User talk:Tedder/Archive 6

Citing Sources
Hi Tedder

Just wanted to ask your advice on this. Someone keeps posting a rumour to one of The Bill's subpages about a character that's joining. The website that they're using to cite the rumour is Twitter and the page says it's the official page of The Bill's producer. I've previously reverted it because I didn't think the Twitter page would be allowed for two reasons a) it's a social networking site and b) I don't think it would class as a reliable source as anyone can set up a Twitter account and say that they work for The Bill. However, this person keeps telling me that they can't see any reason why the link wouldn't be allowed. I've also googled the rumour to see if I can find any other reference for this but cannot find anything. I don't want to keep reverting this. What would be your advice on this? --5 albert square (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey. It's pretty clearly not allowed, via WP:SPS: "For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." tedder (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks for that Tedder, knew you'd have the answer! I didn't even know of WP:SPS before!


 * Edit: Just noticed this, thanks for protecting Walt Disney.  I came across that one totally by chance on the recent changes section but someone hit revert before I could.  Checked the recent history as I always do when I come across vandalism for obvious reasons and couldn't believe what I saw!  Thanks again and I hope you're well --5 albert square (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had to google it, fwiw, though I should have looked at SPS first. tedder (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disney- glad you saw that. Certainly out of hand. It looks like 4chan or an imitator. tedder (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you forgotten to change the protection level for Walt Disney? There's something about that on the protection page and when I'm logged out I can still edit the page --5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I happened to check the log and I think you must of forgotten to enable protection. I figured I should let you know this.  Momo san  Gespräch 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. It's an easy one to miss. I probably miss the dropdown (and forget to doublecheck) once every 10 protections. tedder (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tedder :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amos Marsh
Hi Tedder, here is my reference (http://www.wallowa.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=19972) for Amos Marsh being from Wallowa High School.Jazz3111 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks! I added that as a ref on Amos Marsh and on Wallowa High School. tedder (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to add a reference, it is probably better add this link: http://beta.lagrandeobserver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59935&Itemid=31

Althuogh it has some mistakes in it's information. Jazz3111 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I may add both as a reference, but it's something you can definitely do! Let me know if you need help. tedder (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox
I am not so interested in Amanda Knox but I accidently created the page after the guilty verdict. I didn't realize it until I started the Amanda Knox talk page and saw that it had been deleted twice. I immediately went back to wipe out the Amanda Knox page but saw that in the space of a few minutes, several editors had already edited it and wiping out their edits could be seen as vandalism. Since I wanted to do the right thing, I then asked an administrator for guidance.

For this reason, it looks like there might actually be a consensus for the article. Many people in Wikipedia don't know the inner workings so they are unlikely to find talk pages or RFC, etc. This can be manipulated by those who don't want the page and know how to outsmart the newbies. (That's why I have advocated a "how to" manual for Wikpedia but have been told by an administrator to fuck off -- I later found out that my idea is not bad as a Wikipedia Trustee has the exact same idea according to a newspaper article).

If we were to develop a really neutral way to gauge consensus, it would be for the Amanda Knox page to exist with a template on top pointing to a discussion about the article and then a link to the Murder article just below that. I am not so interested in Amanda Knox that I will not be doing it. If we wanted to see what could be written, we could have a draft article under that template and link but that would really be a bold maneuver, maybe too bold.

Let's try to cooperate in Wikipedia rather than fight. As for me, I have little interest in Amanda Knox except to know her pre-Italy background, which I find Wikipedia has no information -- I had to find it elsewhere. I think that your declaration that there is no consensus to create an article is not really accurate especially since there were quite a few edits in only a few minutes (unlike some articles which last weeks between edits) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Suomi, I'm not interested in fighting, and hadn't even seen that you were involved, my only concern is with WP:BLP/WP:BLP1E. The consensus I was indicating in my protection notice is on Talk:Amanda Knox; you did see that, right? I'm not interested in sides (create the article, restore the article, don't create the article, etc) but am wanting to make sure that WP:BLP is followed. I'm quite happy with the article being created- but it needs to be done outside of Amanda Knox so it isn't in-progress until it reaches some level of maturity. Hope this answers your concerns. tedder (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a draft page would be a good idea but I certainly don't want to host it on my user pages. There are countless bad articles that could benefit from that.  However, it seems that WP custom is to not have draft pages.  My involvement is ONLY that I accidently created an Amanda Knox article and didn't know it was deleted (technically reverted and redirected) until I created the Amanda Knox talk page and saw that it had been deleted twice.  Since I am not a troublemaker, I raced to revert my own edits but found that in only a few minutes, several editors had edited and I wasn't about to wipe away others' edits.


 * Perhaps there should be a BLP warning and the article allowed to be created and someone submit an AFD in 2 days and see if a passable article can be written before the AFD? I am not in the Pro-Amanda Knox article camp, just wanted to find out her pre-Italy background, found that Wikipedia doesn't have it, and want to move on to another article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, on the talk page I suggested it be a draft at Talk:Amanda Knox/Subpage or something similar. Draft pages are used when changes are big, when it isn't ready for primetime, and so on. I don't think you are seen as a troublemaker (and certainly this proves it!), but this sort of thing happens quickly when it's in the news. We just shouldn't have an article up at Amanda Knox that says "Amanda Knox killed some girl in Italy" with a link to an AFD that needs to run for a week before it is deleted. The other information exists, if you or someone else wants it, the subpage can be very quickly developed and moved in place; I'd be happy to move the page history to the subpage so you can edit and revert to a fleshed-out version if you'd like. tedder (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon Trott
Thank you for protecting that article Tedder, your work is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Maybe I'm gunshy, but it isn't like that article has seen a lot of strong development from IPs. tedder (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Hurt

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

SmartDraw

 * Context: SmartDraw tedder (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like you were the admin who deleted the page about this company, however I was not able to find any "AfD" discussion on the topic only your note that it was because "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The article has existed for 3 years so this deletion seems abrupt. Just because an article talks about a company or product, it's not supposed to be considered advertising automatically. Please consider restoring the page or making it more clear why it was deleted. Thanks. - Emeseg user talk:Emeseg —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Hi- no matter how long the page had been around, it was still an advert, and an AFD isn't necessary. Would you like me to move it to userspace so you can work on it and make it into a non-advert article? tedder (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeseg (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Here it is: User:Emeseg/SmartDraw. I left some guidelines on your user talk page. tedder (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the content a bit. The original article was just a single sentence it seems so I've added more content while citing sources. I've tried to model it after Mindjet's page and have gotten some feedback. Let me know if you think it's ready to move back to the mainspace or if you have more specific comments. Thanks --Emeseg (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Emeseg, here's what I see with my first pass through it.
 * The "Product Features and Automation" section has no sources given. It's effectively advertising about the benefits of the software.
 * The "Business Visuals in Communication" section is speaking about business visuals in general; none of the sources discuss SmartDraw directly (AFAIK). This means it is effectively advertising too.
 * The "product history" doesn't really do much. It's effectively a 1-1 mapping between versions and dates, nothing more. It could be summarized as "the first version came out in 1994, the most current version is SmartDraw 2010, released on YY-MM-2009."
 * The only source on "Integration and Add-Ons" is to SmartDraw's site. Are there any reviews or other third-party coverage of SmartDraw from reliable sources? This would be secondary sources, which is what most of the article should be based on- see WP:PSTS.
 * The "Awards" section is pretty good. Wikilink things you can.
 * Cheers, tedder (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Tedder, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia's editing standards so perhaps you can help me understand what's wrong with SmartDraw's page.
 * The "Product Features and Automation" section contains a description of what the product does - it doesn't contain a call to action or a pitch as far as I can tell. What makes this advertising? In addition, if I included a link to [|Amazon's] description of the product's features, would that constitute a reliable source? Could the manufacturer's website be used as a source? I noticed that on Gmail's page Google is the dominant source for the majority of the feature's section. It seems like that'd be the case with any product regardless of who makes it. What mix of third party and primary sources are needed to meet Wikipedia's standards?
 * The "Business Visuals in Communication" explains the value proposition behind what people use the product before; how is this advertising?
 * The "Integration and Add-Ons" section contains links to SmartDraw's own definition of how it integrates with various products and services. How is the primary source (the company that makes the software) not considered to be a reliable source? I took a look at the Windows Home Server features section for reference and I saw a delimited list of features primarly sourced by Microsoft-owned or affiliated properties. What's the difference between what's in that section and this section?
 * Could you explain, broadly, what you constitute as advertising? In general doesn't advertising have to include some persuasive prose and a call to action?
 * Please let me know, --Omgcapitalism (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
I would have thought that tarring several identified scientists (not just one who happens to be a Wikipedia editor) as "co-conspirators" (in the context, the charge is one of massive scientific fraud) was a very clear violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Please keep an eye on it. I very much doubt that this will ever be reducible to "a dispute resolution issue" as you suggest. Nor is this a borderline matter. --TS 05:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, TS, but the specific policy gives a little bit of latitude for this sort of thing ("useful to making article content choices"). I mean, if the article was about Tony Sidaway and there was a discussion about fraud and coverup, it'd seem entirely reasonable that it should be well-founded. But on an article that is effectively about fraud, we're talking about apples that aren't far from the tree. This is just my take on it- if you violently disagree, feel free to post at WP:BLPN, since I'm occasionally wrong.


 * Assuming you are watching that page, just drop me a note if there are items of concern that come up that I can help with- for instance, if an IP or a user posts something like .111 was posting or other non-helpful comments, give me a diff and I'll step in. Otherwise, it seems to be headed down the DR/ARBCOM route. tedder (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have a straightforward disagreement here on what policy actually says. I don't think any part of Wikipedia's policy permits baseless accusations of fraud to be made anywhere on Wikipedia.  That is why we have a BLP in the first place. --TS 06:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I may very well be wrong. That's my interpretation of it- and by no means would it be forumshopping to ask at BLPN. (and, as an aside, while I was looking to see if you posted there already, I totally agree with you). tedder (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'll blunder on and hope the nuisance goes away. If it becomes enough of a problem there won't be just me concerned at it. --TS 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar
Sorry if I made it difficult by not using edit summaries. Usually I don't bother with them if it is just to restore sourced information that has been removed without an explanation, and use them when I'm only making actual changes to the article. Anyway I didn't mean to make things more difficult and since it's a volatile article I will make sure I use them for all my edits on the article. Thanks for you assistance. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's easier to distinguish between legit edits and vandals/trolls/etc when you use 'em. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Hi. :) I expect this will be completely uncontroversial, but wanted to let you know that I restored 14th Street Viaduct (Hudson County, New Jersey) in order to do a history merge with 14th Street (Hoboken) to repair a licensing violation (not to "prepare" one. Geez. Stupid deletion log forever mocking me. :P) After the DB6 was applied, a contributor copied text (including authored by others) with the edit summary of "import from delete". The contributor who had tagged it G6 (I'm not sure why they didn't just move the page) attempted to note this, I think, when he placed the following: . It would have been much easier to figure out if he had just supplied a rationale to the Db-g6! I stared at it for a good few moments going "What?" :) (The paste was noted by Corensearchbot and listed at Copyright problems/2009 November 29. Usually, those listings that aren't resolved by the time they come due at CP are complicated. Nobody else could figure out how to handle them. :D) I've explained to the copying contributor attribution requirements and will speak to the other about the "rationale" parameter on db6. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! It's even more complicated than I thought. We have not one, but two people copying content without proper attribution. The tagger copied the material to a different point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries- thanks for letting me know. Sounds like a handful :-) tedder (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick ping
In case you didn't notice that I had some follow-up questions,. If you don't have anything more to contribute there that is OK just let me know. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw your reply (dated "01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)"), but not questions. What am I missing? tedder (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read that reply. I am asking follow-up questions that are replies to your replies, if you follow my meaning.  It is not a huge deal.  Basically I am asking you for some specifics regarding your reply.  No hurry at this point though.  Thanks.  --GoRight (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user has returned
Just letting you know, anon user 85.83.19.103 you blocked for edit warring on UFO Hunters and making personal attacks has returned as a sock puppet. Dan Frederiksen, a newly created account has also made the exact same edits to UFO Hunters. Both account talk pages also have bizarre rants going on about abuse of admin powers and other conspiracies, so no doubt it's the same individual here. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree, based on the edits and modus operandi shown on the rants. tedder (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tedder. A few days ago I welcomed User:Dan Frederiksen, an account started a couple of years ago but only used fourteen times.  He (or she) replied, complaining about mistreatment by other Users.  I now see that he has been blocked indefinitely.  Dan Frederiksen made his first edit a couple of years ago, and has only made seven edits since 15 April 2008.  Two of those seven edits were to his own Talk page, leaving five substantial edits since April 2008.  I have examined those five edits very closely, and I find nothing offensive or in the nature of an edit war.  When I looked at Dan's User page the block banner contains words about Please refer to SPI for evidence.  When I attempt to see SPI for the evidence it says Page does not exist.


 * Cyberia23 advised you that Dan Frederiksen was a newly created account. You replied, saying I agree.  In fact, this account was started in May 2007.


 * This looks like it might be sinister. A User makes five unremarkable edits and is blocked permanently.  The banner notifying this User that he has been blocked says that the page with the evidence for the blocking does not exist.


 * Immediately above, you have written I agree, based on the edits and modus operandi shown on the rants. Please let me know which of Dan Frederiksen's five recent substantial edits constitute the rants, and which of the five show a consistent modus operandi, such that permanent blocking is appropriate.  Thanks for your assistance in helping me get to the bottom of this. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the editor existed, but an account that has been inactive for years and then becomes active again can still be a sock. The user posted the exact same content with the same source to a page, and actually did so several times. This matches how the IP's edit-warred content ended up looking. A rant by the IP is really similar to a rant by the user, and the capper is that the user never had interactions with User:Hu12, but the IP certainly did. Finally, the SPI link appears simply because it's part of the template. tedder (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I agree that this diff (1) and this diff (2) suggest that Dan Frederiksen is a sock of 85.83.19.103.

At WP:SOCK/ACCUSER the following advice is given to every person accusing another of sockpuppetry: ''Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be''.

At WP:SOCK/SUSPECT the following advice is given to every person accused of being a sockpuppet: If the accuser has not formed a proper evidence page, you should remove the notice. I believe that no proper evidence page has been formed in relation to Dan Frederiksen. Wikipedia’s advice in this situation is that Dan is entitled to remove the notice!

I remain concerned that Wikipedia has not followed its own due process. Wikipedia has permanently blocked Dan Frederiksen, apparently without adequate explanation as to why he has been permanently blocked. Regardless of how strongly you believe Dan is a sock of the IP address, Dan is entitled to an adequate explanation of the reason behind the block. Similarly, Dan is entitled to the opportunity to defend himself against the accusation. Even though Wikipedia guarantees that every accused sockpuppet will be given this explanation, and this opportunity, they appear to be missing in Dan’s case. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those sections deal with how to handle a sockpuppet investigation - in other words, through WP:SPI. Where does it require that an SPI is used? It doesn't. Further, Dan's account is open for "appeal" through an unblock request, which hasn't been used. tedder (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My view is that Wikipedia has failed to adequately explain to Dan Frederiksen why he (or she) has been blocked indefinitely, especially as the block is not related to anything written from the account Dan Frederiksen.  The fact that Dan has not yet used his prerogative to contest the block is not a fact that Wikipedia can use in its defense.


 * I have left a message on Dan’s Talk page explaining the reason for the block, and explaining the opportunity for contesting the block. Hopefully this will improve Wikipedia’s performance in the matter of the blocking of Dan Frederiksen. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your reply- thanks, and I'll try to use some form of that text in the future on "new sockpuppet" accounts. tedder (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion in art
In light of your instructions on the talk page when you issued the page protection, could you please take a look at this:. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your help very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. Sigh. tedder (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh- I knew I forgot something. Make sure that you ALWAYS use full edit summaries on that article or talk page. For instance, this undo, while obvious, should at least state "vandalism" or "POV" or something. tedder (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You are absolutely right, and I'll be careful about that from now on. (I did it as a rollback of obvious vandalism, but forgot that I shouldn't do it that way for this particular page. I should have known better.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I figured you knew, but I wanted to state the obvious, especially because of how nitpicky I'm being about edits to the article right now. tedder (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good that you told me (no guarantee that I know the obvious!) :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Blind Side (film)...
...is a good one. It's interesting to see a film do better at the box office its second week and even better its third week. That's "word of mouth" in action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow many things I find via WP:RFPP (see the thread immediately above, they tend to have that much drama!). Anyhow, I might have to add it to Netflix. Haven't heard of it, but I thought about teasing you for being a Sandy Bullock fan. Hi, BTW. tedder (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the theaters now, so I doubt it's on Netflix yet. Its being in the theaters probably accounts for vandalism, though. This has been a pretty good year for Sandra. This is a better film, as films go, than The Proposal was, but that was only supposed to be a light comedy anyway. Sandra's not really my type, but she hits a chord with a lot of viewers. Oddly enough, in The Blind Side, with her hair tinted blonde and puffed-up to match the real person, she kind of looks like Kathy Lee Gifford. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KLG perhaps, but not now- KLG doesn't even look like KLG.. sort of like Kathy Griffin looks like someone doing an impression of Kathy Griffin. Oh- and Netflix lets you put things in the queue basically as soon as it's announced. OBNothing, I mentioned you the other day, great magnet at work since we haven't chatted in a bit. And you know User:Peteforsyth now works for the mothership, right? tedder (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Always glad to be of service. A guy "thoughtlessly" called a band a bunch of fags? Wow, we've come so far since Dire Straits used that term on themselves, mocking the subject of "Money for Nothing" who he got it from. "Thoughtlessly"? I'd like to see the "thoughtful" version of that. Though the retort was pretty funny.
 * Good for Mr. Forsyth. A good face for the organization. Now if only we could get Michael Oher in on it... ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently Pete is sitting very near Mike Godwin. I think I'd be shown the door in about 3 days for loudly using comparisons to Herr Hitler every hour just to see if he'd yell "I'm invoking my law!" tedder (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be feel pretty special to have something named after you, such as a law, a coined word, or a disease. "Hey, Lou, we're sorry you're dying from ALS, but the good news is we're naming it in your honor." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty much a net-negative. I mean, Willie Sutton has Suttons Law, but even that is a push- nobody knew why he did it until he was caught. tedder (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Elbridge Gerry would be thrilled to know that his name is still taken in vain nearly 200 years after he died. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit, you made me learn something. Why, Bugs?! Any others to lay upon me? tedder (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's one of my oldies: Do you know (without looking) why an ampersand (&) is called an ampersand? Also, do you know what punctuation mark a "Nathan Hale" is? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got me on both of those. I generally know stuff that non-wikipedians don't know, but I can't compete against folks like you :-) Want to give me links, or is it just ampersand and Nathan Hale? tedder (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the ampersand article explains that & is a stylized Latin "et" (and) and that "ampersand" is a slurring of "and per se [by itself] and", kind of a 27th letter of the alphabet once commonly seen in "samplers". The other one is an old joke that I doubt has a reference. Nathan Hale's "real" last words were, "I only regret that I have but one * for my country." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'et' thing is at the top, which I remember from my French class days. Nathan Hale? Eh? Was it truly an asterisk? Hmm. tedder (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The abbreviation "etc." was once often rendered "&c." which is perfectly valid and means exactly the same thing, but it fell out of fashion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put ["nathan hale" asterisk] into Google and found plenty of references, most of them suspiciously similar-looking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Har, I get it now. Heh. tedder (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep you hangin'. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * *sigh*, leave it to Bugs.. tedder (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools notable?
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks- sometimes I inspire debate, sometimes outrage, often disgust, occasionally even inspiration. tedder (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One last try ...
I wish to draw your attention to and the good faith proposal I had made there some time ago. There has been no attempt by the other parties on that page to address the WP:NPOV concerns there. I can't resolve the dispute if they refuse to participate in the discussion.

WMC has rejected my proposal, and rather uncivilly at that.

Will you place the template on the page or must I take this to WP:AN? --GoRight (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have my blessing to ad the tag- it's been some time, the issues still aren't resolved. Go ahead and add it, make sure your editsummary explicitly says you've been "blessed" to do so. As far as the actual POV and content concerns, that'll need to be resolved through WP:DR. But you have my okay on the tag. tedder (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do believe there should be a sunset provision on this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On what specifically, SBHB? tedder (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the presence of the tag. Some articles are so inherently controversial that they could be tagged forever; requiring everyone, no matter how entrenched their POV, to agree in those cases is unrealistic. At some point we need to say we agree to disagree. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but that should to happen after it goes through WP:DR. tedder (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you spell out what you think the process should be, and at what point it should end? since i hardly think that this is ArbCom stuff. I've just asked GoRight to gain consensus for an RfC on the issue. DR seems to me to be written primarily with disputes between two editors in mind, which isn't the case here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It may not be ArbCom, but it might need to go to the WP:MEDCAB. Keep in mind there are a handful of these climate-change articles that are hotly contested- they should be lumped together. tedder (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The template has been reverted, see. May I restore it? --GoRight (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I restored it and warned the (new) user. tedder (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --GoRight (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again, before I read this page. All this is just troublemaking by GR. There is no POV dispute, there is only GR's dislike of this and similar articles William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I believe that this is the second example of WMC edit warring over the tag AFTER you explicitly warned him not to.  For easy reference, this was the first.  --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GoRight, just consider it WP:BEANS. He said he removed it before reading the information. WMC, leave the tag. I know you two have a dispute, but don't edit war over it or let it spill to new arenas (like this page). tedder (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was actually about to remove the tag as I see no current, valid, and specific dispute. Verbal chat  19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring over a tag, move to the discussion phase. Verbal chat  19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Verbal, please discuss it at the talk page and ask for GoRight to explain rationale for including the POV tag. tedder (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a message on Verbal's talk page pointing him to where the discussion is located, i.e. . I also noted that the tag itself contains a pointer to where the discussion is located.  May I restore the tag?  --GoRight (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored it. Let me know if it gets removed again. tedder (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make an attempt to consolidate things into the new section that Verbal demanded on his talk page.  This will be located at .  Hopefully this will resolve WMC's issues over "discipline".  --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

or let it spill to new arenas (like this page)... I agree. The discussion should be on the article talk page. I think it was a bad idea for you to give GR "permission" to re-add the tag here, rather than joining in the discussion at the article (the discussion there is so ill-disciplined as to be unreadable, of course, and that could use some action, but that is another matter). Also, please note GR's failure to make sure your editsummary explicitly says you've been "blessed" to do so - no explicit indication of blessing was given; had he done so, people would naturally have objected. This discussion can be closed as soon as you make it clear that you are not going to answer GR's May I restore the tag? with a yes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editsummary didn't say it, but it wasn't a complete lack of an editsummary either. At least it gave pointers here. As far as moderating the issue on the talk page, there are enough editors already. I'm trying not to be involved, and have given alternatives. tedder (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want the discussion not to continue here, you need to help close it down. I tried to do that with This discussion can be closed as soon as you make it clear that you are not going to answer GR's May I restore the tag? with a yes. You've ignored that. For removing the silly tag, no you haven't given alternatives, you've enforced GR's will. You've reverted that tag 3 times already today - anyone else would be getting a 3RR warning (I give you one now, informally). A third revert with an edit summary of Do not edit war with the tag is rather ironic. If you're trying *not* to be involved, then I suggest you simply back out - you are no longer being helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WMC, while you violently want the tag to be removed and to control the discussions, I won't give in to that pressure. I'm quite willing to full-protect the page and/or block users if the tag is removed again, and I'm justified in doing so because I'm not involved, not in spite of not being involved. If you feel this is EW or 3RR or admin abuse or anything else, please take it to WP:ANI. tedder (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tedder, please do not act as a proxy or encourage edit warring. WP:3RR applies to everyone. Verbal chat  20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Sigh.  --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring to your preferred version and then immediately protecting the page? Very very poor behaviour. I expected better. I hope you will reconsider your actions. Doesn't bother me, but it doesn't help the project. Verbal chat  20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll note it isn't my preferred version. I don't believe I've stated my opinion about the article one way or another. I should have protected it a few hours ago, but I was WP:AGF and assuming involved editors could behave and discuss it on the talk page. tedder (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid by ignoring 3RR, despite a warning, and protecting after reverting (also a no-no), you have acted wholly inappropriately. You should revert one of your two actions, probably the revert as it would rectify both issues. Please do so. Verbal chat  22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May ask as what your definition of consensus is? Is it unanimous agreement between parties? We seem to be stuck in a position where 2 editors (w. possibly a 3rd) are holding a dispute alive, despite >9 editors disagreeing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A whale of vandalism
Thanks for the protection of the whaling article. I was wondering if you would consider extending it further than just two weeks? The cause of the vandalism is due to the nature of the topic. While it does indeed peak when whaling is in the news, the controversial issues related to it are ongoing and unlikely to diminish over the course of the next fourteen days. You will see from the history that anon vandalism is ongoing and not restricted to the past few days. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- generally, the protection should lapse, show signs of vandalism/POV/etc as it opens up, and then the next protection period will be longer. That proves that longer protection is necessary. tedder (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From the article history and logs you'll find that the article has been temporarily semi-protected twice in the past. In the 494 edits since the last there have been 97 vandalisms, thereof 88 by anons (edits by anons that have been undone or reverted). The first hit the day after it expired.
 * Instances of vandalism seem unrelated and will thus not be affected by a protection unless they land on the page when it is in effect. A temporary protection will therefore not have any long term effect. Anonymous accounts do contribute to the article, but with over a sixth of all edits being easily preventable vandalisms I think this qualifies for an indefinite semi-protection. --Swift (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are under a bit of a load these days. Please let me know if you're unable to respond at this time so that I can take this to a less embattled admin. --Swift (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Swamped by vandalism!
The List of micronations page is experiencing an unusually high number of attacks today from anon users. Could you up the protection level for at least a day, please? It would be appreciated. Outback the koala (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note it's pretty much all from one IP, who has been blocked. Ping me if it resumes and I'll protect. tedder (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

3rr: Scientific opinion on climate change
You've broken it on Scientific opinion on climate change and then protected the page to win a dispute. This is inappropriate. I've reported you to AN3. -Atmoz (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See a few sections above. I'm aware of WP:3RR and intentionally broke it. I should have protected the page earlier, I assumed editors would quit edit warring over the tag. tedder (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You made 4 reverts. The next highest was 2. Nobody else had more than one. If there was edit warring, you were a major part of it. Admins are not exempt from 3rr. -Atmoz (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tedder, you know better than to "intentionally" breach 3RR and then protect your version of the page. I don't think a block is really necessary, but please do take more care in the future. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Tedder. If your intention was to set up an editing restriction that nobody was allowed to add or remove the POV tag, you should perhaps have asked for consensus at WP:AN for such a restriction. As it is, things are too confusing and the casual observer might think you were edit warring on the tag. I don't object to your full protection of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comments and warning above. I have asked Tedder to reconsider. Verbal chat  22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the other basically uninvolved people trying to keep a lid on this family of disputes, I endorse the result. I started this morning to put a plea for calm and consensus-based editing at that talkpage, but got distracted until after this blew up; meh. It would have been better if you had not done the placement yourself, but a dedicated discussion to address the issues raised by GR has been started on the talkpage. Perhaps they are overbroad and perhaps this can be perceived as a "victory" for one "side", but edit wars over tags are also WP:LAME. As long as discussion remains on topic and moving forward, there is no great harm in letting readers know that our articles could be better. When the consensus of editors there indicates that it should be removed, so mote it be. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton: acknowledged. EdJohnston, thanks, it's nice to have feedback on what SHOULD have been done. Do you have any ideas on how this should be dealt with from this point? 2over0, thanks for your feedback. tedder (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I've raised your protect at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious concerns
I have serious concerns with some of your administrative actions recently. It appears you have edit warred on an article, and then used your tools to protect the version you were edit-warring to include. Please review WP:PROTECT, specifically the part that reads

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."

Additionally, I am concerned that you have used your position as an adminstrator to "bless" specific changes to articles or tags. Please review WP:ADMIN, specifically the part that reads:

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

Finally, please review Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley.

Please confirm that you understand that articles are not to be protected in a "preferred" version, and that adminstrators do not have a special ability to "bless" edits or tags, and that you must make every attempt to avoid "Making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please continue this at the ANI thread. tedder (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

India.Napier
Hi Tedder

I'm looking for your advice on what to do here. One of my friends pointed out this page to me before. It's a page about one of the Neighbours characters. My friend pointed it out because the page title is obviously spelt incorrectly and she was suggesting that we move it to India Napier. When I type in that name it redirects me to the cast list of Neighbours. When I look into the reason for this re-direction I've found that there was previously a page for this character but it was deleted and it was proposed that the page was simply merged with the cast list page for Neighbours. The reason for this was that the character is not notable enough as she is only a 6 month old baby!

My question is, what should I do about this second page that I've found for her? Should I request that it be deleted, and if so how do I do that? --5 albert square (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the AFD. Since notability isn't really established for the article, I'd just edit the page, remove all the content, and replace it with a redirect to the Neighbours page. Okay? tedder (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Tedder, done that now :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note
Just want to say that I have sympathy for you in how you got sucked into all this. I think your intentions were (are) good. I could add some background but think I'll just leave it at that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks SBHB. I really appreciate that. tedder (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chase Masterson protection
I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. I added information from a highly reliable source to the article, a source that's recently become available through Google Books. Cubert reverted it with a phony explanation and a personal attack, then violated 3RR editing though an IP. As the diffs I provided should make clear, dialogue with this serial vandal is futile. And you then protected his version of the article. We're dealing with an editor who has a burn on for me because I've repeatedly caught him violating policy (note that earlier today I caught him uploading a non-free image with an obviously invalid fair use rationale) and has no interest in legitimate editing. I have more than 15,000 edits; a solid record of constructive editing, and have become a repeated target of vandals like this editor. It's very discouraging to find an admin siding with him without investigating. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I personally agree that you are correct. I'm asking for you to get the source reviewed at WP:RSN, which should be trivial. Why do you imply I'm siding with the vandal? tedder (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the RPP post was a crude and transparently false personal attack, and because the source involved is about as reputable as sources come; as I pointed out, it's from the leading publisher of reference works in the US. There's no good faith issue here. And you let him get away with an obvious 3RR violation by hiding behind an IP. And take a look at what's begun happening to my talk and user pages moments after your action. I've been targeted by vandals for some time, Cubert is one of them, and you've just put me back in a free-fire zone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to draw the AGF line on my part, no matter what Cubert's intent was. RFPP isn't the place to confirm/deny socking or to settle disputes. As I said, just drop a line past RSN, get confirmation, and I'll happily defend the changes against edit warring/deletion/socking as much as necessary. Otherwise? It's a generic content dispute. tedder (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of what? Are really saying that we need to go to RSN over a claim that Google Books isn't a reliable source for the contents of the books it presents? The justification for the last revert was that Google Books is unreliable because it displays "A supposed photocopy of a shred of a book." That's utterly ridiculous, and if that sort of claim has to be argued on talk than you're leaving the vandals in charge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Photocopy" is definitely bogus. But if you want me to move the article from WP:WRONG, just jump through the hoops.


 * BTW, you probably saw, I protected your userpage for a month, and your talk page for 6 hours. Let me know if you don't want that done- I took your comment here as request enough, given the silly attacks. tedder (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the prompt page protection. I've posted to RSN, although rather unhappily. Removing sourced content with an edit summary that reads simply "nope," followed by a personal attack on an editor with whom one disagrees, is not, to my mind, conduct that should be met with anything less than a metaphorical rap across the knuckles, and there are standard templates terming such conduct inappropriate behavior.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just when you unwatched it.
I guess they didn't waste any time after you unwatched it:. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Murphy's law. If there are one or two more blankings of that section, I should probably semi-protect it. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll watch it for a bit longer. tedder (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks about my user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Branning
Hi

Just a quick note to say thanks for locking this page meantime. I've now warned two editors about the 3RR rule and set up a discussion at Talk: Lauren Branning. Everyone who makes regular edits to the article has been invited to join in. Thanks again --5 albert square (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 5A! Let me know if I can help further. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jody Trautwein

 * (moved to awards) tedder (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Scientific opinion on climate change
As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks, Verbal chat  10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it to the ANI thread, please. tedder (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realise you broke two rules, as I don't think I saw that anywhere. Will you be reviewing your actions or will you be taking no further action in regards to this specific issue? Verbal</b> chat  18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be doing whatever is prescribed at ANI. So far the thread has just been continued bickering by the usual suspects, not a consensus among administrators. tedder (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I reposted the question there as you asked, but now I'm unsure of one thing. Do you acknowledge you were error (3RR and PROTECT wise)? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat

Ironically, it seems, I as one of the people you actually BLOCKED in all this wish to thank you for your attempts to foster a neutral and collaborative environment, whereas those whom you went out of your way to WP:AGF for are clamoring for your head. Do not take offense, though, this is typical for the GW pages which is why so many admins shy away from the fray. You are to be commended to being willing to at least dip a toe in. --GoRight (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't clamoured for anyone's head. What I'm asking for is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and some action to rectify that. Washing ones hands does not solve anything. If Tedder had not broken two basic rules (one for all editors, one for admins), then we wouldn't be in this situation. Other than this issue I think Tedder is an excellent admin. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic. He's not the first well-meaning admin to have been bamboozled by GoRight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am too, which is why I can't understand the lack of mia culpa in this instance. Tedder, on the ANI thread I have invited you to review your own actions, especially in relation to 3RR and PROTECT policies. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  23:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you may have missed the above request in the recent edits to this page, so applying a bump. Sorry if you already saw. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  23:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page...
You said on ANI FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. This isn't true. You've asked for your protection to be reviewed. You said on that admins page can you take a look at my protection of Scientific opinion on climate change; B himself has said Ok now please listen to what I am actually saying: my only role in this is reviewing/taking over the protection.

Please correct yourself at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ tedder (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the problem remains: no admin has reviewed your addition of the tags. I ask you to invite an admin to review your addition of the tags (this was effectively an admin action, and therefore subject to admin review). Perhaps not Beeblebrox - he seems to have become somewhat emotional about thse issue William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already invited admins to review it. tedder (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it hasn't happened. However *you* have invited an admin to review your prot (subsequent to that discussion starting, so you cannot refer to that discussion as the answer). Why don't *you* invite an admin to review your tagging? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I only asked for the prot to be reviewed because it was the immediate issue. I'm not going to admin-shop outside of the ANI thread. The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling- it's unfortunate that the bickering has spilled over from the various articles into other namespaces. tedder (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lack of admin comment *is* rather telling - unlike most such reports, there isn't any sign of admins saying "yes you did the right thing". You are wrong to assert that the prot was the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The protection was the pressing issue. The tag-and-prot is being dealt with at ANI. Please discontinue ranting and stirring up the issue on my page. The ANI thread should be enough. tedder (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree; but per you request I'll stop editing here. ANI: William M. Connolley (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I'm not asking you to never come to my talk page, my real goal is to centralize this discussion. It seems like it's spilled over into many arenas. tedder (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect and ignore the kinds of accusations ATren and his like make as fact, but I do not expect them to be endorsed by an admin. I hope you will reconsider this quickly, and speak in your own words. Please stop making this situation worse for yourself. Please strike or remove your endorsement. I say this out of surprise and shock - I still think you are a good admin, but this is not the way to deal with valid criticism. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There have already been too many words said about this. There's not much unique to be said about it. Please, pile on at the ANI thread, not here. tedder (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of one of your images
Hello. I used your image of the Boardman Coal Plant by linking it to the Boardman Coal Plant article I just created. Is that okay? I'm kind of new to this. I hope it won't be a problem. Cheers! TimeClock871 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That article needed to be created, you did a good job at it, it seems. Welcome. I assume you are an Oregonian? tedder (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I live in Oregon (the portland metro area). I've used Wikipedia for a long time (as a reader) and I've recently begun editing. TimeClock871 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Me too- downtown PDX, actually. There's a very lively group of Oregon editors, centered around WikiProject Oregon and the talk page. You might enjoy joining us there, and if you have editing questions, feel free to ask me. tedder (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I joined WikiProject Oregon recently, it's a great project! I'll try to add what I can. Thanks for the assistance. TimeClock871 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your protection at Scientology status by country. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep! tedder (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tedder, please have a another look at the talk page. I've linked the relevant source and a translation of it; the edit we currently have in the article really doesn't make sense, from a WP:V point of view. Cheers, -- JN 466  23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes having the wrong version of the page helps give incentive to change it- see WP:WRONG. With that small of a consensus, it needs to wait a day or two so it's clear the the edit is supported. It won't hurt to let it sit in the current state for a couple days. tedder (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's no big deal; but basically, we have had the correct wording in that sentence, accurately reflecting a good source, for at least a year ; then an editor comes, changes the text so it says the opposite, but leaving the existing citation in place, and bingo, the encyclopedia is improved. ;) -- JN 466  02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. But if I change it now, I'm just continuing the conflict. If we wait until the consensus is a little clearer, it's very easy to justify. tedder (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please wait for my long answer about racism.Wispanow (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

re your block of User talk:68.114.130.234
I took a look at this and, while I can see harsh comments and the unsummarized edit (should have been summarized, but on the other hand he did explain it on the talk page), I don't see much justifying a week-long block, certainly not for a first offense. There's been no direct personal attack, there's been no edit warring.. a week seems excessive. I say drop it to 24 hours as a cooling off period for everyone. Do you mind if I do this? --Golbez (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fine with me- especially if you'll leave a note for the IP to be very aware of WP:CIVIL. tedder (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooling off: so noted. At the same time, I hope that it is understandable that I am entitled to feel sensitive about what has been unjustifiably directed at me for what is now some weeks. Tedder, in that regard I note this:. I feel as though that leaves a comment directed at me (that I don't care about facts) just hanging there. Could you consider, please, instead removing the entirety of that thread, from where the other IP (24...) said "Wow, that's really rude."? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, this just happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to let some of that roll off, but it's probably worth collapsing some of the random comments on the talk page. I didn't want to remove it further, because it is at least marginally related to the article. tedder (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm trying, thanks. I would not feel right about taking it on myself to collapse anything on the talk page, as there would be the appearance/reality of me having a COI. If you could feel able to do it, or ask someone else to, I'd be grateful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe take it to WP:WQA and see if someone uninvolved will figure out how to clean it up without losing the relevant content? As the above drama shows, I'm a little reluctant to edit on one side of a polarizing issue right now.. tedder (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do that. I reverted that edit I linked above, the post by Yzak Jule on TJRC's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack, 67.175.201.29
Excuse me, but telling a person he can't use the phrase "personal attack" to protect him from all criticism is not the same thing as making a personal attack myself. I don't quite understand what's going on here, but I do think it's contradictory to the stated ideals of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.201.29 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue is civility. Don't turn the talk page into a battleground for your grudge against an editor. tedder (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Pravesh Rana protection
Hello. You semi-protected Pravesh Rana, but it seems you might have missed a step in your admin actions, as a bot removed the protection template for being used on a non-protected page.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I miss a step about once every 10 protects I do. Sorry 'bout that. tedder (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. No harm done!    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion in art, the sequel
Thanks for the semi-p. I reverted 2 different IPs content blanking, and User:Yzak Jule has posted a on my talkpage. Not that I'm mentioning the word SOCK mind:). You know, I can understand people being enraged about the history of their nation, but this..... Ah, well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Yzak has also declared me to be evil (I think). Don't forget this conversation about how this isn't a personal attack. It's a lot of energy these people are spending to not discuss the issue. Good times. Is it a full moon? tedder (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the wind is in the east :) All the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not evil, you've just shown a pattern of poor judgment, in my opinion, when you intervene in edit wars. Glad to see both of you are taking this issue seriously, though.Yzak Jule (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I got a template too! Does it count as a barnstar? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The opposition
Hi Tedder, I have requested protection for the opposition leader now David Cameron repeated IP vandalism in the run up to an election, could you please give him the same protection as you gave Gordon Brown. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- looks like already protected Cameron. Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I'm going to be away for a while so.... <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Kiwiteen123 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks for your help and support this year, you are one of the best admins I have found. I look forward to coming across you again next year. Kiwiteen123 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Joseph Schlessinger page - return of blocked user?
A new editor (ScienceAndTruth) has recently re-introduced things to the Schlessinger page that previously led to the blocking of TrutherTruther, including defamatory links and statements that led to earlier editing disputes. I have edited back to a non-defamatory state, which I hope is appropriate, but I wonder whether these could be the same person?Hillhealth (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest filing a WP:SPI. tedder (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Windward Reports
I did as you requested and created a suggested page in my user space and posted it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Windward_Reports for feedback. It's been up there for several days with no feedback so I am guessing no one has any suggestions for it.

Does the proposed page meet the wikipedia guidelines for notability & being factual? If so, can you take it live?

thanks - dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThi808 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi David- that article does appear to meet the standards, or is at least close enough that it needs to go through WP:AFD instead of being eligible for WP:SPEEDY. I'll unprotect the page and move it live. You work for Windward, I assume? If so, please state the COI, preferably at Talk:Windward Reports to make it very clear (per the recommendation at WP:COI). tedder (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Yes I have a COI and will list it there. I stepped up because past attempts were by customers and ex-interns and they were too "enthusiastic." I write a lot so I felt I could do a better job of creating an evenhanded page. Interesting how sometimes it works that way. I will post this on the talk page.


 * And again, thank you very much & Happy Holidays - dave DavidThi808 (talk) 9:53, 14 December 2009 (MST)
 * I see that, and thanks. I'm of mind that most people have COI over articles they are interested in, it's just they don't admit it. Good job on the article, and please stay active here. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

El-Shaddai Christian School
Hi, I blanked the talk page for El-Shaddai Christian School which you undid, I blanked it because that page (El-Shaddai Christian School) is a Redirect page, and there is already a talk page on the correct page Talk:Colegio Cristiano El-Shaddai, and since there cannot be two talk pages about the same article I blanked it, could you blank it this time? mijotoba (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mijotoba. Since there was an AFD associated, it's worth preserving the talk page to point to the AFD. The projects may or may not be worthwhile- it depends on the project. Does that make sense? tedder (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bling!

 * Thanks Ged I appreciate it. tedder (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenny G
Hi, I think you may have forgotten to protect Kenny G as you mentioned here and only put the protection template as I noticed it was removed by DumbBOT. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fairly commonly bork those. Fixed now! tedder (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't make me take that barnstar away! :p Ged  UK  12:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! Hope you like your WP:BEANS for dinner. tedder (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have given you a kitten...
kitten... but I'm afraid of MC Hammer. For the longest tl;dr EVAH. Congrats on having it Resolved. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about. I don't want to get accused of collusion or something. @_@ Katr67 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yeah, pretty silly WikiDrama. Thanks. I'm tempted to create a section on my userpage to track that sort of thing. tedder (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: 58.173.18.123
I was in rush, glanced through their talk, noticed your anonblock message and thought is Ok, but I missed the point that it was your signature and 1 month term there. Thanks for reminding, left now. Another thing - that block is borderline - activity is low, but not constructive - non-evident vandalism ("good-faith" (?) addition of incorrect information), thus feel free to reblock. Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just usually look at the talk page diff to see why an IP was blocked, but there was no talk page diff. Thought a little prodding wouldn't hrut :-) IP blocks are always hard. tedder (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chilean people
Hello, I want ot thank you for having protected Chilean people against vandalism. However this page is permanently under attack from vandals that remove sourced content and some subtle edits such as replacing images of ameriand people for one of blond Chilean girls or putting "just an extra" immigrant photo in the article. Would you mind to keep and eye on Chilean people and Demographics of Chile? Dentren |  Ta lk  12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- you're welcome. I have an abundance of articles on my watchlist, but if it needs protection again, bring it back to WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry about protection requests, I misunderstood the policy. Thanks for the clarification - I'll come back if anything kicks off Mycroft (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's likely the enthusiasm will turn abusive, but it's better to wait until it happens. tedder (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Louis Hayward page vandalism
I responded to your question regarding my request for protection for the Louis Hayward page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it, as it was already archived. The thing is, it could be not actually vandalism. It's important to assume good faith and presume the reference is valid, it's just not well-cited. However, it is in violation of WP:BLP and should be removed aggressively under that policy. You are immune from WP:3RR if removing them for vandalism or BLP- do so, but make sure to use WP:UTM on the IP page, and it wouldn't hurt to have some sort of discussion on the article talk page. tedder (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, as an admin could you please move the following pages to the mainspace I think they are ready:
 * Yoest, Rafferty, Jabri

Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason for admin intervention there- the pages don't exist and they aren't protected. You shouldn't have a problem moving them. tedder (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to give you extra work. For some reason I thought admins had to move articles from userspace to mainspace. I moved them; I hope I did it right. Can you tell me how to get rid of the original userpages. Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! When you move them, there's a box you can uncheck called "leave the original behind". IIRC that unchecking that will cause it to be deleted, but I'm not sure (and can't test it now that I'm an admin!). It's too late for that now, but you can ask for pages in your userspace to be deleted by adding  to the page. Or, you can ask your absolute favorite admin. I'm going to go delete them now. tedder (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting reading
Thanks again for your help, which is deeply appreciated. For your reading pleasure (?), there is interesting background at 4chan and Yzak Joule. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about the yzak article. What's the connection between Yzak/anime/crucifixion and 4chan? tedder (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; I was just noting where he got his user name. I suspect that if one wanted to do some digging into the unsavory (I don't), there was probably some 4chan noise about that particular anime, but I'm just guessing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. It's certainly a safe bet they are related and all of that. Certainly I understand the Yzak-Aspergers connection now and don't feel so guilty about the big userpage warning. tedder (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From where I sit, if there's anyone who should feel guilty, it isn't you. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: December 2009
But by refusing to answer any of the comments by editors, regardless of whether they violated policy by using personal attacks or not, that's exactly what he is doing. They may be uncivil and unregistered, but that doesn't mean the points they bring up are invalid. Furthermore, the willful ignorance shown by you and others involved towards policy violations on the part of User:Tryptofish is staggering and completely uncalled for. Yzak Jule (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Handle them at the places I've recommended several times. And it's interesting that you accuse others of harassment- even quoting policy that says "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person". Note the emphasis I've added. In any case, please take your objections to the proper place rather than continuing to be disruptive. I'm tiring of your continual disruption. tedder (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear from the thread above this one who is being harassed (cool personal attack, too), but based on your behavior at Crucifixion in Art and the AN/I thread about you, you clearly aren't interested in the truth or applying policy to your own actions. And if your talk page isn't the proper place to talk to you, where should I go, then? Yzak Jule (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use the avenues suggested to talk about me all you'd like. I don't believe I've told you to stay off my talk page. However, the combination of article talk behavior, continually removing warnings from your talk page and implying a personal attack, and not dropping the stick point to you being a high-functioning troll. I've lost patience to treat you with good faith. It's ironic that you remove everything from your talk page, yet accuse me of not handling issues. tedder (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only warnings I remove from my talkpage are those I feel have been issued in bad faith. I also find it ironic that I'm the one accused of not dropping the stick by doing a simple talkpage revert since you're deleting pretty much every issue people have with the page's status, while Tryptofish continues to act incivily, stalk myself and others, vandalize tangentially related pages , and generally waste the time of other editors and admins  and you have no problem with that.Yzak Jule (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DNFTT. Yzak has plenty of places to post proof of these accusations. tedder (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but I looked at those links, and, not surprisingly, there's nothing there. (And it's pretty funny to have called your briefly-deleted comment to me a personal attack.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Barney Bunch
Hi, I noticed you wondered what the Barney Bunch is, when I asked about protecting The Drew Carey Show. The Barney Bunch is a group of Internet trolls who make fun of TV characters, corporate mascots, and celebrities, calling them gay and saying disgusting or nonsense things about them. I'm a member but I don't vandalize Wikipedia; I just make/watch videos. For more info, just search the Wikipedia Help and Project Pages for "Barney Bunch" and "Drew Pickles". MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, gotcha. So this is part of the same troll, I'm guessing. tedder (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I at least have a grasp on Barney Bunch now- I looked for them on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is blacklisted here (for good reason!). tedder (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. If you want to learn even more about them you could watch one of their "swell" (why they're obsessed with that word, I don't know) videos. Personally, I think they're funny (I actually made that video!). But I agree, Wikipedia is NOT the place for that sort of humor. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ruby Phoenix
User talk:Ruby Phoenix is asking for an unblock, and is saying all of the right things in their request. What say you? -- Jayron  32  21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and I have no problem with it. I just didn't want to unblock unless another admin agreed, of course. tedder (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Branning
Hi Tedder

You protected this page a week ago because of excessive vandalism, I believe that the protection is due to expire later on tonight. The page has been relatively stable for the past week, one of the admin has found out that the character returns to EastEnders for one episode on Christmas Day and then leaves again temporarily so it does look as if this is a showturn lol! The page will always be on my watchlist so I'll report again if there's further trouble.

Can we please have the page unlocked? --5 albert square (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time you posted this and now, the page protection expired. Sorry, I was out riding my moto today tedder (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye?
Heya. Hope you're well. I've noticed your recent notes on MariAna Mimi's talk page. I'll be going on holiday Monday for a week, thus if you can keep an eye on any issues that'd be lovely. Yesterday I gave them a final warning about disruption by reverting, civility, and ownership. Further, the editor was given an editing restriction by me on one of the article's they edit. It's all in the link I gave you above. Also today I noted 15+ various warnings over time covering their history of disruption. Thanks for any assistance. Cheers, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  10:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll watch the user. I have hope that the editor can come around and be productive. We'll see. tedder (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Please don't make any long distance calls, or eat all the Doritos :-) -- <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA  <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This Is War
Hey, would you be able to check out This Is War? Just about every edit I've been doing has been reverted by a bias, ignorant and arrogant editor who claims quoting a source is copyright violation, negative reviews shouldn't be present, and just reverts and reverts with absolutely no regard for the continuous messages which are placed explaining things to him/her. A protection was placed on the page, though it seems that now that has finished, the user hasn't bothered to login and is using their IP. I don't know how else I can communicate across the point to them, I've tried but please takeover! Any help would be appreciated, thanks. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Handled and watching the article. Please be careful not to cross the WP:CIVIL line yourself- I'd encourage you to refactor your message at Talk:This Is War. tedder (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MarcellusWallace1
You may wish to reconsider the block placed on this user, he is apparently a sockpuppet of User:JI Hawkins posting hoaxes about Col. Sanders faking his death. He acutally placed a sock tag on a legitimate user's page placing his master account JI Hawkins. <font color="Brown">Momo san Gespräch 05:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, didn't catch the self-identification. tedder (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Rushdi
There is a need to add some authentic information in this articlle because Ahmed Rushdi is not only a national figure of Pakistan but also a famous singer of subcontinent.There is a lot of info yet to be added in this article.So its a request to unprotect this in order to give chance to improve above mentioned article.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.11.174 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest post reliably-sourced changes to the talk page for proposal. tedder (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion needs your input
See here. -- Jayron  32  02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the pointer. tedder (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Team Oregon

 * done. tedder (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen X!'s white horse?
It's a beauty. :-) (Created 24 minutes after the archiving due to Ryulong's actions ... to be addressed.) Best wishes for always placing your bets on the right horse. ;-) Cheers, and happy holidays whatever color your favorite horse may be. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw it. I'm a fan of glue, not horses. tedder (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent retort. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
I noticed that 3/4 of your edits have to do with some type of reverting. Is this a second-hand account of another user that is meant only for reverting ? If it is, I think the account in question should probably be blocked. ADM (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would being an RC patroller mean this is a sock? tedder (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's an RC patroller, I think he's something else. ADM (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw your reply. I'm following over there. tedder (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert...
...though it's always nice when the vandals let you know you're doing your job well.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a compliment of sorts. It's always nice to know you have WP:TPS, eh? tedder (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure is.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[]
I'm not quite sure why, but has removed hundreds of WPbox templates... maybe because it is currently up for deletion? <font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5   20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, well, that might explain it. It's just annoying to have NO context or justification on the removal. tedder (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Livie :-) tedder (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Muphry's law
Omigod! Brilliant. I never heard of this before, thanks! Katr67 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. It was fairly recently that I heard about it. I love it too. tedder (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Theatre (Portland)
I was working on John Hamrick (a movie theater business mogul), because an architect I was working on designed his house, or maybe was just mentioned somewhere. Oh actually it was because he owned the Blue Mouse theaters, and I was working on one that article because an architect I was writing about designed one of them and then that led me to Hamrick, and that led me to the "Theatres" that Hamrick ran, and by extension to the Oriental I think (unless Hamrick ran that one too). It seems very notable and interesting. Tragic to lose those cool theaters. There are a whole bunch of old ones in downtown LA in an area that is now mostly Central American immigrants (as best I can tell) with some condo redevelopment going on. The history of cinema and all is quite interesting I think. Leads into television and so much of our culture. That theater, or theatre if you prefer (and I guess that's how it used to be spelled), sounds really wonderful. Maybe Durova or someone can dig up some old photos of it. Anyway, let me know if you have any questions. I kind of threw that article together so it's very reliant on one source, which isn't ideal, even though I used a lot of quotation marks. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting. Yeah, enough quotation marks proves notability :-) Obviously, I'm in WP:WPOR, which is why I saw it. I may sift through the LOC images of the theater and post some, but I'm a little scared unsure of if they are PD. tedder (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People always seems to think things torn down or no longer in existence are no longer notable. But that theatre seems very notable to me. Did you read the descriptions of the interior? How fun. :) Anyway, I think I got sidetracked on that project indirectly from Frederick Heath (architect) and some other architects in the Northwest (Ambrose J. Russell and Silas Nelsen) that I was working on. Heath turned out to be very notable. Nelsen less so, but still worth including I think. I haven't pinned down all the details, and it occured near his death, but I believe the sources establish that Heath designed the Greek Theater (Los Angeles) in Griffith Park which gives him big city notability. :) But the architecture up in Tacoma is pretty interesting. He did some cool bowl stadiums for schools also. I forget if he had any big Oregon projects, he was mostly up in Washington. Are you a Duck fan? Probably a Beaver I guess. Oh well. Still you have to pull for the home teams against outsiders. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This source has some good content and some photographs: ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, trolled through that. Most of it seems to summarize/restate the results of the HABS/HAER source, and that's certainly where most or all of the photos are from. And I'm not a Beaver or Duck fan. I'm not much into college sports, and I'm not entirely an Oregon native (though I'm not NOT a native, either!). And I'm annoyed of the "old=useless" attitude that exists now (and probably existed more in the 70s). Note Keller Auditorium was remodeled in the late 60s to remove any features, which is why the city leased "our" Oriental for a while. I need to dig out some photos of Keller from before then. It's a few blocks away from me, and it's always sad to see that brutalist/functional look. tedder (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Still need to look through all of that, I got distracted with finding photos at the Library of Congress, ended up looking for MANY photos of Oregon there. Doh! Anyhow, for the two buildings you created (that I saw), I've uploaded some batches: Oriental Theatre, Weatherly Building. You'll probably be able to choose the best of those better than I could. tedder (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The interior shots of the Oriental look fantastic. I don't know what any of that has to do with seeing movies, but it seems very cool. I'm dubious of the caption on the second Weatherly building photo. That looks distinctly like an image of the buildings AFTER facade work was mostly completed. (The architectural savagery of the 1960s and 70s is a wonder to behold). Cool images though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: architectural savagery--Oh, you've been to downtown Eugene, Oregon, then? ;) I believe the phrase an actual Eugene architect used was "butt ugly". Katr67 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But actually I am mistaken about the slide photo. It was taken before the building was completed and before the brick and terra cotta facade was added. Which makes sense, if you presume that modern architecture strips out adornments that are non- functional. The caption mentioning 1969 confused me. That's just when it was copied into the Building Project files I believe. Maybe a side by side photo layout would be useful? The building is still under construction in both images.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "slide photo"? In any case, the Weatherly looks different than it does now, they apparently stripped quite a bit of the corner cladding and tried to modernize it. tedder (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I finished blasting through sources. I said it was four hours of work at about 10:30. Now that it's 1:30am, .. damn. I'm done, and poked Durova to see if she'd clean up some of those images, as I can't do that. Want to take it to DYK? tedder (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ...that the architectural decorations of the Oriental Theatre (Portland) imitated the style of Cambodian temple architecture and included a huge stylized face, proscenium arch, and walls adorned with life-sized plaster elephants, apes, fishes, and mythological creatures?


 * ...that the Weatherly building in Portland, Oregon was built by an ice cream businessman? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(left we go) Alternate DYK pic for the Oriental is at left. It's as good as I can do. Strangely, I couldn't even figure out how to do it in Gimp, so I used Picasa. I'm really not a visual-arts type of guy. An alternate would be to talk about the weight of the chandalier (2000lbs) and that 5400 lights are used in the chandelier and cove. Thoughts? tedder (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're willing to put up the DYKs I'm happy to leave it up to you. The facade of the building and the chandelier photo with your hook are pretty good. I'm not really sure. Will any of the other Oriental Theatre photos play small?


 * Also, what's going on with Deschutes County. I thought you and Katr had Oregon covered. :) Trinity Episcopal Church (Bend, Oregon), B. A. and Ruth Stover House, and Thomas McCann House from National Register of Historic Places listings in Deschutes County, Oregon don't have articles. But I want photos and articles because they were designed by architects I'm writing about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! We have a lot more folks in the Willamette Valley, not so much over in the real estate bubble. That's too bad, actually. I try to make a couple trips over there for photos in the summer, but not so much this time of year. And I've never done building articles before- I think Katr is best at places (towns/cities), but I might be wrong on that. And User:PeteForsyth, the new californicator, is good at people articles. I'm leaving out about five top-notch contributors intentionally.. tedder (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I've resized the photos.. yeah, the chandelier thing might work best. I kinda like the borders on the Weatherly (building), it has that raw look. tedder (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cleaned up the chandelier in LR2, submitted for DYK. Hopefully I can work on the next-door building now. tedder (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, the theater building is actually quite nice, and looks well designed with the corner stones. I like the van in front of it also. I think I was influenced by the descriptions of the buildings exterior as being staid, but I think those opinions are wrong and were just trying to make a contrast with the interior. It was actually quite a striking and stately facade. Thanks for doing the DYK noms. People are still moving out to Bend? Interesting. One of them needs to take some photos. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did a great job cleaning up the photo. No wonder it seems so much better looking now! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can do basic color, straightening, and cropping. So about 0.01 Durova. Just talked to an 80 year old relative today, who remembers being in that theater. Small world, I guess. tedder (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

IP is pushing POV
Hi Tedder.. An IP is pushing POV at Ghurids article.. We have been through the origin of Ghorids and after a LONG discussion, we came to a consensus that we will use the term "Iranian" in the introduction.. However, the IP keeps on adding that they were Persians and Tajiks.. I don't want to waste more time and repeat the same thing over and over again and neither do I want to break the 3RR rule.. You had previously protected the page.. I was wondering if you can take a look and semi-protect the page once again.. Thank you  (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
 * He is also doing the same thing at Bagrami District and insulting people at its talk page Talk:Bagrami District.. It looks like he/she is a sock-puppet of one of the existence members or active IPs.. He/She is editing the same controversial issues which we have been over (NPS tribal maps as a source, Ghurids being Tajik etc..).   (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
 * The last edit I see from the IP is "21:09, 22 December 2009". The talkpage warnings are after that. Let me know if there are more postings or another IP involved. tedder (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is using multiple IPs. These are his/her recent edits .  (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
 * You probably need to take that to the relevant project(s), WP:DR, or WP:ANI; I don't really understand the edits to know immediately if they are vandalism or POV or what. tedder (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BRFA
I saw you had drafted a BRFA for removing {R uncategorised}, may I suggest you make it generic to any template listed in the "Orphan these" section of TfD? It will be more long term value, and is unlikly to be opposed. (I may put in a generic BRFA along those lines too.) Rich Farmbrough, 07:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
 * It's pretty close to being generic- a couple constants could be pulled out and made into command-line arguments, but I'm not sure the gain, as it isn't something I'd ever want to give access to from a commandline. It's likely to cause a lot of damage, real quick if that happened. Are you saying I should make the bot app generic, not making the code generic? Maybe I should do that after it gets used a second or third time, as my credibility as a botter would be better. tedder (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the application. If BAG trusts you to remove one template, it will trust you to remove others.  I suggest you file the BRFA sooner rather than later, BAG is a little slow at the moment - looks like that template has been done, checking the discussion page. Rich Farmbrough, 08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Circus Tour title
Hey, i'm currently trying to make The Circus Starring: Britney Spears reach GA criteria. I saw numerous press releases from AEG, Spears' official website and concert reviews where the colon is not mentioned. Could you change the page to The Circus Starring Britney Spears? Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- I can move it (really, by deleting the other page first), but it'd be better to have more talkpage discussion than just two editors saying "huh, where is that from?". Maybe post the best few sources you have and then let it sit for a couple days to ensure there is no issues? Then you can use Template:Db-move. Thx. tedder (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

personal attack?
sorry I did not and do not intend to attack any one, but I do respond the other editors with their own level of civility. I have no other choice to assume that he is ignorant If he calls me, and a whole people, uncivilized, underdeveloped, ignorant etc... --Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. If you can't handle discussions and even bad-faith comments of others, drop the stick and walk way. Comments such as "I see you as a bitter, angry person. Probably felt rejected due to your sexual orientation. I also do not believe that you have Kartvelian genes." cannot in any way be interpreted as civil. Read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and don't post anything like it again.


 * While we are chatting, why does your user talk page redirect to User talk:Kamranmirza? tedder (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kmranmirza is my account. I tried to change my username from Babakexorramdin to Kamranmirza but was not successful.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruling on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17#Template:Unreferenced_WP ?
Hi Tedder, I know you to be an impartial administrator, and since you have zero involvement in Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17, I was wondering if you'd be willing to come in and make a decision on keeping or deleting the template. Its a pretty simple case, just a couple statements. Nobody new has commented since the day it was opened, and its been seven days now, so could you come in and rule on this? While the template itself is not too contentious, it is part of a much larger debate that's been going on for quite some time, and it will help move things along to know if it will be kept or deleted. Thanks! ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 04:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. I don't have any experience closing TfDs, so I think I'll pass. But- thanks! It's nice to know I'm thought of in some semi-positive manner. tedder (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?
Where did I violate that policy? I did not add any commentary or opinion into that article, or even changed the content of the article. I just removed a link which I deemed inapropriate per this, surely there is nothing wrong with that? Routerone (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The commentary you placed was in the editsummary, which made it very clear your intent. tedder (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
May your stocking be stuffed with barnstars and DYKs. Finetooth (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I appreciate the Holiday wish, since my religion belives in Holidays strongly. tedder (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas motorcycle tale ...
"Once upon a time I owned a motorcycle. One night I went to a bar and enjoyed some gin. At some point I got on motorcycle and took a back road ... on my way to a "girlfriend's" house. Half-way there... up ahead of me ... there was a car stopped at the stop sign ... which few ever stop for long at, since there is no traffic there. I was thinking about why that car wasn't moving on, when I realized (remember the gin?) that I had not begun applying the brakes as I should have. Road was paved, but there was gravel down at intersection ... which when I laid the bike down to slide ... took skin off long stretch of hip. Got up. Went on across intersection.... Half the [remaining] way to said girlfriend's house ... I forgot there was a curve where there was one .. and ran out of the road ... holding helmet as I slid to absorb blow if I hit a tree while sliding through the grass. (skip over uneventful trip to house where no one was home) Returning the same road ... ran off the road at the same curve I ran off coming. No further damage .. but went home slowly on motorcycle. Next day ... tried unique new cure for skinned hip wounds - sun tan lamp. Burned wounded hip. Sold motorcycle. End of tale. # # #"

Happy holidays and best wishes for new year ... And perhaps someone will give you steel-plated leathers. :-) (Much better present than glue of any kind.) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. I did have a bit of a hip wound from my big 'off' this year, but no worries. Other than that, don't tell my Team Oregon students. tedder (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (You'd think I'd remember the "poem" code. Much better, I was going to tell you to collapse it. :-) Hips and motorcycles have their moments. Glad we still have all four. :-) Thanks for the detail. I'll remember "Team Oregon" ... and you can remember that idiot who treated a skinned hip with a sun lamp. lol OAO Proofreader77 (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cottage grove
Please refrain from from editing know public facts from the page it is very disruptive and unconstructive. Thanks for your support in the WIKI community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.28.90 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. You've been asked to explain your edits to Cottage Grove, Oregon and haven't done so. Please explain your edits or discontinue the edits. I'm trying to assume good faith. tedder (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Zoklet
Is Zoklet capable of becoming a wikipedia page? Kundalinirise (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- at first glance, probably not. But go ahead and read WP:YFA and WP:INTERNET. Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Merry Christmas, Tedder! Don't y'all celebrate Xmas out in the Northwest? Or is the kitchen cleaned already and everyone else gone to bed? Hope you enjoyed, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My people celebrate Holiday, but yeah- I spent time with family yesterday and this morning, Mrs. Tedder is still off visiting family, so I'm poking around here. Of course, what are you doing here? tedder (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the kitchen is clean, and everyone else has gone to bed! I'm sitting on my butt after a day of cooking and cleaning. I got a shirt and a pair of pants, and some guitar picks. My family aren't Pastafarians, so we had a big piece of dead animal and all that. What did you get? And any good news for Mrs. Tedder from the admissions offices? Drmies (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Penguins
Hi Tedder, Sorry about the wrong code, I just used db-attack because I knew it would blank the rubbish! Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. No worries. Cheers, tedder (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Countersteering
With your admin hat on can you take a look at Countersteering and Opposite lock, which have both been moved (controversially IMHO) without discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, per the talkpage discussion. Thanks for the heads-up. tedder (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks again. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Quack quack. tedder (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

as requested: confirmed media report of Vic Chesnutt death
Just checking in to let you know - as requested in the discussion for the Vic Chesnutt page - that there SEEMS to be credible confirmation of Chesnutt's death at the NYT as of about half an hour ago. Link is here: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/vic-chesnutt-singer-dies/  Worth updating the Vic Chesnutt page over it? Jfarber (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks like a RS to me- and looks like User:Omarcheeseboro has put it in. Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vic Chesnutt died? Crap. Katr67 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know who he was until it came up on WP:RFPP. Basically, it was rumored, then officially denied, then confirmed. BLP and all that. tedder (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Applegate, Oregon
Though I'm sure the house belonged to one of the Applegate Applegates, looks like it was in Jacksonville, not Applegate, which does happen to have a Jacksonville mailing address. Per:. Nice pic though. I'll get back to you on the Chemawa pics--thanks for doing all that work! Thanks (for the welcome back). Katr67 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries. Thanks for spotting that, I just jumped to a conclusion on where/what it was and assumed they just went with a generic address- like saying Salem instead of Hayesville. tedder (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Please explain why you have locked this page. The edits made were reasonable and did not merit your interference. Please advise us about how to obtain arbitration re your decision to lock the page. We shall be asking for your privileges as a Wikipedia editor to be revoked on grounds of prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.91.116 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is 'we'? The edits to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley were vandalism and violating WP:BLP. Please try to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Please explain which of the edits you complain of were vandalism and why. And please explain which of the edits were by "sockpuppets". It appears to us that you have made destructive edits without justification, and have then locked the page so that certain users cannot make corrections. We are about to report various Wikipedia editors to the police investigating the scientific fraud underlying the Climategate affair and the associated activities of certain scientific persons including the IPCC and its chairman. We have not yet decided whether to report you as one of those who have played a part in deliberately tampering with the biographies of those who are known to have spoken out against the (arguably fraudulent and now under investigation) "consensus" that small perturbations of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere can cause large warming effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraudpolice (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NLT. tedder (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked, per NLT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Trollers and griefers love this topic for some reason. tedder (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

help, please
Tedder, I need some help with User:IZAK. Over the past two weeks or so he seems to have gone off on a paranoid campaign against pro-Chabad editors and has attacked them with intemperate language. On being called on it he has refused to moderate his language, and has now filed utterly tendentious COI complaints against several editors including me. He seems to have no idea what COI means, or for that matter what FORK means, since he calls articles "forks" when their content does not duplicate that of any other article. Someone needs to talk him down from the tree, and I fear that anything more from me will just inflame him further. If you have a spare 15 min or so, could you please look over his contributions of the last fortnight or so (in particular in a bunch of AFDs, and in talk pages), form your own opinion, and if you agree that he needs a cuppa, a bex, and a good lie down, then perhaps suggest it to him as a completely neutral party? Or else advise me what else to do? -- Zsero (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Zsero, it's probably good it is at WP:COIN. That's what I would have suggested if it wasn't already. Otherwise, probably just work up the WP:DR ladder. WP:RFC/U is a likely place, but give it some time at COIN for now, okay? tedder (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure I understand. Are you saying that the frivolous nature of the COI complaint will be so apparent that it will lead to something being done about his recent behaviour? Or what? -- Zsero (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Youkilis
Just seems to be an IP vandal magnet. You semi-protected him before ... is it ok for me to bring this to you, or do I have to go back to the noticeboard? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Epee, I can handle requests here (as long as I'm around). The only problem is that article has only had one IP vandal since coming off unprotection. Ideally, it should have a couple in the same day before being protected again. tedder (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. tx.  (I had thought that the rule was the 5 percent of edits rule, which it passes easily).  Will keep my eye on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5% of edits, yes, but that's for an article that hasn't seen protection lately. So yes, (as an example) 3 of 5 edits is more than 5%, but it isn't a statistically significant number of edits to use for the 5% rule. (in my mind, at least). tedder (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Weatherly Building

 * done. tedder (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria
Ciao, Tedder. You full-protected this article seven weeks ago due to a content dispute. Any thoughts on when this might be lifted? Regards, <font face="New York"> Skomorokh  19:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops- that was a complete mistake that I protected it indefinitely. Thanks for the heads-up- I removed protection. tedder (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the quick response. Now to watch the content dispute resume... <font face="New York"> Skomorokh  20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, if/when it happens, we'll deal with it appropriately. tedder (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My unsuccessful RFA
Thanks for giving me support to my RFA. I may not have succeeded today but i'm sure in the future I may apply again. I have been an editor on here for a while so I figured I would give it a shot. I'll review what has been said to me and i'll try to get better at things in the future. <font color="Brown">Momo san Gespräch 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Momus, indeed, the feedback was hopefully helpful. Looking forward to seeing you around more. tedder (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Piccolo troll
You may want to also keep an eye out for as the same editor has hopped between it and  which you just blocked. There has also been a previous ANI discussion on this same editor. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. tedder (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it wouldn't take long for him/her to switch over to the other IP. He/she is now altering comments at User talk:71.239.23.70 that were left by other editors. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Kralizec! revoked talkpage for them. Good. tedder (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a comment.
I have a slight problem. There is a editor currently exhibiting a ownership problem over Jimbo's talkpage. He is claiming that this [] is the reason that the editor shouldn't post there. I;ve pointed out the policy on ownership, and also pointed out it is only a suggest with a invite to come back when calm. When you look at the post, the poster was calm. Apparently though this editor thinks he has been appointed watchkeeper over Jimbo's page. Can you comment one way or the other? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. WP:OWN goes both ways- it's an advantage and a disadvantage. I can sort of see what you mean, but .. the best thing to do is probably to drop the stick. Posting to Jimbo's page is sort of like yelling "motherfucker!" in a police station; you're very likely to get noticed, for better or worse. tedder (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Notes


 * CONTEXT: See the previous (long) now-archived discussion which includes Jimbo's perspective (linked to above)
 * Talk to John Vandenberg-- Proofreader77 (interact) 07:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So John is the person who appointed you watchkeeper? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's well past invoking Godwin's Law. tedder (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tedder: See the last section on my talk page please, I'd appreciate if you could take it over, as I intend to go to sleep shortly. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  07:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll read it. I'm well on my way to sleep also. To Hell* and Proof*, you have both been here long enough to know there are better avenues to settle a dispute than by shopping around to talk pages. tedder (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to go to ANI and this seemd reasonable. I do feel in this case merely saying a juggling of power on administrative tools and responsibility is distinctly different from his Arbcom case. I happen to agree with this by coincidence but for different reasons. I think that ascertaining Jimbo's opinion is useful. My main thing is that if Jimbo doesn't want him to post there he has the power and ability to do so himself. He should be the one saying yes or no. Not one of us trying to figure out what he wants based off a suggestion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell In A Bucket, my advice to you would be to drop this discussion. Between JV, tedder, and myself, you can be assured that your concerns will be resolved. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  07:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put it on the table at Jimbo's talkpage. I don't believe in the trust us we can handle things policy, Nothing happens. Sorry I know you probably mean well but so do I. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFPP note
On WP:RFPP you stated "We have both accused each other of being banned users." with regards to User:WVBluefield. I don't see that allegation in your edits. Where is it? tedder (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ,, and . If you look at you will see that WVBluefield has now violated 3RR, and his level of familiarity with WP:ANI and recent BLP discussions strongly suggests he is aware of WP:3RR, even if he isn't banned. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't excuse your behavior, and is pretty close to quacking that you are the banned user in question. Take it to WP:SPI, not talk pages and editsummaries. tedder (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have filed the report at SPI and a quick look at my contributions shows that I am familiar with BLP and ANI as I have edited here for several months now. WVBluefield (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. tedder (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when is two several? 99.56.136.254 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To which behavior do you refer? Being able to find secondary peer reviewed sources in Medline, or leaving a dispute tag on an article in dispute? I've taken it to WP:3O, where there is a far greater chance of the encyclopedia being improved than 3RR or SPI. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to your knowledge of 3RR, RFPP, ANI, etc within your first dozen edits on Wikipedia. You've been around for quite a while. tedder (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No argument there! I hope you'll look past first impressions and at who wants to make the best improvements. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RFB Question
Is this really necessary? It's clearly a contentious issue already; while the joke might be humorous under different conditions, age may well be the central issue here and perhaps shouldn't be joked about. My two cents. Frank |  talk  19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it isn't, and not really appropriate there. Thanks for prodding me to (re)evaluate it. tedder (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Maybe not a big deal but I think we can feel better letting it run its natural course. Frank  |  talk  19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just blame my comment on being infected by Bugs. tedder (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Albania
Hi Tedder and thanks for monitoring Albania. I had motivated my move to take out the picture of the bunkers, when I saw your message. Please feel free to talk to me in my talk page for any Albania related topics. On a related note, I haven't motivated all the changes and I apologize for that. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw you started using editsummaries while I was leaving the message! Thanks. tedder (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
OK, I received your notice and I have reviewed your opening statement. I am unclear on what the nature of the dispute you are raising actually is and what resolution you are looking for. I am certainly not opposed to the idea that the environment on the GW pages is deplorable and should be improved. I'll participate in the arbitration to the extent that I am an involved party, but unless you have something specific and actionable in mind it is not clear to me how I should proceed. --GoRight (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey GR. The goal is to show that arbitration is needed and that alternatives (such as 3RR and RFC) have been tried, not that certain users are to blame or anything else. To steal from the case page, "You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time." tedder (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. I am happy enough to wait and see what you make of this.  You are obviously putting a lot of effort into the analysis aspect of who the involved parties are.  But before you are done I think you will need to formulate something specific as to what the actual dispute between these parties is.  Right now it seems pretty amorphous and ill-defined to me.  The best I can discern is a nebulous "look, these people aren't playing nice together."  While that is true, I don't think that Arbcom can do anything specific to fix that, per se.  Isn't that rather like asking them to produce world peace or something?  Just something to think about while you flesh things out a bit more.  --GoRight (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GR, and thanks for saying so both on this page and on the arb. It's something I need to formulate- though I'm deliberately trying not to point too many things out, nor suggest remedies, but to expose the problem and lay it out. That can be done in arbitration, though probably not by me. It would be interesting to figure out how many warnings and blocks have been given to the "top 190" editors on those pages over the past three months, but even that is insufficient- I suspect those who really deserve blocks/bans/warnings don't get them due to intimidation and bullying. tedder (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "intimidation and bullying" - On the GW pages? Really?  What's makes you say that?  :)  --GoRight (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * tedder (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for something
 AP source: Mets, Bay reach preliminary agreement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.247.211 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take that to the talk page of whatever MLB player you are referring to. tedder (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughs...
Dude, did you just name SineBot as a party to an arbcom case? I rofled. (for the record, I understand you are only aiming for completeness in the list of editors, but you must admit, it is kinda, well, funny!) -- Jayron  32  06:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm glad you find it amusing too. I certainly did. (of course, I'm the admin who blocked ClueBot twice, both times on accident) tedder (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairly surreal. But I have to say it's about damn time SineBot was taken to task for what is clearly a very long and disruptive edit history. Someone needs to review the policy about changing the words of others on talk pages with that bot! ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hints of notability on the 3Crowd article
What exactly are you seeing as the hints of notability on the 3Crowd article? I was on the bubble on whether to tag that one, since the closest it has to a claim to me is having Kevin Rose as an investor, but since it's in "stealth mode" and the description of what it does is along the lines of something to do with crowdsourcing I wasn't really seeing that as an assertion of notability. I'll probably follow up with a prod of AFD, but with one declined speedy an AFD I recently opened quickly following up with keeps I'm going to sleep on it. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi- the hints I saw were involved individuals with wikinotability (like Barrett Lyon), the techcrunch piece, and the read/writeweb piece that got kicked out. That's enough to pass speedy, even if the article doesn't end up being notable. I hadn't done it until now, but looking at google news it appears there are some reliable entries coming out. tedder (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * Adam, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM. It should be 10 edits anywhere, though honestly I've never tested it to make sure. One good option would be to create your account, perhaps fill out your talk and userpages, then leave your input here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case. It's likely either myself or someone else will transport your comment to the main page until you've become autoconfirmed. tedder (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)