User talk:ToadetteEdit

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

This is ToadetteEdit's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Hello Brother! I want help about one article, I adding from government official website here on wikipedia article, that is correct data but some accounts come again and again adding wrong, incorrect, misinformation and quoting wrong person with wrong name, please take action what to do? --ThinkTankResearcher (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ThinkTankResearcher. I do not understand by the "one article"; what are you referring to? If you think that the edits are wrong, you can always revert it (using the undo functionality), but you should first understand the policies and guidelines first, and also see Help:Getting started, before reverting other's edits. Alternately, you can also raise up the concerns on the article's talk page. And the teahouse is always here to help you. Happy editing! ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no brother article is Second Shehbaz Sharif government, I revert them 4 5 times, brother 4, 5 times already, they change it back, and currently you can check there is wrong information present, How many times I revert it back, they come back again and change it back, take action and block them, I adding data from official government website, it can't be wrong. ThinkTankResearcher (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to the version of your most recent undo. From looking at the history of the article, I see a series of edits from an IP user who is currently blocked from editing due to general disruption across multiple articles related to Pakistani politics. And I do see a few good faith edits from a user which got reverted by an IP (same?). If issues persist, you can seek help from an administrator; but preferably you should start a discussion on the article's talk page. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

right right, excellent man you did good Thank you so much and yeah you are that IP user did temper the articles of different pakistan politicians, I am credible responsibles so i want latest correct information here. Thanks again ThinkTankResearcher (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found your talk page and saw this comment (now archived) on deciding not to enter the backlog drive for AfC. You might have your reasons for not entering, but after viewing the large amount of backlog-clearing reviews you've still done, I ask you to possibly reconsider so you can get a little credit :-). LR.127 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LR.127, thank you for this message. Tbh, I could not join the backlog due to a topic ban from most of the Wikipedia namespace (see archive 9). I attempted to join the NPP backlog last month, but I was not allowed to do so. I currently do not have enough time to review some drafts, but I may have an opportunity to do so of time allows.

On another note, I thank all of the AfC and NPP reviewers for clearing the massive backlog at AfC (~2800 by June 1). I suspect that the backlog be zero within two days. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother, there are two accounts or IP address continuously again and again they vandalising one page, I change it few days ago, they come and destroy and it take alot of time to undo, please how to block them permanently? --ThinkTankResearcher (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThinkTankResearcher, the best way before requesting administrative action is to discuss what is happening on the talk page. I have started a thread on the relevant talk page, see the last thread. If anything does not work, the last resort would be to request administrative attention. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to make sense of some of the AfD voting. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, thanks for the followup. I am so confused as to why the socks keep reappearing every now and then, for two years straight. I think that Behappyyar (talk · contribs) appears to be suspicious. They have been creating almost 100 articles on Pakistani biographies among others, but if the checks are confirmed to be true, then they are trying to escape scrutiny. Probably not a good look at them, but I suspect that when they get autopatroll thing would escalate, and also that they might be blocked sooner than later. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From looking at 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Toadette, on the AfC recreation of the article by a blocked sock, you wrote a comment: 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit I realize you are young, but please be honest with the community. You say 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on May 30. Please help translate.

---

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Tech News: The Chart extension is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. Editors can use this new extension to create interactive data visualizations like bar, line, area, and pie charts. The Trust and Safety Product team is finalizing work needed to roll out temporary accounts on large Wikipedias. More updates from Tech News week 23 and 24.
• New Engagement Experiments: We're testing out WikiRun, a fun game that lets you race through Wikipedia by clicking from one article to another, aiming to reach a target page in as few steps and in as little time as possible! It's an experiment to explore new ways of engaging readers. Give it a try and let us know what you think on the talk page!

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also: list of movement events · WikiLearn News

• WikiCelebrate: How one librarian brought Wikipedia into the classroom and beyond: this month we celebrate Loretta.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: The next showcase will center around the theme of "Ensuring Content Integrity on Wikipedia" and will take place on June 18 at 16:30 UTC.
• Resource Support: Resource Support pilot project is now open to requests. This is a pilot project which aims to support Wikipedia content editors in obtaining resources that they need to improve content on Wikipedia.

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Global Advocacy: Read important highlights on public policy advocacy from Wikimedia Foundation's Global Advocacy team.
• Global Advocacy: The Global Advocacy team will be representing the Wikimedia Foundation at several events in June and July – including hosting an edit-a-thon during UN Open Source week and running a booth at the Internet Governance Forum.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Board Election: The call for candidates for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection will be opened on June 17.
• Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand: Welcoming Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand as the Latest Wikimedia Chapter.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]