the chart those are the mean temperatures for those months and not the average. So the article needs to either state "The mean temperatures are −3.1 °C (26 °F) in January and 18.3 °C (65 °F) in July" or it should say ""The average temperatures are -0.1 °C (31.8 °F) in January and 23.9 °C (75 °F) in July." The average temperature is probably the more relevant figure, as people are more likely to ask, "So what's the average weather like in January" and not "What's the mean temperature in January?"Iowamutt (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of average and mean are incorrect.

• Mean - this is the most common type of average calculation. In your example (1+5+15)/3 = 7
• Median - this is also a type of average, and is the one in the middle.
• Mode - this is another kind of average - the most common value, which you cannot really calculate in your example.

With temperature, historically there were maximum and minimum thermometers - which recorded the maximum and the minimum temperature for the period. People still use this idea with modern instruments.

• Average maximum = the mean of the maximum daily temperatures for the month.
• Average minimum = the mean of the minimum daily temperatures for the month.
• Average = the mean temperature for the month.

In most contexts the word "average" and "mean" have the same meaning - as you have illustrated, not everyone has a correct understanding or words like "mean" and "median".--Toddy1 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Toddy1! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Uzhhorod

Would changing the weather box in Uzhhorod to green precipitation colours and standard temperature colours be a good idea? It was changed again and I would like to avoid constantly changing colours. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet at University of Delaware edit

Quick note: My objection to the edit made to University of Delaware was not to the removal of the word "renowned" but the sockpuppet who made the edit. I'm totally fine if you want to take responsibility for the edit and it's probably a good one. ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Incredible level of personal attacks

I just perused through Special:Contributions/Flagrantedelicto and was quite shocked at the blatant personal attacks from a clearly mature editor who is fluent (possible a native speaker) in English. Considering that you're the most experienced editor in the disputes in question, have you considered building an actual case regarding the constant insults and rudeness? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I had some problems last September with a far worse editor called User:Kaz. I found that any complaint about his/her behaviour increased the level of awfulness. He/she would have got away with it if he/she had not got carried away by his/her success and adjudicated on his/her own move request - which was the straw that broke the camel's back. If I an avoid it, I would rather not go through that again.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember we are dealing with someone whose POV is such that generally accepted facts such as Hussein ibn Ali's rebellion have to be reinterpretted so that it was not a rebellion. Some time, when I get round to it, I plan to re-open a discussion on the following paragraph in the article on Yazid I.

Nonetheless, most Islamic scholars during the Abbasid Caliphate regarded Caliph Yazid I as a tyrant who was directly responsible for three major historical atrocities in standard Islamic history: The Karbala massacre of the Hashimite caravan of Husayn ibn Ali, the pillage and plunder of the city of Madinah (by Yazid's general Ibn Uqbah al-Murri) in which over 10,000 Muslim citizens were slaughtered and Muslim women were indiscriminately raped, and the siege of Mecca in which Yazid's commander Ibn Numayr ordered his troops to catapult fireballs to the shrine of the Kaaba.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

If you look at the sources cited, I think [21] and [22] are merely an Urdu copy of the same source as [23] (though not necessarily the same volume). I tried to ask for clarification about these sources, but I got stonewalled. If you have read volume 19 of History of al-Tabari you will see that Flagrantedelicto has misunderstood.

I think that the paragraph is synthesis from original research; i.e. it is not based on secondary sources saying what Abbasid scholars thought. Tabari is a secondary source for the events of the 600s, but a primary source for what Tabari thought. Furthermore, it is not clear what some of the sources actually are - in spite of requests for clarification. And the source I was able to check does not back up what is claimed for it.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, especially the varying levels at which one source could be either primary or secondary depending on how it's used. I own a condensed version of Tabari's History in Arabic such that it doesn't reach the normal enormous number of volumes, but a better idea would be the widely available and trustworthy translations on GoogleBooks. I know what it's like to have so many things on your to-do list that the hard work has to wait. When you're ready, I'm down to help tackle this - POV pushing along with having the gall to defend it so ardently really get my goat. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you lnow, I started a thread at ANI. Taken together, the guy's behavior during the last three days alone is pretty intense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

He's trying to out you again right in the middle of ANI. This is beyond ridiculous. I'm not sure what to do at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather at 17:27, 21 June 2013 suggested in his/her mediation role that we do a new section started laying out exactly what each editor sees is wrong with the content. Talk:Muawiyah I#a new section started laying out exactly what each editor sees is wrong with the content. I have tried to format it in such a way that it is clear who thinks what. I hope that we do not get another wall of text with partial copies of other posts from random talk pages, with dozens of signatures, etc. I suggest that you follow CambridgeBayWeather's advice and state your views.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your not knowing what to do, I can only go on my extremely limited experience of similar cases. With User:Kaz, he/she got an indefinite block about a month after admins started getting involved in the dispute. There are similarities in behaviour in the cases (but also differences). After Kaz was blocked, he/she came back as superficially-neutral editor User:Budo and he got indefinitely blocked about 7 weeks later. There were some other socks and possible socks along the way. This may give you idea of the times scales involved. With Kaz it went to various administrator's noticeboards quite a few times - neutral people find that they do not have time to read and understand confusing walls of text referring to people and events that they have never heard of.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for a new section. Please would you considering doing a table for a new section on the article talk page, showing each citation you think is copied from a blog/forum website, and a link to the blog/forum website, together with comments. I suggest you work on this on a Sandbox and only post it on the talk page when it is ready.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It will need to be explicit. so that the user can readily verify that there has been copying.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

He's been indeffed for some sort of off-Wiki email exchange with admins. In the meantime, I don't know about you but my brain needs a rest for a day or so. Without all that negativity, we should be able to progress slowly but surely with improvements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I am sorry that this has happened. I have been dealing with him/her since the start of the year - as you can see from his/her talk page. He/she made some apparently useful contributions to two articles - though there are POV issues, identity of source issues, and representation of what is in the source issues. I learned some useful things from him/her.

His/her problem is that he/she has a Zoroastrian view of life - a great battle between Ahura Mazda (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil). This view contaminates everything, including dealing with other editors. For him/her Ali ibn Abi Talib and his sons represent the Messiah, and Hazrat Muawiyah and his son represent Angra Mainyu. The reality was that they were all family - they had quarrels and disagreements - but also love and respect for each other. If you want to know what human goodness really is, read Tabari's description of how Yazīd ibn Muawiya's reacted to news that Hussein ibn Ali had died at Karbala and the description of his conversation with Hussein's impudent son. It is very humbling.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Salafi movement 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Diagram

Have you read that book by Aisha Bewley you mentioned on Talk:Muawiyah I‎? My guess is that you have not done this so far. I suspect that you will wish to modify Talk:Islam#The diagram we are discussing once you have.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddy, I have read the book by Aisha Bewley. I have a copy of it. I could add content to the Muawiyah article and add references with page number and everything else. I just wanted to see what peoples views are first on how they think the article should be structured before I add any further content. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Salafi

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

Egyptian Navy Ensign

I think there was a mistake in reverting back to the Egyptian Navy unofficial flag. I see you said that the one I made has no reliable resources. Have you checked the file description page? The ensign you reverted the page back to has no existence whatsoever in Egypt. It's completely made up. I added a link to an image where the 4 flags of the Egyptian Armed Forces are next to each other and you can see the navy flag. you can also google it or search for any other photo for an armed forces commander.

Also, I live in Alexandria, Egypt, the headquarters of the Egyptian Navy and I'm telling you that the blue flag is the only flag we have ever seen whether on the navy headquarters or any navy building or a ship.. This is the true and only Naval Ensign for Egypt.

--Zo3a (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Navy Ensign follow-up

here are some link for images and youtube video including the flag i spent hours making

Graduation ceremony of the Egyptian Naval Academy

• at 1:20 behind the TV reporter and WAY MORE OBVIOUSLY at 8:30 The Giant middle blue FLAG

Yes saw a flag like your flag at 8:30. Whether that is the Egyptian naval ensign is hard to say.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• If it wasn't enough at 5:30 here a close up loock for the complete flag, enjoy it

Unclear.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Formal Navy Commander in Chief Mohab Mamish

• Mamish official photo with the blue flag to the right

No, does not show it.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Army Spokesman

• Egyptian Army Spox - second flag from left
  

Unclear.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Another Angle

Unclear.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Field Marshal Tantawy

• Tantawy - Second flag from left

Unclear.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

General Sisi

• General Sisi - Ousting Morsi speech - second flag from left

Unclear.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

--Zo3a (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly the flag of the Navy, there's various sources that do show that. But without proof of it being flown from a ship, calling it an "ensign" is not proven, and it should not be treated as such. There are many countries which have a naval flag and naval ensign which are separate designs, there's no reason to believe Egypt doesn't have both as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Acts on user talk pages

You had directly contorted what another user said noting against it. Yet spoke to them in the very same manner. This in inappropriate conduct and standards. I did not change what you meant in any way considering what you linked. Only negated the personal snip at that user. Try to shy away from those when doing talk page edits. We are all a community.

Your original message : Hello, I'm Toddy1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Muawiyah I seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Toddy1 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet: The user made no real mention or length of discussion on what they did. So the designation to deem it 'less than neutral' is questionable. Maybe they needed to cite it, though there was nothing applicable to state your mention. And you acted in a manner you stated the other user should not act in. You acted less neutral to their edit. When it was just a basic edit, then stated "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and and so is not a useful place for you to express your point of view". I would say this falls into : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALKNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Do not associate someones behavior wrongly , ask them to cite instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkreign11 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Claude Barnes

Hi, You posted something on my page regarding my interest in seeing CLaude Barnes entry deleted. I don't think the person rises to the notability standard as deployed by wikipedia people. The entry basically reads like a resume and many of the references are dead links--which I will try and fix. Seriously, if this person deserves an entry, you might as well give one to everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.195 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"This user does not understand English"

Для чего на вашей странице пользователя данный юзербокс? -- A man without a country (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Toddy, do your goddamn homework. I'm assuming good faith and taking it that you don't speak Japanese and so "Jimmu" and "Jingū" look the same to you, but those two RMs went the opposite way. The latter one saw the IP as the ONLY one opposing, while the former had no relevance whatsoever to the thread in question. If you think Enkyo2 shouldn't be indefinitely blocked for continuing to post bizarre moon-speak on talk pages and making revenge edits after he has already been warned about it in two separate arbitration cases, then please bring it up in the relevant thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The question at ANI is not one of how to transliterate Japanese into English.

The question is one of conduct (behaviour). You made a complaint about the conduct of another editor. This is what is being discussed.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck is your problem you goddamn idiot!? I have explained to you numerous times now that the Jimmu RM and the Jingū RM were two completely different issues! Why do you persist in linking to the Jimmu RM and calling it the Jingū RM!? You brought the Jimmu RM into the discussion completely out of nowhere, apparently so you could use it as an excuse to canvas Enkyo2, and claimed it as evidence that "Jingū RM was opposed by the overwhelming majority of participants": the result was actually 4-1 in favour of the move, with the only oppose !vote being the anon in question, who only opposed because he didn't read the RM properly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:JoshuSasori

Nice work showing sympathy for the latest in a series of probably 20+ socks of this stalker douchebag. That guy is probably one of the most thoroughly and righteously banned users on English Wikipedia. There's probably no way back for you after trying to get his latest sock unblocked solely because your intense and unjustified hatred of me. The last user to try that got himself banned pretty quickly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't strictly correct. JoshSasori supporter User LittleBenW was banned for various behaviours of which support for JoshuSasori and socks was only part of the picture. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Email communications with blocked users

I noticed this following the blocking of Edgarwang at the latest JoshuSasori SPI. This is before the blocking so I'm assuming Good Faith and that you had no inkling the two JoshuSasori puppets were the same person, or that JoshuSasori had made (and carried out) real life threats against Hijiri88 (not that I approve of the bad language, but if you or I had had real life harrassment and Hijiri88 was defending the person, maybe we'd be using bad language too.

Also for reference WP:SPI advises against notifying suspected socks, I am told that this is partly because an alerted sock may take traces to cover/confuse tracks before an admin can look at it.

Enjoy your editing. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have little idea who JoshuSasori is.

Did you bother to read my posts on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori? If you had, you would have understood that I had a very strong inkling that the two sock-puppets were the same person - though I guessed wrongly as to whom they were a sock puppet of.

I received two Wikipedia emails from Edgarwang. As this was a user I had had no previous contact with I was very suspicious. His/her contributions record also aroused suspicion, as his/her first edit to Wikipedia showed knowledge of various hard-to-understand templates, etc. The first email said "Greetings, how are you doing?" I thought that the most likely purpose of the email was to find out my IP address, so I replied on the user's talk page.[2] After I received a second email from the same editor giving me this IP link [3] I made this posting on the SPI report.[4] I did not send an email to this user, because I did not trust him/her.

As regards your statement that "WP:SPI advises against notifying suspected socks", you need to read the advice given more carefully.[5] This says "You may wish to notify the accused with {{subst:uw-socksuspect|casename}} ~~~~" --Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Ok,

I thought that contradictory advice had been fixed. It caught me before as it caught you now. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The advice also appears in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/guide, This says: "You can notify the suspected accounts by adding {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER|sig=yes}} to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn’t mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)" I know it is not mandatory, but I think it is the right thing to do, as it gives people a chance to defend themselves. Mistakes can easily happen, especially when people use the "duck test" for sockpuppets. There was a case the other week where a user who reverted a reversion by another user was blocked on the basis of the duck test. (The reverter had not done an edit summary, so it looked like a sock making exactly the same posting.) The user only discovered that he/she was a suspected sock puppet, after he/she got blocked. He/she was soon unblocked - but it shows the problems that can be caused by not telling people that they are accused of something.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what I used to think as well.

Btw, how did you get involved in the JoshuSasori issue in the first place? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not get involved at all.

I commented on a report at ANI in which your friend was criticising an IP editor. But what I expected when I looked at the behaviour of the IP editor was not the case; in fact the IP editor was blameless, and the person making the report was sometimes uncivil in his/her dealings with other editors. The person making the ANI report was then uncivil to me for daring to disagree with him/her. Well that seems to be how he/she is a lot of the time. Then the sock intervened, and suddenly the person who made the ANI report starts telling me that I am supporting someone I had never heard of, and I got this suspicious email that seemed to be fishing for my IP address.

It is a pity the admins did not give your friend a 24 hours block for his/her being so uncivil with me. He/she needs to learn to be civil, and not to try to bully people. I had dealings with a user who the admins lets get away with all kinds of bad behaviour, with people saying that it was just as much the fault of the people he/she disagreed with. As a result, the user started to believe that he/she could get away with anything. In the end he/she went too far and got an indefinite block. If actions had taken action earlier, he/she would probably be contributing now. Like your friend he/she used to try to use ANI to attack people who dared to disagree with him. Please try and get your friend to behave better.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not uncivil in my previous dealings. Enkyo2 indicated that he didn't care whether the Jimmu article was moved, and then when I removed a ridiculously out-of-place footnote, he suddenly decided to vote against me not only there but in other places, and revert a whole bunch of my edits. How is this not "revenge"? I was then uncivil to you, not because you disagreed with me, but because you posted patent nonsense about me on ANI. I apologize for using foul language, but you had already started an unprovoked and unjustified attack on me by that point. I also told you that you were supporting the sock because you posted an apparently supportive message on the sock's talk page, and continued lying about me (I knew it was a sock, but it was IIO, and not me, who started the SPI). Additionally, you were wrong about the anon: I worked things out with him/her, and he/she admitted to having been in the wrong in the discussion that prompted me to go to ANI. I am going to ask for an IBAN with you if you continue following me around numerous forums (your solo defense of Enkyo2's activities, when everyone else agrees sanctions are needed, is worrying) and trying to revise the history of my interactions with you and other users. Also, Kaz wasn't blocked for being uncivil when provoked: he appears to have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and you're the one who opened the SPI. In fact, he never had any history of getting blocked for incivility. Why are you trying to associate me with a user I've never heard of and whose activities appear to have nothing in common with mine? Can you point to any place where I used ANI to attack a user I disagreed with? I've used it to bring users engaged in what I perceive as disruptive behaviour to task, and 90% of the time these users get sanctions because almost no one agrees with you that I am abusing ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your two emails. Your apology for your conduct is accepted. For the record, I do not have a feud with you.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Watch out, watch out, there's a troll about

Hi Toddy1. I'm JoshuSasori (talk · contribs). I want to warn you about something. I tried to email you but you seem to be suspicious of email. Here is what happened to me. I first encountered Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) (then known as Elvenscout742) on Talk:Ryo Kase. First of all he started moving articles which I'd created, like Sonezaki Shinju, Reikou, and Ryoko Nakano. He then suddenly discovered an interest in Japanese cinema, my specialist topic on Wikipedia. He followed me to articles like Kuroneko and started subtly vandalizing the article, adding original research and other nonsense. At the time he was editing from his workplace. He didn't seem to have much to do, and he'd basically spend his entire day trying to find ways to annoy me or create arguments and conflicts with me and other users. He rarely if ever made a constructive edit such as adding a category to a page. Once he succeeded in having me blocked on the basis of a bunch of lies, he then stopped editing any articles about Japanese cinema. He only came back to the topic when I opened another account, Mysterious Island (talk · contribs), and started his trolling again. Now he never edits in that topic at all. If you have a topic which you're interested in, don't be surprised if Hijiri88 suddenly shows up and starts creating conflicts with you.

As you have experienced, Hijiri88 is totally paranoid and will go on and on about how everyone else is making personal attacks or revenge edits and so on. I can show you edits from 2005 where he was doing this. One funny one was when he started complaining that I'd used the term "orientalist drivel" in an edit summary, even though he has a web page called "Ian's orientalist drivel". He has a friend in diacritics troll In ictu oculi (talk · contribs), a person with no interest in Japanese topics but who will turn up to support Hijiri88 in exchange for Hijiri88's support in his trolling on Vietnam or Roman Catholic related discussions.

The problem for you is that now Hijiri88 has succeeded in having Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) blocked, he's looking for his next target. I don't know if he'll pick you, or someone less able to fight back, like Enkyo2, but be warned that he is a troll, he has limitless time, and he has no interest whatsoever in creating encyclopedia articles. If you see him making productive edits to articles, it's almost certainly immediately after I've pointed out somewhere or other that he never does this. He starts making normal edits for about fifty or so edits, enough to have a page of respectable-looking contributions which is enough to fool people who don't go past the first page of edits. Please consider yourself warned, and if you want more information please reply to the email I sent you from the Wangedgar (talk · contribs) account. I'll do my best to help you fight off this evil troll and give you as much information as you need about him. Hiding in a bowl of rice (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshu. If you really hate Hijiri88, there is one thing you could do to hurt him/her. Take a long break from Wikipedia. Do something else. By posting on Wikipedia, you are giving him/her a never-ending stream of victories. It also generates sympathy for him/her. If you took a long break from Wikipedia, this would be like denying a plant sunlight. At first, he/she would grow quickly (this happens with plants too), and then... --Toddy1 (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Blank header

This is a test.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

article on Nikolayev

Oops. I shall revert if you have no already V. Joe (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert at Apple Corps v Apple Computer

Hi,

You reverted a change to add an archive URL to a deadlink citation, and marked the revert as "minor", which normally means it's unambiguous vandalism. The change looks good to me; what caused you to revert it as vandalism?

—me_and 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass rollbacks required--Toddy1 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the link. —me_and 18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reverts of today

Toddy,

I see that you reverted an extreme amount of anonymous edits today concerning the replacement of broken links with archived pages on the internet archive, like on Rail transport in the Netherlands. Although I agree such edits look very suspicious at first sight, replacing a broken link with a proper archived page looks like a welcome contribution to me. What's the reason behind all those reverts? --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see what's the issue now. Proxy attack by User:Rotlink

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I assume that Toddy's notifications are blowing up like mine. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop breaking appropriate archive links

Every revert by 144.76.45.11 of your edits was completely correct. You prefer google cache links to archive.org links? That's incorrect, and damages verifiability. Google cache is very, very temporary. Web.archive.org (hosted by the Internet Archive), is stable. Don't let your bias against archive.is damage archive.org links. Please review your actions and revert them where appropriate, to use reliable archives (.org AND .is). Unless you'd rather have me do it (I think you would not prefer that). --Lexein (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

and .12, and .13. Your reverts are all inappropriate and wrongly targeted. --Lexein (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The place to have this debate is the discussion of the unapproved BOT's edits at ANI. The BOT was in effect a huge sock puppet operation, hopping from IP to IP to make if difficult to track its activities. This is completely against several of the rules. You seem to feel that it is OK to break the rules. Do you also feel that blocked editors have a right to evade blocks by using sock puppets?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Pay better attention, and stop lying about what I want. Do not assume that if I want one thing, I want another. I want valid archive links left alone, no matter how they got here. Block and DR whoever you want, but leave the work product alone. Verification policy trumps distaste and weakass vigilante guidelines. Sorry. --Lexein (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hasan ibn Ali may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 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:

• Hasan's tomb was destroyed in 1925 during the conquest of Medina by al-Saud tribes.<ref name=ref4>[[http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/islam/0000095.php www.shianews.com]{{dead link}}</ref> This

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

First Fitna page

Yesterday I said to Adjwilley:

We spent a year going through the Muawiya I article and collecting the information and going through hundreds of books. The Muawiya I article is related to the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" articles. We spent a lot of time on it. I put some of the background information on the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" article but Zabranos removed it. I don't have the time to edit war and don't want to edit war. I have a busy work schedule and already spend a lot of time in the evenings going through hundreds of books collecting information. Adjwilley if you have some time, can you please review every things. Adjwilley, since you are the admin, I don't mind what decision you make or what changes you make. We just need to make sure that the articles are accurate, neutral and not offensive to anyone. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

He replied:

You might be interested to know that User:Zabranos was blocked today for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) It looks like they were blocked for a week, so things should calm down a bit on that front. I'll have a look at the articles tomorrow, though I'll warn you, this isn't my area of expertise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

--Johnleeds1 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. A one-week block is not very long. I am currently reading Stephen Humphreys's biography of Hazrat Muawiya. One of the disadvantages that you and I have, is that we really read the books - this takes a lot of time. Some of the strange abusive people who appear on Wikipedia cite huge numbers of books they have never read, on the basis of something that they got 4th-hand.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about me

I don't care. Wikipedia doesn't interest me. The people who maintain this site are histronic crybabies. Don't contact me again ever.--‎ User talk:86.18.173.194 20:49, 30 September 2013

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I recognise your User name from previous attacks you made on User Hijiri88, which came with you receiving offline emails from banned user JoshuSasori. But can you please explain what prompted this completely gratuitous personal attack on myself? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually reviewing your previous response to other editors regarding your attacks on User Hijiri88, is already passing beyond Wikipedia:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents, so unless you want to nip this in the bud now, then I think probably the next step here is taking this to Wikipedia:NPA#Recurring attacks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Chernivtsi

Здравствуйте! К сожелению не владею на должном уровне английским, по этому пишу на русском (ваша страница даёт основания пологать, что это ваш родной язык). Я коренной черновчанин. Именно это стало основанием моего интереса к этой статье. С виталькой розобрались. Он и секретарь "липовый", но официально именно так. По крайней мере пока. Вопрос к Вам в другом. Для чего "румынский вариант названия города?! Вы же видите, что это навязывается румынами! Сегодня в Черновцах аж 5 % румын! Русских - 15 %! Так возможно логичнее было бы второй вариант - русский! Черновцы никогда не были румынским городом, за исключением окупации 1918-1940 (1941-1944)! Однако у румынских шовинистов другая точка зрения... Убедительная просьба - разберитесь в этом вопросе! С уважением--IVMD (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

В дополнение. Посмотрите Wikipedia на всех языках. Нигде нет румынского варианта! Повторюсь... Практически все черновчане владеют русским языком, румынским от силы - 5 %!--IVMD (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

References

I just checked this page of yours, "List of characters and names in the Quran", nice, but you should really add some references to it. Cheers Bladesmulti (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What about what I said above is unacceptable

What about what I said above is unacceptable? Its unacceptable to put "sexually explicit" in the same boxes they list "adult films" for the Gay movies. This is an example:

Zombies are Dead and Gay 2010 (Adult film)

Bloodlust Zombies 2009 (Sexually Explicit) <===what I put....this is unacceptable?????

They have intercourse ALL through the movie and its like watching Porn. One of the stars IS A PORN STAR!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to back up statements that you would like to put in articles, then add a citation to back up your statement. The format for a citation is: <ref name=bbc>{{cite news|last=Siddiqui|first=Mona|authorlink=Mona Siddiqui|title=Ibrahim – the Muslim view of Abraham|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/ibrahim.shtml|work=Religions|publisher=BBC|accessdate=3 February 2013}}</ref>

What was unacceptable about the post you made on your talk page were the attacks on the editor who reverted your edits, which assumed good faith. These attacks included "this malicious editor", "is manipulating by just talking about the warning line", "reckless student without conscience or children that is abusing his power". You would not like it if the rest of us made statements about you like that.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Toddy, I have, according to policy and suggestion attempted TWICE to remove an opinionated statement from the Zombie list. What is wrong with this editor. Did he make this this?? He removed my comment stating there were low budget movies and sexual explicit which I referenced. The comment that the list contains good budgeted movies I want removed or I will start going through deleting the low budgets.

He has removed EVERY edit I made, even those suggested and following guidelines, so yes at this point I am saying its personal for him. Unfortunately, there are people like this.--User:Library777 19:44, 20 October 2013‎

Please could you learn to sign you posts on talk pages. The way to do this is: --~~~~

I noticed that on some talk pages you are pasting your comment in very strange places. This makes it less likely that the comments will be read.

What you call an opinionated statement, is what the rest of us call a statement defining what the article is about. Another editor told you that if some of the films listed do not meet the criteria, you should raise this on the article talk page. When you do this, you should provide links to sources that back up your contentions. If the only evidence you have that a film does not meet the criteria is that you have watched the film, be honest about this. It is probably best to make a bulleted list of the films you believe might not meet the inclusion criteria, with what you regard as evidence against each of them. The way to format bullet points in Wikipedia is with a * at the start of the line.

Don't get angry with people. When you are angry, people are far less likely to listen to you (especially on the internet). Quite a lot of people have posted links to articles and guidelines that they think will help you. This indicates that they are trying to help you.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It was suggested by an editor that I raise the question on talk page or delete the entry. I deleted two entries not meeting guidelines and they are there again. I am not being allowed to edit this page AT ALL. I have a handicapped child and I dont have time to play games. I was really upset since this list says the movies are good budgeted and I paid to rent low budget pornos. I am under personal attack and I want to know who I can report this to. Im tired of these childish games. Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Signs of disruptive editing

Shortcut: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS See also Wikipedia:Editing policy This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors."

Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

"Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."

In addition, such editors may: Shortcuts: WP:CTDAPE WP:DEPE "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

The things in parenthesis is what is happening to me and I will report and I will take legal action if necessary as I am the wrong person to bully. --Library777 20:52, 20 October 2013‎

Administrator's note: I've left a message for Library777 about the last paragraph of the above message, with a request for him to withdraw that paragraph of it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on page Muawiyah I

Hi, Please mind and put some care when you blame on a co-editor. That's NOT me who removed the line. Wasif (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit I reverted was Revision as of 08:04, 31 October 2013 by Wasifwasif. My reversion was Revision as of 09:00, 1 November 2013 by Toddy, with edit summary "reverted revision by 579582725 by User:Wasifwasif unexplained deletion of cited material". I think my edit summary was accurate. I reverted your edit, I said so.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

may I delegate this in your direction?

Hello Toddy, I put an Islam-suggestion over here -- Talk:Islam#upgraded_summary_for_the_two_branches_of_Ahmadiyya. Noticed that you had responded to a spelling-fix request a month ago there, so I figured you were a sucker for work that you had a serious interest in the article.  :-)

There is also somebody else, slightly above my own talkpage-request, who was suggesting an update to the Yazdânism sentence (which is right in the same subsection of mainspace), should you wish to slay two birds with one stone. If you are busy or otherwise not interested, no prob, this is of course not WP:REQUIRED, just figured I would ping your talkpage since the article is still page-protected. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala

Already on my list. Thanks for the head's up. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Returning editor

The IP address performing mass deletion of content at the Salafism and Muhammad Abduh articles certainly seems like a returning editor, but their English is fluent and so I don't think it would be Msoamu. What do you make of this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Salafi_movement/Archive_3#Blatant_POV The edits and behaviour of sockpuppet User:Shabiha seem similar to the new editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's almost the exact behavior of Shabiha/Msoamu. The problem is that the English is just too good. Do you think it could be Baboon43, or the behavior only resembles that of Shabiha? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP ID seems capable of writing good English when it suits him/her. The IP is an English IP address. One of the IP addresses that Shabiha/Msoamu was suspected of using was in Pakistan. This may mean that he/she travels, or that he/she has a proxy. He/she could even be emailing his/her edits to a friend.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha/Msoamu used at least three sockpuppet accounts over a period of six years, so what you suggest is possible. I wouldn't put anything beyond them. The IP has been blocked for now, so I guess we have to wait for another day and see how it behaves. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And he/she has evaded the block by jumping IP. One person created an IP-hopping bot to make bulk edits he/she thought desirable.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I notified the admin who blocked the first IP, I am hoping they will agree to reblock as an executive decision but if not I am ready to put together a formall sockpuppet investigation. It's going through the motions but necessary, the IP's behavior never leads to anything good. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The returning editor continues to edit. The block on non-autoconfirmed editors editing the page on the Salafi movement expires in the early hours of Wednesday 27th November. Please could you comment on the returning editor's suggestions on Talk:Salafi movement.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Krymchak and/or Karaylar

Hello Toddy1,

I've been steadily working on | this today (over 2 hours already). And the reason is, as I wrote to you yesterday, that we are not going to get to the bottom of this issue here on WP without first studying this work very carefully:

• Fürst, Julius, Geschichte des Karäertums, 3 vols., Leipsig, 1862-69.

Would you have access to it somewhere? Could you read it if you got to access it? I am going to start working on this. Just FYI. Be well, warshy^¥¥ 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not have access to this.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way have you heard of Simon Szyszman, who wrote a book with a similar title: Das Karaertum: Lehre und Geschichte (Der Osten), which you can buy on Amazon? This is where our friend User:‎Неполканов is useful. He understands some of the literature, and the motivations of those who wrote it. I doubt is anything Szyszman wrote is to be taken as anything more than a reliable source as to what Szyszman thought or wanted other people to think.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the French WP, Toddy1. It was interesting reading the French article and then wandering a bit around the Karaite article in there. In the list of books they give there in the French article I don't see the German title you say can be bought on Amazon, and from the content of the article it seems like he wrote in French and not in German, since he lived in Paris. But you maybe right, I haven't checked Amazon. I will eventually go to the library and get my paws on the Fürst book I mentioned above. As concerns Неполканов, you are correct, of course. He does understand the Russian literature on the subject. The problem is his English proficiency, to edit on the English WP, but if we really care (and agree with his point) I guess we can always go and fix the text of the English article ourselves. Thanks again and be well. warshy^¥¥ 19:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have Philip Miller's book Karaite Separatism in Nineteenth Century Russia, and I have a copy of Keven Brook's book on Khazars, which I bought to check citations. You will have noticed that Kevin Brooks has contributed to the article as an IP editor.

There are also so useful pdfs that cover the Great Patriotic War - this should be covered properly - mentioning both the good and the bad.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So yes, we are both following the developments in the main Khazars page, as well as Kevin Alan Brooks and many other people around the world. And so far, the view expressed there is that they may be ancestors of the Jews, not of the Karaites, if indeed the latter were ever separated ethnically from the Jews before Firkovitch's time in Imperial Russia. So now, at the beginning of the 21st century, Khazar ancestry is advanced both by those interested in undermining Jewish nationalism, and those interested in advancing a separate Karaite ethnic identity in Eastern Europe. And we, apparently, will stand here on the side just observing where these diverging political interests may lead in terms of "encyclopedic knowledge"... It is an interesting pastime. warshy^¥¥ 20:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The generally accepted view is that the Eastern European Karaites did not descend from the Khazars. There is however disagreement over why. One school of thought is that this is because the Khazars' descendents were Ashkenazi Jews. However some Israeli-nationalist historian-propagandists think that this undermines the case for the Israeli claim to Israel, and as a result dispute that the Khazars were Jews at all. Either way, from the point of view of a history of the Karaites, the key point is that the belief that the Karaites were descended from the Khazars, and so not of Biblical Jewish ancestry, is a myth. A myth that was created for the political needs of the time. So the Karaite Jews in the Russian Empire who invented a make-believe history for themselves are much of a muchness with some modern Jewish historian-propagandists.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all these post-Firkovitch contemporary views of both the Jewish and the Karaite side have to account for the "fact" the Jews and Karaites in Eastern Europe before the 19th century were not ethnically related. However, what I believe can be shown by going to sources that were written before the Firkovitch "schism" such as the one I mentioned above, is that Jews and Karaites were always actually very closely ethnically related, with intermarriages and intermittent swaps of populations depending on the political circumstances of the Jews/Karaites in a certain area on a given period. The historian that thinks the Jews are descended from the Khazars, Shlomo Sand, is not a Jewish nationalist, quite the opposite. He and all the others jumping now on the Khazar bandwagon are just happy that the Zionist case gets also undermined in the hoopla. But the real myth is the whole Khazar thing to begin with: it was a Jewish own medieval myth to begin with, and it is now a modern, revived "scientific/genetic" myth, that has come back to byte the Jews who invented it. warshy^¥¥ 01:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fürstengrube subcamp 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:

• ''The Dentist of Auschwitz: A Memoir'', by Benjamin Jacobs, pub University Press of Kentucky, 2001) ISBN 978-0813190129.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Bonne journée! I just wanted to sincerely express my most utmost appreciation for your help in italicizing my quotes! :) I did not know how, so I appreciate your help so gratefully. :) Wishing you a spectacular day and I do hope you will stop by the Asma al-Assad page and contribute if you are able to do so! :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Diplomacy Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for proactively working to resolve the recent issue on the ANI. Take care and stay warm this winter.

Cheers, Veriss (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam vs. muslims

Hello Toddy1, I have opened a topic to discuss the wording of the Islam article, in response to the reverts by you and Ctg4Rahat. I would appreciate your attention to it.
Also I am puzzled, why your user page lists you as having little or no English language mastery ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your connections for the languages in Ummayads are WRONG!!! according to 68.100.160.250

Your connections for the languages in Ummayads are WRONG!!!

All pages of Ummayads in different languages should get linked!!

Except TWO of them: ONE is the Ummayad Family Tree in English, and the OTHER is Ummayad Family tree in Turkish, those TWO of them must remain connected with each other .

All pages in 73 languages should get connected in such a way that people can switch from one language to the other, you are not setting these links properly!!!68.100.160.250 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

READING DIFFICULTIES for Ummayads

Your connections for the languages in Ummayads are WRONG!!! Highly experienced WİKİ-Staff MEMBERS People reading Ummayads cannot reach all languages; your design settings are IMPROPER. PLEASE take the NECESSARY actions immediately so that people can read in all languages!!! All pages in 73 languages should get connected in such a way that people can switch from one language to the other, you are not setting these links properly!!!68.100.160.250 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You are BLOCKing People

Why don't you do it yourself THEN 68.100.160.250 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is a problem, why not get yourself an account, and then fix it yourself. If you cannot fix it yourself, then explain on the article talk page, what language article links to what, and show what you think it should link to. This is most likely to work if you get yourself an account.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Meaningless to argue. Since you are still unable to see and correct your mistakes after so many warnings it is meaningless to make further discussion, do it as you know it INCORRECTLY, THANKS and it is finished for me Bye68.100.160.250 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not post your foolish messages here. I put a lot of effort into trying to correct the problem. Posting collections of phrases without meaning does not help.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hongirad may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• <ref>[http://faculty.orinst.ox.ac.uk/terhaar/shamanism.htm ''Shamanism in China: bibliography'']], by Barend ter Haar, who teaches at the Institute for Chinese Studies. Mentions that a book

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: you message on my talk page, I apologise for confusing you with another editor. PS awesome monopoly board Badanagram (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is OK. I make mistakes too.

Regards the Monopoly board, I copied from another user page. I find that lots of other users have good ideas - often the best thing to do is to copy them on to a user page or or user sand box page so that when I need them I can find them.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2014

Hi! How ru ? I have done mistakes in the past but I am always eager to contribute wikipedia positively.Many of the Articles created by me have been nominated for deletion but 99% of them were saved.I have improved the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Students_Organization_of_India_MSO ,needs your fresh suggestions.I would like to submit in that regard that MSO seems to be patronized by few prominent leaders of the Indian Sunni Sufi community so your proposal needs reconsideration.regards.Msoamu (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The other week I suggested that you could greatly improve the article in question by putting some work into the citations. I explained to you why bare URLs were bad. The URLs are still bare.

I read your post on the deletion discussion about the lack of English-language coverage in reliable sources. Are you saying that there are non-English language reliable sources?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dnepropetrovsk 9859s.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dnepropetrovsk 9859s.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Dnepropetrovsk 9781s.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dnepropetrovsk 9781s.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dnepropetrovsk 9850s.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dnepropetrovsk 9850s.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The 48 Laws of Power

This article, also about a book by Greene, has the same problems as the 33 Strategies Article. Edward321 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Does that help?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Edward321 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Battle of Trafalgar British Casualties.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hey Toody1,the change you made to Battle of Karbala was wrong and please correct it. The change you have to made is that "Banu Hashim" was on Victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime.asim (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit you keep making was this one. As always you get your facts wrong.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Krymchak and/or Karaylar

By the way have you heard of Simon Szyszman, who wrote a book with a similar title: Das Karaertum: Lehre und Geschichte (Der Osten), which you can buy on Amazon? This is where our friend User:‎Неполканов is useful. He understands some of the literature, and the motivations of those who wrote it. I doubt is anything Szyszman wrote is to be taken as anything more than a reliable source as to what Szyszman thought or wanted other people to think.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

About Szyszman inventions you can read Mikhail Kizilov's "The Arrival of the Karaites (Karaims) to Poland and Lithuania: A Survey of Sources and Critical Analysis of Existing Theories". It is amazing that this chemist was and still is widely cited by Lithuanian and some Russian professional historians. I wrote a new article about that in Russian wikipedia about Crimean Karaites history "militarization" .I have a dream to translate it to English, By the way may be you have access to Gustav Peringer's "Epistola de karaitis Lithuaniae"? Szysman's claims that Peringer described Karaites as warriors nations. are widely cited by many Karaite and Lithuanaian authors. I have failed to find the original Gustav Peringer's test at the web. Неполканов (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am sorry but I do not have access to Gustav Peringer's "Epistola de karaitis Lithuaniae".--Toddy1 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Неполканов. I already thanked you for the other article you posted today at the Seraya Szapzal talk page, which I have downloaded and read very carefully. I have now downloaded this one (Kizilov's) and will read very carefully as well. Soon, after I finish digesting these two very good reliable sources, I will be posting some thoughts on the Crimean Karaites talk page. I have also looked at your Russian "militarization" article and it looks very interesting. With some time in the future I may be able to offer you some help in translating it. Thank you very much again for sharing your knowledge and expertise of the subject here, and for posting these new excellent reliable sources. Be well and regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP

"citation showing that Schwartz is an intolerant bigot" is violation of WP:BLP. Please be more careful in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Describing a religious group as "Syphilis" is precisely that.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I am editing Wikipedia in a hotel far from home, in a country that has laws against hate crimes. If I were to post a citation to Schwartz's statement in a way that indicated approval of it, I could be liable to arrest. My understanding is that what Schwartz says amounts to a hate crime here. This is a good thing. People who make those kinds of statements belong in prison for the duration.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your advise

hey toody you know the change you made to battle of karbala was right and thanks for your advise--User talk:2.223.73.253 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration

Arbitration, what is it? Are your talking about his Request for mediation? I am not sure what happens if I agree or disagree. What would happen if I agree/disagree? This is not about a "dispute" but rather his inappropriate behavior. I don't want this discussion to be closed because he is still continuing. AcidSnow (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my understanding is that for most purposes in common English, "arbitration" means much the same thing as "mediation". However, Wikipedia uses the word to mean something else. I meant "mediation".

If the problem is his/her inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia, then I would recommend not agreeing to a request for mediation.

If the problem is a content issue, then solutions such getting someone to mediate or arbitrate are a potential answer. "The mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors". (Wikipedia:Mediation)

If you are refusing mediation, on the grounds that the problem is behaviour - then please could you make this clear at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#User:Khabboos.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I have said no. As you can see here, he has no desire to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior and even denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what do I do know? This user now has continued to forum shop with a new mediation? AcidSnow (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do now is to do nothing about the issue of Khabboos on ANI/mediation/arbcom, at least for a few days. Other people will deal with it, or not deal with it, as the case may be. If there is a request for you to do something - then take your time about doing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can see he has no desire to talk as he is now trying to get me banned off Wikipedia. What do I do besides defend myself? AcidSnow (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kiev in English

Have a look: Adam Taylor (2014-01-24). "Is It Time For The West To Stop Calling It 'Kiev' And Start Calling It 'Kyiv'?". Business Insider. Retrieved 2014-02-13. --Perohanych (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Irrespective of whether you are right or wrong, if you want to make a controversial move, you need to use the correct process. This means that there needs to be consensus. I personally find it annoying that Wikipedia chooses to spell Dnepropetrovsk with an "i", even though there is no "i" in the correct spelling. But I have to live with it, because Wikipedia has lots of "Ukrainian nationalists" from Canada and USA, and they insist on it. As there is no consensus for a change to the correct spelling of Dnepropetrovsk, we all have to put up with this alien mispelling of the city name.
2. There have been many discussions of the spelling of Kiev on Wikipedia - see Talk:Kiev. There is a even a sub-page of that page dealing with it.
3. Have you considered editing French Wikipedia, and trying to change fr:Allemagne to fr:Deutchland? You could also try to change fr:Angleterre to fr:England. In fact, the French language has its own names for almost everywhere. As you do not seem to consider it acceptable for the English language to have its own names for things...--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Hi Toddy1, just letting you know that I've mentioned you in this arbitration enforcement request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please can I have an apology for the unfair accusation that you made about me.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Its true, he was not edit warring. AcidSnow (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine - Simplified historical map of Ukraine

Hi, Toddy, sorry to hurt your feelings. I can see that you are in Dnepropetrovsk now. I am in London and I know that the map will help someone who knows nothing of Ukraine to learn more about it. I am not anti-Ukrainian nor I am pro-Russian since I left Russia myself in 1989 and I live in London for many years now. Are you coming to Wikimania? I hope to see you there!

Тоди! Простите меня, пожалуйста! У меня душа болит за Украину. У меня и родные и знакомые украинцы, есть и такие, которые русский совсем не знают! Я сделала эту карту для своего мужа, он про Украину ничего не знает, а так он хотя бы что-то понял. Ну, конечно же я не политик! Я жена, мама и бабушка и ещё у меня есть кот. Конечно же, я мало сама знаю, но у меня есть знакомый, он в Охфорде историю России преподаёт, так мы и с ним эту карту обсуждали. Она правильная! Мне всё равно как земля называется: Украина, Россия, Монголия, Польша, это для меня всё равно! Лишь бы люди жили там и не ругались! Даже и всё равно на каком языке говорить. Но чтобы говорить, а не ругаться! Я здесь бываю чаще https://www.facebook.com/russian.natasha.brown Там же вы и найдёте, что этот преподаватель истории говорит об этой карте. Моих друзей, которые сейчас в Украине, тоже там найдёте, за кого они, я не знаю, но знаю, что они сейчас разделились. Больно всё это! Берегите себя и ваших родных! Простите, что не часто бываю здесь, я никак не могу понять, как же по-правильному Википедию редактировать! Natkabrown (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

You have a point of view. You may not realise that it is a point of view. You may believe that it is just common sense. But it is a point of view. Other people have a different point of view. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. Where there are differences of point of view, Wikipedia tries to explain the differences between mainstream points of view using reliable sources.

The point of view in your map is one I find very shocking. I am not the only one to be shocked by it.

If you want to post propaganda, your Facebook page is a good place for it. Wikipedia is not.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

C 8м Марта!

Доброе утро! Я же переделала всю карту. Убрала все фото, оставила только года! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Simplified_historical_map_of_Ukrainian_borders_1654-2014.jpg Ну где там пропаганда? Пропаганда чего? There are only years on the map now. They are correct. If it is a propaganda, then what's a point of it? I can't get it. It's true map. Truth can't be a propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 08:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ukraine". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 09:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Lwow

Change it all to Lemberg or Lvov as a compromise in this impass. 85.202.39.81 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk City

Hey, I just started that, I don't think you can so quickly conclude its not notable. Its quite a large center. Can you tell me who owns it? BTW, can you tell me the most popular newspapers in Donetsk? I may look at them for sources, but we don't have any articles on Donetsk newspapers so far.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I could not remember, so I asked a friend - she says try Донецкий вестник, вечерний донецкб, новости донецка, вечерний донецк, новости донецка, еженедельник панорама .--Toddy1 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Toddy1/sandbox

I have deleted your sandbox page in your userspace as requested. — JamesR (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

Khabboos has continued his use of sock puppetry with this IP, 180.215.49.251. He edits the same pages, uses the same editing style, and uses the exact same edit summary's. What should I do about this, as he was warned about it by you and me, but he specifically removed it off his archive. AcidSnow (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Use WP:SPI. This link will start it.You will need to show diffs to prove that they are the same person. It would also be worth showing that he/she had been warned about this. The easiest way to prove that he/she has been warned would be a diff.[6]

If you have never done a report to WP:SPI, do not worry. Fill it in, and do corrections.

Do not post the notification on his/her user page until you have completed your corrections. The notification is {{subst:uw-socksuspect|casename}} ~~~~.

What is sometimes worth doing is filling out part or all of the template on a sandbox page in your own user space.

What makes them time consuming is that you end up having to trawl through the contributions histories of the suspected sock and puppet-owner for evidence that would convince an uninvolved person.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diplomacy for editing the statement at Terrorism in Pakistan by including 'perhaps' to the sentence, instead of reverting it. Thanks! It avoids a lot of possible edit warring. Khabboos (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mykolaiv Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• | website = [http://www.airport.nikolaev.ua/?q=en/node/29 www.airport.nikolaev.ua]{[dead link}}
• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed

Khabboos has learned nothing from his second warning from just two days ago, as he is still Forum Shopping about the same issues and violating copyright. He has also failed to mention major issues with his edit and only stating that he has "cited references" for them; which is very misleading. Instead of respectfully asking for comments, he has instead decided to continue demanding that admins agree with him and revert my edits. Not just those, but has now accused me of edit warring when I have yet to come close. What should I do? AcidSnow (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You should stick to the rules, and avoid pushing the boundaries - try to avoid doing two reverts in a row with him/her. i.e. if you have to revert him/her, and he/she reverts back, leave the next revert of him/her to someone else. Then if he/she reverts a second time, it is OK to revert again. For example:

• K writes unacceptable text.
• A reverts K (1st by A).
• K reverts A (1st by K).
• B reverts K (1st by B).
• K reverts B (2nd by K).
• A gives K WP:3RR warning notice on K's talk page.
• A reverts K (2nd by A).
• K reverts A (3rd by K).
• C reverts K (1st by C).
• If K reverts again, he/she gets reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and probably gets blocked for edit-warring. You do not.

Thank you for bring Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Hinduism to my attention. I would recommend that you refuse mediation on the grounds that it is not a disagreement between just you and Khabboos. It is unfair that you should be singled out. Lots of other people commented too on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate your help! If you ever need anything dont hesitate to message me. I have rejected the meditation as the issue was already resolved, but he could care less as he still forum shopping. AcidSnow (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Thanks for your explanation about froggas concerns related my edits on criticism of Islam on my talk page. I will soon create a new section on article's talk page to discuss it.Septate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I will take back my allegation of "vandalism", but clearly it is septate who is making disruptive edits and rapidly removing sourced material due to their own personal feelings. Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#Edits_by_Froggas, And it is septate, a sole editor who is removing the sourced stuff, he is the one who needs consensus for removal. Foggas (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

James masjid

Dear toddy, I want to highlight an article named as Jamea Masjid, created by user:mohiss. I am concerned with the name of this article. Every mosque where Friday prayers are held is commonly called by Muslims as Jamea masjid, no matter what its actual name is. Hence there are Infact millions of jamea Masjids in the world. I think the name of this article should be jamea mosque, Preston, Lancashire, england. I am concerned because user mohiss has created this article in order to promote his self taken image. He has introduced his image to several articles including Islam where he placed it in the top without concensus. Please take a look.Septate (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have taken some action. The biggest issue is likely to be notability.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of time. He/she reverted me. Please could you use the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves to propose that the article be moved to a different name. Since Mohiss, objects tot he move it must be done using the requested move process.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

____

First of all, the title of this section says 'James'.

Secondly, I don't know what your beliefs maybe regarding Islam, but where we originate from, in the UK and in the present time in the states, we don't believe that 'Every mosque where Friday prayers are held is commonly called by Muslims as Jamea masjid' - or else the name of this location wouldn't be called 'Jamea Masjid' as people would have objected or brought it up in the many years it has been in existence = As it is open daily for ALL prayers, not just the Friday prayer that you mention of. It is also multi-cultural and has people of many backgrounds from all over the world - in my experience when I have been there - so even if it was language based, someone would have mentioned it so far and the name WOULD have changed.

Just to clarify your concern, I contacted some 'Arab' associates and told them to explain to me the meaning of Jamea as I believe it derives from Arabic. Oh and guess what? It means 'Library' - location for knowledge. So, what you are trying to say, is that 'Every mosque where Friday prayers are kept are in the 'Library'. Such nonsense.

Do you just try and challenge everything, without reason when it doesn't sway your way? Looking through your contributions and the amount of warnings that have been placed with your name says it all.

It saddens me that Toddy1 doesn't see this but happens to just jump at the first thing this individual mentions without research and just acted upon their request. I guess it made sense why such 'randomness' from Toddy1 to make the changes although however he/she did help in a grammatical error which I am thankful for.

Remember, having a personal vendetta against someone won't get you anywhere. I will be reporting you to the administrators for bullying behaviour as this isn't the first instance should you TRY belittling me again.

Furthermore, it's fine for Septate to post images or items or even remove them - as 'history' section on Islam page will show - which are to his/her beliefs on the page Islam, BUT when it is something he/ she doesn't believe, he/ she will endeavour in making sure they take it down as he/she is the only individual in the world which is part of this religion, and that there are no other sects or different areas of belief in the religion. --George Howarth (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that the reason the title of this section is worded as it is, is that User:Septate made a typing error. Though it is also possible that he/she was using software that had an auto-correct feature and changed the wording of the title. I do not know.

Regarding the change of article name. George Howarth made it clear that a change of article name from Jamea Masjid to Jamea Masjid (Preston) was opposed. Therefore if someone wants to make the change, they need to use the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

George it is normal process on Wikipedia for uninvolved editors to take a look at new articles, and try to correct errors, tag them if there are areas where improvements are desirable, etc. So please do not get sad that I did it. The thing you most need to do with the article is to find some newspaper articles about it - at the moment you are vulnerable to a drive-by speedy delete tagger. I would take action on that if I were you.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

since I am a mobile user that's why I have an auto-correct feature. That is the reason.Septate (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK user:mohiss if I agree with you definition of jamea mosque that you have taken from some Arab colleague, then even with this defination the name will never make sense. My suggestion would be that you should name this article as Jamea masjid, Preston. You should mention the name of city. It is necessary. Even if i agree with your definition of Jamea masjid, there are atleast hundreds of mosques having this name throughout the world. Because its an extrememely common name. Please try to corporate.Septate (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The place to have this discussion about the name of the place is Talk:Jamea Masjid#Requested move, not my talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating discussion page for jamea masjid.Septate (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

__

Septate, You are entitled to your OWN opinion and I respect that. BUT, do not try to FORCE it amongst others which is what you are currently attempting to do without thorough reasoning or understanding. Same as how you 'ran' to Toddy1 because you couldn't initiate your OWN Requested Move, so this user had to do it for YOU, Same way how I will start contacting my own 'associates' who are on this site to assist me - should you continue your 'hassling' as I now feel that I am being 'ganged up' upon. --George Howarth (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear user:mohissFirst of all I want to say that this is a user's talk page not a discussion forum .please if you have any problem then discuss it on article's talk page. I requested toddy1 because his/she is established user who knows wikipedia better then us. Further since I am a mobile user so I can't do a lot of things such as making a redirect, merging, creating a nomination or request. I have no purpose to gang up you. You are a wikipedia editor and I am happy that you created a well sourced article but it has problems with name. Please try to compromise.your article will never be deleted. It will be given just a new name.Septate (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dirt

Digging up a 3 year old block that was overturned as ridiculous and spreading it to others in some twisted campaign against me is pretty low, even for you. --Львівське (говорити) 21:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If the shoe fits...Solntsa90 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession to Muhammad Page

I added some content into the Succession to Muhammad page but Kazemita1 keeps on removing it citing copy right violation even though I gave the references and the whole page is already full of quotes from various books. Can the administrators please investigate. I want to avoid an edit war. I want to improve Wikipedia so that it contains researched scholarly content, that is useful to the readers. This whole article is full of people pushing their opinions. There needs to have a critical analysis of the contents on this page. Various books have been written on this issues through out the ages and this content needs to be put into a table so that people could compare what was said when and by whom and why. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

John - Can I get one thing clear: I am not an administrator. I will have a look and then think about what to do. But I need you to understand, I am not an administrator.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found a number of deletions by people claiming copyright infringement:

[7] - quoting The Great Arab Conquests By Hugh Kennedy, pages 54 to 56. You cannot do a quote that big!

[8] - quoting The Great Arab Conquests, this time in smaller parts.

The Great Arab Conquests is a 2007 book, which can be downloaded for free at a Bulgarian website! I wonder if the scan on the Bulgarian site is illegal - possibly not - a google search reveals other sources for the free download.

I suggest that you read up on rules on copyright.

Also try a different style. Use quotations more sparingly - and when you quote, just put the quote in the text as part of the paragraph, without the preface.

You also need to accept that some people on Wikipedia are just deliberately difficult. And some of them are not sufficiently self-aware to know this. This is one of the reasons editors switch from creating new content to fact checking, etc. You can go to a lot of work, and people just come and mess it up, so why bother. This is bad for Wikipedia, that people end up feeling that way.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Kiev 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:

• [[St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery|St. Michael's Monastery]], in the city centre, c.1890-905)]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. could you explain this summary: "Svoboda-POV deletion of reliable source" when you re-added material that's currently contended on the talk page? This appears to be disruptive but I'll assume good faith. Львівське (говорити) 20:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. The IP editor from Lvov deleted material from what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. This was not a helpful thing for him/her to do. I did not template him/her because it was clearly not vandalism, and he/she is using the talk page. It did not seem necessary to post anything on the talk page because other people had already said what I would have said. It seems to me that Svoboda supporters on English-language Wikipedia are running a campaign to expunge the information in question, and that the deletion was part of that campaign.

For English-speakers there is value in using the Guardian article in question as a source. What the article says is of interest. Incidentally it mentions the reporter at the centre of Renat Akhmetov's 2008 libel case.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think it's appropriate to start on 'Svoboda' conspiracy theories? There's a huge talk page discussion about the 'Jewish allegations' and you restored broken-english content from an IP who is posting neo-Nazi blogs as proof on the talk page trying to 'out the Jew'. Not the best picture.--Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that there were some minor typos/formatting errors in the IP editor's edit. It was very kind of you and I have endeavoured to fix them. Your mention of neo-Nazi blogs being mentioned in the talk page does not seem relevant to me. The edit to the article being discussed uses the left-wing English newspaper, the Guardian, as a source, and does not use neo-Nazi blogs as a source.

Political parties in democratic countries have people who work for them. Some of these workers are employees, some are members and some are non-member helpers. In the last presidential election both the main candidates spent a lot of money on Americans to help them win. That this happens is not a conspiracy. It is normal. It is also well known that political parties in Western countries such as England get their people to make "helpful" edits to Wikipedia. There is nothing sinister about this when carried out by mainstream political parties, though it can compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. Non-partisan editors need to keep an eye on this kind of activity.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be an assumption of bad faith on your part, that if an editor does something you don't agree with, he's a paid shill. To make matters worse, since you called Svoboda the "Ukrainian Nazi Party" and accused this guy of being a Svoboda member simply because his IP is from Lviv (how you made that leap, I don't know, do you think everyone in Lviv works for Svoboda?), the potential assumption that there is a a Nazi conspiracy about or assuming editors are Nazis making malicious edits is a rather troubling thought process.--Львівське (говорити) 05:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Toddy

Are you still active on Wikipedia --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Succession to Muhammad page will be going through some changes, we needed an administrator, are you OK with administering it.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that you think that I am one of the Wikipedia:Administrators? I am not. I have told you this before.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Godwin Point

Deleted my own comment - I was wrong. Sorry. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We all make mistakes.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Pie Time

Lvivske has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

I don't know why you threw me under the bus on that sanct. request, I really don't remember ever getting heated with you in the past or that there would be a reason to hold a grudge - you certainly weren't on my blacklist of users. In light of the hilarious Nazi CPRO incident, let's start fresh, alright?--Львівське (говорити) 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you're having at it with that 50* IP user. Just a heads up, but that is User:Cmoibenlepro again. He admitted it was his IP here and I opened an SPI already --Львівське (говорити) 06:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.160.197 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cmoibenlepro.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for editing articles

Hi,
This is to ask you to help edit some articles, related with Salat : Salat , Rakat , Witr , Tarawih , Wudu , Adhan
Also, I was thinking about inviting some more people to edit articles, but without being called as a spammer or something. Any idea how to invite ? - Verycuriousboy (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If we take the first of these articles: Salat. It's article history starts in 2004. The list of contributors is about 1500 editors long.

Looking at the article, the main problem is that paragraphs need citations. It would be better if all paragraphs had citations. If you look at your last edit, I can see that you added uncited information.

Looking at the article talk page: Talk:Salat, I can see that it is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Each of those Wikiprojects has a talk page.

My advice would be for you to spend a week adding citations to one of the articles. You may find that this attracts other contributors - people have articles on their watch lists. If you find you need more help, then post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. But do not do this until after you have spent a week or so making improvements yourself. People are often will to help if they see that you are doing something. There is an old proverb: God helps those who help themselves. God often provides this help through the medium of other people helping you.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya movement

Dear fellow, I have added a lot of sources on talk:Islam to support my arguments. Please have a look. ThanksSeptate (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Self rev

Would I have to? My following edits re-inserted all of the content that was added which refuted the leaflet and did some cleanup. Self-rev would re-break the File link to the image (where he inserted "hoax" into the file URL --Львівське (говорити) 17:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case - do a nominal edit, leaving an edit summary that you in effect self-reverted all the content back, but removed the vandalism. That will get you in the clear.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

edits by user lvivske

There are more than enough edits by the user Lvivske without any commentary on the talking page. --Wrant (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have used the article talk page to discuss your edit. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Please use the article talk page

The leaflets issue is not about if me or you believe that they are fake or not, that's not the point. The issue is that when both the alleged perpetrators (Donetsk People's Republic) & the victims (Donetsk Jewish community) stated that the pamphlets are an hoax, logically we must qualify them as an hoax, because thats the relevant opinions on that, not yours or mines. And as far as I know reliable sources as The Guardian are used to back the content added to that article, not to be interpreted by other users and their personal POV's on the issue. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 14:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You do not get it do you! Maybe if you read this you would understand: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your level headed edits and contributions on the Arseniy Yatsenyuk page and talk page. I feel the final result is really something that more accurately reflects the whole picture than before.

Solntsa90 (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

are you going to file a 3RR complaint on the IP or is someone else? --Львівське (говорити) 06:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody had warned him/her. So I have warned her. However, as he/she is editing in good faith, I am not going to revert him/her 3 times in a row. Somebody else needs to be the person doing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

they were warned to stop the behavior of the youtube spamming on the 19th, just not a 3rr warning. --Львівське (говорити) 06:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been informed multiple times of the reason for restoring my edits. I would encourage you to carefully review the sources sited before applying summary reverts to my edits.--71.39.6.142 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the YouTube video. I watched it over and over again. My conclusion was that there was no evidence that the sound-track and the video were recorded at the same time.

You have tried to introduce this stuff so many times, and so many different people have reverted you. My advice is to either get some proper sources, or forget it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ArmijaDonetsk

I had already notified ArmijaDonetsk about the ANI report I submitted[9]. Why did you notify him again, if I may ask? RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The notification you posted on his/her page was dated 17 April 2014. It clearly did not relate to the ANI report you submitted on 8 May 2014. He/she deserved to be notified about the new report you brought to ANI.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the diff I provided. I did not make it on 17 April. That was an entirely separate notice. I made it today. RGloucester — ☎ 05:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I did not spot that you posted a notice dated 17 April 2014, on 8 May.

I still think it was and is right that he/she should have a notice posted on his/her user page dated May, so that he/she should know that it was a new report. I am sorry you have taken offense at my actions. I can understand why you feel threatened by his/her conduct. I was going to post supportive remarks on the ANI, but as I was writing them, he/she got a topic ban, so there did not seem any point in posting.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm not taking offence. I just thought it was curious of you to do so. For me, that posting isn't dated 17 April. It might be one of my time gadgets acting up. I don't know how that could've happened. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clive Ponting may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"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:

• 1985, p. 14.</ref> is a British writer, former academic and former senior civil servant.<ref>[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/16/newsid_2545000/2545907.stm Falklands'
• civil servant resigns]. At the time of his resignation from the civil service in 1985, he was a [[Her Majesty's Civil Service#Grading schemes|Grade 5 (assistant secretary) earning £23,000 per year.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rinat Akhmetov 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Hi. Your comment was a little surprising and odd. There was no personal attack on another author, I was only pointing at credibility, I think a simple observation should not be immediately labeled uncivil. I don't think that someone who openly supports the Maidan-coup and the Svoboda party is the best candidate to write about the Donetsk Republic. (Imagine what kind of article for example an IDF soldier would write about the Gaza strip?) Sometimes even if a user is otherwise credible, there might be occasions where they may not be credible, if their personal interests/views conflict with the content of an article. I don't think that it's a good practice to have people write about things that they are clearly opposed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It seemed like a personal attack to me.

If you think that there should be a rule that people should not contribute to articles about things they are opposed to, you should bring that up on a noticeboard about conflicts of interest. I do not think you will have any success. Imagine how horrible Wikipedia would be if articles such as Murder of Oksana Makar, September 11 attacks, and Pol Pot were restricted to editing by those in favour of the subject.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be perfectly reasonable, the September 11 attacks did not affect me in any way, as I am on an entire continent away, and as I remember, it was not much more interesting news than the average, because it had little to no relevance to anyone in this locality. The other two are even less relevant to me, so your point was largely pointless. If people are openly allowed to be biased in articles, and this is (according to you) openly encouraged behaviour, that will seriously hurt wikipedia in the long term. I think articles should be created in a NEUTRAL point of view, and those who are personally related to the subject ideologically should not have any major decisive force in them. Clearly, neutrality would make more informative articles, or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But the article you are complaining about is being written in a neutral way by the editor you suggested was too biased to edit it. And when people try posting lies, he/she objects.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske takes an openly pro-Maidan stance, and deliberately spreads false information, and apparently encourages others to do this. The article is in a strong pro-Maidan POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

By this same token of logic, Euromaidan / the ongoing conflict in Ukraine did not affect me in any way, as I am on an entire continent away, and as I see, it is not much more interesting news than the average, because it had little to no relevance to anyone in this locality. Also, there are accusations of me being "personally related" to the subject, and I don't see the connection for this alleged conflict of interest. The above user is comparing me to an IDF soldier...am I in the Ukrainian army? Am I even in Europe? I would also ask the user to please point out where I "deliberately spread false information" --Львівське (говорити) 20:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your profile "This user supports the Svoboda Party and loves when people bring it up as an attack on talk pages." - support of ideological opponents of the DPR. "НАМ ОГОЛОСИЛИ ВІЙНУ! ХРІН ЇМ!" - what is this one referring to? To Russians in general? Or Just the DPR? So yes, while geographically you may be quite far away, it does seem that ideologically, you are clearly on one of the sides in this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"and loves when people bring it up as an attack on talk pages" - life imitating art? --Львівське (говорити) 02:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Another brilliant pointless comment from you, either way I don't really care anymore, I'm bored of arguments that lead nowhere, it's probably better to just never read anything on this website again, if the community here has degraded to this over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

:D --Львівське (говорити) 02:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you managed to troll me to defeat! Congratulations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Annexation date

You bet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Some problem

Dear fellow, can you please tell me how to open a new archive on my talk page. My talk page has become too much overcrowded!. I don't want to delete messages.Thanks.Septate (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I will do it for you. If you do not like settings, change them.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. You may need to wait 2 days for it to start working.

One thing. If you find that some posts do not get archived, it will be because they are unsigned.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Toddy1, is there any relation between you and user:Tobby72.--Septate (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Why would you expect there to be?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Toddy1 for your help.Septate (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy Ramadhan

Happy Ramadhan Toddy1. The holy month of Ramadhan has just arrived. May God bless you a lot in this month. (Ameen).Septate (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank You For Teaching An Old Dog A New Trick

Hello Toddy1. Thank you for adding the references section to a recent edit of mine. I always think its great to learn something new every day and you have taught me something, well pointed me in the right direction because I will have to find out how to do it for myself now, Wikipedia is starting to take up my time and become a hobby or interest, but I am enjoying the cut and thrust and the collective atmosphere.
Have a great day Toddy1.Vanzil (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Toddy1, I need your help. Please see talk:Religion and homosexuality#Hinduism and talk:Ayurveda#Word change and tell me who is right and who is wrong. You are the only editor to which I can ask for help because no one else seems interested.Septate (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to find some books to use as sources. It looks as though you need about 3 or 4 good quality books on the comparative study if religion for each point.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is pretty much resolved. Thanks a lot.Septate (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion

Dear fellow, I am waiting for your valuable comments on Talk:Religion in Russia#Is this census reliable?Thanks.Septate (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You refer to a census in your comment. But you were unclear as to which citation(s) you were referring to.

The only citation I found in the article for the 6.5% figure was to "Islam Outside the Arab World" p418. When I checked the source I found that (a) p418 was about Azerbaijan, and (b) did not mention the 6.5% figure. I have removed the citation and put in a fact tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Reliability and bias

Sure. The preferred method for BBC et al. is to give extensive coverage to stories that support the government line, and avoid giving any mention at all to the claims or suffering of the other side. Like their genocide of Kikuyu, for example. If journalists from another country dissent, it can be said that it is a "fringe opinion". It is much better for the truth to be seen as lies than to directly lie yourself.

In some cases, though, lying is quite blatant.

I am not sure what precisely you mean by "Russian government propaganda". If you're talking about the statements of the Russian government, they can be notable because of their authorship even if they may not be true, much like US claims about Saddam Hussein's WMDs. If you're talking about Russian newspapers and journalists - are you painting everything with the same brush? Itar-Tass, for example, has seemed pretty reliable to me in the past. Is there a study which shows that Russian newspapers are less factually accurate than Western ones? Esn (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Some misunderstanding

Oh toddy1, I was asking DeCausa that 'why he hates me so much' and not you! You are the best editor on this encyclopedia. I was just asking you and doughweller for how long I am being banned. You are the most cooperative editor on this encyclopedia. How can I accuse you of hating me?You have seriously misunderstood it. Again it was my fault.Septate (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that you do not think that I hate you.

What you wrote caused confusion:

"@Dougweller and Toddy1. Please tell me what is the overall outcome of this talk? For how long you are blocking me? Seriously I am extremely tired and exhausted. DeCausa please stop calling my edits stunts. I dont know why you hate me so much."

I hope that you can see why I thought that "I dont know why you hate me so much" referred to both Dougweller and Toddy1, and not to DeCausa.

I do not think that DeCausa hates you. The evidence that I have seen suggests that he/she wants you to "play by the rules". That is not a bad thing to want.

If you had abided by the restriction placed on you, you would have been more effective in the edit conflicts you got into. The edit restriction was not intended to punish you, or to hurt you. It was intended to help you edit better. You will still be subject to the edit restriction after the topic ban has expired. If ever you want the edit restriction lifted, you will need to abide by it for about a year, and then appeal that it is no longer necessary. If you breach the edit restriction, that will be held as evidence that the restriction is necessary.

Can I give you a few tips:

1. Spell other users' names right on postings that you make. If you spell their names wrongly, go back and fix it - mark the edit as minor and put in the edit summary "Corrected typing error."
2. Use paragraph breaks. This article gives some guidance. The misunderstanding about who you thought hated you was caused by a lack of paragraph breaks.
3. Do not be afraid to say "sorry". Everyone makes mistakes; if you say sorry people are more likely to accept that it was a mistake or an error of judgment. Read again what people wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Septate breaking his newly imposed editing restrictions. Imagine if your first post at 14:12, 28 July 2014 had been along the lines of:
   "I am very sorry. I did not realise that what I was doing was reverting. It was an error of judgment on my part."
   Do you think that would have made a better impression than the response you actually made?
4. Figure out an area you want to edit Wikipedia in over the next 6 months, and discuss it with me.

--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Article review

Dear toddy1, I have created a new article, Eupoecila evanescens. Please review it. Thanks.Septate (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I will do this later in the week, or possibly next week.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits war

Before you continue edit war read the Talk page.--Dƶoxar (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

War in Donbass - 4 5 August 2014

Could you review the article, please? "There are 6 pending revisions awaiting review."Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you review the article again, please? "There are 19 pending revisions awaiting review."Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Uhud

There's a persistent problematic editor changing the infobox in a way that contradicts the article. Where would be the best place to report it? Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly the same person as Islamthetruth123, and the various IP editors all of whom have made variations on the same edits.

Note that Bdbbfbfbfb used the terms "pagans" just like Islamthetruth123 in his edits to the article on the Battle of Hunayn: Bdbbfbfbfb's edit, Islamthetruth123's edit.

I suspect that what we are dealing with is an individual with multiple identities on Wikipedia.

His/her being the same person as Islamthetruth123 is legitimate - that account was blocked and they were told to get a new ID.

I do not think that he/she can be reported to any forum just yet. The answer is to revert giving an explanation in the edit summary, and template them every time you revert them. That way they build up a nice selection of warnings, which often attracts admin attention and results in a block if the admin thinks your behaviour is justified.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reported this use for edit warring on another article - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)