User talk:Tedder/Archive 8

Couple notes
FYI, your last South Park Blocks addition has a ref error. Also, thanks for the Outen restore, I was able to re-add some sourced items from the old version. I found a couple more sources online that should be enough for most people. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that ref error, I'm on my laptop now but will try to fix it. I'm just happy to be done with 600 of the ~1600 articles- phew! And you're welcome for Outen. That one was tricky. tedder (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Really?

 * Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tosh.0&diff=prev&oldid=347619627

I think 'vandal' may be a bit of a strong term, especially since I'm Scottish. However, pursuant to Tosh.0 Season 2 Episode 3 I was editing his Wikipedia page per his request... he explicitly invited viewers to edit the entry. Based upon several of his jokes from Season 1, I chose to include 'in jokes' that I felt would appeal to his audience and his sense of humor. I did revert the edit executed by the user who removed my edit; that I do not dispute. If this should be considered vandalism, I offer to rescind the very limited number of edits I have performed on Wikipedia over the years. I will 'go on record' as saying that the boldface type stating that I was getting my "only warning" struck fear in my heart... the fear that I may never again be able to spend my time editing a page on the world's largest encyclopedic index... the fear that someday my unmade edits may never go the dust-collecting way of the Funk and Wagnel's on my library shelf. User:ScotsPride 03MAR10 2007 ET  —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC).
 * It's vandalism. Go read the top of WP:VAND: "change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia .. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor .. and the insertion of nonsense into articles." All of those fit. And you already inserted it once and had it removed, which should have been enough to make you figure it out.


 * Feel free to come back to Wikipedia to make productive edits. tedder (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. I had forgotten what Telnet was like in 1993.  alt.wiki.productive  I appreciate the reminder of why I don't edit.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotsPride (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I miss Kibo. tedder (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I HAVE now learned how to sign my posts... small steps, guys... I need small steps. ScotsPride (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can sign and indent- hooray, you're doing good! Seriously, there's a big of a learning curve. What else can I/we help you with? tedder (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

John Virginius Bennes
You and your cabal might be interested in this article. It seems that route 84 isn't the only subject that is full of redlinks. Time to load up the bike for some road tripping??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Great Magnet at work- I'm headed to Ignite Portland 8 in 40 minutes, which is held at Bagdad Theater. tedder (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I think. Corolla? Hmmm... :) I removed the attribution of Bennes having involvement with the Bagdad. It was poorly sourced and credited to Thomas and Mercier (our friends from the Oriental I think...?) by the NRHP. I think his involvement on that building is sketchy at best. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * C*a*rolla, but yeah. I use Great Magnet to say "hey, that quite the coincidence". So much for the great magnet on the Bagdad thing, eh? Still, I shared the Geiser article with Mrs. Tedder only about 72 hours ago, so.. still great magnet. tedder (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After I wrote my update to you I was reading another source (besides the cinema treasure one), where an OSU professor was researching Bennes's work and thought he was involved with the Bagdad. And then the same article noted someone else disputed the claim. :) I can try to find it if you want. Are you headed to Baker City? Tell them you helped write an article on their place and maybe they'll give you a deal. :) The Broadway Hotel in Portland is also credited to him. I found a photo on Commons so I'll have to work it in. I like to see their work. Must be shots of some of his OSU and EOU work floating around as well... I'm more familiar with the "cosmic tug" theory of accident causation than this magnet thing. A friend made me watch the movie where's he's a boxer in L.A. not too long ago. I'm still recovering. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hammer, eh? It was cute, well-done on a low budget, I thought. But hey, I'm a fan. Anyhow, I'll go over to Baker City a little later in the year (brr). Thanks for your architecture work! It's nice. tedder (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do venture into the Geiser Grand Hotel, beware the ghosts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog again
See → Usernames for administrator attention, I'm still waiting for someone to act on it. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, not sure why you picked me, I don't do UAA (in fact, 90% of the time, I use the UAA process instead of doing it directly as an admin). Do you need help with a disruptive user who is reported there? Need help finding someone to clear the backlog? It looks like User:Daniel_Case would be person I'd ask first. tedder (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! In fact, I do need your help to BAN someone, → ← who had blatantly advertised his company here on Wikipedia, both on his user page and on WP:MCQ (which I've removed!). Cheers! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like that user has been blocked.. tedder (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BOTREQ
This task should not be doneif the sole purpose of the edit is to bypass the redirect. It is entirely unnecessary - a waste of resources contrary to WP:R2D and the bot policy. Note that Xenobot Mk V will be running through some of these articles to WP:AUTOASSESS them and will update the template name only when making other substantive edits. Cheers, –xenotalk 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC) annote per your comments at 18:12 –xenotalk|undefined 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you comment on the BRFA during the ~8 weeks it was open? tedder (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice it. Not sure why it was approved, to be honest. I've asked the approving BAG member to comment here. At the very least, you should pause the task (or skip any in Category:Unassessed children and young adult literature articles) until Xenobot completes the autoassessment run as other substantive edits can be made concurrent with the fairly useless redirect bypass. –xenotalk 17:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Roughly, here's my take. It seems strange to acknowledge that a task could be done only in a confederated group of minor tasks by a bot, yet the limited time/power of BRFA means bot acceptance is somewhat related to bot complexity. It seems like it would be better to say "this sort of task should be done under confederation with many other tasks", not "it should not be done". It sounds like BAG's policy (or Josh's leaning) about preferring simple tasks versus a Murphy's Law size of genfixes needs to be discussed.

OTOH, looking back, the BOTREQ doesn't show any links to community discussion/consensus about the task. So I'll leave it turned off for that reason and for your autoassessment run, as well as this whole discussion. tedder (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right in that it should be done - but iff the bot is editing the page for another reason - I have annoted my comment above. Since you're already I think 50% or more through the task maybe it should just be completed (after Xenobot does its thing). –xenotalk 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind leaving it off- if nothing else, there's a lack of discussion at the project to support it. Mainly I'm hoping this can lead to a bigger discussion about the merits of approving small/simple tasks versus large/complex tasks. tedder (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think small/simple vs large/complex doesn't really reach the heart of this particular matter. This task is really just bypassing a redirect. Except for the stated reason that it may cause editors to continue using the old redirect, and that it's a mouthful or whatever, there's really no reason for the change. A small/simple task if fine if it has definite positive and visible effect on the changed page. Users using redirects isn't necessarily problematic, and bypassing them causes no visible change... –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from. But an AWB-style genfixes bot might make a dozen such changes and be considered useful- yet making a single one of these changes isn't useful, right? tedder (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One should not run AWB just to do gen-fixes either. Most of those aren't substantive. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 19:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As the approving BAG member I didn't think the task proposed at WP:BOTREQ would be as trivial as bypassing a redirect (I was lulled into complacency by having a very experienced editor proposing it) and presumed there was a good reason for requesting it (rather than aesthetics) - I was imagining a proposed template deletion. I really should have investigated further. In my defense, realising my inexperience I had informally approached several other BAG members for advice/opinions on the proposal one way or another but barely got the vaguest of responses. On the upside, Tedder is clueful enough that when presented with reasonable arguments about the advisability of running the bot for that task he's open to halting it. Josh Parris 00:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really and truly it's not a big deal - WP:PERF and all. In future such tasks should not be approved. I think this one could probably just be quietly completed after Xenobot takes a run thru to autoassess. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 13:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for Tedder for getting you in "trouble" over my request. I had no idea it was considered "trivial" to want to update 7000+ transclusions of an old template name nor that it was not appropriate for a bot to do. Seemed perfectly reasonable and valid to me, considering some of the many other bot tasks. Again, apologies, as well as to Josh Parris for inadvertently getting you yelled at as well. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is yelling or getting in trouble, I'm just pointing out the utility of the edits is quite low and typically these tasks are rejected at BOTREQ and not approved at BRFA. By the way tedder, it looks like the WP:YA project will not go through with the auto-assessment, so if you want to go ahead and finish up bypassing the redirect, I won't object further. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 14:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, no more trouble than normal, at least. I'll run that redirect, and will change my info page so that I at ask BRFA folks casually before using it further- after this run, I mean. tedder (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Weidler house
Today I acquired from Powell's a used copy of Nineteenth Street, revised edition (1978) by Richard Marlitt, an OHS book. It's got the now-familiar image of the Weidler house but also the bit of text I was wishing for. Weidler's house shared the block bounded by Nineteenth, Twentieth, Kearney, and Lovejoy with the house of his father-in-law, Charles Bacon. "They faced onto Nineteenth Street with drives through the 460 foot block to the stables on Twentieth Street." The brief account goes on to say, "Both houses were designed by Warren H. Williams, and have been gone for many years." Now that I have reliable evidence that the houses have been demolished and cannot be photographed to produce a free image, I think I will try to get the image deleters to reverse course on my fair-use claim. Since they didn't respond to my explanation or the details in my fair-use license and rationale for the George Washington Weidler article, I'm not sure they considered it. Perhaps I posted it in the wrong place (on the license page and on the image talk page). Dunno. Got any ideas about how best to proceed? Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Finetooth, I don't know the specific reason it was deleted (other than it was no longer in an article after you removed it), but something to keep in mind is that the article was about the person, not the house. So you have to really tie-in the fair use rationale as to not only that it is impossible to get a new image, but that the image is not just decorative in a biography article. Not a problem if the article was on the house, as then it is obvious the image is not just for decoration. Same if it was a fair use image of him in a biography. But when you have an image like this in a biography you really have to hit the keywords of the WP:NFCC. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks AM. I'm definitely not an expert in NFCC. tedder (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me, too. The truth is that the house image may be more decorative than necessary. Unless I can find a free Weidler mug shot, I might have better luck scanning Weidler's mug from page 228 of MacColl's Merchants, Money and Power and uploading it with a fair-use claim. Finetooth (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added one published in 1908, but the scan is pretty crappy. So you could find someone to clean it up, or try your local library that has the Oregonian on microfiche and see if that copy is any better and get the image that way (print and then scan at home, take a picture with a camera, download it if your library has that function). Aboutmovies (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(moving left) AM, what would the Oregonian have? I mean, what is the article name and such? I might have digital access to 1908. tedder (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I only was searching for his obit, as they used to normally have a pic to go with obits. So I searched for his name and limited the dates to 1907-8 and got four hits, and one was the image along with a funereal notice (see the image upload info for date/page to find the image I uploaded), but no real article title and the old archives rarely can figure out article titles anyway. If you have online access, it is likely to the same database of PDF scans by NewsBank that I used, so I doubt you would find anything better online. The trick would be to find other originals, which many libraries have on microfiche, but many of those come from the same master, thus if the image I uploaded came from one of those, then you likely won't find anything better. But I have a suspicion the scan came from the Oregonian's own archives, and thus might be different than what you could get at the county library. Another more intensive option is apparently there is an entry for him in Fred Lockley's History of the Columbia River Valley in Vol. 2, p. 760, which might have a photo, and if you want to do a copyright search the odds are the original copyright wasn't renewed (that time period you had to renew) and likely is no longer in copyright. Can't say for sure without going through the copyright records at the Lib. of Cong. or one of several depositories (Seattle is the closest I believe), but if you are bored and have time, why not?! Or, if it is the same picture as the one in The Oregonian, then it was published pre-1923 and is out of copyright. Ohh the possibilities. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been buried in the Frank Dekum article all day and, coming up for air, posted a note to AM's talk page before seeing the further notes here. The Weidler image from the Oregonian is the same as the one in the MacColl book. It's ORHI 70305 in the Oregon Historical Society collection. I would have looked for Weidler's obit on-line, but I've not figured out how to go back further than about 1980 via the Multnomah County Library's on-line research section. How are you able to search for 1907–08? Finetooth (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the access I have is via newsbank, so it's the same poor copy AM has already posted. I did dig through the articles a little bit, though. Hello turn-of-the-century socialites! tedder (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you saw, with AM's help I scanned and uploaded a better version of the same image. I still don't see how to search so far back in Newsbank. Do you have a subscription to more services than the library provides for card-holding rascals like myself? Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, saw that. Good work. I have more services through my .edu connection: here are all the online newspaper sources, for instance. tedder (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I was pleased with how that all worked out. I don't have access to the Portland State system, but it's good to know that you do. :-) Finetooth (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good for you to know that, especially since I have "email this user" enabled. Hint. tedder (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon Field Guide

 * Congrats. That's an excellent article. Thanks also for your help with the Emil Schacht articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Did you see the talk page? It's nice to hear from outside people who "get it". tedder (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh- and Emil Schacht; I'm trolling through 1600+ articles on the South Park Blocks and came upon Admiral Apartments, which I've walked past a zillion times. So, thanks for your help fixing my grammar on that. I do need to scrounge up a little more on it, as it's a hair under the DYK limit. tedder (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The first line of the blocks article needs work. It's a neighborhood around park? It's a park formed by a neighborhood? I couldn't quite make out what was going on. :)

Hey, next time you're up by Powell's can you check out and see if it's in the Treves Hotel building? I can't find much on it, but did get sidetracked with lumber camp dance calling reminisces... I also threw up Hamilton Hotel. I liked lost causes. :) But seriously, these buildings that haven't been recognized are interesting. That last one was lost, which is why I'm interested in what this Treves Hotel deal is about. It seems to have been an apartment building or flophouse rather than a "Hotel". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's right across the street from Kenny & Zuke's Delicatessen. I think it's in the correct building- here's what it looks like from the outside. Though the top of it says "hotel joyce". Hmm. Here is the city info on it, which says it was built in 1912, which matches Treves. Those are definitely lost causes- I've never even noticed that, and I've been to K&Z's several times.. not to mention I've been on the streetcar past it about 1.1 million times. Eesh. tedder (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Thanks very much for finding those photos. I guess it's kind of a landmark as the home to the Red Cap Garage and Boxxes. The reviews I saw for the Fish Grotto have been pretty good too. :) Thanks again for digging that stuff up. It's not an extraordinary building as far as I can tell (I think the Hamilton "Hotel" was probably nicer) but it is one more piece in the puzzle. And it will be 100 in a couple of years! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Joyce/ Treves seems to offer a lot of excitement with a pretty inexpensive room rate . Although the reviews of the Hotel are decidedly mixed ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Duke53
I have removed a bogus WP:3RR report issued by Duke53 against me. I feel that because my edits were legitimate, were following WP:BOLD and that he was simply trying to pass them off as vandalism in bad faith, such a report would be unjustified. Routerone (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing. First, edit warring is hardly ever warranted. The one half-decent excuse is if (IP) editors are flagrantly violating BLP. In your case, that wasn't true. You were in the right to remove it, but not to keep edit warring over it. The 3RR probably wouldn't have held much water- the EW stopped (due to protection) and the user never warned you about violating 3RR.
 * Honestly? I think you and Duke53 are like oil and water: you hold each other under heavy contempt because you are at such opposite ends of the spectrum. If you want to pursue something against Duke53, there are better ways to do it. tedder (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * " ... the user never warned you about violating 3RR.</I>" Well, the 'user' <B>did</B> warn him about the 3RR and the 'user' <B>still</B> expects the 'admin' to do something about the blatant 3RR violation. The rules are for everyone (<I>and what about Routerone deleting the 3RR violation report? Surely that must be against the rules.) Care to fill us ALL in on those 'better ways' ? Cheers. Duke53  | Talk 02:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't point fingers here. You were both wrong. I didn't see the 3RR that you removed- an edit summary would have helped. Deleting the 3RR is a WP:PLAXICO move; it draws much more attention than it would otherwise. Anyhow, the "user conflict" options are at WP:DR. Obviously there's WP:ANI, which is overused. tedder (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "<I>I didn't see the 3RR that you removed</I>" ? Well, since I didn't remove it, you might be telling this to the wrong guy. For the third time <B><I><U>Routerone</U></I></B> did all the removing, and it is logical to assume that you are being 'sympathetic' to him, since you, as an admin, have gone along with it. Assuming things rarely leads to much good, as you have demonstrated here: you assumed that I didn't warn him (<I>I did</I>); you assumed that I removed the warning (<I>I didn't</I>); such assumptions have lead to some poorly done administration work here, IMO. It's not too late to rectify it.Cheers. Duke53  | Talk 05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand, Duke53. But if you were the one being blocked, you'd be complaining if other avenues were taken. Since there were multiple editors participating in a (imho) silly edit war, full-protecting the page and issuing a personalized warning is a much better tactic than reverting, especially if you call something vandalism that isn't. That doesn't justify the edit warring by Routerone. But please be civil going forward. tedder (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS- you're right, I misspoke (mistyped); I already knew that you didn't remove the warning. tedder (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you do actual understand. Routerone was removing sourced material simply because it doesn't jibe with his POV; Mr. Foxe asked him to take it to the talk page; Routerone said in an edit summary that nobody else did that, and he wasn't going to. Routerone then removed it again in the same fashion, making it vandalism IMO. Routerone then committed a blatant 3RR violation, which you have allowed to occur with no penalty. Then there was the rest of his deletions, which muddied the water more. The page histories tell the true story, but most everybody seems to be ignoring that fact. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 05:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got that completely. tedder (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "<I>Oh, I got that completely.</I>" And still took no action against him ? Amazing. Duke53  | Talk 12:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No action is needed. Taking the high road means worrying about improving Wikipedia, not worrying about punishing users. Please either drop this or take it to ANI; you've made your feelings known both here and at the article talk page. tedder (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
see the talk page for why the translation link is there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Canadiens
No, the protection is left over from a content issue that predated the page being moved into userspace. It's okay to delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Context: is it okay to delete a full-protected mainspace->userspace redirect at Early Canadiens
 * Bueno. I'll step on toes :-) tedder (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Chubby Chaney's DOB
Hi,

I was on the losing end of an "edit war" in which you upbraided me for not following the wikipedia guidelines on verifiability. I understood, and I was cool with that.

Since then, I have received a copy of Chubby's death certificate which does indeed confirm the DOB that I had originally supplied. That is also consistent with the 1920 census records (which are online). His family later shaved a few years off his age when he went to Hollywood.

However, I'm wondering if this might run afoul on wikipedia's rules against "no original research."

So. . . If this would not be against the guidelines (original research), I will change the DOB--but I would like a ruling in advance.

Also, if this change is within the guidelines, how would I avoid another "edit war" against some random person changing it back based on a 35-year-old book.

Your thoughts would be welcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Chaney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stembark (talk • contribs) 15:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi- continue to discuss this at Talk:Norman Chaney, okay? That's the best place for it. tedder (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Done!
Just wanted to congratulate and thank you for your fantastic contributions to the Portland parks articles. Seriously, well done! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AB. I'm just cranking away on them. tedder (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind my obsessive reference formatting following your additions... I just know capitalization of news headline titles is discouraged and I have a "thing" for reference date consistency. Just figured consistency would be nice sooner than later in case any of the articles are nominated for Good of Featured status in the future. Keep up the great work! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No- I have no problem with it. In fact, I really appreciate it. Plus, we all have our nitpicks :-) tedder (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply at BOTREQ
See WP:BOTREQ. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw it, I'll run the BRFA now. tedder (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SuperFabric
I have copied this help request over from Talk:Motorcycle personal protective equipment, as it is a question about your removal of the edit - thus I suggested the user discuss it with you.  Chzz  ►  22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My article SuperFabric was tagged as an orphan so I tried creating links in related articles. The material is important to motorcycle protective equipment and apparel, so I wish to mention it, just as Kevlar, Gore-Tex, and Cordura are mentioned. How is mentioning those brands not borderline advertising? Or how can I properly write something about this material? ThanksJulieskim0202 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks- I'll take it up at the article talk page. tedder (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tosh.O
I added the information about what happened to Tosh.O's page, but someone erased it and said "interesting but recent," This means they had to have been a registered user, but all I saw was an I.P. address. I'm going to put it back so that you can read it, and see if you agree, if so feel free to remove, since you were the one who put the block on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjawarriordex (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 March 2010
 * Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tosh.0&diff=348951604&oldid=348945049


 * The revert was by another editor, who (rightly) wrote "all very interesting but recent, need third part sources for long term effect". In other words, what's the encyclopedic value? I see the discussion is continuing at Talk:Tosh.0, which is the correct place for it. tedder (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tanner Springs Park
Hello! Your submission of Tanner Springs Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Careful, Tedder!
I've deprodded Modern Gold Rush because there's another prod in the history, but I've sent it to AfD. Best, HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw it- yeah, FAIL on me because I didn't look in the history. tedder (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for South Park Blocks

 * Added to userpage. tedder (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done Teddering
So, User:Tedder, after you and I met via Tedder (machine), it is now my pleasure to inform you that I am on my way to hear Ryan Tedder and his band. I propose that you and I discuss these "coincidences" face to face--we could, of course, meet in Tedder, Florida. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting close to full circle, eh? I've heard of Ryan Tedder, hope you enjoy it. It'll be fun to discuss the Tedder (machine) in Tedder, Florida with Ryan Tedder playing in the background. tedder (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Any news about Mrs. Tedder yet? Drmies (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two interviews. Either WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Southern California. tedder (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's exciting! Do you want to stay put? Drmies (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if she's only accepted to one, I'll be happy to stay or go. If there's a choice.. it comes down to career/jobs for me. We've done San Diego before, haven't done Los Angeles/Pasadena. It's a bigger thing than I should put here on WP.. tedder (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Right. Well, let's get back to bringing Jonnycakes up to GA status then. Do you think there's a chance of List of books about bacon becoming an FL? Drmies (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

O'erTheRampardos
Isn't this a bit over the top? Is it really 3 months just for marking edits as minor or is there some underlying reason I'm not aware of? -- Jac 16888 Talk 16:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jac. Yes, it's over the top in terms of length, but my theory was as follows. First, the editor doesn't make consistent (daily) edits, so a very short block wouldn't accomplish anything. Second, they've been warned for marking edits minor several times, and marking them minor is especially a problem for an editor who makes controversial edits. Third, the theory was if the warnings didn't work, hopefully a block would make them stop marking things as minor. tedder (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tanner Springs Park

 * added to userpage. tedder (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wisdompower
I reported Wisdompower/142.151.162.141 at WP:AN/3RR, and no dice. He's still reverting without consequences. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't "no dice", the 3RR is still open, AFAICT. By the way, WP:NLIST is what probably applies. tedder (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm frustrated. He continues to not listen. He reverted again. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page was protected, which was a good choice. Continue to follow WP:DR. tedder (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Admiral Apartments

 * moving to userpage now. tedder (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tosh.o
I would like to make a legitimate addition to the Tosh.o article.

The addition is:Danial Tosh's favorite snack is pistachios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.21.12 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are your reliable sources? tedder (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, who cares?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tosh vandals care; admittedly, the talk and article pages have been locked for quite a while. Really, the only person hurt by it are the vandals, Tosh, and Tosh's manager! tedder (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the vandals get a kick out of it, even the ones that get blocked. I doubt Tosh gets any backlash unless Wikipedia sues him. Ha!  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oregon
Just a heads up: It looks like you [ warned] 70.158.75.254 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) without actually [ reverting] the vandalism. :) On another note, congrats for the Admiral Apartments DYK, it got 7,400 views !  Little  Mountain  5   14:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized I didn't revert them when I saw your revert. Doh! And.. thanks for the thanks on Admiral- wow! I've never seen a DYK over ~2000, and that article was just a stub I created while working on SPB. tedder (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That settles it, I'm putting hookers in every article I submit for DYK from now on. --Esprqii (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's oldest profession? tedder (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which means the article gets into the DYK's most viewed page. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [ Added it].  Little  Mountain  5   <sup style="color:green;">Happy St. Patrick's Day!  14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Usability of GeoTemplate
Comments on the usability of GeoTemplate (the page listing mapping services found by clicking on coordinates in articles) are invited, at Template talk:GeoTemplate. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer! tedder (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Music Row


74.179 range IPs including 74.179.18.78 keep adding a bunch of unsourced tl;dr at the bottom of the article and signing in article space. Might wanna keep an eye on it. Another IP range, 170.190.40.78, added the same info and made no fewer than eight libelious edits that had to be suppressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on Music Row and Stacy Harris going forward. Good times. Let me know if you see other articles being touched. tedder (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump

 * Woohoo! Thanks Tedder!  You made that article great.  My first DYK!  Way too cool.  Duff (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad it turned out so well. tedder (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (adding to userpage now) tedder (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Jones & David Koresh
In your eagerness to mask Routerone's transgressions you also deleted a point I made about other <S>cult leaders</S>, err ... 'prophets'. Why not just leave comments up, rather than pick and choose the way you do ? Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 05:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How did I pick and choose by removing an entire section that was about Routerone? tedder (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, rather, a section about his blatant edit warring and disregard for the rules at <I>that particular article</I> ? Duke53  | Talk 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. Where are my comments about Jones and Koresh ? Or was that about Routerone also ? Duke53  | Talk 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it's well over the WP:CIVIL line. If you disagree with an editor (or, in this case, many editors), you really need to take it through something listed on WP:DR, perhaps WP:SEEKHELP? However, several editors have noted your issues with civility. I'd strongly encourage you to check out the more productive side of disputes. tedder (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And that feeble excuse somehow allows you to delete my point that Jones and Koresh also could be considered 'prophets'. Entire means 'entire', not anything else you also decide to arbitrarily delete. As for your blanket statement about disagreeing with 'many editors' ... how many is 'several' in your book ? My intent at this article is to not allow Routerone to turn the article into his personal testimony about Smith; in other words, to not allow his POV pushing. You should have noticed that. Duke53  | Talk 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. as an admin you should have some concerns about Routerone's blatant vandalism of my user page, but that is also going to be glossed over, or so it seems. Duke53  | Talk 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Many editors? Hmm, routerone, myself, and Hipocrite, just today. In any case, follow WP:CIVIL. Feel free to report myself or anyone (including routerone) to the avenues I've mentioned. If not, you're not helping your cause or Wikipedia by trolling around like this. I won't engage you here further unless you have something specific and productive in mind. You have plenty of avenues. tedder (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction needed?
Tedder, in this edit, you added the reference "Fountain of Youth" in the middle of Angela's last name. Is this correct? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Entirely incorrect. I moved it to where it belongs (after digging out the 400-page PDF and finding the article). Sometimes when I create a cite I accidentally click in the edit window, which moves the insertion point. Most of the time I catch it, but with 55 refs, things happen.
 * Thanks very much for all of your cleanup work on the cites and on the article as a whole. I owe you! tedder (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I just started all of these stubs, and you have turned them into informative articles. I owe you! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but doing the refwork and copyediting isn't easy or fun. I want you to know I appreciate it. tedder (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Big Gold Guy stopping by to say hi

 * Thanks! Off to the userpage with it. tedder (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Keller Fountain Park

 * Added to userpage. tedder (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Temple garment
I tell ya, you learn something new every day. I had heard vague comments from time to time about "holy underwear", but until today I thought it was a joke. Every religion has its rituals and its sacred relics, but attempts to delete illustrations of them here (assuming they are in fact accurate representations) are kind of like continual efforts to have representations of Muhammad removed. Neither of those attempts is Kosher for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting religion. OTOH, most are. And yeah, I agree with you- WP:NOTCENSORED generally applies. While most mormons are leery of negative things or things that are very sensitive to them, there are other places that kowtow to the preferred Mormon Story. It reminds me of this quote in many ways, actually. tedder (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good one. The fact is, nothing's perfect, everything has it's flaws. Nostalgia and wishful thinking can overwhelm the plain truth. As Will Rogers said, "Things ain't the way they used to be... and never was!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

HS source
Came across this which has all the schools in the state (if you navigate). Each individual PDF includes some basic building info such as square footage and year built that could be integrated into the HS articles, if you are interested. I'm busy using them for the Hillsboro School District schools, but thought I'd share. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow- that's impressive! Thanks. tedder (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Petition to Maintain FA Standards
Hi, a few minutes ago you blocked. You may want to revoke his/her talk page access as well since they posted the same message there. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll wait and see if it happens again. Do you have any idea who that is? I hate to take it to WP:SPI because it would just be a fishing expedition. tedder (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Think it's a sock of Its Lassie Time; if I recall correctly, the last time a similar message was posted on my talk page, it ended up being a sock of that user. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha- I saw it in a couple of reblock messages and tagged accordingly. I'd never run into them, but it was so obvious that it was a sock.. tedder (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

oops
I get it now... 7 03:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fun annoyance to me, makes me a nice troll for the people who change it. tedder (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your double vote is good - but I think Jac's delete/NN comment is the best so far.  7  04:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree. It's too bad, if I would have thought about it, I would have put Aunt Betty up for RFA. tedder (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ACK
what about ths one? I did not know this user, but i guess. . . . Dloh  cierekim  04:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * shrug, name isn't too familiar to me. It should be, probably, but isn't. tedder (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting
But the thread is missing something...

...like...

...maybe a little more cowbell. Feel free to share the link with your friends. — BQZip01 — talk 05:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what everyone's problem with that org is. Maybe some of my stalkers can tell me why that isn't a WP:RS. tedder (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jacob Kamm House

 * Added to userpage. tedder (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

please delete this user
User:Dropdead567 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropdead567 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RTV, not to be confused with RTV. tedder (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

dyk
I'd like to put in an interesting DYK for this article. I didn't start it but I added some tables and references. There's an obvious one about Packwood (and we know that sex sells) but I don't want to get into any dicey WP:BLP issues on the main page. Any way to phrase that one occur to you? Or any other good ideas? --Esprqii (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Death solves that problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd do a DYK combining "brutal and bitter contest" with the "eye for the ladies" quote, provided there is a specific cite for the latter. tedder (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive my excess of caution above in these teapartyin' times. Anyway, the "e4tl" quote isn't cited online...I was thinking of something along the lines of how the papers covered it up but couldn't quite come up with it. "...that the Washington Post delayed a story about allegations of one candidates sexual harrassment until after the 1992 Oregon Senate election?" Do you think that crosses the line? --Esprqii (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That quote doesn't have to be online, it's just questionable when the sentence doesn't have a cite. Anyhow, I think the WashPost might be interesting, and that sentence is certainly cited! tedder (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

McMansion
The page is in fact redirected from Persian palace. they essentially have the same meaning too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persia prince (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Iowa State University people‎
Hi Tedder, it's nice to see your massive clean up operation of "List of Iowa State University people‎". I have a suggestion here: Why don't we keep at least the names of the people in this category even if they are red-link at present. Those are the people the University says "Our department has had the honor and the privilege to educate some of the most distinguished and most accomplished people in industry, government, and academia." Thanks. Salih ( talk ) 04:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Iowa_State_University_people&action=historysubmit&diff=353670285&oldid=352685982
 * Hi- certainly some of the people removed would meet WP:BIO, but that should really be done by creating articles for them, rather than padding that page out. The list is impressively long, actually. tedder (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But not having a Wikipedia page does not preclude us from listing those potentially notable people if it's properly sourced. In fact, there is a possibility that the red-links could motivate some of the editors to create new articles, right? Salih  ( talk ) 06:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. If properly sourced, WP:NLIST applies. Honestly, the problem is one of the few times that I believe in the slippery slope argument- it becomes very hard to 'defend' and keep the list to people who are actually notable. The advantage of requiring a bluelink is that the notability of a person can be properly discussed via WP:AFD. But that's personal preference. tedder (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand the slippery slope argument. But I feel we should not remove the people from the list if properly sourced and their notability can be verified from the source. Agree that periodic clean up may be required to weed out the non-notables. Salih  ( talk ) 06:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jacob Kamm

 * added. tedder (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Convo between Tedder and Rither
Hi Jacob,

I was hoping to find out why you may have taken down my addition to Larry Brilliant's page. I posted an external link to a lecture he gave through Stanford Business School. Here's the link: http://www.udemy.com/course/1738/strategic-philanthropy.html

The course has good content, is relevant to the page, and is not for monetary purposes.

Thanks for your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.232.47 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi- I'm not Jacob, and I don't know what 'Rither' is. The issue is that you are linkspamming- adding the same site to a large number of articles. The links may be relevant, but it isn't much different than adding links to Youtube video- it's hard to know if udemy is the source of the content and/or if udemy has rights to host the videos. But there is certainly a likely conflict of interest involved. Please read that page very carefully. tedder (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi -I sincerely apologize if you think what I'm doing is inappropriate. Udemy does have rights to this content (as does anyone else; it is open source content - we have actually heard directly from the Open Courseware Consortium that the use is legitimate). Furthermore, we have no intentions of monetizing the content as previously mentioned. The only difference between udemy and YouTube is that udemy has put together this content in a useful way so that users can ask questions and watch the videos in sequence. I am happy to stop doing this if you would like, but I do believe that Wikipedia visitors will find this content valuable and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.232.47 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 April 2010


 * So it's legal- that's good. And if it's open-source, props to udemy for packaging it in an attractive format. The issue of conflict of interest remains, and adding it to large numbers of articles enmasse comes across as promoting a website, not helping build articles. It's likely that when users discover udemy, they'll decide it is relevant and add a link at Wikipedia. The guidelines at WP:EL still apply, but it'd be a lot better to have links added that way. Again, adding them yourself comes off as promoting the website.
 * So you are User:Rither? Why not log in? Also, sign your talk page posts- just add ~ to the end. Cheers, tedder (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why stop me?
O.k., Tedder (whomever you are), I tried to do a speedy delete of the SPs, and you stopped me. Why? Wouldn't you like the SPs to go away? I thought you would be in favor of that! What gives? Can you make the SPs vanish? If not, why not? Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered on the sockpuppet investigation: Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff dean. tedder (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadiandy
I have sat by as the leadership of my faith (past and present) have been called, adulterers, liars, deceivers, manipulative, and even murderers. Tenets of our faith which are extremely sacred have been ridiculed. But when I or other LDS faithful speak up against it not only is our voice silenced or 'reverted,' but senior editors do nothing about it.

By tolerating this offensive assault on our religion, you are, in my mind, complicit in it as well.

Please, check your own biases at the door, do something about seriously fixing this mess, or let someone else take over in cleaning up the articles 'Joseph Smith' and 'Mark Hofmann.' 199.60.41.15 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * Please read WP:NPOV, Canadiandy. Make sure to check your biases at the door. And please actually begin making legitimate edits, rather than soapboxing on a few topics. Surely there is something that interests you. tedder (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I did what I could. But I see until we have new leadership and John Foxe ends the revert war it's like performing open-heart surgery with hockey gloves on. Better to just let the patient die than bloody the gloves further.

You win again, Headmaster. John Foxe can have the articles back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.41.15 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's there to gain by continuing to blame Foxe and say you are leaving? You've been saying that for what, a week or two now? Again, why not find something else to edit? For instance, Deseret Manufacturing Company needs much more research. I could list a zillion other topics that might interest you. Perhaps write about the Canadian Sugar Factories division of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company? Or figure out who Valhi is, and what else they've done besides buy the Amalgamated Sugar Company? tedder (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All I have been doing for the past two weeks is closing up shop. Tying up loose ends and so forth. I haven't edited or added new edit topics since that time, and now that you have closed off the final 'discussion' between Foxe and I this seems it. But thanks for getting in that last dig. Any more parting shots? 199.60.41.15 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * I'm confused about how that's a dig. My point is that you should consider contributing to Wikipedia, not just soapboxing on talk pages. I suggested some areas that are underserved and you might have an interest in- they are somewhat Mormon related, somewhat Canada related. tedder (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The dig was that I'm not gone yet. And I've read the soapboxing link. I don't see it? My purpose is not to push my religion at all. The only thing I am arguing for is fairness and religious tolerance. I would do that for any religion treated as poorly in any article. And every time I bring the point up I am either redirected or told to change the article (which Routerone and I can't do because of the systemic problems with the group dynamic). It seems like an endless shell game. If you'd like to redirect me to another article, let me know of any out there where the article is as religiously insensitive as this one. I'll gladly go there if you can find it.

So, I will call the questions;

1. Do you recognize the bias in the article? 2. If so, what are you willing to do to fix the problem? 3. If not, which articles are worse that I can go to, cause I'm clearly wasting my time here. Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * The dig is pretty obvious. You've posted in several places about how you are leaving, which is sort of ironic. Religious tolerance is different than maintaining a neutral point of view. Your bias is well-understood, and your approach has not been conducive to initiating change. tedder (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking you for making the dig. I was simply answering your question about what the dig was. Still, the questions are pending.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy


 * I've long considered you a troll. Your behavior here hasn't changed that opinion. I'll follow WP:DNFTT and quit responding now. If you ever decide to be a productive Wikipedian, let me know. tedder (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. I understand your disinterest in this strand and my opinion. Fair. If you needed more time to research my questions, just say so. But please let me know, sincerely, where such topics are that need someone neutral to the topic to enter and provide balance. I understand being silenced on LDS topics based on my POV (don't like it but I understand it). But my real passion is cultural sensitivity. I caught a glimpse at the article on Luther (re: the unfair attribution of Nazi influence) but that one just seemed much more in order than the Joseph Smith one.

I meant no offense in asking the three questions. I do not hold you accountable for the article itself and merely wanted to know if you thought the article was balanced. If so, I would move on to an arguably less balanced article. And it is a sign of my respect that I would trust you to know more about what these might be. But if you believe it is unbalanced, I believe I have offered a very insightful discussion on how we might approach and address the imbalance and am confused as to why these ideas are being dismissed.

You get last say, I'll say no more unless invited and appreciate you may not reply here. But for future consideration, 'troll' hurts. Please, don't bite the newcomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

WP Motorcycling in the Signpost
WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Motorcycling for a Signpost article to be published April 12. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

David Leslie Hawksworth
Hi, Tedder! You returned notability template in the article. May be now it is better? See discussion page. --Adept Ukraine (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's better, and I removed it. Thanks for your persistence. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Youkilis
Well, what can I say. He is just an IP vandal magnet. See Kevin Youkilis's history page. You've helped out before. The season has started, and vandal activity has risen. Do you think it is enough to protect from the IPs .... yet again? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see, nazi and cocksack. Yeah, that's WP:BLP. A month of semi-, let me know what happens after May 8, okay? tedder (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the best! Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad to help out in a little way. tedder (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

your baby
What happened to Tedderbot? He used to make the end of my workday so enjoyable with his latest finds. If you wind him up and restart him, make sure he does his work at the same time. --Esprqii (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge. Looks like there was a bot-breaking code change on wikimedia, I need to update my perl libraries. tedder (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Upgraded libraries and ran it by hand. It'll be on the schedule normally, meaning it will next run in.. uh, 15 minutes. Doh. tedder (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yay...see, we humans do add value! --Esprqii (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually we add chaos to a system, but sure, that can be considered value :-) tedder (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Invasio Barbarorvm
hello tedder well I am sorry but your link is incorrect please look at this one
 * Context: Invasio Barbarorvm

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Invasio+Barbarorvm&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7_____en&redir_esc=&ei=7ozDS8qoBZ-80gSzn4W3DA

thanks,Secthayrabe (talk)


 * Hi- that's a google web search, not a google news search. See WP:GHITS, but basically existence does not prove notability. tedder (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump
U noted in the discussion that u might have more information: " The article/reference titled "LEGISLATURE'S 1991 FUND EXCLUDES SOUTHERN OREGON SITE" says the following. Sorry, it's behind a paywall; if someone wants to investigate further, email me. " I don't have your email, but am interested. =)  What is the proper way to include that chain of custody (which I missed) ? Duff (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Use the "email this user" function on the left toolbox and I'll see if I can help at all. tedder (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Scappoose, Oregon
Hi Tedder. Looking for some clarification. Thanks. --Global777 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)--
 * Hi- I assume you are talking about this removal? What's your issue with it? How does that link meet WP:EL? tedder (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tedder. Still not clear. How does it violate it? WP:EL Thanks. --Global777 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)--

Tedder, You indicated, on your page, that you preferred to have discussions carried out on our own pages. I had placed the following on my page, thinking that you would go there to read my comment. I'm assuming that you haven't read it:

Aloha, Tedder. You removed my edit, regarding Scappoose, Oregon, describing my edit as Spam and "Disruptive editing." Respectfully, I am inquiring as to the elements and/or aspects of the link that warranted this removal and comments. The information, within the linked page, has no commercial agenda or value. It is simply a composite of information, specific to Scappoose, Oregon, and updated periodically by the City Manager.

I grew up in Scappoose and am preparing to attend my 40th class reunion, this summer. I was asked to add this link by one of the organizers of the reunion, as well as a lifelong resident of Scappoose.

I currently live in Aloha and have a nephew attending PSU.

Thank you for your time...  --Global777 (talk)--  —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC).


 * Sorry, I follow so many pages that I hadn't seen it. Here's the thing about that link: what value does it provide to Wikipedia? The only information it provides is a subset of the contact information available on the city website. Further, it doesn't provide any cited information, so I'm having trouble seeing what it adds to Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: South Park Blocks
Not sure if you are interested or not, but South Park Blocks is such a great article--consider nominating it for Good status! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge- I think I will. tedder (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Well done! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Need to figure out how to include this on my userpage now. Is it normal to reply to the GA or just leave it as-is? tedder (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Burgess
A Google search will show numerous sources for Burgess, as you already know. BLP does not apply to convicted persons. You know this, as well. I am wondering why you are so favourable to Burgess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.233.153 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) The last time I mentioned Burgess, the mention was removed on the grounds of alleged lack of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.233.153 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Before that, the 15 years was deleted on the grounds that it was not connected with the club. Thus, constantly changing grounds are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.233.153 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hells_Angels&diff=prev&oldid=357204870
 * WP:BIO and WP:BLP still apply, as well as WP:BLP1E. Feel free to list with citations, but without citations it's fairly useless and appears to be a soapbox against a person. tedder (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See www.bikernews.net, which has been quoted for years as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.201.103 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WTF - 119.152.61.170
. wtf was this guy doing? Please reply on my talk. Outback the koala (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your page. Definitely a WTF issue. tedder (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm sure we'll be fine after his block expires. Thanks for getting on top of this. Outback the koala (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is trying to evade their indef block. They've got a rather unfortunate habit of mass spamming random editors and haven't noticed that this doesn't actually work. I've tagged the IP editor as a sock and removed the thread they started at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)‎ per WP:DENY. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the context, Nick-D. All I knew was it smelled bad. Context is always nice. tedder (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As that war in Afghanistan article is semi protected so i cant edit anything on that page.So i request to other users to update that page.Nick-D was always stop me from editting.My edits are only and only casualty figures which are according to their refrences.119.152.94.103 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And so you placed the exact same message on the article, then on 31 editors' pages before being blocked? Really, dozens of editor pages, same pasted message? tedder (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If Nick D stop blocking my way to edit and only just watch my edits, if my edits wrong then undo my edits with explanation, then i doesnt post same messages on several user's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.85.196 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me state it more clearly: posting on 30 user talk pages is wrong. Do not use wikipedia as a soapbox. Nick-D says you are that user and are trying to evade a block. You were blocked for a reason. tedder (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Omer Cordell
Re. Articles for deletion/Omer Cordell, there was a previous AfD at Articles for deletion/Omer cordell (lower case on surname). Do we have any evidence the IP is the subject?  Ty  22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No evidence the IP is the subject, nor does it matter, really. Thanks for connecting the dots. Hopefully this AFD will either lead to deletion or massive improvement. tedder (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just realised I closed the first AfD. I thought it was familiar! My prophecy is being fulfilled at least...  Ty  00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, your signature is different, so I didn't recognize it. And yes, that's why I was a fan of pushing through the AFD. tedder (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Everything makes sense all of a sudden.  Ty  02:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

oops
Holy moly that's embarrassing! :) thanks. Rd232 talk 08:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, saw no reason to rub it in tedder (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln / User link
Greetings Tedder, Thank you for your letter about Wiki rules concerning links to user pages. I had the feeling I may have been stepping outside the guide lines when I linked ole Abe up to my user page but wasn't sure. I am working on a page in my user space that will eventually serve in this fashion, but figured until then it wouldn't hurt. (US History on Postage Stamps) Btw, if you have the time, I am trying to get feed back from various administrators and senior editors regarding this page and would certainly welcome the input before I launch her out to 'Wiki'Sea' someday (soon hopefully). All the best. GWillHickers (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't tend to get involved in philately(?) or new articles; there are lots of resources at WP:YFA for getting it reviewed. tedder (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donkey show
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Donkey show. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Donkey show. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Any update on ArticleAlertBot?
What's the current status of things? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jira's alive again, my ticket is open and stale. I've left a note on DaB's talkpage, no response. So I have no idea what to do next. tedder (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Delta
I want to thank you for taking the time to review the dealings for this. Unfortunately, I do not really agree with you and I understand the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSruling, but please look at the Fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha - they created a whole article brothers of the fraternity, that under the WP:BIO rule should have been taken down as well.

I would love to work on cleaning my Fraternity info up on here but, without prejudice. I feel from looking at about 5 to 10 Fraternity and Sororities they all have Chapter listings and Notable members that don't have bio's on Wikipedia.

All I am doing is trying to do the same and would accept help.

APD03 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to look at every article- but I try to clean up articles when I see them, as many other editors do. Please be careful that your viewpoint is not clouded by your point of view, and know that Wikipedia is not for advertising. tedder (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Totally understood. I don't think my Point of view is clouded, I do feel though that there should be standards across the board for all.  Burg (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Level 1?
Can I start with a level 1 warning instead please?--Long LC (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you'll tell me who you are a sock of. tedder (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've saved some time and indef blocked. If this was an overreaction, feel free to undo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they took the rope and used it as we expected. I revoked talk page access, they obviously understand what they are doing, what the rules are, etc. tedder (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
FYI, I consider "event listings" (the term I used) synonymous with "gig listings". Aboutmovies (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh- parsed what you wrote as the Week "has no listings". The gig listings != notability was for other readers, naturally. tedder (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Police Department (Oregon) and Lane County fallen officers
I saw that you had warned User:Vicboy not to add a fallen officers section to Lane County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) and Eugene Police Department (Oregon). While I don't know about any other editing issues surrounding this user, in this case the info he is trying to add is appropriate. WP:NOTMEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others." So if someone created an article about a non-notable friend who died, WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. However, listing in a police department article that officers in that department have died is history. Having this info is not only appropriate, it is required if the article is to be complete. It should also be noted the user didn't even add the names of the dead officers, merely the type of death, which pushes this even more away from a memorial. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll continue this at User talk:Vicboy, since you've replied there too. tedder (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unreliable / POV sources by M4 work
I see you have already reverted a change by. This editor has persisted in repeatedly adding the same source - which I now think is bordering on spam/COI - and will keep a watch out to make sure it isn't added again. It wouldn't help if you kept a watch on this editor too as he/she seems to have some strong views. Keep up the good work! --Biker Biker (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. It's a hard line. It's better to use that source than having no source, but that only explains some of the reverts/edits/etc. tedder (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donkey show
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Donkey show. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Donkey show. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Current tag removal by bot
I believe that consensus has been achieved on the time frame for a bot to remove Current and Current related templates per my tag removal suggestion a few days back. Do you agree? Abductive (reasoning) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've started outlining and writing it up: User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot. Please feel free to participate there, fill in sections/fix things, and invite parties that sounded interested. I'll do any of those activities that you don't, but it'll take longer and it'd be nice to get a little bit of input. For instance, what related templates should be included? Who is going to post a note to see if there are any objections to it? The bot won't be too hard, but we need further discussion, I think. tedder (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know which additional current templates the other folks want. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I don't mind just doing it for the main current template. Can you help me with the User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot page? Specifically, the 'objective' and 'plan' sections? tedder (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Related current tempates suitable for such a bot, until they are deleted, for which there are a few editors desiring such: current section - current war - current disaster - current sport current sport-related -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Martin
Hi there Tedder, you added the protection template to the article Ricky Martin, but forgot to protect it. I feel like I've been here before. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Just saw that on RFPP, which is unusual- it's easy to miss a box while protecting it. tedder (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Block Theskypeople
Could you block indef.?, I requested at WP:AIV, but bot is removing it. Thanks. Tb hotch Ta lk <sup style="color:#2C1608;">C. 04:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Curse those bots! Looks like Tim Song blocked the editor. tedder (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback- WPMAC protection
m o n o 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks- it's rolled off, but I went back and read through it. I'll protect; the number of templates is enough to make semi-pro worthwhile, but it's a borderline case, since it's on talk pages only. The best argument to protecting is that it reduces server load to semi-protect. Vandalism isn't a great argument because it's only on talk pages and hasn't happened. tedder (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For my information...
Hi again and sorry if I am troubling you for this tiny request but could you help link my user talk's User talk:Dave1185/Editnotice to User:Dave1185/Links~? Just been harassed by a low-life a moment back... *sigh* --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, you want the editnotice to appear when someone edits /links? If so, add it here: Template:Editnotices/Page/User:Dave1185/Links. tedder (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Chehalem Creek
Thank you for your feedback. It's a lot easier knowing why my work was deleted than others who just delete it. I would like to respond to your three concerns: 1. I always strive to provide links to journal articles when I add references and did not realize that providing a link to an article hosted by an external organization was a severe issue, especially when that organization is a non-profit educational foundation and has permission to host said articles. I am not a member or official of that organization, however. Nevertheless I have deleted the links to those URLs everywhere I can think of. 2. A photo of a salmon jumping a beaver dam is relevant to many sites, not just Alaska where the picture was taken, because salmon have a wide range such as Chehalem Creek, and have also been planted in lakes like Lake Tahoe. This particular salmon photo is the exact subspecies of salmon planted in Tahoe, Oncorhyncus nerka, and getting a photo of a salmon in Tahoe like that would be a one in a million. Surely it cannot be reasonable to only allow photos of species with wide territorial ranges that are taken at every single particular stream or lake? The image also conveys important information on the North American beaver page as many people regard beaver dams as barriers to salmonid migration. The image conveys that salmon pass beaver barriers and that the two species co-exist. 3. I do not agree that I am currently soapboxing about flow devices. Not when my comments are factual and each one is referenced. Nevertheless I have been guilty of this before and am learning the hard work of separating what seems to me emotionally to be an obvious solution from an objective, pithy entry. Therefore I will reduce the mention of this important option to a single sentence and buttress it with three references from the peer-reviewed literature. Again I much appreciate your leaving me information on why, how and what to do to improve my articles. Chehalem Creek did not exist until I put it up a few nights ago and it has some fascinating history. It is an irony to me that it was first explored and then settled by beaver trappers and that now, in 2010, the city of Newberg is in the midst of quite a controversy about their beavers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmiebel (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi- the best bet is probably to discuss this on article talk pages, since you won't get much input from my lowly talk page. Anyhow, there was no evidence the blog had permission to host the content, it's best to not link directly to it due to the copyright laws in the USA, where Wikipedia has some of its servers. I'm opposed to the salmon picture for a handful of reasons, but I'll leave it on Tahoe because it's the same species (is there a cite for that?), and because it probably needs a wider conversation than just the two of us. tedder (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will consolidate discussion here Talk:Chehalem Creek. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene EC
The only part I sort of cared about was the river bank trails. Please feel free to continue. --Tesscass (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the only edit I was doing to it- no worries. Again, sorry for clobbering your edits! tedder (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for trying to clean up the recent work on that page. Should we see about an editor RFC for the problem content, or try more discussion? Assuming we all agree that things such as taxi service providers are not particularly encyclopedic for a Eugene article - NYC I could understand. Or try again on the article talk page? Aboutmovies (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor RFCs don't really accomplish anything. I think we should be patient and continue to work with them. tedder (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi on Globe Theatre
Thanks for you intervention on Globe Theatre, but vandalism from unconfirmed users (e. g., ) is still occurring. Am I missing something? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it means I failed to click the right buttons. It's protected now; I don't remember what duration I promised, so I guessed 3 months. tedder (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was quick, thanks. It was twelve months, btw. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm near the computer, so it was easy to fix. I also fixed the length- set it to a year. tedder (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

AA bot
As per User_talk:Legoktm/April_2010 and Bot_requests, I am trying to figure out if someone is at work on this or if we can get someone at work on this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi TTT, I'm not working on it, I'm sort of blocked because I can't get a toolserver account, or even anyone to tell me why new accounts aren't being given out. tedder (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
(Posting this using Modern ;))  Amalthea  17:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bajaj Pulsar photo

 * Context: Bajaj Pulsar tedder (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tedder,

May i know why do you think that the previous image is better ? (Page: Bajaj Pulsar) The image you gave (by deleating Bajaj Pulsar 150.jpg) is of a model discont. long a go.

thank you,

Samihasib

samihaisb@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samihasib (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The visual quality of the previous picture is better. It's easier to see details of the bike, and the background isn't as jarring. Additionally, the article is about Bajaj Pulsar, not about a specific year or version of the bike. I'd encourage you to start a discussion at Talk:Bajaj Pulsar to get more feedback. tedder (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RV park
Hello, why do you say i have do spam ? Moreover, i have put a reference. I wiil put new pictures. Thank you. France64160 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this link appears to promote RVs and camping. A better choice would be a reliable source, such as a book or other publication. tedder (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, France64160 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Harvey W. Scott
Hello! In this edit that you made to the article Harvey W. Scott on March 25, 2010, you added a named-ref called "rr" without actually adding the citation. I haven't been able to determine what this ref might be to repair the article (see Category:Pages with broken reference names), and am hoping you remember back that far and can add in the material. If it's supposed to be the "pp" citation, I don't have access to that work to check for myself. If this isn't something you can fix, let me know and I will change the broken reference to a "citation needed." Thanks! Salamurai (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh. I toured his house today, strangely. I'll look back and see what else I was editing then. I think I was reading a book and sprinkling it to various pages, so I'll see. tedder (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looked- it was definitely supposed to be "pp". I'll fix. tedder (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Salamurai (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rossdegenstein
Since this editor has been blocked since January, is this an admission of block evasion? I'm not sure of the details but it looks exactly like what the account was blocked for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's been a significant amount of block evasion going on- very WP:DUCK level use of IPs. It's a user who has failed to communicate sanely, and the census edits have been a PITA. Feel free to handle how you want- I'm tired of dealing with them. tedder (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A note to my talk page stalkers
Expect me to be watchlisting Keck School of Medicine of USC and Pasadena soon. We'll be there starting in August so Tamarino84 can get her Doctor of Medicine. tedder (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's cool news! Congrats! And I assume you mean you're looking to live in PaSAdena, which is a great choice. I have some really good friends there. I would say to ask me about my own experience living in LA, but hey...you can find out for yourself! ;-)


 * Hopefully you won't forget us like some other Oregasmicizers I know (not mentioning any names). Gosh, our ranks are really getting thinned around here...I mean, sheesh, if we can't hold off the Bradbury POV-pushers, we're in sad, sad shape. --Esprqii (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we lived in San Diego for ~4 years. Hopefully I won't Californicate too badly.. tedder (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well, then you are well-prepared, though I'm sure you know LA is a different beast. Thanks for your BB work. You were more than patient. --Esprqii (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WT:ORE, I overstepped some bounds on protecting and blocking there. But yeah, SD and LA are definitely different. It wasn't my top pick by any means- but I don't get a lot of say in it :-) tedder (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck on the move, and does that mean you graduate next month? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Tedder graduates next month. I have classes through summer, so I graduate basically the same day she starts med school. tedder (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

tedderbot
Forgot to mention this yesterday but it looks like tedderbot fall down go boom... --Esprqii (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have waited 10 minutes before posting this. Never mind. --00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. I intentionally made it come after 0 UTC, so it's an hour later than it was before the DST change. tedder (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society
I've read through the Closing comments, and worked up a new page for eventually republishing. Could you look at and provide some thoughts? The page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmagha  Thanks so much. --Cmagha (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha

Global names index list
Hey there. In response to your questions would you be able to explain what you mean by annotations? There is no need to get anything from the global names index since Raul already extracted all the names from the list (A person creating articles from the list would go there to get additional references, but in order to arrange the list itself, there is no need to have access to them directly). In addition to that, he removed a lot of the names that would never become articles and that link I posted contains all the species, genera and higher rankings that are currently named/listed in a database (example of rauls list: (http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mpellegr/wikipedia/data/AAA-ADX-filtered). The sources where all these names come from is here:.
 * Now I am no computer expert but I can make a general outline/plan of how I envision the bot to work for my functions:
 * Bot opens
 * Bot copies first ~2,000 articles from the list (since I already did this manually for the first page the bot can copy 2,000 articles below the last name of the previous page, in this case being Abelmoschus ficulneoides)
 * Bot edits/creates page called A2 (I.E. following on from the above title) and pastes 2,000 names. (I say edit, because the current pages actually were created by me manually prior to Raul obtaining the filtered version of the list, these pages that do exist can be overwritten --> All others that don't exist can be created from scratch)
 * Bot adds template words/headings/titles as shown on page
 * Bot saves list.
 * Bot obtains the next 2,000 names after the last name from the previous page.
 * Process is repeated (A3, A4, A5.... A500...) until all of letter A is done.
 * Bot does the same with B through Z
 * That should cover it but if you have any other questions please feel free to ask. Note that this has a lot of names (surprisingly a lot of things missing from Wikipedia) and the previous person who tried to do it kept crashing their computer (I myself was having a lot of trouble pasting such large amounts of data). Oh and yes this will be a one of request. Understandably there are new species and genera being discovered all the time (in fact, the GNI has updated the number of names it has by a few thousand from when I last updated the project page: --> 18,633,200 to 18,636,390 but we can worry about those other names ONCE the main list is covered (which will take a while). Note also that since Raul's list is the filtered version and hence does not have 18 million names (not sure how much but it is A LOT LESS than that). Here is our previous discussion with him for further background:.
 * Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Calaka. It's certainly something I can help with. But I still have some questions. First, will this list be ADDED to the Global Names Index or REPLACING it? tedder (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it will not be replacing the website if that is what you meant? The actual list placed here on Wikipedia is done so we can easily see what we need to create (red link) vs. what is already created (blue link). The bot only needs to update page 1 of the letters B - Z and A2 through to A10 since I did those manually and prior to the updated list so a lot of the names on those list currently are out of date/not needed (A1 I did myself so no need to touch that). So the bot only needs to update those pages but then after that it will need to create from scratch (i.e. Page A11, A12, A13, A14 etc.). Note that there is only 2,000 names per list due to the search template restricting/not working after a certain amount.Calaka (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not the website. What I mean is the GNI pages. You did A1. If the bot does A2, it will be replacing anything already on A2? I assume the answer is yes, but what if SFNI has something in it? Let me know if that's not clear. tedder (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry I misunderstood. I watclisted all the other pages and no one made any edits to them so you are more than welcome to update them. I only did changes to page one of the letter A just to showcase/test out how I (& others) would go about doing this list. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any luck?Calaka (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Making some progress. It'll take me some more time, but the basic bits are there at least. tedder (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah that is good to know! Let me know how the progress is going and if you have any other questions. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So just out of curiosity, are you using python to make the bot? When Raul compiled the list he used that program. Furthermore when you make the bot will you have to run it through an approval process (since it is not doing anything on main space)? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey- I haven't had time to crank on this recently. Bug me in 4-5 days if you haven't heard anything. Most of my bots are in perl, which is what I'll use for this. And you are right, it won't need approval because it's out of mainspace and very limited in scope. tedder (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehehe will do! :)Calaka (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How did it go?Calaka (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still heads-down in a real-world project, unfortunately. Gotta have more time before I can get into it. My hard-out is this coming Tuesday, I should have more time after then. tedder (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough man. :) I better stop bothering you or you will get sick of me. Hopefully you will get around to it whenever you can! Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Long term AnonIP at Second Amendment article...
This matter you were involved in last November, (see here), still seems to be brewing. At present it is not anything close to being a crisis. Though, you asked me to ping you if it were to resurface. Thank you for all your tireless work. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not seeing that it's the same thing- fairly civil replies, not the same cut-and-paste soapboxing. However, if it turns into that (or it has, and I saw the wrong diffs to prove it), it probably needs to go to ANI to get consensus for a topic/page ban. If that happens, let me know so I can support it. tedder (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, presently not a crisis. The biggest clue of IPhop/sock is the geolocate to Cambridge Massachusetts vicinity.  Also, I agree that the degree of ranting is much toned down and improved.  And truth be told, I am still hopeful that I can find a way to cooperate with this person; bringing my best patience and WP:AGF to the task.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the AGF thing. Sometimes it's hard when a likely IP gets to skate that. But do what you can- it's a big change for many soapboxy IPs/socks to actually read and reply. And just ranting/replying on the talk page is a good thing! tedder (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. I do have a leather skin, and need it when I edit in contentious articles.  The bottom line though is that personal attacks by this Cambridge Massachusetts AnonIP has stirred up and disrupted the editing environment there and impedes the work at hand which is the encyclopedia.  See this snapshot of the article talk page with the personal attacks highlighted in yellow.  Can you give me some advice about how I can move away from acrimony and bring civility and collaboration back to the job there which is editing an encyclopedia?  This acrimony that follows this Cambridge Massachusetts AnonIP has gone on for eight months, and is not stopping.  I'm tired.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And, again this morning, two diffs on the talk page aimed at the person, not discussing the article, never ending and disruptive because it gets in the way of productively discussing the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for. Please also review, , , , , and. 12.238.13.194 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this edit claims you are a banned user. tedder (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request TedderBot 5
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC) <small style="color:gray">To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Long term AnonIP at Second Amendment article...
This matter you were involved in last November, (see here), still seems to be brewing. At present it is not anything close to being a crisis. Though, you asked me to ping you if it were to resurface. Thank you for all your tireless work. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not seeing that it's the same thing- fairly civil replies, not the same cut-and-paste soapboxing. However, if it turns into that (or it has, and I saw the wrong diffs to prove it), it probably needs to go to ANI to get consensus for a topic/page ban. If that happens, let me know so I can support it. tedder (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, presently not a crisis. The biggest clue of IPhop/sock is the geolocate to Cambridge Massachusetts vicinity.  Also, I agree that the degree of ranting is much toned down and improved.  And truth be told, I am still hopeful that I can find a way to cooperate with this person; bringing my best patience and WP:AGF to the task.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the AGF thing. Sometimes it's hard when a likely IP gets to skate that. But do what you can- it's a big change for many soapboxy IPs/socks to actually read and reply. And just ranting/replying on the talk page is a good thing! tedder (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. I do have a leather skin, and need it when I edit in contentious articles.  The bottom line though is that personal attacks by this Cambridge Massachusetts AnonIP has stirred up and disrupted the editing environment there and impedes the work at hand which is the encyclopedia.  See this snapshot of the article talk page with the personal attacks highlighted in yellow.  Can you give me some advice about how I can move away from acrimony and bring civility and collaboration back to the job there which is editing an encyclopedia?  This acrimony that follows this Cambridge Massachusetts AnonIP has gone on for eight months, and is not stopping.  I'm tired.  SaltyBoatr get wet 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And, again this morning, two diffs on the talk page aimed at the person, not discussing the article, never ending and disruptive because it gets in the way of productively discussing the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for. Please also review, , , , , and. 12.238.13.194 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this edit claims you are a banned user. tedder (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request TedderBot 5
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC) <small style="color:gray">To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

AABot
Hey tedder, I talked to Lego about User:ArticleAlertbot, and he says you're working on a solution to the problem. I'd be willing to help out, so just let me know if you need it. <b style="color:#222222">FinalRapture</b> - <b style="color:#222222;">†</b> <b style="color:#222222;">☪</b> 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'd work on it, but I can't get a login to toolserver, so I haven't touched it. tedder (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad bot edit
Please check out this edit. I suspect that blanking pages is not intended behavior. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And another one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stopping my bot, I'll look into it. Thanks! tedder (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed some code. Not sure why the regex was being extra-greedy, but I did a couple things to prevent that and also put in a failsafe so it'll leave a page alone rather than greedily wiping the whole thing. To be sure, I'll run it by hand until it actually removes a few templates so I can make sure. tedder (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here are the fixes. I ran it by the bot owners noticeboard and have seen it safely edit pages, so I've turned the bot back on. Thanks again! tedder (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

question
Okay I know blogs are not realy a RS. But he is the problem The  source we have show fax for new icarly episodes adds them but then a few weeks later or so takes the new episodes down. I was just wondering could we use http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/. I know it is a blog site but here is the thing. the person who runs the site and the victoious site gets the episodes off show fax and puts them on there. the new episodes would be under the section upcoming episodes on the bottom of the page. Now if this is fine, How would I use this without it getting takien down when I put the new episodes up. Also What is the difference between http://danwarp.blogspot.com/ wich is used for the main icarly pages and dan's other shows. thanksChecker Fred (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi- the best place to address this is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. tedder (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of: Amanda Knox
I have requested redirect "Amanda Knox" to be semi-protected to allow a full article, as requested:
 * Requests_for_page_protection

I am wondering if you still unprotect articles. You had protected it on 5 Dec 2009, pending a /Draft subpage, but I have created a full sourced bio, User:Wikid77/AK (not a draft), which I can copy into the new revision of "Amanda Knox" and let other users start editing it, continuing the same edit-history log. If there are going to be edit-wars, let them be recorded for the actual article name, for future investigations of various user edits. Also, any registered-user "vandalism" would be logged to the actual article history, as well. I don't want people to tell an admin they thought a "draft" doesn't count as being real edit-wars. Let's omit the "/draft" stage, and see how people edit the real page. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ tedder (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

TedderBot blocked
After seeing this edit by TedderBot, I immediately blocked the account. Please feel free to unblock it when you fix the error in the bot code. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I put some safeguards in place that should have prevented that from happening. I'll kill the bot for now and add more safeguards. The bot is disabled now, do you mind unblocking so it won't look like wheel warring later? tedder (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Without the context of this conversation it'll look better. tedder (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * fixed the bug. I still have some improvements to make- expand the information returned so I can display more info on the page and make better decisions at blanking pages. But this should fix the issue you saw. tedder (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

talkpage move
Hi tedder, after a messy discussion and move here and there, this talkpage is in need of being at the same title as the article, would you tidy it as I think a deletion of a redirect is required to complete the move Guti_(footballer) Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So Talk:Guti (footballer) is a redirect to a redlink. I assume Talk:Guti (footballer) needs to be deleted, where's the talkpage that should be moved there? tedder (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Destination for the talkpage need to be the same as the article Talk:Guti (footballer) Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question I had was, where is the talkpage content? But I just found it: Talk:Guti Hernández. I'll move, and I'm going to move-protect the page so this level of headache doesn't happen again without a strong consensus. tedder (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Guti_Hernández yes here it is, sorry thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For stalkers and for history, this is ✅ tedder (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Global names index list
Hey there. In response to your questions would you be able to explain what you mean by annotations? There is no need to get anything from the global names index since Raul already extracted all the names from the list (A person creating articles from the list would go there to get additional references, but in order to arrange the list itself, there is no need to have access to them directly). In addition to that, he removed a lot of the names that would never become articles and that link I posted contains all the species, genera and higher rankings that are currently named/listed in a database (example of rauls list: (http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mpellegr/wikipedia/data/AAA-ADX-filtered). The sources where all these names come from is here:.
 * Now I am no computer expert but I can make a general outline/plan of how I envision the bot to work for my functions:
 * Bot opens
 * Bot copies first ~2,000 articles from the list (since I already did this manually for the first page the bot can copy 2,000 articles below the last name of the previous page, in this case being Abelmoschus ficulneoides)
 * Bot edits/creates page called A2 (I.E. following on from the above title) and pastes 2,000 names. (I say edit, because the current pages actually were created by me manually prior to Raul obtaining the filtered version of the list, these pages that do exist can be overwritten --> All others that don't exist can be created from scratch)
 * Bot adds template words/headings/titles as shown on page
 * Bot saves list.
 * Bot obtains the next 2,000 names after the last name from the previous page.
 * Process is repeated (A3, A4, A5.... A500...) until all of letter A is done.
 * Bot does the same with B through Z
 * That should cover it but if you have any other questions please feel free to ask. Note that this has a lot of names (surprisingly a lot of things missing from Wikipedia) and the previous person who tried to do it kept crashing their computer (I myself was having a lot of trouble pasting such large amounts of data). Oh and yes this will be a one of request. Understandably there are new species and genera being discovered all the time (in fact, the GNI has updated the number of names it has by a few thousand from when I last updated the project page: --> 18,633,200 to 18,636,390 but we can worry about those other names ONCE the main list is covered (which will take a while). Note also that since Raul's list is the filtered version and hence does not have 18 million names (not sure how much but it is A LOT LESS than that). Here is our previous discussion with him for further background:.
 * Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Calaka. It's certainly something I can help with. But I still have some questions. First, will this list be ADDED to the Global Names Index or REPLACING it? tedder (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it will not be replacing the website if that is what you meant? The actual list placed here on Wikipedia is done so we can easily see what we need to create (red link) vs. what is already created (blue link). The bot only needs to update page 1 of the letters B - Z and A2 through to A10 since I did those manually and prior to the updated list so a lot of the names on those list currently are out of date/not needed (A1 I did myself so no need to touch that). So the bot only needs to update those pages but then after that it will need to create from scratch (i.e. Page A11, A12, A13, A14 etc.). Note that there is only 2,000 names per list due to the search template restricting/not working after a certain amount.Calaka (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not the website. What I mean is the GNI pages. You did A1. If the bot does A2, it will be replacing anything already on A2? I assume the answer is yes, but what if SFNI has something in it? Let me know if that's not clear. tedder (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry I misunderstood. I watclisted all the other pages and no one made any edits to them so you are more than welcome to update them. I only did changes to page one of the letter A just to showcase/test out how I (& others) would go about doing this list. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any luck?Calaka (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Making some progress. It'll take me some more time, but the basic bits are there at least. tedder (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah that is good to know! Let me know how the progress is going and if you have any other questions. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So just out of curiosity, are you using python to make the bot? When Raul compiled the list he used that program. Furthermore when you make the bot will you have to run it through an approval process (since it is not doing anything on main space)? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey- I haven't had time to crank on this recently. Bug me in 4-5 days if you haven't heard anything. Most of my bots are in perl, which is what I'll use for this. And you are right, it won't need approval because it's out of mainspace and very limited in scope. tedder (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehehe will do! :)Calaka (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How did it go?Calaka (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still heads-down in a real-world project, unfortunately. Gotta have more time before I can get into it. My hard-out is this coming Tuesday, I should have more time after then. tedder (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough man. :) I better stop bothering you or you will get sick of me. Hopefully you will get around to it whenever you can! Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pulling this out of the archive. I'll look at it in the next few days. tedder (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit I have gotten a bit slack about it myself and probably wont be as devoted to it as I was at the start. But having said that I would still love to see it set up and once all the lists are there I can advertise it around and hopefully a few people can give it a go. (I did bug Raul quite a bit in making those lists so completing it would be the least I could do for him hehe) :)Calaka (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Henrik's google search
You appear to have User:Henrik/sandbox/google-search in your monobook.js. It now seems to work in the new Vector skin, should that be of use to you. If so, load the updated code from Henrik's page into your vector.js page, clear the cache, and you should be away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was even on my watchlist. I should really switch to vector one of these days.. tedder (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox
Further to your unprotection of this article, we now have a completely one-sided article in mainspace, which completely breaches WP:NPOV. Quantpole (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So fix it. It's going through AfD, which is the proper course. tedder (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I intend to help fix it. I am just surprised at the difference in your attitude between now and when you protected the page. Then you said a draft should be done first. Now you seem quite happy to let a horribly POV article, full of BLP violations, back into mainspace. Quantpole (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The draft was done. It isn't perfect. tedder (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really confused. What is the point of a draft if there is no discussion of it before being moved over? What was your meaning when you said, "Perhaps creating the bio should be done at Talk:Amanda Knox/Draft, since any incomplete attempts at Amanda Knox will get immediately seen by a lot of people." Or were you happy that the draft that had been created met wikipedia policies? (Just a reminder that this was the draft). Oh and look at the history of the page now - we are already getting edit warring. Do you really think your course of action was the best here? Quantpole (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to police user conduct on that page? I'd like you to consider removing Wikid77 from the article - his full reversion to his coatracky BLP violation with pretty image that is pretty much roundly reviled by all the editors who have looked at it is the same kind of obstinant ownership behavior that got him blocked for 2 weeks back in May. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ross Wicks
Given that the player did not really play in any of the higher minor leagues and was an unsourced BLP, it was eligible for an A7 speedy I felt, so I went and did that, though the summary was an expired prod, which I guess it wasn't. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 01:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, A7 makes sense. The "expired prod" was what misled me. No big deal. tedder (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Blanked
Just alerting you that this bot blanked 2010 FIFA World Cup. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_FIFA_World_Cup&action=historysubmit&diff=367340731&oldid=367340377 Sir Stig (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's been an ongoing problem, I keep adding code to prevent it. I'll take it offline and not turn it on until I have a LOT of logging to see why it's happening. (where's your white helmet?) tedder (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, look at the times. Interesting, related. tedder (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Glitch in User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot/census
It says a couple of the articles have not been edited in 354506.2 hours. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, and it proceeded to blank them, which is why I've joined this section to the previous. I'm guessing it didn't fetch the content and gave the epoch as zero (which means 1970ish). Anyhow, the bot has been turned off since that glitch until I have time to fix it. On holiday now. tedder (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

About the edit to Albany
So I an not sure what I did wrong in that cited source. I am sure you know but I would love to know to so i can know what I need not do in the future and so I can find an accurate source you will be alright with found a few that have it just need to know what ones are wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewDill (talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind I just saw i put in the wrong thing in the source I will add it in and try again. Sorry still not quite perfect at it yet. Thanks for calling it to my attentionMathewDill (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Offline
I saw your comment at the Timbers Army page. I am personally fond of the essay WP:OFFLINE and thought you might like it. And Portland sucks ;) Cptnono (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Context: Talk:Timbers Army
 * Heh, thanks! But are you saying Portland in general sucks or the team sucks? I have no opinion on most team sports, but dammit, I love this city and am going to miss it. (leaving next month) And that's a good essay. Hopefully I'll remember it tedder (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Hi Tedder,

I have only done a very tiny bit of editing on Wiki, and my first article was deleted, due to notability. So I think I am confused, it meets notability guidelines, and I just moved it today after googling it and seeing the person I made it about is now (since last time I posted it) in two museum exhibitions, at a major museum. I have not made anymore articles, because I am very confused. I may have better luck editing existing articles and learning the ropes. Can you explain this to me? I have looked at a number of other artists wiki, and many have less notability than the subject of the article I tried to make. Its says you protected it, so now I cant even see the article, or update it. Did I go about this "wrong", I think i am missing something, and don't want to make anymore articles until I can figure it out. Sorry-Im old:)

Thanks for your help, SandyPortland —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyPortland (talk • contribs) 01:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi SandyPortland, you've created the Natasha Wheat article previously, so I suspect you know a little about what's going on. The content was very similar to the other times the article on Wheat was created, and it was deleted by consensus three times: Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat, Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat (3rd nomination). It's now been deleted through the CSD process twice, so the article has been deleted five times. Salting the page (protecting it from recreation) is done to keep from expending the community's time on the same article repeatedly. If you truly believe it can be made notable, create it in your space first (as you did), then take the proposed version to WP:CNB to get feedback. However, reposting the same thing won't cut it: I'd suggest reading WP:BIO very, very carefully and making sure the page conforms. tedder (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tedder, that is really helpful! I thought that I was doing this the right way by adding the links to the new notability/Museum of Contemporary Art sites. How would you have gone about showing that notability has changed? Should I have used the language from the Museum sites? etc...Thanks again. I have only done this one thing, and the wiki language is a bit confusing to me, so I appreciate your help. SandyPortland —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyPortland (talk • contribs) 05:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please read WP:BIO, and note what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. A local source of merit would be The Oregonian; the Los Angeles Times and New York Times are even better. Simply being in a museum doesn't necessarily confer notability; read WP:RS and WP:V for more. tedder (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tedder, your spin on this, please?
Since you're our resident motorcycle maniac (or motorcycle buff, to not alliterate), would you please answer on that RD entry why there can't be headlights in other shapes? I'm sure that your angle on why Harleys can't have non-circular headlamps will be unique and stand out somehow. Thanks. --Let Us Update Dusty Articles 04:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Headed there now. I've been called worse tedder (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Jumapao
Could you use your search powers on her? Google News has nothing, and the pageants apparently were in the 1970s. Both Oregon pageants do not list her, but perhaps she went by a maiden name, and maybe a middle name instead of her given first name. Regular Google search does give a classmates.com listing for my old high school with a class of 75-76, which would match the timeline. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see:
 * NYT ancient history to 2006: no (via proquest)
 * EBSCOhost: no
 * UO library Oregonian subject/title search: no (when I do "+Andrea +Jumapao")
 * Oregonian via LexisNexis (only 1987-now): no
 * So I'm guessing there is a maiden name or something. Perhaps there is a record of Miss Oregon contestants somewhere? Hmm, if she competed at the national level in 1976, she should have been Miss Oregon 1976, right? And that was apparently Shan Rae Moss. But that's Miss America, not Miss USA. So that should be Miss USA 1976, which says Oregonian Gail Atchinson was third place (sans source). I vote prod. In fact, I think I'll prod it. tedder (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. But yeah, things just don't add up here. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

David Shetzline
Try to clean up the Shetzline article, in response to your tagging for more sources? Can you take a peak? Glad you've taken an interest in this piece, I guess from the WikiOregon perspective. Again, thanks; labor of love doing this Wiki stuff -- you all carrying most of it. --Cmagha (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * David Shetzline
 * What do I need to take a peek at? The article, but what specifically? Thanks, tedder (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)