User talk:Tedder/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

WP:NEWT

Hi there Tedder. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. While I do think it great that you take a great deal of time and patience to work in CAT:SD, I have to tell you that you fell for this "trap" with the Wolfgang Stumph article you deleted. The article was not a candidate for A7 (it had a credible claim of importance and a reliable if foreign-language source) and you have not replied to me (in my newbie persona) when I asked you why winning multiple awards is not a claim of importance (see #Why did you delete wolfgang stumph article???? above). I hope you do not mind (too much) when I ask you to exercise a bit more care when dealing with such articles and to make sure to reply to newbie users asking you questions. A real new user might have felt ignored/bitten by your lack of response in aforementioned section. That said, I feel truly sorry to have tricked you this way. I hope you don't mind if I restore the article and take it to DYK later. PS: You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Regards SoWhy 08:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy. I'll respond over at NEWT. tedder (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film)

Hi Tedder, you set up semi-protection on this article yesterday but I don't think it's been done correctly. Can you check it please. Betty Logan (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the heads up! I missed a click, apparently. It's done now. tedder (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguing with Idiots

Can you help me out? Someone removed the edit protect (I regret saying anything about removing it), and Jimintheatl just won't stop changing it, despite the consensus to leave it out. I don't want to get into a war again. Could you do something about it? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The editprotect was removed automatically- articles are never protected forever. So it's been a week since protection started. The edits haven't seemed like a big deal- if you want to do something about it, perhaps post at WP:BLPN? tedder (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow the bouncing bal.....Josh initially argued that Glenn Beck was correct in stating that the Constitution valued living in the USA by imposing a $10 immigrant fee. When that position became untenable he adopted another editor's position that Beck was only joking(even though I'd earlier asked him if he was joking---not at all. he said...thenlater, when exposed, said, oh, wait, I was only joking brother....1. This is truly arguing with idiots, and 2) this seems to me to be the very definition of gad faith, when one position is exposed as ridiculous, you merely claim I knew it was ridiculous all along...Jimintheatl (talk) 02

38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good God, please excuse the crappy typing..Jimintheatl (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may intrude here, I think you'd all be better off if you just stick to what Beck is (trying) to say... and when you come to a road block get help. The way I think about it: if it's relevent put it in, not relevent or so minor that it might be a POV, leave it out. Keep it simple and you won't have problems. Good luck, Tom A8UDI 02:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, tedder. I appreciate you taking the time. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Note I'm not interested in doing the dispute resolution on this- I'm only here to stave off WP:3RR violations, including by you. tedder (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically, since he is disregarding the consensus, isn't his adding his opinion, despite the consensus, considered vandalism? And thereby doesn't fall under 3RR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talk • contribs) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No. 3RR = 3RR except for vandalism, BLP violations and other inappropriate content and thats about it. A8UDI 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response to the building edit war on this page. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. As you know, you're not perfect either, but it's hard to get involved on these sort of things and remain perfectly clean. No worries. Articles this and Talk:Gaza War need more babysitting admin oversight than others. tedder (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm familiar with most of my imperfections (there's far too many to be familiar with ALL of them...). At least I tried to follow consensus with my side of the edit warring, though. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and it's much appreciated. tedder (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

My new rule at WP:RFPP is to wait until you are on duty. I mean, it wasn't intentional this time, but after I submitted Colorado for un-protection, I happened to look at the page history (the IP editor's only breadcrumbs) and was like, yay, Tedder is here. You, sir, are full of win. :-) -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw, that's really nice of you. Thanks! tedder (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sir, it is nice of you. I've always felt that what accountants think of IP's says a lot about them as editors... reminds my of something that old Free Spirit Meister Eckhart is supposed to have said. Sometimes, the devils are really angels. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?

On this. Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And the personal attacks here. I think a long block is warranted. I can't decipher the rest of it, but he's also talking about socking. Enigma^msg 05:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

zot and zot. Let's give him some time to come clean, then see. tedder (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope the case is ultimately accepted. In any case, I am willing to block the current iteration simply for its continued incivility, abuse of multiple accounts aside. Its been warned repeatedly about personal attacks, yet I count three just in the last day. Enigma^msg 07:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's accepted too. But yeah, ignoring the SPI, at best the user has guaranteed a considerable number of interested parties and will need to be very compliant. At worst, they have made their last edits. I'd prefer to wait and give them some rope a chance. tedder (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll wait along with you. Enigma^msg 07:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to block him or shall I? Enigma^msg 01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Nice and classy, eh? tedder (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Surprised he hasn't been blocked indefinitely yet. No constructive edits, all edit-warring, personal attacks, and he freely admits to socking. Enigma^msg 01:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you Mentor me?

I'm wondering whether to register as an editor again but it seems to me there are such major pitfalls that I'm a bit nervous. However, I do note that some people have taken mentors and I wondered if you'd be prepared to be mine. I am not a banned editor. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, and sorry for the delay on responding. As you can see on my talk page, things are a wee bit busy. I'm not participating in the adoption program, especially for pages I'm involved in (Gaza War); you can find the list of adoptees here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters. However, if you have questions, feel free to drop by and ask. tedder (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

feeding aforementioned ducks

Oh, definitely SPAs. And I just found this edit by User:Newsfuse. Really brilliant sockpuppeting, right there.

So User:AurangzebMarwat is all but confirmed to be socking with Newsfuse. Blockable, but what do we do with the article? Even with Newsfuse out of the picture, both warring parties are requesting un-protection. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It makes me suspicious to have SPAs agreeing :-) Perhaps it's time to open the article, watch it, and just clean up with whatever happens? tedder (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds better than anything I can come up with. I guess you can open it whenever you're ready. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll open it. I think I'll try to get the community to support a topic ban against AurangzebMarwat first. tedder (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI, I'll notify a few individuals now. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#proposed topic ban for User:AurangzebMarwat tedder (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I think your "indef-blocked Newsfuse." link is leading to the wrong place in your ANI post. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for catching that. Editing from my laptop is always sketchier than being on my full-sized machine. tedder (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eugene, OR - References

References pointing to population data still exist in the intro paragraph of the article. The reference that I removed didn't have that information at all. Otherwise, I would have updated the link to the archived article. Bufori (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bufori- so how about replacing the ref for the infobox, rather than leaving it totally blank? tedder (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find any consistency on other cities with handling a reference in that specific section of the infobox. Most of the ones I looked at did not include the reference there. So that's why I left it out. Bufori (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Where in the Wikipedia:DEADLINK does it talk about leaving in dead links? Bufori (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK gives the strategies for dealing with dead refs, and doesn't exactly encourage removing them. The lede of DEADLINK has a link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dead links, which is fairly clear that dead links should be preserved. Speaking of jam, jelly, and preserves, the ultimate goal is to preserve refs, not create unreferenced data. Other pages look terrible, but there's no reason to lower the overall standards. tedder (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that the link, albeit dead, should never have been a reference as the source did not contain the information. I followed the dead link policy of trying to first mitigate the issue by updating the link, but it became moot after discovering the lack of information in the source. As for the infobox, I was following precedence in usage by not including the reference, as I saw in other articles' infoboxes as well as the other data in that specific infobox. Regardless, I included the reference to the same source as was already cited in the intro. Shouldn't the other infobox sections also have references added now? Bufori (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for researching it and finding that it wasn't in the (stated) source. I didn't know that, obviously.

My opinion of "refs for infoboxes" is that it should be one for fields that tend to be disputed and for fields that aren't duplicated in the text. This is especially important on articles that tend to be ignored and/or vandalized a lot, such as the zillion high school articles in Oregon and elsewhere. So I usually put tags on almost everything in those articles. Cities probably fall in the middle; census data tends to get changed quite a bit by vandals and well-intentioned city boosters, and I suspect it gets worse as we approach each census (so it'll be better in 2011 than it is in 2009).

That's a lot of rambling to say It Depends, and it's probably YMMV. As always, it's more about what happens to the article- if a lot of {{fact}} tags are added or data is being changed, it's probably worth citing.

Again, YMMV. Not all of WP:ORE is a fan of heavy citing like I am either. tedder (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for discussing it with me. Before reading your last reply, I had added a ref to the Area info, but I guess I'll leave it as it is for now and see how it goes. Bufori (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. More refs never hurt.. tedder (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Christie

Thank you for protecting this page, and sorry for my noobish placement of the protection request at the bottom of the list, not the top. Hopefully the election will be decided soon and we can move on. The Sartorialist (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy to get the date-sorting order wrong, and I tend to look bottom-up to make sure all requests have been filled. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fetchfan

I had been watching this user for a while, thinking they might be a completely different notorious banned user. I went ahead and opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, these sockpuppets are always fun. tedder (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

TERCUD

Dear Tedder,

I do not understand I did you deleted this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERCUD). I have permission in the Portuguese version to use all the text I put here. Do you need permission, also written in English? Or there is another problem?

Best regards, Nuno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunogeo (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi- can you send an email to WP:OTRS explaining that you have permission for the Portugese version? I'll restore it, but I need the OTRS confirmation. It's okay if your confirmation is in Portugese :-) tedder (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And how can I do it? I check the page and I didn’t found a way to contact them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunogeo (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On WP:OTRS, it takes a little clicking, but takes you to here: Wikipedia:Contact us. Take that to Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit. Anyhow, that one FINALLY says what needs to be done. Hope that helps, and let me know the ultimate status. tedder (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do You Remember

You protected the article Do You Remember (Jay Sean song) (which currently redirects to the album) until 24 November, because I assume you thought that was the release date? However, that is wrong. The actual release date is 2 November, which has already passed. Therefore, I request that you unprotect the page so that it can be reverted back to an article rather than a redirect. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying that again- are you going to create the article so it meets WP:N? I don't want to unprotect it and hope someone else creates it. My preference would be for you to create a userified version; otherwise, if you are going to actively work on it, that'll work. tedder (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What about reverting it to this earlier revision by User:Badapro? If that isn't enough, then I don't mind working on the article further to bring it up-to-par. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Okay, that version is live. Go for it! tedder (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

She's back

Now that you've semi-protected the articles, she's editing them under her own account instead of from whatever IP she happens to be dialed in to. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

*zot*, dealt with. It's easier to deal with users in this case. Let me know if she comes back. tedder (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wary of continuing the edit war on my own; I've been down that rabbit-hole before. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You might have gone a little far, and edit summaries would be nice. I've been there too, FWIW. tedder (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Yup. Blocked and semi-protected. tedder (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on your IP block from yesterday

I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this concern. Yesterday you blocked[1] an AnonIP for WP:NPA and WP:DE. This WP:SPA AnonIP has been active at this article for three weeks now with consistent NPA and DE. Also, as result, this article has been under full protection based on dispute involving the AnonIP. Following the lifting of your block the AnonIP is back with more NPA and DE. See this diff[2] for an example. I am hoping to find a way to convince this AnonIP to approach the work of collaboration on the talk page on than article with more civility and cooperation needed in order to work out our differences. Perhaps you might care to take a look at this situation? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. That diff is definitely NPA. Tell you what- I'm going to block the IP for longer, and if you can leave a nice note about "I'd like to collaborate with you..", that would be even better. If you'd rather just ignore the IP, that's fine too.

Bringing it up here is just fine; if it happens again, come back. tedder (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to keep you alerted about this, so I am, thanks for your attention. I don't know what standard you apply for WP:DE or WP:NPA, but the same person is back (with a new IP) at the article with what I personally consider to be disruptive editing and personal attack (...lies and POV propaganda spouted by Kenosis/Salty Boatr here..."). SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "lies and POV propaganda" isn't quite what I'd call WP:NPA, but it's certainly disruptive and close to that line, and is also not helping to gain consensus. Blocked for a short time, let me know if they cause more trouble. tedder (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention to this, sorry for the bother. Yes, my skin is more than thick enough that I can handle being insulted, not a problem. The disruption to the talk page is another matter as it detracts from the process of editing an encyclopedia. For what it is worth you blocked one of the IPs this person is using, but not the other, which is: Special:Contributions/96.237.129.194. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, obviously related. tedder (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be getting tiresome, but the person is also now using IP Special:Contributions/71.174.135.195 in evasion of your block. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done *zot*, keep 'em coming, it's easier to block than it is for them to use other IPs and post nonsense. tedder (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help: Michael Savage (commentator)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive canvassing

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

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

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

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

Re: Minor genre warring nitpick

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

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

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

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

All your fault!

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

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

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

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

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

Hound:173.*.*.*

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

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

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

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

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

A new one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sultanate of Rum

Thank you for looking into this, although the IP seems to have logged in to its master account now. I confess I am a bit saddened to be chastised about edit summaries, as I am generally fairly scrupulous about these ([3], [4], [5], for example), ...but I will try to do better. In any case, thanks again. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

User talk:68.199.224.83

Hi Tedders

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

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

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

Edits:

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

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

A little more protection?

Hi. You protected TVB News a couple weeks ago. [6] Within a few hours of DumbBOT removing the protection template, it was again vandalized. Same edit as before, no explanation given. The edits come from a variety of anon editors, a couple who have only a handful of other edits. Could we go for a longer protection? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Done with Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa/Workpage

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

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

Karl Kennedy

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

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

Late notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Semi-PageProtection

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

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

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

Usercompare

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

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

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

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

Victorian era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wanted to give a massive thank you on the full protection on the 800-pound gorilla that is the Nidal Malik Hasan article. I'd been watching the news for a few hours until one network showed they'd found a website of his professional medical record and though "oh dammit! that means someone has to have added it to Wiki if even CNN could find it on their own!" Unsurprisingly, the article was only a redirect, but that alone was a flag to me that the name itself had been horribly BLP shattered. 5 seconds on the article talk page and I ran into this[7] and figured I'd better ask for protection so that the BLP vandalism would at least be limited to the event page before anyone expanded it. Enter you! The parent article even looks pretty well under control now. Though, I'd like to point out this[8] edit after my reminder of how important "allegedly" is in BLP and society in general. Honestly, I'm disgusted an administrator would willingly and openly act in something that flagrant and actually mock persons who wanted to insist upon it. It's almost certain that untold news outlets ran here to look for information on the story and the person involved for media release Friday and it would be bad if anyone knew an admin was sanctioning those phrases.

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

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

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

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

thanks...

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

Velella Society, speedy deletion clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from the RfA

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon school fires

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Saved discussion from a sockpuppet of Pioneercourthouse. Do not respond in good-faith.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

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

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

Black Mafia Family

Hey, that guy who was changing IP addresses through proxy is back again. He's registered an account, Subha7, but it's clearly the same person. His only contributions so far are to the BMF article and specifically to Daniel Corral and Ralph Simms, the only things he EVER changed before. And he's giving the exact same explanation as before. The consensus on both the talk page and BLP noticeboard are that Daniel Corral is acceptable there and the cites are correct. Could you please help, maybe either blocking him for the hundredth time or putting a new-user semi-protection on the article?jlcoving (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Spectre7277

Hello, Tedder. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic.2Fsite_ban_proposal_for_user_Spectre7277--Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Liquid

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at Talk:Liquid.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I didn't see something directly aimed at me. I'd recommend dropping Logger9 a message to see what they think. If they agree, I'll unprotect and you can all work constructively. tedder (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you protected the page; so I thought you were the right admin to ask for changing back the page to normal state.

There is no agreement whatsoever with Logger9. At some point, he agreed not to insist on 50k block insertions, then he posed new conditions, and finally he moved to other pages where he continued to insert textbook prose that was rapidly removed by thirds.

I am not aware of a rule that requires explicit agreement before a page be unprotected. I think the best way to deal with a content insertion vandal is patient work in article space. Work on talk pages seems a waste of time. -- Marie Poise (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule for agreement except it's a common way to handle it in an edit war situation. Can you ask around for a consensus on your proposed version at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry? tedder (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tedder, you unprotection came too early. I went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical Physics to ask for opinions; only one wikipedian responded, but he responded in a very clear way, expressing a very negative opinion on Logger9's draft. Nevertheless, as soon as you unprotected the page, Logger9 abused of it to bulk insert his sandbox version. I reverted, but it's very likely that Logger9 will re-revert, trying to let the three R rule play to his advantage. What's the correct procedure to ask for further assistance in this matter ? Given the long talk page discussion, I can say that I really tried my very best to reach an agreement with Logger9, but he is plain obstructive, unfair, not keeping word, playing games with the weak points of WP's rule set. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your help with User: 58.173.18.123. It is so annoying with all the edits he keeps undoing to anything associated with The Bill in general. Especially since I've sat there and referenced everything personally so I know it's correct! Thanks again and I hope you're keeping well :) --5 albert square (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, the number of unanswered lvl4 warnings made it pretty easy to justify. Glad I could help. Life is good, just a little busy! tedder (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sayulita spam

Thank you Tedder for removing my site with explanation.

I encourage you to visit the WIKIPEDIA SAYULITA site and look at a similar listing and on that webpage it reads the following (snip pasted content) Its called DOUBLE STANDARD and you are not being fair...I encourage you to follow the rules that you sent us.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.82.159 (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's advertising. How is it not? tedder (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Devils Disciples and Diciples

So this argument seems to be that while the correctly spelled Devils Disciples in Ireland are under the misspelled Devils Diciples of the west coast, the other correctly spelled Devils Disciples on the east cost are not associated with the Devils Diciples. They try to explain this here.

My question is, how reliable is http://www.devilsdiciples.org/DdmcEvents.htm ? Pretty much it is some guy with a web site ranting about how everybody in the media is wrong about everything. I can't tell whether or not to take the web site seriously or not.

Should we cite devilsdiciples.org as disputing what the newspapers say? Or just ignore it and stick with media reports? --Dbratland (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No way is it a reliable source. Even as far as websites go, it appears to be a ways down the list. Simplify and cite, that's all we can/should really do. I'll start watching this one. tedder (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with Priscila Herig AGAIN

She's back from her block, and right back at it. AGAIN. I've tried reasoning with her, it doesn't help. Could you please help? Maybe if an admin came to her talk page and asked her to explain exactly why she is so insistent on making these changes, she will see reason. Hey, maybe she can even make a convincing argument for them! -- Zsero (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like jpgordon handled it. Heed that editor's advice. tedder (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin help

Hey, can you look at this deleted image and tell me what the license was? Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem: {{PD-self|date=March 2007}} tedder (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

re User talk:Zink Dawg

The editor in question has requested at WP:AN a longer period of sprotection and after a quick review I am minded to grant it (3 months?). I see your sprotection, made earlier today, is already in place so I thought I would check with you if you agree - you can do it, or me, as you prefer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my length was just because (a) recent short-term sprot hadn't fixed it, and (b) the editor's request at RFPP. Feel free to extend it as much as necessary. My only concerns are the user is about to run for adminship, and there's no instructions for IPs to contact the user in an alternate manner. But, no biggie. Feel free to extend as much as you would like. tedder (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey Tedder, I saw you go by, raking up edits at Recent Changes. How are things with Mrs. Tedder's applications? I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you all. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, my attention span isn't great right now, so I'm just doing antivandal and RFPP work. Mrs. Tedder's applications are .. well, in a holding pattern. She's crossing her fingers for an interview soon, but we'll have no idea until February or so. Ah well. tedder (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, only three and a half more months of nailbiting--that's nothing! Well, take care, and good luck... Drmies (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, one more thing

To avoid having to re-file an unprotect request over a simple misunderstanding, I did want you to catch the final part of our discussion on my talk page. As noted in the history of the proposed article, PhoneNews.com was known as PCS Intel until a year or so ago, hence the citations I presented referred to its old name... which is why it didn't pop up in a word query. If that satisfies your concern, I'd appreciate an expedited unprotect. Thanks again for your feedback. Toycars (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Gnangarra is going to help you with the article development. tedder (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent protection on J.Z. Knight

Hello,

Thank you very much for your quick action with the protection of the page J. Z. Knight. It will definitely give us more time until more people are involved and a consensus has been reached.

I was just wondering if it would be possible to extend the protection to a longer period of time: I feel 3-4 days is not enough time for the topic to heat down, and it will be all too fresh for the unregistered member(s) to start repeating their behaviour in the same manner, which will lead nowhere. Maybe a couple more weeks of full protection? Or if that's too much, maybe a week of full protection, and a week of semi-protection.

Regardless, I am sure if you decide to only have it for the amount of time you initially applied it for, you must have your reasons, so let me know if I have overlooked something or if you believe there is no reason for an extension on the protection :)

Thanks again! ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jujimufu. The longer protection isn't a good idea- basically, short full-protection allows editors to cool off and perhaps remember WP:3RR. I'll be watching the article going forward, so if an edit war starts again, I'll step in. tedder (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) ¬ jujimufu ^(talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on IP block

You have asked to be kept informed about an IP editor which you have repeatedly blocked for a pattern of disruptive editing and misuse of the talk page. See: User_talk:Tedder/Archive_5#Following_up_on_your_IP_block_from_yesterday for the history. This person, with a new IP address that traces again to the vicinity of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is back. See Special:Contributions/71.184.189.196. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the edits, and while they are the same sort of POV, they don't really seem to get to the level of namecalling or persistent rants like this edit did. I may have missed something, as I just skimmed it- let me know. If I'm right, just ping me if the IP does reach that level. tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Polar shift & IP block

You may have been mislead into placing a block on an IP address. As far as placing a block on the page that is up to you but I would have left the edits in place rather than removal. Please provide me an opportunity to provide some rationale to this before you make these changes.

Most notably please remove the IP block since it is used by half the Stanford Graduate family residences and is a bit overkill in this situation. As soon as someone coherent could respond to my request to stop reverting and discuss this, I would have stopped reverting. The admins have spun a tale of deception that is shear paranoia || convenience. I understand the tie goes to the admin and that admins hang together and the solidarity of the Wikiadmins, but try to have some discretion and a holistic view on this.

I will not edit the page until mediation makes a decision, so help me God, so you can remove the blocks. And if you read the material and feel it in your heart, revert the edits to my last contribution, then lock it :) Granite07 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me the IP you are referring to? tedder (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression you blocked an IP but apparently you have blocked my user account. Why did you block my user account? Under what rule did you invoke the block? Please provide a link to the appeal process so after reading the rule in context of your reasons, if applicable, I can present that this block is inappropriate and/or in error? Granite07 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Granite07, I didn't block your account, nor has it ever been blocked. If you are talking about another account, what account? tedder (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledford Middle School

When you created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledford Middle School, you added it to the appropriate deletion sorting pages, which is great, but you didn't add it to the day's AfD log. Later, though, User:DumbBOT added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledford Middle School to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 24, so you don't have to take any action. Twinkle is very useful, but it doesn't always add an AfD it creates to the day's AfD log. - Eastmain (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird- I've never had twinkle not add it to the daily log. tedder (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, the funny part about this is that I babysit User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD and clean up other incomplete AFDs. So it's amusing that I almost ended up on my own cleanup list. tedder (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Messina Hof

Hey Tedder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messina Hof was closed as speedy deletion, the AfD did not run the full cycle (only one hour), so G4 doesn't apply. Also you may want to take a look at User_talk:Explicit#Messina_Hof.--kelapstick (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored- thanks for the note and pointer. I hadn't noticed it was a NAC. tedder (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, figured it was something simple like that. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Trey Songz

I'd like to point out this. You added the protection tag to Trey Songz, but forgot to actually protect the article. — ξ^xplicit 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I probably didn't change the page protection from 'none' to 'semi', so the submission just got ignored. That's the curse of working on a laptop while slightly distracted. tedder (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, no worries. I've done that myself, but I have no excuses as I work on a desktop. — ξ^xplicit 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If I had to pay a nickel every time I've invoked (or need to invoke) WP:BEANS, I'd be even poorer than I am! tedder (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown

• Context: Gordon Brown tedder (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tedder for protecting the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's an easy case- if only every request was so straightforward.. tedder (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic AG-HVX200

I think something is missing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic AG-HVX200 from when you "closed" the AfD [9] back in September. ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got it. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge :-) tedder (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars

Well, it started up again, the constant genre warring over 30 Seconds to Mars article and the article for their A Beautiful Lie album as well, this is ridiculous, and I don't think it's ever going to end. I'm requesting re-protection for both these articles. • GunMetal Angel 23:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to end either. I protected both of them for 3 months, will go 12 and then indef next. tedder (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BMF Image Use question

Are the photographs in article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mafia_Family Insert footnote text here</ref></ref>under Informants in accordance with the Image use Poliy and identiable person guidelines? I dont believe the creativeloaving source is reliable; certainaly not enough to post photographs of these supposely government witness; I apoligize if I have posted this to the wrong talk page, but I see that you have assisted with this article in the past;Subha7 (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi- please take this to Talk:Black Mafia Family. tedder (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Emilio Scotto again.

I don't know how to sort this out; need third opinion.

This is a copy-paste of a clearly copyrighted post on Amazon. It is also just a forum, meaning it is not a reliable source. The deleted material is well-sourced and accurate. It is particularly POV to selectively choose positive reviews from Amazon and ignore ones like this.

Also, Miamireporter (talk · contribs), Alejandrochiffi (talk · contribs) and possibly Emilio Scotto (talk · contribs) seem like sock puppets to me.--Dbratland (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, and I'll step in if necessary. You are pretty safe to ignore 3RR to revert it, and thanks for putting the warnings and personalized notes up. If you have time to file the SPI with the diffs, go ahead and do it and let me know. I likely won't have time 'til late Saturday to look into the contribs of the three users. tedder (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I created an SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miamireporter. My writeup isn't that great -- my first draft was four times as long, and I tried to pare it down to the essentials. I said the best thing to to is to just read the edit history of Emilio Scotto. I think it is fairly straightforward. Please comment or fix any errors, as needed. --Dbratland (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. You did a decent job at it. The real thing is to say more than "look at the (history|contribs)", which you did. It explains why you think they are related and presents it well. I'm watching the SPI now. tedder (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: protection length on Vanadium

First, feel free to change the protection level and/or length - no hard feelings here, you've read the talk (note the irony - that anon admits 'xe does not want to edit that page). Second, the reasoning is based on watching elements articles for over a year, including vanadium - they do not represent current events, but a common (school) knowledge and are built up exclusively by regulars (that's the observation, not "the way it should be"). Most anon contribs are either vandalism, reverting vandalism or correcting forth and back one letter in an itchy phrase. We (i.e. project Elements) do have positive experience with users, anons or registered, posting a comment at talk page first. This way valid proposals get incorporated instead of being reverted right away by RCPers (again, that's reality). Cheers. PS. I know that vandalism levels at, say Paul McCartney and gold may not be compared, but how would you define "acceptable levels of vandalism" here? Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the elements articles are a PITA and involve a lot of defense from vandals and WP:NOR failers- it's not something I want to do. OTOH, it's a hard length to defend, based on my (non-elements) experience at RFPP. I'll dial it back and post a note on the talk page, but ultimately I won't be watching it, so feel free to change it back if it becomes necessary.

As far as "amount of vandalism" is concerned, here are my top indications that protection is needed (see also: WP:ROUGH):

• Extreme vandalism (compare to the daily featured article, but generally > 5 unique IPs in 24 hours, or 3-4 unique IPs per day over a slightly longer period)
• Sockpuppetry, if protecting the article is easier than an IP/rangeblock. (see Pioneer Courthouse Square for an extreme example of this)
• BLP. This one is obvious. Especially for "in the news" people like Roman Polanski.
• Unsourced fancruft. Usually this is for aricles that are continually getting edit-warred about the genre of a band, or the rumor that someone won the latest season of Survivor, or pretty much any article related to wrestling/MMA.
• The squishy stuff: if an article is super-stable (compare diffs to 'cur', no productive changes over last 100 edits or N months) and the IPs never have anything to contribute.

The last one is really the sticking point. In the recent history of Vanadium (just looking to the 20th or so), I see two repeat-offender IPs and a couple of random ones. The repeat-offenders should be warned and blocked for a short time if they haven't been blocked before. If it were (was) me, I'd feel comfortable semi-protecting the article for 3 days, *maybe* a week if I was frustrated.

Finally, generally the semi-protection ramps up in length. So a common pattern I use is 3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 12 months, then indefinite. Each time it should come unprotected and show big problems with IPs.

As an aside, I didn't mean for this to be so long, and apologies if you know all of this. I tried to cast it as a personal opinion because it somewhat *is*. And I'm being so verbose because you are a new admin (congrats, of course), and I'm hoping it helps without coming off condescending.

Heh, that was a LOT of rambling. My apologies :-) tedder (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it was helpful and interesting. Some I did know some didn't - experience is very different with scientific and non-scientific articles - vanadium would hardly ever get 5 unique IP edits/day. It is more like cowboy talk there - 3 days is a time between two phrases. On the other hand, one letter can revert some scientific field :-). As I said, feel free to change the protection, sure I'll keep watching it. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the protection to +24 hours from now. Thanks for working on the articles and DYK space as much as you have. tedder (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miamireporter

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miamireporter. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird- I didn't file it. tedder (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[10] --Dbratland (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Snork! I missed that, so the link is appreciated. Guess it's time for me to quit contributing to the Skynet project, eh. tedder (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Byzantine Greeks

about your decision not to semi-protect the talk page: I can see where you're coming from, but "RBI" is a bit difficult with a person who uses dynamic IPs, when they are hell-bent of having their way. Deucalionite has a known pattern where, whenever he is caught socking and reverted, he will just go on warring about it until the page gets protected, just out of spite. And unfortunately I'm not supposed to be doing the "B" part of RBI here myself (involved and all), otherwise I would have done it long ago. Could you oblige at least on 173.54.217.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. You should have warned the user when reverting (yeah, slightly against the 'I' of RBI..). But there isn't a lot of activity on the talk page- a few random attempts from a single IP. If the sock manages to use a half-dozen 'globally unique' IPs per day, it might be worth protecting for a short while. The real problem is that if you've protected an article plus the talk page, there's no way for legitimate IPs to even say "X needs to be fixed". It flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. But WP:IAR still applies, except when it doesn't . tedder (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But one thing: "warnings" are definitely not needed here. This is a hardened, long-term banned sockpuppeter who knows exactly what they're doing. (P.S.: well, since we're talking about user messages, since he is so experienced about being banned it doesn't really make much of a difference, but perhaps you could consider using a different block message template when blocking ban-evading IP socks. "Once the block expires you are welcome to make constructive contributions" definitely doesn't apply here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Still, it's easier to block someone (like the *110 IP) if there has been at least some sort of message on their talk page indicating Here be dragons. Otherwise, to someone that doesn't know the history, I'm blocking them and the first thing that will ever be seen is a block message on their talk page.

It'd be better if you put up a message about "you're clearly sockpuppeteer X, please stop IMMEDIATELY." I mean, it's hard to dispute that when they go ahead and revert again, leading to a block.

On the PS: yeah, it looks weird, but really, we do want them to "make constructive contributions", not just go away. Strangely, the high-emotion folks that do the damage aren't far removed from being a good editor. tedder (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Chemical elements

Hi Tedder,

Thank you for your recent resolution of the Vanadium protection issue I raised. I would like to give you some more background behind my concerns, and broaden the scope of this discussion to other articles and perhaps a larger audience.

I am a registered, long-term editor and I have made significant contributions in other projects, but I would like to remain "anonymous" for the purpose of this debate, so I have just created this sock for convenience of reference.

I have taken the time to go through all chemical elements. Here are my findings

Semi-protection of chemical element articles

Article name	Protection date	Duration	Protecting admin
Hydrogen	2009-10-08	6m	Kralizec!
Beryllium	2009-03-11	indefinite	Firsfron
Boron	2009-11-03	6m	EdJohnston
Oxygen	2009-11-03	indefinite(?)	Eliz81
Fluorine	2009-11-19	6m	Materialscientist
Neon	2009-11-05	1m	Tedder
Sodium	2009-10-20	3m	Juliancolton
Magnesium	2009-11-05	1m	AlexiusHoratius
Aluminium	2009-10-31	3m	Materialscientist
Silicon	2009-11-20	6m	Materialscientist
Sulphur	2009-11-03	3m	Materialscientist
Potassium	2009-10-20	4m	JamieS93
Calcium	2009-03-11	indefinite	Firsfron
Scandium	2009-11-22	6m	Materialscientist
Titanium	2009-11-18	6m	Materialscientist
Manganese	2009-11-18	6m	Materialscientist
Iron	2009-03-11	indefinite	Firsfron
Cobalt	2009-11-19	6m	Materialscientist
Nickel	2009-11-18	6m	Materialscientist
Copper	2009-09-24	6m	Spinningspark
Silver	2009-11-26	3m	Materialscientist
Tin	2009-11-19	6m	Materialscientist
Tungsten	2009-11-20	6m	Materialscientist
Gold	2009-09-29	3m	Nja247
Mercury	2009-11-02	3m	Materialscientist
Lead	2009-11-18	6m	Materialscientist
Radon	2009-11-19	6m	Materialscientist
Chemical element	2009-11-19	6m	Materialscientist

First of all, I am not asking you to address each of them.

Secondly, I am fully aware that each case is different. Some of these protections may be justified, some may not be at all. Some protection length may be too harsh, some may be adequate. I have not done a detailed analysis of each case, and that is actually not my primary goal here.

This table seems to highlight a recent trend (with a significant explosion of the phenomenon this month), whose rationale was made clear by editors supporting Vanadium's protection. The protecting admin, in particular, made it clear that

"We (i.e. project Elements) do have positive experience with users, anons or registered, posting a comment at talk page first."

I am concerned that WP:ELEMENTS, as a project, might be subconsciusly driving towards a clique-ownership of the articles, taking a blanket position that IPs are up to no good, and effectively changing the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, at least within that project, by discouraging WP:BOLDness and moving towards mandated discussion before editing.

Don't get me wrong, I relate to their frustration of continuously having to revert vandalism, which I do a fair amount of myself, and I am definitely grateful for their hard work. I can also see how days may be changing for WP, whose IP contributions are naturally getting less substantial and more disruptive. But then this needs to be brought up in a larger forum and clear(er) guidelines should perhaps be put in place.

Thank you again for your interest, please let me have your thoughts. Soque1 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soque, the attitude towards IPs and new editors has certainly been an issue at various places on Wikipedia. A project has been experimenting with this and trying to find ways to allow new users to contribute without causing a deluge of vandalism. I strongly suggest you check out WP:NEWT and become active there if you are interested.

Some projects have an attitude towards IPs, and sometimes it's justified. Articles that are homework assignments for schoolchildren tend to be a problem- most of the ones you've listed are things that children in grades 7-12 would be referencing, and often see substantial vandalism. I can show you dozens of articles and instances of vandalism to these type of articles. It's certainly difficult to balance all of the issues, which is why NEWT is an interesting idea. tedder (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am deciding a plan for action. In the meantime, I have gathered more information in the table above (i.e. the protecting admin column). As you can see, Materialscientist seems to have protected quite a few. My first thought is to politely ask him/her to reconsider each of those protections in light of the recent unprotection of Vanadium. However, I hesitate because s/he may possibly interpret it as taunting after what happened. Do you have any suggestions? Would it perhaps be appropriate for you to do that instead? The other reason is that I had the impression that your thoughts were much more influential on him/her than mine... Soque1 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have just asked him directly. Soque1 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Asking the protecting admin usually helps to understand the rationale. tedder (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You may want to share your thoughts on the more general issue here. Soque1 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Good job, it was getting totally out of hand.[11] I was planning to go to RFPP later tonight but you beat me to it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Check out my note on the talk page; note TS brought it up at RFPP, I'm happy to help. I probably won't be watching the page going forward, so LMK if further babysittingadmin help is needed. tedder (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection level of climate research article

I requested rescinding your added protection level for this article, but that was not granted. I was instead referred to take this up with you. Could you please engage me on the article's talk page? __meco (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not unprotect the article. The editor above is spewing completely unsourced original research and speculation on the talk page and is plainly itching to add it to the article. If the article is unprotected at this stage the edit war you stopped is certain to resume almost instantly. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, would you mind repeating this assessment in the section of the article's talk page about my request to have the original protection level reinstated? __meco (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take User:ChrisO's accusations on face value but address the issue on the article talk page as I initially requested. __meco (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The contentiousness seen above underscores the need to keep the article protected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather interpret Chris' ad hominem as an attempt to make the impression of a tumultuous state of affairs and you assisting him in that effort. __meco (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem, it's a fact. You are pushing completely unsourced speculation and arguing for its inclusion in the article. You haven't even bothered to find any source, much less a reliable one, for your claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. I have made a couple of suggestions about inclusions to the article. One, a viral video with a song where I certainly have not made any attempt to assert that it should be included unless reliable sources for it surface. In the second case I have proposed that a quote from one of the University of East Anglia climate scientists presented in the Wall Street Journal be included. Are you referring to one of these? __meco (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A few editors are continuously trying to push a completely unsourced claim that the stolen files were not in fact stolen and that the UEA's statement that the files were stolen should be ignored or prefixed with a weasel-worded "alleged" formulation that is found nowhere in reliable sources reporting the incident. You've backed them up on the talk page. I have no confidence that you or the other editors pushing this POV OR on the talk page will not start pushing it in the article as soon as it's unprotected. I've already taken out - several times - POV weaselling and OR speculation from the article and I have no wish to keep doing so. The longer it's protected the better, as far as I'm concerned. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea this particular issue was so contentious, but I'm starting to realize it. Though I still don't understand why it is so vexing. But if it is, surely an RfC would be an appriopriate decision-making instrument? __meco (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only contentious and vexing because editors are flatly refusing to follow basic content policies. No reliable source that I've seen disputes that there was a theft. Nobody has cited any source of any kind on the talk page - the editors pushing this line are doing nothing more than repeating bloggy speculation over and over, ignoring Wikipedia's content policies and brushing aside the objections of the editors who don't want to see the article turned into a dumping ground for POV original research. They've been challenged repeatedly for a source and haven't provided anything. That should tell you something. This isn't the kind of issue that demands an RfC - it's as fundamental a content issue as you get: you do not add unsourced material, you do not misrepresent sources and you do not present fringe opinions from bloggers as fact or use such opinions to override reliable sources. The fact that some editors don't want to follow the rules isn't grounds for an RfC, it's grounds for blocking or topic-banning them for persistent disruption. As a matter of fact, many of the "editors" who have pushed this POV original research have already been blocked as sockpuppets. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get the impression that this one issue was the single one that caused the full-protection. You see, I haven't been following the conflicts on this page and I seem to have stepped right into the middle of the big one. Now, I prefer to have this discussion going in the designated section of the article talk page, so I won't respond any further than that for now. __meco (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this isn't the place to continue the discussion. There's already a fantastically long discussion at the right location. This will need to go to RFC unless editors can reach a clear consensus, which obviously isn't happening. Don't continue the argument on my talk page. tedder (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've written a new comment, "Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next", on the talk page of the article. I hope we can take it from there. --TS 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, TS. Get consensus on a change and I'll be happy to put it in. tedder (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

icarly episodes

I saw you protected this page yesterday, but it seems not to be protected. Is the page protected or not?Meancop (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops- I made a mistake when protecting it. It's protected now. tedder (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very careful when anyone makes any further protection requests regarding icarly or FETCH with Ruff Ruffman. They are mostly socks of User:Simulation12, who is the one that caused thiese articles to be protected in the first place. I've just blocked this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured. I smelled something ducky. OTOH, it was a mistake I'd made, and it should've been protected. tedder (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

KNUST Department of Planning

Hi. I was coming to speak to you about the salting of this space when I saw your note, much like mine, indicating that you are open to admin disagreement. :) I disagree with salting KNUST Department of Planning. According to policy, SALTing "is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor." So far as I can determine, this article has not been repeatedly recreated. (Long history, but I think I've got it. :)) It was created once. Its subsequent reappearances have been through admin intervention when admins User:MLauba and User:J.delanoy restored it, one in light of clear efforts to clear the content (though I disagree with his initial conclusion that it was cleared) and the other from a desire to clarify his deletion summary. The original contributor showed every effort to provide permission, and the article space may be useful. He or she has not attempted to restore it out of process, and I think that creation protection is premature until he or she does. Accordingly, I'm unprotecting the space. Of course, I'm open to discussion about this, should you disagree. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey MRG, I'm fine with you unprotecting it. I knew J.delanoy had restored to add more to the deletion summary (heh!), but hadn't seen the earlier restoration, and I get worried about persistent copyvios like persistent BLP issues. I'm perfectly fine with the unsalting, and I think you are right, I shouldn't have salted it in the first place. tedder (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that! I worry about them, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP for Syria

Hi Tedder. Since I issued the WP:3RR warnings, as requested, the two anons have stopped … for now. Although, one did not go quietly into that good night: He left hurling a few insulting salvos my way (see here and earlier, here).

I am not actually involved in the editing of that article, contrary to what that anon thinks. I merely came upon one of his rule-breaking edits while Huggling. Then I noticed, as the night progressed, his and the other editor’s edit warring. The debate is obviously one about content that is perhaps skating perilously close to WP:ECCN.

Thanks for your guidance and your offer of follow-up if necessary! — SpikeToronto 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, thanks for handling that. I'm more than happy to protect if necessary, but I'm also more than happy to block if necessary. tedder (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He has since been blocked (see here). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast

Thanks. The authors of that article "crossed a line" when they created it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was trolling the CSD list, and that was an obvious case. I tend to decline a lot of hoaxes and especially decline speedies from an AFD, but it really wasn't worth leaving that AFD up. I'm personally offended by that sort of thing. tedder (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for MogileFS

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MogileFS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30#MogileFS for more details) Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vermillion Lies

Hi, you speedily deleted Vermillion Lies on the basis of A7. I would like to disagree: IMO two studio albums is a reasonable claim of importance. Please consider restoring the page and nominating for regular AfD. - Altenmann >t 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree having two albums means something (I could bang out two albums at my computer before lunch), I'll restore it. tedder (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pleas notice "two studio albums", not just "two albums". Still, it leaves the question what studio, I know. When I was making some minor edits I was also tempted to question the notability of this duo. Let the community decide. - Altenmann >t 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just commenting; a studio album doesn't really mean anything. Recording studios are available for rent and fairly plentiful - which is probably why being a studio album isn't a criteria at WP:BAND. Of the criteria there, the closest one is #5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You also deleted the redirects Kim Boekbinder which pointed to Vermillion Lies with summary (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect). The correct criterion is "G8: pages dependent on nonexistent or deleted pages". - Altenmann >t 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. When deleting pages, please check the image used in them. Non-free images uploaded to wikipedia and used only in the deleted article must be deleted as well, since they would fail "fair use" criterion. I am talking about File:Vermillion Lies.jpg. - Altenmann >t 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha- thanks. I am not in the habit of checking for NFCC images. BTW, do you want me to restore the albums? tedder (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Nothing but track listing & cover. I de-linked them. - Altenmann >t 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 NBA All-Star Game

It looks like I stepped on your toes by semi-protecting the article after you had declined. It was a borderline case, but the editor in question seemed likely to continue the current pattern and there was little other activity. I figured a short protect might encourage the editor to move on. I can remove the protection if you would prefer. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! RFPP is a great place for ECs, and I'm fine with either option. Remove my RFPP response or tlx it or whatever you like. tedder (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll update the RFPP response. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection thanks

Hey Tedder, thanks~ (am I allowed to leave you comments on this part of the page?) If that person (or group of people) vandalizes the page again after three days, should I request for semi-protection again? Gloriac2 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gloria, and welcome. Generally vandalism can be taken care of without requiring page protection- for instance, an IP or user can be warned and then blocked. If it does happen again, you can always re-request at WP:RFPP. However, I'd suggest coming by here to ask questions. You're a new user, so I can probably help you out personally.

PS- you can always respond in any section of my talk page, but it's best to create a new section to discuss new topics. That's why I've moved this. No worries though, and (again) welcome to Wikipedia! tedder (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder, thanks again! :) So regarding the IP ban... I checked the IP address and it is from Cornell University, so if the IP gets banned then Cornell students can't edit the page, and when the offender goes home from school (assuming they live outside of Ithaca, which is very likely as a Cornell student... and if it's a Cornell staff member who did this I would be quite shocked) during breaks, he or she can again vandalize the page. :( Are there ways to revert malicious edits automatically? (as a general question for any wikipedia article) Gloriac2 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi- often there are many IPs used at a school. In this specific case, it's clear the IP is only being used by one individual, or at least very few. Generally, the steps are this:

1. Revert the vandalism using the 'undo' link with a good edit summary
2. Place a warning on the IP talk page
3. After enough recent warnings have been collected, you can report the IP at WP:AIV.

Generally, page protection is for many IPs vandalizing a page, because an IP can be blocked 'cheaper' than protecting a page.

There are cases where the IP is used by all of an organization- such as a high school. Generally there is little collateral damage caused by blocking the IP for a period of time (1 day, 1 week) because a school with lax control over vandalizing students don't also have students who are making good contributions to Wikipedia.

That should help give you an overview. I can point you at quite a bit of policy, but WP:VAND is a decent place to start. Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks! :) I put a warning on the specific IP's talk page, (and since I am new to wiki) I'm not sure if I did it right... so feel free to correct it if necessary. BTW, what is the most effective way to find vandalism? Do you just have to browse wiki pages? Gloriac2 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I use my watchlist to find vandalism to pages I'm interested in. The hardcore folks use Special:RecentChanges. But get some more experience before doing that. FWIW, if I were to vandalize the page four times before you reverted it, you should only give me one warning, then sufficient time to read it before giving me another warning. Hope that makes sense. tedder (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Books bot.

Any updates on the "New books alerts" bot? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I need to mull an easy/better way to implement archiving, since that's needed for the first release. tedder (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Book-Class

Hi, I'm just wondering why you've semi-protected this template, given that it only has a single transclusion. PC78 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I was having trouble figuring out if the transclusion was transcluded anywhere- now I see the transclusion is the page itself, which is weird. tedder (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the only transclusion is on the template documentation. It's not actually used anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I see this was done per a request for protection. I believe that request was made on a mistaken assumption, though. Not all templates in this series are protected, and while they were at one time highly used, their transclusions have dropped significantly and they are now largely deprecated. I don't oppose protection as such, I just think it's premature for a currently unused template, and I don't think it will turn out to be necessary. PC78 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, via WP:RFPP. I'm going to unprotect it, since my assumptions were based on incorrect assumptions. tedder (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about WP:RS and WP:Synth IE Wikileaks

Tedder,

In the context of using wikileaks docs as a part of an article, where is wikipedia at on a policy for the sites work. From what I understand, wikileaks is independent and not tied to the main wiki. It uses verifiers to confirm the material they post, and then post it without comment. Wikileaks has been in the news alot as of late, most recently for the cell phone messages during 9-11. IIs a policy being worked on, and if so where can I view it. I am very careful with my cites and take them all seriously and dont want to use bad sources, or exclude good ones that enhance readers experiences within the confines or WP:NPOV.Your thoughts

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi IGR. I'm a big fan of Wikileaks, and they seem to have a good track record, but without any other sources verifying what they have to show, it's pretty much a primary source. The difference with the 9/11 pages and texts is that other media has reported on it- so it's appropriate to use what they've said is important. I hope that answers what you are really asking- if not, keep asking me, I'm not quite understanding your concern. tedder (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection - I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! (UK series 9)

Hi, I noticed you protected the I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! (UK series 9) article. I've raised serious concerns on the articles talk page, but have yet to get a satisfactory answer why. Looking through the articles history, I see no justification for page protection- the history shows far less 'evidence' of vandalism or reverts than many, many other wikipedia articles. Surely the correct way is to block indvidual troublesome editors, not the whole article! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article isn't vandalism as much as it is unsourced changes to the contestant results. Look back right before the protection and you'll see tons of changes to the finishing order, who was voted in what position, and the like. It isn't possible to block individual editors because they are coming from (changing) IP addresses. If you look at the number of unique IP addresses that are reverted on 24 October, it's pretty clear. tedder (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh, NONE of the current editors have included any citations for the contestant results. There are ZERO citations for FOUR whole and substancial sections of that article - the Camps, Results and Elimination, Bushtucker Trials, and Bush Battles! And as the fundamental policy of Wikipedia is that all information should be verfiable, by all readers, then the article as it stands fails on that fundamental point. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that a few editors have a problem with trying to claim ownership of this article - they don't want anyone else apart from their little 'club', yet they fundamentally fail on the basics of including citations. I'm sorry, but the existing editors who demanded that this article be protected are just as bad as other 'IP' editors who fail to provided any citations. Please let me state again - this article should NOT be protected - and should be freely open for ALL to edit, and comply with the fundamental principles of allowing ANYBODY to edit Wikipedia. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hurt

Thanks for contributing to Harry Hurt. I wish we'd started this before he died, but at least now he has his own article. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed on both counts. I'm going to use my archived newspaper source (lexus nexusish) and try to fill it out. It's already nearly at DYK and we haven't even tried. tedder (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Tedder... Your hard work is valued and appreciated here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, you are welcome, that means a lot. I assume you are mainly thanking me for protecting Uncle Murda? tedder (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for userpage protection

Thanks for protecting my userpage. Do you think it would be appropriate to semi-protect my talk page for a similar period? I understand that limiting access to talk pages is generally not a good idea, but the amount of work that the attacker creates for other editors is getting pretty large. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, as I was writing this up, Tanthalas39 took the initiative and semiprotected my talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good- glad tan was able to help you out. And you're welcome for the protection. tedder (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Scoopmobile

Hey Tedder. You noted on the Redmond Caves page that one sentence needed clarification, namely the "scoopmobile." I too, would love to know what a scoopmobile is, but I can't clarify it any more because because the 1954 article doesn't say anything else about it. That's also why I put it in quotes. That clarification tag may be there forever. Can you delete the clarification tag? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Leit, wether it's in the source or not, it needs some sort of explanation. It may take a while before it gets fixed (maybe someone will know what it is personally?), but it still needs clarification of some sort. BTW, are you going to submit the caves to DYK? tedder (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never submitted anything to DYK. You are certainly welcome to do it yourself. I'm not to entrenched in the wikipedia universe to be acquainted with everything. About the scoopmobile, I suspect that it was a nickname for some kind bulldozer or backhoe. I kind of doubt there is listing anywhere for something called the scoopmobile. But I suppose it's worth checking out. I could delete scoopmobile and replace it with another piece of machinery they used, which was some kind of load conveyor. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the DYK thing for you. I doubt there's much (certainly no RS) for the scoopmobile- it's just such a red herring sitting there. If there's other machinery used, or you can rewrite it, that'd probably be best. tedder (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Depiping links

Re: Redmond Caves diff. Incidentally, some of us in WP:ORE (at least EncMstr and I) like to link cities and states separately, though I've abandoned linking "United States", however, per "hopefully you get the idea" and "not closely related to the topic of the article". It's a fairly common practice across the wiki in location links and makes sense to me. If you're going to unlink them, I'd like to see a clear rationale. I pretty much tend to leave "United States" linked if it already is (per "if it ain't real broke, don't fix it") and add separate (piped) links to community and state when I come across ones that aren't separate. I shrug and don't edit war if someone changes it, since I don't believe there's a rule about this, but I think it makes for easier navigation, especially if one is using popups to see what each bluelink is about. If one doesn't know anything about the state, it's one click to read about it rather than two and if one don't know anything about the state, one isn't as likely to be interested in reading about just the city. That's my take on it, anyway. Katr67 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually I don't change it, but that one was bothering me- I think it was because there were so many links surrounding it (_lava tubes_ in _Deschutes County_, _Oregon_, _United States_). My rationale for doing it is in Wikipedia:Linking#General_points_on_linking_style: "avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, as in "[[clarinet]] [[scholarship]]". tedder (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5

Re User:ZuluPapa5 and Scientific opinion on climate change. I request that you ban him from that page, and its talk page. I've threatened him with RFC if his disruptive behaviour continues [12] and it has. But RFC is a heavyweight, long, and often quite toothless procedure. ZP5, as far as I can tell, simply isn't worth it. His behaviour there is disruptive, pointless and childish; he just needs to be firmly shown the door. Quite a few of his edits aren't really comprehensible, e.g. [13]. On a lower profile article he could just be ignored.

You've blocked him for disruption and edit warring. That I think is helpful (thank you) but I'd still like to see him barred from the article entirely (or at least for a niminal period of, say, a month).

Pretty well his entire history of interaction with Scientific opinion on climate change supports my view. Let me attempt to give you some kind of timeline or story to support this... how did he get into this? He isn't a long-term GW editor...

• ZP5 is cruising BLPN [14] and happens to run across List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and makes what is, in retrospect, a characteristically hard-to-parse comment [15].
• For unclear reasons, he decides that Bayesian probability is the crux of scientific consensus [16]. I revert this, with the obvious comment [17].
• ZP5 follows this up by creating a rather odd page, which I redirect to GW and Vsmith deletes; ZP5 is not amused [18]. ZP5 pushes his Bayesian oddness [19] and we're onto Scientific opinion on climate change. From this point on, ZP5 does essentially nothing but edit that talk page disruptively, and to a lesser extent the page.
• So, ZP5 starts adding non-relevant material to the page [20] and when that doesn't work, the tag wars begin, as you know. Meanwhile, on the talk page...
• This is the most weird bit. His talk page comments read like they were written by Eliza: 00:30, 1 December 2009, 01:33, 1 December 2009, 02:18, 1 December 2009 , etc. Looking through the rest, I can't see anything constructive that would make anyone say "he may be a bit annoying but he raises some good points". All he does is skip from one section to the next failing to make substantive, and in some cases comprehensible, replies to anything.

Well there you have it. Thanks for what you have done so far, and if you feel like doing any more it would be most appreciated,

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain Eliza-ish (perhaps ESL?) quality to ZuluPapa5. Let's see what happens when the editor comes back, okay? I agree about RFC/U being less than perfect, but there are other WP:DR things that can be done too. tedder (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was fairly sure you were going to say that. I woud expect ZP5 to be reading this, so hopefully he will take away the message that further disruptive behaviour will lead to trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you got sucked in to a blocking scenario anyway, mop and all. For what it's worth, I was not considering asking a single admin (much less you, you'll be relieved to know, because my instinct is to involve more admins when a situation gets like this, and not put weight on one person's judgement). I was exasperated at the circular way in which the discussion was being pushed to stay alive, and felt that alongside the article edits it amounted to disruptive tendentiousness. As it happens I then discovered some long neglected aspects of real life for over 24 hours so I missed the worst of the nastiness. Perhaps the essence of wisdom is knowing when to let nature take its course--I wish I could say my absence was due to wisdom! --TS 04:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personal, but I didn't block users because of you, TS, or because of WMC, or because of anyone else. The two editors knowingly ignored the rule I placed on the talk page. ZuluPapa has been making some crazy accusations about me changing a sig or something- other than that, I have no horse in this game. Hopefully ZuluPapa will take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, all I care about is trying to maintain some shred of WP:CIVIL on that page and talk page. Good times, eh? tedder (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was going to let this dog lay because Tedder’s intervention has ended an edit war, but it bothered me a bit that you couldn’t behave likewise. Calling for a topic ban for ZP5’s really crossed the line. ZP5 and GoRight were both blocked because they contradicted Tedder’s directions for everyone to stop inserting and removing the POV tag on the article. I think that you deserve a block just as much as ZP5 and GoRight because you also ignored Tedder’s talk page warning with this edit. You could have left well enough alone and allowed Tedder to do what he did (remove the tag himself) but you didnt, demonstrating that you are as much a problem on that article as the other editors. WVBluefield (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realized I was on this talk. Wow, that's a mouthful for a 3RR. Anyway, seems like I really threatened someone with the crazy idea that they may not have a NPOV. Sorry, but NPOV is what wiki is about. Appreciate WVBluefield rational interjection. For the record, I am ZuluPapa5 and puppetry is repulsive to my WikiDragon ways. I am not surprised in the least the complainer is haunted (in their mind) by their past. I wish them well to edit responsibly. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'

Tedder: just FYI -- someone removed the protection template you put on Jerkin' -- not being an admin I'm not sure if I should restore it or not. Regards. --Manway (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- I put it back. I'll AGF and assume it was removed during the weird database stuff yesterday. tedder (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Crayola colors

Thanks for closing. Didn't expect the vandal spike and I was probably too hasty in listing. PaleAqua (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, don't take it too personal. I don't blame you for listing it, but I bet the response wasn't expected! tedder (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Redmond Caves

On 5 December, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Redmond Caves, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Added to awards. tedder (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight Block

I disagree with your block of GoRight. The page is under a tremendous amount of dispute and flux, and the talk page agrees with this. If GoRight is guilty of edit warring on that page, so too is nearly every other editor who has contributed it in the past 3 days. Please reconsider. Thanks! WVBluefield (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you did place a warning on the talk page ... didnt see that before. WVBluefield (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WVB, I completely understand, but plenty of warning over the {{NPOV}} template was given. Continuing to place that template flies in the face of both edit warring and civility. The only reason I've been involved on the page is to keep it from being fully protected.

It's a delicate balancing act- is it better to block a few users, or is it better to fully protect the page to keep editors from being offended/blocked? I'm somewhat amused because (this week) I was told I should block users rather than fully protect another page- neither way is optimal. This was a good case for blocking (instead of protection) because there was already a very active discussion on the talk page.

EC- glad you saw the warning. tedder (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

tedder, my problem is that you applied blocks unilaterally. An edit war involves parties on both sides, and a unilateral block is implicitly a judgement against one side. A protection would have been better so the sides could hash it out; or, alternatively, blocks on both sides. Blocking two editors on one side and none on the other makes you appear partisan. ATren (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, ATren. See my response to GoRight below- I could have been done it better. tedder (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A few questions if you please

While I recognize that you do not have a "dog in this fight" and so are merely trying to contain the edit warring, which is fine in and of itself, I do take some exceptions with how you have been going about it. Before I pursue things further at WP:AN I wanted to discuss the matter with you directly in case the discussion and resulting disruption there can be avoided. Could you please respond to the following at your earliest convenience? Thanks.

Point 1: Blocks related to the edit warring.

I note that when you issued your warning at [21] that you stated the following, [22]:

"Okay, all of you. Quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header. Rather than full-protecting the article, I will block editors that insert or remove it for WP:3RR/WP:EW. Consider this your warning, I won't be leaving warnings on editor talk pages. tedder (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)"

OK, so far so good. Now when I ignored your warning, [23], you followed through with your threat. You did the same for ZP5, [24]. But when WMC ignored your instructions, [25], you did not choose to follow through on your threat. So, can you please explain why you were selective in your enforcement here? Is this not a valid example of WMC edit warring over the POV template after you warned him not to just like myself and ZP5? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It is somewhat unfair to only block editors who added the tag, not those who also removed it. However, the two sitations aren't exactly even, either. Let me see if I can explain.

A user who adds the tag is definitely in violation of the "rule" I imposed. That's a clear situation- if the editor has seen it, and still adds the tag, it's very clear.

However, a user who removes the tag isn't in as direct of violation. They are restoring the state of the page to the "pre-rule" state.

I should have made the rule a little clearer so that reverting/undoing to restore state isn't allowed, so that "involved" editors don't try to enforce the rules themselves. And I probably should have blocked MWC. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that your original phrasing made the point quite clear, "quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header", seems to cover both sides of the issue quite adequately and unambiguously. However, I accept your acknowledgement that, in retrospect, "I probably should have blocked WMC" as being sufficient evidence of your neutrality on that point. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Point 2: Using WP:WRONG as an excuse to keep the POV tag off the page.

When I protested your leaving the POV tag off the article, [26], you responded with WP:WRONG, [27]. Now, when we are talking about the CONTENT in a content dispute WP:WRONG seems a reasonable reply, however the POV tag is NOT CONTENT in the sense intended by WP:WRONG but rather it is a notice to the reader that the content is in dispute. By invoking WP:WRONG in this context you are completely thwarting the obvious intent of the POV template and the essay to which it directs the users, [28].

Can you please give your reasons for why WP:WRONG is an appropriate response for something like the POV tag given that doing so clearly is at odds with the purpose of the template in question? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WRONG was a bit of a flippant reply, but it was based on your phrasing: "You have issued your warning with the article in the wrong state." Generally, one party (or both) feel the article is in the wrong state. Note I followed WP:WRONG up with solid rationale for leaving the POV tag off, though.

Generally I'm a fan of leaving maintenance templates on a page. I can dig out some heated discussions about users who don't want them there. But in this case, it doesn't seem to do any good- it feels you want it to be there as a disclaimer, not to fix issues. If it was truly about fixing issues, they are already being discussed on the talk page. My feeling, in this case, is that the POV template isn't needed to raise awareness about the issues, so it would be causing a net harm to the article and to the editors. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that honorable individuals can legitimately disagree on such things, but could you please try to elucidate the things about "this case" which you believe makes it a special case requiring special handling or is it simply a "gut feeling" on your part? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Point 3: WP:CIVILity of the POV tag.

You assert that the POV template is provocative and uncivil, [29], yet the essay that the template points to states the following:

"By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required."

This seems to suggest that the POV tag should have exactly the opposite effect of what you claim. Can you please describe why you feel that the essay is wrong?

Also, if the POV template is considered to be WP:UNCIVIL then why is it allowed to exist at all? Is it not a policy violation in and of itself by that reasoning? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of this is personal thought and specific to this incident. Having said that, I'll try to explain. I gave the rationale for the POV tag above- in this article it isn't helping achieve consensus or civility. I don't think my position is counter to the thoughts in that essay, but keep in mind an essay is a few steps below guidelines and policy; I feel justified in stating that the use of the template, in this case is inflammatory and counter to WP:CIVIL. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto my question from Point 2 above. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sidenote on ZP5 A brief aside: I think that ZP5 is upset with your treatment of him at least in part due to your assertion that "as ZuluPapa5 said, the POV tag is provocative and uncivil", [30], because he subsequently claims that this is a misrepresentation of his position, [31]. You may wish to clarify your statement a bit. Just FYI. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what the misrepresentation is- it's clear that I used his "provocative and uncivil" statement for the opposite argument than ZP5 did. Is that what is meant? If so, yes, I should fix that- just confirm this is what you think was meant, because the whole thing was confusing to me, because it turned into charges of corruption, so it makes me think there is more than that going on. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"it's clear that I used his "provocative and uncivil" statement for the opposite argument than ZP5 did. Is that what is meant?" - Yes, this is my interpretation but it needs to be confirmed with ZP5.

"turned into charges of corruption" - I have asked him to clarify his meaning. It occurs to me that he may have been meaning "corruption" in the sense of "altered or changed incorrectly" as in a corrupted database and not "nefarious activity" if you follow my meaning. It may simply be a communications issue. --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation and clarification. I've tried to correct it. tedder (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Point 4: When should the POV tag be used?

You assert the following, [32]:

"the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't."

I interpret this to mean that the tag is best used for articles that don't have a lot of people watching them which certainly isn't this article. Is this how you meant this statement?

Assuming so, I direct you again to the essay pointed to by the template, [33], which states:

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

The above interpretation seems to be directly at odds with the stated purpose of the template in this case, or am I somehow misreading the portion I have placed in bold?

You seem to be acknowledging that we have not yet reached a consensus on this point, see [34], so can you please explain why we should ignore the intent of the template in this case? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be completely on 'your side', that the template should be placed on the article. Because of the edit warring that was occurring over the template, and the crazy level of discussion on the talk page, it's a sort of Judgment of Solomon issue. Removing the tag appeared to be the better option, as the issues about POV were already lodged and under substantial discussion on the talk page.

Secondly, there were many alternatives, most of which would be considered 'worse' by editors:

• Full-protect the entire page, as had been requested
• Impose substantial editing sanctions (use of edit summaries, no reverts, propose changes on talk page, etc)
• Intentionally pare content of the page, full protect, then wait for consensus on additions (sometimes used with WP:WRONG as an argument)

The POV tag is an easy first step. If an editor failed to follow that simple rule, it's easier and clearer to block them for that behavior, rather than getting into more complex blocking and banning issues. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto my question from Point 2 above, but can you try to be specific about why "removing the tag appeared to be the better option" in this case? What is it that makes this case different than other cases in your opinion? For example, I would assume that in most cases where there is a POV dispute on-going that there is already active discussion on the talk page so I am not clear on why this case is any different. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added your signature to each of the parts/sections so that I can reply individually. Let me know if you have a problem with that- but it'll keep me from having to make one large reply at the end that loses context. tedder (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Take your time. Tackle each in turn if you wish. --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been letting this topic sit for a while to let the dust settle a bit. I am considering making a proposal for a course of action that I would find acceptable before going to WP:AN, but if that proposal is not acceptable to the other editors then I will have no other alternative but to seek out additional guidance on the norms surrounding the appropriate use of the POV template. Your responses above will be an aid to that discussion if it becomes necessary. This is my reason for asking for more details. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)