User talk:ToadetteEdit#Comments at another user's page

I thought you should know that you recreated an article that was created by a blocked sockpuppet of an editor who engages in UPE. Your edit summary implied that the history was attributed, however I don't see that anywhere. I'm curious if you just copied and pasted the old article or did you start over from scratch, or? Netherzone (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Good question. I saw that the page was deleted as G5, but the subject is notable so. I looked at Greg's talk page and saw the simplewiki entry linked from it. Since that article is what I expected to be included onto this wiki (enwiki), I decided to import, with attribution, the simple page onto the article. I did not list the article on my userpage for the reason. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi! Yes I see that it was G5'd, but I don't see where the attribution was added that it was recreated by a blocked sock. The attribution doesn't seem to be in the edit summary or on the talk page. Sorry that I don't follow your logic about expectations. From my perspective it seems to be helping out a blocked and community banned UPE and their sockpuppet. But I trust that you had other reasons in mind and I'm sure you were acting in good faith, although I'm still confused about the process. And I am not that familiar with all the G5 criteria in relation to immediate recreation... Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::From looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sidewalk_Clock,_783_Fifth_Avenue&oldid=1295384841 the initial edit], I clearly linked the simplewiki page piped with "attribution". But I then realize that the summary wasn't sufficient enough as required by wp:Copying within Wikipedia. I'll try to provide the notice on top of the talk page of the article.

:::In regards to the recent events, it is entirely unfounded. I read pages and click on random links, and when I find some title (maybe it was deleted) that is clearly notable, I attempt to create the page or keep it in the to do list (off-wiki by the way). I am in no relation with the sock, nor the master, and I was not told to create the article on their behalf. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Nevermind, I opted in for the dummy edit solution. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Since that article is what I expected to be included onto this wiki (enwiki),}} please don't proxy for Blocked editors @ToadetteEdit. What is your connection with Greg and why do you expect his article to be included? Star Mississippi 04:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I wasn't actually proxying. I have absolutely no connection with Greg at all. This article wasn't created on request, I created (copied) the page since the subject is clearly notable and deleting it due to G5 (while valid) was a bit excessive. I have no objections to draftification if people disagree with my bold recreation. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You have accepted several of his articles at AfC. You just happened to find one he immediately recreated on Simple.

::::Thank you for your willingness to accept draftification. I think that is the best course since the speedy was declined. Star Mississippi 12:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Toadette, on the AfC recreation of the article by a blocked sock, you wrote a comment: {{tq|Agreed; before reviewing this submission, please be sure of the history of this page and related matters before accepting/declining.}} but you did not add any links or diffs to that history, nor explain what the "related matters" are. All the history shows is that you created it, not everyone is going to dive deep into the edit summaries to understand the big picture. I can't see how this is useful for reviewers. Please do consider adding diffs or at least explaining on the talk page what is meant by your comment in the best interest of transparency. Without this transparency, I think it just further confuses things. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I will give out a detailed explanation tomorrow, if time allows. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks Toadette! The original editor of the article would frequently inflate claims or use sources that mentioned tangential things not the actual subject, so it does need to be examined closely. It may be notable, but without digging deeply into the sourcing, there's no way of knowing if this specific street clock in NYC (there are hundreds!) is inherently notable. Netherzone (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have given out an explained rationale on the draft's talk page. For the notability concerns, it is probably a 50/50 chance. I have added one source that discuss the clock as the main subject, and at least one more. But the rest discuss about the clocks in general. I will check in for the final result. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would suggest that given your own current TBAN from closing discussions you may want to avoid giving advice about it to another user currently blocked for bad closes such as at User talk:Thomasfan1916. Given your TBAN from Wikipedia namespaces I'd also maybe suggest not looking to jump in to user talk pages that you presumably found whilst reading ANI? CoconutOctopus talk 08:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:For the first point, if my advice is not up to par, then I will fix it. Probably not the wisest attempt to help an unfortunate user. I click on random links and sometimes find some thread concerning a user who has done something wrong. In this case, I sometimes offer my thoughts to help them (not always). If you think that it is a breach of the existing sanctions, you can report me to a noticeboard, but I think I have not done any offense. And for the record, I currently actively visit WP:DRV and saw the submission of a bad close, and looking at the talk page of the concerned user, I feel that I want to give them something. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it's a breach of sanctions, however I do think the advice you gave was bad advice; a temp block is not suitable in this case in my view (and the view of others per the talk page]. I simply think it is best you not offer advice on an area you yourself are banned from. CoconutOctopus talk 11:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In this situation, the editor did not want a full ban. They want a temp ban. I offered another solution, but I know that it might be disagreed upon. I do not think that the advice was bad; maybe my proposals failed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I would argue the advice was bad; what a blocked user wants has nothing to do with what happens in their appeal. I would also say that a user who is banned from a topic area has no business advising users blocked for edits in that same topic area. Please take what StarMississippi has said on board and just stay away from the 'drama' side of things and focus on content. CoconutOctopus talk 20:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hmm... I will take the comments below. I thought that the ban would be discussed on a notice board and not on the user talk. I can not see the talk page, so I could not verify who disagreed with my proposal. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::@ToadetteEdit this is the exact same issue with you using user talk to comment at RfAs that you're blocked from. Please stop. While there are exceptions to your project space ban, it is truly better for you to forget it exists. Participate in deletion discussions if you feel you have to, but don't read noticeboard discussions. Star Mississippi 12:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sigh. Exactly? The first offense was clear in that I explicitly mentioned the RfAs in question, in violation of the unblock condition. The second offense, though, was that I had never mentioned or discussed anything that would presumably be in the blocked namespace. Reading pages can be beneficial because it gives hint as to when it is the right time to appeal. By reading previous appeals, I could better understand what the community wants and what the community does not want. By the way, I am slowly forgetting the first offense, to the point that I do not even know that I have broken the rules in the past.

:::On another note, does the ban even cover reading comments that would persuade me to join in the situation via other talk pages, etc.? ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, @ToadetteEdit, exactly. We cannot prevent you or anyone from reading them, but you may not act on what you read. Due to the project space ban, you are not allowed to participate in those discussions at all. Not in a noticeboard discussion, not on the user talks, etc. It doesn't matter if you mention them or not. {{tq|By the way, I am slowly forgetting the first offense, to the point that I do not even know that I have broken the rules in the past.}} I'm not sure what you mean to say there TE, but it certainly clarifies that you are nowhere near ready to appeal and should not be thinking about it. As @CoconutOctopus mentioned, this was also bad advice to a user. It's part of why several folks at the last AN discussion thought you should not be mentor. Please focus on content, and deletion discussions if you must, but do not provide advice beyond AfC. Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have been adding/creating content for at least a month, and I look forward to increasing my contributions. For that statement above, I was not aware of the RfAs that got me into trouble previously, nor the subsequent comments on the pages. I honestly do not think it was bad advice, but it would be helpful if another also agreed that it was bad advice. Never mind, I'll unwatch that page as well as the other one. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@ToadetteEdit I realize you are young, but please be honest with the community. You say {{tq|was not aware of the RfAs that got me into trouble previously, nor the subsequent comments on the pages.}} yet they were discussed extensively at

::::::User_talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive_10#Skirting_the_edge_of_your_unblock_conditions. This behavior is not a path to the appeal that you are chasing. Content, no policy, no advice. If you focus there, you'll have good content to show. Star Mississippi 13:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I am honest in my sayings. I left the RfA department after the first offense and created some articles; through time, I completely forgot about the first offense after the most recent appeal. I am trying to avoid an indef, as that will prevent a potential prolific contributor from sharing some knowledge onto Wikipedia. However, as I said last year during my failed RfA, that the community may site ban me pretty much soon, and it appears that I am making a step by every offense given to an indef imposed by the community.

:::::::I was first cautioned all the way back in 2023 by an admin for making unsolicited advice on sourcing, although the recipient was blocked for another reason. Since then, I have largely avoided making drive-by commentary on blocked users' talk pages, but it appears that I had fallen back to my old days. I will try to avoid commentary on the talk pages of blocked users I am unfamiliar with. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}As for the talk page edit, how is that edit bad advice??? I still do not get the problem. I have never seen an experienced editors saying that their answers are awful, so why am I singled out?? Who agrees? ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments (May 23, 2025) on our article. Our article is about our small suburban neighbourhood with a few notable features. There has been very little written (almost nothing specific) about the Oaklands neighbourhood over its 100plus years of existence. We felt that Wikipedia would be a good location for an article on a growing neighbourhood.

As per your suggestions:

1. We have removed many of the minor links from the article. We understand that they were not appropriate to the article nor to the stands of Wikipedia.
2. We have edited some of the content to be more consistent with an encyclopedia content.

When you have the time please review the changes we have made and give us more direction as needed. We would like this article to become content on Wikipedia.

thank you - Harry VicKassie21 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:@VicKassie21, I will recheck through the draft and will offer further suggestions soon. If the concerns in the decline are addressed, feel free to resubmit the page for review. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello ToadetteEdit. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of :Hadayek EI Maadi station, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A typo of that sort would probably be better suited for WP:RFD. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @BangJan1999 for the correspondence. I thought that the "I" (which I typed wrong on my user page before creation) would not be typed in the search, given that search terms are case sensitive. I will list the page at RfD soon. ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not want to open this, but I do not feel you are able to comply with the terms of your unblock despite repeated warnings. To be clear, you are allowed and welcome to participate in this discussion. Star Mississippi 13:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:All I was providing was more evidence of suspected sockpuppetry on the subpage, and that led to backlash??? I have been creating more and more entries, so an indef would be overkill. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::There is no "backlash".

::You are not allowed to participate there, and you did. This is a continuous pattern since you "forget" about the discussions Star Mississippi 14:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"Forget" about the discussion... The first discussion I was not aware of, but I am aware of the previous appeal. I tend to leave old items aside and do the new ones---it is such a shame to be in the "wall of shame" where one gets shot with tomatoes until they finally realize their fault. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Please do not lie and abuse the good faith of editors. You were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive_9#c-Star_Mississippi-20250209132100-ToadetteEdit-20250209110600 explicitly told] you could not participate in RFAs in February. You cannot honestly claim you were not aware of it. Star Mississippi 14:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am assuming good faith at all times. I am not trying to deceive you. I admit that I now remembered the previous incident... ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Outdent}} Sigh, the community is trying to get rid of me. The ANI thread unfortunately made me so stressful that I could no longer edit the encyclopedia in the way I used to be before. I have requested the pblock to be reinstated, and for my unblock conditions to be voided. I thank all editors and talk page watchers for accompany my journey that spans two years, and I hope this continues. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, Toadette, I see that you have decided to re-create another article of the blocked sockpuppet Historyjunkie2024 of the indefinitely globally blocked editor, Greghenderson2006. May I ask what is exactly going on here? I'm really trying to assume good faith, but this is not the first time that there is an indication that there might be some coordination going. I truly hope that that is not the case, but I don't understand why you are resurrecting his sock puppet's work. I also remembered that you were accepting a lot of his drafts without checking the references, or drafts that had other problems. Netherzone (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have raised this in the ongoing ANI thread. Star Mississippi 22:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Star. When I find the time, I will check it for accuracy and close paraphrasing against the sources. I noticed several spelling errors which I can fix right away. The subject itself is notable since it's registered on the NRHP. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @Netherzone

:::I let @Bkissin know as well that I'm happy to expedite a return once GH issues have been addressed and that this was not an issue with their AfC acceptance. Star Mississippi 23:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)