User talk:Tedder

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)

I suspect that she's now using Special:Contributions/201.34.95.80 to evade her block. Perhaps semi-protect it again? -- Zsero (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked and semi-protected. tedder (talk) 02:27, 6 November 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[1] 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[2] 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)

Another IP from the same user. Special:Contributions/71.184.183.9 SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. tedder (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/98.118.19.104 Another IP of the same user, disruption of the work on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It has indeed been highly disruptive, though the taunting and extensive rambling has settled down for the moment. Thanks again for you tireless work in keeping things reasonably within bounds, Tedder. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Eesh. Might be time to semi-prot the Talk:SecondAmendment page and just WP:IAR the whole thing. tedder (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/96.237.133.195 for more. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eeeesh. Blocked and also protected the article talk page. tedder (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued patience and help. For what it is worth, this disruption appears to me to be part of a very long pattern from a single person. Feel free to ignore these historical details, but there is pertinent discussion at the bottom of this section in talk page archive 19 of April 2009, which outlines disruption by an AnonIP in 2006, 2008 and early 2009 closely matching this recent episode. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive pointer. No worries, and it's definitely a longterm issue, so I'm happy to keep plugging away at it. Sockpuppets, especially IP socks, make it hard to get work done and to keep AGF on all the well-meaning new users. It does make me feel better about semi-protecting the talk page, though I might get admin-heat for doing so. tedder (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Help: Michael Savage (commentator)

Tedder, could you please have a word with User:GideonF about his recent activity on Michael Savage (commentator)? Specifically this edit summary and this comment, which are a clear declaration that he will resume pushing his change as soon as his 24 hours are up. All I've been doing is keeping the text as it was. I've checked 50 versions ago, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300; and all have the same word here: "commented". As far as I can tell, "pointed out" was first introduced on 1-Nov, I reverted it, and then GideonF started reintroducing it. I've tried to point him to WP:AVOID, as well as to explain to him why it's inappropriate here, but he won't listen. -- Zsero (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gimme 12-20 hours. If I haven't done it in 16 hours, drop me a reminder. Sorry, I'm out of time.. tedder (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Warned for 3RR; certainly a case of "let the reader decide", no reason for Wikipedia to use an unsupported POV term. tedder (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. See the edit history. At 22:35 I restored the stable version pending the result of the discussion. That remained for 11 hours until GideonF reverted it with the false edit summary "Undid change against consensus"; there is, of course, no consensus yet on the talk page. When I restored the stable version again, warning him not to change it without FIRST achieving a consensus, he once again falsely claimed that there is one, and did so a third time, commenting "That's your last revert today, Zsero", as if we were playing some kind of game. I really don't know what to do. I'm not going to go over 3RR, but somebody has to do something; he can't just make a change he wants three times and get to keep it that way forever. For months nobody objected to the wording, and now all of a sudden it's so urgent that he can't let it stand until a discussion is over? -- Zsero (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, looks like there is a good conversation on the talk page, and I agree with this comment. You might be right in terms of language but you are feeding the troll/edit war. Please stop, even if the "wrong" version is up there, okay? tedder (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That comment is precisely the point I have been making. The stable version should remain while the discussion is going on, which is why I returned it there. GideonF had no right to reintroduce his preferred change three times just to run me up to three reverts; his edit summaries show his intention, and that is gamesmanship that he shouldn't be allowed to get away with, or he will think it's how things are done, and he'll keep doing it forever. I think it needs to be brought to his attention that that isn't acceptable, and that nor is falsely claiming a consensus that doesn't exist, or falsely accusing people of vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, I entirely agree with you. But edit-warring doesn't help your point. tedder (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is: is restoring the status quo ante edit-warring? And if nobody does that, because it would be edit-warring, then what reason on earth would he have to stop? -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:EW? The reason the editor has to stop is because (a) multiple people have reverted the edits, (b) the editor refuses to discuss it on the talk page (or refuses to quit reverting even while discussing it), and (c) is blocked for doing so. Again, read WP:EW carefully. "Right" versus "wrong" isn't even mentioned. tedder (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing

We need some advice on the page of Talk:F-15 Eagle as a particular editor (User:Mathewignash) has been doing some canvassing for a pop-culture item to be added despite being told by no less than three other editors and one other uninvolved admin that it is against the consensus. Another thing is this, he ripped an image off a comic book and uploaded it here, problem is... the fair use rationale covers only the comic article and I believed that it does not cover it's use on the article page of the F-15 Eagle, which he reinstates after I removed it due to this issue and provided an explanation in the edit summary. Thoughts? --Dave1185 ^talk 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say to take it to WP:ANI, but your last comment on the talk page is over the line. After all, you're only talking about one part of the article that has been supported by refs supplied by Mathewignash, right? An image may be WP:UNDUE, but having a line of text probably isn't. tedder (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:N and WP:RS, we need reliable source for ref, not blogs as he suggested. It's ridiculous! --Dave1185 ^talk 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about the blogs.suntimes.com reference? "Newspaper blogs" are generally reliable sources: Wikipedia:SPS#cite_note-5. tedder (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Minor genre warring nitpick

Will do, thank you for watching the article. Also make an archive for this insanely long talk page of yours. • GunMetal Angel 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My talk page is archived! It only shows threads from the last 20 days. Kinda sad it's so long, really. I hesitate to hack it shorter than 20 days, but I might need to. tedder (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I manually archive, and that's what I meant by archiving, also, apologies for missing your notice to keep conversations at the talkpage that you statred them on. I shouldv'e replied to this on my talk page. • GunMetal Angel 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about auto-archiving. And no worries about breaking the conversation flow, it's sort of a throwaway thing anyhow. (I changed the archive period to 4 days). tedder (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

All your fault!

Look what stuck in the article for a while. Funny stuff. Enigma^msg 05:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In reality, it's Cluebot's fault. Special:Contributions/97.127.123.231 stuck the stuff in, another IP vandalized, and Cluebot did what it does best. Enigma^msg 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I could block Cluebot (again). I've done it twice.. :-) tedder (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot was acting in good faith and you've forever besmirched its sterling reputation. If you don't quit it, I'm going to have to block you. Vengeance will be mine. Enigma^msg 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If I was good, I'd make up a new verse to Guy Fawkes about Cluebot. Hmm. tedder (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hound:173.*.*.*

Please review this. The request is to change from full to indefinite semi- for the reasons given. Please read carefully. There's no sign that Hound:173.*.*.* will change. 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you discuss the issue(s) at Talk:Public health insurance option? tedder (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote you b/c you made the last decision, and I'm not sure you knew that I knew it was already protected. The ongoing problem is the behavior of Hound:173.*.*.* ...click "Please review this" above, then click "(see here)". 74.242.255.53 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's such a problem, why are you taking it directly to me, rather than seeking consensus of others on the talk page? tedder (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Squicks, who was most persistently opposed to Hauskalainen's and my edits, seems to have formally retired from WP. Hauskalainen and I (MBHiii) are in agreement in opposing the "edits" of 173.*.*.* who doesn't talk, at all, but just reverts me, with often irrelevant comments. If you follow the trail above you'll see this has gone on continually for some time. -74.162.150.182 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

N.M.H. -- A thanks for full protect

...How on earth did getting to this message page result in my looking at some Japanese video game articles... oh. I clicked "it's hammer time" above and went about 5 links deep. That's really distracting.

I wanted to give a massive thank you on the full protection on the 800-pound gorilla that is the Nidal Malik Hasan article. I'd been watching the news for a few hours until one network showed they'd found a website of his professional medical record and though "oh dammit! that means someone has to have added it to Wiki if even CNN could find it on their own!" Unsurprisingly, the article was only a redirect, but that alone was a flag to me that the name itself had been horribly BLP shattered. 5 seconds on the article talk page and I ran into this[3] and figured I'd better ask for protection so that the BLP vandalism would at least be limited to the event page before anyone expanded it. Enter you! The parent article even looks pretty well under control now. Though, I'd like to point out this[4] edit after my reminder of how important "allegedly" is in BLP and society in general. Honestly, I'm disgusted an administrator would willingly and openly act in something that flagrant and actually mock persons who wanted to insist upon it. It's almost certain that untold news outlets ran here to look for information on the story and the person involved for media release Friday and it would be bad if anyone knew an admin was sanctioning those phrases.

It's the sort of thing I wish there was admin oversight available on so that I didn't have to live in fear of being warned because I disagreed and wanted to discuss it with someone with the title. Because I'm very particular about my sense of justice through consensus-- which is available on Wikipedia in full-- bullying is very saddening. Again, My greatest thanks for the protection, and I suppose I should put the thing on watch in advance. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I think. And yeah, tabbed browsing plus Wikipedia can be a real black hole. tedder (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh awesome, you changed the redirect on Nidal Malik Hasan to reflect what its actual future would be and it's turning into its own article now. There are about 20 variants on the name with different spelling with articles which is why I wanted this "right" name to be protect last week. Thanks for babysitting :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sort of a crazy article anyhow, so a little bit of policing is a good thing. tedder (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A new one

I can't seem to get this guy to understand that using rollback on messages left for him and having threats at the top of his talk is rather rude. No admin intervention necessary, but I'm surprised all the time by what people consider appropriate behavior. Enigma^msg 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Never encountered him before, but when I politely informed him that it's rather rude, he replied that he "could care less" about me. Nice. Enigma^msg 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm deliberately being rude to you because you haven't treated me with respect either. It goes both ways. Maybe if you would respect my wishes and stop leaving me messages? I've made it clear I don't want to bother with you, and I think I have that right. And if you'd even consider blocking me for rollbacking or removing messages on my own talk page, that would be rather inappropriate. I've kept a very clean record for the past four years, and I don't want you screwing it up because you can't understand my simple request to leave me alone. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I treat everyone with respect. I went to your talk page to let you know that I warned the editors for edit-warring, and mentioned that it's not very polite to have threats on your talk. You responded by using rollback on all of my messages. Enigma^msg 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As for "considering blocking you", that's not what happened. I don't block editors for being rude. I'd have to block hundreds, if that were the case. I simply ask them politely not to be rude. Some, like you, choose not to heed my words. Enigma^msg 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's fairly prickly behavior, mostly because of the big nasty warning at the top. I mean, it's within GSK's rights, but it does sort of go against the "here to build a 'pedia" and civility vibe. Hmm. tedder (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly the civility patrol, but I do find it troubling, and I am at a loss about how to deal with such behavior. Enigma^msg 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sultanate of Rum

Thank you for looking into this, although the IP seems to have logged in to its master account now. I confess I am a bit saddened to be chastised about edit summaries, as I am generally fairly scrupulous about these ([5], [6], [7], for example), ...but I will try to do better. In any case, thanks again. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, fine with your summaries 95% of the time, sorry for picking on you for the 5% of it . I reverted the main account and will keep an eye on the article. tedder (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks again for your help. I could definitely use an extra pair of eyes there. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:68.199.224.83

Hi Tedders

I came across this talk page by accident before and I thought I would ask about it as I've never come across anything like this before. The editor seems to have copied and pasted word-for-word an entire Wikipedia article on to their talk page. I'm just wondering if they're allowed to do this? --5 albert square (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It could be argued both ways- they could be forking to do a major improvement, but I'd suggest just blanking it and telling them to improve the actual article. Okay? tedder (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedders, I will tell them that. I just wasn't sure if they were breaking any Wikipedia rules or not so thought I would ask before I blank the page. Thanks :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits:

...waiting for you on my talk page when you get a min. thanks.Truther truther (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. I'm not really wanting to get involved on the content dispute. Take it to the article talk page, perhaps? tedder (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A little more protection?

Hi. You protected TVB News a couple weeks ago. [8] Within a few hours of DumbBOT removing the protection template, it was again vandalized. Same edit as before, no explanation given. The edits come from a variety of anon editors, a couple who have only a handful of other edits. Could we go for a longer protection? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done no problem. tedder (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Done with Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa/Workpage

I forgot to say anything after Suzuki Hayabusa's DYK was done. Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa/Workpage is no longer needed and can be deleted. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done No problem. (I was out riding in the rain today- gear is soaking wet now) tedder (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Kennedy

Hi again Tedder, looking for your advice again I'm afraid. As you will see, on the Karl Kennedy page, it states his relationships in the infobox. However, someone has also added a section called family tree into the article as well, which seems to state the same information. Is there any point in having this section if it just states the same as is in the infobox? I was thinking no, I think whoever has done this has added this to quite a few of the Neighbours characters individual wiki pages, but before I removed that section I thought I'd ask you for a neutral opinion if that's ok? --5 albert square (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know. If the main body covers more information than the infobox, it's probably reasonable. If not, it seems like duplication. Maybe ask at WT:SOAPS or at Talk:Neighbours? tedder (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Late notice

I don't know if you're aware that your block on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page was probably a factor in Wikipedia losing someone I consider to have been a valuable editor. Of course, I'm not trying to pin blame or asking you to walk on eggshells - the person in question is responsible for their own actions. But I do ask you to consider, in the future, the collateral damage of blocks. Even when there is an edit war and something needs to be done, there is often productive work going on in parallel. Also, as the talk page I referenced makes clear, it would probably pay to be extra-careful in your block explanations to avoid the appearance of being cavalier.

I was not around specifically during the period of your block. But I do think it probably harmed the page overall. A little bit of edit warring over a contentious issue is healthier than a wasteland. If you needed to block, I think a shorter block (of a few hours) with a note on the talk page that edit warring within some strictly-defined parameters would result in individual blocks, would be healthier. Just MHO. Cheers and goodwill, Homunq (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The discussion on Rsheptak's talk page was interesting. The reality is that there'd be more hurt feelings if editors were aggressively blocked for WP:EW; a quick protection of the article gives some breathing room for editors to discuss what they are edit warring over and keeps it from leading to editing sanctions going forward, especially on a politically sensitive article.

I'm certainly sorry it led to a harshing effect on the page. The disadvantage of blocking is certainly something that must be weighed against not blocking. I'm not entirely sure where that balance is- on the other hand, a a productive talk page discussion with a ping on my talk page would have changed things. tedder (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. Still, I might suggest, despite this late date, that a brief apology on Rsheptak's page might help them decide to return. (disclaimer: I only know them from the Honduras-related pages, so I am just guessing). Homunq (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good idea. Sorry I didn't catch onto the nudge earlier; I'm a little slow picking up on things. tedder (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Semi-PageProtection

Hi again... just curious, will it be too much to ask for that on my user/discussion page? I've got a feeling that some anon IPs are going to do a drive-by-ranting within the next couple of days or maybe later. Thanks in advance for the SPP if possible. =) --Dave1185 ^talk 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, user talk pages should be open to IPs unless there is actually abuse happening. But I'm watching your talk page- if you get more than one rant/vandal, I promise to protect it, okay? But I'm curious- what page are you involved in that makes you expect it? tedder (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Specifically speaking, the page of ANI, AIV, RD and then there's the revenge of the Anons. =( --Dave1185 ^talk 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Usercompare

I'm actually wanting to look at the edits in common for User:Saa19952, User:Gellar55 and User:SMG055. Another editor filed an WP:SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SMG055 and I noticed that Gellar55 had returned a bogus film poster to the article Salt that was originally uploaded by Saa19952. Since Gellar55 is a new editor, it raised the question of why a new editor would 1) even know about the poster removed from the article and 2) know enough to return it. Then there was the stuff regarding the Lucy Liu article, upon which he has violated WP:3RR. Of course, if one were so inclined to issue a block for 3RR... :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the comparisons, done all three ways: User:TedderBot/Bacon Results#Wikibacon: SMG055.2C Saa19952.

I'll look into the 3RR issues. tedder (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I looked at the SPA, and certainly my WikiBacon doesn't back that up (i.e., same articles, but no really close edits). That doesn't mean they aren't related, of course. tedder (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Victorian era

Hi Tedder, I am bringing the discussion here so as to avoid unnecessarily wasting space over at RFPP. I was actually more concerned with the vandalism from November 3rd through November 8th. For my future reference, disregarding the edits made by the IP vandal today, is the activity between the 3rd and the 8th not enough to justify page protection? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jeffrey. Bringing it here is a good idea, RFPP is sort of awkward for discussions.

Looking at the edits from the 3rd 'til now, ignoring that IP, it's on the edge. Generally I look for 3-5 vandals per day in the short term, but since it is a little longer term, being on the low side (2-3?) is fine. I'd recommend to keep reverting the vandalism, and if it's still at that level in a few days, that's probably the time to ask RFPP or me for protection. Sometimes the vandals will get distracted by shiny objects and go away on their own- sometimes they don't. tedder (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Could you please keep an eye on it over the next few days though, and protect it if necessary? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I already have ~8700 pages on my watchlist- can you watch it and just let me know? tedder (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks...

for placing IACGMOOH (2009) under semi-prot. Leaky Caldron 09:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Velella Society, speedy deletion clarification

Hi Tedder, I just noticed that you speedily deleted an initial entry I made some moments after I created it:

07:10, 28 October 2009 Tedder (talk | contribs) deleted "Velella Society" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Although it was on my watchlist, I suppose one isn't notified or dropped a talk note for speedy deletions; I noticed only when I went to go add more information.

I'd appreciate more elaboration your thoughts on the deletion. I've read through all the criteria in detail; A7 seems very focused on 'importance'. I'd be happy to improve the page based on your advice; I thought I had clarified 'importance' as it happens to be defined in the guidelines, but no doubt I've not provided nearly enough in the actual article if you've summarily deleted it.

Full disclosure: I've become quite interested in this topic due to recent personal needs to scatter remains. My interests led to a recent paid consulting gig with this company.

My thinking in creating the page is that this is quite a notable innovation in what I've discovered to be an extremely non-innovative industry, deathcare--this in particular is missing from the article. Most funeral parlors want nothing to do with scattering urns and will give you remains in a cardboard box--they don't make money off it--so a way to spread remains without the ashes blowing back onto the boat, and to do it without involving a funeral director, seems important. For example, scattering urns of any kind (floating, sailing, or biodegradable) aren't (yet) referenced on other pages in Wikipedia (although I note a few references to the fact that ashes are scattered). The fact that its one of the few green and biodegradable vehicles for disposing remains seems important. The fact that its US patented seems both important and notable.

Again, obviously all this is based on my point of view. Although I've edited a good number of articles, this was my first net-new create. I'd much appreciate hearing your perspective on what I might add/alter/remove to make this a relevant article, how to address in an alternative manner, or what I can do to avoid deletions in the future of other articles.

Faronem (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi- you probably should have been notified that it was proposed for deletion. Sorry the user who proposed it didn't do so. The reason it was deleted is that it didn't reliably indicate importance. In other words, how does it meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and especially WP:GNG?

I can restore the page, but I'd prefer to move it into your userspace so you can work on it- for instance, I can put it at User:Faronem/Velella Society so you can work on it and get it ready for the main article space. Let me know if that's what you would like me to do.

FWIW, having a conflict of interest is okay, especially if you state it and have read WP:COI very carefully to understand the topic. tedder (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, hey, thanks for the quick reply and links; will do. Putting it in my user space would work fine, much obliged!

Faronem (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Moved it for you. Enjoy, let me know if you have questions, okay? tedder (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the RfA

• Context: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7#Oppose

I hope my comments weren't taken as being condescending, and if they did I am truly sorry, but I can relate to the editor role. Admins are the ones, IMO, that protect all of the hard work that editors have put into articles, and believe me when one comes to the rescue it feels great. I have supported in the RfA because I am envious of all the work that he has done, and with such high quality. I often assume a dual role of both determined editor and policing articles that often seem to be targeted, and to have another admin who knows what it means to protect a body of work is important- that's what I hope we have more of. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly didn't take them as condescending. It's a slightly controversial opinion and reason to oppose the RFA on my part, and if nothing else, it's created a nice discussion. On one hand, I'm sure he(?) could be a great admin, on the other hand, it isn't a reward and the current level of collaboration/discussion isn't what I'd like to see in an admin. That doesn't make him a bad editor, nor does it mean he would be a bad admin.

Dunno if that makes sense. It reminds me of the old joke: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become admins." It seems like there is a widely held view that adminship is a reward/promotion or are superior to 'regular' editors. Hawkeye7 is a great example of a "regular" editor who is doing more productive work than any admin I can think of. tedder (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I appreciate the response. I engage a lot in discussion and sometimes have difficulty with obstinate contributors, and I know I can appreciate the opportunity to have a third party come in and mediate to settle things- it is really what makes Wikipedia work, in addition to the writing! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oregon school fires

Your inclusion of information about random fires at various Oregon schools is isinappropriate. Almost without exception these fires are utterly non-notable. Certainly it could be argued the fire that was in the news today was indeed notable. However this is a rare exception. For instance, a fire that causes $5,000 damage at Madison High School is of no interest to this community. I began reverting your edits but stopped as a courtesy since I noticed you have made many similarly inappropriate edits. Therefore I beseech you to please revert said edits yourself so I do not have to do it for you. I forever appreciate your kind assistance in this important manner. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The fires aren't worthy of articles, but they are worthy of being mentioned in existing articles. Please show how this is not appropriate per Wikipedia's policies. tedder (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, First, may I say that you are a valuable individual with much to add to this fine encyclopedia. I in no way wish to disparage your contributions to this project. With this said, while there are guidelines outlining what shall be deemed notable and not notable, there are certain instances in which a passage simply does not pass the test of common sense. Sir, this is most certainly on of these instances. There is no requirement that I point to a specific section of Wikipedia guidelines to reject your edit. In fact sir, there have not yet been published Wikipedia guidelines on the notability of "random fires at schools." However, common sense tells us that these are not notable. In particular, this fire at Madison High School had no discernable consequence beyond causing an inconsequential amount of damage. Once more I shall explain to you that, as a courtesy, I have merely reverted your edit on Madison High School and brought this discussion to the article's talk page, wherefore the community should make the ultimate decision on the notability of this topic (or lack thereof). I have in no way deleted your very similar contributions regarding random fires at several schools although I certainly do have the right to. I beseech you to await the decision on the community regarding Madison High School's random fire. This decision will then, logically, be applied to the other random fires you have discussed on other articles.

Sir, once more I emphasize that I in no way wish to malign your often fine work. It is merely in this instance that I sincerely do believe that your contribution is inappropriate and should be reverted. I do apologize for whatever distress this has caused you. However you of all individuals should be fully aware of what notability entails. Once more, I await the decision of the community on this weighty matter. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets leave the details about the fires in the articles. The fires are noteworthy events. Dawnseeker2000 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ballaucus, a couple of points. First, read the guideline on notability. Read it carefully, as it specifically covers this type of situation, or to quote it for you: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." (emphasis not added, it already exists to hammer home the point, which is also why it is in the lede section.) Thus, the fire made the major daily newspaper (a top 25 in circulation), thus people outside of Wikipedia have deemed it worthy of coverage, and that's what we do. We don't generally go with our own opinions. Secondly, no, actually, you do not have a right to do anything on Wikipedia, and neither does anyone else. This is a privately run website, and nobody has any rights. And though Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, that also means anyone can then edit out or revert what anyone else edits. Lastly, this really is not a weighty matter, this is a run-of-the-mill content dispute, one that has existing guidelines to cover, which says this type of info stays. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, A certain user placed a link upon my "talk page" informing me that you are "Slandering" my good name within this encyclopedia and comparing me to certain individuals of dubious repute. Said user provided me with a link that led to no slander that I could discern - nor even a mention of my name. However, I am of the opinion that the slander of which he speaks may have been deleted and/or removed from this project at some time subsequent to his message and long before I was presented the opportunity to discern the alleged slander. Sir, I demand you point me to the slander of which he speaks, so I may discern its meaning and purpose. If you have indeed slandered my good name, I demand that you apologize and CEASE AND DESIST your retaliatory activities with the greatest of speed. May I remind you that Wikipedia is no forum for retaliation. It is a community of like-minded, humble and giving users. Judging by your past fine activity within this wonderous project, I should be quite surprised if you were slandering my good name. You indeed appear, at first glance, to be a legitimate and caring individual. However, it is my responsibility and duty to dutifully protect my name and reputation. If it should arise that the individual who has informed me of your alleged slander is himself of dubious repute, I humbly and sincerely apologize. At this time, I await your timely response. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, in my preceding message I failed to provide said link in which it is claimed slander was maliciously written. At this time, I shall provide it to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPI#Pioneercourthouse Once more, I note that I was unable to locate said slander even following a sincere search into this link. However, I am of the opinion that the information I seek may have been deleted and/or removed before the commencement of my search. Once more, I await your timely response. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has now taken a turn for the bizarre. Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims. If you are not related to another account, no worries. However, it's not slander. If you have something productive to contribute, please do so. However, these weird talk page posts aren't helping. tedder (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: The user who notified Ballaucus was Luycasperflogger (talk · contribs). Two things strike me as interresting about this user. First, their one and only post to date was at 00:59, 12 November 2009 to notify Ballacus about the SPI report - odd that a new user would be that well versed and be monitoring the SPI reports for PC. Note that moments later, Copistopplayer (talk · contribs) started posting at 01:03, 12 November 2009 and proved himself to be a sockpuppet of PC (he is now blocked).

The second odd "coincidence" involving Luycasperflogger is that the user account Luycasperflogger was created at 19:05, 5 October 2009 ... and the user account for Copistopplayer was created at 19:04, 5 October 2009.

The quacking here is pretty clear that Luycasperflogger is another sleeper account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, At first glance, I was apt to gracefully accept the explanations as stated to me, that the foregoing, supposed "slander" either was non-existent or was indeed a good-faith effort to expose a fiend upon this encyclopedia. This is an understandable and legitimate usage of Wikipedia. However, upon my awakening this morn, I noted that the aforementioned "slander" was now clearly visible upon clicking the link previously provided to me by an unknown user. However, at this moment, the link has been signed by a gentleman known at katr67. I am deeply concerned that you have seemingly appeared to delete and/or remove your name from this supposed "slander" and another user has apparently been directed to repost the deeply inappropriate materials. Is this a malicious attempt to make it difficult and/or impossible for myself or other concerned users to locate these statements, considering that we have been seeking the name "Tedder" and not "katr67"? Or is this strange coincidence merely exactly this - a coincidence? This is not for me to decide, however I am deeply concerned by its appearance. Sir, it has already been determined that I am merely a user of this fine encyclopedia. I have done no wrong and indeed have meticulously edited many an article since my arrival within this community. I invite you and all concerned to peruse my edits. I have done no wrong with them. Yet apparently merely because I challenged your debatable assertions regarding a "fire" I have been subjected to seeming constant retaliation and a concerted methodology to link my good name to fiendish individuals populating this encyclopedia. It has been stated that I am "quacking" even though I have at no time even mentioned this word. What indeed does this "quack" entail. I have in no way edited anything related to a "quack." Note that this I do not wish to accuse you of any sort of retaliation - an individual who on previous occasions has appeared to be fine and even possibly noble. But I must sincerely explain my perspective and appearances from the place upon which I sit. Indeed, it may be highly possible - indeed, even probable - that there is a reasonable explanation for these constant apparent insults directed toward me. However, I must emphasize that I am not a fiend, merely a user who wishes to work in good faith with editors of seeming talent as you appear to be. Let us once and for all "let bygones be bygones" and work gracefully together for the furtherence of this encyclopedia. I would, however, kindly request your gracious apology and your direction to "katr67" to halt with these apparently retaliatory measures. I am in no way appreciative of retaliation, yet I am deeply appreciative for our shared humanity and the distinct possibility that we may work together in peace. I am sincerely your servant and do wish to discern your apologies. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballaucus (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a way with words. Why don't you quit obsessing over this and work on building an encyclopedia? tedder (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)