User talk:Tedder

Wikicookie

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

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

Joe Stork

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

WGGH Protection Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polanski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: NEA on Miss International 2009

Thank you for the courtesy note. This issue may not be as straight forward as it first appears. (Full disclosure: at the beginning of the year I blocked Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs) for improperly warning editors and making bad reports at WP:AIV.) When I looked at the Miss International 2009 article, it appeared that the primary editors are Angelo and a half-dozen IPs (however I think that a couple of the IPs are actually the same person on a highly dynamic network that assigns a new IP address every time he or she connects to the internet). Certainly edits like this appear to be good faith edits ... that were later undone by Angelo. (It should be noted that Angelo lost his rollback access in 2008 because he was improperly using the tool during a content dispute.) So while some of the edits by unregistered users over the past several days were clearly unhelpful ([1]), most looked -in my opinion- like AGF contributions. Taken all together, I assumed that Angelo's protection request was an attempt to cut-off the IP he is currently in dispute with ... hence my decline. However if you get a different reading on the situation, please feel free to wade in! Thanks again for checking with me; while it was not required by any stretch of the imagination, I very much appreciate the courtesy. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Ghurids

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

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

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

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

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

Harry Connick Jr

Hi

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

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

Halo 3 ODST

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

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

Operation Repo

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

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

MJ Morning show

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection decline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting unprotection of 2009

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

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

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

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

Ladd Carriage House

Hey tedder, I was just working on updating Salem (Amtrak station), and noticed that in the upcoming agenda for the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, Ladd Carriage House is being considered for relisting on the NRHP: [2] (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.[3] 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 [4]. 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 [[5]]. 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: [6]. 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[7] 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[8] 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)

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[9]? 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[10] 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