User talk:Tedder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Nightwish part 2

Here's what I add sense most sites like Nightwish as a Symphonic, Power or Gothic Metal band I put those at the top of the page. I also left them in the info box. I put the Heavy metal and Symphonic Black metal parts in the sytle part of the page. If there is more then one site that ends up listing them as Symphnoic Black metal and Heavy metal I would be fine in adding them in the info box and the top of the page. I took the References out from the info box because it looks really really bad having that much stuff there and most of the stuff is already said in the page it's self. So Symphnoic Black metal and Heavy metal just in the style part. Again if there are any other sites that say they are Symphonic Black Metal or Heavy metal I would be fine in adding them there. But seeing as how I have only ever seen one site list them as that it's really not enough to have those two styles at he opening of the page. So again Symphonic Black metal and Heavy metal are not gone from the page just moved to the style part of the page. --Epica124 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I will also keep any eye on the page to make sure people don't go and keep editing it over and over again. --Epica124 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Epica, references are good in the genre part of the infobox because (while it looks weird/ugly) it's important to keep people from drive-by genre tagging. Just use named references if you know how. Otherwise, this would be best to discuss on the talk page of the article. tedder (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is named references? I have never heard of those. --Epica124 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all right, Epica. It allows you to use the same source multiple times. See WP:NAMEDREFS. tedder (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I looked it up and I don't get how to do that. So I will let you do that part. --Epica124 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Last thing I left a message in the Nightwish talk page about the changes I made to. If you want to comment it would be welcome to hear you're thoughts on it. --Epica124 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you posting to the talk page (I'm behind in my watchlist, so I hadn't seen it). I don't really care what the genres are, just care that they come from sources to discourage drive-by genre warring. BTW, see WP:INDENT. It makes the conversation easier to read :-) tedder (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing and thank you for the help. :)--Epica124 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashes and Snow

Thank you =) --guyzero | talk 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have questions. Part of the reason I like RFPP is that editors identify articles they are frustrated with, so I'll watch some of them and see what can be done. tedder (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I believe we have a couple of engaged editors along with production COO, so I feel good that we can move forward with him now that we force-stopped the reverting. Time will tell. Maybe just keep an eye on us rather than get involved in any content stuff in case we need your help with the tools. I've asked him to pick a single account to use to edit.[1] Is there any other step I should take with regards to the multiple accounts? thanks again and kind regards, --guyzero | talk 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Woody Allen

Hi Tedders. Just to say thanks for explaining about semi-protection with the Woody Allen page. Sorry, I honestly thought those decisions mainly went on how often the page was vandalised rather than how long since the last protection etc otherwise I wouldn't have requested indefinite protection for it. I would've requested semi-protection in that case. Thanks for explaining it anyway and making that clearer. Hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, 5A. I'm happy to explain it if it helps. It's interesting to see how much schoolkid vandalism is going on- this is my first September as an admin. tedder (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh tell me about it! My first September doing editing for Wikipedia and I can't believe the amount of schoolkid vandalism that goes on. I had to report the Simon Cowell page before for excessive vandalism. It's only just come off semi-protection 10 days ago having been semi-protected for 15 months, people complained about it being on semi-protection, yet as soon as it came off, it was vandalised again! Hence why it's now on semi-protection for 6 months again! The other day some kid accused me of being an admin-wannabe because I kept reverting his vandalism. Believe it or not, I actually stumbled across his vandalism efforts by accident, I did see that an admin was reverting them but because the admins reverts were being reverted back to vandalism so quick, I thought I would step in and lend a hand meantime. I have looked into being an admin before, but because I haven't been editing at Wikipedia that long, thought I would get some more experience first before considering it again :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at my userpage for all the insults lobbed my way. Better yet is Linas's comment (this page, above) about voluntarily resigning because four admins stopped his little tirade. Good times.

Vandalfighting is always interesting, but I try to balance it with something more productive and less stressful- I've created a couple hundred high school articles in my state, among other things. tedder (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from TS

Thanks for your vocal appreciation and encouragement of my semiprotection reviews. I get a lot of satisfaction from doing this kind of job anyway, but it makes things easier when others show recognition of the value of this kind of review. --TS 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gladly! I'm glad you enjoy it, and you are doing work that needs to be done. Feel free to drop by if you ever need help. tedder (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An FYI

It would probably be enlightening to see this discussion which goes along with this side of it, following this deletion, which singled out the small amount of content discussing a good prison record. For some reason, this essentially trivial deletion discussion has brought out several things that are really not related to the page at all and which concern me in myriad other ways. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks, the context is most helpful. In any case, what does that have to do with the speed of an unladen European swallow? tedder (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything, if the swallow committed a crime! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Completing AFD nominations

• edit

Editors without accounts cannot do this, remember. There was a deletion rationale provided by the editor, here, so the nomination could have been rolled forward to completion. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Uncle G, that's a good reminder to check the talk page on incomplete nominations, which I hadn't. tedder (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A little help

The Nightwish page may have to be locked down again. People who are not even signed up just keep editing things in and out how ever they see fit. --Epica124 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it happens. Just undo the changes, use the warning templates on the user, point them to the talk page, and move on. Don't take it personally- and be mindful of WP:OWN, btw. tedder (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a little help

Hey Tedder, I saw you were on call. How is the hay? Listen, please have a look at Marcus Houston and its history. I believe we have the subject at work there, and I've left a message on their talk page--but it was followed only by another blanking. If you know anything about BLPs, can you maybe advise them better than I did? Drmies (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping my eye on it. Once more blanking and they are outta here. Just as likely that they are a fan/enemy of Mr. Houston than it actually being him, I think. tedder (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You reckon? I felt for the guy--did you see the phrase I removed? Anyway, I have my doubts about that article's notability in the first place. What do you think? Those references, they don't amount too much. Ta, Drmies (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me the diff to the phrase? I didn't see it. In any case, the user can relax for a while as I blocked them. VOA account, after all. And I'm really not good at sports articles for notability, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tedder, this was it. As for notability, there's been some discussion recently after an editor made a whole bunch of stubs about football players who were on practice squads, claiming they had some kind of automatic notability. Some were deleted, some were kept because as college players they had generated some coverage, like one or two local articles, which is what we seem to have here. I often wonder, in these cases, how much coverage is enough. Hey, thanks for your time; now go get the hay in before it starts raining again. (It's glorious weather here in the South!) Drmies (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: disregard the previous in regards to the subject: after plowing through a database, it seems Houston has generated enough coverage. I had hoped to be able to do him a favor. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West protection

Hi, I have lifted the full protection. I don't think the vandalism was serious enough to warrant a full protection, especially for that long. This should be (IMHO) only done in the most extreme cases of abuse, and only for few hours at a time. Don't hesitate to block with full prejudice any sleeper that might show up. I'm all for discussing it further, but please don't reprotect without discussion. -- Luk ^talk 09:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the timeline that full-protection should be used in abuse. I'd done it in response to the request on WP:RFPP, and simply kept the expiration date the same as was there for semi-protection. tedder (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamed Minhaj

Dear All,

I do not need to create a hoax or waste my time or anyone else. i am writing to help by covering people from countries that don't get attention from everyone. these people are notable and have done alot of good work. i don't claim to have the newspapers. I DO HAVE THEM. i will be more then glad to email or upload to you guys for checking or anything that you guys see fit. Please do not delete something that i have worked hard on it. as i have mentioned that i am willing to provide more info for you guys. i have the documents from afghanitan investment commission which clearly states this companies investment and works. please advice where do i load them. as i have mention they are hard copies. Please kindly do not treat every country like developed countries where all the news and stuff is avaiable online.

please do help me and guide to the right direction.

2 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to the deletion discussion- don't post it on a handful of editor's pages too. tedder (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tedder,

As requested kindly find the following:

1) Kabul Weekly news paper No. 356 on 27 May 2009, Front page tile.YOUNG, AMBITIOUS, ENTREPRENEUR AND ROLE MODEL TO HIS GENERATION. 2) Me & You weekly on saturday 7/03/2009 front page 3) Me & You weekly on 14/03/2009 front page 4) Kabul weekly on 11/02/2009 page 3 under report. tile Wamata Corporation, Malaysia Joint Venture With Local Afghan's Expertise Spearheading Investment and Construction Projects in Afghanistan. 5) Afghanistan times on 11/02/2009 front page Wamata corporation speardeading investemtent in afghanitan 6) Shba Daza Magazine page 23 7)Copies license and investment document of the edible oil refinery from ASIA ( Afghanistan investment commission) 8) copies of License from ASIA for wamata corpoation

in kabulweekly they have wrote about him in almost 2 pages from his young days till today. about his foundation and so on. i hope the above has helped and willing to help more if needed be.

I have all the hard copies.

mike6565 03/10/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum

Please either unprotect Anne Applebaum or (preferably) reinstate a version of the article without the currently disputed section, if protection is to continue. While complaining about protection of the "wrong" version is generally inappropriate, here the protected version includes a section which several editors, myself included, have argued violates Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Wikipedia:BLP#Maintaining_biographies_of_living_persons authorizes (in context, probably encourages) admins who protect BLP pages to remove content that arguably violates WP:BLP prior to protecting pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

HW, can you give me a link to the version that should be reinstated? tedder (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving this another look. I think this version [2] is probably the most appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the diff, and I tend to agree that it would be a more right ("more wrong"?) version to keep up. I went to that version- thanks for the note. tedder (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly, as does Krakatoa. Please read the talk page before making these types of reverts. You've claimed the prior version is more neutral. I see the current page as "more wrong." The talk page refutes Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's claims and I'd like to hear your reasoning for this action (beyond a one liner in th history). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was fully involved in the edit warring - removing the entry completely as you have just done. The size of the entry has grown in attempts to prevent constant removal. This is then attacked as WP:UNDUE. Crazy. 24.57.54.1 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take your concerns to the talk page. As it stands, it's safer to remove the BLP content and achieve consensus on the talk page first. There is certainly not consensus there, and several editors (including Hullaballoo) have given solid reasons why it should not be on the article page. tedder (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page I continue to refer to? You're whitewashing. Safer how? I await Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's solid reasoning in place of accusation and copy-paste. I _will_ add yet more reason and argument to the talk page. In the meantime, check out Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's 3RR violation in this matter: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus- excluding editors that you disagree with doesn't count as consensus. Further concerns should be at WP:BLPN, not here. tedder (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not excluding anyone. I'm attempting to engage them in some form of discussion. Your administrative actions, including revert, have made this a place to address what you've done. Try reading the talk page. 24.57.54.1 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The editors opposing this material have made no effort to reach consensus - they simply remove the material, asserting on the Talk page various reasons that they think this material is improper, I and others attempt to change the articles to respond to their points, and they again remove the material in toto. I fail to see any legitimate BLP issues. The paragraph you just removed contained links to Applebaum's two columns, a quote from Applebaum's first column, citations to the victim's grand jury testimony and another source as to what the victim claims that Polanski did (no one, here or elsewhere AFAIK, has disputed that these are in fact the victim's contentions), and a brief (one-sentence) summary of what six sources (each significant enough for the author, or the publication, or both, to have a Wikipedia entry) says about Applebaum's position. Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA

reply:

I didn't think it through. I guess it would be obvious that an RFA would be subject to sock puppetry and I should have figured that, but it didn't hit it me that way and I took the sock puppeting another way... What I'm really trying to say is why would any random IP want or care about an RFA. I mean, unless an IP knows a little about wikipedia and then want to waste their time by using public computers to .. make a fool of themselves? for fun?... I can understand, but I guess I just figured people would have better things to do. I never suggested Timmeh was behind it, as even I figured no one would be that stupid to sock puppet their own RFA. In conclusion, I'm sorry for not knowing and I regret saying what I did, forgive my inexperience in these issues here. Here's why I probably took it in such a negative way that I didn't explain: what does it tell you when some IP makes fake user names (essentially) ridiculing Timmeh's user name? Regards, tommy talk 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Tdinatale, and no offense taken. IPs caring about an RFA is like vandalism on Wikipedia: it happens, and the reason isn't always obvious. I didn't think you were linking them to Timmeh- but you appeared to be linking them to a concern that Timmeh was a problem because of the accounts. In my mind, that's the wrong tack to take, because you are essentially giving in to the rationale that caused the sockpuppets to appear in the first place. Vandals (like those sockpuppets) will do things even if an editor is in the right- look at my list of vandalism as an example.

Obviously, it's okay to be concerned about Timmeh or any other editor. But basing it on something as random as vandals is, to me, the same as basing it off tarot cards.

Again, no problem. Looking forward to seeing you around. tedder (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see it that way before and now I get it and feel really embarrassed. tommy talk 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. That's why WP:BEANS exists, after all :-) tedder (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I appreciate that. I think my mistake was nothing more than overconfidence and boredom. I took the liberty of deleting that entire opponent section. tommy talk 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

In the interests of AGF, I would like to point out (politely) that you protected the Roman Polanski page directly after an editor removed a large block of relevant text under the guise of possible copyright infringement. The quoted text was, in its entirety, of note to the current events surrounding Roman Polanski, and was directly from a secondary source, while the editors reasoning was opinion with no attempt to fix or rectify the deficiencies that they saw. I would ask that you revert the page before you protect it. Also, is that picture the same as that used for the cover of Mr Big's album? WookMuff (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi- were you talking about this quote that was removed? It was done after the protection- probably worth discussing on Talk:Roman Polanski.

And what picture are you talking about that's the same as the album cover? On Roman Polanski? Or the "train fail" on my page, or what? tedder (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that protected meant like a big old shield that held the same for everyone. And yeah, the train fail picture looks to me like the australian album cover of Mr. Big's Eponymous first album. WookMuff (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Screentrade

Hi Tedders

Just looking for your advice on this. I came across the Screentrade page by accident tonight. I notice that someone has posted on the talk page that they think that this Wiki should be deleted because all it's doing is advertising a website. Screentrade is apparently some sort of financial option offered by Lloyds TSB. Now whilst I don't think that the article should be deleted (else I would've requested speedy deletion) I did wonder whether or not it would be worthwhile simply adding it to the Lloyds TSB wiki and setting up a divert on the Screentrade wiki? I was thinking this because when I looked further into the article it's basically a stub that hasn't been updated in over a year other than me tagging it today.

What would you suggest? --5 albert square (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi 5A, I agree with you, it seems the best thing to do would be to add the information to the Lloyds page, then redirect Screentrade to Lloyds. WP:PRODUCT certainly encourages merging products back to the company article. Let me know if you need help or anything. tedder (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! I could use some help on my discussion page as I have an Anon IP who keeps ranting about how he had made a mistake only to have me templating him for removal of content without a valid reason, and now he's continuing to have a diarrhea of mouth by attacking me personally even after I've templated him to comment on content, not on editors. According to his brother's statement on the IP's talk page, he forgot his own password for WP but was still told to tone down and he hadn't as you can see. I really hate to report such things unless I really have to, so if I may ask you here... is there any way you can help me here or should I still report it to ANI? Regards.

Sigh. Yeah, that was silly. Blocked for a few days, let me know if there are further issues. tedder (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, talk about silly... some people are just fond of it that they actually run half-way out to meet it. Thanks again and cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

Hello, User:Erikupoeg is back again - deleting this time all images from articles related to Sofia Rotaru wothout any prior discussion and nominating image files for deletion. If someone can call this good faith editing, then I'm an astronaut...--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when there are replies to the concerns at WP:NFR and I'll point you in the right direction. Don't comment on them, though- just let an outside party assess it there. tedder (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More help needed

Hi again! I could use some help with this particular guy who keeps hounding me, my guess is that he is doing this to me after I had templated him for his potential 3RR on the article of MATADOR (weapon). Also, take a note of the warnings for his pattern of disruptive editing by several other editors on his talk page and this latest comment by him on the article talk page of EADS CASA isn't helping either. Once again, I'm sorry to trouble you. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:MilborneOne is watching his page, if there are some egregious comments made, let me know. Otherwise, be careful placing the "no personal attacks" warning on another userpage in response to something they've done to you. It's a lot better coming from a third party. tedder (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• That point was not lost by me but I was, however, lost at what this Spanish guy was doing here English Wikipedia when his command/comprehension of English was limited in some ways, evidently. And I suspect it's the doing of a teenager (he claims to have worked over 20 years as an Engineer!), older guys would have just asked around for help instead! --Dave1185 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:71.68.211.187

Hi Tedder

Thank you for your above advice regarding Screentrade above. I will certainly look into merging the two Wikipedias later on today.

I'm looking for your advice again I'm afraid. The above IP recently made what I felt were inaccurate or vandalism efforts to the Kaiya Jones Wikipedia page. He has described 13-year-old Kaiya as being an actress as well as a professional singer and rapper. When I made up the page there was evidence to suggest that she likes singing/song writing as well as acting, however as the actress herself said that the singing/song writing were hobbies, I felt that it was inaccurate to suggest that she was a professional in these and instead listed them under her hobbies in the personal life category. However, the above IP decided to state that she was a professional in these so I reverted this edit and have now stated on the users talk page why this was reverted.

Whilst posting on his talk page, I noticed that the user is now banned and they also state that they have more than one account set up (the other one being User:ChristianGirl2). I set up a sock puppet report. I wasn't sure whether to set the report up under User:71.68.211.187 or User:ChristianGirl2 but decided eventually on the IP address as that is the original account. I've never reported a sockpuppet before, so I'm just wondering is there anything else that I need to do? --5 albert square (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, the sockpuppet report may not be necessary because they already indicated one is a sock of the other, and an admin has already blocked them. Second, when you do file the report, I tend to do so under the named useraccount, because it's easier to find later. Most people start editing on Wikipedia under an IP, but it's more descriptive to name the sockpuppet investigations under the named account than that IP.

Your SPI looks decent, but it's better if you provide a diff to the evidence, rather than making the clerk and CHU person search for the link.

Otherwise? Looks good! Leave it alone, go on to the next task :-) tedder (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder

Thanks for the advice. I was just worried that if one account is blocked, the user would start using the other account and that they would be able to do so even if the original account was blocked. By the way, can I ask what you mean by "diff to the evidence"? Are you meaning that I should've included links to the vandalism?

I'll keep an eye on this sock puppet anyway. Quite interested to know what the outcome of the sock puppet report would be anyway! --5 albert square (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

5A, yeah, see WP:DIFF. I mean links to the vandalism- but specific styles of links. Definitely keep your eye on things. Cheers, tedder (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Newberg High School

At first glance, I thought "Oh dear, another well-meaning kid adding a bunch of unsourced info about his school. tedder will love this." Then I saw you tagged it as vandalism. "Vandalism, tedder, isn't that a bit harsh?" But oh dear...the comments about wrestling and such. Then I went to read more of this comedian's effort, and ta da, it's like the whole thing never happened. I didn't see that our erstwhile editor had named names. That's the first time I've seen a revision just disappear like that. The wiki moves so quickly... Katr67 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My thought process was about the same as yours: "oh yay, more school boosterism, starting with sports." "oh my. Oh. My." "well, this has gotta go." "Maybe I should email oversight too." So I did- they got to it quick, I didn't know if they would even want to deal with it. Note I also identified the IP as being from Chemeketa, oddly enough. tedder (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah- in case you haven't seen it, xkcd 588. tedder (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it about Russo (not sure of the spelling) the wrestling coach and say allegations of cheating (or recruiting) by chance? We always hated his teams, and I know our school wasn't alone in that regard. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, AM, it was a laundry list of names with accusations of being gay and things like that. i.e., more juvenile than bagging on a cach. tedder (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, shucks. Were they like "totally gay" or just gay? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not touching that one. I am, however, curious if they are mostly harmless. tedder (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodo Sperling

Hallo Tedder, I beg you for your help. Could you please kindly see if the page Bodo Sperling is so OK now. Thank you for your help Bodo Sperling (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bodo- it looks pretty good. The lede is short, and it really needs references for the birthdate and location. (I know you are a reference, but I think you know what I mean). Otherwise? See if you can find a couple of wikiprojects that deal with the subject matter (wikiproject germany, perhaps something related to arts?), add those to the talk page, then ask the projects for a little help with it. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank Wender, The problem is, I will fight as an objectivist by religious fundamentalists. My page on the German wiki is closed due to vandalism. Some guys are trying constantly to throw out my commitment to objectivism. For some people the earth is a disc, and the "Black Matter" The foundation of their worldview. Objectivism is not well known in Germany, unlike in the States. Everyone should live as he wants, I do not want to live in a Constructed World. Thanks again Wender, let me know if I can do something for you, besides, you know http://wfmu.org/? Good times BodoBodo Sperling (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rajput

Unprotect. Semiprotected May, 2008, due to "edit warring anon". I started a review October 12, notifying the admin. There has been no response, for or against, and the protecting admin is not presently active. I think it's worth a try and I'll be watching the article. --TS 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Did you use the time machine or what? (i.e., when did you start the review?) I'm fine unprotecting it, I'd just like clarification on the date first. tedder (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a slip of the keyboard, sorry. I started the review on October 1 (six days ago). --TS 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TS. tedder (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WGGH Protection Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polanski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: NEA on Miss International 2009

Thank you for the courtesy note. This issue may not be as straight forward as it first appears. (Full disclosure: at the beginning of the year I blocked Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs) for improperly warning editors and making bad reports at WP:AIV.) When I looked at the Miss International 2009 article, it appeared that the primary editors are Angelo and a half-dozen IPs (however I think that a couple of the IPs are actually the same person on a highly dynamic network that assigns a new IP address every time he or she connects to the internet). Certainly edits like this appear to be good faith edits ... that were later undone by Angelo. (It should be noted that Angelo lost his rollback access in 2008 because he was improperly using the tool during a content dispute.) So while some of the edits by unregistered users over the past several days were clearly unhelpful ([4]), most looked -in my opinion- like AGF contributions. Taken all together, I assumed that Angelo's protection request was an attempt to cut-off the IP he is currently in dispute with ... hence my decline. However if you get a different reading on the situation, please feel free to wade in! Thanks again for checking with me; while it was not required by any stretch of the imagination, I very much appreciate the courtesy. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Harry Connick Jr

Hi

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

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

Halo 3 ODST

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

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

Ghurids

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Repo

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

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

MJ Morning show

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection decline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting unprotection of 2009

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

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

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

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

Ladd Carriage House

Hey tedder, I was just working on updating Salem (Amtrak station), and noticed that in the upcoming agenda for the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, Ladd Carriage House is being considered for relisting on the NRHP: [5] (see page 5). Thought you might be interested. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's really cool! It's too bad it got delisted in the first place. Let me know if you find any more paperwork or if you see any news/minutes from that meeting. It's really close to my place- not sure if you knew that, but it's right outside my office window. tedder (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh- I'm super-jealous of that PDF. What great information on the building for you, so much better than the detective work we've had to do on other buildings and articles, eh? tedder (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Mafia Family article

Hello, I am the one who has been undoing the vandalism of that guy on the "BMF" article. I have contributed most of the material for the article as well as provided the cites/sources. I am not "edit warring" in any way. I've simply been undoing his vandalism of sourced material. The sourced material is a government document of a trial transcript in which the person is being quoted for his OWN testimony he gave in court. The person has deleted only that section at least 20 times in the last 2 days. He tried deleting the entire page today but was corrected by "Cluebot". I realize the 2-4 times I called him an idiot in big letters when I undid his revision was probably not the best idea since it egged him on, but after days of doing the exact same thing and him providing no explanation of what he was doing, I was very frustrated. I put messages on his talk page explaining why what I put on there was on there and my source for it; not once did he provide an explanation of why he was doing it that was acceptable.

I'd just like to be able to edit the article again and have him blocked. Thank you. jlcoving (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow...I'm being threatened to be blocked for stopping his vandalism...I don't even know what to say. I guess my contributions aren't wanted here? I repeatedly asked Jeff G. and Yankee (I forget his full username) to block the guy. They both warned him 2-3 times they would block him if he did it again and he continued to do it but no block. jlcoving (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was working on a long note to you after leaving the 3RR- see your talk page for that, and reply over there- I'm going to ignore the above, because you didn't get to see my advice or encouragement to reply on the origination point of the thread (i.e., your talk page). After you've read all of it, reply over there. Thanks! tedder (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. I responded back over on my talk page. jlcoving (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you're new, and that's entirely acceptable. I'm just glad we were able to rescue you from going thermonuclear on the article! tedder (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to respond over here again, I just wanted to ask how long it would be before I could start editing the article again? There were a few things I was trying to add that when I clicked "save page" is when I found out it was being protected. Oops -- didn't give you enough time to respond on my talk page. What I meant though was when I could edit the page again, but you answered that. Can't that guy just be blocked from editing? He's the only one who has caused a problem on the article since I've been doing stuff to it.jlcoving (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor

User:Tajik again vandalized the page Muhammad of Ghor by removing the protection tag you added, and he reverted back to the falsified wrong version.[6] Tajik has been blocked 17 times in the past but he still is engaged in edit-wars. Can you please RV his edit. Thank you--119.73.6.24 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Please revisit

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

ClueBot block - mistake?

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

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

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

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

BMF Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trout

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

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

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

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

7th Reign

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

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

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

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

Thank you...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: your warning on my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diwali

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

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

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

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

Can you help clarify this?

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

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

Pregnant mothers

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

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

DB-MOVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TROUT AGAIN

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

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

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

MJ Morning show (part 2)

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

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

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

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

Thanks on Pakistani hip hop

I appreciate your response in protecting Pakistani hip hop [12]. It wasn't so much the edit war, but that the people involved adding the uncited information seemed to be getting increasingly angry that others were interfering with them. Hopefully a cooling off period will give them a chance to reassess their strategy. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Shortly after the protection ended one of the editors who was repeatedly adding the same material came back again [[13]]. They still gave no explanation, but added a blog as external link reference. Perhaps a more protracted page protection? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The Game (US TV series)

first, LOL @ "stop Hammer time"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raleigh Population

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

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

Reinstating link

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

electric therapy, aka "Blood electrification"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

Second Amendment article

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

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

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

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

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

Kanye West Twitter Trend

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

Jonny Diaz

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

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

user:Dingding12

Please note this message on my talk page from the above user: [14]. I quickly deleted it.

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

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

Samsung Group

Hi Tedder

Looking for a bit of advice here really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Tedder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BlogMoneyNews (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Stuart & Sons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks...

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

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

Pandey

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

User page advertising?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring a CSD

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

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

Guitarherochristopher

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

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

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

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

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

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

Willard's Canteen

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Baldwin

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

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

Regarding Security soldier AV

Hi Tedder,

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

Your time and efforts are highly appreciated.

Thanks

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Deletion of a Wikiproject

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

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

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

Lars Ulrich

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

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

Re: 1994 article

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

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

User:Leftbrain111 & revert question

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

I do have a fairly serious question about this matter... per fear I stuck my head in a little too far in trying to figure out what was going on, could you offer a brief comment on my talk with the user here[15]? With the problem of best of good faith versus a hundred policy violations for someone in front of me, I still feel cold for not really offering any help. Mostly curious if you consider it an appropriate tone given the seriousness of the situation and claims made by the user. Actually, make that two questions. My other would be if massively large manually-confirmed undos such as what I did here[16] are appropriate to make sure it articles get repaired quickly, or is it preferred that someone with rollback reverts 3+ at once to avoid conflicts and 3RRs? I know an anti-vandal 3RR can be excused but it's still more work for someone in the system. Thanks! :) Datheisen (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Re: Spectre7277

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

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

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

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

LMFAO!!!!

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

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

RFPP

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

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

Why did you delete wolfgang stumph article????

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

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

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

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

01C

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

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

Malcolm X

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

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

Darrill Schoonover

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

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

Why you keep reverting the page "Magyar Televízió"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goto Ryu

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

Scotland

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

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

Prisencolinensinainciusol

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

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

Blocking of user on the Crunkcore article

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

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

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

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

HarveyCarter socks

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

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

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

Loveline

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

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

Battle of Konotop

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

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

User:Galassi

Please, take a look on these [17] [18] reverts by user Galassi. He deletes a piece of text supported by a reliable source, accusing the professor and Dr.Hist. Tatyana Tairova-Yakovleva, who actually sympathizes to Ukraine, in nationalism. — Glebchik (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Please, take a look on the [19] reverts by user Galassi.--94.29.88.188 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Editwarring at Gaza War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you considered editing the Wikipedia of your native language rather than this one? Enigma^msg 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfPP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment at AE

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

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

More on onlineutah

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

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

Block and SPI, on a Sunday night

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

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

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

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

Critisms in the Cutco Article

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

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

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

FYI

Someone creating an article just to talk to you... [20]  7  08:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw, how sweet of them! Thanks for handling it. tedder (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The moon must be almost full

Thanks for fixing my typo, even though you're not supposed to fix typos on talk pages. :P I would have caught it eventually. Interesting weather we're having, no? Katr67 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm not supposed to fix it, I know you would have caught it, and that's why it was so much fun to do so :-)

This weather is great- nice and dry. Better than how sopping it was on Saturday. tedder (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I suggest protecting the article for 30 Seconds to Mars' second album A Beautiful Lie as well because the same thing is going on on that article as well. • GunMetal Angel 03:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. It's only IP, not registered users editwarring, right? tedder (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure is, and to proove that this isn't just a basic content dispute, other registered users were helping me revert all the edit warring (vandalism) as well. • GunMetal Angel 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It was implied 30 Seconds was about 3RR/edit warring, so I wanted to make sure "the same thing" didn't refer to that. In other words, it's just common fancruft/genre warring. tedder (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Lynn

Thanks. She apparently inspires a lot of emotion. I should have asked for this quite a long time ago, but I generally keep a close eye. She's been called nearly every name you can think of, her article history bears that out. So I get a little pneumonia and stay offline for a day and it goes to pot! I'm not even a fan, it's one of those ticky little BLP issues! Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy that you monitor these type of pages. I think nobody's really a huge fan of hers, I don't think she inspires love or outrage, so even the pagewatchers gloss over vandalism. Sorry about your pneumonia- waxpancake has some now too, time to start disinfecting my keyboard I think. tedder (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, cleaning your keyboard might help, don't forget the monitor screen. I can probably blame my goddaughter's boys, they all started out with bronchitis and one developed into pneumonia. I'm miserable and about to go back to bed (after Cold Case Files is over). I appreciate your help! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)