User talk:Tedder

Get well soon

Hope you are feeling better after the crash. Hopefully no long term impact. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AM. I'm a wee bit sore, and the head injury just means I have to be extra-careful for the next little while. tedder (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you back editing already. Sorry about your head bonk. That's some brag-worthy road rash though! BTW, tell T we need her on Wikipedia--she's got a good head on her shoulders! Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Katr :-) Mrs Tedder edits here once a month or so- she's certainly smart. FWIW, my score on the Glasgow Coma Scale was a 6. Good times. tedder (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question?

On "Talk" page of Kiha Software... you wrote "No prejudice against recreation as a neutral article". Could you explain what your wording means here? I'm happy with the tone of discussion... and the little stub I created doesn't have any bias, as far as I can tell... so I'm a little confused by the statement? I'm also not sure if you meant "re/creation" or recreation (ie. play) ? Just learning Wikipedia.... can you explain? Many thanks. Nedhayes (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nedhayes, what I mean is that it should follow the neutral point of view of all articles on Wikipedia. If you have a conflict of interest with Kiha Software, note it's acceptible on Wikipedia, but should be stated. tedder (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree with the policy of neutrality. Thus my confusion.... as everything written there was attributed, and purely factual. (ie. Company located in Seattle, stealth mode, that's about it as far as info.... hard to bias 3 sentences) Yes, I have a conflict with the company, as I'm working with / for them... but attempted not to add information that would create bias in any way, and would not be positioned as "advertisement" or "endorsement." Stuck to public facts. Thus, the question on neutrality. Open to suggestions on what would make this info more neutral. Many thanks. Nedhayes (talk) 00:012, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.105.97 (talk)

Woops -- somehow I deleted what you wrote.... anyway, I did read it. Thanks for the help. After reading the guidelines, I will be certain to state COI clearly in future. Many thanks. Nedhayes (talk) 00:012, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.105.97 (talk)

No problem. Even if it gets deleted, feel free to bring it back when more details can be given. tedder (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Links Glenn Beck

• http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9gbdj/did_glen_beck_really_rape_and_murder_a_girl_in/
• http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090901181557AAie9Wz
• http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-323336
• http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-murdered-a-girl-in-1990/
• http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_Raped_And_Murdered_A_Girl_In_1990

Basically it got posted on these types of sites today. It was only a few hours ago, so I'm expecting the shit to hit fan hard soon. Soxwon (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you post it to WP:ANI and give me that link? tedder (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok Soxwon (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Soxwon (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Film Series

I saw you declined the protection for the list of... film articles, the IP in question has been adding specualtion to those pages for the last four months under different IP addresses, 86.178.84.117, 86.176.176.90, 86.178.153.2, 86.177.116.92, 86.137.191.17, 86.156.237.148, 86.154.81.24, 86.156.237.24, 86.156.235.250, and I have tried several times to tell them not to add films which have not been released but they refuse to discuss anything. The most recent edits include moving the Saw series from six films to seven, even though the sixth film has yet to be released. That is one small example of the hundreds of edits that they have made. I have all the film series on my watchlist but removed them because the constant additions became frustrating and this one editor's lack of communication compounded it. I have tried for community consensus, at the Film Wikiproject (to define what films should be listed) and even attempted to have the pages deleted. I don't want to have to go to RFPP but the current state of the IP adding films for the year 2011, and other editors reverting is not doing anyone any favours. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great to meet you!

Tedder, it was great to finally meet you in person at Portland WikiWednesday! Pete (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, nice to meet you too Pete :-) tedder (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dalton Highway

For some reason you seem to think that my citation was a spam link. While it does have a motel listing at the top, the page linked to contains basically known information about the area, including that the road is 414 miles long and the page itself is not selling any services as it is a local website containing information. If you feel there is a better page stating this fact, please remove my citation and link to a better page, rather than remove it all together and put citation needed. Right now I put in another citation that is very agreeable, that comes from the US Department of Interior Land Management.

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/recreation/dalton_hwy.html

--24.184.36.134 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter what, your site is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:V to see what a reliable source would consist of. For instance, to verify the length of the highway, a government site would be sufficient. tedder (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The second citation is perfect- thanks. tedder (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr Smith Takes a Short Trip to Tokyo

I am not sure how to approach you so I am writing this here. I see that you have deleted the description of the documentary film Mr Smith Takes a Short Trip to Tokyo... But as far as I can see it was a documentary [1] [2] [3] and I was using the wiki page as a very good reference guide to modern architecture in Tokyo, which does not exist elsewhere. I cannot understand why you deleted something that obviously adds to the sum of human knowledge and was verifiable... Perhaps you don't like architecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.205.148 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi- this was deleted per consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Smith Goes to Tokyo. One of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is verifiability; the information should exist outside on reliable sources outside Wikipedia. If it does, and you can meet the requirements for a new page on Wikipedia, feel free to recreate. tedder (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer...

...has really gone bananas today. But he's right, his original talk page is blocked. Maybe open that page up and let him speak out (assuming good faith where there is none, I realize...) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, assuming User:Pioneercourthouse is his original talk page, of course. It isn't like there are no other avenues of discussion open to him. Nice job, BTW, on replying to the 'source'. tedder (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi there, if you dont mind answering, how do you get modules to put on your user page? Thanks JocobFTB2 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the userboxes. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery. tedder (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugene, Oregon

Hello? Are you from Eugene? I went to Willamette HS.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So, do you say, "It's Willamette, you bet!" or do you say, "It's Willamette, dammet!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You? Gene? No, I've never lived in Eugene, just poking along with high school articles. tedder (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I say "Willamette, it sucksette." :D. Ok, I saw that school, which I've never heard of after growing up in Eugene and only leaving 5 years ago, and I thought you may be from the area. Ohh well. Happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been living at the north end of the Willamette River for a few years now (previously: SEA, SAN, etc). I'm just trying to fill out the redlinks at List of high schools in Oregon and User:Tedder/2008 Oregon high school graduation rates. tedder (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So how do you say it? :) And what do you call citizens of that fair-to-middlin' city: Eugenics? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhymes with "dammit". The real question, what's the Pioneer Courthouse of Eugene? tedder (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean, where do all the homeless hang out? Springfield. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugenians, "Hey hippie"... I had a home in Springfield once. I didn't commit any felonious acts though, so I guess I'm mostly harmless. It's pretty much illegal to be homeless in Eugene these days, but there's always my old 'hood. I had a home there too. And again, no murders. Katr67 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

National Film Awards

Actually, I looked at the history, and it looked like Tomjacobm (talk · contribs) was logging out and editing as an IP to evade being blocked for edit-warring. I blocked them both--the IP for 31 hours and Tomjacobm for 48 hours. Blueboy96 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for digging (futher) to catch that. tedder (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln

Can you give me a hand over at Talk:Lincoln on the basics of a DAB page? Erector Euphonious (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a dab expert, and it looks like there are enough eyeballs on it. tedder (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr Smith Goes to Tokyo

You deleted a wikipage on Japanese Architecture and then you deleted my question as to why you deleted it, without giving a reason to either. I am confused. Are you allowed to do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architectlover (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Smith Goes to Tokyo for why it was deleted. tedder (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Pittsburgh Pirates

I understand wanting to protect against vandalism, but I don't see any vandalism or edits against consensus. All I see is one slightly rude IP editor who was understandably angry that his correct edits were being reverted. Could you please point the "vandalism, edits against consensus" to me? (I'm sorry if I come off rude, I'm trying to multi-task right now, I don't mean it.) BAPACop (converse) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi BAPA, by "edits against consensus" I meant there was some edit warring going on. It seemed like a lot of this happening- like some IPs were being directed at the article. It's not a big issue- your edits look just fine, and I was responding to a request at WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering quickly! I guess I actually forgot about the edits like that occurring earlier. Sorry for bothering you. BAPACop (converse) 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There were a few smelly events too- like this edit summary and this math issue you corrected. No worries- I'm just here to help. tedder (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirelive Church

You declined my request for unprotection, can you please give me some tips to get the article up to scrach Bunzyfunzy (talk) Bunzyfunzy (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi- have you seen Wikipedia:Your first article? tedder (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Katherine Knight

Dear Tedder, thanks for the effort on requests for protection, however it haas taken me hours to even get this far. I request you take over the reversion. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

75.47.153.191

What would you do about this? Obviously the same editor that you have recently blocked, but we don't want to start playing a game with him/her. I actually think the IP was trying to be helpful (the image had already been declined by an IfU reviewer) although obviously edit warring is unacceptable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, a kitty!

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for protecting List of DirecTV channels but I never said I owned it, I'm just trying to stop disruptive IP vandals. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Sibel_Edmonds

1. thanks for looking at the Sibel Edmonds article and questioning the decision to block. Did you have knowledge beyond his work in the article of "conflict of interest" that you mentioned?
2. OCPD is handy for a programmer, except for Is unable to discard worthless objects ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Couple things- first, new sections are usually added by the tab bar at the top. There's a "new section" tab, which lets the edit summary not reflect the previous section.

Second, as I implied on the unprotection, I'm not really forming an opinion about the sources or the users. I hope you can reach a consensus on your own.

OCPD- look! a shiny object! :-) tedder (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

Hi Tedder, I hope you don't mind me contacting you.

Whilst I was working my way through my watchlist of pages tonight, I think I may have stumbled across the works of a sock puppet. The reason I think this is because for the EastEnders characters pages I watch (like the Lauren Crace one that I reported for protection) the edits are virtually the same, the IP address is listed to the same provider but the IPs are different each time. I investigated the IP provider (ripe network coordination centre) and from what I can find out this is possible. I'm starting to think that the person is simply changing their IP every now and then to carry on making disruptive edits?

I will now be keeping an eye on all the EastEnders cast wikis for this persons disruptive edits.

Anyway I'm just looking for your advice on the best way to handle this. If I do get any more evidence of sock puppet work I intend to report the IPs. What's the best way to report it? --5 albert square (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi 5A, I don't mind. I'll give you some basics:

• Create a page (such as User:5 albert square/EastEnders sockpuppet log), track the diffs, dates, and IPs that are being used. If the sockpuppet uses username(s), pay special attention to those. Also create an introduction, explaining the modus operandi of the sockpuppet (with diffs); this is useful for directing curious editors to.
• Use very little energy to revert sockpuppetry/vandalism (see WP:RBI), but make sure to tag your edit summaries with "sock" in some way, so other editors know why you aren't doing much. The goal is to expend less energy than the sockpuppet.
• If the behavior is egregious, severe, or settles on one IP, be prepared to file a sockpuppet investigation for it. This is a good time to checkuser for more usernames (if there are any).
• Don't be discouraged. Using Twinkle and rollback, you can spend little effort or frustration to revert the sockpuppet edits.
• Come back here if there's something specific I can do.

Hope this helps. tedder (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedders

Thanks for the advice. I have now set up a Sock Puppet log for all Wikis related to Neighbours and EastEnders as it is those Wikis that have caused me concern recently. I've set up the log here [[4]]. Is there anything that you would suggest adding or changing in it?

Also can I ask what you mean by Twinkle and rollback?

Once again thanks for the advice! --5 albert square (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi- thanks for the log. It looks like a good start. Make sure to get diffs of the "evil" the sock has done. See WP:DIFF if you need help with that.

Twinkle and rollback: WP:TWINKLE, WP:ROLLBACK. It makes undoing changes easier. Keep asking questions! tedder (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Make sure to let WP:EE know about it (on their talk page). In fact, you should be active in that group (not sure if you are or not). WikiProjects are where the "community" of Wikipedia is really at. tedder (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Tedders, I am already a member of WP:EE but have added this to their talkpage. Now just to see if Neighbours have a similar thing to this :). Thanks again for the advice :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

The page has been unprotected. Is this correct? Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, look at that. How crazy has that page been? Anyhow, it is only semi-protected- the diff only shows the protection "sticker" being removed, the semi-protection remains. Removing it is a fairly goodfaith thing. I may comment on the AFD, though. tedder (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just the notice removed then. Thanks for that. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider extending the semi-protection to run until the AfD debate is over. I know there have been issues with IP vandalism to the article in the past (à la Ken Bruce) so this action would keep the article stable while the debate is going on. I've a feeling this could be quite and AfD discussion. Also, see WP:VPP where I have raised the issue of the right not to have an article about oneself. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that AFD has .. flourished .. overnight. I'll extend the semi-protection, but I'd prefer to let it lapse to prove there are issues with editing it. tedder (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Take care

In Template:World Wrestling Entertainment employees you should have taken into account the warnings on Template:Pp-template about noinclude tags. We had 50 articles in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Good luck, Debresser (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you're obviously an admin, could you null-edit Template:ISO 639 name cel for me, please? It is stuck in that same category for the second day now. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the admonishment about the pp template.

I'm not sure the ISO 639 thing is the same. It says "pictish", then everything else (including pp-template) is noincluded. So the pp-template is inside the noinclude. Let me know. tedder (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

EdNerd

Obviously a sock. Removing his junk on the talk page was a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock, troll, et cetera. Did you see the stuff on his talk page? Such as the threats? *laughs* tedder (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is going to cost Wikipedia huge amounts of money. Maybe we'd better put 'JC invented the Caesar salad' in the lead? Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll start warming up the Ceasar Salad Controversy of 2009 article now. tedder (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Action theory

Having moved the article from "Action theory" to Action theory (philosophy), don't forget to sort out all the links to it, which now point to the disambiguation page at Action theory. It's your responsbility, as the editor who's moved the page. PamD (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to let Tomsega (talk · contribs) know; he was working on it, he'd moved the page (poorly), so I simply reverted his copy-and-paste and did it correctly. He's been working on the rest of the bits behind the move too. tedder (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet war in Afghanistan

You protected this page in its current form.[5] See Talk:Soviet war in Afghanistan#Substandard English in lead.24.22.141.252 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Asked for clarification at that talk page, I'll be watching it for your reply. tedder (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Schools

Ha! You beat me to it! Anyway, disregard the part that's now irrelevant:

Don't know if you've seen this?: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools I just updated our completion rate, so we're winning! :) Hardly anybody updates that page, but still...besides which, we've added far more schools than the initial 247. You might want to save that diff for making redirs one of these days if you're desperate for something to do. Katr67 (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saw it, of course :-) (stalking your contribs, actually). Added it to my list of TODO. Sweet. tedder (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Linas

Hello, I saw a thread on WP:WQA regarding this user. I note you blocked this user, but you didn't note the block on the user's talk page. A few editors on WQA were discussing the user without knowing they have been blocked, since there was no template stating such on the user's talk page. Just commenting here to let you know you forgot the template when you blocked Linas. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

TS4, that's my fault, and I'm sorry for not placing the template. I thought it had automagically happened with the block. I should have checked. Placed it now. tedder (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While I do not condone the use of four letter words, it's possible that Linas misunderstood what happened at Trace monoid. Your friend, User:Aboutmovies had just finished editing Beyond Words Publishing, and then he linked it in all articles having a reference that contained "Beyond Words" in it. Accidentally, he also linked it in some Math/Computer Science articles, that were citing a book published by Springer Verlag, but which happened to contain "Beyond Words" in the book's title; one of those article was Trace monoid. So, this was a mistake, not vandalism. I've reverted those edits of Aboutmovies to math articles, and left him a note on his talk page. Later Aboutmovies also tagged Trace monoid as needing inline references; like I explained on my talk page, this was not appropriate, but I would not call this edit of Aboutmovies vandalism either. But it's possible that Linas saw it as WP:POINT or retaliatory, while I prefer to WP:AGF. Pcap ping 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to hear some of the context behind it. In any case, Linas was certainly attempting to escalate the situation- responding on his talk page, then responding on Aboutmovies' talk page. Since Aboutmovies had already warned him about WP:NPA, I immediately blocked for the (further) disruption and over-the-top breach of WP:EQ. Linas hasn't asked for the block to be removed on his talk page, so I figure I'll let it stand. tedder (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Linas and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, linas (talk)

/me goes to get popcorn. This should be interesting. tedder (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

After your rejection for mediation, I have filed a formal complaint with the arbitration committee. I am now asking you to voluntarily relinquish your admin powers, and to voluntarily take an indefinite leave of absence from editing Wikipedia, in recognition for for your actions. I have filed a formal complaint here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attack by multiple admins upon User:Linas linas (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. In the spirit of WP:NPANPA and WP:STICK, feel free to pursue it through the formal channels as long as it keeps you entertained and you aren't banned from doing so, but don't post it here on my talk page anymore. Your opinion has certainly been noted. tedder (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Linas. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Tedder (machine)

After a bit of expansion, you're now nominated for DYK. If you got a minute, go over it and tweak or whatever; an extra pair of eyes is always welcome. I'd love to include an image or two from those 19th century books, but I haven't the foggiest how that might work. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweeeeeet. Nice work, Drmies. I'll ask a wpfriend about the photos- fair use/PD is certainly not my specialty. tedder (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Any photo you find that was published before 1923 is public domain in the U.S. (where it counts). Also, any photo whose creator died over 70 years ago (even if it was never published). Lots of stuff that was published after 1923 is expired copyright, but figuring out whether or not the copyright was renewed is kinda dicey. Aboutmovies is pretty well versed in that stuff, I think. Good luck, and boy I bet you're glad your name isn't Windrowner! -Pete (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you do contract work? I have an alternate account that wants an article in its name, too :) decltype (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not, say, feces-related. Bacon-related stuff I do for free; anything else will require lubrication and aeration (in the form of malt whiskey and cigars). Non-profits pay double. What's the alternate account? Thanks to all of you for the advice--I found one old image in Commons last night, so I think I'm good. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The account name is auto, and the article would be auto (C++). The article would be similar to decltype, but a bit more comprehensive (it has a longer history). While you seem capable of writing about almost anything under the sun, I would be very impressed if you could pull this off. I suppose I'll have to write it myself, when inspiration strikes me. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Decltype--that is SO over my head all I can see is vapor trails...I'm on it, but don't hold your breath, it's a steep learning curve for me. On the bright side, woohoo! Tedder is on the FRONTPAGE right now--Tedder, I think this will kick you right up into bureaucratship. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment at RFPP

I really don't appreciate your comment that I "intended to ignore all rules" when I protected the naming conflict page. I stated that I intended to protect the "wrong version" because that's what we do any time we protect a page under dispute. Bad joke, I guess, but I certainly don't have a bias in the matter. I never take admin action when I am involved in something or have an opinion on it. The belligerents in this conflict, which has encompassed Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Catholic Church, and who knows what else for weeks, are quick to cry foul and this was no exception. Please don't cast aspersions at the admin who is willing to act on a difficult page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, my comment about IAR was definitely not meant to be taken in a negative way. I was trying to say "yes, LB probably knows about the guidelines related to page protection and made a concious decision to do it the way he did", not "LB is causing trouble". Okay? I'm sorry that you misconstrued it otherwise, and that it (obviously) could be misconstrued by others in that manner too. I certainly wasn't trying to belittle you or cast aspersions, I swear. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no biggie. Thanks for the reply. Look who's quick to cry foul now. :) --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's all good! tedder (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nom

Yes, you pretty much sit back and do nothing at this point. At some point someone will come along a review the hook and the article to make sure it passes all the rules. They will then leave a symbol like the one already there and notes. If it is a check mark, then you need not do anything. If it is anything else, then address whatever problem the editor points out. Note, this process might be done in a day, or in a week, so you just need to check back every day to keep an eye on it. Good editors at DYK will let you know if there is a problem, but there is high turnover and newer folks may not now to do this. If you go there and the hook is gone, check the queue for it (link is in the nav template at the top right), as that means it will be on the main page in the next day or so. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

David Leslie Hawksworth

Hello. I noticed that you rejected the nomination for deletion of David Leslie Hawksworth's article. I understand there was some kind of form mistake. Could you explain me what happened? Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karljoos, when you created the AFD, you didn't follow the steps at WP:AFD. Specifically, the discussion page was neither created nor transcluded. In other words, you followed step 1, but not steps 2 and 3. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

LHS

Thanks for noticing!! I was using Huggle to revert vandalism, (boy, is that an experience, I usually get my user page vandalised in retaliation) and unfortunately, the LHS page had some pretty nasty npov comments on it. Another editor started the rehab and I just tried to add what I could to the page. I'm not from there either, but it needed to be done! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For that... why do the links sometimes have a .2b or something similar (and why do they eventually get broken if I use them)?  7  05:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2b is a "plus", like this: +

That means that if it's in the section header, it'll get translated to that. In any case, I think the difference was that the section header changed, which means the URL got changed. tedder (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, those had 28 and 29 in them, which is open and close parenthesis. I'm such a nerd, I had to go check. tedder (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm usually a geek myself - just wasn't expecting ascii codes without a percent or something.  7  07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Hey, just a quick note regarding that mix-up with Sesu Prime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looks like the user was unfortunately hit with an autoblock, even though you unblocked their account. A number of automated tools exist to help find autoblocks, but over time I've found Special:BlockList to be the most reliable. Unfortunately, removing a direct block does not remove any associated autoblocks. Anyway, just a note for future reference. Cheers, – Luna Santin (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Luna, thanks for fixing it, and thanks for following up with me. Hopefully I'll have learned my lesson, eh? tedder (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully! :) In my experience, autoblocks are probably one of the most voodoo-based aspects of adminly stuff. You're certainly not the first to run into that particular issue. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack Sheppard

Please don't just undo my edits.

The novel Jack Sheppard is about Jack Sheppard. Indeed, it is one of the principal works about him (if liberally fictionalised, in Victorian melodramatic fashion). It makes perfect sense to include it in the hatnote - much more so than those other people already mentioned there. Perhaps it should be in the disambiguation page too.

If you think mentioning the novel once in the lede, once in an image caption and once in the main body of the article is overlinking, then remove one or two of them, not all three. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

About undoing your edits, see WP:OWN.

The issue was that you linked to it four times- once in the dab, three times in the body. Two links in the body (one in the lede, one in the main) would be understandable. Having an endlessly long dab is counterproductive to the dab page. tedder (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to a related page is somehow WP:OWNing the artice? Good grief. I could retort that you should not WP:OWN your "undo" action, but I would not be so crass.

I added one link in the hatnote, one in the lede, one in the image caption and one in the main body of the article. [6] Feel free to remove the ones you think are irrelevant, but don't blindly remove all of them, please. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. Have it your own way. I mean, it is not as if anyone would want to read about a novel published in the same journal as Oliver Twist anyway. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Random

I just want to say the personal attacks on your user page made my night. <tommy> (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad :-) Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I like Adam Corolla too... especially the one youtube video clip where he disses that nutbag Ann Coulter!!! oh gosh =) <tommy> (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikicookie

LAAFan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Unprotection of Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality

Hey, sorry to step on your toes, but I don't think the project should wait for an admin to come back to decide whether to unprotect a page. I've taken action on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.7B.7Blt.7CInfobox_Russian_inhabited_locality.7D.7D. The protection action was obviously not a good idea for User:Ezhiki to take and an ANI thread has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breakdown_at_Template:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality. BTW, I disagree with your comment on the template talk that unprotection would be wheel warring. Wheel warring is specifically defined as re-doing a reversion by another admin. Unprotection constitutes the reversion, re-protection would be wheel warring.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Toe-stepping is fine- thanks for stepping up and dealing with it. I would have preferred to wait until Ezhiki was back online, but I'm happy to let a confident mop-wielder come in and deal with it. Cheers, tedder (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. I've never run into Ezhiki before, so if you are familiar with him or her it might be productive for you to stay involved. I've done a lot of DR but I'm probably as hard-core as you can get about not using the tools for your own benefit (I've wasted my time a couple times arguing with other admins about protecting their own user pages and I still consider it the appearance of abuse at best) and I probably won't give Ezhiki a lot of slack (read "I'm already assuming bad faith by this point"). I probably wouldn't be the best to try to work things out.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never run across Ezhiki before- I just saw the message about being gone for the weekend. No worries, let me know if the issue gains traction and I appear to have not noticed it. tedder (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Circus Starring: Britney Spears

I created the archive page. However, this is the first time I have ever done one. Could you check to make sure everything looks right? ---Shadow (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine- the {{talkheader}} takes care of archiving, so I removed the link. There are lots of ways to do it- I usually use an autoarchiver because I'm lazy :-) tedder (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see who finally got tired of always having to protect that page. :) Thank you so much for keeping the IP's away for a while. Hopefully after the tour wraps up in November things will settle down. ---Shadow (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll work, eh? I didn't know that's when the tour wrapped, but I didn't even read the article (or look at the pictures). tedder (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: my talk page

Your welcome. Please note that I wasn't the IP who started the edit war with the user. In fact, I took the dispute to the talk page in the first place. The reason i didn't create an account cause i do not want people to go against me for a while. Regards! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I know there's more than you (i.e., the other IP). No worries, I'm just always curious when someone doesn't create an account. Keep up the good work. tedder (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you protected the American Airlines page if you could help settle this dispute. If you can't, that's okay. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't. I'm clueless on airports and terminology like that- I'm hoping someone at WP:AVIA or WP:AIRPORT can help out- if you haven't, post there. tedder (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I've seen your hard work. You seem to be popping up everywhere. Don't think it goes unnoticed or unwelcomed, it's most welcome. You're doing a great job. :) Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. What'd you cross paths with me on? RFPP work? I'm just happy whenever a talk page notification isn't because I've messed something up :-) tedder (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RFPP work, but you also deleted an article I put into CSD. You seem to be doing the work of 5 admins... Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I got distracted when I was looking at a backlog and stumbled upon the CSDs. tedder (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:A234atA234Workshop

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:A234atA234Workshop. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jimmy Xu (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. tedder (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fightstar

So you decided to lock a page in it's "bad sources" format? Nice one. At least remove alternative metal again, because anyone can see the sources given for it are rubbish. The answer is not to lock the page like that, the answer is to block the editor who keeps on adding them and won't listen to reason (possibly because he can't even understand English). 86.129.209.154 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the "good" version? It's also only semi-protected, so any logged-in user can change it. tedder (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi "86", we have a humorous essay about this--see WP:WRONGVERSION. Katr67 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

thetextpage

You have marked my article as written like an advert. Can you please give me some feedback as to how I can correct this? Thanks Lcardiff (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi- are you involved with thetextpage? If so, it'll probably be hard. Otherwise, the best thing to do is to read WP:NPOV. tedder (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder, thanks for the reply. I am not involved with thetextpage but have been following it's progress and researched to produce the article. I have never actually written an article on here but am a huge fan of wikipedia and after finding thetextpage didn't have a page I thought I'd submit one. I used another wiki page as a guidline - themilliondollarhomepage, which is a similar concept. Can you give me some examples of where in the article it sounds like an advert? Should I add more references?

thanks for your time,

Lcardiff (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion without proper warning or cause

You recently deleted Simpedia. You neither gave any warning to its creator nor put it on the list of articles proposed for deletion. Please revert your deletion and place the proper template on the page and make the proper article in the afforementioned page. — Supuhstar * § 17:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Supuhstar, I deleted it under the speedy deletion tag, which it had been listed at by another editor. Specifically, the other editor had marked it under A7, meaning there was no indications of notability, and I agreed. There's no requirement that articles go through the WP:AFD process, especially if they are fairly clear examples. No sources were given, nor did it appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web).

I would suggest that you have the page userified (I'd be happy to do that), and then work on it in your own space. When the article meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines, it can be moved over. I'd be happy to userify the article for you if you wish; otherwise, feel free to list it at WP:DRV and then notify me. tedder (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon Connections Academy

On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oregon Connections Academy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Russian inhabited locality

Hi there! As the matter has been escalated to AN/I, I direct your attention there. I have provided an extensive description of what has happened (and why certain things were said and done), and I trust it should take care of your original inquiry as well. If anything is unclear, you are welcome to follow-up with me (either at AN/I or on my talk page). Thanks much for your time anyway!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it over there (too). I have no real worries- I tried to give you AGF since you were gone for the weekend, and I'm really only interested in it for the (un)protection aspect. Thanks for your explanation and such. tedder (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OHQ

Unfortunately, I only have OHQ's back as far as 1961. But I'll bet that spot down the street from you could help.... -Pete (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they could. It's just such a long ways! tedder (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stewie Griffin

Sorry, did not mean to step on your toes about the Stewie Griffin protection issue. I had spent some minutes studying the issue before protecting the article, during which time I guess you had already declined. I was also going to leave edit warring reminders for the two users in question, but you beat me to the punch there. Sorry for any duplication of effort on my part, and thank you for the polite note on RFPP. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we thinking on similar wavelengths again?!? — Kralizec! (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're trading messages again :-) No worries, protecting it is perfectly fine, of course. tedder (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Delete

You deleted this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viddler, a couple days ago. After submitting a question for some assistance and review, it seems there may have been some confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#I.27m_confused_about_something_with_your_article_deletion_policy). Would you please reinstate the article and offer assistance on making NPOV compliant? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.12.98 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, it's possible to restore the page. However, in its current state, it's an advertisement. I can restore it and others may file for deletion, or I can userify it (move it to your account so you can work on it). Which would you like me to do? tedder (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, some other admins, wrote the exact opposite of what you are saying. Basically, that the article was not written from a neutral point of view, but was by no means advertising. And if you feel that this article is advertising, how does this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimeo) not fit the same definition of advertising and not be deleted? They specifically talk about a service and the pricing for the service.

Either way, I was informed that you could assist us in writing a 'netural point of view' article. This is what I would like to do. what is the next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.113.73 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can you link me to the discussion of other admins (or users) talking about the article? The long history of deletions of Viddler certainly says otherwise. In general, I'd point you to WP:CORP and WP:COI, which should help you with guidelines to understand creating an article about a company or product.

As far as Vimeo is concerned, arguing that other stuff exists is not a great strategy- for one, google news has 2200+ articles about vimeo, and only ~270 for viddler. Simply going on page hits isn't sufficient, but as a start, that tells you that comparing Viddler to Vimeo isn't a straight-across comparison.

It's possible for me to userify the article- to put it into your userspace. However, you should create an account here so I can do that (your IP address is changing around on you). If you want the article reinstated on Wikipedia, not just in userspace, you can either recreate it or ask at deletion review. tedder (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_September_23#I.27m_confused_about_something_with_your_article_deletion_policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.12.98 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, the link was posted already. You haven't given any more rationale for keeping it, nor do you appear to have read and understood Wikipedia's standards I'm not excited about restoring the article without effort being made- you can either create an account and I will userify it for you (move it to your userspace), I'll move it to Articles for Creation if you don't want to create an account, or you can take it to WP:DR. tedder (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisions to "Charles Karel Bouley"

Dear Tedder. Thank you for your interest.

Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly known as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post.

"The Daily Breeze" is a perfectly valid source, as a well know and widely circulated newspaper in Southern California and is a perfectly valid source. Just because something is printed in Variety, does not mean it is accurate.

Trying to sort through all the "Instructions" in Wikipedia has seemingly exacerbated my dyslexia. Like you , I prefer plain English. I managed to graduate college with several degrees some time ago so I am hoping with assistance to get through this war of semantics and person attacks, not by you!

Your Hall Of Shame is very pointed and borderine hysterical. It shows your sense of humor and humanity. THAT is the person I am addressing! Although i NEVER want to end up there!! Sincerely JoyDiamond (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the Hall of Shame. However, please take this to Talk:Charles Karel Bouley. That's where editors who are interested in the article can handle it. Regarding Karel versus Bouley, that is handled in WP:SURNAME, which says to use the surname (Bouley) in almost all instances. If something other than that is to be used, it would only happen after consensus on the article talk page. tedder (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nightwish

Really dude I'm going to take what Chad Bowar says over allmusic.com any day of the week. MusicMight also is a far better site to use. Stop editing those out. --Epica124 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi "dude", I understand, but I was mostly suspicious of the genre warring. Removing sources on genres makes the article less well-researched, not more. tedder (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To follow up about Chad Bowar, about.com is not generally considered a reliable source. tedder (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So a site owned and ran by The New York Times Company is no longer a reliable soucre. That's really funny. And well you are at it metal cyrpt was up there a a soucre for power metal only for it to be removed. Musicmight is also a reliable soucre. In fact I was using a number of reliable sources only for you and others to remove them for no reason in favor of just one site. --Epica124 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and use those others, but about.com is not a reliable source. Again, it's an ad-supported blog. tedder (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Onwed and ran by The New York Times Company with editers who over view things before letting them be posted. --Epica124 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:RSN. Do you have a COI with about.com? tedder (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No one can even edit becasue you guys locked it down and took out all the reliabls soucres and use just allmusic.com --Epica124 (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Locked due to edit warring and genre warring. Now, please participate at the article talk page, at WP:RSN, but not here. tedder (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have and so far I'm the only one putting up any info. I was the one who used metalcrypt only to have it removed in fact I went out and found reliable sources only to have them removed.I wnet out there and got them to stop the editing and then ever one goes into and edit war even though I put up reliable sources. --Epica124 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Youkilis

Many thanks for your help on semiprotecting the pg.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Amusingly, I'm the one that protected it last time. BTW, note that not everyone is in the USA or follows baseball- so it'd be better to say "until playoffs are over (October)" :-) tedder (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I'm afraid I regard all of the time I've spent arguing with people about musical genre as a colossal waste. I'm sorry, but I will not be able to be of any help in that matter. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've been realizing that the band pages are simply collecting grounds for fanboys/fangirls too. tedder (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually find these kind of discussion quite interesting from an epistemological and ontological point of view. I wonder what you find so absurd about them? —Ruud 10:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thomas F. Hamilton

Hi Tedder.

I recently requested a page move that I couldn't do myself, because a redirect was in the way.

You declined this on the grounds "redirects are cheap, see no reason it shouldn't forward as a legitimate typo/search".

I don't mean to be rude, but maybe you should do a little homework first, and not as a reflex decline page moves, at least not on those grounds. Of course redirects work fine, but there should be a reason why pages are stored where they are. For example, we don't have "Eldrick Tont Woods" as an original page name, and "Tiger Woods" as a redirect, although it most certainly would work fine.

So, the question is: How was the man generally known? Was it as "Tom Hamilton", "Thomas F. Hamilton" or "Thomas Foster Hamilton"? The answer to that question is where the page should be stored (including a disambiguator in case 1).

I requested another move the same time as this one, for "Benjamin Delahouf Foulois" to "Benjamin D. Foulois". The admin that fixed that one, instead moved the page to "Benjamin Foulois", without the middle initial. Even better (provided that is how he was known).

Cheers

LarRan (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi LarRan, here's the template you had put in:

{{db-g6|rationale=unless he really was known by both his given names in combination (which the article suggests is not the case, mentioning "Tom Hamilton" as a known-by), this article should be stored as Thomas F. Hamilton, thus a reversal of a redirect}}

Your rationale didn't make it crystal clear that you were going to move Thomas Foster Hamilton to Thomas F. Hamilton. It's a little ambigous because of the awkward wording, and so I (mis)read it as you simply wanted Thomas F. Hamilton deleted because it was an unlikely redirect.

Instead, it would have been clearer to me if you had used {{db-move}}. In fact, if you put it back like that, I'll delete it for you immediately and you can get on with your move. tedder (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

MLG Protection/Citations

• Context: Major League Gaming tedder (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the much needed protection. I might come back to you if we need help after it is lifted. As you may know, "They'll be back." And if it's not too much to ask, could I have a better view of where citations are needed.

Thanks

James (talk) 9:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Yes, feel free to drop by here, as I protected it last time. If I'm not around or don't respond, you can go to WP:RFPP too. Just make sure to tell me what article you are talking about- I had to look at your contribs to figure it out :-)

Some article tips- these are just from my initial glance.

• I added {{fact}} tags in a few places. Overall it seems cited fairly well (though I didn't read the cites). Some of the {[tl|fact}} tags may seem picky, but they will (in the long run) help deter vandalism and make the article much more solid. LMK if any of them don't make sense, and if they are covered in another ref, just add a named ref and remove the tag.
• Move everything from the "see also" into prose in the article.
• Give citations for each year of the National Championships, not just one cite at the top.
• The "pro circuit" section has one cite. Each paragraph should have a cite, and some even more.
• The lede explains things, but it sort of needs a history and overview (well cited, naturally). As someone who hadn't even heard of MLG, it was pretty good at explaining how it works, but not perfect.

That pretty much does it. Good work. tedder (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the unprotect on Joe Wilson

Ooh... what is this? I have to figure out this editnotice trick... now I forgot what I was going to say. Oh yeah: thanks for fulfilling my WP:RFP request... I guess I'll just eat the cookie myself then.... -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the cookie :-) Yes, {{editnotice}} is good, OTOH that page didn't "deserve" to be locked indefinitely. Ah well, thanks for using WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection on naming conflict

Hi there,

I've left you a note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict. I see your note in the edit notice here regarding admin actions, but since I recently unprotected that page, I don't want to override another protection without discussion, despite disagreeing with it. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave my rationale over there- thanks for the heads-up. tedder (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland Show protection

Hello, thank you for approving my requests to protect The Cleveland Show, however, I do not believe that you correctly protected the article, as it was recently vandalized by a random IP user. Thanks for your time. Gage (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

doh, thanks! I probably just forgot to click "submit". It's done now. tedder (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard "Dick" Klotzman

Hi. Saw you declined my speedy, which makes sense. Unfortunately, it's a horrid little article, but the guy seems notable. I'm wondering if there's any way I can get someone to fix it and possibly include more information about his tax evasion. I can't find may other sources anyway, since they all seem to be the same section copypasted over and over again, though he does appear in photos with notable people, but those only confirm that he's a Promoter. I couldn't find news sources to confirm anything else... Suggestions? 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the speedy because there are hints of notability. You might take it through WP:AFD if there's no solid proof he is notable.

As far as improvement, the best thing to do is to find a WikiProject that deals with him. For instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada would be one. tedder (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's author indicates that he will try to improve the article, so I will defer judgment for a few days. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WISE-HR/WISE HR

This page was nominated under CSD G11, which does apply to user pages. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking it was an 'A' rule. I'll go delete it now. tedder (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD

The G4 tag wasn't invalid here [7]. The General criteria applies to all namespace. see Wikipedia:CSD#General. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right- see the section above you. I mentally let the "G" rules be lumped in with the "A" rules. Doh. tedder (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, no worries. :-) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Hey was this just out of habit or did you really want a second picture? Aboutmovies (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, entirely out of habit. Doh! Fixed it. tedder (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nightwish part 2

Here's what I add sense most sites like Nightwish as a Symphonic, Power or Gothic Metal band I put those at the top of the page. I also left them in the info box. I put the Heavy metal and Symphonic Black metal parts in the sytle part of the page. If there is more then one site that ends up listing them as Symphnoic Black metal and Heavy metal I would be fine in adding them in the info box and the top of the page. I took the References out from the info box because it looks really really bad having that much stuff there and most of the stuff is already said in the page it's self. So Symphnoic Black metal and Heavy metal just in the style part. Again if there are any other sites that say they are Symphonic Black Metal or Heavy metal I would be fine in adding them there. But seeing as how I have only ever seen one site list them as that it's really not enough to have those two styles at he opening of the page. So again Symphonic Black metal and Heavy metal are not gone from the page just moved to the style part of the page. --Epica124 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I will also keep any eye on the page to make sure people don't go and keep editing it over and over again. --Epica124 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Epica, references are good in the genre part of the infobox because (while it looks weird/ugly) it's important to keep people from drive-by genre tagging. Just use named references if you know how. Otherwise, this would be best to discuss on the talk page of the article. tedder (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is named references? I have never heard of those. --Epica124 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all right, Epica. It allows you to use the same source multiple times. See WP:NAMEDREFS. tedder (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I looked it up and I don't get how to do that. So I will let you do that part. --Epica124 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Last thing I left a message in the Nightwish talk page about the changes I made to. If you want to comment it would be welcome to hear you're thoughts on it. --Epica124 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you posting to the talk page (I'm behind in my watchlist, so I hadn't seen it). I don't really care what the genres are, just care that they come from sources to discourage drive-by genre warring. BTW, see WP:INDENT. It makes the conversation easier to read :-) tedder (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing and thank you for the help. :)--Epica124 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashes and Snow

Thank you =) --guyzero | talk 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have questions. Part of the reason I like RFPP is that editors identify articles they are frustrated with, so I'll watch some of them and see what can be done. tedder (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I believe we have a couple of engaged editors along with production COO, so I feel good that we can move forward with him now that we force-stopped the reverting. Time will tell. Maybe just keep an eye on us rather than get involved in any content stuff in case we need your help with the tools. I've asked him to pick a single account to use to edit.[8] Is there any other step I should take with regards to the multiple accounts? thanks again and kind regards, --guyzero | talk 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Woody Allen

Hi Tedders. Just to say thanks for explaining about semi-protection with the Woody Allen page. Sorry, I honestly thought those decisions mainly went on how often the page was vandalised rather than how long since the last protection etc otherwise I wouldn't have requested indefinite protection for it. I would've requested semi-protection in that case. Thanks for explaining it anyway and making that clearer. Hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, 5A. I'm happy to explain it if it helps. It's interesting to see how much schoolkid vandalism is going on- this is my first September as an admin. tedder (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh tell me about it! My first September doing editing for Wikipedia and I can't believe the amount of schoolkid vandalism that goes on. I had to report the Simon Cowell page before for excessive vandalism. It's only just come off semi-protection 10 days ago having been semi-protected for 15 months, people complained about it being on semi-protection, yet as soon as it came off, it was vandalised again! Hence why it's now on semi-protection for 6 months again! The other day some kid accused me of being an admin-wannabe because I kept reverting his vandalism. Believe it or not, I actually stumbled across his vandalism efforts by accident, I did see that an admin was reverting them but because the admins reverts were being reverted back to vandalism so quick, I thought I would step in and lend a hand meantime. I have looked into being an admin before, but because I haven't been editing at Wikipedia that long, thought I would get some more experience first before considering it again :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at my userpage for all the insults lobbed my way. Better yet is Linas's comment (this page, above) about voluntarily resigning because four admins stopped his little tirade. Good times.

Vandalfighting is always interesting, but I try to balance it with something more productive and less stressful- I've created a couple hundred high school articles in my state, among other things. tedder (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from TS

Thanks for your vocal appreciation and encouragement of my semiprotection reviews. I get a lot of satisfaction from doing this kind of job anyway, but it makes things easier when others show recognition of the value of this kind of review. --TS 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gladly! I'm glad you enjoy it, and you are doing work that needs to be done. Feel free to drop by if you ever need help. tedder (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An FYI

It would probably be enlightening to see this discussion which goes along with this side of it, following this deletion, which singled out the small amount of content discussing a good prison record. For some reason, this essentially trivial deletion discussion has brought out several things that are really not related to the page at all and which concern me in myriad other ways. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks, the context is most helpful. In any case, what does that have to do with the speed of an unladen European swallow? tedder (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything, if the swallow committed a crime! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Completing AFD nominations

• edit

Editors without accounts cannot do this, remember. There was a deletion rationale provided by the editor, here, so the nomination could have been rolled forward to completion. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle G, that's a good reminder to check the talk page on incomplete nominations, which I hadn't. tedder (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A little help

The Nightwish page may have to be locked down again. People who are not even signed up just keep editing things in and out how ever they see fit. --Epica124 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it happens. Just undo the changes, use the warning templates on the user, point them to the talk page, and move on. Don't take it personally- and be mindful of WP:OWN, btw. tedder (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a little help

Hey Tedder, I saw you were on call. How is the hay? Listen, please have a look at Marcus Houston and its history. I believe we have the subject at work there, and I've left a message on their talk page--but it was followed only by another blanking. If you know anything about BLPs, can you maybe advise them better than I did? Drmies (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping my eye on it. Once more blanking and they are outta here. Just as likely that they are a fan/enemy of Mr. Houston than it actually being him, I think. tedder (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You reckon? I felt for the guy--did you see the phrase I removed? Anyway, I have my doubts about that article's notability in the first place. What do you think? Those references, they don't amount too much. Ta, Drmies (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me the diff to the phrase? I didn't see it. In any case, the user can relax for a while as I blocked them. VOA account, after all. And I'm really not good at sports articles for notability, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tedder, this was it. As for notability, there's been some discussion recently after an editor made a whole bunch of stubs about football players who were on practice squads, claiming they had some kind of automatic notability. Some were deleted, some were kept because as college players they had generated some coverage, like one or two local articles, which is what we seem to have here. I often wonder, in these cases, how much coverage is enough. Hey, thanks for your time; now go get the hay in before it starts raining again. (It's glorious weather here in the South!) Drmies (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: disregard the previous in regards to the subject: after plowing through a database, it seems Houston has generated enough coverage. I had hoped to be able to do him a favor. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West protection

Hi, I have lifted the full protection. I don't think the vandalism was serious enough to warrant a full protection, especially for that long. This should be (IMHO) only done in the most extreme cases of abuse, and only for few hours at a time. Don't hesitate to block with full prejudice any sleeper that might show up. I'm all for discussing it further, but please don't reprotect without discussion. -- Luk ^talk 09:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the timeline that full-protection should be used in abuse. I'd done it in response to the request on WP:RFPP, and simply kept the expiration date the same as was there for semi-protection. tedder (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamed Minhaj

Dear All,

I do not need to create a hoax or waste my time or anyone else. i am writing to help by covering people from countries that don't get attention from everyone. these people are notable and have done alot of good work. i don't claim to have the newspapers. I DO HAVE THEM. i will be more then glad to email or upload to you guys for checking or anything that you guys see fit. Please do not delete something that i have worked hard on it. as i have mentioned that i am willing to provide more info for you guys. i have the documents from afghanitan investment commission which clearly states this companies investment and works. please advice where do i load them. as i have mention they are hard copies. Please kindly do not treat every country like developed countries where all the news and stuff is avaiable online.

please do help me and guide to the right direction.

2 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to the deletion discussion- don't post it on a handful of editor's pages too. tedder (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tedder,

As requested kindly find the following:

1) Kabul Weekly news paper No. 356 on 27 May 2009, Front page tile.YOUNG, AMBITIOUS, ENTREPRENEUR AND ROLE MODEL TO HIS GENERATION. 2) Me & You weekly on saturday 7/03/2009 front page 3) Me & You weekly on 14/03/2009 front page 4) Kabul weekly on 11/02/2009 page 3 under report. tile Wamata Corporation, Malaysia Joint Venture With Local Afghan's Expertise Spearheading Investment and Construction Projects in Afghanistan. 5) Afghanistan times on 11/02/2009 front page Wamata corporation speardeading investemtent in afghanitan 6) Shba Daza Magazine page 23 7)Copies license and investment document of the edible oil refinery from ASIA ( Afghanistan investment commission) 8) copies of License from ASIA for wamata corpoation

in kabulweekly they have wrote about him in almost 2 pages from his young days till today. about his foundation and so on. i hope the above has helped and willing to help more if needed be.

I have all the hard copies.

mike6565 03/10/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum

Please either unprotect Anne Applebaum or (preferably) reinstate a version of the article without the currently disputed section, if protection is to continue. While complaining about protection of the "wrong" version is generally inappropriate, here the protected version includes a section which several editors, myself included, have argued violates Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Wikipedia:BLP#Maintaining_biographies_of_living_persons authorizes (in context, probably encourages) admins who protect BLP pages to remove content that arguably violates WP:BLP prior to protecting pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

HW, can you give me a link to the version that should be reinstated? tedder (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving this another look. I think this version [9] is probably the most appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the diff, and I tend to agree that it would be a more right ("more wrong"?) version to keep up. I went to that version- thanks for the note. tedder (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly, as does Krakatoa. Please read the talk page before making these types of reverts. You've claimed the prior version is more neutral. I see the current page as "more wrong." The talk page refutes Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's claims and I'd like to hear your reasoning for this action (beyond a one liner in th history). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was fully involved in the edit warring - removing the entry completely as you have just done. The size of the entry has grown in attempts to prevent constant removal. This is then attacked as WP:UNDUE. Crazy. 24.57.54.1 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the talk page. As it stands, it's safer to remove the BLP content and achieve consensus on the talk page first. There is certainly not consensus there, and several editors (including Hullaballoo) have given solid reasons why it should not be on the article page. tedder (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page I continue to refer to? You're whitewashing. Safer how? I await Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's solid reasoning in place of accusation and copy-paste. I _will_ add yet more reason and argument to the talk page. In the meantime, check out Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's 3RR violation in this matter: [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus- excluding editors that you disagree with doesn't count as consensus. Further concerns should be at WP:BLPN, not here. tedder (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not excluding anyone. I'm attempting to engage them in some form of discussion. Your administrative actions, including revert, have made this a place to address what you've done. Try reading the talk page. 24.57.54.1 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The editors opposing this material have made no effort to reach consensus - they simply remove the material, asserting on the Talk page various reasons that they think this material is improper, I and others attempt to change the articles to respond to their points, and they again remove the material in toto. I fail to see any legitimate BLP issues. The paragraph you just removed contained links to Applebaum's two columns, a quote from Applebaum's first column, citations to the victim's grand jury testimony and another source as to what the victim claims that Polanski did (no one, here or elsewhere AFAIK, has disputed that these are in fact the victim's contentions), and a brief (one-sentence) summary of what six sources (each significant enough for the author, or the publication, or both, to have a Wikipedia entry) says about Applebaum's position. Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA

reply:

I didn't think it through. I guess it would be obvious that an RFA would be subject to sock puppetry and I should have figured that, but it didn't hit it me that way and I took the sock puppeting another way... What I'm really trying to say is why would any random IP want or care about an RFA. I mean, unless an IP knows a little about wikipedia and then want to waste their time by using public computers to .. make a fool of themselves? for fun?... I can understand, but I guess I just figured people would have better things to do. I never suggested Timmeh was behind it, as even I figured no one would be that stupid to sock puppet their own RFA. In conclusion, I'm sorry for not knowing and I regret saying what I did, forgive my inexperience in these issues here. Here's why I probably took it in such a negative way that I didn't explain: what does it tell you when some IP makes fake user names (essentially) ridiculing Timmeh's user name? Regards, tommy talk 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Tdinatale, and no offense taken. IPs caring about an RFA is like vandalism on Wikipedia: it happens, and the reason isn't always obvious. I didn't think you were linking them to Timmeh- but you appeared to be linking them to a concern that Timmeh was a problem because of the accounts. In my mind, that's the wrong tack to take, because you are essentially giving in to the rationale that caused the sockpuppets to appear in the first place. Vandals (like those sockpuppets) will do things even if an editor is in the right- look at my list of vandalism as an example.

Obviously, it's okay to be concerned about Timmeh or any other editor. But basing it on something as random as vandals is, to me, the same as basing it off tarot cards.

Again, no problem. Looking forward to seeing you around. tedder (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see it that way before and now I get it and feel really embarrassed. tommy talk 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. That's why WP:BEANS exists, after all :-) tedder (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I appreciate that. I think my mistake was nothing more than overconfidence and boredom. I took the liberty of deleting that entire opponent section. tommy talk 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

In the interests of AGF, I would like to point out (politely) that you protected the Roman Polanski page directly after an editor removed a large block of relevant text under the guise of possible copyright infringement. The quoted text was, in its entirety, of note to the current events surrounding Roman Polanski, and was directly from a secondary source, while the editors reasoning was opinion with no attempt to fix or rectify the deficiencies that they saw. I would ask that you revert the page before you protect it. Also, is that picture the same as that used for the cover of Mr Big's album? WookMuff (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi- were you talking about this quote that was removed? It was done after the protection- probably worth discussing on Talk:Roman Polanski.

And what picture are you talking about that's the same as the album cover? On Roman Polanski? Or the "train fail" on my page, or what? tedder (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that protected meant like a big old shield that held the same for everyone. And yeah, the train fail picture looks to me like the australian album cover of Mr. Big's Eponymous first album. WookMuff (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Stork

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

Screentrade

Hi Tedders

Just looking for your advice on this. I came across the Screentrade page by accident tonight. I notice that someone has posted on the talk page that they think that this Wiki should be deleted because all it's doing is advertising a website. Screentrade is apparently some sort of financial option offered by Lloyds TSB. Now whilst I don't think that the article should be deleted (else I would've requested speedy deletion) I did wonder whether or not it would be worthwhile simply adding it to the Lloyds TSB wiki and setting up a divert on the Screentrade wiki? I was thinking this because when I looked further into the article it's basically a stub that hasn't been updated in over a year other than me tagging it today.

What would you suggest? --5 albert square (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi 5A, I agree with you, it seems the best thing to do would be to add the information to the Lloyds page, then redirect Screentrade to Lloyds. WP:PRODUCT certainly encourages merging products back to the company article. Let me know if you need help or anything. tedder (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! I could use some help on my discussion page as I have an Anon IP who keeps ranting about how he had made a mistake only to have me templating him for removal of content without a valid reason, and now he's continuing to have a diarrhea of mouth by attacking me personally even after I've templated him to comment on content, not on editors. According to his brother's statement on the IP's talk page, he forgot his own password for WP but was still told to tone down and he hadn't as you can see. I really hate to report such things unless I really have to, so if I may ask you here... is there any way you can help me here or should I still report it to ANI? Regards.

Sigh. Yeah, that was silly. Blocked for a few days, let me know if there are further issues. tedder (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, talk about silly... some people are just fond of it that they actually run half-way out to meet it. Thanks again and cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

Hello, User:Erikupoeg is back again - deleting this time all images from articles related to Sofia Rotaru wothout any prior discussion and nominating image files for deletion. If someone can call this good faith editing, then I'm an astronaut...--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when there are replies to the concerns at WP:NFR and I'll point you in the right direction. Don't comment on them, though- just let an outside party assess it there. tedder (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More help needed

Hi again! I could use some help with this particular guy who keeps hounding me, my guess is that he is doing this to me after I had templated him for his potential 3RR on the article of MATADOR (weapon). Also, take a note of the warnings for his pattern of disruptive editing by several other editors on his talk page and this latest comment by him on the article talk page of EADS CASA isn't helping either. Once again, I'm sorry to trouble you. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:MilborneOne is watching his page, if there are some egregious comments made, let me know. Otherwise, be careful placing the "no personal attacks" warning on another userpage in response to something they've done to you. It's a lot better coming from a third party. tedder (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• That point was not lost by me but I was, however, lost at what this Spanish guy was doing here English Wikipedia when his command/comprehension of English was limited in some ways, evidently. And I suspect it's the doing of a teenager (he claims to have worked over 20 years as an Engineer!), older guys would have just asked around for help instead! --Dave1185 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:71.68.211.187

Hi Tedder

Thank you for your above advice regarding Screentrade above. I will certainly look into merging the two Wikipedias later on today.

I'm looking for your advice again I'm afraid. The above IP recently made what I felt were inaccurate or vandalism efforts to the Kaiya Jones Wikipedia page. He has described 13-year-old Kaiya as being an actress as well as a professional singer and rapper. When I made up the page there was evidence to suggest that she likes singing/song writing as well as acting, however as the actress herself said that the singing/song writing were hobbies, I felt that it was inaccurate to suggest that she was a professional in these and instead listed them under her hobbies in the personal life category. However, the above IP decided to state that she was a professional in these so I reverted this edit and have now stated on the users talk page why this was reverted.

Whilst posting on his talk page, I noticed that the user is now banned and they also state that they have more than one account set up (the other one being User:ChristianGirl2). I set up a sock puppet report. I wasn't sure whether to set the report up under User:71.68.211.187 or User:ChristianGirl2 but decided eventually on the IP address as that is the original account. I've never reported a sockpuppet before, so I'm just wondering is there anything else that I need to do? --5 albert square (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, the sockpuppet report may not be necessary because they already indicated one is a sock of the other, and an admin has already blocked them. Second, when you do file the report, I tend to do so under the named useraccount, because it's easier to find later. Most people start editing on Wikipedia under an IP, but it's more descriptive to name the sockpuppet investigations under the named account than that IP.

Your SPI looks decent, but it's better if you provide a diff to the evidence, rather than making the clerk and CHU person search for the link.

Otherwise? Looks good! Leave it alone, go on to the next task :-) tedder (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder

Thanks for the advice. I was just worried that if one account is blocked, the user would start using the other account and that they would be able to do so even if the original account was blocked. By the way, can I ask what you mean by "diff to the evidence"? Are you meaning that I should've included links to the vandalism?

I'll keep an eye on this sock puppet anyway. Quite interested to know what the outcome of the sock puppet report would be anyway! --5 albert square (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

5A, yeah, see WP:DIFF. I mean links to the vandalism- but specific styles of links. Definitely keep your eye on things. Cheers, tedder (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Newberg High School

At first glance, I thought "Oh dear, another well-meaning kid adding a bunch of unsourced info about his school. tedder will love this." Then I saw you tagged it as vandalism. "Vandalism, tedder, isn't that a bit harsh?" But oh dear...the comments about wrestling and such. Then I went to read more of this comedian's effort, and ta da, it's like the whole thing never happened. I didn't see that our erstwhile editor had named names. That's the first time I've seen a revision just disappear like that. The wiki moves so quickly... Katr67 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My thought process was about the same as yours: "oh yay, more school boosterism, starting with sports." "oh my. Oh. My." "well, this has gotta go." "Maybe I should email oversight too." So I did- they got to it quick, I didn't know if they would even want to deal with it. Note I also identified the IP as being from Chemeketa, oddly enough. tedder (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah- in case you haven't seen it, xkcd 588. tedder (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it about Russo (not sure of the spelling) the wrestling coach and say allegations of cheating (or recruiting) by chance? We always hated his teams, and I know our school wasn't alone in that regard. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, AM, it was a laundry list of names with accusations of being gay and things like that. i.e., more juvenile than bagging on a cach. tedder (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, shucks. Were they like "totally gay" or just gay? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not touching that one. I am, however, curious if they are mostly harmless. tedder (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodo Sperling

Hallo Tedder, I beg you for your help. Could you please kindly see if the page Bodo Sperling is so OK now. Thank you for your help Bodo Sperling (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bodo- it looks pretty good. The lede is short, and it really needs references for the birthdate and location. (I know you are a reference, but I think you know what I mean). Otherwise? See if you can find a couple of wikiprojects that deal with the subject matter (wikiproject germany, perhaps something related to arts?), add those to the talk page, then ask the projects for a little help with it. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank Wender, The problem is, I will fight as an objectivist by religious fundamentalists. My page on the German wiki is closed due to vandalism. Some guys are trying constantly to throw out my commitment to objectivism. For some people the earth is a disc, and the "Black Matter" The foundation of their worldview. Objectivism is not well known in Germany, unlike in the States. Everyone should live as he wants, I do not want to live in a Constructed World. Thanks again Wender, let me know if I can do something for you, besides, you know http://wfmu.org/? Good times BodoBodo Sperling (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rajput

Unprotect. Semiprotected May, 2008, due to "edit warring anon". I started a review October 12, notifying the admin. There has been no response, for or against, and the protecting admin is not presently active. I think it's worth a try and I'll be watching the article. --TS 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Did you use the time machine or what? (i.e., when did you start the review?) I'm fine unprotecting it, I'd just like clarification on the date first. tedder (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a slip of the keyboard, sorry. I started the review on October 1 (six days ago). --TS 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TS. tedder (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WGGH Protection Request

The user in question has again vandalized the WGGH page. This seems like a daily occurance of vandalism. I have issued a Warn4IM warning to the user. I didn't see the need to start with Warn1 since they should know what they are doing is wrong with all the reverts. Could you go ahead with the semi-protection of the page? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism continues. Have reported it to AIV, protection is probably necessary as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours, but protection is probably going to be needed once the block is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NH. One busy day and my talk page goes nuts. Anyhow, AIV and warning is perfect (as far as I'm concerned). Really, I'd rather fight against the IP a little bit rather than blocking the page. I mean, the trouble is really one IP, so why not block the IP than semi-protect the page? Especially considering that a few IPs have been helpful recently.

So, I've added WGGH and the IP to my watchlist; I'm more than happy to block the IP and even semi-protect the page if necessary. But it really looks like the IP will either stop or they'll be blocked. tedder (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That works for me :) I am watching the page as well, so we will probably cross again on the page reverting. I hope the IP gets the idea after this block...I hope. Thanks for looking into this. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

HI tedder, You protected the Polanski article, there is a consensus on the talkpage there that when it is unlocked in a couple of days that disruption will continue and to request extended protection, there are two opposing groups, we were wondering...would it be possible to do that to prevent obvious anticipated disruption or is it needed to allow the disruption to occur before extending the protection, please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree to this request. I would just like to say that not only is there not consensus on this issue, but that to a man those requesting an extension all seem to be in the one "group". WookMuff (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A continued edit war would be unfortunate. I suspect the user who started the last one would instantly start a new edit war the moment the article was unprotected if it happened at this point. We need to work out some agreement on various issues before the article can be unprotected. Urban XII (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as mentioned, the sides aren't working to a consensus. Whenever a valid point is raised, the opposing side vetos it, attacks it with wikilawyering, and sometimes deletes it unitlaterally. WookMuff (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting the article wouldn't solve any problems. The fact that the article is protected encourages both parties to work towards consensus on various issues. Urban XII (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also to point out that the only editor objecting User Woofmuff has been blocked for 24hours. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. Busy day, sorry. I agree, it sounds like unprotection would be premature. Continue discussing it there, let me know if you need further help. And, as Off2riorob was asking, if there's disruption when it's unlocked I won't hesitate to lock it back down, nor would I expect most other admins would. But it needs to expire "naturally" so we can prove the protection is necessary. So I suspect I'll hear from you then. tedder (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: NEA on Miss International 2009

Thank you for the courtesy note. This issue may not be as straight forward as it first appears. (Full disclosure: at the beginning of the year I blocked Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs) for improperly warning editors and making bad reports at WP:AIV.) When I looked at the Miss International 2009 article, it appeared that the primary editors are Angelo and a half-dozen IPs (however I think that a couple of the IPs are actually the same person on a highly dynamic network that assigns a new IP address every time he or she connects to the internet). Certainly edits like this appear to be good faith edits ... that were later undone by Angelo. (It should be noted that Angelo lost his rollback access in 2008 because he was improperly using the tool during a content dispute.) So while some of the edits by unregistered users over the past several days were clearly unhelpful ([11]), most looked -in my opinion- like AGF contributions. Taken all together, I assumed that Angelo's protection request was an attempt to cut-off the IP he is currently in dispute with ... hence my decline. However if you get a different reading on the situation, please feel free to wade in! Thanks again for checking with me; while it was not required by any stretch of the imagination, I very much appreciate the courtesy. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kr!, thanks for the history. I didn't know there was so much history drama to that article, so I'm fine with your call. If it was a simple case, I'd probably disagree, but you actually know the history- so that's good. tedder (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghurids

You protected the article in full, but it should have been ip protected. If you look at its history, an ip came and vandalized it. Please just ip protect it till October 22nd, the ip that started vandalizing looks like a POV pusher. thanks--Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article should be at least reverted to the last stable version (this one). The current version is full of POV, totally wrong, and it contradicts the standard reference works of Oriental Studies. Tajik (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no accident that I full-protected it- look at the most recent reverts, which were between actual users, not IPs. As far as which version, see WP:WRONG. Hopefully having the wrong version will help you all to come to a consensus on the talk page. tedder (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about any consensus, it's about factual accuracy. This is a scholarly article from the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the most important reference work of Iranistics, published by the Columbia University, written by Prof. C.E. Bosworth, one of the most important scholars on the subject (and that is the consensus among experts!). The IP has removed this standard reference and replaced it with much weaker references, none of them scholarly or even close to it. The IP has already explained on the talk page that he does not accept the work of scholars because "his own common sense" tells him something different. Any discussion with him (who, by the way, is banned NisarKand (talk · contribs)) is useless. The medieval history of Iran may not be as popular or well-researched as the history of WW2, but factual accuracy remains factual accuracy - a consensus is not needed if scholastic sources are clear. So, I frankly ask you to revert the article to the last stable version which was based on the consensus among experts and not on some IP POV. Tajik (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way: the edit-war was mainly between the POV-pushing IP and established users. User:Ketabtoon may be identical with the IP. Even if he is not: by reverting a factually correct and stable version to that of banned user is certainly wrong. Tajik (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry Connick Jr

Hi

Thanks for your help with this page. It wasn't on my watchlist, I happened to stumble across the warring by accident whilst looking through the IP Contributions list. I have added it to my watchlist though, will keep an eye on things once the page becomes unprotected again. Will report back again through Wikipedia Vandalism if need more assistance --5 albert square (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 5A! I appreciate you watching it. tedder (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Halo 3 ODST

Sorry to bother you, but the page protection for Halo 3: ODST didn't take, and IP users are still editing the page. Just thought you should know. --Teancum (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on it. I appreciate it- I don't always look at the RFPP entries. I fixed it. tedder (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Repo

On this article I requested protection for it because is uis the long standing pattern it wis only granted semi protection and when it expires almost immediately it begans to be vandalised again. Please take a look at the history Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi HIAB- it expired on October 3, but the vandalism didn't happen until today, and was only hits of vandalism. Right? tedder (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MJ Morning show

What I have edited is NOT at all vandalism. These are true facts that I am trying to convey. There is no dissent placed on the talk page by the person that continues to revert the edits. Therefore it is THAT person vandalizing! Please explain yourself instead of arbitrarily blocking an IP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.35.204 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello IP. the edit you are talking about looks like vandalism, whether it is or not: "Uncle Fester", and the lowercase addition of "also new character include roberto the giant and micheal and monkey show" complete with a {{cn}} tag. If you have information to add, please follow WP:CITE by including reliably-sourced and verifiable information, and don't get into an edit war over the additions/removals as you have. tedder (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Some are known to commit murder, but even then they are generally nice people

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		This Photographer's Barnstar is for all your pics on your WikiPhotoRide. Great job, and good to hear you didn't have another accident. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AM :-) A couple more photos should be coming up soon, including a few you requested. tedder (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Well-deserved. Katr67 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection decline

I request you reconsider. The problem I'm asking you to address is the sockpuppetry, not the content dispute. By semi-protecting it you prevent the sockpuppeting user (whoever it may be) from using multiple IP addresses to avoid WP:3rr.

The other issues mentioned on the request page by hammersoft, as you stated, certainly should be addressed in other forums. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi BQZ, I understand. Have you used SPI? Protecting VPP is something that would need to be done after a lot of thought- having the SPI come back saying "yes, they are the same" would help. Perhaps make a post to WP:ANI explaining just the 3RR/puppetry issue, stating that you have requested protection, and that you/I wanted to make sure other admins felt it was appropriate? tedder (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll post it on WP:ANI. You wanna make it a joint request? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI request made. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. tedder (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. Thank you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of 2009

Hi tedder: You semi-protected the 2009 article over a month ago due to a series of IP vandalism edits; but I'm guessing that, by now, this vandal has moved on to bigger and better annoyances, so I'm wondering if you'd be willing to try unprotection? I think unprotection is particularly desirable for this article, since anons might take notice of events that the relatively few registered regulars may overlook. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi CL: yeah, I'm perfectly happy to unprotect it. I assume you are watching the article and will report to me or RFPP if the vandalism gets too high? Once you confirm that here, I'll unprot. tedder (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching it (as I'm a fairly regular contributor there), and I'll be happy to let you or RFPP know if I see vandals getting out of hand again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Perfect. I just dislike drive-by unprotections when they can be avoided, so as long as someone is !owning the page I'm happy. tedder (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ladd Carriage House

Hey tedder, I was just working on updating Salem (Amtrak station), and noticed that in the upcoming agenda for the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, Ladd Carriage House is being considered for relisting on the NRHP: [12] (see page 5). Thought you might be interested. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's really cool! It's too bad it got delisted in the first place. Let me know if you find any more paperwork or if you see any news/minutes from that meeting. It's really close to my place- not sure if you knew that, but it's right outside my office window. tedder (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh- I'm super-jealous of that PDF. What great information on the building for you, so much better than the detective work we've had to do on other buildings and articles, eh? tedder (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Mafia Family article

Hello, I am the one who has been undoing the vandalism of that guy on the "BMF" article. I have contributed most of the material for the article as well as provided the cites/sources. I am not "edit warring" in any way. I've simply been undoing his vandalism of sourced material. The sourced material is a government document of a trial transcript in which the person is being quoted for his OWN testimony he gave in court. The person has deleted only that section at least 20 times in the last 2 days. He tried deleting the entire page today but was corrected by "Cluebot". I realize the 2-4 times I called him an idiot in big letters when I undid his revision was probably not the best idea since it egged him on, but after days of doing the exact same thing and him providing no explanation of what he was doing, I was very frustrated. I put messages on his talk page explaining why what I put on there was on there and my source for it; not once did he provide an explanation of why he was doing it that was acceptable.

I'd just like to be able to edit the article again and have him blocked. Thank you. jlcoving (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow...I'm being threatened to be blocked for stopping his vandalism...I don't even know what to say. I guess my contributions aren't wanted here? I repeatedly asked Jeff G. and Yankee (I forget his full username) to block the guy. They both warned him 2-3 times they would block him if he did it again and he continued to do it but no block. jlcoving (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was working on a long note to you after leaving the 3RR- see your talk page for that, and reply over there- I'm going to ignore the above, because you didn't get to see my advice or encouragement to reply on the origination point of the thread (i.e., your talk page). After you've read all of it, reply over there. Thanks! tedder (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. I responded back over on my talk page. jlcoving (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you're new, and that's entirely acceptable. I'm just glad we were able to rescue you from going thermonuclear on the article! tedder (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to respond over here again, I just wanted to ask how long it would be before I could start editing the article again? There were a few things I was trying to add that when I clicked "save page" is when I found out it was being protected. Oops -- didn't give you enough time to respond on my talk page. What I meant though was when I could edit the page again, but you answered that. Can't that guy just be blocked from editing? He's the only one who has caused a problem on the article since I've been doing stuff to it.jlcoving (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor

User:Tajik again vandalized the page Muhammad of Ghor by removing the protection tag and reverting to the falsified version.[13] Tajik has been blocked 17 times in the past but he still is engaged in edit-wars. Can you please RV his edit. Thank you--119.73.6.24 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)