User talk:Tedder

as requested: confirmed media report of Vic Chesnutt death

Just checking in to let you know - as requested in the discussion for the Vic Chesnutt page - that there SEEMS to be credible confirmation of Chesnutt's death at the NYT as of about half an hour ago. Link is here: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/vic-chesnutt-singer-dies/ Worth updating the Vic Chesnutt page over it? Jfarber (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a RS to me- and looks like User:Omarcheeseboro has put it in. Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Vic Chesnutt died? Crap. Katr67 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know who he was until it came up on WP:RFPP. Basically, it was rumored, then officially denied, then confirmed. BLP and all that. tedder (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cottage grove

Please refrain from from editing know public facts from the page it is very disruptive and unconstructive. Thanks for your support in the WIKI community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.28.90 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You've been asked to explain your edits to Cottage Grove, Oregon and haven't done so. Please explain your edits or discontinue the edits. I'm trying to assume good faith. tedder (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Zoklet

Is Zoklet capable of becoming a wikipedia page? Kundalinirise (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi- at first glance, probably not. But go ahead and read WP:YFA and WP:INTERNET. Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Merry Christmas, Tedder! Don't y'all celebrate Xmas out in the Northwest? Or is the kitchen cleaned already and everyone else gone to bed? Hope you enjoyed, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My people celebrate Holiday, but yeah- I spent time with family yesterday and this morning, Mrs. Tedder is still off visiting family, so I'm poking around here. Of course, what are you doing here? tedder (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the kitchen is clean, and everyone else has gone to bed! I'm sitting on my butt after a day of cooking and cleaning. I got a shirt and a pair of pants, and some guitar picks. My family aren't Pastafarians, so we had a big piece of dead animal and all that. What did you get? And any good news for Mrs. Tedder from the admissions offices? Drmies (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Penguins

Hi Tedder, Sorry about the wrong code, I just used db-attack because I knew it would blank the rubbish! Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. No worries. Cheers, tedder (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Countersteering

With your admin hat on can you take a look at Countersteering and Opposite lock, which have both been moved (controversially IMHO) without discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, per the talkpage discussion. Thanks for the heads-up. tedder (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Quack quack. tedder (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Please explain why you have locked this page. The edits made were reasonable and did not merit your interference. Please advise us about how to obtain arbitration re your decision to lock the page. We shall be asking for your privileges as a Wikipedia editor to be revoked on grounds of prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.91.116 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? The edits to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley were vandalism and violating WP:BLP. Please try to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Please explain which of the edits you complain of were vandalism and why. And please explain which of the edits were by "sockpuppets". It appears to us that you have made destructive edits without justification, and have then locked the page so that certain users cannot make corrections. We are about to report various Wikipedia editors to the police investigating the scientific fraud underlying the Climategate affair and the associated activities of certain scientific persons including the IPCC and its chairman. We have not yet decided whether to report you as one of those who have played a part in deliberately tampering with the biographies of those who are known to have spoken out against the (arguably fraudulent and now under investigation) "consensus" that small perturbations of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere can cause large warming effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraudpolice (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT. tedder (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, per NLT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Trollers and griefers love this topic for some reason. tedder (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Applegate, Oregon

Though I'm sure the house belonged to one of the Applegate Applegates, looks like it was in Jacksonville, not Applegate, which does happen to have a Jacksonville mailing address. Per: [1]. Nice pic though. I'll get back to you on the Chemawa pics--thanks for doing all that work! Thanks (for the welcome back). Katr67 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Thanks for spotting that, I just jumped to a conclusion on where/what it was and assumed they just went with a generic address- like saying Salem instead of Hayesville. tedder (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

help, please

Tedder, I need some help with User:IZAK. Over the past two weeks or so he seems to have gone off on a paranoid campaign against pro-Chabad editors and has attacked them with intemperate language. On being called on it he has refused to moderate his language, and has now filed utterly tendentious COI complaints against several editors including me. He seems to have no idea what COI means, or for that matter what FORK means, since he calls articles "forks" when their content does not duplicate that of any other article. Someone needs to talk him down from the tree, and I fear that anything more from me will just inflame him further. If you have a spare 15 min or so, could you please look over his contributions of the last fortnight or so (in particular in a bunch of AFDs, and in talk pages), form your own opinion, and if you agree that he needs a cuppa, a bex, and a good lie down, then perhaps suggest it to him as a completely neutral party? Or else advise me what else to do? -- Zsero (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Zsero, it's probably good it is at WP:COIN. That's what I would have suggested if it wasn't already. Otherwise, probably just work up the WP:DR ladder. WP:RFC/U is a likely place, but give it some time at COIN for now, okay? tedder (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand. Are you saying that the frivolous nature of the COI complaint will be so apparent that it will lead to something being done about his recent behaviour? Or what? -- Zsero (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Youkilis

Just seems to be an IP vandal magnet. You semi-protected him before ... is it ok for me to bring this to you, or do I have to go back to the noticeboard? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Epee, I can handle requests here (as long as I'm around). The only problem is that article has only had one IP vandal since coming off unprotection. Ideally, it should have a couple in the same day before being protected again. tedder (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. tx. (I had thought that the rule was the 5 percent of edits rule, which it passes easily). Will keep my eye on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

5% of edits, yes, but that's for an article that hasn't seen protection lately. So yes, (as an example) 3 of 5 edits is more than 5%, but it isn't a statistically significant number of edits to use for the 5% rule. (in my mind, at least). tedder (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Weatherly Building

On December 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Weatherly Building, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria

Ciao, Tedder. You full-protected this article seven weeks ago due to a content dispute. Any thoughts on when this might be lifted? Regards,  Skomorokh  19:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops- that was a complete mistake that I protected it indefinitely. Thanks for the heads-up- I removed protection. tedder (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the quick response. Now to watch the content dispute resume...  Skomorokh  20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Well, if/when it happens, we'll deal with it appropriately. tedder (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My unsuccessful RFA

Thanks for giving me support to my RFA. I may not have succeeded today but i'm sure in the future I may apply again. I have been an editor on here for a while so I figured I would give it a shot. I'll review what has been said to me and i'll try to get better at things in the future. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Momus, indeed, the feedback was hopefully helpful. Looking forward to seeing you around more. tedder (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Piccolo troll

You may want to also keep an eye out for 71.239.23.70 (talk) as the same editor has hopped between it and 75.22.138.39 (talk) which you just blocked. There has also been a previous ANI discussion on this same editor. —Farix (t | c) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. tedder (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew it wouldn't take long for him/her to switch over to the other IP. He/she is now altering comments at User talk:71.239.23.70 that were left by other editors. —Farix (t | c) 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Kralizec! revoked talkpage for them. Good. tedder (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Oriental Theatre (Portland)

On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oriental Theatre (Portland), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFPP note

On WP:RFPP you stated "We have both accused each other of being banned users." with regards to User:WVBluefield. I don't see that allegation in your edits. Where is it? tedder (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[2], [3], and [4]. If you look at [5] you will see that WVBluefield has now violated 3RR, and his level of familiarity with WP:ANI and recent BLP discussions strongly suggests he is aware of WP:3RR, even if he isn't banned. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse your behavior, and is pretty close to quacking that you are the banned user in question. Take it to WP:SPI, not talk pages and editsummaries. tedder (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have filed the report at SPI and a quick look at my contributions shows that I am familiar with BLP and ANI as I have edited here for several months now. WVBluefield (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. tedder (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is two several? 99.56.136.254 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To which behavior do you refer? Being able to find secondary peer reviewed sources in Medline, or leaving a dispute tag on an article in dispute? I've taken it to WP:3O, where there is a far greater chance of the encyclopedia being improved than 3RR or SPI. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your knowledge of 3RR, RFPP, ANI, etc within your first dozen edits on Wikipedia. You've been around for quite a while. tedder (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No argument there! I hope you'll look past first impressions and at who wants to make the best improvements. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a comment.

I have a slight problem. There is a editor currently exhibiting a ownership problem over Jimbo's talkpage. He is claiming that this [[6]] is the reason that the editor shouldn't post there. I;ve pointed out the policy on ownership, and also pointed out it is only a suggest with a invite to come back when calm. When you look at the post, the poster was calm. Apparently though this editor thinks he has been appointed watchkeeper over Jimbo's page. Can you comment one way or the other? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. WP:OWN goes both ways- it's an advantage and a disadvantage. I can sort of see what you mean, but .. the best thing to do is probably to drop the stick. Posting to Jimbo's page is sort of like yelling "motherfucker!" in a police station; you're very likely to get noticed, for better or worse. tedder (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes

(edit conflict)

• CONTEXT: See the previous (long) now-archived discussion which includes Jimbo's perspective (linked to above)
• Talk to John Vandenberg-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 07:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So John is the person who appointed you watchkeeper? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it's well past invoking Godwin's Law. tedder (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder: See the last section on my talk page please, I'd appreciate if you could take it over, as I intend to go to sleep shortly. Prodego ^talk 07:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll read it. I'm well on my way to sleep also. To Hell* and Proof*, you have both been here long enough to know there are better avenues to settle a dispute than by shopping around to talk pages. tedder (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to go to ANI and this seemd reasonable. I do feel in this case merely saying a juggling of power on administrative tools and responsibility is distinctly different from his Arbcom case. I happen to agree with this by coincidence but for different reasons. I think that ascertaining Jimbo's opinion is useful. My main thing is that if Jimbo doesn't want him to post there he has the power and ability to do so himself. He should be the one saying yes or no. Not one of us trying to figure out what he wants based off a suggestion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket, my advice to you would be to drop this discussion. Between JV, tedder, and myself, you can be assured that your concerns will be resolved. Prodego ^talk 07:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've put it on the table at Jimbo's talkpage. I don't believe in the trust us we can handle things policy, Nothing happens. Sorry I know you probably mean well but so do I. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RFB Question

Is this really necessary? It's clearly a contentious issue already; while the joke might be humorous under different conditions, age may well be the central issue here and perhaps shouldn't be joked about. My two cents.  Frank  |  talk  19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't, and not really appropriate there. Thanks for prodding me to (re)evaluate it. tedder (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Maybe not a big deal but I think we can feel better letting it run its natural course.  Frank  |  talk  19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll just blame my comment on being infected by Bugs. tedder (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Albania

Hi Tedder and thanks for monitoring Albania. I had motivated my move to take out the picture of the bunkers, when I saw your message. Please feel free to talk to me in my talk page for any Albania related topics. On a related note, I haven't motivated all the changes and I apologize for that. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw you started using editsummaries while I was leaving the message! Thanks. tedder (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

OK, I received your notice and I have reviewed your opening statement. I am unclear on what the nature of the dispute you are raising actually is and what resolution you are looking for. I am certainly not opposed to the idea that the environment on the GW pages is deplorable and should be improved. I'll participate in the arbitration to the extent that I am an involved party, but unless you have something specific and actionable in mind it is not clear to me how I should proceed. --GoRight (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey GR. The goal is to show that arbitration is needed and that alternatives (such as 3RR and RFC) have been tried, not that certain users are to blame or anything else. To steal from the case page, "You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time." tedder (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK. I am happy enough to wait and see what you make of this. You are obviously putting a lot of effort into the analysis aspect of who the involved parties are. But before you are done I think you will need to formulate something specific as to what the actual dispute between these parties is. Right now it seems pretty amorphous and ill-defined to me. The best I can discern is a nebulous "look, these people aren't playing nice together." While that is true, I don't think that Arbcom can do anything specific to fix that, per se. Isn't that rather like asking them to produce world peace or something? Just something to think about while you flesh things out a bit more. --GoRight (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, GR, and thanks for saying so both on this page and on the arb. It's something I need to formulate- though I'm deliberately trying not to point too many things out, nor suggest remedies, but to expose the problem and lay it out. That can be done in arbitration, though probably not by me. It would be interesting to figure out how many warnings and blocks have been given to the "top 190" editors on those pages over the past three months, but even that is insufficient- I suspect those who really deserve blocks/bans/warnings don't get them due to intimidation and bullying. tedder (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"intimidation and bullying" - On the GW pages? Really? What's makes you say that?  :) --GoRight (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

tedder (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for something

[7] AP source: Mets, Bay reach preliminary agreement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.247.211 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Take that to the talk page of whatever MLB player you are referring to. tedder (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wallflowers98 page targets

There are way too many pages he is targeting, most pages he has hit only one time. I have found most positives by looking through edit filter 82, No wiki URL's. Most are easy to spot, also a good way to block the socks through AIV. There has been prior SPI cases againest him, only problem is that rangeblocks will not work, he is on AOL which everyone knows is way too dynamic. Hope this helps you. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Might have to create an editfilter to block that domain or attach to another one already doing that. Because I'm so busy researching an arbitration case, can you verify Special:LinkSearch doesn't work with nowiki URLs? tedder (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I ran a check of 4shared.com and nothing comes up that would be in a nowiki tag. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I enabled Filter 82 so it will prevent those edits from happening. It's aimed directly at this problem. tedder (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughs...

Dude, did you just name SineBot as a party to an arbcom case? I rofled. (for the record, I understand you are only aiming for completeness in the list of editors, but you must admit, it is kinda, well, funny!) --Jayron32 06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad you find it amusing too. I certainly did. (of course, I'm the admin who blocked ClueBot twice, both times on accident) tedder (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairly surreal. But I have to say it's about damn time SineBot was taken to task for what is clearly a very long and disruptive edit history. Someone needs to review the policy about changing the words of others on talk pages with that bot! ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hints of notability on the 3Crowd article

What exactly are you seeing as the hints of notability on the 3Crowd article? I was on the bubble on whether to tag that one, since the closest it has to a claim to me is having Kevin Rose as an investor, but since it's in "stealth mode" and the description of what it does is along the lines of something to do with crowdsourcing I wasn't really seeing that as an assertion of notability. I'll probably follow up with a prod of AFD, but with one declined speedy an AFD I recently opened quickly following up with keeps I'm going to sleep on it. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi- the hints I saw were involved individuals with wikinotability (like Barrett Lyon), the techcrunch piece, and the read/writeweb piece that got kicked out. That's enough to pass speedy, even if the article doesn't end up being notable. I hadn't done it until now, but looking at google news it appears there are some reliable entries coming out. tedder (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably follow up with an AFD at some point to get some broad opinion to see whether a company in "stealth mode" is considered notable based purely on the sources related to it getting some funding, I'm a little worried it's in crystal balling/vaporware territory until it clarifies what it produces. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pine Grove, Hood River County, Oregon

I found a little stuff. There's more but I think that's enough for now. Every time I think I'll take just half an hour to round up everything there is to know about a place, it turns out its actually more interesting than that. Not bad for a place given short shrift by OGN. Anyway, now your fine pic doesn't overwhelm the article! Katr67 (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! It went from ~37 words to almost 500 words. Certainly qualifies for a 5x expansion DYK, right? 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the DYK checker seems to approve. I don't know which factoid is particularly interesting, though, but I'm sick of looking at the thing. Katr67 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Want me to punch in a DYK? It'd be a nice distraction. tedder (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Short Stack

Don't you think two months is long enough for vandalism-related protection? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused to your point- it's protected for a month. tedder (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious how to comment on climate arbitration.

Hello, I am new to direct Wikipedia involvement and was curious how I can add a "Statement by uninvolved party" under the climate change arbitration page. I don't see an [edit] tag to the top right of the climate section in the arbitration page. I will try to keep my comment succinct and rational, but there are a few points I wish more people understood, for example all scientists are supposed to be skeptics, why do the 'pro-CRU' editors keep using skeptic as if it's a bad word, etc. --BTW, love the STOP! graphic, *chuckles* I've wasted many hours of my life watching history documentaries and I even teach 7th grade history, but I've managed to miss that one, truly the epitome of train wrecks!

Also, thank you for attempting to bring sanity to this issue, I was originally one of the teachers in our school who condoned the use of Wikipedia for casual research, and in recent weeks ('Climategate', Copenhagen) I've been outraged and have come to regret my position, as more than one of my co-workers now spurn me for supporting the use of Wikipedia. I do believe certain editors are holding certain pages hostage and it discredits the entirety of ~3.5(?) million articles in some minds.

Please forgive if I have put this in the wrong section, I just didn't see a way to add my own comment, as it seems to be allowed, upon reading the various 'uninvolved party' statements on the arbitration page.

Sincerely, Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam, the page is protected so that IP editors can't comment. I don't entirely understand why except to prevent it from getting taken over by new users or single-purpose accounts coming from forums and blog postings, perhaps. Can you register for an account? Once you make a half-dozen edits you'll be able to comment there.

Glad you appreciate the 1895 Montparnasse train wreck, and thanks for teaching your students critical thinking skills for Wikipedia! tedder (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, thanks for your speedy reply. I've taken some work home for the holidays and also have family over, but I do believe the issue is important enough that I will try to do that. Do all edits (talk pages) count or do I need to search around for articles I feel merit my own contribution? You're putting your energy into this, the least I can do is try to show up. Thanks again! Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)