User talk:Tedder

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: [1] (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 you added, and he reverted back to the falsified wrong version.[2] 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)

Please take this to the talk page or go to WP:DR. This is going to require communication between several editors, not just on my talk page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit

Please revisit my request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Tfd_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. I shall be watching there. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot block - mistake?

I've noticed that you've blocked ClueBot (talk · contribs) for one week, using the school block template as the reason. I'm fairly sure this was a mistake, so I've unblocked it. Did you mean to block an IP address instead? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting- I didn't even know I'd done that. It's due to a bug- basically, don't use "block" on page diffs or it'll block the wrong user. I'll go see how I can clean up after myself now! tedder (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've actually blocked myself by accident before because of this bug! :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who has made that mistake =. It's only the second time I've done so, though the other time I blocked a nice editor twice. That's how I learned about the bug- at first I thought it was just a clickfail by me. tedder (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

BMF Again

• Context: Black Mafia Family tedder (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that guy is already doing his vandalism again, as SOON as the article was able to be edited. PLEASE help! jlcoving (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the first IP I saw, since they had plenty of warnings. I'll keep an eye on it. (don't forget to link to the article for context!) tedder (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I'm sure he will be back sometime, his dedication is "impressive", if that is the right word. He has the dedication of a religious fanatic. Sorry for not linking to the article, as I said I'm still learning everything.jlcoving (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He's back again under his original account, Goodman1387.jlcoving (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it, and I see that editor has been warned, so a block may not be far away. BTW, can you add the citations for that section that you posted on the talk page? Finally, see WP:RBI. Keep an even keel, don't feed the trolls. tedder (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Since you said that the rule wouldn't apply, consider this for the cluebot fail.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Skater. That's what I get for accidentally blocking Cluebot (as we discussed elsewhere =). tedder (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

7th Reign

Hey, and thanks for handling that Prophaniti "request" for unprotection at RfPP. I think I agree that the category should be deleted, but I just wanted to be sure. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. Enigma^msg 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

After looking around, I agree- deleting it. If someone legit wants to create it, they can. It just smells too much like stale laundry. tedder (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: It's been requested on my talk that Gaza War be reprotected. I had full protected it on the 7th for a week due to edit-warring. Can you take a look and protect if warranted? Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Gaza War#edit warring, again, it may be necessary to block users for 3RR after this. tedder (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

• Context: Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis tedder (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

... for getting it stopped. -- Rico 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

and thanks for asking for consensus on these issues. Moogwrench (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than locking the article, I wish you had simply cautioned the two parties to the edit war to resolve their differences before editing. This way you punish everyone, not just the one's creating a problem. Rsheptak (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rsheptak, note there were more than two parties involved: at quick glance, there were two main parties: Moogwrench and RicoCorinth, but also Simonm223, an IP, and Cathar11. 3 days is a short term, especially if it solves the problem without blocking and long-term editors getting angry at being blocked. Having said that, please take the issues to the article talk page. tedder (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your quick glance was a bit too quick. Those users were not engaged in an edit war; each of them acted appropriately and did not exceed WP:3RR as the two principles did. I've indicated my disagreement with your actions here because this is the appropriate venue to do that. Your dismissal of me, with the "run along to the talk page of the article" was arrogant and not appropriate for someone with admin status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsheptak (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rsheptak, I'm not trying to dismiss you, I'm trying to figure out what your dog in this race is. Again, if a short-term protection keeps long-term editors from being blocked and going away mad, what's been lost? tedder (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Its simple, your punishing everyone for the bad behavior of 2, be they long term editors or newbies. That's both unfair, and unethical. Your solution places the good of the two editors above the rights of every other editor of the article. Rsheptak (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP, or report your 'unethical' accusation at WP:ANI. It's an article that is hotly contested and has a history of conflicts. tedder (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your warning on my talk page

Hi, Tedder. I appreciate the warning. I did not check but I assume you did give the same warning to Nableezy. In fact there has been an edit war and pages and pages of discussion on the same issue. I reverted Nableezy because we are supposed to be talking this thing over on TALK but this discussion is going nowhere. The article was protected for a week by Enigman and as soon as it was unprotected it was changed back to the very edit that has been the cause of so much discussion. In fact I just asked Enigman to please re-protect the article since apparently Nableezy has been just waiting for the protection to be lifted so he could return the disputed edit to the lede.

Your warning said "When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing." There is no question that I have been trying to discuss controversial changes (I and others who disagree with him). There is no consensus and I fully believe that the "other side" is intentionally blocking consensus or even compromise. I am in favor of page protection although it would hardly be fair if one side managed to maintain an unacceptable edit in the lede by gaming the system in this way. I think it is high time to do some dispute resolution but being newish here I really don't know how to go about it. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stellarkid- using (full) page protection to enforce consensus is not a great idea. Instead, it's a temporary measure to keep things from escalating.

I have warnings to the two editors (yourself and Nableezy) simply because it appears you were the two involved in the edit war. It takes at least two to tango, and it doesn't matter who is right or wrong- one or both of you will be blocked if it continues.

I understand what you are saying about "the other side". See WP:DR for dispute resolution ideas; I'm sure it won't be easy, as this is a heated topic. I'm deliberately not taking sides in this- and I truly hope both of you can avoid being blocked. tedder (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

replied on my talk. nableezy - 23:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Diwali

Would you object if I changed the protection level of this article to semi ? I myself have been concerned about the recent edit- and move-warring at the page (see my post at the Hinduism noticeboard) but it seems that the moste recent account involve Freetoreach (talk · contribs) has been blocked. A reason to allow continued editing, at least from auto-confirmed editors, is that the article is in real poor shape overall, and since the 2009 festival is in 3-4 days, it is likely to attract reader and editor attention. Abecedare (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope! I don't mind at all. And I'm happy to let someone who kinda-owns the page to figure it out, because you'll be sensitive to who is causing the troubles and such- RFPP is such a drive-by mechanism. In other words, thanks for taking it on. tedder (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. I have kept the move-protection on, since it should not be moved around without discussion anyways. (Both Diwali and Deepavali are perfectly valid and recognizable names; it's just an argument over which one is "most" proper or common - pretty lame excuse to move-war!) Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Move-protection is a great idea. And yeah, another one of those where you say "wait, we/they are arguing over what, exactly?" tedder (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you help clarify this?

I feel like I'm missing the point on the Suzuki Hayabusa DYK nomination. I get that CITESHORT or Harvard style isn't universally popular, but I don't think I get what the error is that needs to be fixed. --Dbratland (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been semi-following it, and saw your CITESHORT stuff. I'm curious what the answer is, and am waiting for that reply before getting involved. I doubt it'll hold it back from DYK, but I do feel like saying "I told you so" about the citation style = tedder (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pregnant mothers

Since you've gotten involved, you might want to take a look at this. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. In the long run, I think this article should be merged somewhere like that. It's fairly derivative. tedder (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DB-MOVE

Hi, as you said I could ask on your talk page, could you have a look/delete List of logic topics and List of basic logic topics. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure- you want the first one G6ed, right? Has it been discussed somewhere? tedder (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the original name due to a lack of discussion and no consensus (WP:BRD). The "outline of" name has been rejected by the mathematics wikiproject, and has failed so far to demonstrate any support. Until consensus changes the names should be reverted. The problem is that the transhumanist made two moves, hence the move can't be undone as new redirects were created. Verbal chat 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. Deleting now, letting you do the move. tedder (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, to quote the template "reverting a redirect". Thanks. Verbal chat 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you restore the content of the list please? That whole move made no sense to me. There is an organized effort to create a series of outlines. The article is in outline format. Any help appreciated. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg, please discuss it at Talk:List of logic topics. Thanks, tedder (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Gregbard thinks there was some content at the "list" name before the delete and move. There wasn't, it was a redirect. Because of several page moves the redirect had been updated, which forces a delete if a move is to occur. Verbal chat

Thanks. Yeah, I just went to double-check, it was just the REDIRECT line. tedder (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there was content that is now deleted, not just a redirect. Please restore it to some location. This issue obviously needs more discussion. Preferably somewhere other than the logic or math department. The outline project appears legitimate to me, and efforts to delete content in stopping it are not appropriate. Why don't you build your own "lists" which are just lists and let people who want to contribute to an outline organization (which is better than just a list, and therefore a positive contributon to wp) continue to contribute to an outline organization? It seems to me that if you rename it list, an editor might thnk it justified to remove all the organization of it. It is a big fat waste of time and effort for basically a WP political preference. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, gregpard, there was nothing there other than the REDIRECT line. I looked in both "list" articles and don't see any deleted (hidden) content. But again, please take the list/outline discussion elsewhere. tedder (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This move has just been undone by an admin due to misleading comments made by the transhumanist an others, an agreement that articles named as lists originally should remain as "list of" (and this article was originally a list), and despite a consensus aginst outlines formed at the mathematics wikiproject. Note, this admin also improperly blocked me and agreed that no further moves should take place. Verbal chat 06:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at Talk:Outline of drawing topics. There is clearly no consensus here for a move to outline, yet The Transhumanist has moved this page to his preferred naming - despite saying on his talk/WT:OUTLINE that he would make no further moves from lists to outlines. In fact, he has intentionally made two moves that makes it impossible to revert him. I have placed a db-move on List of drawing topics (again) as there was no local consensus, at the moment discussions at WT:OUTLINE are against the moves, and as this is clearly disruptive behaviour. In addition, he has accused me and other editors of libel and refuse to retract, and frequently makes misleading claims (such as articles always being outlines, when they were recently renamed by him). Please have a look at moving the article back. Verbal chat 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. This takes bigger guns than me- perhaps ANI would be a good next step? tedder (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

TROUT AGAIN

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You blocked Cluebot again...--SKATER ^Speak. 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• sigh*, same bug. I knew it as soon as I hit 'schoolblock' too. tedder (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

MJ Morning show (part 2)

I have referenced material on the fact that MJ Morning show recently started playing music. I have made attempts to say such on the discussion page. This person continues to revert my edits. What can I do?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.35.204 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello IP. As before, your edits aren't reliably sourced: a fansite isn't a reliable source. tedder (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, not having a "reliable" source makes 99% of what's on that page nonsense. This is merely a case of fans not wanting the truth about that show posted on this page. It is ludacris. If you are really on a quest to help truth, you should help me. The same 3 or 4 IPs continue to abolish the truth, which is ONLY that the MJ morning show has recently started playing music. I'm not even trying to mention that it is because of declining ratings, I'm leaving that alone. However, why would a fan page of a particular radio show confirm that they just started playing music?? 174.58.35.204 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia still revolves around verifiability, even if the sources aren't available or are hard to find. tedder (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on Pakistani hip hop

I appreciate your response in protecting Pakistani hip hop [3]. It wasn't so much the edit war, but that the people involved adding the uncited information seemed to be getting increasingly angry that others were interfering with them. Hopefully a cooling off period will give them a chance to reassess their strategy. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I completely understand. It's a good example of what RFPP is for. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after the protection ended one of the editors who was repeatedly adding the same material came back again [[4]]. They still gave no explanation, but added a blog as external link reference. Perhaps a more protracted page protection? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please just revert and warn editors; it'd be better to block IP(s) than to block the entire page. tedder (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Game (US TV series)

first, LOL @ "stop Hammer time"!

On this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection# The_Game_.28U.S._TV_series.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

What I dont understand is that if consensus must be reached, why are they editing? Shouldnt they be first posting on the talk page, not just adding what they please? When jayron locked the article (after being asked by his friends pink/wild) he cited in his edit summary he said "locked until consensus can be reached". This means we must first post on the talk page what we want; then when agreed a neutral editor will add it to the article. But this hasnt happened. The page is locked and pink/wild have been editing. From this I deduce that it seems they just want to be the sole editors of the article, and that is not allowed. They dont own the article, wiki is a collaborative effort.

I did ask jayron about the page, he said he locked the article to stop me from editing. I think that is unfair. That sounds like he decided I was wrong, that his friends were right. He said in his summary he locked the page 'until consensus can be reached'. Consensus wasnt reached and the others in the dispute have been editing. Since those involved in the dispute are editing, shouldnt the page be unlocked, as the initial reason for it being locked isnt being followed/doesnt seem to be true?

I was not vandalising the article. There was a dispute over content(a ref and the chart), so the page was locked. But those involved in the dispute are just going ahead & editing, not first posting on the talk page. That is not fair at all. Thanks.70.108.70.215 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC).70.108.119.219 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi IP. The page is only semi-protected, which keeps new users from being able to edit it. There's a long discussion at Talk:The Game (U.S. TV series)#Page Protection Request, so the editors are at least willing to engage in a discussion. If you have concerns or things you'd like to edit, post them over on that talk page. Thanks, tedder (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, that discussion is old. it is from mid september. After that discussion jayron locked the page b/c pink/wild asked him to. Pink wild are continuing to edit the page. I told jayron and he said he locked the page to keep me from editing. Is that fair? 70.108.96.203 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the discussion is old. That means you haven't asked anything on there, either. If you have edits you'd like to make, discuss them on that talk page. tedder (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, that discussion is old. It is from 15Sep. After that discussion jayron locked the page on 23Sep b/c pink/wild asked him to. Pink wild are continuing to edit the page. They were engaged in the dispute, so for them to be continually editing I feel is wrong. Shouldnt they be posting on the talk page before they edit? I told jayron since he was the one who locked the page, and he said "It was protected to stop you from editing the page because you were making changes to the page without making any attempt to discuss the matter". This is untrue as I did post to the discussion page. I even was compromising, but still pink/wild were unrelenting. So that is why I want another editor to step in. I dont want to instigate a wheel war, but since jayron said what he did, I feel he biasly locked the page. None of us three should be editing. But since they have been, I should be allowed to as well.

After the page was locked I did. But instead of addressing the issue I was attacked. I was told

-you are inferior and using an inferior web broswer / -you need to grow up

-stop or Im reporting you on ANI / -why do you care? Is this murray or murray's family?

They didnt listen. I read that when a page is locked, one should talk to who locked the page. I did. jay locked the page b/c he was asked, & since then hasnt been monitoring the page. The disputed info they are adding, but when I added it was labelled vandalism. That is not equal/fair. 70.108.96.203 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The page is locked, but the talk page isn't. Post to the talk page with improvements, not injustices, and wait a few days for a response. tedder (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what else to add. The IP seems to have an issue with registering an account in order to edit. The IP continues to refer to Pinkadelica and myself as pink/wild, both here and on the request to unprotect, something which we both had to repeatedly ask to stop as it seems quite disrespectful and incivil, and obviously has not stopped. We are separate people, we don't work as a "team", although we both work on some of the same articles. The claim that editors here ask "our friends" who are administrators to back us up is ridiculous and unfounded. It's also something that seems to get trotted out whenever an IP has an issue. It's a non-sequitur and completely off-issue. The IP hasn't come back to the talk page discussion for nearly 4 weeks. The comments paraphrased above are grossly misinterpreted from the original discussion. I personally have made one edit on the article page since this happened, which was to unlink a redlink. Basically, it was the absolute insistence that an article written by one editor (Jawn Murray) had to be included. At one point, the IP claimed that TV Guide plagiarized the Murray article and wrote that into the WP article. The insistence was such that eventually I asked the IP if he/she was Murray or connected in some way to Murray. I think it was a pertinent question considering the insistence, to raise the question of COI. I note that the last talk page post I made on the article stated that the IP had refused to respond to the question even though asked 5 separate times and has still not been answered. I don't know about anyone else, but that's a red flag to me. The IP kept insisting he/she couldn't see the columns on the page, which raised the question of what browser was being used. I even went to the trouble to take screenshots and uploaded them to show him that columns were visible. The talk page speaks for itself. Personally, I think this has become pointy, and the pertinent issues of COI, incivility and pushing one particular reference has been ignored here and until the COI question is resolved, I see no reason why the page should be unprotected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents since I'm mentioned in this. As I already told Wildhartlivie, the content and link the IP has been trying to push into the article has since been removed because it's outdated which is probably the crux of this complaint. I removed the content because the series has been picked up by the BET network so there's no need to state that the show is being shopped to them or include the AOL blog link which the IP has been trying to add as a source for said content. For the record, since the article has been locked, Wildhartlivie has edited the article a whopping one time and that was to unlink the name of a character who no longer has an article. If the IP has a problem with my edits, they're free to post on the unlocked article talk page to discuss them. This complaint has less to do with what's fair (established editors can edit semi-protected articles) and more to do with the IP being tiffed that they weren't able to wear other editors down with circular arguments. If memory serves, the IP was the one who was repeatedly disrespectful and uncivil to both Wilhartlivie and me and clearly stated they would continue to edit war until they got their way. That's why the page was locked to begin with and if the IP's games continue, I have no problem asking for re-protection once the current protection expires. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Raleigh Population

The correct Census department Numbers for Raleigh Metro was there, there is no numbers for Urban yet: see talk page) Why are the wrong Metro numbers allow in on Raleigh Metro, there is no numbers for Urban numbers yet. These are census Number that was in the Metro, I have no problem asking for re-protection once the right numbers are in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.178.141 (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page. You've been asking for it and continually edit-warring. You're probably on the verge from having your entire CIDR blocked. (and I'm assuming you know exactly what a CIDR is). In any case, keep your ranting to the article talk page, please. tedder (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating link

Hey Tedder, our link was in the "external links" section of the "Chevy Avalanche" page for atleast 2 years. Yes,i had an edit war with someone else simply because the tag line was cheap and unnessessary. The links where fine the way it was before. I didnt have our link posted here looking for search rankings. Im in page #1 while searching for chevy avalanche. Our link here was vital to us as we have informational data related to the chevy avalanche. Is it possible to reinstate the external links back to 01:20, 16 October 2009 ?? Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluez71 (talk • contribs)

Hi. The reason you want to keep the link is close to spamming; Wikipedia shouldn't affect the ranking of various sites when searching, as the links are set to be invisible from the search engines.

Secondly, whether the link was there for two hourso or two years, it's difficult to see that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for external links to include. It's a fansite with substantial amounts of advertising.

Your energy would be better spent getting a subdirectory in this DMOZ category for the avalanche; I'm surprised there isn't one already. tedder (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the suggestion. No prob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluez71 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... so their link is ok to post? Its reverted? This dont make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluez71 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this diff. Will ping later if required. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It's just something I've noticed with cleanups, and we shouldn't have to wait too long. tedder (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

electric therapy, aka "Blood electrification"

Putting electrodes on parts of the body is a common practice among horseowners. they register beneficial effects.

see http://www.equinehealthcare.com/electric/electric_index.html
www.avafrick.com/Frick%20Horse%20Wound%201.0.pdf
http://www.equiworld.net/uk/horsecare/alternativetherapies/electroacuscope/index.htm
http://www.alpha-stim.com/abstracts/frick-horse.html

Seems it's good enough for race horses but not good enough for humans. Last I checked race horses are a huge multi-million industry and a lot of investigation goes into caring for their animals. OK. Now you can go ahead and start ridiculing and explaining how much silly stuff people do etc. "Contempt prior to investigation..

Nunamiut (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Go ahead and create it in your userspace, such as at User:Nunamiut/Blood electrification. When it meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines with reliable and verifiable sources, it can be moved to Blood electrification.

I don't really care rather it is quackery or hard science or anywhere in between- Wikipedia isn't here to judge, just to report on it and let the readers decide. If you can get it solidly created, I'll help you get it featured on the home page through the WP:DYK program- it'd certainly be an interesting topic! tedder (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a rational reply. Much appreciated.Nunamiut (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Why give this IP a warning after they did not edit since an earlier warning? Kevin (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kevin- I hadn't done the time math to realize that. tedder (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

IP's editing on Natalia Korolevska just got worse, no he not only tried to spread false info on her family life but also on her political career; it's obvious this kid has got no intention of making wikipedia a better encyclopaedia (all his edits look questionable). I'd ban him if I could... so I can spend my time on creating content and not on writing on adm. talkpages about unfunny people (a.k.a. this IP) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Kev an Teddy! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment article

I'm probably who alerted you to the "edit war" problem on the Second Amendment though my edit war complaint on the 3RR board.

While I understand the freezing of the page to cool people off, this freezing leaves the article with some glaring defects. If you could revert the page to something on the 16th of this month before this dispute started, the Second Amendment article would be better for it.

This version below may be best. It is before any changes by myself to that article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=320166791&oldid=32016055171.184.177.11 (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I found out about it from WP:RFPP. In any case, see WP:WRONG, it's an excuse of what version to talk about. tedder (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

She's back

Now that you've semi-protected the articles, she's editing them under her own account instead of from whatever IP she happens to be dialed in to. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

*zot*, dealt with. It's easier to deal with users in this case. Let me know if she comes back. tedder (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wary of continuing the edit war on my own; I've been down that rabbit-hole before. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You might have gone a little far, and edit summaries would be nice. I've been there too, FWIW. tedder (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West Twitter Trend

Hi. On 21st October 2009 (Today), people managed to get the phrase "RIP Kanye West" as a top trending topic. Although he is not really dead, the dark humour on the site has gotten media attention. Since the page is protected, can this incident be included by an admin in the Kanye West article? For reliable sources, you may go to:

• http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/rip-kanye-west-rapper-kills-spike-jonzes-fairytale/story?id=8878809
• http://www (dot) associatedcontent (dot) com/article/2309157/rip_kanye_west_black_humor_trends_on.html

(I'm sorry about the above link, but some filter blocked it thinking it was spam)

Alternatively you can check Twitter pretty quickly (though it doesn't count as a reliable source) for a kind of verification.

Please tell me if these sources are verifiable or not (and if not, why?)

Regards

Pleasantfartsa (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably worth adding, but I think it's being discussed already at Talk:Kanye West, no? tedder (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonny Diaz

My apologies in forgetting citations. Sumitha mlh (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it's just especially importnat on articles about people- the addition of information about them, such as the the birthdate. Cheers, tedder (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Dingding12

Please note this message on my talk page from the above user: [5]. I quickly deleted it.

By the way, is it possible Dingdong12, Dingding12 and Daedalus969 are the same person? Keep in mind Dingding12 praised Daedalus969 for actions against me after an administrator warned Daedalus969 to stop. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that on your page. I think dingdong12, dingding12, and dongdong12 are all socks of each other, but unrelated to Daedalus. Daedalus has been around forever, and probably became a target of the socks by warning them. I know that Daed rubbed you the wrong way, but I don't think they are related. tedder (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Samsung Group

Hi Tedder

Looking for a bit of advice here really.

Was on the Wikipedia before of Samsung Group and there seems to be a bit of edit warring going on there. If you look at the page you'll see that there's one user keeps blanking out sections of the page saying it's not of encyclopedic interest and would require a re-write. One of the parts he keeps blanking out explains how the company started so I fail to see how that's not of encyclopedic interest and I don't see how it needs a complete re-write. He also keeps removing the template from the page that says there is Korean text on the page and doesn't give any reason for it. He's also complaining about the language we use, such as when we're talking about Samsung's TVs he's complaining that we're calling them LED TVs. I actually work for Samsung and our TVs are actually called LED TVs - quite why this editor would think they would be called something else on the Wikipedia page I don't know!

I have reverted the page myself once today and it got reverted back. If I'm honest when this person reverted my edits he was actually quite rude in the edit summary. It's almost as if this person is trying to goad other editors into an edit war with him. I refuse to be drawn into such childish behaviour. I've asked for full temporary protection of the article, however if this is refused, or if this continues once the protection is lifted, is there anything else I can do? --5 albert square (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi 5A. I think the other editor has some points, but some compromise might be needed. Certainly entries like this should be removed:

• Jul 14, 2009 - Samsung & Gallant Air Conditioning open the Air Conditioning Training School in Mansfield UK.

I mean, that's laughably unencyclopedic. Really, the objection is probably to laundry lists (see WP:LAUNDRY). If you feel there are important things that have been removed (and have refs to back them up), let me know, and be prepared to discuss it on the talkpage over there. Does that help?

I agree, edit warring isn't a good idea.. but the editor has a point, even if they may be taking it a little farther than I might. I'm going to decline your RFPP, it doesn't strictly fit the definition of an edit war (yet). tedder (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah- is it correct that all the indicators are down in the last year (infobox)? The editor changed {{increased}} to {{decreased}}; it'd be nice to verify that with a ref. tedder (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder

OK, thanks for that advice. What I'll do I think is revert back to my edition of the page and then I'll tag it saying it's under construction or whatever it is the template says. That way I can go back to it tomorrow, read through it and try and sort the article out. I'll also maybe open up a discussion on the talk page and see why people think it's unencyclopedic. With the indicators, I think they did increase but am not 100% sure on this so will try and get more info on this from Google or somewhere tomorrow. Thanks again for your advice :)

Oh, nearly forgot to thank you for that advice you gave me about tracking sockpuppets. You said to create a log as proof and to keep track of them? Well I reported a sockpuppet the other week that I'd found. I thought I'd found a lot when I found this person had 4 accounts, reported all 4 accounts to Wikipedia who then found over 50 sockpuppet accounts for the same person! I nearly choked on my drink reading that, I thought I'd found a lot when I got to 4!! --5 albert square (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend not reverting back to your edition. I think that's the safer thing to do at this point. 50 sockpuppets- nice! tedder (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder, don't worry I didn't revert back to my edition, I simply put the article "under construction", the only thing I did re-add was the Korean template as the article still had Korean text. Hopefully this other editor will join in the talk page discussion and not keep reverting edits. Now I've said that though, I bet I wake up tomorrow to find my construction template reverted! Still left them in no doubt that it's better to discuss this on the talk page telling them that if they descend into an edit war on the actual article it will end up with the article being locked and people blocked which is what we don't want :) --5 albert square (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, glad you didn't revert all of it. In any case, discussing on the talk page is a good thing. Come back if you need more help- but if the user reverts the template or category and doesn't go to the talk page, ask them NICELY on their page to contribute. tedder (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder, 5 albert square has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just to say a quick thank you for the advice earlier. I did that and so far, most of the editors are discussing it like adults on the talk page. Albeit they are still arguing but at least I can police it better on the talk page!

I don't suppose you live in the UK and are a fan of The Bill are you? Just am trying to get the page up to good article status, have got a week to amend it and could do with help if you're a fan :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(undenting) Glad it's helping. I'm in the other side of the ocean, haven't even heard of that show, nor did I know it was slang! Learn something every day :-) tedder (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Following up on your IP block from yesterday

I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this concern. Yesterday you blocked[6] an AnonIP for WP:NPA and WP:DE. This WP:SPA AnonIP has been active at this article for three weeks now with consistent NPA and DE. Also, as result, this article has been under full protection based on dispute involving the AnonIP. Following the lifting of your block the AnonIP is back with more NPA and DE. See this diff[7] for an example. I am hoping to find a way to convince this AnonIP to approach the work of collaboration on the talk page on than article with more civility and cooperation needed in order to work out our differences. Perhaps you might care to take a look at this situation? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. That diff is definitely NPA. Tell you what- I'm going to block the IP for longer, and if you can leave a nice note about "I'd like to collaborate with you..", that would be even better. If you'd rather just ignore the IP, that's fine too.

Bringing it up here is just fine; if it happens again, come back. tedder (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to keep you alerted about this, so I am, thanks for your attention. I don't know what standard you apply for WP:DE or WP:NPA, but the same person is back (with a new IP) at the article with what I personally consider to be disruptive editing and personal attack (...lies and POV propaganda spouted by Kenosis/Salty Boatr here..."). SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "lies and POV propaganda" isn't quite what I'd call WP:NPA, but it's certainly disruptive and close to that line, and is also not helping to gain consensus. Blocked for a short time, let me know if they cause more trouble. tedder (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention to this, sorry for the bother. Yes, my skin is more than thick enough that I can handle being insulted, not a problem. The disruption to the talk page is another matter as it detracts from the process of editing an encyclopedia. For what it is worth you blocked one of the IPs this person is using, but not the other, which is: Special:Contributions/96.237.129.194. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, obviously related. tedder (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be getting tiresome, but the person is also now using IP Special:Contributions/71.174.135.195 in evasion of your block. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done *zot*, keep 'em coming, it's easier to block than it is for them to use other IPs and post nonsense. tedder (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BlogMoneyNews (talk · contribs)

Might I recommend resetting the block to indef? I'm pretty sure that this is the same person as 24.10.24.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they weren't really given warnings, I'd prefer to wait and indef after they come back. I won't be shy with the banhammer then- there's just something about drop-kicking unwarned new users, even if they are persistent spammers, that I prefer not to do. I do think I'll add the domain to the blacklist, though. tedder (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

..OTOH, if you want to permaban, I won't complain :-) tedder (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that is a little out of policy, but the spamming is egregious with spamming Wikipedia:Main namespace and the IP altering references to spam, I changed it to indef. Adding the domain and the blogspot address to the SpamList sounds good to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was obviously on the fence, especially because of the :Main. Good times. tedder (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuart & Sons

Hi, I see you've deleted this article, although I can still reach it. If you have deleted it, I think your move was justified; the huge raft of edits made to it today raise further suspicions that it's being used by the company as a free advertisement. In particular, the image uploaded and added today lacks proper documentation.

Rainbow1000 should probably be asked whether s/he is an employee of the company or has some other interest in it. Tony (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I deleted Stuart and Sons, but the content that was there was simply moved to Stuart & Sons. It seems like something that would meet GNG, but probably needs a lot of work to find the actual content in there. I'm not up for that :-) tedder (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks; please let me know if adding the puffery tag is inappropriate (in fact, just revert if you think that). When I saw this, I really wondered about the distinction between a WP article and a company publicity folder:

Wayne Stuart (personally) seeks out: - "...the finest examples of these Australian timbers to ensure the ultimate quality and beauty."

referenced to the cryptic ""The Timbers"". Stuart & Sons t."

I don't know how to query the lack of documentation in both images. Rainbow1000 claims that one is his own work, so I hope s/he is a professional photographer. They are both clearly publicity shots. I see that the external link to the local competitor, Overs, has been removed (that article presents overlapping problems, although the puffery is not as obvious there—it's just scrappy). I see also mention squeezed in of a pianist whose article Rainbow1000 has recently edited. "Since 2000 the young British virtuoso Mark Gasser also frequently uses the Stuart & Sons as his instrument of choice and is even reputed to have played all 4 pedals at once.[12]" Um ...

I'm uninvolved, although I used to know the Australian music scene well. A pet hate of mine is the use of WP for thinly veiled commercial promotion. See also Overs. Tony (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it needs {{fact}} tags and for sections to be removed for being over the top. All of the peacock phrasing can go. I'm going to add the article to my watchlist- make a pass, then I'll make one through it. Of course, I know very little about pianos, australia, and can't even tap a beat. But I can smell the marketing department from miles away. tedder (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a pass through both articles soon, but they will look thread-bare then. I've just reverted Rainbow's rather grand set of claims, referenced to the company's website. Tony (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

for protecting the Harris-Klebold article. I think the Klebold family probably has enough to deal with without drug use on top of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for all the BLP work you do. I see your name pop up all the time, and that's a good thing. tedder (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pandey

I see you've just now deleted the latest in a series of articles on Pandey. See my latest (as far as I can remember) substantive comments on Pandey articles here, but also note two things: (1) the AfD was closed "The result was delete, and allow for possible future re-creation" (my emphasis); and (2) this latest re-creation was (unlike any of its predecessors) fairly lucid, as it was created by the non-SPA User:Ekabhishek. Perhaps a proposed re-creation should really have gone through DRV, but I let it pass. Also, it's true that since re-creation it was gradually transformed into something approaching its eminently deletable predecessors. Still, I'm not entirely sure that your deletion was justified. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the oversignt- I went ahead and brought it back, as keeping/AFDing are probably better options at this point. tedder (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were at AfD I'd have mixed feelings. Meanwhile, its gradual transformation into something long and atrocious is a gruesomely fascinating spectacle. -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing this. I couldn't figure out what I did wrong. That's what I get for trying to edit before I go to work. Katr67 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It took me a minute too. It's unusual I get to nitpick your edits! tedder (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? Coords class is tough! I'm only now getting up to speed on how to shoehorn the things into templates. Usually I leave EncMstr to clean up after me. ;) Katr67 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Gosh, thanks. I think it's just that... not many people want to watch these criminal articles and they are the ones that seem to get hit so hard by every junior high student spending free hour in the school library. That's my theory, anyway. Thanks for the barnstar, and thanks for um... protecting Richard Ramirez from his fanboys. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I used to try and keep my watchlist at about 100. HAH! It's at 450 and counting. I'd much prefer to only watch actor/filmmaker bios! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, but thanks for the hard work. I get scared off by the 'big' articles, and when I happen across one, you always seem to be there. That's good. (my watchlist is ~8400, but that's a lot of userpages and long tail stuff). tedder (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User page advertising?

Hi~! Per CSD G11, I believe this isn't allowed here on WP, right? More evidence of edits related to the aforementioned are here, here, here, and here. If this is not a good place to bring this to your attention, should I bring it to ANI instead? And, correct me if I'm wrong but the behaviour of the said IP user doesn't seem to have anything remote to do with bettering or editing of WP articles, he's treating WP more like a social networking site. Thought? --Dave1185 ^talk 03:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the mixed-up, I could use some rest now. But do let you know of what you think, yeah? --Dave1185 ^talk 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine for you to bring this sort of thing direct. I won't hesitate to say "Ii don't want to handle it, go to ANI" if I feel that way. I don't know if that page is purely advertising- I mean, adding a link on userspace without a full-fledged article is tolerated. Looking through their edits, they appear to be an active and productive (aka good) editor who isn't inserting that link into any articles- in fact, linksearch is pretty quiet about it. Much better than the half-dozen links I'm watching for lately!

So, I'd say it's sort of WP:NOYMYSPACE, but it's a cheery user with some userboxes who happens to be an IP. No harm, really.

And- no worries about posting on my userpage instead of talkpage. Second time tonight, oddly, so I'm happy yours is at least intelligible. tedder (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, that sure cleared up things. BTW, how on earth did you get that Stop (its hammer time) tag? Could I have it (but with a little modification since I'm not an Admin)? I'd like to keep my user talk page as simple as possible but alas... *sigh!* --Dave1185 ^talk 04:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can have it! It's a special subpage, User talk:Tedder/Editnotice. Look and copy what you want to User talk:Dave1185/Editnotice, it'll appear automagically. I stole it from others and had to use a subpage search to find it the first time. Of course, I've never seen WP:EDN and that would have helped.. There are lots of magic subpages, I don't know what they all are. tedder (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is one of those moments when I go WOOT~! Thanks~! --Dave1185 ^talk 04:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Now you're cooking with fire :-) tedder (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoring a CSD

You deleted The Tyrant (House) as a copyvio of this plot synopsis, which it largely was. I want to restore it to the last good revision so I figured I would give you a heads up. Protonk (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's nice to know what this was for.. tedder (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

I see that you nuked one of his pages, along with his userpage. First, could you delete his userpage, unprotect it, then Special:Nuke everything here?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it came up on my CSD list. But I'm a new(ish) enough admin that I don't want to blast everything out of there. Can you ask at Wikipedia:ANI#Guitarherochristopher Yet again.? I understand if you are reluctant to go to ANI today, I'll ask if you'd rather not. tedder (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would I be reluctant to do so?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't seen that you've been active on ANI today, but I thought this would be reason enough you might not be hanging around ANI. Not an issue, I've been on your side in the past, you're just bolder than I am :-) tedder (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, alright, and thanks for the support. That aside, I do believe I need some sleep, so I believe I shall be taking you up on that offer regarding ANI. Thanks again, and peace.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Asked and reopened the ANI. Of course, it's well past my bedtime too :-) tedder (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Willard's Canteen

"Rm speedy, has link to an article." Since when is that an assertation of notability, hmm? Oh yeah, never. Also, there seems to be a consensus in the AFD, so yeah, I'm sure it's speedy bait. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, easy on the sarcasm, TPH. I'm just saying there is a shred of evidence for notability (a "claim of notability"), even if it wasn't a full claim. I'd be much more happy snow-closing the AFD than speedying it. After all, actually having a mention in an article puts them above 99% of the myspace band articles that come along, even if it isn't enough for WP:BAND. tedder (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think the speedy should stay. It sure looks like a snow close at this point. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't (re)remove it, but it seems like going through AFD would carry more weight going forward, yeah? tedder (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late, Graeme nuked it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin

Hi, Tedder. I have cleaned up / rewritten Shawn Baldwin. Could you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the rewrite. I haven't !voted, though, just posted the AFD for an IP. tedder (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Security soldier AV

Hi Tedder,

My article about Security soldier AV was deleted and i was told that it was copied from geekstechsupport.com. I recently started writing articles on Wikipedia and i was not very sure how it works. Although, on geekstechsupport.com, its nowhere mentioned that their content is copyright protected or anything like that. I even mentioned their website under resources. Please consider putting my article back on Wikipedia or please help me in republishing the same article as I've already rewritten it.

Your time and efforts are highly appreciated.

Thanks

ITgeeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITgeeks (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted it under WP:CSD#A7, the notability guidelines. It's important that an article meet the notability guidelines of a product/company, or the article may be immediately deleted. tedder (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out time and replying. As i already mentioned in my previous post that i've rewritten that article, please tell me how to post it again or would you like to verify the new article first? Just tell me what i need to do.

Thanks

ITgeeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITgeeks (talk • contribs) 03:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:YFA? Review it, and then create it at User:ITgeeks/Security Soldier AV and I'll give it a quick review. tedder (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of a Wikiproject

Recently you deleted Wikiproject: Graphic Plugin. I just wanted to know why you deleted it, as you wrote "G6, noncontroversial housekeeping." If I created the Wikiproject in the Wrong Place, just tell me where and how to make in it's proper place. Is there already an existing Wikiproject? Let me know because i'm a little confused here Qwertyfish11 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Deleting it as G6 is probably not the correct criteria, but it didn't look to be a fully formed concept, either. Would you like me to undelete it and move it to your userspace to work on? tedder (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No that's okay, i got it straightened out at a new title here. It focuses on making a readers Wikipedia experience more educational thru visual aid and graphic enhancements, as most learners are visual based. ~ Qwertyfish11 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Lars Ulrich

Thanks for all your help, kiwiteen123 (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! That's what we are here for. tedder (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1994 article

I'm looking at the edit history, and that article still gets vandalized on a daily basis. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I indef'ed it, because I doubt many IP editors will be making constructive changes to it (unlike 2009, for instance). tedder (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Leftbrain111 & revert question

Wanted to give a thanks for the user block on the frustrating Paz Lenchantin article. Thankfully edits stopped a pointed user ban seems will hopefully

I do have a fairly serious question about this matter... per fear I stuck my head in a little too far in trying to figure out what was going on, could you offer a brief comment on my talk with the user here[8]? With the problem of best of good faith versus a hundred policy violations for someone in front of me, I still feel cold for not really offering any help. Mostly curious if you consider it an appropriate tone given the seriousness of the situation and claims made by the user. Actually, make that two questions. My other would be if massively large manually-confirmed undos such as what I did here[9] are appropriate to make sure it articles get repaired quickly, or is it preferred that someone with rollback reverts 3+ at once to avoid conflicts and 3RRs? I know an anti-vandal 3RR can be excused but it's still more work for someone in the system. Thanks! :) Datheisen (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First, let the big undos stand for a little while rather than turning it "personal" between the two of you. If it truly is vandalism, others will pick it up, which makes the 3RR a one-sided issue.

Second, I think you are in the clear per WP:3RR, but only barely. The edits are truly vandalism (WP:NOTVAND), since they are done in good faith and aren't explicitly done to make the page in worse shape. Okay?

At any rate, taking it to admins, whether at RFPP or ANI, is the best option at this point, probably. It's all good. tedder (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spectre7277

File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg		Whack-a-mole
		Awarded to Tedder, The Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Prize for tirelessly catching returning sockpuppets.--Hu12 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work in this case, Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HU :-) I'm amused by how much sockpuppets will deny being related, even when they are a blatant SPA type account. Good times. (I modified your barnstar slightly by adding context, for posting on my list o' barnstars- hope you don't mind).

Edit/format how you like, its your "stuffed tiger prize"..lol.Cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

LMFAO!!!!

This made my day!! hahah.. .NO SERIOUSLY THOUGH... ugh.. some articles, I just won't touch like that one... you can never win with some people but that made my day. haha Thank you Tedder! A8UDI talk 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, glad you enjoyed it. Pretty amusing to argue over that, eh? tedder (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

I was wondering if you could look at my RFPP for Rated R (Rihanna album)? Thanks, Dale 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Done, before you posted this even :-) tedder (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete wolfgang stumph article????

Why did you delete my article? Wolfgang stumph is a very succesfull actor in Germany! Please put it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azerajion (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no indication of importance. Please read about how to create articles on Wikipedia to see the standards that must be met. Would you like me to userify the article for you? tedder (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I read this page, it says I have to add links. I did add links to German news sources! What is this importance? If he won many awards why is he not important?

--Azerajion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azerajion (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

01C

Thank'ee much for joining! Your request has been approved and you are now a proud member of Wikipedia's only counter-vandalism cabal! Want a userbox to go along with it? (Also, we've got an InvisionFree board; check the cabal page.) 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) tedder (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Thank you for the granting of the semi-protection request of this article. I'm grateful for your timely and efficient intervention. Regards, Crafty (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem- really glad to help out. tedder (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Darrill Schoonover

Thanks (again) for the protection! Kiwiteen123 (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I would give you a cookie but I follow the rules :)

No cookies necessary- thanks :-) tedder (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why you keep reverting the page "Magyar Televízió"

Why you keep reverting by remove the "Broadcast hours throughout the years" section? And I see from YouTube videos so I have the correct. I notice in the testcard.--125.25.74.83 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section because it is of borderline encyclopedic nature, and even if it is, it needs to be from reliable sources. Youtube is generally not considered a reliable source.

In any case, that section was being edit-warred about for no good reason, considering no verifiable sources have been given. tedder (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that you must keep that section for 10 days at least so I can put references--125.25.74.83 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest working on it in your userspace, in an article subspace, or on the talkpage. I can help you set that up. When it's ready for the article, move it over. Okay? tedder (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But I am not a member--125.25.74.83 (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Goto Ryu

Hi. Could you explain your A7 deletion of Goto Ryu? I don't know what state it was in when you deleted it, but I'm fairly positive that at one point in its history it did "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". He is a fairly well-known classical violinist...did you undertake any research before you deleted it? When I created the article, it was at Ryu Goto; seems like it was recently subject to move vandalism, but I would hope that an admin would dig a little deeper into situations like this before pressing the delete button. TwilligToves (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I just restored it. It's hard to distinguish from any other unreferenced BLP that reads like a resume- I hope you'll work on it. tedder (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I hope you take more time in the future before pressing the delete button. Could the article be improved? Certainly. However, I don't buy the "it's hard" excuse. I really fail to see how the article clearly fails A7 when it states that he is a professional concert violinist that records with Deutsche Grammophon, and a quick check of his official site (linked in the article) or any search engine/news archive would clearly resolve any notability concerns. Would have probably taken a minute or so. Please don't be one of those admins that are so quick on the trigger. TwilligToves (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The most common vandalism was to the userpage e.g. Category: GITS, but it did on at least one occassion extend to the talk page. And, as I said, this will get worse, when e.g. on December 5th I am on the front page of The Times (of London) magazine.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

Aren’t you forgetting something…? (: --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh- thanks for letting me know. tedder (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

Can you help me out? Someone removed the edit protect (I regret saying anything about removing it), and Jimintheatl just won't stop changing it, despite the consensus to leave it out. I don't want to get into a war again. Could you do something about it? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The editprotect was removed automatically- articles are never protected forever. So it's been a week since protection started. The edits haven't seemed like a big deal- if you want to do something about it, perhaps post at WP:BLPN? tedder (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow the bouncing bal.....Josh initially argued that Glenn Beck was correct in stating that the Constitution valued living in the USA by imposing a $10 immigrant fee. When that position became untenable he adopted another editor's position that Beck was only joking(even though I'd earlier asked him if he was joking---not at all. he said...thenlater, when exposed, said, oh, wait, I was only joking brother....1. This is truly arguing with idiots, and 2) this seems to me to be the very definition of gad faith, when one position is exposed as ridiculous, you merely claim I knew it was ridiculous all along...Jimintheatl (talk) 02

38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good God, please excuse the crappy typing..Jimintheatl (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may intrude here, I think you'd all be better off if you just stick to what Beck is (trying) to say... and when you come to a road block get help. The way I think about it: if it's relevent put it in, not relevent or so minor that it might be a POV, leave it out. Keep it simple and you won't have problems. Good luck, Tom A8UDI 02:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, tedder. I appreciate you taking the time. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note I'm not interested in doing the dispute resolution on this- I'm only here to stave off WP:3RR violations, including by you. tedder (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, since he is disregarding the consensus, isn't his adding his opinion, despite the consensus, considered vandalism? And thereby doesn't fall under 3RR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talk • contribs) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No. 3RR = 3RR except for vandalism, BLP violations and other inappropriate content and thats about it. A8UDI 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Prisencolinensinainciusol

Hey I saw you deleted this article. I didn't write it but I think you may wish to do a little research about it. I can see why you thought it was a nonsense joke article but it is actually the title of a popular song by Adriano Celentano who is one of the best selling songwriters of all time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Your First Article. The article needs to be more than a link to youtube- it needs to fulfill the requirements of a new article. tedder (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of user on the Crunkcore article

Please block this IP from editing the crunkcore article if possible. He has done nothing but vandalise it. Please give me a heads up if you do block him. He's just trying to destroy the page. Thank you very much!--Krazycev 13 ^{other crap} 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Once more and I'll block, but use WP:UTM too, okay? If they'd been given warnings every time you reverted, it'd be easier. tedder (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I'll give them a heads up. But can they see their own talk page if it's an IP? --Krazycev 13 ^{other crap} 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are on the same IP, yes, they'll see it. tedder (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

HarveyCarter socks

Hi. Is it possible to block LouisWalshFan or is an SPI needed? He's an obvious sockpuppet of HarveyCarter whose editing habits are always obvious (and annoying!). Thanks Pinkadelica^♣ 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That one is fine. If more come up, you'll probably need an SPI to find them. tedder (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks tedder. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Loveline

Are you planning on creating those articles, because under the "redlink rules" - the redlinks are fine if a page will be made in the near future. If no one has made them in the time we've created the Loveline article, what makes you think it's needed?? CJMylentz (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really a timeline on creating the articles; WP:REDLINK says "Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles", but I haven't read any policy that says there's a timeline- let me know if I simply missed it. In any case, they are possibly notable individuals, so they are certainly eligible for an article, and there's no real time limit on Wikipedia articles.. tedder (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop

Always getting in your way, aren't I? Sorry about that. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I noticed I was ECing on the warnings. No worries. As long as we don't start warring over it, it's all good! tedder (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Galassi

Please, take a look on these [10] [11] reverts by user Galassi. He deletes a piece of text supported by a reliable source, accusing the professor and Dr.Hist. Tatyana Tairova-Yakovleva, who actually sympathizes to Ukraine, in nationalism. — Glebchik (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you brought that up with the user, or on a talk page? tedder (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, take a look on the [12] reverts by user Galassi.--94.29.88.188 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bring it up at Talk:Battle of Konotop. tedder (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Editwarring at Gaza War

I think its protectiontime again. I would prefere a version with Stellarkids reverts undone. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there are edits going 'round, but no need for protection or 3RR blocking quite yet, right? I'm against protection as it's going to be a continuous issue, and full-protecting the article indefinitely isn't what Wikipedia is about. So a better solution would be WP:DR, or blocks as necessary. tedder (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope you are right and it calms down. Maby some aditional warning can help Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there are warnings in there. I'd rather wait and see what further edits occur, and then come down with a strong block. Perhaps we could run one or two users through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? If so, you'll need to research the problems and the policies they breach. tedder (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I would prefer someone uninvolved editor doing it. Even if I try to edit neutral and dont editwar Im not an angel as Cptnono insinuated correctly. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and I can understand that. OTOH, it is going to take an involved user to explain what is going on. From the outside it's hard to understand, let alone identify and explain. tedder (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the only real solution, outside of permanent full protection, is to topic ban the lot. Five editors or so, I guess. Enigma^msg 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

T-banning the lot isn't a bad idea, really. I don't think anyone is without fault in this. Want to suggest it here? tedder (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help for starting up the AE case. So is Jiujitsuguy,s ramblings and total ignorance that I have tried to ignored lately, mostly becase noone in good mind and little reserch can take him seriously, going to get me in trouble finally? The admin owerseeing my AE-case, Jehochman, saw thru Jiujitsus bullshit. Do you do it? Ok, not? Hint is that Jiujitsu probably is challenged somehow. Now ban me for beeing thruefull (personal attack) then. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda

Hello Tedder, I just happened to come across your block notice at User talk:Voyevoda. Not that I'd disagree with the block, it's just that for an admin to "decline" an unblock request again their own block seems somewhat out of process. Perhaps you might want to consider removing it and leaving the decline to somebody else? In my understanding that's really what the unblock request system is for.

On a more general note, I'm myself struggling to come up with ways of dealing with this situation. I don't think protections work here (it's been tried before, and the edit wars just resume the moment it expires). But I find it exceedingly difficult to judge to what extent all the participants in the situation are equally at fault or not, given that I know nothing at all about the historical background. So, what are the options? Just topic-banning the lot of them? Finding the worst ones and topic-banning those? (But I must say I'm a bit at a loss how to find out which those would be.) Or perhaps, given that virtually the whole article seems to be contentious – they can't even agree on who the parties were and what war it was part of! – how about the Liancourt Rocks solution? That would be: Enforced stubbing back and then make the editors rewrite everything from scratch under a strict no-unconstructive-editing regime? What do you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stubbing is like electroshock therapy. Both are needed in certain cases. There are several layers to this dispute, including which sources are acceptable and other fundamental matters. I subscribe to the view that it's easier to agree on short text than long text. Accuracy and precision are negative coefficients, so the less we say the more accurate we are. Can we simply avoid the tender issue?   Will Beback  talk  11:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FP and Will, thanks, I removed the unblock decline so another admin can do it, per WP:BP#Unblocking.

As far as how to handle the battle of Battle of Konotop, I think that would work, but it isn't a topic that I really understand, which is why I suspect banning the policy offenders is a way of handling it. If you think stubbing would work, I'm all for it! tedder (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in (if that is appropriate at all). This issue is going to be pretty much unresolvable. Russian historiography has a long history of insensitivity toward Ukraine as well as total vilification of any historical figure or act that contradicts the imperial idea. A neutral middle ground will be impossible to find, as far as sources and citations are concerned, the Russian ones will say one thing, and the Ukrainian ones exactly tyhe opposite. As to the character of Voyevoda himself, he has a long history of tendentious anti-Ukrainian editing on the Russian wiki and I suspect he might be a part of some task-force dedicated to that. Sorry if that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but Russian wiki has a lot of problems of that sort, there are always uphill battles with some "blood libel is credible" cabal, or "Hitler was a friend of true Russians", cabal et al. Voyevoda runs with "Ukrainians are polonized Russians, not a nation, but rather a profession" one.Galassi (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, thanks for chiming in, Galassi. What do you think valid solutions for this problem might be? tedder (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot offer a solution in good-faith, being part-Uke.Galassi (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, which may actually be enlightening to some degree. However, I'm afraid there's one aspect of the way you describe the issue that is revealing of a deeper problem of attitude: your comment makes it sound as if you assumed as a fact that the Ukrainian perspective is TRUE and the Russian perspective is FALSE. I'm sorry, but as difficult as that may be, you guys will have to accept that here in Wikipedia the different perspectives really need to be presented together and on a par with each other. The task is not to find a "middle ground", the task is to present both views and live with the contradiction. This article will become manageable as soon as people will stop insisting on monopolising the article with just one view (no matter whether it be a "middle-ground" or an extremist one). – I have some practical ideas about how to organise editing that may help towards that goal; I'll lay them out on the article talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried this. Will and Tedder, what d'you say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't assume apriori that the Russian position is false, as there is a fair amount of Ukrainian historiographic fakelore as well. However I see the vilification of Vyhovsky as part of concerted effort to misrepresent Ukrainians as professional turnkeys and turncoats, by the culture based on the uniformity of thouhgt.Galassi (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add something as well, especially since I am the one who wrote the damn thing two years ago. I completely understand how at loss other people might be. This is a fairly unknown battle, used to be virtually forgotten/banned in the USSR. Now politicians are exploiting it and so do historians, journalists and many others. That being said, the premise is quite simple - the battle happened: one side lost, the other won. Everything else is the interpretation of contemporaries. While I agree with Galassi that Ukrainians and Russians both give biased versions, it is also true that there is a middle ground, represented by non-involved researchers. The case in question is the book by Brian L. Davies. That is the only source that I know of the event in English. Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, it should be given preference over all the other non-English sources. That will help to eliminate all the hype and hysteria surrounding this article. If you are interested, you may want to read his representation of events, it's only a page and a half long. With the clear rules of editing and with admins paying attention to what is going on in the article, I believe it will stabilize and emotions will calm down. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Fut.Perf.'s rules will really help. If not, we'll probably start hacking out the article until we get agreement, eh? tedder (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RfPP

It looks like we ran into each other there. I protected Nicki Minaj, but if you think it's undeserved, feel free to undo. Cheers! TNXMan 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that. No worries- certainly I admitted it was "on the line", so I have no real objections. I swear, RFPP leads to more EC's than any other area of wikipedia! tedder (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Either that or fighting with SineBot. The bot always seems to save its edit for right before I hit "save page". TNXMan 14:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

SineBot is either in the way (can't easily revert vandalism that sinebot has signed) or it isn't there when I need it :-) tedder (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple IP "socks" at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sorry to bother you. 71.174.135.195 (talk), apparently now subject to a 6-month block, has also been using IP addresses 98.118.13.212 (talk), 71.184.177.11 (talk), 98.118.22.23 (talk), 96.237.123.191 (talk) and 96.237.129.194 (talk). As far as I can see, they're all SPAs used in WP only by the same person. Thanks, Tedder, for trying to keep things reasonably within bounds. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See #Following up on your IP block from yesterday, above. Looks like most of those are inactive or currently blocked. If there are more, it's probably time for SPI. tedder (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your time and attention to this. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at AE

I would appreciate some diffs demonstrating my incivility? Stellarkid (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please ask at AE. However, I'm satisfied with the diffs shown as demonstrating behavior. tedder (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

More on onlineutah

Greetings! Just leaving you a message to indicate that I've moved our conversation on onlineutah from Jon Ridinger's talk page to Talk:Mantua Township, Portage County, Ohio#Mantua, Utah, as indicated by the talkback notice below. Feel free to delete this message. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm all for centralized discussions. tedder (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Block and SPI, on a Sunday night

Tedder, I am proud of you for your quick and decisive action. But seriously, it's Sunday evening on the West Coast, and you have nothing better to do? Come on now! Drmies (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for Mrs. Tedder to finish a med school application to Loyola, watching James May's Toy Stories. No worries, though filing the SPI was a little more work than I was hoping for :-) tedder (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that's a lot of work. So...in eight years you'll be Mr. Dr. Tedder? Not bad! Good luck to her; I'll keep my fingers crossed. But Chicago...cold! Why not consider another Loyola? Maybe a nice degree in law or English might tickle her fancy? I'm sure the trick-or-treating in the French Quarter is more exciting than where you're at now. Seriously, I wish her the best, and you too--in looking for a job and all. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans means it'd be really tough to get a job. Which is also why Mayo Clinic was out, plus they rejected her (doh!). Ah well. We have quite a few schools on the application list, probably won't know until March or so. I'm looking forward to getting mail addressed to "Dr. and Mr. Tedder". Heh! tedder (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Critisms in the Cutco Article

Tedder, I have a bit of concern for the entire removal of the criticisms section in the Cutco Article. There is a very good reason why that section there, but some research needs to be done as legitimate sources are hard to find for this particular article. Please see the article Vector Marketing. Cutno (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cutno, I entirely agree it needs to be there based on my personal feelings, but it is unsourced, and has been challenged. tedder (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw your additions to it- good job, and thanks for digging all of that out. tedder (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

My new rule at WP:RFPP is to wait until you are on duty. I mean, it wasn't intentional this time, but after I submitted Colorado for un-protection, I happened to look at the page history (the IP editor's only breadcrumbs) and was like, yay, Tedder is here. You, sir, are full of win. :-) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw, that's really nice of you. Thanks! tedder (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Someone creating an article just to talk to you... [13]  7  08:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)