User talk:Tedder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Image Tagging Image:Western redcedar bolts.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Western redcedar bolts.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Aracari image

I notice that you uploaded an excellent image of an Aracari, and licenced it as GFDL. However you added the comment Picture taken by uploader (tedder). Reuse should include link to http://perljam.net, and email contact should be made with author. You cannot restrict the reuse under the GFDL, so you either need to remove the comment or if you are not prepared to accept GFDL reuse, let me know and I'll delete the image to protect your copyright. Jimfbleak. ^{Talk to me.}11:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks Jim. --Tedder 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, nice to have a Lineated Woodpecker image too, Jimfbleak. ^{Talk to me.}13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi Tedder!

Hi, it looks like nobody's ever bothered to invite you to join WikiProject Oregon -- what an oversight! You should check it out (the talk page might be more informative, the main page is kind of a mess these days.) We've got a lot of good collaboration going on lately, hopefully you'll join in the fun! -Pete (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pete- I'll start following the project. Tedder (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, welcome :) -Pete (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vera Katz and History

Howdy folks, its time for another installment of WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week! Last week we made some improvements to the Oregon Coast and brought The Register-Guard up to B class while garnering a DYK! Great job to those who lent a hand. This week we finish up the High priority Stubs with former mayor and Speaker of the House, Vera Katz, which is pretty much a Start class now and could easily get to B class. We also have History of Oregon by request. Help out if you can, where you can. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Elected Oregon

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks and entities. Thanks to those who helped out with improving Vera Katz and History of Oregon during the last Collaboration of the Week! As you may have noticed, we have changed the banners a bit, but not our dedication to everything Oregon! This week, in honor of the political process, we have: Current Oregon Senate members & Current Oregon House members. Hopefully by November we can have an article on every current member of the Oregon Legislature. So feel free to turn a red link blue or expand an existing article. Since it is an election year, there should be plenty of newspaper stories. Plus, the state archives has this site that allows you to go back and see when they started serving and district info, plus at a minimum show they were a state legislator from a WP:RS. And per WP:BIO, all state legislator's are notable so no need to worry about AFD. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

belated welcome to WP:ORE

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon. If you're so inclined, add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page: Just add {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Be sure to check out ongoing and past discussions at WT:ORE. Also, you can see the change history for the 5000+ articles with a link in the middle of the WP:ORE page: It's labeled WikiProject Oregon ... Recent changes. And works like this: Recent changes Welcome! —EncMstr (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Juxtaposition COTW

Howdy Ho WikiProject Oregon! Time for another installment of Collaboration of the Week. The last few weeks we’ve knocked out quite a few articles of our current state legislators, and even a few former ones too. Great job to all those who helped make it happen. On a related note, we have had several DYKs from this and now have 53 DYKs so far this year (not counting multiples), less than four full months into the year. Last year we had a total of 83 DYKs for the entire year, and 7 combined for 2006 & 2005. So we are well on our way to another record year. Each time an article makes it to the main page as a DYK it will typically get an extra 1000 hits, which is usually far more than the typical 100 hits per month most minor articles receive. With that said, this week we have two requests, Portland Lumberjax and Silicon Forest. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cinco de COTW

Greetings once again from the Collaboration of the Week at WikiProject Oregon. Thank you to those who helped out with the last set of articles. This week we have the lone Stub class article left in the Top importance classification, Flag of Oregon, and by request, Detroit Lake. Help where you can, if you can. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzz Oregon COTW

Howdy ya’ll, time for another Collaboration of the Week from WikiProject Oregon. Last week we improved Flag of Oregon & Detroit Lake, enough I think to move them to Start class, so great job everyone! This week, we have another request in Oregon Ballot Measure 47 and a randomly selected two sentence stub that should be easy to expand enough for a DYK in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

QWERTY: Oregon COTW

Hello WikiProject Oregon participants, time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week we made some great improvements to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Oregon Ballot Measure 47 (1996), with a DYK for the forest. Great job everyone! This week we have another stub, George Lemuel Woods, one of only two governor stubs left, and should be an easy job getting it to Start class. Then, in honor of the long weekend, we have our second State Park Article Creation Drive. Lots of red links to turn blue, lots of opportunities for DYKs. Help if you can, even if it is only adding pictures of state parks. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. May the The Schwartz be with you. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation on no.wiki

Please visit no:Wikipedia:Usurpation and make a request for usurpation. Thanks :) --Eivind (t) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there is one thing you must do. You must create an account on no.wiki that is not the SUL user name, e.g. taking User:Teddertest. That is the second name they ask for in the template. If you fix this I will make to contact the user for you. Cheers, --Eivind (t) 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you very much for your help. I did this (no:teddertest). Tedder (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! The Norwegian tedder is now contacted. --Eivind (t) 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

X marks the WPOR COTW spot

Guten Tag WikiProject Oregon team members! Great job last week with the Collaboration of the Week, we improved George Lemuel Woods and added eleven new state park articles. This past week we also surpassed the 6000 article mark as a project. The weather may suck, but WPORE is not. For this week we have by request Music of Oregon and Phil Knight. Both need some help, and with Knight we might be able to improve it to GA standards. Once again, to opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PDX pic request

If you have any or stop by sometime, we need a picture of Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Tedder (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

sul

User tedder in zh-wikipedia has been renamed.You usurp it now.Ffaarr (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

DYK

On 1 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Regiment Armory Annex, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Esprqii (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Renames

Uh, I'm pretty sure if you don't have access to those accounts already, you need to have them usurped locally -- I'm not a steward or anything, just an en bureaucrat, so I can't do anything. Andre (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been working on getting them usurped locally, in fact I have all but one of them done. Tedder (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A is for Apple at COTW

Hello again to those of the WikiProject we call Oregon. Time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to Music of Oregon and Phil Knight, great job everyone. This week, by request is the Applegate Trail, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, I’m trying something a little different, with the Portland State stuff. We included the two high profile schools during Civil War week last year, so now its time for the younger sibling that gets no respect to get some attention. After all, it is the largest college in the state. Feel free to help with whatever aspects you like, though to help with some ideas I added some to the article talk page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Nana na na, hey hey hey, goouud byeeee. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kristen Bell edit undo?

Tedder...why on 14:53, 15 June 2008 did you undo revision 219450785 by 76.79.229.122? The reason given by you was "rv unsourced". But the links in the revision source and show all the facts are true. The cast page at the musical's official website sneauxthemusical.com (as linked in the edit)...shows kristen bell's headshot and photo at the time. If that is not enough of a source...there are countless reviews of the musical that can be googled. Here are a couple.

"Curtain up" review that mentions kristen: http://www.curtainup.com/sneaux.html "Los Angeles Times Calander Live" review that also mentioned Kristen: http://www.calendarlive.com/stage/146940,0,7084857.event

Also...the addition of the award winning description to the short film she starred in (The receipt) is also accurate. IMDb lists Kristen Bell as a cast member of the film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472169/) as well as (http://www.shortfilmcentral.com/film/170/) which sources more of the awards the film has won.

The front page of the film's official website (The receipt.com as linked in the edit) shows all of the film festivals and awards that have been won by the film she starred in. One can also clearly see from those festival websites the awards won on a film project that was on the uprise of her career.

The revisions should be included back in.

Thank you. (added by 76.79.229.122)

Hi user, the refs weren't added to your additions- both the awards and the other pieces. You made a significant addition to the Sneaux content without adding a reflink. I'm not perfect- I'm not going to re-revert it, but it was added without citations. Tedder (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The refs are inherent and found in the links to the official sites of the musical and the film (which were included). But, if that is the way it will be, then I will respect that and re-add the content with multiple refs throughout so it will be very clear. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.229.122 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Xtra COTW

Greeting once again WikiProject Oregon Folks. Time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. First, thank you to those who helped out on the last few COTWs. This week we have the soon to open Westside Express Service, formerly the Washington County Commuter Rail, so lets see if we can get it up to WPORE standards. Then there is a Coordinates Drive to add coordinates to any articles currently missing them, to help increase readership by allowing them to be shown on Google Earth/Maps. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Qrazy sale at COTW! Act now! Total liquidation!

Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week! Last week we saw some good improvements made to Westside Express Service, while we also worked on a Coordinates Drive. I don’t know how many articles had the coordinates added to, but thanks to those who helped out. This week we have two more requests: William Clark of Lewis & Clark fame and the famed Oregon Bottle Bill. Hopefully we can work both up to B class. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bandidios

You had better give War the **same** warning, otherwise, you're being selective and biased. Mr War may believe strongly that he's "right", but my edits are *well* sourced. I will continue to edit that article in such a way as to avoid the 3 Revert Rule, but I will also strongly protest WP:OWN by a POV group. Again, as I said, my edits are **WELL** sorced from reliable established places. If you plan on showing BIAS, you'd better give it a second thought. Proxy User (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not showing bias. I gave you both the same warning within a few seconds of each other. Tedder (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I have no choice but to respect the 72 hour ban of me to edit, and I will not try to circumvent it. HOWEVER... You will please note that I was asked "Please do not revert the article further, even if it is changed by other editors", and in fact, I did not. What I did do was make a minor change which can in no way be construed as a revert since it was not, therefore, you have banned me for something that I was never warned not to do. Why did you ban me for reverting when I did not revert anything? No one asked me not to edit the article, they asked me not to revert others changes. You can see as well as I can that I didn't revert anything. 75.172.36.116 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(note: the above comment is in regards to the 3RR against User:Proxy User, it's safe to assume this was posted by him). Editing and reverting are the same thing; this edit, while not significant, is part of the long-running battle you and User:War have been having over this article. 3RR says "use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars". Each change (even the entire war) is insignificant- I mean, the world won't end over the choice of one word- but it comes down to being an edit war. Tedder (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Manzanar

Regarding your last edit to Manzanar in which you reverted an edited that added "concentration camp" to the lead, your explanation for your revert stating that "concentration camp" adds POV and is a "biased word" is, in itself, a POV/biased justification. If you read the Terminology section of the Manzanar article, you'll note that these camps have been referred to by several terms and that many Jews, including a major Jewish civil rights organization, endorse the use of "concentration camp" to describe camps such as Manzanar.

I have no problem with leaving the article as it was prior to the edit you reverted. However, your justification for the edit, based on what's in the article, isn't accurate. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, gmatsuda. Tedder (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summer Time in the COTW

Hello again to those of the WikiProject Oregon Clan. Time for another new edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to William Clark and the legendary Oregon Bottle Bill, great job to those who helped out. This week, by request is the Owyhee Reservoir, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, also by request is a red link elimination drive on Oregon newspapers. Feel free to help out with either. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Zebras are not allowed to participate at COTW, but penguins may

Howdy ya’ll, its WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week time! Thanks to those who helped improve Owyhee Reservoir and start some new Oregon newspaper article, we had four new ones. This week it is time for a Stub Improvement Drive. So select a Stub, any Stub, and try to improve it to at least a Start class. If you expand it by 5X, then think about nominating it at Did You Know so it can be featured on the main page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1 Year of the Collaboration of the Week

Hello again to those of WikiProject Oregon. It is time again for another Collaboration of the Week. The last two weeks were a Stub Improvement Drive, and thank you to those who improved any Stubs.

This week marks the one week anniversary of the COTW, so a brief highlight reel:

• At least 10 DYKs
• Three articles passed GA after being listed at COTW
• Probably around 25 articles started
• Almost all Top importance articles are now better than Stub class

And now on with our countdown. This week we have two requests, the Willamette Meteorite and Tom McCall. Hopefully we can get both to GA quality. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Friends of Coal

A tag has been placed on Friends of Coal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks- added info to the talk page. Tedder (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I expanded the article, too. I think it can grow into something interesting. I hope the Speedy Delete notice didn't create any undue stress. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the expansion and POV changes. Looks great! Tedder (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope to see you around. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

SUL user on no.wikipedia

You are now the owner of the account Tedder on no.wikipedia. Haros (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I meant to thank you for the heads-up on Portland. Good catch, I often find myself ignoring edits to that article...even though I shouldn't :) -Pete (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Pete. We're all in this thing together. Tedder (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion of Executive Recycling

A tag has been placed on Executive Recycling requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Paste (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speakaboos

I am the user that you accused of COI. Thank you for sending the info on external links, I was unaware that the conditions were so limited, and having seen other links to interviews and videos from various works by the actors whose pages I posted on, I thought that users would like to see the actors' work on Speakaboos as well. I have since undone the external links that I added.

As for the Speakaboos page, indeed it would help to have another user's input and edits on the page. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathorserobot (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, cathorserobot. Be careful with COI and make sure to read WP:EL. Just because a link is already there doesn't mean they should be there. Thanks for reverting, and please continue to contribute. tedder (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Boycotting of Proposition 8 Supporters

This article seems to be heavily slanted against proposition 8 supporters- it's almost a list of "wrongs". That's why I've added the POV tag. tedder (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but just putting this up without any ideas of ways to improve the article isn't helpful. I tried to write the article citing positions of both sides and with copious references documenting the opinions of both sides. Please explain how you feel the article could be improved. DavidBailey (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I understand your point, and I'll post my POV concerns shortly. tedder (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sons of Silence

Hey man, sorry that I delete and overwrote your article about the Sons of Silence MC. But what you wrote is simply wrong and absolut dangerous to set such an nonsense to the internet. My article is an objective and simple status about the Sons of Silence. You wrote about the Sons has an allies with Mongols .. sorry do you really know what you write. With such rumours a lot of problems can be happen in the MC scene. If you agree you can contact me at ming-tian@web.de .. then I can you explain a bit more. Regards Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian666 (talk • contribs) 4 Dec 2008

I didn't write that- I'm talking about a revert, not my own writing. Specifically, I reverted the unsourced changes you made to the Sons of Silence wiki page. Also, make sure to sign your posts with four tildes. tedder (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Ok .. I have absolut no knowledge about the whole rules from here and also not the time to learn this. But I know that what you wrote or quote from Newspaper or whatever is absolut wrong, dangerous and not a professionell information. I I have following proposal for you.

I'm member of the Sons of Silence MC, and if you think you have to write about us, I do not like it, but it is ok, because it is a free land and I like the idea of wikipedia. But then my proposal is, please use my comment about us. It is absolut objectively without any statement about wrong allies or relations or to talk bad about others.

If you like also the idea of wikipedia I think you also like to use the most objectivly and direct root information without any speculations - and this makes wikipedia a good platform. Please feel free to use my text or delete your text.

Chris 1%er Sons of Silence MC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.140.9 (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rentrak

Nice work on Rentrak! Thanks. —EncMstr (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, of course :-) I just added a bunch of comments on the discussion page, as well as a warning on User_talk:Enceled. tedder (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm definitely new at wikipedia, but the problem I'm trying to solve is the current page does not at all reflect the focus of the company and is significantly out of date (see recent annual reports for reference). You're correct that PPT was their original business, but ever since the hostile shareholder take over of 2000 the company has been increasingly focused on their audience measurement business for verticals of entertainment media (the by product of which is information management of billions of transactions). Advice on how to accomplish that in an acceptable way would be greatly appreciated. -User_talk:Enceled —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

Hi Enceled. I'm guessing you work for Rentrak. That's okay, but it means you need to be extra-careful because of that conflict of interest. Some might tell you that you absolutely cannot edit the article- I don't think you need to be that restrictive, but certainly be aware that Wikipedia isn't advertising or PR for the company. The thing that is most lacking from the Rentrak article, in my mind, is some notable third-party sources of information about the company. If you know of good writeups in legitimate news sources (i.e., not simply a press release, blog, or information furnished by the company), those are great sources for inclusion of information about Rentrak. One suggestion, if you aren't sure you can write in an objective manner, is to propose additions to the talk page. If nobody helps you with them, feel free to drop me a line or put a note on the talk page for WikiProject Oregon. There are quite a few of us interested in improving articles about Oregon.

The main thing, however, is to watch that conflict of interest. Nothing (aside from blatant vandalism) draws ire from wiki editors like company-driven PR campaigns. It's important to show the good and the bad, and to distill a company down to what they really do, rather than what they claim to be doing, or the marketing-speak a company uses!

Hope this helps. Obviously, there is a lot of my opinion in here. Read the pages on COI and Spam, perhaps even the page warning against autobiographies (which applies to corporations too!). And don't hesitate to ask more questions. Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Much appreciated. --TimTay (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS

note from tedder- the spam warning here was placed on User:Trenchless's talk page, it is not a warning to me. Leaving as quoted. tedder (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pipe ramming. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you feel some external liks are appropriate and mine are not? Please look at the Pipe Ramming external links you have left on the site and tell me how those are appropriate? You are not consistent with your rules so I'm confused as what is appropriate and what is not. Could you please expalin the guidelines you use to make these decisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by trenchless (talk • contribs)

Hi user. Here's the thing- I assume you are advertising your own site, considering the username and website match, as well as the information in this edit. The other links may need to be pulled also- read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. The best sources for information are independent third-parties, not commercial sites with an obvious conflict of interest. (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tedder. Just because you deem an “obvious conflict of interest” you deem the information slanted and/or bias. Okay, so how do you make that call? I’d have to say that mind set is why there is so much misinformation on this site. I have the information because this is what I do for a living, but due to that fact I have an obvious agenda and have disqualified myself. However, if someone has a passing interest in the subject and knows just enough to be confusing and wrong, with the information provided, it is adequate because they are a third party. How does that make sense? Shouldn’t the people and organizations with the information be allowed to provide the information? Would I be allowed to take my time to correct the Trenchless Technology section of wikipedia in the areas of my expertise or would I be disqualified because I know too much about the subject and have an “obvious conflict of interest”. I’ll find a third party to update and provide the information, but I would like the rules to be the same for everyone. Should I take the other external links off the site or is that overstepping my roll since I have an “obvious agenda”? talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by trenchless (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:COI. It answers most, if not all of your questions. The issue isn't your level of knowledge- in fact, that makes you especially suited to contributing- but I'd suggest adding verifiable information based on third-party sources, not information that promotes (or appears to promote) your company. tedder (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, I'm new to this whole thing and substantiation appears to be the crux of the issue. I have plenty of reference material to pull from and reference and there are third party organizations specifically dedicated to the industry that I will look to pull into the mix. Thank you for your help. --Trenchless (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent- it'd be great to have someone with knowledge that can improve the trenchless-type pages! tedder (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the cleanups

...on my edits of the Nov. 15 protests article. Looks like I rushed the job, thanks again. --Joe Decker (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Joe. They were just small bits that I added, you did most of the work! Cheers. tedder (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

49cents

[edit] December 2008 You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at 49 cents. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. tedder (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tedder, I dont understand. This is a rock band, certified, written about and reviewed. The deletion of this page simply because it was created by a member and fan of the band seems illogical to me. 49 cents is a credible and powerful band. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryancurtis50 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's credible and notable, someone will create an article about it. Please read about band notability on Wikipedia and why you shouldn't create autobiographies on Wikipedia. Thanks. tedder (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair cop

Hi Tedder, Your comments are accepted, the infringement was unintentional - I'm new to the game & it was easier than having to think and re-write some of the good information on the site. Will be a little more proactive next time Andbrew.downes (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew- and welcome! Based on your user page, you should have some great information to contribute. tedder (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Choclate News Removement of Criticism

Hi, I am not sure why you gave me a warning for adding in a criticism section. These sections are very common throughout numerous television show articles (Family Guy, South Park etc.) and I very confused as to why you thought a warning was necessary. 68.104.112.218 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(moved to bottom of talk page) I removed your edit and gave the warning because your information was unsourced. A criticism section is acceptable, but it's important for it to have reliable sources. tedder (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ah ok sorry will read that page 68.104.112.218 (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.112.218 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Arnold (actor)

You're welcome! By the way, the reversion of obvious vandalism and WP:BLP-infringing edits is exempt from WP:3RR... see WP:3RR#Exceptions. In this case, the vandalism might not have been immediately obvious... however, the IMDb bio gives the correct name, diener means servant or slave in German, and the IP has a long history of vandalism, so another revert would have been acceptable. Gail (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the report! The IP has been blocked for 7 days. Gail (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I worry about 3RR in that case, as it almost seems credible. It didn't agree with IMDB, but again, I'd rather be careful than be accused of being in an edit war. Certainly he has a long history of vandalism, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP, it's usually tolerated to err on the side of caution... "diener" might be considered offensive. But if you want to play it safe, just draw the attention of some active admin and leave it up to them. And thanks for your vandal-reverting work on Twinkle :) (I'm a Huggler myself) Gail (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the guidelines. I may pester you later on if I have similar dilemmas. :-) I reverted by hand for too long, Twinkle is nice! tedder (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tools definitely help speed up the process. Sure, feel free to post on my talk page if you have any doubts, I'd be happy to help where I can :) Gail (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoffa edit

How was adding a link to a website I and others have found useful vandalism? It appears on the discussion of the Jimmy Hoffa page that it was already argued before and left alone by other editors such as yourself. Please put it back. Its relevant to the purpose of wiki. (Hoffa Mystery Solved link)----Nugglesmom (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nugglesmom- please see Talk:Jimmy Hoffa. The vandalism tag was an accident; removing it wasn't. tedder (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rose Garden Arena

There is an Apartment There whyd u remove it what the fuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.140.6 (talk)

Hi unsigned user- you are talking about this edit. I removed it because the information was unsourced- read Wikipedia:Citing_sources for more, or feel free to reply if you want more personal help. tedder (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Detroit Free Press Article link Deleted?

On July 8th 2007, the Detroit Free Press published a story about a former Detroit Police Officer named Jeff Hansen who claimed that he discovered cremation ovens at the Grand Lawn Cemetery, which is only a few blocks away from the house in Detroit where Frank Sheeran claimed to have killed Jimmy Hoffa.*[1]

Why was the article link and the July 8th 2007 paragraph deleted? It was verified, was written by myself, not anyone associated with spectre publishing. This is over editing at its worst. --Nugglesmom (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies to this will be on Talk:Jimmy_Hoffa. tedder (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this

From Wikipedia....Dont be a fanatic 1. Respect common standards - If the Wikipedia view of how articles should be presented differs from one's own perception of the subject, then it's important to recognize that Wikipedia has standards applicable to the community and all its members. 2. Don't over-guard articles - Even if a subject is close to one's heart, or an article has been fostered lovingly, remember that it is still a communal article and communal shared collaboration. Even if it takes the article in a direction that you don't agree with, so long as policies are being followed, allow communal ownership to supersede personal emotional involvement. 3. Don't be too certain - Too much certainty can lead to assumptions of bad faith, or to inability to listen to others properly, both sources of conflict. 4. Don't be zealous to the point other goals are lost - Intense caring for Wikipedia's policies and ways can at times lead to such excess of zeal as to be a problem in its own right. Such editors often do not understand why others criticize them, because in their own eyes they are "just doing what's right for Wikipedia". 5. Don't slip into bad behavior - Fanaticism often leads towards personal attacks and breaches of civility, if "the truth" becomes "what one wants to hear", rather than "what's best for the project and those one is working with." 6. Don't marginalize others - If you dismiss other points of view, or attempt to marginalize the people who hold them, your position may actually be the marginal one. Instead, ask sincere questions to see where the differences are and which editors are on solid ground.--Spectre7277 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cut and paste, Spectre7277. I know the rules. Your behavior has been clear. tedder (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

F800GS & F650GS

Here you go - BMW GS parallel-twin. What do you feel about renaming the other (combined) article to BMW F650 single? --TimTay (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TimTay. I created it (which you saw). Still needs some work, which we can handle I'm sure! Any ideas about what to do about the two infoboxes? (I'm going to wait to use tb to see if you are watching my user page) tedder (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job! Nothing wrong with two infoboxes as the bikes are different generations. I have seen that on another bike article, just struggling right now to think where... I think it looks good. --TimTay (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What was all that about?

That was an interesting little vandalism storm. Did you tick someone off by merging the articles? --TimTay (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I suspect it was related to a checkuser case. It sort of matches his recent MO. Whoever it is, almost all of their vandalism came straight out of my contribs. tedder (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Feet Forwards Motorcycle

Hi Tedder, it was nice to get the FF article a bit more sorted, and don't forget that User:Wizzy provided some very useful pictures. ttfn, Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Tedder

Much appreciated. I'm a slob with references, but you should see what my room looks like... The Dutch joke was because I assumed it was my buddy user:Drmies. Cheers. Thanks again.ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Salary page

Hi Tedder,I'm new to editing wikipedia, so sorry if this isn't the correct way to talk to you. I wanted to talk about the "Salary" page and my link to Jobnob.com. We have specific salaries that people can view and while the link was up our bounce rate was pretty low at around 5% and people stayed for several minutes and viewed lots of pages. Wouldn't that indicate that it's useful? Is that not a metric of putting an external link? you can email me at (redacted) if this isn't the proper place to discuss. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.244.65 (talk)

IP user, adding your own site is considered spam. Please read the guidelines for adding links to Wikipedia, and let me know if you need more assistance. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cash4Gold.com

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cash4Gold.com, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Web site is non-notable. There is no article for the site's parent company. Two of the references only mention the site as secondary to their main topics. Also, a couple of television advertisements that are not seen by 90% of the world do not make something "notable". The article fails to establish notability and in fact does not adequately describe the site's business (the sentence is not complete).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

-- Notwithstanding the above template, I'm hoping that you'll veto the proposed deletion and finish your article. Although your history shows that you generally focus on cleaning up vandalism, I would imagine that writing the Cash4gold.com article to be more expansive should be fairly easy. Ronark (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ronark. I'll work on it some more. I do a lot of antiv, but I do actually contribute and create articles too- they just get buried in all the reverts. tedder (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Summer Glau edit

Wikipedia is a place where fans will look for information about an actor. Their public appearances are information. Your deletion of the content is removing valid information about what the actor is doing to promote their career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.231.135 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Please read WP:ADVERT. Public appearances may be information, but they are of questionable notability, as well as likely constituting spam. tedder (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it is spam; Wikipedia itself describes Spam as advertisements. The public appearances cited were ALL her scheduled appearances, not simply one, and are both being ran by different companies. I cannot fathom how that would be considered advertising/spam instead of simply information for those wishing to meet this actress, as it is providing details for every appearance listed at the moment. (I would agree it may be spam if only one appearance was listed, and all others were purposefully omitted, but that is clearly not the case here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.231.135 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square

Thank you for your support. Things should be OK as long as the page stays protected. I've taken the page off my watch list for the time being, just to reign in my annoyance with that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand why you would unwatch it. Just wanted to add a vote towards you. tedder (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone felt I was putting down Bugs in some way and that a "vote" was necessary. My note pertained to an earlier discussion on my talk page. Katr67 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No hay problema. We all love Oregon. That outweighs any petty differences. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK in the case of the socks of User:Pioneercourthouse is an "Oregon Duck" in this case. :) The latest sock was created in October but not used until today. I wonder how many more sleeper accounts he's got. P.S. I'm watching the page again. But I'll try to be nicer to newbies in future. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. Definitely a sleeper- it was amusing to look through the previous edits. And I'm not gonna comment on the two socks being in an edit war with themselves. tedder (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor I, until the checkuser comes back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I broke my official silence on the matter (again) in order to somewhat counter Poter99's defense on that sock page. However, he's got me worried with the implied threat that these questions being raised about him being "libelous statements". [2] Worried. Worried. But not very worried. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be worried at all. He should be happy for checkuser, as it would clear him of any wrongdoing. I'm scream pretty loudly if I was being pinned in a corner too! tedder (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Poter99 confirmed as sockpuppet of the others. There will now be a pause for a gasp of surprise. A short pause. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Not much of a shocker. Well, hopefully this will cause the PCH thing to settle down, at least for a few seconds. tedder (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has actually blocked Poter99 yet, but I'm assuming an admin will take care of that in due course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't bother me. It'd be great if he stood up and admitted to it, or apologized, or whatever. In reality we probably won't see him anymore, until he has another IP he can create accounts from. Nice to see some pressure on this. Now if only my other CU would go through! tedder (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This one took awhile, but I expect the limited quantity of checkusers have a long list of requests. It might be interesting to see if this guy will own up to, or start a vandalism spree, or scream defiance or denial... or disappear. Maybe he'll use the defense I use when it's claimed that I'm being incorrigible: I have an evil twin, who also happens to be invisible and wears really soft shoes, so I never know when he might strike. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GPX format

I was cleaning up Template talk:GeoTemplate and just noticed your August '08 request for GPX format. Since there was no section header, it got sort of lost in the noise. Not noticing it earlier, I asked for the same feature a few weeks ago. Not sure if you noticed, but the GPX format has been added, although still considered "experimental". Next time you click on coordinates, scroll down the "Geo Hack" page to the table of contents and select "Markup".

Note I moved your request down to the top of the section I created with my request, so it's no longer orphaned and you can take credit. --J Clear (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for having it buried. tedder (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism by 121.242.29.27

User talk:121.242.29.27 made another vandalism edit, this time to ping. Can you block them as promised? Thanks! -- Autopilot (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have admin rights to do so, but I reported that person on WP:AIV. Also, if you revert, make sure to use the templates on the IP talk page. tedder (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

HAMC edit

Here's the problem: the info regarding that casino security controversy is from a website called associatedcontent, which is apparently blacklisted by Wikipedia. So, you tell me. Go or no go? 84.196.66.167 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the story is legit, it should be possible to find it at another source. Read this article; I suspect the reason AC content is blocked is that it is user-generated, so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. tedder (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for patrolling the 'pedia. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

-) thanks! tedder (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redlink edit

It actually wasn't a redlink anymore when I de-linked it. I redirected NESBA to the New England Scholastic Band Association and that redlink was included. Therefore since I had never heard of anything pertaining to the NESBA organization, being a track and field athlete myself, I removed it and hoped that someone would come along and create the link with the full name. Also, if it didn't exist, it could possibly be an organization that by Wiki standards, is unnotable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's likely to not be notable, but I was curious. FWIW, here's what it is. tedder (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact date on magic numbers

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure either. But since I'd changed it I thought should change the fact date.

I am still not really happy about my additions for other magic numbers like pi, e, and other mathematical constants being removed. Perhaps I will make a separate section.

S.

SimonTrew (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I should make it clear, I am a pragmatic programmer, and come across magic numbers like that every day in my work. So will people reading this site-- newbie programmers. We are not a teaching site as such, but I think we should reference those, they occur too frequently to be ignored.

But on the whole well done to everyone for tidying this article up a bit! Thatprobably sounds patronising but I mean it.

SimonTrew (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all- thanks, and I agree with you. The list of magic numbers is fun, but there are useful items too. My theory on "resetting the date" is it should be avoided because it emphasizes how long a given statement has been there. It's a flag there is a missing ref, and the content may be deleted if the content can't be backed up with reliable sources. In any case, it is a case of picking nits- but it's what us geeks do best, right? tedder (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's tricky with things like Pi or e. You do find them a lot in code. Or the square root of two say. A lot of programmers-- especially from FORTRAN tradition-- just write them in cos it is easier than them looking up the constant, or even do mor bizarre things like the arctan of -1 which takes AGES (relatively speaking). These constants are all built in to the numeric processor, and (we assume) the compiler will program against them. You just need a bit of percussive maintenence to tell people not to use them.

User:Smratlik

Smratlik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I turned him in to WP:AIV for uncivil behavior and for being a probable sock of you-know-who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Katr67 turned him in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse 45 minutes earlier. We'll get him one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

shocking. s-h-o-c-k-i-n-g. :-) tedder (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should create a graph showing the frequency of attempts of that character to get his pet paragraph installed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean I have to quit working on the remote-operated cattle prod? tedder (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. We all have our projects to complete. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing I wonder is why he's so hung up on this one paragraph. It could just be an obsessive game. But I wonder if he got mugged at PCHS once, or some deal like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. The para itself is interesting, as it's almost a backhanded complement. It sure is a lot of calories to burn for that one inconsequential line, though; I mean, creating tons of accounts, making legit edits, keeping tabs on all the accounts.. tedder (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, they want more evidence at the checkuser case, and I don't have the patience. (It seems obvious enough to me--edited the same marriage licence article, etc.) Care to do the honors? Katr67 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added what we know so far about this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was enough evidence that they approved going ahead with the checkuser. If I were running wikipedia, any editor who even raises the question and doesn't give a straightforward answer to "what do you want to edit?" should be assumed to be a sock and blocked accordingly. I'm sure he's getting a big thrill, a power trip, out of wasting everyone's time here, making us go through these gyrations every time. An immediate smackdown might take some of that thrill away. The alternative, of course, is to just give him the cold shoulder, i.e. don't even acknowledge the question. Easier said than done, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea, similar to the Muhammad page where they have an ongoing disclaimer as to why the illustrations are allowed. If anyone raises the question, they are simply referred to the disclaimer and that's that. Similarly, one user today (User:Barek) has the start of that idea - to list the occasions when it's been fully protected. And he somewhat gets around the ego boost by simply talking about "the vandal" and not alluding to what it specifically is. If a guy asks what it is, tell him to read the history. And when he starts making insulting remarks, smack him down. That's one idea, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Basically "this page is full-prot because (x), (y), (z). If you'd like to make a change, please list leave a comment." Somehow it needs to say "if you whine about the prot, you are probably a troll/sock/jerk" without saying so in a mean way. tedder (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The one editor left that full explanation. That might actually be sufficient. Any new questions, we could just refer to that explanation. We can probably leave out the "troll" part, although it's tempting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be ideal, I think, is to add a link to the Protection Log to the talk page for that article. I have searched about a fair bit but I can't find a way of linking to it (other than the Protect page, which is admin-only, so useless for most editors). Meh. Try this: [3] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that I think of it, even summarizing the protection log amounts to an ego stroke for the persistent vandal. Where's Johnny Martorano when you need him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Parappa644's response of my talk page

Hello tedder. Sorry for my disruptive edit. But this does not mean you want to send me a message about it. :( For prevention of blocking, I won't edit that page anymore. Hope you are not gonna block me....thank you for information. Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you, but be careful with your edits, many of them can be construed as vandalism. You've been editing a lot of user talk pages for odd reasons; they may decide what you are posting is vandalism too. tedder (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They will revert the Crowdo talk page, but cannot on me. It is my OWN talk page. They don't revert talk pages if they are not me...right? :| Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are a little weird for what is and isn't vandalism. If you came along and made edits on MY talk pages that were weird, I might quickly call it vandalism, or I might take heart on you as a new user. However, it's weird that you've spent so much time on talk pages without contributing reliable edits. tedder (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

reviews

I am just adding links to reviews. What's wrong with that? --Lanov (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are totally right, and I'm rolling back my reverts. See your talk page- sorry. tedder (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan of Drew

Both, so to speak. I'm a newcomer to Drew's work due to geography, only for a few years and it was after Adam left. I've come to admire the work he does a lot. I am also a mental health professional myself and my clientele are often similar to the people who call his show. Loveline's educational goal even inspired me to take a lot of the sexual abuse articles under my wing because for a time, there was a problem with the online pedophile community polluting them with misleading information. This is not much of an issue anymore (one of those former users is in jail as we speak).

I think a lot of the flack Drew gets is often unfair, due to people not quite understanding how mental health workers view the world and what they mean when they say certain things. Tabloids and even some mainstream papers can go quickly in the wrong direction when they smell blood.Legitimus (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I could tell you had experience. email me, I may have something for you. tedder (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

HOY

Thanks, you are correct about the dead link. I forgot about that option. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool- and not a problem, it's hard to know all the details around here- it's something I'd run across before. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Link in VFR400 section

On several occasions a link added to the VFR400 page has been removed as spam. This is in fact not spam and not advertising, the site being linked is one of the best and most popular NC30 sites/knowledgebases on the net, and has been for four years. Please take the time to review the site before yourself or your colleagues delete the link. The site has recently been moved from a different URL and I think others should be allowed to benefit from it in it's new location. Please reinstate the link to www.v4power.co.uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.216.137 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Specifically, this is WP:LINKSPAM, or external link spamming. tedder (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read through the site in question I'm not so sure. Check out Talk:Honda_VFR400#Opinions_on_external_link.3F and give us your opinion (which may still be that this is spam). --TimTay (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll read through it and comment soon. In any case, it'll be good to have a central discussion for this. tedder (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I apologies for any inconvenience caused, I hadn't realised/seen the responses to the link being added until today.

Personally, I don't see this site being any different to the already added "VFRMania" link, and felt the amount of information available on the V4-Power site more than justified its presence. The site has been around for a long time and used/cited by a lot of people. Granted, it's a "personal" site- find me another NC30 site which provides that much info, and could be added. I simply felt it was about time this resource was made available from Wikipedia.

Again my apologies for any inconvenience. I hope you come to the decision to add this resource! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.216.137 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add this to the VFR talk page. It's a more central place for the discussion. I'll reply there. tedder (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Floor page edits

Can you explain please why have you removed the section on sustainable flooring? There were no adverts at all. Earlier, there was an important product mentioned, that could be seen as an advert, thought that was not the intention, as the website does not sell, it was a link to a report on sustainability of the product, the only sustainable rubber flooring on the market in the UK.

I removed the entire sentence regarding this and changed the text to be as neutral as possible, I hope this is OK now! I am not interested in selling any produce, I am simply trying to supply an information that is missing, I was looking for it, could not find it - therefore, I took time to research it and posted a small section in wiki for others. I will add some more references in the next few days, as I am trying to find some reports. Please contact me before you make any changes, as I am happy to make corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDIAROM (talk • contribs)

Hi wdiarom- here's the issue. Your edits are using non-reliable source, and they all use the same site, which ends up looking like what is called an advertisement masquerading as an article. Can you find reliable sources for the contributions? Read WP:RS; the best sources for this would be news articles from reliable organizations, not a self-published site. Whether that site is attempting to sell things or not, it's suspicious when it is used as a reference for every paragraph. tedder (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I am aware of the issue, and I was sort of hoping someone with better information will make contribution, this is how I see pages being developed - as a collaboration rather than an individual effort. I actually have several good resources, but all of them come from websites of various producers, now I am not sure what the policy about this is- and when I get the time I will investigate. As you know, sustainability is not the easiest issue to reference, and I was very surprised how little information there is. I think you are being quite heavy handed in your approach, this way you will put people who are trying to get involved off, and that is a shame, as this is meant to be a site for everyone,not an elite of some sort. If people are unhappy with the quality of writing and quality of the sources, they can improve it, there is no need for some artificial superior quality control -is there? Accusation of vandalism need to be careful, as your well meant efforts can actually cause unwanted damage. The thing is- I made a start, and used the best sources I could find ATM. AS far as I am concerned, there is no false information of any kind, and there are no offensive comments, or spam - therefore,it hardly can be considered a vandalism. However, your actions seemed that way to me, hardly an effect you were after, is it? Please remove the off-putting banners, and allow the article to develop just like it is mean to, as a collaborative effort of various people. I will try to improve it as well, in my own time - hopefully ASAP. I hope you understand the point I am trying to make, and will not take any offense, none is meant - I think it is very nice that you offer your time to help the community, but sometimes it is better to step back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDIAROM (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I'm sorry if the reverts appeared heavy-handed. If you read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the first pillar listed is the importance of accuracy. That means reliable sources and verifiability. Allowing unsourced information in (or poorly sourced) ends up polluting the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. You are right, though, I should have assumed good faith more than I did. For that I'm sorry. However, that's why I placed the welcome notice on your talk page- it's a great way to learn about the basics of Wikipedia and the guiding principles behind it.

It's worth highlighting a point from WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". It may also be tagged, and it's okay to give time to find it, but "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds (..) material." tedder (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You see,I feel I am better informed than you are in the subject, otherwise I would expect you to simply help with the article creation. I have an access to a very good university library, and I took several days to research the topic, and for people who search basic information - I created the sus. section.The website I used as a source has a very clear and well researched information, that would appeal to most people who look for information. Academics and other experts use different sources - this is supposed to be for ordinary people, who simply want the basic stuff, presented in a clear and easy way.I appreciate the welcome notice, and I appreciate what you do to help wiki, I simply objected to your 'policing' approach, that could easy discourage most people. I am a long term internet user, so I understand the pressure of moderating and volunteering - and how difficult it is to keep all the sides happy. The original article had very few sources, and presented basic information, I wanted to keep the style. Your intervention prompted me to rewrite my addition in more neutral style, as I do agree it looked a bit too enthusiastic for the sus. side. I did take time to list more diverse references, sadly, there is very little peer reviewed stuff, as most reports are from the actual producers, who of course have commercial interests- the same goes for certification, sustainability is just in its infancy. I object to your maintenance banners, as they give a bad impression-the page is basic, but well researched and if someone has an information to disprove any of the information, they will be free to do so -right? I am tired as it is very late here, so I will say good night. J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDIAROM (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New additions to a page are held to a higher standard than what may already be there, and pages may be deleted or significantly altered at any given time. Further, maintenance banners are a way to flag (a) that the page has issues and (b) how long it has had issues. It's encouragement to other editors to pitch in and help clean up.

I understand peer-reviewed articles aren't going to be possible to find. That's okay- the topic should have plenty of newspaper articles written about it, which are "reliable enough". Thanks for your effort, and sorry if I deflated your enthusiasm- that wasn't on purpose. Keep improving that article and others! tedder (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to review the 'Floor' page recent addition, and the references, and I advise you to review the articles yourself, before you make any more rushed judgments. I hope you were joking about newspaper articles being superior to the cited references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.58.253 (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean they were superior, I meant they are acceptable and are superior to self-published sources. tedder (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are my observations: 1: Floor page gets updated - there are a few issues with the addition, but nothing major, no incorrect information, no advertising or any other issue with rules 2: You play police and without checking the article/citations you decide it was 'vandalized' 3: There are changes to the page, that improve the text. 4: There are changes to page that add citations. 5: I keep seeing the maintenance notice-without any justification. 6: You DO NOT have any expert knowledge about the subject, you DO NOT have checked the citations sources, YOU CAN NOT show anything wrong with the page- but you keep insisting there is a need for maintenance,without any justification other than there should be some references from third parties- which there are, and you insist you want to see some newspaper references - no one is stopping you to add them if you feel they are so important! 7: You have no rights to make demands on anyone about the way they reference, as there were no rules broken, and you are unable to justify anything wrong with the entry, other that your personal preference for newspaper references 8: Your contribution is petty and does not help or improve the page, the Wikipedia spirit, anything at all 9: Is time for you to step back and reflect on the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.27.133 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me tedder. My main objection to the lot was that it didn't contribute to the article whether the references were spam or not - and I think most of them are. I sggested to im he set up a sustainable flooring article instead, some of his references might make it notable. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I reported this here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Page:_Floor.2C_users:_WDIAROM.2C_tedder.2C_Dmcq.2C_IP_80.42.27.133, because I'm lost about what I did wrong and how this should be handled now. tedder (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracker Marine Group Article

This is Drunk Redneck, creator of the Tracker Marine Group Article. When making the article I didn't want it to be adveritsment-based. I'm not good at writing articles about businesses, and I REALLY don't want to have it deleted, so your going to half to help me rewrite it. Anything to keep it from being deleted!!!!!Drunk redneck (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drunk Redneck. It is hard, and you can probably save it if you can find reliable sources that discuss the business. For instance, newspaper articles from decent-sized newspapers can help. Let me know what else I can do to help. tedder (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bigweeboy's redlink removal

Hi Tedder:

Thanks for your comment on removing red links. I will be more vigilant to see that these links should be removed. I am not trying to create any hard with these changes, simply trying to clean up links that do not exist and where the Wiki entry is quite old, and the likehood of that link being created is small. I'll try to do better. Bigweeboy

I replied on your talk page. tedder (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder. But how do we know what the chances are that a page will ever be created for a red link? bigweeboy (talk)

BWB- there is certainly an element of guesswork involved. But you can use the guidelines of WP:NOT and WP:N as a general guideline. In other words, there'll probably never be an article about Bigweeboy's contributions to world peace, but perhaps there will be one about Malia Obama's contributions to world peace in the future, if she grows up to receive a Nobel Prize. In general, is it possible an article would be created? To use the spider example, it's quite possible those three links could be created at some point. Hope that helps. Your (other) contributions are excellent- you obviously have an editors' eye, which I don't. tedder (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder. I am a new editor and were not familiar with the policy on red links. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I really want to contribute to Wiki and I thought this was a job that helped Wiki get 'cleaned up'. I won't remove any more red links. My reputation on Wiki is important to me and I want to go on record as saying that I innocently removed red links and did not make any other removals like content, templates, I didn't blank out anything, as indicated by your posts on my page. Would you kindly clarify that on my user talk page - that the problem was just red links and it was innocent and I have stopped. Again, many thanks for your help and advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigweeboy (talk • contribs)

No problem- actually, just delete what you want from your user page. Once you've done that, I'll post something complimentary on there. And don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes. tedder (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from RGB

Hi Tedder,

I will do my homework on the process of providing information to this remarkable resource. It wasn't clear to me, however, whether my contributions to the Loyalty Marketing article were accepted. Thanks. RGB (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi- the problem is that wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, including citing oneself. It's important to draw from reliable published sources. Let me know if you have more questions. tedder (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

High Point Market

Hi Tedder,

I was wondering why a link to our news source covering the High Point Market would be considered "Disruptive" and "Spam". Our publication, Furniture Today is a reputable website with daily coverage of this bi-annual event. If a user is looking for additional information about the event, why would our news coverage be considered spam and any reason to be blacklisted from Wikipedia.

Thank you,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.213.5 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• High Point Market / the revert / the website in question

Hi John. I have a couple of issues. The actual content of furnituretoday may be fine, but it's mired in a couple of issues. First, conflict of interest: obviously you are related to the publication. That's okay, but it means you have to follow the COI guidelines very carefully- especially this section. Not that you can't post, but the conflict of interest certainly makes it harder.

Second, link spam and spam. The furnituretoday site has a lot of advertising, including an interstitial ad. That means any links you add look even more spammy and have a greater conflict of interest, since there is direct gain to be made.

Finally, these are both issues that can be overcome (though the interstitial rubs me, and probably others, the wrong way). Your case would be better if you made an effort to contribute to wikipedia outside of areas that you have a conflict of interest. For instance, if you had 50 edits and only one of them was a link to furnituretoday, it'd be a lot easier to ignore.

Keep in mind this is all my point of view. If you feel I'm way off base, you can take it to the talk page of the High Point Market. Having said that, I'm not opposed to that link being re-added, since it does appear to be a reliable source for this niche industry (i.e., something that isn't going to receive coverage from NYTimes or the Washington Post). But don't be surprised if the amount of advertising and spam causes other editors to reach the same conclusion.

So, I'm being verbose. Let me sum up again- you can go ahead and re-add the link, but read the COI and SPAM policies very carefully.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, thanks for the great information.. as a Long-time Wiki-User, First-Wiki Editor, I have a lot to learn. I'm currently going through the material you sent, but I am already understanding why my link may be considered Wiki-Spam, even though it is providing valuable information. Thanks again, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.213.5 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, John. Please drop by my talk page again if you have any questions. tedder (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

JamNow Deletions

Hi Tedder,

I see that you have deleted some links inserted in the From First to Last Page and Haste the Day. I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I am just trying to understand the system. I see the pages have links called "Interview w/..." and "Official MySpace page" and I was wondering how this is different from my link. JamNow is a music site which has had several live performances and interviews from signed major artists, similar to MySpace Music. If I was just to list the link as an interview or performance without listing the site name would that be acceptable? This would be fine, but they actually are profiles of artists, and I would not know any other way to convey this.

Thank you for the help, Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.158.56 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scott, and welcome to Wikipedia. The external link guidelines actually say that interview links are okay- but where your posts ran afoul is in the link spam guidelines. Basically, your edit history implies a possible conflict of interest, since all you've done is add links to JamNow.

Having said that, the links are useful. I'd suggest making other contributions (not related to JamNow), then gradually add those links back. Figure 50+ unrelated contributions. These are just my recommendations- again, I feel the links could be helpful, but the rules of COI and linkspam mean you need to be careful. tedder (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand where you were coming from. Thank you for the clarification and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.7.106 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Premio Zobel

Hi, I think we just had an edit conflict with this. I was tagging it for the mildly dubious claim of being the oldest literary award in the world, and I think the wikipedia monster ate the template. If it was me, I'm sorry. ;o)--OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries! Thanks for letting me know. tedder (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Laurelwood ELs

This revert/edit: my theory is as follows:

• the duplicated EL is the right way to go for important stuff from the infobox. This is how most articles appear to be, both in and outside of the school articles.
• the inappropriate ELs: outpostcenters might be okay, but not the alumni association; that's no different than a fansite.

Those are my thoughts, at least. tedder (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My explanation for those specific sites is on the talk page. As to the argument that other pages do that, often true, but that only means those need to be fixed, much like most articles on Wikipedia used to be unsourced (maybe even still). I know people consider the "official site" to be very important and hence often duplicating it in both the ELs and the infobox, but I've always wondered why? Neither with an "official" link or other links are we trying to drive traffic to these sites, so there is no reason to list it more than once. Same reason for why we only list one URL per domain, people can find it on their own (to me a perfect article has zero ELs and zero "See alsos", but that's just me). And the rationale for the better placement in the infobox is that is a much more prominent spot (plus as here, the domain is also used as a source, thus EL also says not to duplicate in the ELs). As to fan site, I don't think its quite at that level, but I also think it would then meet the "recognized authority" exception, as would most alumni associations of schools. But in general, I think you are doing a great job of removing bad ELs from Oregon pages. Good luck when you get to the college pages, there normally full of EL violations. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are usually a lot of EL violations, especially on neglected articles. So there are two bits that make me feel the official site should appear in the infobox AND at the bottom, both from WP:EL:

• 2: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox.
• What should be linked: Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

So I read those as saying (a) it's important to have the official site as an EL- if there are any ELs, the first one should be the official site, and (b) duplicating the infobox and the bottom is permissible. Combining (a) and (b) says to me that IF there is an EL section, the first one should be the official site. Does that make sense?

Using the worst argument of all, I picked two featured article high schools, Plano Senior High School and Stuyvesant High School. Both have the EL in two places. Again, it's the weakest of arguments, but it's another data point.

I'm going to quit removing alumni associations, but I still feel that booster clubs, school clubs, and single-year reunion websites don't qualify- does that sound correct to you?

Finally, I'll summarize on Talk:Laurelwood Academy when we are done discussing, but I didn't really feel like having a big discussion about it there. tedder (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree most booster club and the like sites should be removed, though there could be one that might be proper. Just like most alumni sites should be allowed, but there are likely times when those should be removed, such as if it has way too much advertising or the like.

With the #2 point you quote, I see that as saying external links in general (not specific to official ones) should not be in the article, and then if they meet inclusion criteria then there are two places they are allowed to be (EL section or the infobox), and you can have ELs in both places if you want. But that's it, in that it doesn't say you can have the same EL in both places. And the guideline later states: "[regarding official sites] ...it is normal practice to place the link to that site at the top of the list (if it is not already in an appropriate infobox)" which to me forecloses the issue entirely. But, then taking into account the prohibition of listing sites/URLs more than once, means if you have it in the infobox, then don't have it in the ELs. And yes it is important to have these links, which is why they should be included and at the top of the EL section (if not in the infobox), and this importance is why they are put into the infobox, which is a rather prominent place. In that spot you almost always can view the link without the need to scroll down. But we don't need to list it multiple times. Now, we're always allowed to ignore all rules and say this is just a guideline, but to me this guideline as a whole (at specifically) says to not have any sites, whether official or not, listed multiple times (and why stop at two places if they are really important, why not include it in the lead too and midway through long articles?). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your logic, and it makes sense why the EL shouldn't be duplicated. And yeah, IAR of course, but.. it's a copout. You are right, the "if it is not already in an appropriate infobox" is the decider. Consider the issue resolved, then! :-) tedder (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in. It's hard to argue with AM's logic. But I have noticed that people kind of expect to see the "official website" listed as the first link in any el section, and well-meaning folks tend to add them when they don't see them, because I don't think they know about the link in the infobox. There's our guidelines, then there's human behavior. My take on it is that I tend to leave the official links the way I found them (one or two, but certainly not three or more) and don't revert folks if they feel like adding them. That's mostly on city articles. That's probably on AM's short list of things I do to piss him off. ;) I do strive for consistency across Oregon articles, so maybe that's something I should work on. Oh, and kudos to you Tedder for taking on all those high school articles! They need clean up, but I hate doing it. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing it more, of course. And thanks for the thanks- editing the articles isn't difficult, but defending them is! tedder (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Opinionated adults are bad enough to deal with, but opinionated alumni? Yikes! Katr67 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WCYB/WAOW

I have reverted these two edits two the previous as the discussion you linked to as "consensus" isn't quite consensus yet. It is still in the discussion stage and we should wait until everything plays out before going and reverting users edits and calling it consensus. With WP:TVS, I would give it a week (as it is not a well traveled talk page) before we seen whether it is consensus or not. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 03:22

I understand the lack of consensus, however removing it also follows the RVB pattern. tedder (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe I am familiar with the "RVB pattern". - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 03:48

Hey, how about WP:BRD. Doh! Too much going on. tedder (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) That I am familiar with. I always have too much going on. As for "BRD", I am respect the boldness, I just always err on the side of caution when it comes to making edits before discussions end because you think they are going one way and you leave and come back and they have gone a whole 'nother direction and you have to revert your edits. So, I always wait until after everyone has a say and everyone figures out the consensus, then I edit. But I respect the boldness :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 04:27

You are right- the real sin was claiming consensus. I'm not claiming the boldness for myself, I'm claiming the revertness, especially when the images smell a little spammy. tedder (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much reverted based on the decoration argument more than anything else and the previous argument made on the talk page. It isn't a local logo, it's very tiny, and we have a perfectly fine logo on the network article instead of that low-quality one. Nate • (chatter) 05:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that- it was more FYI so you knew there was some discussion going on. And again, reverting follows the WP:BRD pattern anyhow. tedder (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

AGV Sports

Hi Tedder,

My name is Julien, I'm a french Student in the IT department of the Ecole Centrale in Lille France. I would like know why you have deleted historical information and important racers names from the AGV Sports Group Wikipedia page without giving any reason for that on the talk page? I ask that because during my school course I had to present this company for a school paper and I'm very familiar with their history. That's why I can say that the first version of the AGV Sports Group Wikipedia page was valuable. Moreover you have deleted some valuable reference links and now there is the "Wikipedia article issues" tag on the top of the page. Finally, why do you choose only this company without the same concern for information about the others Motorcycle apparel companies which are doing blatant advertising on their Wikipedia page (Dainese for example ==> lines 5, 9, 13,18, 20). Please answer me by giving your reasons and where you get the information on my discussion page?

Thank you,

Julien —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterCobalt (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi MisterColbalt, and welcome to Wikipedia. I gave reasons for the deletions on the AGV Sports Group edit summary. The concern is that the article was written as an advertisement. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for spam, nor should it be used as a laundry list of individuals sponsored by the company. The external links I removed were per WP:EL: they aren't reliable, primary sources. For instance, having a link to the logo of the company is not necessary. If you want more assistance, let me know. tedder (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder,

I have read the WP:EL page and would like to note that the article was only meant to read as a historical and informative article in a neutral point of view. I haven’t linked any sites where products are advertised nor sold. So I would like to know what part of the article sounds like an advertisement or has impartial point of view? Also, the racer names that have been deleted from the AGV Sport page were important historical facts to the history of AGV Sports Group. Anyone can see these names and create Wiki page if they like. There isn’t any rule in Wikipedia that states you can’t mention names of actual people that are crucial to the development of a company if they do not have their own Wiki page. Furthermore, the critical links that I’ve posted, such as the AGV Helmet Official site ( www.agv.it ) or the AGV Helmet Wiki page are important to the history of AGV Sports Group, and were deleted without a notification on why or how or if they even needed to be improved. The external links aren’t a matter of advertisement, but as a reference to the history and evolution of the AGV Sport brand especially in relation to AGV Helmets in Italy. I have linked the logo of the company to specifically reference a legal trademark on a site (www.brandsoftheworld.com) to show the relationship and legal differences of logos from AGV Helmets and AGV Sports group and how they evolved from a common brand, logo and history. The use of this site is critical to identify and distinguish the intellectual properties of AGV Helmets and AGV Sports Group. It would also be helpful to describe the improper text or images that are controversial instead of deleting without proper notifying why and what? Such as the important images of Keith Code and the California Superbike School (20 years old) relative to important sponsorships of AGV Sports Group, or the pictures of the first AGV Sport Brochures made in 1985 that show the beginning stages of AGV Sports Group with the AGV Helmet logo. The deletion of the image of the historical CX1 Glove which was a critical point in AGV Helmet -AGV Sport history and evolution was also deleted without any proper reasoning. But the images of Giacomo Agostini in the early 1970’s wearing an AGV helmet and Bates leathers were left on the article that has less relevance compared to the CX1 glove, confusing me why or what your reason or intentions are. Why would a photo of Bates leathers be on the AGV Sport site and not the CX-1 glove. Should the reader think there is a relationship between AGV and Bates or AGV Sport and Bates? It is only creating more problems and making the article more difficult to write. I’m only trying to improve the article, not to advertise or write information that doesn’t have a neutral view. I’ve looked at other wiki site such as Dianese and Alpinestars and others as reference to improve the AGV Sports Group article, however it seems as though they have less historical facts and FAR MORE of a non-neutral view or commercial tone of a bias view than AGV Sports Group, yet they don’t have any tags or issues with their article. Two months prior, there was a tag for revision stating multiple issues with the article. Changes were made and the wiki tag was removed and it was my understanding that the article was legitimate. Now we have more issues and it’s becoming more difficult to write a factually accurate article and to understand why and what the specific problems you believe exist with the article. Please let me know how I can improve the article if we can find a common ground.

This article is much more than a historical story about the AGVSPORT brand. This is a unique story about a very unusual intellectual property issue that rarely occurs. Two independent companies in foreign countries sharing the same base trade name and history. It has happened very few times like with Rolls Royce Cars and Rolls Royce Aircraft engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterCobalt (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julien, let me sort this out a little bit.

• Be careful comparing article A to article B. Just because another article is written poorly isn't an excuse for this article to be written poorly too. (See WP:OSE; it's in terms of deletion of articles, but makes this point very well)
• I removed images from the article per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which says Wikipedia isn't meant to be a repository of images. In other words, it shouldn't be an image gallery. I'm sorry if I removed the wrong ones- I was trying to use my intuition on which ones were more or less notable. What's more important is the overall number of images- for an article that length, it should really only have two or three images. An example of a good image-heavy page is Motorcycle. There are a lot of images, but they are not in a gallery and don't overwhelm the article. Feel free to substitute "better" images for "worse" ones, but try to keep the overall number somewhat reasonable.
• My concern about "advert" is with the AGV Sport article as a whole. It read fairly heavily as a corporate PR piece- something you'd expect to read from AGV Sport, not something that should be on a balanced encyclopedia. Some highlights from WP:ADVERT: "public relations pieces designed to promote a company (..) articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language". The WP:NPOV cornerstone is very applicable here- notable companies have a good deal of third-party material written about them which can be used to create a neutral point of view about the company, rather than relying upon information from the companies.
• Notability of racers and sponsorees(?): if it's just a list of people that AGV Sport has sponsored, it falls under notability criteria. Lists are discouraged in general, but if it is a list, the individuals need to have clear notability. That can be done within the AGV Sport page, or it can be done on the individual's page. The latter is much more clear, and keeps the notability discussion from dominating the AGV Sport page. If, however, they are central to AGV Sport's history, I'd suggest writing it as a paragraph with solid references. Otherwise, simply listing who AGV Sport has sponsored isn't much different than listing who Paris Hilton hangs out with- it's not entirely encyclopedic.

I think I've addressed your main concerns- let me know if I haven't. And if you feel I'm personally being difficult, know that a good course of action is to take it to the AGV Sport talk page and then post to wpmoto's talk page if you don't hear back from anyone. However, I hope you don't feel that is necessary- I'm very interested in the subject, and I'm trying to keep the AGV Sport article on Wikipedia (as I stated on the AGV Sport talk page).

Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder,

why do you do so many changes on the AGV Sports Group page? What is the purpose to put the citation tag on a year or state of the USA?

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRobert86 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy- the idea is to get those facts backed up with reliable sources. Cheers, tedder (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to PageName, you will be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRobert86 (talk • contribs)

Leaving here, but don't template the regulars. Please take it to the AGV Sport talk page. tedder (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tedder, You must stop vandalizing this site and applying your arbitrary and capricious thoughts and opinions to this one particular site. I have already referenced for you three of thousands of sites which show your "requirements" are a matter of your own imagination. Tagging my “undos” of your vandalism is really rather comical. If you do not stop your over month long deliberate interference and damage on this site I am going to contact every possible person within Wikipedia, the Wikipedia community including administrators, and also AGV Sports Group themselves as well as outside groups that seek to counter vandalism and the dissemination of false information. I have save all the records of every “edit” and “undo” you have made on this company’s sit for the past 60 days. Maybe this is a game to you; I am not sure what your motivations are. It is not important. What is important is that you are deliberately removing and adding information as well as imposing rules that seem to apply to no other page. Cease and desist. Julia Dzigora —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaDzigora (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tedder,

This is Julien from France again, I have often checked the AGV Sports Group wikipedia page this month, everything was right and I can't understand the changes that you made specifically the citation tags for the year of foundation and the founder of the company.. If you look at AGV Helmets, Dainese, Alpinestars, Suzuki, Honda or Harley Davidson Wikipedia pages you don't see any citation for the year of foundation or the name of the founder. Why do you think that this citations are needed only for the AGV Sports Group Wikipedia page? I will be quiet short that the information on when the company was founded or by is supply by the company itself and not by a third part. Finally I would like know what is your purpose to create all these requirements only on this and not on the other Motorcycle page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterCobalt (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Dembo

I've been asked to participate at the discussion at Talk:Ron Dembo concerning the accusation of vandalism. As you were the first to make such a claim, I thought you might also like to contribute. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw there was some talk activity, I'll roll back through the edit history and get caught back up on it. tedder (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And thank you, in turn. You may be interested in my last post at Talk:Ron Dembo. Victoriagirl (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:deletion sorting

Actually, I used to do it manually, but a few days ago, I began to use a script located here. :) Cheers, I'^mperator 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry. :D Although it looks easy, you actually have to determine what category it falls in, decipher its structure, etc. Trust me, there are a LOT of possibilities. But it is a LOT easier than manually performing the same action. :) And usually, I reply on the other's talk page in case they don't forget. Cheers. I'^mperator 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd on Charis School

It was suggested to be merge with Marikina City. I created the page and was hoping to get it pass the NPOV tag. All Phil. Schools follows the same cycle as that of Holy Spirit Integrated School. First Permit Phase and then Government Recognition. Xapis (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

John G. Cotton

Actually, I added him because someone who's head of an entire military branch seems pretty d---ed notable to me :) but I became aware of him while searching articles on W.T. White to see what could be added to the article of worth. With all the articles important to me that I have yet to build, I wouldn't have time to put together one on him just now. However, I'm not of the school that says we have to have an article right away for everyone notable enough to merit one; that's why I made sure I put info that met verifiability and reliability, though I concede your point and the input is valued. I did trim down the info on some of the listed notables, such as removing the name of every character some actor has played, especially since they're presumably in the person's article. Lawikitejana (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the person is likely notable- but in general it's probably not the best habit to be in, as then the school article ends up being used to discuss the notability of one person in the article, not the notability of the article itself. In any case, that isn't really a problem with this person. I agree about trimming the information after people's names too- I hate seeing "John Smith- professional football player, NFL, School A, Team A, Team B, Team C, voted Most Valuable Player in XYZ Superbowl (...)". The info after a name should just be enough to identify a person, not give their entire history! :-) tedder (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert Revert

Hi, I've reverted your changes to Sheldon High School (Eugene, Oregon)‎ because they removed a lot of information that rightly belongs in the article. I don't know about the style comment, but I know that much of the information taken out fits the style guide for content. If you have any ideas, which I anticipate you will, I'd love to hear them on the talk page. Thanks, Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it to the SHS talk page for a centralized discussion. Thanks for the note. tedder (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've given my ideas and would be grateful for your continued work on the article, Piratejosh85 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I believe I've made acceptable changes on Sheldon High School (Eugene, Oregon). Ideas? Thoughts? Criticisms? Notes? Would love any and all. Thanks for your input and help! Piratejosh85 (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you know from the SHS talk page, it's looking great. Thanks for your work. tedder (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

St. Matthew High School (Orleans, Ontario)

Would you like me to Source the newspaper article again for proof that the school beat the world record, or are you so insane that you would like me to go to a local library and take out the guiness book sourcing that to satisfy your ego? Seriously, what is someone from Seattle who is an Athiest doing on a Canadian catholic highschool page? Troll!(angreh that catholics beat a recard arent you, you poor wittle athiest?) :| (Midousan (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Even more amusing is that I actually re-added the information, it was the vandal who removed it. tedder (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Try that again

My previous edit didn't work; so I was repeating the action described in the previous edit summary. (Yeah, I should probably just have repeated the edit summary, too.) Anaxial (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Outlaws Article

Thanks for adding more information on the Outlaws page. I grew up here in Brookfield, and have fond memories of the AOA. Good Guys. I was going to fix up grammar and such as we went along. Would really like to get this article in tip-top shape. peace. Nathraq (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, though I mainly just try to keep it from deteriorating from vandalism or people contributing original research. What it really needs is a ton of reliable sources to back up the claims on it. tedder (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Redd Foxx

• (this is in reference to this talk page entry - tedder)

The article where this appeared was created by an editor who is likely to be blocked soon, so I wouldn't worry too much about dialogue with him. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It fell under my "plausible but unlikely" category, so I didn't want to remove it without some shred of AGF. But it's good to know the context I was missing. tedder (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so cryptic--this fellow can be quite a disruptive troll at times, so I was hoping he wouldn't notice my post here. No need to invite a talk page visit from him. There's some follow up on my and Scientizzle's talk pages if you haven't looked into the background of this yet. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome message

I was just thinking, what if I created User:Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, and if someone blindly posted a welcome message, it would read "Hello, Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, and welcome to Wikipedia!" Yes, I know, a right brain is a terrible thing to waste. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Even better, User:you aren't welcome here, so it says "Hello, you aren't welcome here, and welcome to Wikipedia!". Thankfully a wrong and/or twisted brain isn't much of a waste :-) tedder (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Soytenly. :) I'm sure there are endless possibilities, even forgetting the obvious X-rated ones:
"Hello, I'm the biggest moron around, and welcome to Wikipedia!".
"Hello, this is only a test, not a real nuclear attack, and welcome to Wikipedia!".
"Hello, I love you, won't you tell me your name, and welcome to Wikipedia!".
Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad usernames can't be template substitutions. Because it's be fun to be User:{{welcome}}. Speaking of which, shouldn't the wiki page Recursion be a #redirect to Recursion? tedder (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to be fairly obvious. I'm surprised no one has done it. Or maybe they have, and you just can't tell. :) Infinite regressions are fun. Like the time Dilbert had a project called "TTP", and when some gullible sort asked him what it meant, he said, "The TTP Project." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one, which won't make any sense unless you've heard a certain baseball song recorded in 1941: "Hello, Joe what do you know, We need a hit, so here I go, and welcome to Wikipedia!" That's a long user ID, but I've seen much longer ones (usually vandalistic). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of taking pioneer wearers-of-socks to court, shall we reopen a CU case? How many sleepy socks does our friend have anyway? Katr67 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't make the connection between the hotel comment and the unprotect comment until you said this. In any case, I vote we wait- he hasn't done anything but make a basic comment at this point; if he makes further comments we could do something about it. I mean, he smells like socks, but who cares until he goes further? tedder (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: IE's RFA

Hello. I got your message, and took a look at your contribs. Looking at your contribs, I see a lot of good vandalism work. I also see that your first edit was in May of 2005. I also see a nice 6000+ edit count. If you were to start your on RFA, I would not object. If I was you, I would show your work in fighting vandalism. Hope that helps, and I look forward to your future RFA. =)America69 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You can see my notes towards an RFA here: User:Tedder/RfA. I'm curious what you think- not looking for consensus, I'm looking for critical comments. tedder (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I stopped bothering with warning templates. If we want to discourage vandalism we would stop putting the tools to do so in their laps. Chubbles (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Sheila Bernstein, (Ma Anand Sheela..JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Sheila Bernstein, (Ma Anand Sheela..JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cease fire/deescalation

Hello. I didn't think anything unreasonable was said apart from one exchange with Terriers Fan, and I must add that I didn't start that one (I know how childish that sounds, but I needed to point it out). I feel that I have gone through the whole thing in a civil manner, and have responded in good faith at all times. Alan16 ^talk 01:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just the one exchange, though I don't think either of you really started it, the comments escalated. tedder (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Very diplomatic. So you can't be convinced that the page is not notable enough? Alan16 ^talk 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, scroll up, I don't care too much about being diplomatic. Maybe I see myself in that sort of thing- it's easy to escalate.. who crossed the line isn't as important as stopping the escalation. I've started doing a lot of work on the high schools, and I'm firmly in the "any shred of evidence is enough for high schools to stay" camp. Not that I'm correct, but so you know where I'm coming from, at least. There's a lot of history this idea here, FWIW. tedder (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "diplomatic" comment was simply a joke. And I - perhaps obviously - disagree with you on the high schools thing. Surely "any shred of evidence is enough for high schools to stay" sounds ridiculous to you as well as me. Alan16 ^talk 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Any shred" doesn't sound ridiculous to me- the point being is that the burden of proof is different for some things. For instance, the generic myspace bands require more, in my mind, than secondary schools. My opinion is based on WP:NHS, Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education, and WP:SCH, fwiw. tedder (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is based upon something where there is no consensus. Yet you continue to cite it as proof for a keep vote. ?! Alan16 ^talk 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tedder

hi , are you available to help me with the copyright tag on this picture? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't know enough about fair use to really help- your best bet is WP:OREGON. tedder (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . I'm working on it . (Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

email

I have a potentially personal question for you, but was unable to email you. If you're not opposed to registering an email address, perhaps now would be a good time? —EncMstr (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I disabled emailing because I got an abusive email from someone who wasn't fond of antivandal style patrolling. So I turned it off to keep things on the record. I'll email you, and put something on my userpage about it. tedder (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:De La Salle North Catholic High School

Hi, I started a discussion there, since your recent work on the article was deemed "unnecessary". Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus. An Atheist, a Unitarian Universalist (me) and a Catholic walk into a bar start a discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. I wonder what the punchline would be... Katr67 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Maybe it's a punchline in itself.

Thanks for starting the school discussion. I'll chime in after eaglesfan or after a short while, if he doesn't. tedder (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

My Huggle must of glitched out, it usually leaves warnings, not sure what happened. StrongBad  (talk)  03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome (Spit Squadron album)

Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up that I declined the csd for the article, since A7 is specifically not for albums. --Terrillja _talk 07:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- didn't know that, do now! tedder (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Charleston, West Virginia Criterion validity Volkswagen Type 2 List of radio stations in California Eastmoreland, Portland, Oregon Con Funk Shun Indiana Ice Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon Ashland High School (Ohio) American Motorcyclist Association John Riley Tanner Riki Rachtman Maplewood, Portland, Oregon Sammamish, Washington NextBus Kenton, Portland, Oregon Beavercreek, Oregon Claim Jumper Yokohama Rubber Company

Cleanup MGOCSM Kwame Jackson Florence, South Carolina Merge Schools in Anna Nagar I-85 Corridor Interstate 85 Add Sources King Henry VIII Grammar School Petersburg, Virginia Alpha-olefin Wikify Holy Cross Convent School Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas Blackstone Valley Regional Vocational Technical High School Expand Tea Act Wake County, North Carolina Georgia Department of Transportation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

street cars

Shouldn't the case be in it's own article? I put the link up so that somebody might come along and do that, rather than remove the link! Also, I hope you haven't removed the case citation. I'd put it back if I were you. :)Wikidea 11:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It would have been fine if it was a redlink, but having a {{main}} as a self-redirect isn't really good practice as I understand it. But you are right, I removed the ref, so I added it back, with the <ref></ref> tags. In general, I agree- the case should be in its own article. tedder (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Wikidea 12:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher

Hi, Tedder. I have granted you NPWatcher per your request here. After looking over a few of your contributions, your talk page, and your block log, I feel you can be trusted with the tool. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nariphaltan

Hello... just a quick note, I'll explain more when I get in in a few hours. In a nutshell, there have been a series of edits over the past while which add links to "nariphaltan.org", URLs related to that site. This traces to User:Akraj and affiliated accounts, along with numerous IP socks; based on comments left by them, this appears to include the NARI organization's founders. Much of the text they add also presents their own work and proposals in a complimentary manner. Lately, following opposition to direct links, they have taken to adding links to other sites that publish their work. These alternate sites - while often reputable in their own right - have merely been publishing work that is apparently submitted by NARI's founders, as opposed to writing independent reviews and assessments of it. (There is a conversation about this at the India project's talk page, in the most recent archive.) Sorry for having to dash right now, but I'll provide more details/links etc. in a bit. (I'm still trying to sort through all of this per a request from another admin who is assessing the situation.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(followup on ckatz's page) tedder (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fathers

• Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charley_Boorman&diff=prev&oldid=286649915 (tedder)

Have a look at Angelina Jolie - a featured article. Has an image of her father Jon Voight. What do you have to say about that? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I've made a few flickr agremeents to get us some photos of him. Are you going to revert that too? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, or revert it again at least. Do what you want. I disagree, because the article isn't about Charley's father, it's about Charley. If BOTH of them were in the photo, that'd be one thing. And because it is done on article A doesn't mean it is right. (see WP:OSE and WP:WAX). tedder (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Greensboro references

• Context: revert, comment (tedder)

SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE: Your "Comment" about adding "Promotional Material" is NOT accurate. The "information" that was placed in the "Greensboro, NC" site was for the "PUBLIC" benefit, since some inhabitants of the Planet Earth are sensible about determining their future. That "reference" to that book about "Global Warming" was to provide a means for sensible persons to contact the HIGHLY RESPECTED "EDUCATIONAL" INSTITUTION AND REFERENCE LIBRARY, WHOSE EMPLOYEES OBVIOUSLY RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF SUCH A BOOK and IT'S CONTRIBUTOR(S), AS THEY ARE CONTRIBUTORS, AS DOCUMENTED IN THAT BOOK. However, your comment about the inclusion of a separate PAGE is sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesdavis4446 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given the guidelines to the user on the need for reliable sources. Not commenting further; Charlesdavis4446, if you want a reply, let me know. tedder (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AFD help

Thanks, I'll look into it. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

re indef blocked and barnstars

It looks fixed now. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Look at this

Can you understand what's going on here? Am I being prickly - why is he threatening me with arbitration? Does he have really powerful friends? I presume he's correct about the rules he quotes, and yet every application he puts them to seems to impoverish articles. The word "poser" is "perjorative"? The phrase I used was "maximum posing value", Google says it's complimentary. Pejorative? Which planet? An attempt to police my language by someone with weird ideas and terrible spelling? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it today. I'll need a little bit of time to make sure to give a neutral opinion- but just in regards to the word 'poser', over here (US) it means someone who is fake or trying to appear a certain way. So "maximum posing value" is someone who is trying to look very much like a badass motorcyclist but really isn't. Maybe that's part of the confusion (though he is from Jamaica, so I'd think the language patterns would be more similar to the UK than the US). Tangental, another word that has entirely different meanings is 'quite'. Over here, 'quite good' means 'very good'. I believe you'd interpret 'quite good' to be 'minimally good'. Right? In any case, I'll try to sort it out. tedder (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You mention cultural language differences across the Atlantic and remind me that I should be careful to comply with them, or face arbitration. (I can find nothing like that in the guidelines, and there is no section for anything American in "Related to specific cultures" at the place I was sent to, WP:AVOID). Yet this obligation on me extends even to cases where there is no evidence that particular words are pejorative and even where there is evidence of the reverse. With absolutely no evidence that the word "poser" is negative, I'm apparently expected to "know" what's right and wrong in your culture. So I check it myself - and the only evidence I can find suggests that the phrase "maximum posing value" (nearly what I used) is a phrase that is actually complimentary in use.

Are my non-American edits unwelcome? I have to ask because as I look deeper, it appears that there is wide-spread derision of Europeans in articles. For instance, at the carefully worded and well referenced Karl Benz article I found completely unreferenced statements such as "[1885] tests often attracted many onlookers who laughed mockingly when it smashed against a wall because it initially was so difficult to control" and "The first customer, in late summer of 1888, is alleged later to have been committed to an insane asylum". I can't believe these statements belong, even if they were referenced - it's impossible to imagine any such insulting statements being made against the (probably less influential) Wright brothers, or them being acceptable in articles. I'd like your support removing the comments. Having already been savaged by the language police, I've only dared tag them as unreferenced. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, your edits are certainly welcome. I didn't intend to imply that the cultural/language differences would be cause for arbitration. However, keeping a phrase about "poser value" is effectively saying "people who ride cruisers are idiots". The language is using British English, not American English, which is perfectly fine- but the Manual of Style has a section about the differences. Most apropos is "Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences." In other words, the article is in British English, but that doesn't mean you can ignore words or phrases that have different meanings in American English.

I'd hope there isn't a "wide-spread derision of Europeans in articles". But bringing that up is effectively what WP:OSE talks about: let's improve one article at a time. tedder (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

High-definition music

Newbie here, interested in hi-def music. Regarding the download sites list, what format and place do you suggest, and is it appropriate in the first place ? Thanks. Pr103 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi pr103, welcome to Wikipedia. The issue is external links on wikipedia. We tend to shy away from them whenever possible, instead preferring to use content from reliable sources to build up good articles. In other words, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a collection of external links. If your primary interest is adding links (versus improving the articles), using a category at DMOZ is probably a good way to go. Let me know if you have further questions or if I totally missed your point. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)