Jump to content

User talk:Tedder/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Talk:Zecharia Mayani

Hi. Your input would be helpful at Talk:Zecharia Mayani.   — Jeff G.  ツ 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi- where is my input requested? My knowledge of authors is minimal; my knowledge of French is minimal; my knowledge of French authors is pretty much zero. tedder (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob

My edit removed a whole section of copyvio, but was immediately reverted by Barnstarbob - thus reinstating the text he had copy/pasted from Yamaha's website. As an admin I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on this. Personally I'm not happy with the way the article is progressing - even without the copyvio. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you see further copyvio. The user seems to be at least acknowledging things after you posted on their page. tedder (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR

Hi Tedder. I undid your revision because the consensus on [| talk] was to have summaries before moving the bulk of the controversies to the daughter article. Thanks. Grahamboat (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but it shouldn't exist in both places and potentially fork. The other article has been around for long enough that there obviously isn't clear consensus or initiative for it to get done. tedder (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That was nice work on the Allegations of ideological bias summery. Care to take on Controversies next? Thanks.Grahamboat (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I will. In fact, I'll join the two sections together. Just didn't want to do the whole thing if it was going to get reverted. tedder (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub Class?

Hi, I noticed you recently marked the Chris Petersen article I'm working on as "stub-class" on its Discussion page. I just have a couple questions - I know there's not a lot of information regarding his life outside his acting career (many former child stars who leave show business make the decision to stay out of the spotlight, so personal "where-are-they-now" information is difficult to find), but I think I'm doing a pretty decent job of giving a full picture of his acting career. Is that article really what you would consider a "stub"? I would maybe agree that it's "start" or more likely "C" class, but I wouldn't consider it a "stub". Or does that simply mean it's considered a "stub" with regards to the standard of fitting into the WikiProject California portal? If so, I could understand that since I'm surprised it was tagged as part of the California portal in the first place - other than he was born there. I'm just curious - so if you can fill me in it would help me out. Thanks --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it was a copy/paste fail. Thanks for the followup. tedder (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought it was probably something like that. It's taking me a while to work on his page (I just found out several of his credits are listed online misspelled as "Chris Peterson" - with an "O" - which is why I wasn't finding sources for several things I knew he'd done), so I was a little surprised that somebody would think it was a "stub", since stubs shouldn't usually take this much work. I was thinking maybe there was some distinction that I never knew about. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GoogleTrans is an example of browser integration with GoogleTranslate

The GoogleTrans gadget is an example of browser integration with Google Translation services, and as such deserves to be on the Google Translate page. It is also of interest to programmers because it is the only Javascript tool that equals and extends the Google Toolbar translation feature (cursor hover, translate).

There is no mention of the GoogleToolbar translation feature which is the world's most used tool that integrates with the web browser. The toolbar should be in this section of the article. To omit it and others is to render the 'Browser Integration' section of the article useless.

Wikipedia is a multi language site and it should use language tools like the Google toolbar translation feature and also GoogleTrans. These tools shouldn't be banned from the Google Translate article. You are being too strict in this case. Perhaps other factors that you do not mention are causing you to make this decision

Endo999 (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to userspace from articlespace is rare. Two cases that come to mind are Jimmy Wales and Essjay controversy. In general, a link to a user's space would be treated like any other external link, not like a link to another article. This is because the article space to userspace barrier is not penetrated lightly; they carry different standards.
For inclusion, the best way is to pretend it isn't even on Wikipedia. Imagine it was on a random website. What would be the rationale for inclusion? It would probably be helpful to have reliable sources that discuss the translation tool.
If you disagree, I understand. It needs to be discussed on a wider scale because it's an unusual case. I'd suggest starting a thread at WP:VPP. If you do, please post a link to the discussion here. tedder (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to answer about miniature hi-fi engines possibly being fitted to motor scooters?

Hello, since you're the resident expert on two-wheeled modes of transport, I thought you might be better able to answer the question about fitting miniature V12s or even W16s onto motor scooters. Videos and more details are in this link. Thanks, --98.190.13.3 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I have.. no knowledge in that arena. All that's coming to mind is what my pilot friends say: given sufficient thrust, *anything* could work. tedder (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, same OP. (I go different places with my laptop, hence the different IP.) So you're into motorcycles but not their engines then? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm into engines- I just don't know anything about model engines. Again, it's all about power. If the model engine makes enough power, it's no different than a conventional motor. tedder (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and comment stuff

If you like, its fine with me to cut that last section down just to include your comment to not be circular and such. With my responses in there now, it only is serving to make your request less noticeable. Also, thanks, I will do my utmost to make sure I stay civil and as I said on the page, its not my dog. :) I'm just curious about the discussion, but I don't want to debate it for too long. -- Avanu (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it down however you want, including my responses. So far I'm not complaining about the direction the talk page is going; things are heated, but it isn't filled with the OR that the original discussion (before it was posted to NPOVN) had. tedder (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Tedder, thank you for encouraging us poor non-administrator mortals down here in your KCAL-TV edit tonight that there really is hope in continuing the eternal quest for lists (especially biographical ones) that actually have some sort of referencing attached to them. cheers and thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah- I'm used to doing it from the zillion high school articles I follow. For some reason TV stations get more leeway on listing non-notable folks for their 'current staff', but at least we can put pressure to keep the "notable staff" actually notable. tedder (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied

On my talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

What a WP:TPS. :-) Thanks for reverting the personal attack/vandalism on my talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

De nada. People who cross the WP:NPA threshold on a watched talkpage are basically doing a Plaxico. tedder (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

KROQ Past DJs Section

See Talk:KROQ-FM/Archive 1#Adding_unreferenced_entries_of_former_employees_to_lists_containing_BLP_material

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

I am a former KROQ employee (1987-90) who is stil in touch with many of other former employees, interns and DJs over the years.

I can tell you it really upset some of the former DJs when you removed them from the list on the KROQ page.

So I put it back Jimmyhtz (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great, but Wikipedia isn't a directory. Stay connected with them through email, linkedin, facebook, etc. tedder (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick search of other Wikipedia pages covering media sites: List of MTV VJs and RT (TV network). The both show lists of their former on-air personalities.

You left a very incomplete insignificant list of "Notable former staff." You left in interns who were barely on the air, and removed significant personalities who had been on the air for decades. Jimmyhtz (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Update: I added one "Notable Former Staff" with a citation. Are you going to let it stick? Jimmyhtz (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


(talk page stalker) I removed it, actually, because IMDB is not a reliable source. IMDB is basically the same as wikipedia--it's an open wiki, in that anyone can edit any information on the pages. We occasionally allow IMDB, but only for very uncontroversial questions like the running time of movies. For identifying where/when a living person worked, it's not reliable enough. Reliable sources for a situation like this are going to be newspaper reports (rare, but happens sometimes), local trade journals (sometimes, especially in large areas, there may be a local trade paper for the broadcasting industry), or an official biography at whatever company the person works now (assuming it mentions the person's time at KROQ). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Qwyrxian. I was out enjoying some quality time in the SMMs. Having a laundry list of people is silly. Generally the way "former employees" is handled on Wikipedia is to limit it to those who are notable. Notable is defined by Wikipedia's notability guideline, especially notability for individuals. For some long reasons (I'd be happy to go into them), the shortcut for notability in a list of alumni/employees/whatever is to constrain the list to individuals who have a page on Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have to disagree--WP:NLIST does not, I think, require notability in the sense that Wikipedia normally uses the word Notability. The guideline says, "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines." To me, that seems like a lower standard than "needing to have their own article." My feeling for broadcasters is that if 1) the person appeared on air, regularly (i.e., not just a weekend fill-in) and 2) we can verify that they did so with a reliable source, then the person can be placed on the list. In other words, this is no different than any other editorial issue--we don't require every piece of information that is included in an article to be independently notable, only that it is relevant to the page (WP:DUE seems the most applicable here) and verified.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but it's much more difficult to prove. Now the notability must be proven in the article, as well as placing them as being connected to the radio station. Creating an article allows the AFD to handle it, as that's a normal process for assessing notability. It can be done, but it's much more difficult, which is why there's a lot of people (myself included) who simply use the bluelink razor. tedder (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see two opposing viewpoints on this, but already tedder undid my latest additions.
It is obvious that I am a newbie/infrequent poster here at Wikipedia. I do not know the millions of guidelines and I am in no position to challenge Admins. I have done my best to follow the feedback without much complaint. However, what I have gone through today has made it clear to me why so many people are afraid to contribute here.
tedder, Your personal bluelink razor of my latest edits undid other valid edits I had made:
  • I can find no evidence that Sly Stone ever worked at KROQ or KPPC
  • I changed the citation for Jim Trenton from IMDB (unreliable) to The Los Angeles Times (reliable) as instructed by Qwyrxian
  • I see that from your user page that you are a fan of Loveline. Would it help Egil Aalvik nobility claim if you knew that he was one of the ORIGIONAL HOSTS of the show?
  • I don’t think someone who lived in Oregon at the time should decide which DJs at KROQ in Los Angeles during the 1980s were notable or not. KROQ was a huge in the 80s and had a massive share of A12-34. When people find out I worked there at the time, the first thing they ask me if I know any or all of the former DJ’s I tried to add.
Jimmyhtz (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC

I know it sounds maudlin, but it's true; I'm constantly personally saddened by editors who express sentiments along the lines of "now I know why so many people are afraid to contribute here". Actually, thousands of people every day aren't afraid to edit here, the majority of whom quickly learned when they started out that it requires a little preparation first to avoid disappointment later. The initial welcome template that's put on a new editor's talk page, is more than a basic 'greeting card', which many folks first take it for. Everyone who intends to edit the encyclopedia is well served to take the time to actually read it and follow the links that are provided therein, to try get a basic understanding of our base policies and guidelines. There are many editors around here who are more than happy to address any questions that a new arrival has about the site and how we operate. Just ask. But there is however, a basic expectation that a newbie will actually take the time to learn the basics and try to apply them, under guidance. I've been editing for four years and have almost 20,000 edits under my belt, but I still make mistakes and ask questions all the time. I'm not an administrator by the way. Notability can be a tricky one to get your head around at first. For instance, remember that in Wikipedia, "famous" and "notable" aren't the same thing. Someone might generate lots and lots of media coverage by balancing a broomstick on their forehead while simultaneously walking from Maine to Florida; but if that's *all* they're known for, they may be "famous", but they are not "notable" according to our standards. We'd be happy to try and answer any questions you might have Jimmyhtz; I know the place does look a little 'arcane' when you first arrive, but it does get 'better'. hang in there, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work turning it personal. It doesn't really matter, it's about verifiable sources, not original research. Would you like to discuss things like an adult or continue your tantrum? tedder (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal?? Tantrum??? LOL whatever...
I do believe I made vaild points:
  • By your own admission, it appears you set and enforce your own guidelines on what is notible or not.
  • Instead of removing just the offending edit(s) I made, you simply undid my whole work including valid entries. (Sly Stone was subsequently corrected by Qwyrxian, thank you)
  • I cited The Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Magazine as verifiable sources. I think the Los Angeles Times might make at least the top 20 verifiable sources in the world.
  • I wouldn't be offended if you accused me of not being an effective judge of nobility of a radio station in, lets say, in Portland Oregon
Jimmyhtz (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: tedder I am not here to fight. My motivation is to get as many of my former DJ co-workers names on this page following Wikipedia’s standards.

Last weekend at a KROQ reunion gathering, several former DJs expressed sadness, not because they were not listed on the page…. But because they were once on the page and they then were removed. I promised them that I would do what I could to correct this wrong.

So, I am asking for your help here. Every person I tried to add was a full time KROQ Joq who had a major shift or show for multiple years. (Qwyrxian standard of nobility) I have found many user sites, all with the same/similar information. I now know that this is not sufficient and I will not try to add them until I find a better source. By the above standards, (The Los Angeles Times, Premier Radio Website, and Los Angeles Magazine) you should be able to return John Frost, Egil Aalvik, Freddy Snakeskin and April Whitney to the list. Jimmyhtz (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy, notability has nothing to do with where a particular Wikipedia editor has lived or any original research one may be able to contribute. It is all about verifiability and reliable sources--that is finding sources that anyone can research whether they live in Massachusetts or Timbuktu. To say someone shouldn't edit something because they don't know anything about it violates our article ownership policy. We are just asking you to comply with the same guidelines that we expect of anyone else. I understand your passion about wanting to maintain a list of former DJs and the sadness of those DJs, but Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum for such a list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This type of thing would be better served in an another forum, either a privately maintained website, something like classmates.com or perhaps even at KROQ itself, if it's possible to convince them to put up a history page or something like that (maybe they already have one--I didn't look). You might also check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio for suggestions. Valfontis (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You could also go to Wikia, which has absolutely no editorial standards and lets you setup your own Wiki on absolutely any subject of your choosing (assuming it hasn't already been started). --Biker Biker (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Valfontis I can show you many other pages covering broadcasting companies that list their former on-air personalities. Some have pages just for the list. Many of the people listed on those pages are not even referenced:

CNN, MTV, KFI-FM, KIIS-FM, WSTR (FM), WXRK, RT (TV network), BBC Radio 1, BBC Radio 2…. I could go on forever.

It was difficult for me to find a broadcast company page that did not have a list of unreferenced former on-air personalities. I had several people who I have verified from reliable sources (The Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Magazine) that has been removed. The precedent has been set with all of the other Wikipedia pages. Why is this being treated as the exception? Jimmyhtz (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although this isn't policy and is aimed at complete articles rather than specifically at lists within articles, it may give Jimmyhtz some insight into how many editors regard claims which attempt to use the "well, other articles contain X, why not this one?" argument. Also, I'd like to vouch for the fact that many many broadcast articles do not contain lists of non-notable unreferenced entries of former employees. I've personally edited and examined several hundred television station articles scattered over North America over the past 6 months; in both large and small markets and their numbers are decreasing every day. Many editors are beginning to realize that by cleaning up these lists and insisting on things like "notability" and the "need to verify", the overall value of the article's themselves increase. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is a work in progress and you cannot say I should get to have things my way on this article because these other articles are the same way. We need to clean up those articles too. I think your time would be better spent finding reliable sources for the additions you wish to make to the KROQ article and/or looking for a place to host a complete list of former personnel (the Wikia suggestion above is excellent), rather than continuing to argue. You have a right to argue, of course, but several people have given you links to various Wikipedia policy and guidelines (which I hope you have read), and after a while the continued arguing becomes disruptive. The KROQ article isn't being treated as an exception, it simply got noticed by people who care about the quality of Wikipedia articles. Some articles truly do suck, and many of the ones you've cited above are probably in need of extensive cleanup but so far nobody has noticed or cared enough to do anything about it. Us regular editors only care about producing a quality encyclopedia, but we are just volunteers so we haven't been able to improve everything yet. It's actually a good thing to have an article you care about noticed by other editors as it can only improve the article. Have you considered checking in with WikiProject Radio? I'm sure they would be helpful. Valfontis (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Valfontis Yes, I have read, or at least skimmed through, every policy link that you and others used to destroy every point I tried to make. You should see that I haven’t argued a point once a policy has been pointed out to me.

I do believe the Star Trek and even the Survivor examples shown in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually helps my case…. But let’s put that aside for now. Please answer me this:

  • I attempted to put 14 names on the list. I have accepted the fact the each name must be notable and verifiable.
  • I could only reference one from The Los Angeles Times, four from Los Angeles Magazine, one from a current employer Premier Radio.
  • All names, including the referenced names, were removed.
  • One name, Jim Trenton was put back in by someone else.
  • Why can’t the other referenced and notable names I have pointed out remain on the list?

Jimmyhtz (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You can and should add the referenced and notable entries. As long as your addition complies with the policies and guidelines, it will stay. Furthermore, most of us will actively defend them so they remain in the article. —EncMstr (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I haven't studied the individual entries as far as their notability so I don't know if I would agree or disagree with their removal. As I have mentioned before, please familiarize yourself with page histories. You can find the one for KROQ here (reached by clicking the "view history" tab at the top of the article). Then you can click on the "prev" links to see what has been changed with each edit. And you will see who made which changes. If you read the edit summaries, you can get some idea why each editor made the change s/he did. If you need further explanation, you can ask him/her on his/her talk page. However, I think it would be better to conduct this entire discussion at Talk:KROQ-FM, where we can keep it in once place. Right now it's happening in 4 or 5 different places. Valfontis (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have some ideas of how we can improve this article, especially with respect to this long discussion. I'll post it over at Talk:KROQ-FM in about six hours. In the meantime, take a deep breath, we can discuss it there in a constructive manner. tedder (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Productive parts of this discussion should occur at Talk:KROQ-FM/Archive 1#Adding_unreferenced_entries_of_former_employees_to_lists_containing_BLP_material. tedder (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A little help

Hi, I'm trying to help a friend fixing her "David L Boushey" Wikipedia article, I usually work with webpages, but this is very different that using Dreamweaver to make a webpage (thing that I know how to do, that is why she ask me for help), So, I noticed that you left some "notes" on top of the pages, I fixed already most of them, I think, so, can you check that and be a little more specific on your notes, here or in the "talk:page" of the article, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.54.84 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi- the article is on its way to being wikified- having links to other articles. Any of the major names should be linked- for instance, Heather Graham isn't. It still needs citations. For instance, it says Boushey graduated from Ingraham High School. That should be cited from a reliable source. See WP:INCITE for how to do that; citation templates are strongly preferred. Just as importantly, the article is full of flowery language, such as "he decided to fulfill his dream". That should be written from a neutral point of view. Finally, it seems that about half of the article is devoted to saying who Boushey worked with. It isn't cited, and Boushey isn't notable because of these names. It comes across strangely; saying Boushey worked with person X on movie Y and details about it would be better than just listing names. tedder (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tedder

Thanks for the kind offer, BFizz. And thanks for recognizing my efforts to play by the rules, as tricky to figure out as they are at times. I see Duke is presently restricted, so I think I'll drop it for now.

Sorry about any misunderstandings in the past.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm tedder, not bfizz, but.. yeah. I'm happy to have you around. tedder (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Response

Maybe if a certain somebody sought discussion before merging articles I won't warn them. Ng.j (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL, please, as pointy templating isn't exactly encouraging consensus-building. Note that actual discussions (instead of a template) had already generated discussion. tedder (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Univ. High Article

This is in regards to the article regarding my former high school (University High School (Irvine, California)

You removed almost the entire performing arts portion of the article; I have undone that edit once because I felt that it is worthy of being on there. Though I have graduated now, it was always of great interest to me and my parents to see what shows my marching band performed in the past. I never knew that my HS once performed selections from Carmen, among other shows. Preserving this past is what allows one to take a brief glimpse into the 40 years of history my high school has. The point of having an article is to display information that cannot be found just anywhere. I can do a Google search on Univ. HS and find out all about its demographics and academic performance. At this point, I look at my former high school's page and it presents nothing of significance to me. Gone is the Wikipedia article that was once full of interesting facts.

Now I mean no offense to you, Tedder, just as you meant no offense to me. But calling that material unencyclopedic was a bit offensive to me. How else can something like that be preserved? I understand this is an encyclopedia and not some sort of time capsule, but let's say 30 years down the road I decide to send my kid to this HS. S/he wants to get involved in the performing arts, but alas, all the history is long forgotten. The band director(s) of my time replaced by then and I am unable to express the impressive performing arts my high school had.

My HS was lucky to have someone actually create a page worthy of visiting (when compared to the other high schools in the district). Now it has been reduced to a mere page of the most basic of facts. I ask you to reconsider your declaration of unencyclopedic information. An encyclopedia is one of the more better methods of preserving a history. And take it from me, my high school, which is only at the young age of 40, has a deep history that was very difficult to recover and piece together. As a graduating senior last year, I had the luck to celebrate my high school's 40th anniversary and was tasked with creating a website for the anniversary celebration. It was very difficult to find any history about the school simply because of the lack of something like Wikipedia. Now that such a site is available, I ask you to assist in preserving the history so that this online-encyclopedia may present a worthy, encyclopediac article about my high school. Thanks Formertrojan (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to store all information. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. What's unique about your school's music program? For instance, (almost) every school offers a wide selection of music and theater classes, performs in parades, competes in state, and so on. Listings of information like this deserve to be around- they just don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic inclusion. I assume you've read WP:WPSCH/AG, since I linked to it several times. You should also read WP:INFO, and notice the word "summary" at WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia articles are not... a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." There are many places this information can be preserved, though- Wikia is a good example of a place for that.
It's unfortunate so much discussion has gone into preserving theater performances and marching band musical selections when the article doesn't even have a history section. It's worth looking at really high-quality school articles; notice the "history" dominates the article, and also notice the type and depth of coverage of activity-based programs like music, drama, and sports. Here's an especially detailed art program. It isn't filled with run-of-the-mill information. Instead, the unique elements are highlighted. tedder (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then I guess I can discuss your edits. I hope that quoting certain parts of an article is not violating any sort of rule. But I would still have to disagree with your edits. I will be referencing the Amador Valley High School page - specifically the fine arts section. Apparently on that page, the following is okay to have:
  • Amador Valley's band program consists of four concert bands: Wind Ensemble I, Wind Ensemble II, Wind Symphony, and Symphonic Band. At the annual California Music Educators Association Band Festivals, all four of Amador Valley's concert bands regularly earn "Unanimous Superior" ratings.
As you can see, it lists the four bands it has. Whereas on my high school's page, it once said
  • University High School has three concert wind bands: Concert Band (Beginning), Symphonic Band (Intermediate), and Wind Ensemble (Advanced). The Symphonic Band and Wind Ensemble are audition-only classes. Entry into the Wind Ensemble is highly competitive as there are many talented auditionees, but there are only few spots open. Many dedicated students in the Wind Ensemble are accepted into local/state, and sometimes even national Honor Orchestras/Wind Ensembles.
You edited that part out, deeming it as unencyclopediac. However, I do not see much difference between the part on my former high school's page and on the page of a featured school. Same thing here:
  • There are three orchestras: String Orchestra (Beginning), Concert Orchestra (Intermediate), and Symphony Orchestra (Advanced). [...] The Symphony Orchestra performed at Carnegie Hall in 2002 with then instrumental music director, Peter Fournier.
On the Amador page, it says:
  • The Marching Band and Color Guard compete in the Western Band Association (WBA) circuit. The band practices a competitive field show, performed at football halftime shows and competitions. The Marching Dons are classified into WBA Class AAAAA.[65] The Amador Valley Marching Dons have received sweepstakes (highest score in combined AAAA and AAAAA classes) and first place awards and earned sixth place in 2008 at the WBA Championship. In 2006 the marching band competed in the Bands of America Regional Competition for the first time, and placed fourth in the 2007 competition. In 2005 and 2009, Amador Valley was invited to perform at the annual London New Year's Day Parade.
So it talks about their band's division/class and a few awards/places they've received. However, on my high school's page, apparently the awards received is not okay:
  • Currently ranked in the 4A division with over 120 members, the University HS Trojan Marching Band received a first place in the 2006 Loara HS Field Show Competition for its show "Cirque du Soleil: La Nouba." On November 3, 2007, the band and colorguard received a first place award out of four bands and also received a "High Music" award at the Huntington Beach HS Competition. The drumline received a "High Percussion" award, a prestigious honor for the Uni Drumline to receive. On October 11, 2008, the band placed 2nd in the 4A division at the Valencia field tournament. On October 25, 2008, the band placed 1st in the 4A Red division at the Loara field tournament. The winterguard won a Division gold medal at the 2001 WGASC Championships.
All in all, I must thank you for pointing me to a school page where I can see a valid performing arts. I have gone ahead and written something that I think is similar to the Amador Valley HS page. It is no longer as wordy or as lengthy; if the Amador Valley HS performing arts section is okay, then I do not believe there should be any major issue with the article I have gone and written. Cheers Formertrojan (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity

I am editing in areas associated with computer hacking crime and extereme white supremicist orgainzed crime violence in Norhtern Europe, according to news sources. I did not know about all this when I started. I have discussed this with numerous editors, and suggested they do the same as I am in these areas. An Admin said I can edit from anonymous remote IPs. I ask that you please not out me and undo naming me in error by another editor on a talk page, and possibly undo your placement of my nick back in the talk page that I removed. Also, if you could please blank this section. For some reason, I could not edit without logging in. Thanks. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to blank it. You can take it up with the other editor. I'm confused how linking your username to IP addresses in the US helps you out. tedder (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I have posted personal information on my user page and elsewhere, so I started editing from a remote anonymous IP, so it will out me. I have discussed this with other editors in the past on certain crime related articles, so they would not think I was a sock, and an admin had told me editing apporpriately from a remote IP is OK. It even helps focus discussion on content and policies, not on editors. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
When I asked you to honor my anonymity in the context of editing articles with individuals in the press associated with violent hate crimes in Northern Europe by white supremicist organized crime, why did you put "context above? Doing so strains my AGF, but I am still trying. I ask again that you please do not out me like this, remove the "context" prominently at the top, and blank this section. Even having to have this discussion draws attention that does nothing to improve WP. 173.75.81.106 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
IP, I suggest you do not provide information you don't want forever in the public record on Wikipedia: everything is logged, even if deleted. Instead, use your Wikipedia account to email Tedder. That is comparatively much more private. —EncMstr (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if the IP wouldn't discuss it, I wouldn't have known or noticed what was going on. It seems like an effort to create drama. The context is there for talk page stalkers. tedder (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Karina Fabian

Karina Fabian is a science fiction author. Please add the AfD notice to whatever list is appropriate for science fiction authors. Thank you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In the future you can do it yourself, WP:DELSORT. tedder (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Javeleau Birthday Party

I've taken this to AfD after declining a speedy on it. As you've edited there, I'm letting you know. I'm not notifying all the IPs, only the one whose speedy I declined... Peridon (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Review a Deleted Article

You recently removed an article that I am trying to pull up int he history but unable to find it. Where did you move this to or where do I access it? Next time be a little more constructive instead of just farming for WP cred. Thanks. Krozar (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP cred, eh? Hm. Would you like to tell me what the article is? If you ask a little bit nicer, I could userify it for you. tedder (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ami Bera

Hey -- I noticed you proposed Ami Bera for deletion. I'm not particularly partial to preserving or deleting the article, but if it affects your thinking at all, he has already announced that he's running against Lungren again in 2012. See coverage here, here, and here.

Also - since the article currently redirects to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 3 I didn't know where exactly to post this, so feel free to move it around. Cheers! Arbor8 (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi- I saw that Bera was (re)running, generally the campaign office gets really interested in updating the article during the campaign, not so much before or after that. In any case, notability doesn't change because of a campaign, and the headache of NPOV until election day compounds that. User:Flatterworld correctly changed the prod to a redirect. tedder (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Carolla

Hello Tedder, I just have a question about your update. Which NBC show was picked up? Niluop (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, my edit was missing the negative. Fixed. tedder (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thermahelm COI

As an admin and member of the motorcycling wikiproject, perhaps you could keep an eye on this? IMHO we can't let companies dictate how we run Wikipedia - especially in this case were I will publicly state that I think there was a COI in the first place. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, have been watching it. Note COI isn't a reason for the article to be deleted, but it's something to watch for WP:UNDUE, WP:ADVERT, etc. tedder (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand that, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AVN alumni

There's many gnews and gbooks hits about them. The only appropriate citations for the AVN article should be the one that notes that they worked at AVN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, if they don't have articles, they need to be cited for notability and employment. That's why it's usually easier to create a stub for them, as there's a standard process for evaluating notability of individuals who have articles. Kulkis looks encyclopedic, Ponante appears to have been covered relatively thinly. tedder (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Citrus

I'm a little confused. Both UCLA and USC allow people to post movie filming trivia on their pages, but it isn't acceptable to do so on the Citrus College page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltyGranola (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They shouldn't have them, unless it's actually important to the school. When a scene of somewhere simply flashes by a location, that doesn't make it integral. Examples of times where the film is focal on a school- these happen to be high schools, but it's the same thing:

If you've seen any of those movies, it's clear the difference between happening to flash by a campus and being integral to it. Further, see World Trade Center in popular culture to see how "establishing shots" is different than "notable appearances". If nothing else, filming at USC and UCLA have been covered in reliable sources, not relying on identification (which is somewhere between being disallowed by original research and being allowed by WP:FILMPLOT). tedder (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Final note- its appearance on the Citrus College page suffers from undue weight compared to the other articles. It'd be best to spend time improving more important areas of the article, such as academics and history of the school. tedder (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the Jefferson High School Los Angeles 1st Accomplishment Grid

Hi Teddy,

On the "Jefferson High School Los Angeles" Wiki Page "1st accomplishment Grid"; you remove the information and typed the following information as the reason: "if these are notable alumni, they should be in the notable alumni list". I would expect you to move the grid into the Notable Alumni section, but you deleted the grid that highlighted first Accomplishments.

If John F. Kennedy is first Irish-Catholic President from a particular high school; I should be able to highlight that information in a section other than "Notable Alumni", If Bill Gate is the first man from my high school to become a Billonare, I should be able to highlight that in a section other than notable alumni. Every Sport team that have a MVP or finish in first place can only be highlighted in Notable Team Roster section.

I would like to return the Grid to the Wiki page and I will put it under the Notable Alumni section to satisfy your comment above. I am hoping that you will not remove the grid again. If you do remove information, please be a little more specfic to reason the why. If you have a problem with that type on Notable Alumni information on Wikipedia, please say in your comment.

Thank You.

I hope you allow me to return information to Wiki Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svgperson (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Svgperson, you are right, notable alumni don't have to be in the "notable alumni" section, though that's a common place to do so. Nearly every sports team has a MVP or similar, but that doesn't make them notable. They should be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Being the forth person of your race to be nominated for an award doesn't make someone notable, though in Juanita Moore's case, she was the fifth and is notable for other reasons. An "accomplishment grid" belongs on the school's bulletin board or website. tedder (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Also note the article desperately needs cleanup. The truly notable alumni are mentioned in various areas around the page, which is fine, but the whole section of SLCs is garbage- it's effectively a compilation of mission statements. See WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. The history section needs some copyediting, and many of the photos don't have to do with the school other than showing what people looked like 30 years after they graduated. tedder (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Granted... Juanita Moore should be remove from the 1st Accomplishment Grid. Note that I was trying to highlight Accomplishments that were the 1st occurence in the United States; since this is factual information I was hoping that Wikipedia Standards would allow it. I disagree that accomplishment grid belongs on a high school bullentin board. Schools are generally validated historical by the production of thier alumni. I look at other Wiki sites and they all seem to highlight the accomplishment of thier alumni after they define the History and basic configuration of the school.
I do agree the SLC section needs work, I was trying to explain the new configuration of the modern high school which utilize the "School within a School" philosophy. I was hoping another alumni would upgrade that section. I will look into re-writing it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svgperson (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Western State University College of Law Coordinates

I think it's kind of silly to have coordinates for a law school that already has a city and state to locate it. However, it is rather fun to click on the coordinates and then go to Google Map. In any event, I don't feel that strongly about it, so right or wrong, I'll leave the coordinates in. Your edit summary, which was informative and pleasant, helped.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- I'm glad the edit summary helped. The coordinates are also used in the other direction- from a Google map, the location is there. Anyhow, here are some of the arguments. tedder (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I will take a look at "some of my arguments" in a bit. At the moment, though, I've added my own comments to Template talk:Infobox law school. Recognizing that these particular observations are probably pertinent to other educational institutions, I invite comments. At a later hour I shall look at the comments suggested by Bbb23 and Tedder. (It is late now.) --S. Rich (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Stevan, I disagree with your moving the coordinates from the infobox to the top corner in the WSU article, but I haven't reverted your edit because all the other school articles I've looked at (just a few) do it your way. I have commented on the template Talk page, though, about that and other things. I don't know how much response you'll get, though. You might consider leaving TB templates (or some other kind of notice) on the Talk pages of still-active editors of the template and maybe also the law and/or university projects to generate more discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the discussion will need to go wider than the infobox template page. There's a clear consensus for showing coordinates in the infobox and showing them in the title of the page. tedder (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

law school infobox comments

Tedder, I thought about adding the following comment to the law school infobox discussion. But really my issue is resolved so I don't want to unnecessarily prolong the discussion with my off topic banter. Still, I wanted you to consider these thoughts:

In my law school editing project, I've tried to follow WP:UNIGUIDE as opposed to the school guidelines you mention. (But I certainly can see how these two projects could use some transplanting of guidance.) No matter what guidelines are followed, there are two difficulties with the alumni and faculty listings for the various law schools. One: most articles simply list names and it is enough work just to parse out the vanity, non-notable names, etc.. Two: putting these lists into the recommended narrative format while at the same time avoiding WP:BOOSTER requires a lot of creative juice. So, rather than expending my energy (or creditability) in an effort to get addresses into the infobox and coordinates out, I'm focusing on a generalized clean up of law school articles. As mentioned, I've already deleted street addresses from many/all California law school infoboxes. And I will add coordinates to the infoboxes in the near future.

Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally understand adding/not adding per WP:STICK . UNIGUIDE is much more appropriate to follow- there's no reason to expand this discussion and change things, but I wanted to share some of the rationale. Thanks for the law school cleanup; I only touch them when I adopt one or am bothered by something (see the alumni list here - OMG!). Anyhow, lists and prose- I don't think there is a lot of support turning alumni lists into fully prosified paragraphs, though it should be more than just a name. tedder (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The major contributor to SJCOL is the director of PR for the school. She and I have had several discussions regarding material added. But she is concerned that I might be a "competitor" to her school so I haven't made much of an issue regarding all the names. The judges I don't mind because they are per se notable officials. The other names are problematic. In any event, it is all WP:POLE. --S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Competition? Oh bother. Well, I have a about a dozen wiki things to work on now, and this is one of them. Hmm, I need to create a high school article, a public housing project article, update an article to mention a $24 million book, and now trudge through a huge list of questionable alumni. And aside from LCLS being on a route I bicycled frequently, I don't have a COI. tedder (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I am the employee of SJCL to which Stevan alluded earlier. He is absolutely correct that I believe he is a competitor with COI, so much so that I asked for a Third Opinion of the situation a few weeks back, but had no takers. Before deleting SJCL alumni, it might be helpful to look at the Wikipedia page for the law school in which his COI states he has “ownership interest.” He seems to be contesting the importance of Commissioners, District Attorneys, County Counsel, City Council, and other elected officials, but they are featured on his page for California Southern Law School. In addition, Stevan has directed me to a number of Wikipedia policies, which seem to indicate people at Federal, State, and City level positions qualify as “notable” for the purposes of these pages. And if you check the talk and history pages for SJCL, you will see I have made dozens of changes to accommodate Stevan’s concerns. I very much welcome your input!--Mckai (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Having someone who is a competitor seems a good counter to an employee of SJCL being there. I agree that the notability is questionable on some of the entries. I'm busy with creating some articles, but I'll evaluate the alumni at some point. Certainly a local commissioner who doesn't have an article has questionable notability; if you want to know how the Wikipedia community feels about the notability of various individuals, write an article on them. There is a process for judging notability of articles, but it's much less clear when it comes to listings of alumni who don't have articles. Just like it's okay for you to edit with a COI and have your legitimate edits "stick", Stevan's edits can be judged without his COI coming into play. Please keep that in mind. tedder (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Chiming in as someone who has gotten a law school to Good Article status, written another one and another one, and in general has a good track record of adding to "competitor" education institutions, conflict of interest or not, red linked alumni (or faculty) should be avoided. As in, on Wikipedia when we meed notable, we do not mean famous or most notable for that school, we mean they are notable by Wikipedia standards. Specially for law school alums basing just on what fields they tend to go into, that means federal judges (not administrative judges mind you), state supreme court judges, and state appellate court judges. It the also means less law school specific positions such as state elected officials (state legislature or governor and the like). The reasons those are notable, are because it has been determined so at WP:BIO. Anything below that (district attorneys, mayors, public defenders) and they need to meet the general notability requirements. As such, you cannot determine their notability unless an article is already written, thus why we generally do not allow for the red links. That is why between the three law school articles I've mentioned, there is but one red link in the notable alumni/faculty sections, and that is because the guy is an Oregon Court of Appeals judge (which as a state-wide elected official passes BIO, specifically WP:POLITICIAN).
That said, this should be pared down to the single blue-linked instructor and for it looks like three notable instructors. The rest should go unless an article is created for each, though I would opine that many would be deleted as not notable. Now, you might want to write a paragraph about alumni and mention that some go on to careers as trial court judges in the region, prosecutors and DAs in the region, as well as county and municipal elected offices. Though maybe you both think I am a competitor.
On another note, when using citations, be sure to include an accessdate for those web-based sources, and in general provide a full citation (see WP:CITE for how) as we have what we call link rot, and by providing as much detail as possible, years from now when the links change, we can still likely track down the info. It also looks better, and if you want to reach Good status or above, it is a requirement. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot

Do you mean that you could create a new NewArtBot to replace AlexNewArtBot? If that is so, then I would appreciate it very much. Thanks. JIP | Talk 19:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. It won't be simple, I have a lot going on, but I'm also motivated. tedder (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cypress College and Baxter removal

This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc). However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.=Cypress College and Baxter removal==

Create an article for Baxter, get article feedback, and you'll quickly be able to gauge notability. In any case, being a technical expert on a TV show means nothing- tens of thousands of people in Los Angeles have done that. tedder (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Greetings. Your assistance is once again needed over at Joseph Smith. Since Duke53's account was closed, John Foxe has taken on a more militant, POV stance in editing - now talking in terms of immorality and anyone who reverts his edits as opponents. He's at 3RR and edit warring. It is clearly in need of admin help. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

THANKS. That is a great coincidence - I thought to ask for your help, and immediately after I pressed 'enter', I saw you'd already been there. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, very strange timing with your notes- I didn't get notification until after it was protected. Glad to help. tedder (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I too appreciate your protecting the page. Joseph Smith can only conveniently handle one edit war at a time.--John Foxe (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Josheastman

Despite your block, it appears this person has not given up on creating an article about himself. See J.E.E. Mixtape. User:JEEAANDR appears to be his sockpuppet. Just thought you should know. Zell65 (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- yet another sock, good times. tedder (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Canadiandy

Do you think it would be OK to make User:Canadiandy and User talk:Canadiandy redirects to User:Canadiandy1 and User talk:Canadiandy1 respectively? I ask you because I notice you were the one that put the sockpuppet notice up at User talk:Canadiandy (and you missed an 'a' in his new username btw). I think redirects would be better since he isn't an intentional puppetmaster, and if the old name is linked in any old signatures (or new ones...), they can thus point to the correct recent user pages. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, since the "old" accounts have been created and they are good-faith socks, I think it's appropriate to do so and correct. You'll take care of that? Can you ensure Canadiandy1 fixes his signature? tedder (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll do my best. :) ...comments? ~BFizz 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tedder and BFizz. Wikilove!--Canadiandy talk 05:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

By the by, I kind of like the username Candiandy, though I would spell it CandyAndy. Thanks again for your patience. It reminds me to give respect to all and take a step back now and then from the heated discussions.--Canadiandy talk 05:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

Dear Esteemed Mentor ;-)

RE: [1] and Newross' remarks. Read his talk page while you are at it please. I wrote what I thought was a nice intro and he has RV'd it twice despite my asking for discussion. If I am mistaken about my edit, tell me and we could move/change it. I will not edit war, you have me well trained :-D I am refraining from making further remarks because I should go walk around the block first. How do they find me?? Looking forward to your response. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I skimmed it. I really don't want to touch birthers, they are as intractable as these folks are/were. Anyhow. The issue of WP:SYNTH is well founded, and the remarks by Newross are worth discussing on the talk page. I'm concerned about the lede you were adding- "mesmerized" probably sums up what was wrong with the paragraph. It's a place that should summarize the article, not sound or feel like the first page of a pulp fiction book. Sorry to be so frank- discuss further, approach with nonjudgmental questions, highlight what facts are being omitted from the lede that should be there, collaboration will generally lead to a good lede. tedder (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
if Tedder wasn't Frank who would he be? ;-) That's why I ask you! TY, wise words. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you outing me as Frank? I'm really confused now. At least you didn't call me Shirley. Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ROFL!! Frankly, and with all due respect, at least I didn't call you what I had in mind for that editor. I just love the article on being a Dick! Backing away, bowing as I go  ;-).... Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

California Coast University

Hi Tedder. Apologies for my recent edits - I hadn't realised that I had violated copyright. (In all my years on Wikipedia this is the first such objection to any of my edits - oh well, live and learn ☺...) I thought that I had sufficiently referenced direct quotes and had paraphrased the rest. Please see Talk:California_Coast_University#Educational_approach. Thanks Fintor (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for covering it. You really need to turn off 'minor edit' checkbox in your preferences- see WP:MINOR. tedder (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

CSULB

Hello. I had updated information for CSULB regarding sororities and fraternities on campus. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Greek community at CSULB and the thousands of dollars each chapter raises for charity or the number of hours contributed each year for community service. We simply wanted to identify the chapters on campus and allow each chapter the opportunity to link to their websites. To my knowledge there were no copyright violations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekCSULB (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a copyright problem (that I'm aware of), but please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Instead of listing every club, what makes their presence remarkable? Raising dollars and doing some community service is run of the mill; have they been discussed in reliable sources? tedder (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

IP 123.231.88.243‎

Thanks for blocking the vandal. Ironically, I don't even know who it is or what article I presumably reverted them previously, which then triggered their vandalism spree.

Oh well ... no matter how they attempt to characterize it, their edits were vandalism. Thnks again for dealing with them. --- Barek (talk) - 21:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I saw how many pages they were hitting and thought I'd hit it fast. No problem. tedder (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: appears to be a dynamic IP. Going through my edit history to track down the user I found the same behavior a couple days ago from 123.231.114.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I think I tracked the user back to the Reporters Without Borders (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch article with multiple other IPs in the same range where they were edit-warring in the article over POV material followed by edit-warring on the talk page over the restoration of personal attacks (resulting in both the article and the talk page being semi-protected). --- Barek (talk) - 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised they are ip-hopping. This isn't the behavior of a new user. tedder (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Arizona schools

Thanks. Most are stubs, but then again, many of them are small-town schools (for instance, Show Low High School).

Some I could expand further, like Desert Edge High School – the first LEED-certified public high school in the state – plus NRHP-listed Phoenix Union High School, Phoenix Indian School, and Wickenburg High School. Others had curious histories, like Gila Preparatory Academy.

I'm so glad I've done what I've done. It's all now the small fries to complete. Raymie (t • c) 17:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I did a bunch of those small schools too. It's nice to give some parity between the populated/rich counties and the more remote counties. Good work. tedder (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Alison Rosen Article

Check out User:Udeezy/Alison_Rosen and let's talk there. Udeezy (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool- I'll watch that and try to help out. tedder (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Our Friend

As an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChevrolet_Vega&action=historysubmit&diff=428372947&oldid=428372068

Note that this example shows him redacting the comment, per our conversation on my talk page. The dude really needs to grab a beer and go to sleep. He's going to damage himself beyond repair if he keeps up his current bizarre behavior.

Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Vega discussion

I apologize for the comment "you just don't get it" used in two replies. I deleted them. It's just frustrating stating to a couple of Users Wikipedia should not express a point of view from its Users. The material can be presented in a neutral way without framing or bias from a User as the article has shown. Regards.(Barnstarbob (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

I understand your frustration. A couple things will help. First, putting up a wall of text doesn't help, and doing so through a couple dozen edits really doesn't help. It's easy to see each little edit (which were made without an edit summary), so your intentions are hard to follow. Second, an RFC is for outsiders to comment in. It's important to clearly and concisely state your case. Not to reply to every editor who steps in. I'd suggest stepping back and see how the discussion goes. If you count lines of discussion, yours should never be over 1/N, where N editors have replied. So if four people are involved, you should have 1/4th the comments. tedder (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

pdx

Well, aren't you the master of the Intertoobes. (Too bad you can't format your citation correctly.) I'm still not totally convinced it was a causal event--but the reference checks out. --Esprqii (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know about causality, the reference indicates some causality though. What's wrong with the cite? I did it in a hurry and the autofiller wasn't working. The domain dates (1986/1987) are from whois, so they are OR. Ah well. tedder (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you were trying to put the ISBN in the URL param? Anyway, I fixed it and added a Google Book URL. Looks like an interesting read. --Esprqii (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that explains why the autofill failed. The book looks a little too Clifford Stoll: "Silicon Snake Oil" to me. With hindsight it's a little obvious- sort of like all of the 2002-2007 books about "making money with real estate, it'll never fall in value!". tedder (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It's probably fair to say that they looked for psu.edu first, but maybe they weren't too bummed with what they got. Interestingly, the other two big schools in the state also probably didn't get their first choice of domains either. Getting beat out by Oklahoma and Ohio State had to burn more. --Esprqii (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, Oklahoma has ou.edu, not uo.edu. Wonder why Oregon didn't take uo.edu. Maybe we should buy it. --Esprqii (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Tedder. You do so much excellent gnoming on schools, would you consider adding your name at WP:WPSCH as a coordinator? Then we would have 3 admins as coords. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm honored. I'd be happy to, it's an area I've kinda stumbled into owning anyhow. When and where is the secret induction ceremony? tedder (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There isn't one. Your induction was your RfA and your willingness to continue plodding on something as banal as schools ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added your name at WP:WPSCH/P coords. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GA?

Have I encouraged you to nominate the Keller Fountain Park for GA status before? If not, you should! Even Director Park looks pretty GA status worthy. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't encouraged me to do so. Not a bad idea- now I need to figure out how to submit 'em, I guess. tedder (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Not too difficult, huh? I just want contributors that offer the most work/writing to get credit for the GA submission, hence why I did not submit them for you. Sorry for the distraction from your wiki-work! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack and Jill School

I think we have a possible problem here. User talk:Moray An Par joined WP a month ago and I'm sure he's acting in good faith. However, I'm also sure you and I agree that a deletion spree (of any kind) is not quite what we want - especially where schools, at least for the time being, enjoy a special dispensation. I've left a message on his tp - perhaps you could check it out and see if I have said the right thing. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion on the userpage has been fruitful- that's a good sign, it's always nice when editors on both sides assume good faith and productively discuss things! Let me know if I can be further help; the AFD isn't going to result in delete, but I don't want to invoke WP:IAR unnecessarily either. Let me know if there are further problems. tedder (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Keller Fountain Park?

In case you do, I've had a go at copyediting it for cohesion and style. I did this offline so there's only this one diff, so you'll have to compare diffs to see the 100s of changes. Don't hesitate to revert anything you don't like. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw that- thanks much. I don't fancy myself a strong writer, so copyediting is always appreciated. tedder (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry Thomas (athlete)

I added the cite. I also added the same cite for Mike Marsh and Curtis Conway. Those were not difficult to do. Here's your trout with words: What I question is your need to challenge that particular point in the article WHEN THAT IS THE ONLY SOURCE CITED IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. The thing didn't even have a Reflist on it. There are no other sources for anything about the school. Of course the External Links contain a lot of supporting information--which should count but for some people it doesn't. Had you looked further into the Thomas article, you would see that a great deal of his achievements occurred WHILE he was at Hawthorne. There is a crowd of very active WP people, including you, who choose to complain about such minor stuff, but don't bother to check the sub-referencing, and seriously don't bother to save everybody's time by making the fix you complain about, yourself. Because I make a lot of little edits to high school articles, I see your name a lot, though not always complaining about my work. I'd understand it if these were controversial statements in a potentially controversial article, but seriously, there are so many bigger battles that need to be waged here on WP, so many legitimate corrections that need to be made, that minor, well-founded, non-controversial edits like this do not need yours or my further attention. Trackinfo (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those, Trackinfo. The reason I asked you to do it is because it was obvious you know where the sources were for those entries. The goal is to have a cite on every entry- yes, I could do it myself and often try to do so. In this case, I asked you because I know you are an expert in the subject area, so I was hoping it'd be easier for you to do so. Fully-cited alumni lists keep something like this from looking legit. These do need "further attention" because of this, and because the information that links the high school and the athlete or individual isn't always so obvious.
In any case, there's no requirement for me to dig out the citations- see WP:BURDEN. But if you look here, you'll see I've spent days buried in offline archives to cite things on Wikipedia, so I'm not simply using the {{cn}} tag and never actually citing things. tedder (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Intresting article found

While going through images of wikipe-tan I came across: Wikipedia:Donation appeal ideas, just thought I would get some advice here, it is under no wikiproject, hasent been edited since 2008 and well just appears old. Mark it as humor given it's content, try and save or delete? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe invoke WP:BRD in an edit summary and blank the page? If nobody objects after a few weeks, deletion would be an obvious choice. tedder (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Blanking the page when nobody has edited it since 2008 will most likely generate nothing, the page does have less than 30 watchers as well so I guess I will just MfD it if it cant be saved as a humor page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, go with MFD then. Sometimes pages don't have to change to be useful- though you are probably right, not much harm in MFD. I'll often blank userified pages instead of deleting them, for instance. tedder (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

La Habra Heights

You blanked a section in the article on La Habra Heights. There is a section on the discussion page about whether to retain that section. There is an anonymous user who blanks that section from time to time, but no one has given any reason why that section should not be there. It is supported by references, and does seem to be information that readers would be interested in finding. If you think the section should not be retained, please contribute to the discussion. Sterrettc (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I will do, Sterrettc. References doesn't mean it has reliable sources. I see I posted on the talk page some time ago. I've changed my opinion, obviously. I expect you'll be replying on the LHH talk page? tedder (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New US schools infobox?

Are you aware of this? Is it something that needs a consensus chat? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it happening. I'm a fan of it- the infoboxes really need a good source, and it's the perfect resource, considering it covers the US. I've used it as a source for a long time. tedder (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Craig Schelske

Can you take a look at this and its talk page? It's been deleted twice and has had one AfD. Article is dreadful, but there is some claim to significance. I don't care to spend much more time on cleaning it up if it's going to be deleted again, but I figure if it stays it's probably going to stay dreadful unless I fix it (i.e. someone is wrong on the Internet...). If he fails WP:GNG, then it will have to go to AfD again, right? vs. it being speediable for being a recreation of deleted material? You're more of deletionist than I--without spending too much time on it, do you think it should go? Valfontis (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It could be deleted under speedy, my understanding of WP:CSD is that a given instance of an article can only be taken to speedy once. Being deleted and recreated means it is still eligible. On the other hand, it isn't eligible for speedy because the lower-than-WP:N threshold has been met (claims to notability).
I was going to put my rationale for (non)notability here, but I'll put it in an AFD instead. tedder (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Followup to my stalker(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Schelske (2nd nomination) tedder (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia interview

It's something that I've kept in mind and have read the rules pages to make sure I fall in line, but I've started a series of interviews around the idea of actively cleaning up some articles. The idea and structure is that I read and use as many articles/interviews about a subject as I can to form a year-by-year timeline and write as much of the article as I can using those sources, then I try and get a recorded interview with the actual person to verify the validity of the timeline, while also fitting in a standard interview if possible. I take the interview and transcribe it, and post it. I'm basically trying to make it as clear and transparent as possible.

I think the idea of circular refers to something like an unsourced or poorly sourced piece of information being used by a third party as a reliable piece of information, then citing that third party as being a reliable source, when in fact it came from Wikipedia all along.

Original research is a bit hazier and trickier to define, at least it seems to me since I've read it a few times. I try to follow all standard journalistic styles for fact-checking on anything that seems iffy in an interview, though most of it is actually based on published sources that I'm more or less verifying.

I'm hoping that I'm doing all of this within the laws and ideas of Wikipedia. My goal is just to improve a variety of poorly-written or non-existent articles this way. I've already gotten a few interviews with different people recorded that I'm working on, actually. The first page I did is Matt Duke (musician), and now I've started to do Debra Arlyn.

You can look at their two pages, along with these interview transcripts:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/Interviews/JasonFinkel

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/Interviews/MattDuke

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evan-Amos/Interviews/DebraArlyn

reading those will probably give you the best idea of how I'm trying to do it.

Evan-Amos (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Long distance motorcycle riding → Motorcycle touring merge

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at Talk:Motorcycle_touring#Long_distance_motorcycle_riding_.E2.86.92_Motorcycle_touring.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bahoudii AfD removal

I am the founder of the intentional community in question. I have attempted to begin the process of AfD, but apparently, My reasoning followed by the reasoning of the articles original "author" is confusing... So...

We did not begin this process.

We have no desire to be included in any "wiki".

We do not authorize the use of any copyrighted material.

We also do not meet the "wiki" requirements for inclusion.

Please end this madness... just delete the article and be done with the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.177.36 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You don't own the article, which means you can't control what is in it. There is an important issue in there, though: you assert some copyrighted material has been used? That should certainly be fixed. Let me know what text has been copied with a source showing the "original" and I'll rewrite the paragraph. You are also correct that the article doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability, but that's probably best approached by someone who isn't the founder/subject of the article. tedder (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You know what... I just spent quite a bit of time responding, then just deleted it. Honestly, we've already spent too much time over this silly issue. Do what you want. If the article is not deleted, we will simply publish our disconnection from the article and include the information in our next newscast... I again state... we have -ZERO- desire to be affiliated, included, or listed in Wikipedia or any other "wiki".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.177.36 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand not wanting the affiliation. I'm sorry you are frustrated with it. tedder (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate API

Hi and sorry for taking from your time on this issue. You deleted a line on Google Translate API concerning the action group on Facebook which you correctly noted was only mentioned on one news source.

Please note that now major IT magazines in Brazil, Norway and Italy also mention the Facebook action group in addition to the other indexed news source you mentioned previously. All the 4 are indexed on Google news:

http://www.hardware.com.br/noticias/2011-05/api-google-translate-descontinuada.html http://www.pinobruno.it/2011/05/google-dont-shut-down-google-translate-api/ http://www.digi.no/870646/google-legger-ned-en-mengde-tjenester

If you have no objection, I will undo the delete of the line mentioning the Facebook group. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.244.195 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, since it's gotten some coverage (admittedly minimal), it can stay. Instead of an external link, it would be better as prose in the body with a link to the facebook page. tedder (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Could you please look in on Joseph Smith? My adolescent edit-warring partner is at it again.--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, saw it, we swapped messages. You aren't blameless, though. tedder (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Keller Fountain Park/GA1

GA review started, cheers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the little TPS fix too! tedder (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scarbarians F.C notability

Well written, but sadly not notable. Do you want to do the honours or shall I? ;) GiantSnowman 18:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead- I don't mean to meatpuppet someone into an AFD, but I respect people know more about the subject (meaning they can more easily argue for deletion) than I do. tedder (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
No problems, I've PRODded the article. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

High schools in Jurupa Valley

Hi Tedder; I modified 3 high schools to reflect that they are part of the new city of Jurupa Valley. The city designation does not officially take place until July 1, 2011, so if the reason you reversed it is that, then I will wait until July 1, but please be aware that starting July 1 Mira Loma and Rubidoux will officially be part of the city of Jurupa Valley. Rubidoux has never been part of the city of Riverside, but because of its close proximity, the Post Office probably does accept Riverside as the city designation. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The zip codes indicate Rubidoux and Mira Loma, can you toss up a reference about the new city designation? tedder (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I've decided to wait until after July 1 to make the change. I will also include references at that time. Thank you. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Historic Preservation League of Oregon

Hey, nice work adding mention of all the Most Endangered Places, I somehow missed that before. I had a great talk with Brandon, the HPLO field programs manager--he even said to contact him--he's just finishing up at the UO's hist pres program, and he's enthusiastic about taking the field into the 21st century. Looks like he's the one that created the HPLO article and he's clueful so he will probably be a great resource for helping expand articles. Valfontis (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool! We (the WPORE we) should get those type of relationships going. Great resource. And as far as you and I are concerned, we have a lot of interest overlap with them. tedder (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

confused

Hi T. I'm confused ... I nominated an article for AFD via twinkle, and the link to the AFD on the article page -- Visible penis line -- appears to be red. But if you click on the AFD link, it works as a blue link, bringing you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line. Is there a step I am missing, and if so I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of what I am to do at this point (though I gather that if the redlink functioned as a real redlink, I would follow step 2 by copy and pasting the rationale as you suggested, following WP:AFDHOW ... but as it already appears, I'm not sure what to do. Sorry to be so slow in "getting" this one ... best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It appears correctly for me. It's sort of a common problem with caching. See WP:BYC and WP:PURGE, or just shift-reload on the article page. If clicking through works correct, that's a sign you are dealing with a cache issue rather than a real issue. And I love the slightly surreal article name. tedder (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahah ... thanks for holding my hand as I work through my confusion. Best. And yes -- the article name (and date started) reflect that events of the day spurred it ... of additional interest to you may be the photo that was first the focus of the article ... It states that a certain BLP is the "author" of the "visible penis line" photo, though it doesn't offer the requisite RS support for such a statement (and it also has been tagged as a copyvio). See [2].--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that image is certainly suspicious. As my friends say, the potato goes in front. tedder (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Schema.org

Schema.org is not speculative fiction. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What's the context on this? tedder (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Your bot includes it in a list of such articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Aha. So if you look at the log for a day it showed up, you'll see it matched "science fiction", which makes sense- that's on the schema.org page. tedder (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

early New Article Bot issues

what's going on?

[3] ? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! TedderBot is filling in for the missing-in-action User:AlexNewArtBot. Hopefully we can get the article feeds updated on a regular basis now. tedder (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedderbot action on WP:HWY

Just curious about this edit by the bot. Did someone manage to request that the bot output onto the project page not realizing it would completely overwrite it? At least no real harm was done. –Fredddie™ 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha- yep, that is what happened. Just a sec, I'll analyze, fix , and get back to you in more detail. tedder (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop!

you're overwriting pages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Which pages? The bot is intended to overwrite the search results pages, and there is a highways problem. Any others that are problematic? tedder (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate talk:Did you knowWikipedia:WikiProject Estonia... countless more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going through the list. The master list was misconfigured: User:AlexNewArtBot/Master. I'm rolling back the projects that were affected, and the bot is only making one pass through there. tedder (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright... I thought we had a vandal-bot going berserk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
TedderBot is going crazy! Stop it! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It is stopped. tedder (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
good :) Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/:::Sign mine 04:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it stopped? I do not see any changes to its status page. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 04:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's manually stopped. I can override it locally as well as by the wiki. tedder (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Given this bot effectively nuked the entire Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Noticeboard page from orbit (see [4] for an example) I suggest keeping it off until the code has been put through a few more paces.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but it was intentional that it blew away COIN. Yeah, oops. If it was an unknown cause, I'd be more leery. tedder (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh why on Earth would you want a bot to blow COIN to the four winds? That makes no sense to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That is sort of my point. Again, it was from a misinterpretation of the righthand of each line at User:AlexNewArtBot/Master. Removing any processing of the righthand means it won't happen again. tedder (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New Article Bot archive pages

I noticed in this edit to the WP:NRHP search results that you overwrote the previous results (visible here). Previously, old items were moved to archives (see this one for WP:NRHP) before new ones were copied in. I liked this option because sometimes there are long stretches when I or other members of the project do not get around to looking over the bot output before the bot has been run several times. Having the archive allows us never to miss anything. Is there anyway that on the next bot run, it would be possible to utilize these archives? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not currently archiving, but I'm going to 'band' the results. So if I run daily, it'll include not only the past 24 hours, but the week before that. It gives time for the entries to fall off. I might archive, I'll keep it in mind- my solution is probably a little different than the original solution was. tedder (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The way the bot is editing the search pages is causing me slight difficulties. I use the search page to annotate that articles on it have been assessed by the project but the bot overwrites my annotations each time (see this [[5]]). Is there a way it can be modified to leave exsiting entries and add new entires rather than its current behaviour. I don't mean to sound ungrateful as after a long absence just to have the regular flow is great but to keep re-adding annotations is a bit furstrating. NtheP (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand. You are the second person to want an "interactive" format like this. (see "Manual removal of articles") below. I might be able to accommodate it- the problem is that entries come and go and scores change. But I will look at editing it and leaving information afterwards. Can you give me a link to a diff where you edit the entries? Added to tasklist. tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause

Hey all, here's what happened. For my first run, I was taking the master page and using results on the right as a target to place the results. That's clearly not how the list was used (in some cases it was totally wrong, in many cases it tried to show who "owns" a list).

I reverted every case that wasn't in the User:AlexNewArtBot space, and I'll recode the bot not to write outside of that space going forward. It actually means I can remove a few lines of code. The bot takes a good 14 hours to run, so if there were any more problems with this 'pass', let me know. tedder (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the removal of the "target" code. tedder (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New Article Bot thanks

A quick thank you for getting a new article bot running! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. after a few speed bumps (like blowing away WikiProject pages and a noticeboard), it's nice to know it's still appreciated tedder (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, looking forward to the new article reports coming back. Few hickups are always to be expected :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks from me too. This is an invaluable service. The graph in the editnotice is cute!-gadfium 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
And big thanks from me too. One suggestion though is to flip the list so that the newest is at the top - that way when you review the list each day you just start at the top and work down, rather than having to jump to the end. OUTSTANDING WORK! The-Pope (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I haven't even looked at the list yet. I'll definitely flip it. For the stalkers, add User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch to your watchlist, that's where I'll put features and status. tedder (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for reviving the newartbot. I've always felt that it was one of the most important bots operating on WP. After months of neglect and absentee status I'm glad someone decided enough was enough. Brad (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NewArticleBot operation, part 1

Rules question

I also join the throng in thanking you. WPConservatism just received our first results page! Question: I'm using \W but the bot still seems to be counting partial word matches. For example, "republican party" is a rule, but it seems to be counting "republican". The rules are here. Thanks! Lionel (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into it and let you know. tedder (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here are your results: User:AlexNewArtBot/ConservatismSearchResult. Is it matching articles it shouldn't, or not matching articles it should? Give me an example (or three) to look into. tedder (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the rules are the most undocumented thing. I'd like to remove pages with the {{surname}} template tag but when using /{{surname/ it gives an error. /surname/ works but then also picks up false positives of pages with the word 'surname' on them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing you need this: /\{\{surname/. That's because {} in PCRE engines means something specific. (it means counting). However, I think that's why Alex added $$surname$$, which should do the same thing. (not that it does- it was poorly documented and lacking a test case). tedder (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a go. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. The bot listed Neil McAuley (using these rules [6]). The project is interested in capturing "right wing", the ideology, but not "right wing back", the position. Note we also don't want "right wing forward". Thanks! Lionel (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to tasklist. tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As you might have seen, this is fixed. The rule inhibitors were broken if there was more than one. I debugged it with Conservatism and it is fixed now. Here is the fixed code, with some other code thrown in for good measure. Thanks for your persistence. tedder (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect question

I mainly just wanted to join the crowd and to thank you for taking over while Alex seems to be missing, but I also have a question to ask. Now, I asked Alex this a while ago, but forgot to check whether he had time to implement it or not, but it doesn't look that your bot is doing it. In short, when a redirect is converted into an article, that triggers an edit filter rule, and a "Redirect becoming article" tag is added to the edit summary (I can dig up an example, if you need one). Would you be able to add these to the list of actual new articles? Redirects are seldom watched, and picking up such changes would prevent redirect vandalism (and catch the new articles which aren't technically new, of course).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2011; 13:26 (UTC)

Glad you are enjoying it! I'm still working on refining it . Redirects, especially using the edit filter, sound like something I should look for. I added it to the todo list. tedder (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm hoping you can give an example. I see a rule (342) that has been deleted, so I'm wondering if this is still active. It's certainly outside the scope of this bot to scan all pages to find removed redirects, but if there's an active filter I might be able to hook onto it. tedder (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the examples I have are quite old and yes, it's the rule 342. If it's been deleted, I guess there's not much that can be done there. Oh well. If I have any other bright ideas, I'll make sure to share them with you :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2011; 14:07 (UTC)

log page

As an example: User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog would show every article the bot looked at for a possible match and the relevant scores each article received. The logs were good for spotting articles that were rejected or accepted and from there changes to the rules could be made to zero in closer to the scope of the project. Have the logs been discontinued or moved elsewhere? Brad (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know those logs existed. I'll add that to the todo list. They'll likely be in a different location and (obviously) won't be archived, but it's good for pinpointing. tedder (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
done! They are here: User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/Ships/errors, so make sure to watchlist it. Well, there aren't any *there* yet, but next time the bot runs, it'll populate. You can see this page for actual data: User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/Oregon/errors tedder (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work with this for a few days and see if any improvements can be made. Brad (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In what manner is the log page reporting results? I can't figure out if it's alphabetical, chronological etc. Would be nice to see a point total of each entry too. Thanks. Brad (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

They are somewhat random because that was easiest. I can add a point total. tedder (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well ok. Chronological would be nice but it's not a serious problem. Points total is good. Brad (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Manual removal of articles

After your bot runs, I usually go through and find all the irrelevant articles (i.e. false positives) and manually remove them from User:AlexNewArtBot/NRHPSearchResult. After I do this, though, your next bot run simply re-adds them to the list, and I have to do it all over again every time. When the former bot owner ran the bot a long time ago, it never re-added the ones I had removed. About a month before he disappeared, the removed articles started being added back, but I was fine with that since they were all at the top of the article in one spot and not distributed throughout it like your edits do; I could just remove them all at once.

Would it be possible to at least get all of the removed articles to be output to the top of the page or ideally just not spit them out again? It appeared to me that the former owner would run the bot to a certain timestamp in the new pages log and then never run it there again. When the bot was run again, he simply picked up at the next new page after the last timestamp in the previous run and went from there. Doing this insured that manually removed articles would not be re-added. He didn't replace the results page like you do but rather added to it. Would that be possible or just wishful thinking?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dudemanfellabra- it's probably wishful thinking, unfortunately. I've chosen a design where I intentionally cover the same ground for a while. So instead of adding pages since the previous run (let's say 24 hours worth of new pages), I rerun the search against the previous week AND the new 24 hour period. This is advantageous for a few reasons- it means there will always be 7+ days of data on the search result page, and (perhaps more importantly) instead of simply seeing what the article looked like immediately upon creation, improved articles can surface in later searches.
Since it's a core design decision, the best way to handle it is by updating the search rules to more accurately define the search you are trying to achieve. tedder (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. Sounds good to me. There are usually just about 4-5% false positives anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. Thanks for the explanation, and most of all for picking this bot back up!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments idea

It would be useful to be able to add some comment to both the rules(so other understand at a later date) and on the results, to give others an idea of what the results are suppose to represent. You might think it's obvious but with User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNT/User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNTSearchResult others don't have much of a clue what I'm doing there. I could document on the talk page, but would prefer to be able to comment on the rules/result pages directly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to tasklist. tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Errors makes no sense

I'm not understanding the error messages. In User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/URTBLP/errors is listed the error message "no match: -100 (/\{\{Infobox single/)", yet a check through the articles reveals London (Pet Shop Boys song) which contains {{Infobox single}} that matches the rule. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "no match" indicate searches that are substantially broken. Nearly all rules for this search are broken. Here's the specific rule:
-100 (/\{\{Infobox single/)
And here is a version that should compile correctly:
-100 /\{\{Infobox\ssingle/
I'm still mulling over your documentation issue (above). It's a little hard because I'm built on top of User:AlexNewArtBot's pages, so I don't want to make a change that breaks his bot. tedder (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. So a space has to be replaced with "\s", I would of not worked that out any time soon. I'm assuming the outer brackets are okay. So the following line " -100 (/\{\{Infobox\ssingle/)" would be okay. Is the pipe working for an or condition? i.e "-100 (condition1|condition2)" as I don't see any examples of that without an error. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The space doesn't need to be replaced, that was just habit on my part. And the parenthesis are okay but the real trick is that a search needs to start and end with a slash. And yes, the pipe should work. Here's your next one:
-100 /(condition1|condition2)/
tedder (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so four conditions would be in this syntax. Thank you!
-100 /(condition1|condition2|condition3|condition4)/
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup, you got it. But make my OCPD happy and put a space between the points and the search. tedder (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Done :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Even after my and your amendment of the rules all the same errors still occur. Very frustrating :( Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Let it run again- I think the bot picked up a cached copy of the rules page. tedder (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you make it run again. I'm testing the rules and once it's run I will have to tweak a few more times. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It takes ~20 hours to run, I'll kick off another pass soon. First I want to make it so it uses fresh copies of the rules pages though. tedder (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's running now, and the rules are explicitly uncached, so it'll pick up your most recent changes. tedder (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Still not using the rules at the time of the run. For example User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNT has the rule:
 50 /(\Wborn\W|\Wb. 19\W|\Wb. 20\W|\Wmarried\W|\Wdivorced\W)/
and the log (User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/URBLPNT/errors) list:
100, pattern: (\Wborn\W|\Wb. 19\W|\Wb. 20\W|\Wmarried\W|\Wdivorced\W), inhibitor count: 0
could list other examples, basically the scoring has been altered but that it's not being used. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I lied, the rules are imported when the process begins, which might be 12-18 hours before the specific ruleset is actually executed. In addition to putting a revid about when a given article is seen, I'll log the revid of the rules too. And I might make the rules load later in the process. tedder (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of line in rules

It there a limit to the length of a line in the rules. Can a line exceed 256 characters? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No limit, as far as I know. I do think the "ignore" rules aren't being used, but independent of that, no actual limit. Just don't add linewraps for readability- let it horizontally scroll. tedder (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Will be testing this on the next run. Longest rule line is 1368 characters long. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

NewArticleBot operation, part 2

Annotations

I see in your tasklist that you are planning to implement "Leave annotations alone on search result page (for User:Nthep, [7])". Can this also be made to skip annotations that are at the beginning of the line? For example, in this diff, I tagged all the unrelated items with the {{Unrelated}} template, similar to how Nthep tagged items with the {{Done}} tag. I think this is a good way to solve the repeated removal problem I mentioned above.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see how hard it is. If I can do it somewhat easily, I'll allow annotations at the beginning and end. tedder (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article version

Which version of the article is compares to the rules? Is it the first version, the version at the time of the run or something else? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Slightly complicated. It's a cached version of at runtime. Articles are cached up to 36 hours, so the version it sees is somewhere between 0-36 hours old. Hmm, maybe I should put a revid in with it. tedder (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

\W

10 /\Wborn\W/
10 /born/

What's the difference between the above two lines? The first requires a space before and after perhaps? Do both handle upper and lower case? what about reborn? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A \W is a "nonword character", like } or 0 or a space. It would be better to use a word boundary, which would be \b. So if I just wanted the word "born" and no words containing born, I'd do this:
10 /\bborn\b/
Really, word/nonword is an odd form to use, because it won't handle the beginning of a line (for instance). And matches with this tool are case insensitive. So BORN, Born, born will all match. tedder (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
So if I'm looking for articles about certain types of people which of these would be best?
 10 /(\Wmusician\W|\Wplayer\W|\Wfootballer\W|\Wactress\W|\Wactor\W|\Wcontestant\W|\Wpolitician\W|\Wologist\W)/
 10 /(\bmusician\b|\bplayer\b|\bfootballer\b|\bactress\b|\bactor\b|\bcontestant\b|\bpolitician\b|\bologist\b)/
 10 /(musician|player|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician|ologist)/
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I would go with door number two, though "ologist" won't match because it's an incomplete word. Some optimization, it becomes two tests:
 10 /\b(musician|player|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician)\b/
 10 /ologist\b/
tedder (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
What effect will the last option have with /(musician|player|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician|ologist)/ - won't that do the same? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It would allow longer words in that match those things. For example, "players". It depends on your use case. Those are long enough words you probably don't have to worry about it or even care. But if you wanted "player" to match but not "players", you'd have to use /player\b/. tedder (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Seems clear now :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you use /players?/ to match either player or players? I seem to recall adding a question mark after a character in a rule makes the letter optional. Is that correct? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that works. tedder (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the above two lines of code is that if someone is a musician and a biologist they get double points. Also player is like ologist in that it's an ending match. Would the following work?
 10 /\b(musician|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician)\b|player\b|ologist\b/
If not then perhaps:
 10 /(\bmusician\b|\bfootballer\b|\bactress\b|\bactor\b|\bcontestant\b|\bpolitician\b|player\b|ologist\b)/
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing SearchResult

Today Tedderbot was doing the search result (I guess in order listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/Master) -> Taiwan, TamilNadu, Television and it got as far as TennesseeSearchResult then went back and started again to 13thCenturySearchResult. It appears those projects listed after Tennessee are missed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They'll get picked up in the next pass. I'm not sure why that ordering was chosen. tedder (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So the other day it stopped at Tennessee and then restarted at 13thCentury. An hour an a half ago it stopped at Opera, what's up with this, why doesn't it just continue on? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Aha- it's because it does one loop, but doesn't go A-Z. Instead, it starts whereever it stopped last time. So the first search result in this pass was Organizations, which makes sense why it stopped on Opera. Passes don't always complete- IIRC, the previous pass died because Wikipedia was having database/datacenter problems. tedder (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't really true that it will picked up in the next pass, because the next pass starts from the top of the list and can fail again to get any further; as it did today. So yes, it will get there eventually but it might not be the next pass or the pass after that etc. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's sort of true, but you interpreted its start incorrectly. It went from P back through to O but there must have been some flaky moments last night. tedder (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The 'P' run that you refer to where it started at 'Polynesia' and it finished at 'Tennessee' then went straight to the numbers i.e 13th Century, see here. This finishing at Tennessee has been the second time now, which is interesting - for the previous time see the first post to this thread. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Failed again a few hours ago after 'Tennessee'. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously failing in a unique manner right around 'T'. I don't have logging figured out, I'll at least capture the output from the next run so I can identify the problem. tedder (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Stopped at 'Tennessee' again. URBLPNT hasn't been done now for 6½ days. So the run whenever it does work is going to be missing article because they are 7 days old or more :( Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not quite accurate- the "last run date" is per-search, so it'll have a run date of ~7 days ago for URBLPNT, and it'll pad that by another 7 days. tedder (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Logical AND

A logical OR can be done with | a pipe symbol as in the following example. 

-100 /(condition1|condition2|condition3|condition4)/

How is a logical AND done? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me an example of text that should be matched with an AND. For instance, if it is "condition1 and condition2", you do this: /condition1.*condition2/. Of course, that is assuming the order of the two. You can do an OR to reverse it: /condition1.*condition2|condition2.*condition1/. tedder (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes like that, If contains "<Ref" and "ISBN", so the following?
-100 /<Ref.*ISBN/
By the way a bit confused about "order", do you mean order in rule or order occuring in the article? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I mean order of the two words in relation to each other. In this case, you know ISBN would always be after the ref (was the '1' an accident? Anyhow, the only problem with this is that .* will match all text of the article following the ref, so probably something like this is better: /<Ref.*?ISBN.*?<\/ref>/ .. hmm, that will still be too greedy. This isn't perfect, but it's better: /<Ref[^>]*?>[^>]*?ISBN[^>]*?<\/ref>/ .. this is an area that regexes fail- you really need a state engine to handle it. tedder (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, yes 1 on ref1 was in error, now corrected. Your losing me with this .* and .*? stuff. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.* means "match anything, greedy", .*? means "match anything, nongreedy". So with text of "tedder says hello world", /t.*r/ would match "tedder says hello wor", /t.*?r/ matches "tedder". Think of [^>] as a replacement for the period. While the period matches anything, [^>] matches anything except the ">". Regexes are fun. tedder (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Is there a way to check against article title? I'd like to exclude those with disambiguation in the title. I have a line that excludes disambiguation templates(see line below), but that doesn't help if none of them get used i.e this. 

-300 /(\{\{dab|\{\{disamb|\{\{disambig|\{\{given name|\{\{hndis|\{\{surname)/

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When I add the "what revision ID" is in there I can add special support for the article title. Go ahead and code a search using the following, I'll implement it later:
-300 /^__title:\s.*\(given name/
tedder (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kick start

Can you kick start TedderBot is seems to be doing not a lot on the NewArticle front. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I went away for a few days, and it isn't fully automated yet. Further, Amazon is having trouble. It should run soon. tedder (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop(failed) after 'Organizations' this time. Is there a chance you can run 'URBLPNT' and ' URBLP' as I want to see the result to know it to amend the rules. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It didn't fail- it started at Polynesia. It seems to have skipped 'U', probably because of database issues at the time. It'll hit on the next pass, I'll start it now. You can look through the bot contribs to see what it started on. tedder (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Skipped more then 'U', nothing after Tennessee was updated. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a chance you can run 'URBLPNT' and ' URBLP' seperately given the ongoing failures as I want to see the result to know it to amend the rules. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can, but it will take me a little bit of time to do so, I'm short on time for the next few days. tedder (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Amen User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNTSearchResult. Thank you! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I nudged it, I had a few minutes this morning. It failed on writing to the archive page, at least it ran against the main page. I'll run the other one now. tedder (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If it helps at all I would be happy to drop the archiving completely. It's in the history right, so why archive it. Would be happy to put line in rules code "@@archive=No" for example. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll add it to the feature list. I'll probably move the pages that remain at User:AlexNewArtBot to my space at that time; I've really begun to fork the features. tedder (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(0000-0010)

If Tedder deletes this message, I will assume that he is just trying to ignore me, if that is not the message he is trying to get across to me, tell me. DonaldET3 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fine chatting with you here, but I have no idea what the point was behind this comment. tedder (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Originally, that section was initiated once the news of an interesting event which Wikipedia did not have an article on came to my attention, The Southern California contrail. I saw that it was actually deleted by Tedder, whom I have had problems with before. So, I started writing a new section on his talk page, and, just like with my school writing assignments, I ended up going way off topic for most of the section. It was supposed to say something like, "What is the problem with this interesting event that it should not get an article for the extra-terrestrial savvy people, however false their ideas may be? Should I just copy the description of the event off of Facebook, or would Tedder just speedy-delete that?" (Grrr, I have this debate going on in my conscience about whether I should go way off topic again; I think I will, here it goes.) Or is Tedder not the one who would decide? What judges which administrator to consult if a new article should stay or not? Is every edit made on Wikipedia evaluated by administrators, or just new pages? Is Tedder the one to ask? Is it possible to hold an insect with a live stinger in thy bare hand without it stinging thou, or is stinging an automatic action once an insect with a live stinger lands on thy bare hand? DonaldET3 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you are after. Copying description off of Facebook would be a copyright violation (among other issues), and the reason I deleted it is because the community decided it wasn't encyclopedic- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch. You might want to start at Wikipedia's 5 pillars. tedder (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, people on Facebook go to the copyright office and get copyrights for their posts!? I did not know that. Copyrights work just like patents, right? Once I did try to make a list of invertebrates based on information from websites with no copyright claim, and an administrator (I do not think it was Tedder) said that if the website did not say that all its information is public domain, that means all rights reserved; then he/she blocked my account for twenty-four hours! Well, if Tedder thinks similarly, I have a point which might pave a solution: the Facebook description I am referring to was posted by the Department of Defense (North American Aerospace Defence Command and United States Northern Command). Works by the federal government of the United States of America are automatically public domain, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldET3 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, start reading at Wikipedia:Copyrights, I'm not 100% sure about public domain. but it doesn't matter a lot, as that topic was deemed unimportant for Wikipedia. Looks like you were blocked for copyright issues- so make sure you understand before posting anything that is questionable. You can ask at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard if you aren't sure. (that's what I'd do if I couldn't find an answer at Wikipedia:Copyrights) tedder (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Allright, I have gained everything I can from this conversation; this section is scheduled to be terminated. This section is unclassified, but is not approved for public release beyond this talk page. Reproduction is restricted to one copy for Wikipedia's archival servers and one copy for Tedder's own archive. When no longer required, this document may be destroyed in accordance with applicable security regulations. If anybody has any questions, leave them here before Tedder erases this section from his talk page. DonaldET3 will check for these questions at 7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time and 8:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time; if the section is not deleted by then, DonaldET3 will erase the section personally.
Disregard the last paragraph, I just love doing that. I really do believe that I have gained everything I can from this conversation though; erase this section whenever thou likes, Tedder. DonaldET3 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

About my Barnstar

Yes, I did post it because I created it and wanted to show it off like my other works on my userpage, I can see the apprehension you had when you posted this [8], so I removed it from the page and no-wiki'd the code. See it on WP:BARN as it is currently a legitimate barnstar. Sorry! Phearson (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I hadn't seen that you created it. I understand testing but giving yourself a barnstar is usually suspicious. tedder (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Hello Tedder. Don't think we've met before. I just noticed that you deleted an article on St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Encino at this diff. The article was pretty well-developed and had more than 25 citations to reliable sources. The article had even been featured on the main page a couple years ago. The sources and content, in my opinion, pretty clearly show that this is a notable parish that has been the site of many notable events. You blanked the article altogether and turned it into a redirect with a comment that this was a non-notable church. Before doing so, there was no discussion on the article's talk page and no AfD nomination. If you believe that the article is on a non-notable subject (an assertion with which I disagree), the proper course would be to nominate it at AfD. I therefore intend to revert your edit. If you continue to believe the content is unsuitable, please let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It didn't need to go through AFD to turn into a redirect, but since it's disputed, feel free to revert, I'll send it to AFD. tedder (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Detonators (band)

Another L.A./Oregon crossover. I originally moved this from the Music of Oregon article. I think the anon who prodded this is right--their albums were all self-released or on tiny labels, and all the press I can find (several mentions, a few almost not-trivial) is from the Register-Guard or Eugene Weekly. Local heroes, but that's about it. I'm a tiny bit biased as this was a part of my reckless youth, so I tried to find a way to "save" this, but I'm coming up with nada. Do you have any access to any L.A.-based sources that might reveal early notability? Since the band started in 1979, it's possible there's some FUTON bias going on, but it's doubtful--there are 3 bands so-named on allmusic, and none of them are this band. I guess that's what punk rockers get for being all underground and stuff... Anyway, don't look too hard, but I'm hoping that, you know, someone from Bad Religion would say "Our biggest influence starting out was The Detonators". In the end I'll probably end up adding a brief snip back to the Eugene section of the music article. Valfontis (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add it to my list. tedder (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

NewArticleBot operation, part 3

Refresh cache

Can you refresh cache on the rules used and the master configuration list. The version used is at least 10 days out of date. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a pile of changes I need to make to it anyhow. I'll kill the cache for the next pass (I can't do it mid-flight easily). It should only be using pages that are 36 hours old, sounds like that isn't the case. BTW, start a new section next time so this big section can archive. Not your fault, just want to let it be archived. tedder (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I blew away the cache, and I'm starting to list more information about what version was seen. So far it's just on the rules- look at the {{oldid}} on this diff. More later, at least I'm in a position that I can make improvements again. tedder (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Really useful when update rules to be sure which version wasn't spotting it before. Thanks again. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Los Angeles fetus disposal scandal

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Added to my list. Didn't quite crack 5000 :-/ tedder (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's back!

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Jeff_dean_and_possible_return_to_edit and comment as you see fit. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Huh. tedder (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice one. Always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt. (Once...) --Biker Biker (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tedder: If you are an administrator, could you be my "coordinating administrator?" Whoami 24 (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, but let's wait and see where the discussion goes. I've had interactions with you in the past- if I were to be your "coordinating administrator", would you find that an unfair bias? tedder (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I figure that you, especially, would be a good administrator to keep me on the straight and narrow. I would like someone like you as a sounding board I can ask questions of before I do something I am not certain is appropriate. However, if you would feel uncomfortable in that role, I would understand. Whoami 24 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
One more thing. If you agree to take me on, let me know when I can create my new non-anonymous user login. After I have done that, you would be me a favor if you "killed" this one: Whoami 24 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I'd be glad to block this one and you can create a new one (or reclaim an old one). It'll probably be a couple of days so the community can weigh in, though. tedder (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
O.k. Let me know when to do it. Thanks. Whoami 24 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tedder. I have found a user name User:Jeffrey M Dean that represents the real me (others were unavailable). So I created a user and uploaded a single photo to the user page. That is all I have done. I will not do anything further until you give me the green light. If this is o.k. with you, go ahead and kill Whoami_24. Thank you. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, though the ANI thread needs to sit a little longer- I'll reply here when it has. The consensus isn't totally clear, and it's been a short time period (36 hours, approx). tedder (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Tedder — thanks for your help and support. Unless otherwise advised, I assume you are my "coordinating administrator" and will therefore rely on you for guidance, criticism, praises, redirection, etc., etc., etc. Jeffrey M Dean — (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, and for the "clear" command. I didn't know how to do that. I note in the page below Will Beback'scomment. Is he correct? Should I not place links to my personal web site on my personal user page? I was not sure about that, and would appreciate your guidance. I know, of course, not to put any on content pages. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jeff_Dean_returning_to_edit:_editing_restrictions — Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Niki Yang

I believe she has nothing to do with any kind of LGBT issues, but she is listed in your User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult. What happened? Can I remove her from that list? JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 08:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

She matched the word "gay" (look here: User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/LGBT/errors). You can remove her, but she'll reappear on the next run of the bot. tedder (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 13:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

None zero score NewArtticles viaTedderBot

Can you explain the results here, i.e, no matches. There will be hundreds of articles that have no references on. Does the process not recognise zero or something? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles have to match a search to get counted. In other words, by default, articles aren't included. This would probably reverse it, giving all articles a score of 1 instead:
1 /./
tedder (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
-400 /(\{90minut|)/
Is the above the error? 90minut or anything? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely problematic. But nothing will give you a score of zero, because there are only negative scores listed. ...tedder (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Still blank with new rules. Drawn a blank on what it's doing. It' definitely using the rules version is saying yes??? If so the
1 /./
Does not look like it worked. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

bump to keep from archiving. tedder (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IND

Hi tedder, can you please help me ?


i am trying to create new articles alerts for this projects ? --naveenpf (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi- I'd be happy to help you set them up! Here are the instructions, if you don't understand the syntax of regular expressions, I can help with that. Create the search rule page and let me know the names of them, I'll help out if you paste examples of things that should and shouldn't match on those search pages. tedder (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Where to do that ? --naveenpf (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

NewArticles double points

Items on the first section get double points. This can be quite inappropriate in many cases. infoboxes being one. Is there a way that the first line doubling could be excluded for a rule? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The data in an infobox is generally very valuable- for instance, if a person was born or died in a given city. I think it's best to leave it. tedder (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for 2 new article reports

First, thank you for reviving the new article feed. If possible, could you create two new listings (I couldn't find out how to do other than bug you here):

  • for WikiProject Pittsburgh, based on keyword Pittsburgh
  • for WikiProject Sociology, based on keywords sociology, sociologist, sociological

Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi- I'd be happy to help you set them up! Here are the instructions, if you don't understand the syntax of regular expressions, I can help with that. Create the search rule page and let me know the names of them, I'll help out if you paste examples of things that should and shouldn't match. Examples of some things that shouldn't match can be found on Pittsburgh (disambiguation) for Pittsburgh. tedder (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Template include size

Thanks for stepping up to create a bot to replace AlexNewArtBot's useful data. AlexNewArtBot's archives are currently filling up Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded because of the huge number of templates they contain. Could you perhaps have your bot somehow fix that by removing all those templates and replacing them with plain text? I'd be willing to help code if necessary. This is not urgent in any way. Ucucha 18:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Add User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/NRHP/archive to the list now. The way Alex remedied this issue is to limit archive size to around 100K and create archives in incremental numbers, which for the NRHP can be found here. Could a system like this be implemented? I was under the impression that's what you were going to do originally.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of those archives are still too large, though. Expanding the templates seems the easiest way to remedy this; making the archives smaller will also help. Ucucha 03:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, and as you can see from this section, I actually brought this up to Alex himself. By all means, if you can alter the code of the template to be smaller, do it (I may even look into it), but eventually, there's going to have to be a separate archive. The template include limit is Wikipedia-wide, not template-specific.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not as much the template itself as the sheer number of them on each page. As I said, I think the easiest solution is replacing the templates by plain text. I might be able to code that myself (when I have less on my plate than now). Ucucha 16:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix the archive size and template usage within a few days. I'm trying to get through 14gb of photos, 13gb of video, and terabytes of emotions. tedder (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see how setting a max archive size is that hard... look at all the talk page archive bots. Sure, plain text would work, but the template is more desirable IMO. Even with plain text, sheer page size can still be an issue further down the road. Opening a 500K byte page can take several minutes on slower connections. I think the best long term option is to cap the size of these archives, and as I suggested in the link above to Alex, I've found that somewhere around 80K bytes is the right size.
(after edit conflict) Thank you, Tedder, for addressing this issue. As Ucucha said above, it is not urgent at all, so don't feel rushed. Thank you for your continued efforts to improve this bot!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I'll add multiple archive pages and deal with the template issue. Not a problem at all. I just have to do it now tedder (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding a note to keep this current. It's something I should definitely be addressing before the month is out. tedder (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tedder/Archive_10&oldid=1138991049"