User talk:Tedder/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Regarding Wallflowers98 page targets

There are way too many pages he is targeting, most pages he has hit only one time. I have found most positives by looking through edit filter 82, No wiki URL's. Most are easy to spot, also a good way to block the socks through AIV. There has been prior SPI cases againest him, only problem is that rangeblocks will not work, he is on AOL which everyone knows is way too dynamic. Hope this helps you. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Might have to create an editfilter to block that domain or attach to another one already doing that. Because I'm so busy researching an arbitration case, can you verify Special:LinkSearch doesn't work with nowiki URLs? tedder (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I ran a check of 4shared.com and nothing comes up that would be in a nowiki tag. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I enabled Filter 82 so it will prevent those edits from happening. It's aimed directly at this problem. tedder (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, I wasn't sure why the filter hadn't been enabled before. But this should stop him now. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern is that it might affect real edits, not just socks and bad-faith edits. It'd been running in log mode long enough to safely turn on. tedder (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. In the log it seems to have caught other edits not related to Wallflowers98 so it will have to be watched to see if it's getting legit edits. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect none of them are in good faith, even if they are not from the sock. tedder (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Short Stack

Don't you think two months is long enough for vandalism-related protection? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused to your point- it's protected for a month. tedder (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the logs, you protected it two months ago. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It was protected for 3 months after a 1 month protection period was not enough according to the log. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Momo. I was missing something. In any case, IP 98.*, what's your point? tedder (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just asking you to reconsider the length of the protection. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have to give a better reason for why the page should be unprotected. Your reasoning doesn't seem sufficent to warrant an unprotection. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the talk page is open (Talk:Short Stack), so I'd suggest posting proposed edits there. tedder (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins and editors

With me or against me. Haha. Maybe that's a bit radical. But if it weren't for a sense of humor about it all it would be tough to survive in good cheer. I was interested to see you delve into the climate change miasma (if that's the right word). I like vocab(ulary) even if I'm not great at it. I feel the same about article writing. :) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to sink into the climate change stuff, just got bitten at an admin level and decided it was time for ARBCOM. That's close enough to the drama for me. Good times, eh? tedder (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's getting hot in here... so take off all your clothes..

Or something.

Sizzling. :)

I think the dispute will die down actually. The noobs and weaker players who don't know how to play the Wikipedia game are going to get picked off one at a time (Jehochman already shot one down that was editing since 2008, in good faith as far as I can tell) as a sock from... wait for it... 2005.

The arbitration process will just continue this process leaving the established players and their "alternate accounts". Anyway, I shouldn't be posting here, you'll be marked for some kind of punishment. But I feel bad about always having the last word on my own talk page threads.

You're probably on some list now. I hope you weren't planning on running for higher office. Better dig up all our previous disagreements and remind those lurking how problematic I am before it's too late...

I should start kissing my "enemies" like the Don. :) That would do them in for sure. I'm kidding about the enemies bit of course. I can't even keep track of who's who most of the time, except for those who consistently remind me that they don't like me by coming after me with great regularity. :) At least they don't use horse heads to get the message across. That would be vulgar. Maybe dead fish would work? Or octopuses? I saw one in a tidepool out here, but the kids kept poking it with a stick. Quite sad really. We better hope there's no Planet of the Octopuses in our future. There would be a lot of avenging that could be taken out on us, especially me. I like squid and octopus, even though it's usually ridiculously chewy.

Maybe I need a break? I just tuned in to the Humanitarian Bowl, and it's competitive here at the end. Of course I started the Freddie Barnes article :) Well, thanks for letting me ramble. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and yeah, my yellow bar is working just fine, it's doing a great job helping my OCPD flare up No matter. Getting involved in the drama every once in a while reminds me why creating articles is nice. Not that I'm any good at either of those things.. tedder (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought it pertinent to update you regarding possible consensus finally being respected.

Since it may affect some links in your ARBCOM I thought you might want to be made aware that the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has finally reached an overwhelming majority consensus on its talk page to rename the article to the more NPOV title Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.T.Historian (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- I appreciate the heads-up. Hopefully none of the links break, due to the redirect. I guess the "climategate" folks lost tedder (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I believe a lot of them, including myself, simply weren't aware that Wikipedia will never explicitly name an article -gate even well after it becomes commonly used. I'm satisfied with the title the consensus was reached on, as the controversy should include both the CRU's refusal to release data as well as the unauthorized released of the data, it's all one big controversy and the existing name was about as far from NPOV as it could get. Didn't mean to leave that first comment unsigned, sorry about that. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "lost" and "-gate" were both tongue-in-cheek. NPOV is a good thing. No worry about not signing- you probably EC'd a few times. tedder (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pulling for Clime-o-rama. Or The Climadrama. Maybe a date would be good too... like Climarama of Drama 2009. Or something really long would work: The alleged hacking and supposed theft of purported e-mails that may possibly be scandalous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive a 'noob' question please, but what does 'EC'ed' mean? Thanks Adam.T.Historian (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. EC is just a shortening of edit conflict. So edits coming close together don't go in and require some manual work. It's what happens when pages are being edited with short time differentials, especially talkpages with stalkers that won't leave you alone. tedder (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, Ahh I see, thanks for the definition. and to ChildofMidnight *chuckle* perhaps we could name it Climadrama Pandemonium 2009 and get Keegan-Michael Key as Jovan Muskatelle to commentate as seen in the clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocak7mzN-Tw *falls down laughing* -Adam.T.Historian (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help

Hello, I'm having the most awful time with user Daedalus969. Please see these posts [1]. this fellow is on a rant and I think he needs a break. I posted to the AN/I board, not sure if that is the place to be. Please, this fellow needs a break to regain perspective. He's over the top. If you need me to sort out all these diffs I will. Please let me know. Thanks, Malke2010 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you are having an "awful time", but you aren't innocent either. Please quit forum/admin shopping on this. If you quit responding, he will too. tedder (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. What do you mean? Here's more [2].Malke2010 03:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

also, I've not been responding to him. I responded to the initial by asking a question. Then after Coldplay got going, I told Daedalus to stop. But he got much worse.Malke2010 03:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Breathing

I don't see how NPA applies, when I never explicitly said, you don't know shit. That is rather out of context, as the user was assuming about my motivations of editing, about which they knew shit, seeing as how they are not telepathic and cannot read my mind.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say this or this? The context doesn't really matter- that's you saying "you don't know shit", right? tedder (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't, it's me saying you don't know shit about what goes on in my mind. Big difference. Not knowing 'shit' implies stupidity, however, no knowing shit about what is going on in someone's mind implies a lack of knowledge on that subjec, and, even more, the lack of telepathy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It can be construed as "you don't know shit", even if that's not how you intended it. Okay? tedder (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That isn't possible, given that I explicitly stated what I meant. If I just said it without any context, it could be taken that way, and out of context, it still could, but the fact remains that there is context.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, can you please erase the following insult about my sanity? This is unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. In general, I won't go around removing edits. tedder (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please warn them that commenting, or stating that another user is beyond sane is unacceptable and strictly prohibited.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's been made clear. On both sides. Let the grass grow over the mud that is in the space formerly occupied by a horse that has been pulverized. tedder (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Per below, it is obvious they are not getting it. Please warn them, that personally attacking other users as they have done to myself is unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not blameless

Would you please explain to me why I'm not blameless and why you are apparently giving this guy a pass? I have been blocked for far less than this. His behavior is beyond the pale. Please explain to me why he is allowed to do this. Thank you.Malke2010 05:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, WP:NOTTHEM. Going around and posting this drama across Wikipedia user talk pages and noticeboards doesn't help matters. I don't care who is wrong or right. I'm giving you a pass too. tedder (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please listen to me. I'm being sincere here. I'm asking you to please consider this man's state of mind. Believe me when I say this, a block can help him. People here need to let him see that he's out of control. He's at his house someplace, maybe by himself. You might be the only voice of reason he'll hear. And forgive me, but you are not giving me a pass. I have done nothing to engender this man's behavior here tonight. And as you can see from the above post, he's out of control. Please do something to help him.Malke2010 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the insinuations that I'm crazy, it is not helping you, and in fact, such is a personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• You appear out of control too, Malke. Again, drop it. Last warning. tedder (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Daed, don't reply to Malke here or elsewhere. Your last warning too. tedder (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I see he's your friend. You know I haven't done this.Malke2010 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tedder is all over the place. Everywhere I look. I think tests for performance enhancing substances may be warranted. Although other editors were able to clear out the entire new article log? Hmmm. Is that even possible? So upon reflection your feats now seem minor in comparison. Better luck next time. But if you block Drmies you can get on my good side very quickly. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not even going to tell you how big my watchlist is right now. tedder (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

Check it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. tedder (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

Can you explain what you are doing checking up on my talk page, and also, what do you believe I'm doing wrong? Am I not allowed to work on my talk page?Malke2010 06:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on your talk page because I've left notes before, and I'm trying to babysit a dispute. You are allowed to work on your talk page provided it's within the guidelines on WP:UP; Wikipedia is not myspace. tedder (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Unblock request of Daedalus969

That might interest you. Regards,  Sandstein  07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on a reply right now, actually. tedder (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

• Context: [3]

Thanks for archiving the thread in time. I realized that "vote below" was an error as soon as I pressed submit, but was edit-conflicted before I could edit that part. Anyway, hope the participants and watchers got a smile out of the roasting of Ironholds et al, and glad the discussion was halted before it devolved into too much silliness or recriminations. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I understand. No big harm, it'd just run its course and was too close to yelling fire to continue. And it's an incredibly admirable accomplishment. tedder (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to be added as a party to the Climate Change arbitration

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.

---

In 2008 I became aware of the problems at Global warming and related articles, and attempted to work on those issues, but found that the group of editors and administrators owning the article were far too entrenched to confront at that time. However, there was fallout from that, it resulted in conflict between WMC and myself, an excuse for his action having presented, that resulted in an RfAr, a topic ban for me, and the desysopping of WMC. As I was involved in Global warming and related articles, and expect to continue to some degree to be involved, and am knowledgeable about the background and roots of this affair, I request that you add me as a party to the case.

I need this in order to be able to comment on it, as I attempted with this, which was removed, apparently due to a narrow (but possible) interpretation of one of my sanctions; the removal depended on my not being a named party.

I intend to ask ArbComm for clarification, but if I'm added as a party, it would be moot, saving ArbComm the trouble. There are aspects of this case which are quite relevant but which may be overlooked if I'm not allowed to participate. I assure you that I would not participate disruptively -- that's part of what was puzzling to me about the sanction, there wasn't a history of disruptive participation in dispute resolution, nor do I anticipate dropping tomes on ArbComm, that's highly ineffective. Thanks for considering this. And, by the way, thanks for filing the Request. It's long overdue. --Abd (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, please think twice or three or a dozen times before you do this, and clear it with arbcom first. I would characterize Abd's accounting of the circumstances behind the previous arbcom case as "imaginative and original." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a proposal to add him (guessing on gender), I won't do any more with it. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion to add Abd as a party to this case. tedder (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some particular disadvantage for Adb, in merely adding his statement as one of the 'unnamed/uninvolved' parties? Would he lose the ability to plead his own case and how the ARBCOM relates to him, in some way? I'm still reading up on ARBCOM and getting acquainted with the ins and outs. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, thanks for considering my request, which might have made the motion moot, thus saving substantial time on the part of the community. I can understand some reluctance on your part to add parties, even by consent and as requested.

ATH, I'm under a sanction prohibiting me from intervening in disputes where I'm not an "originating party." In context, I don't think that sanction was intended to prevent me from intervening in disputes where I have a legitimate and prior interest, and particularly, special knowledge, but others contest this interpretation, and eventually, I hope, ArbComm will clarify it. "My case" is not being considered in this arbitration, I'm not a named party, nor, absent some shift in the situation, am I likely to become one unless ArbComm permits it in some way, given Tedder's decision above, so, the argument goes, I'm prohibited from intervening unless my mentor approves, and mentorship is a huge can of worms itself. Here, I tried to short-circuit the process by my request to Tedder, which should have made the fuss moot. I don't open cans of worms unless it's necessary for the welfare of the project. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to be an end-run to allow you to contribute to the case. A motion has been made, if the case opens, they will (hopefully) consider it. tedder (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Climate Change Mess

Climate change is one of the most polarized and politicized topics that I have seen. Talk pages rarely have sections without an argument and random bizarre rules lawyering, requests to split an article, rename an article, delete an article, etc. People literally think that the same article is about completely different things. Where there is no common vocabulary, two editors are never going to find consensus. Incidentally I am probably one of the people with a bunch of talk edits and practically no article edits - that is because I work for an energy company and don't want to even approach a conflict of interest. Good luck cleaning it up, and happy new year. Ignignot (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, very polarized and politicized, this is why so many are concerned that myriad Wikipedia climate pages butcher NPOV and present the fallacy of scientific consensus - this is also why the number of people angry about the situation continues to grow. Many of the people who are now waking up(in general) believe there is a plan to install a global government, that the proposed global GDP/carbon tax and cap and trade credits trading derivatives fraud will be used as an excuse to sign away nationhood globally at an executive level, bypassing due process, legislatures, and so on. I'm still undecided about the global government part, but I have personally watched the back and forth between Hillary Clinton and Al Gore on C-SPAN where they openly discussed global GDP/carbon tax and cap and trade scheme, Hillary asked which would be feasible, Gore said 'We are prepared to do either but I would prefer both.' Therefore, the only part of their concern which is at present NOT absolutely factual and verifiable, is the part about global government and the death of nationhood/national sovereignty.

+-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

email

check it. :D Malke2010 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay, let him out of wikijail!

Hello Tedder, thank you for letting Daedalus out of his block. Thank you so much. If you look at his posts and read them again like I just did, you will see he is really trying hard to communicate what he means and I know I didn't see it at all until I read through everything just now. Thank you so much! YAY, happy new year.Malke2010 00:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pine Grove, Hood River County, Oregon

I found a little stuff. There's more but I think that's enough for now. Every time I think I'll take just half an hour to round up everything there is to know about a place, it turns out its actually more interesting than that. Not bad for a place given short shrift by OGN. Anyway, now your fine pic doesn't overwhelm the article! Katr67 (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! It went from ~37 words to almost 500 words. Certainly qualifies for a 5x expansion DYK, right? 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the DYK checker seems to approve. I don't know which factoid is particularly interesting, though, but I'm sick of looking at the thing. Katr67 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Want me to punch in a DYK? It'd be a nice distraction. tedder (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll write it, if you enter it. How about: "DYK...that the stand of pine trees for which the community of Pine Grove, in Hood River County, Oregon, was named was cut down in 1957?" If that's too Ripley's Believe It Or Not, I could add some info about the Japanese community there--they of course got shipped off to internment camps during WWII and that had quite an impact on the whole valley. Katr67 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(mv left) Submitted, finally: Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on December 30. Changed "was" to "were", though that might not be correct. tedder (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hmm. Community...was named. Stand of pine trees...was cut down. Stand is singular. But I can see how my wording be confusing. Grammer [sic] class is hard! I'll go take a look at that nom and see what the DYK folks have to say. BTW, (in regards to that from which you need distraction, below) maybe that trainwreck pic is setting a bad precedent... Katr67 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I figured 'stand' was plural because it is a group of things. But I'm really bad at grammar. When at the DYK page, make sure to look for my Lincoln Hall entry. I'm not happy with the content at condemned, but I'm not happy removing the link either.

Thankfully, all of the below is done, basically. But yeah, the trainwreck is sort of apropos. tedder (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ew, yeah, that condemned page is pretty inadequate. Can you link to Wiktionary in a DYK? Nice to know that it could have fallen in on my head back when I was taking drama (circa 1986). I had no idea (or had forgotten) that it was formerly a high school--that kind of thing makes me happy, in an architecture-geek sort of way. Heads up--there's another Oregon-related DYK for Same-sex marriage among Native Americans in the United States regarding the Coquille Indian Tribe. Katr67 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask about the 'condemn' thing. I dunno. I knew it was previously a school- as was the gorgeous Shattuck Hall- but Lincoln is only a block from me, so it's hard not to know that. Coquille? Same-sex marriage? Cool! It seems Aboutmovies has about 3 DYKs per week.. tedder (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do about socking at Murder of Meredith Kercher

At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77, the checkuser findings are in, but a decision needs to be made on what blocks to issue. Inquiring minds want to know, is there an admin who has been following the dispute on this article? I found your name since you had issued a semiprotection previously. Do you have time to look at the sock case and give an opinion? You may possibly know of additionals socks not yet mentioned in the report. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't been following it, just issued protection per WP:RFPP. It looks like this has been handled, though. tedder (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattscards reply

This is not a war... I want to discuss this.. I will do the research... and I will post it... RJN has a my way or the highway.. I have a lot to offer,, I am new.. but I have a passion to do this. I respect the people I speak with.. even though I disagree. I am not new.. RJN has absolutely 0 respect for me. I have been over 200 men lots of superintendents.. and I have appointed lots of successful managers and lots of respect. At first, I come on a little strong... but you will see, I will work with everyone. RJN>> tonight is the first time he has ever responded to me. This is a problem. Tedder.. I am the real thing.. I have never lost anywhere I have gone. This is my passion.... and all I ask if for communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting at your talk page (haven't looked- you may have already). Wikipedia is based on consensus and verifiability; that means you need to explain why you are doing something. The best way to gain respect is to show reliable sources that back you up. It doesn't mean anything if you say "trust me, I know this". tedder (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

requesting unblock of Template:Same-sex unions

Could you please remove the block you wisely placed on Template:Same-sex unions? A consensus (not unanimity, but strong majority - 5 to 2) has been generated, and declared more than a day ago with no objection. I thin we're clear of the problem. Thanks. - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Glad you were able to work it out. Feel free to drop me a line if anything comes up. tedder (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Mall

user jeffrey mall is spamming article with unnecessary data. i warned him. and now telling you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.114.13 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? You've never made edits, so I have no idea what you mean. tedder (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's This article and the reversions were necessary because you did not explain the reason why you removed content in the edit summary, thats what edit summaries are for. Also you resorted to socking on dynamic IP's to cause further disruption. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned 4 times to stop removing content without explanation, this user however, thought it would be more appropriate to change IP's continuously and revert me without explanation until they get their way. Jeffrey Mall (talk • Happy New Year) - 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good times. I guessed as much. tedder (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User page protection thanks

Thanks for protecting my talk page for a time while I happened to be away. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm willing to IAR and presume I have permission from you to protect it when necessary. tedder (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you got my permission. Momo san ^Gespräch 22:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please allow the discussion to proceed to a natural end

I understand that this has annoyed some people, but I fail to see why the ban discussion should be archived prematurely. Thus far, the only actual !vote seems to be mine, although both Jehochman and DGG have expressed concern about the issue I have raised. This is precisely why I opened a new thread on AN (instead of ANI) so that it could possibly be resolved. Please undo your archiving, I have no desire to get into another spat with an admin about this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual end of the discussion has been reached. That's why several people, including admins, have archived and collapsed it. If you have serious concerns about the user, take it to WP:RFC/U. However, the immediate issue of the dispute has been dealt with. Note the number of times WP:STICK has been raised and heed it, please. tedder (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How can the actual end of the discussion have been reached when there has been no conclusion on the issue? If people don't agree with a topic ban they are free to oppose it. Why roll this up so that no one will see it, especially now that the drama seems to have died out? Telling me that I'm beating a dead horse isn't going to change my opinion or the fact that this hasn't been resolved. What am I missing here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wallflowers98 sock found a way around the filter

I noticed a Wallflowers98 sock just now and this edit, it seems he's getting around filter 82. He modified the link, instead of 4shared.com, he changed it to 4sh@red.com, although the filter caught his first 4 attempts. Would you be able to update the filter to reflect this? Thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

82

Per this edit, it needs to be adjusted so that 4sh@red isn't allowed either. As the socks find new ways to evade it, we'll just keep modifying it. 98 will not win.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

.. I see now that Mos beat me to it. .. c.c heh.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Modified the exact match of the filter to catch them a little more readily. Keep watching, and we may not be able to catch all of them with an EF, so WP:RBI is a good mantra. tedder (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you um.. modified it to block instances like that? I ask as I got past it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It should have worked. Not sure why the regex is failing, I asked for help over at the EF board. If nobody responds in a day or so, you/me/we should pick on target volunteer people that can assist on this. tedder (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats weird, I guess something went wrong. Hopefully someone over there can help with this. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another filter 82 hit

It caught this but the subsequent edit got through. I'm afraid we might be playing cat and mouse with this guy. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yay. Blocked + autoblock on IP. tedder (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat and mouse or no, everything has limits, and he's realizing he's about to reach his own.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to expend less energy to remove vandalism/spam than they spend to create it. tedder (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how we've drastically decreased the amount of hits the filter does normally, I would say we're succeeding. It will just take a little more time. We're almost there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a new sock, but this time he is using a new URL in nowiki tags, see here. Looks like another filter update is in order. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wallflowers98

I placed a checkuser request for new Wallflowers98 socks and J.delanoy found alot of them, some of them are current, a day to 3 days ago. See his log. Look at the accounts blocked between 03:39 and 04:17 UTC, all of them have the reason "Long Term Abuse". I'll give the ones that are current: this one ( List of Home Improvement episodes), will need the page protected, This one too, [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. On these ones, the filter never caught the edits, it will probably need to be updated. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I got a new sock, [9], It's getting real complicated in how he does the nowiki tag. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just happened to notice this, a new filter was created. Filter 278 caught some more socks as well, so 2 filters will help us out with him. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Afd discussion on ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians}}

Hello, Tedder. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patelurology2 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it vandalism? Are YouTube videos invalid citations?

A few hours ago user Yilloslime reverted an article wherein I had added a few citations, apparently because he objects to YouTube videos being a valid source. As that a valid objection, and thus a valid reason for reverting the article? --Desertphile (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a diff or an article name? tedder (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force article

Peter Cohen and Shabazz have anti-JIDF bias and have just used you so that they can insert it into the article about the JIDF. You have now semi-protected a page based upon a minor dispute with regard to "categories." They will now destroy try to destroy the article and the good work other editors have done to try to make it as objective and non-biased as possible. Please help keep an eye on it, and them. --216.155.158.166 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not watching it. If you are concerned, and you've posted on the talk page with no satisfactory response, please take it to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or elsewhere on the dispute resolution process. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter request

Hi there. I've recently gone through the edit filter requests in an effort at cleanup and came across your requests for "Tag additions referring to Roman Polanski". I wanted to know if this issue was still outstanding and, if it is, if you have any diffs for it to help with determining what to look for. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lincoln Hall (Portland, Oregon)

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lincoln Hall (Portland, Oregon), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

added. tedder (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pine Grove, Hood River County, Oregon

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pine Grove, Hood River County, Oregon, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

added. tedder (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock help

I was wondering if you trust my word that an IP account is an old sockmaster? If you'll look on Richard Colvin Cox, an IP from Los Angeles popped up and restored extraneous content that was first added by the sockmaster accounts User:Nyannrunning. If you'll look at that account and the various names associated with it, including User:Newcastleind who added content. If you want to delve into the patterns of language usage, including making reference to using interlibrary loan, which clued me in, the usage is the same. The IP is trying to make me request dispute resolution to include what is essentially a book promotion to this article, insisting mentioning the book is adding another source, etc. None of the article is sourced to the book he's mentioning and there are no sources for the addition he has made. I could probably adequately work up a sock investigation, but honest to God, this is Dooyar, Nyannrunning, Debbiesvoucher, Newcastlein, Hi There, and many other socks, all of which are blocked. Please let me know. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a little while. Yeah, quacking pretty storong there. Strange to be familiar with WP:DR and not with User:SineBot, but.. huh. tedder (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I was actually choking on the eiderdown! I have gotten to the point with this sockmaster that I just call him by Dooyar, the first name I ran across him using. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he or she knows about dispute resolution because back before socks, Pinkadelica and I opened dispute resolution over the article on Karyn Kupcinet. There's nothing relevant on the Cox article that calls for DR, the content added was a book promotion. WP:3O would cover it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's just weird to not know about SineBot if you've been around long enough for DR. OTOH, not many new users know what DR is except for a title for a doctor. tedder (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AFDs

Actually anyone can close an afd discussion. 209.2.60.83 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(moving back to IP talk page and replying) tedder (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi... an user named Chola_yadava has been pushing POV in two articles (Madras Regiment and Carnatic music for quite some time now), as he did here and here. Can you please refer this to some admins who are having good knowledge of India-related articles? Axxn (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't have good knowledge, but I gave the user a personal message to use talk pages instead of edit warring/posting POV edits. Let me know how that goes, as I won't be monitoring it. tedder (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. He continued his actions, and as a result another admin blocked him. Axxn (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw they were blocked. Fine by me, of course. tedder (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

UCD Fencing Club

Hi Tedder you deleted the above article on Jan 4th the second time that day it was deleted the article can now be found User:AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42/UCD Fencing Club not sure if this is against policy could you let me know what is the policy on deleted pages in user space thanks BigDunc 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi- userspace drafts are okay, provided you are working on them. Here's some more information: Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages.3F. tedder (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, so if no work is carried out on the article it then becomes an issue? BigDunc 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. Basically, articles in userspace shouldn't be pretending to be articles (imagine a case that is blatant advertising). But "working on it" is a loose definition, especially for an article somewhat well-written like that one. tedder (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV, UofP

I am struggling with the NPOV rules, and cannot determine how the following information violates it. Everything in the passage below is cited, and written neutrally. As it stands in its current incarnation, the UP page reads like PR fluff, and this information paints a more complete, yet fair, portrait. This information is all a matter of public record.

I would be very interested in how you would alter the phrasing to conform. Thanks!

(snip pasted text)

I look forward to your advice!

Jgold1981 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Jgold1981

Hi- please post it to the talk page I provided (Talk:University of Portland). There's already a section of that page devoted to discussing this addition, so you shouldn't need to paste the text into there. tedder (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for protecting Nick Saban. You're the Mount Cody of admins! Drmies (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whoa, I'm sorry, Tedder--I didn't mean to ask for full protection, that's a slip on my part. Blame it on the euphoria, and don't worry, there will be no philosophical discussion on that topic. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Eh...big game? Did Mrs. Tedder have you on kitchen duty all night tonight? I hope not! Drmies (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured you'd get a kick out of that comment, and also that the fullprot was an accident. Not much of a sports watcher (okay, I'll watch the superbowl and the last dozen NBA games, and motorsports are a huge exception, like my current timesuck). tedder (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Addison, TX

Hi! I saw this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Addison,_Texas&diff=280873333&oldid=280872894

Your edit was well-intentioned, but it is not helpful for the Addison, Texas article. Here is why:

• When discussing a small city (Addison has a population of 14,166) one needs to describe each and every school serving the city. Doing so does not overburden the article, since only a few schools serve the city
• Yes, elementary and middle schools generally are not notable for articles. But they absolutely, absolutely need to be mentioned in small municipality and neighborhood articles

The "Notable Schools" sub-section and organization is best for a city of over 100,000 people. It presents too little information relative to one of 14,166 people.

By the way, I know that the information is good as I have worked on Bellaire, Texas and Bacliff, Texas to be promoted to "good article" status - Both articles describe which elementary schools serve them. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That's definitely an edit from the wayback machine! tedder (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD rationale thanks

Thanks for the long closing rationale here. Given a range of opinions and the likelihood of many eyeballs, it probably diverted several questions/deletion reviews. tedder (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting case. WP:OneEvent can be difficult to interpret. Harper Lee, for example, is noted for having produced just the one amazing book (and because of that Mocking Bird is suspected of having been written by Capote!). Should her article be redirected to To Kill a Mockingbird? Of course not - people are curious about the writer of such a book - will want to read about her life before, during and after the book. Will want to know what influenced the book. What else she has done. Etc. More material than can be usefully placed in one section of To Kill a Mockingbird. The same can be said about Russell Hantz - though there is this argument of transitory importance. Would future generations be interested in reading about some guy who didn't win a TV game show? Because the event is recent, people are curious, and they may come to Wikipedia to find out more about him. But how much space should we give to transitory curiosity? It's on ongoing and pertinent question, and one we will continue to engage with as Wikipedia develops! I think some cases are quite borderline. SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Context: realestatemenu.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Dear Tedder,

I do not understand why my 4-5 external links from several pages keep being deleted, since they are not spam (that statement is quite offensive) , nor they are irrelevant to the topic. Moreover, the texts are written with simple language, which is appreciated by most of the people. Could you please explain me where is my mistake?

Best regards, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxxTheMaster (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi- if they're not spam, why are they being added, why are advertisements shown, and (most importantly) what does it do to contribute to the understanding of the topic? Please help Wikipedia by contributing information cited from reliable sources. tedder (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They are being added, because they have content, which is quite handy for most of the non-specialists on the topic. As for the advertisements, all of the sites have them, but yet you do not delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxxTheMaster (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL very carefully and explain how your link it adds to understanding of the site. simple.wikipedia exists for writing simple-english version of text, and realestatemenu.info is not a credible source. Have you been creating multiple accounts to add these links? It's strange that several users have added it recently. tedder (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Levi Clow

Why do you keep deleting me from notable alumni? i dont get it? are you some type of wiki god who chooses who is notable or not? what have you done for your country? nothing..besides editing wikipedia..YEAH GO YOU!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviclow (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page. In other words, Wikipedia's definition of notability is somewhere north of "US Coast Guard Machinery Technician". tedder (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Jive

• Context: Jive Software

this article is barely referenced and does not meet wikipedia standards and has not been revised in months. it does not merit inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but those are arguments that should generally be avoided- see WP:PROBLEM. There are sources available for someone to use on it. In other words, it would possibly pass AFD, which means it really shouldn't be deleted via speedy. tedder (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Chet Orloff

I just munged your refs, sorry. I said I would restore, but edit conflict class is tough! Do you mind doing it? I have to go "get a life" now. Katr67 (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to fix. That article definitely needs cleanup. tedder (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bot

Looks like it needs a bit of a poke to get going again. Just thought I'd let you know. -Royalguard11(T) 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(regarding RFPP cleanup/archiving) On this topic, why doesn't it run super-consistently? Is the code available, and would you like to let me run it instead? tedder (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Late response :) ...my university has log-in prompts and I go on trips home and back. I was in San Fransisco last December. Aaron Schulz 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To revert or not to revert

Either a coincidence or this guy's block evading. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My take? I'd revert, use a good edit summary to invite them to the talk page, put a welcome template on their userpage, and leave a personal note on their talkpage explaining the issue(s). tedder (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, let's see how this goes. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A mission, should you choose to accept it

Since you're into railroads lately (the Montparnasse wreck notwithstanding), there is a fiddly painstaking project you might be interested in that I've alternately forgotten about/been avoiding. At some point, I think it was my bright idea to make many of the links to Oregon Railway and Navigation Company point (at least the Oregon ones) to the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company because I thought they were the same. Which they are, sort of...it makes my brain hurt to think about. The formerly separate articles were merged by an inexperienced merger (the articles were tagged for potential merging by an experienced RR person, but I don't know that there was much discussion) so maybe they should still be separate. Anyway, for the cause of accuracy, it would be good to go through "what links here" and check the page histories of those articles for the switch up and/or check the references (if any) to see which company is being referred to. I would imagine many of the refs get it wrong as well, but the best we can do is go with the citations, unless there's some obvious timeline discrepancy. Note that that this represents a crapload of articles. Katr67 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me sort out the difference between the company? I almost need it plotted out how all the companies are related. tedder (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for digging up the accreditation info for Cornerstone Christian School (Camarillo, California). ACSI's is rather easy to obtain, but "not a small task" describes WASC's process well. Being accredited doesn't really mean that the school has received any actual notice (the actual requirement), but it hints that it's not entirely unreasonable of us to hope that more sources might appear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a hint of credibility- not all high schools with under 100 students even appear on the notability radar, but having ACSI/WASC accreditation is a pretty strong hint that there is some scholastic integrity. tedder (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking: an independent school that's organized enough to manage WASC's process is surely organized enough to seek publicity. (Whether they got that publicity is exactly the question at hand, but here's hoping that sources appear.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

One for your current railroad interest

T. Egenton Hogg had been an Oregon redlink for ages but I just discovered he was the same person at Thomas Egenton Hogg, who already existed on WP disguised as only a Confederate naval officer. Oh, but he's so much more interesting than that. I added the briefest of sources, but he's an Oregon railway dude so I thought I'd mention him to you in case you want to pursue. --Esprqii (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch on equating them as the same! And curse me for getting involved in railfan. It's an area I know less about than Oregon schools. tedder (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when I started seeing a lot of the usual robber baron suspects in some of the bios I briefly scanned, I knew it was gonna be a mess. I might try to chip away at it a bit, but don't let me get in the way of your wikilocomotive. --Esprqii (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get back to what started all of this- Nibley, Oregon. Even that is Katr's fault because of the "Main Street" book that Katr hinted to on a town page. So now it is like that pic: optimism combined with blindness about upcoming events equals "hey, look at all these train articles! Let me try to fix them!" tedder (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Caesar's niblets, you're right! Although we can pin it on Zombie Pod Pete. --Esprqii (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's always Pete's fault. Pete's Law, protecting you when Megan's Law can't!(tm). tedder (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) Hogg already existed?! Good catch. I blame Pete for the railroads too. Tedder, you're OK as far as railfandom until you start going out in all kinds of weather trying to spot certain railroad engines for fun. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone needs a weird obsessive hobby...um... Katr67 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He was only created in December so it's not like he was lying around forever waiting to be found. And even still, I had to make sure there weren't more than one T. E. Hoggs around. You know those ubiquitous Hoggs. --Esprqii (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Scare quote scare

• Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elgin,_Oregon&diff=prev&oldid=338622517

Actually the dead link for Elgin, Oregon was "official" per The Blue Book, but I see from the Wayback Machine that it hasn't been archived since June of '08. I thought it might come back up, but looks like they ran out of money to pay for their account, so it's fine to delete it. Some of those small towns probably can't afford their own domain. Katr67 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I figured it was official at the time because it said it was official, not because it was from the Blue Book. Some of these small towns have trouble affording electrons to keep the lights on.. At least they don't have a goat for a mayor. tedder (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sugar City

• Context: [10] [11]

It's been standard for several years to include those coords. Yes, WP:USCITY says not to include them, but that was a change made by a single editor without any discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Even ignoring USCITY, I'm curious about the rationale- it adds sorta-ELs to the mainspace of the article, and it's overlinked already. tedder (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

aphex twin

• Apparent context: [12]

hello. someone is trying to remove a relevant quote from aphex twin music page. a close collaborator gave a quote on a controversial aspect of the subject. the editor prolly doesnt agree with the opinion and wants it removed/covered up. what should i do? safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10Fingers20toes (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't really get the relevance of the quote, and it doesn't seem to be worthy of Wikipedia nor is it backed by citations. Why not discuss it on the article talk page? tedder (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bellybutton Nautilus

Nautilus macromphalus, the "Bellybutton Nautilus"

Well, better than gazing at my own bellybutton, I guess.. tedder (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, so I finally had a chance to check out the WikiOregonProjectBlog. Interesting. It seems you are overdue for another post? I tried blogging, but the posts didn't seem to get picked up by search engines, so I was disillusioned. I suppose I will have to spring for a proper website domain if I want to become famous? Cheerios. Oh and I thought it was messed up that Oregonlive credit's your photo as "from Wikipedia". I don't think that's consistent with the licensing at all. The photographer is the one who should be credited. Especially since I'm looking forward to seeing the New YOrk Times have to run a "ChildofMidnight" caption when I take a great photo. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's User:PeteForsyth's baby, but I do need to post on it too. We can't trust Pete since he left us for the dark side. The licensing- you are talking about the top entry, which is a post from User:Aboutmovies. Seeing CoM in NYT would be great! tedder (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(I thought it might be a new very-narrowly-focused model of that exercise machine. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fitness and exercise should never be discussed here on Wikipedia, even in humor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of heavy-lifting, I haven't seen you involved in the unreferenced BLP deletion dispute. It looks like your Arb candidacy may have a chance after all. You wimp! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of getting into big debates. I was amused when folks started complaining about the unreferenced BLP bot notifications though. Uh, you created the article, even if it's been three years.

I'm happy to be immersed in content creation. I suspect there aren't many people alive that know the early 1900 history of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company as I do now. tedder (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan Grayson

Hi Tedder, this Alan Grayson article has been brought up at the BLPN and has had a lot of excessive additions for a BLP, me and Benjiboi were thinking that it would help to semi protect the article for a month so we can easily keep it clean, all the recent additions over the last month have been opinionated, benjiboi and myself are in agreement that the article would benefit from reverting to this decent edit and then semi protecting for a month or so, if and when you have time please have a look for us, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, a month seems excessive as it hasn't had a ton of edits. But I'm in agreement that it's a BLP issue. I've semi-protected, feel free to improve/revert/fix as you feel is necessary, and let me know if you need more adminly help on it in the future. tedder (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder, that will help to move forward cleanly, if need be I'll keep you informed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

blocking routerone

Hi- while you blocked Routerone (talk · contribs) for clearly edit warring/3RR, and while my interactions with this editor were tainted by their POV and deplorable use of an IP as a sockpuppet, I don't think the block was entirely correct. I mean, Routerone and John Foxe (talk · contribs) were discussing things on the article talk page and had gone to the WP:DR step of requesting and getting a WP:3O, and Mr. Foxe didn't even levy a 3RR warning against Routerone.

I'm not going to wheel war with you, and as I said I'm not a fan of Routerone based on interactions, but I do think short full-protection and/or 3RR warnings to both users would have been an option worth considering. I'm curious what your thoughts are. Cheers, tedder (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that he, at least according to you, is progressing through WP:DR. Given his comments on his own talk page and WP:AN3, it seems like he's more interested in deflecting blame to John Foxe (talk · contribs). I'm standing by the (short) block. -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me, Tariq. It just looked like the 3O was happening. Just giving some feedback. tedder (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Academy for Character Education

The article Academy for Character Education has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

School with 1 (one) student graduating (even if that is 100%) cannot really be notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit

This seems like pretty radical edit to me: [13] =//= Proxy User (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's going from unsourced and poorly sourced to a reliable source. I actually did a similar edit on Hells Angels yesterday, iirc. tedder (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Louis Riel School Division, Winnipeg

Hi, as pledged I will not revert your rollback of Louis Riel School Division, Winnipeg. However note that the two schools in the "specific schools" section now have their own articles, so they should be removed from the LRSD article. And, again, I beg you to compare the original version with my version, side by side, and judge which is better. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to improve it, but leave the infoboxes there unless you have consensus that infoboxes on Wiki are bad. tedder (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not work on those articles any more; I consider that already did more than my share of "good citizenship" work on them. Obviously I am disappointed at seeing that some of that work was just discarded by the click of a button, but it is not the first time it happens. I could try to restore the non-infobox edits, but why should I hope that they will not reverted too? Unfortunately "consensus" nowadays seems to mean whatever one wants it to mean. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits would have a lot higher likelihood of standing if you weren't trying to swim against the current, so to speak. I'm sure you have information and abilities that would be useful to Wikipedia, but wholesale changes like removing infoboxes, going against standard article naming conventions, and trying to keep non-notable freestanding articles (rather than redirects) are some examples of swimming against the current. tedder (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted *all* my edits (not just put back the infoboxes); and that you have also deleted several perfectly good articles without even bothering to go through that sham that is the AfD process. I understand from your reply that the motivation of your edits was not to improve Wikipedia, but to punish me for my lack of respect for the rules *as you understand them*. Obviously my opinion and the opinions of all the other people who edited those articles (who thus implicitly voted for their existence) count nothing. Thank you for making it clear what "consensus" now means in Wikipedia. Sigh. Good bye.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Terwilliger Boulevard and Sideshow Bob

There was actually a big hooplah on the Sideshow Bob talk page (and to a lesser extent, on the Terwilliger disam page) about whether the murdering fiend was named or after the Portland street or after the 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T(erwilliker). You're in good faith and I'm not going to revert you, but another editor might. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll self-revert. Didn't know I was stepping into a minefield. tedder (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I almost stepped in this myself but was scared off after seeing the talk page hysteria. Hmph, next they'll tell us Springfield isn't our Springfield. --Esprqii (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, duuuude, what is reality except something created in our minds? If I think Simpsons only exists in my living room, that's the reality Wikipedia should reflect. tedder (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If we can just get a Henry Huggins/Simpsons crossover episode where it is revealed that Mayor Quimby is Beezus and Ramona Quimby's real father, I think we can put the whole is-it-or-isn't-it-Portland business to rest. Especially if we can tie in Beau Breedlove somehow. (Ooooh, a Ramona and Beezus movie is coming out this year!) --Esprqii (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You missed the trifecta. Where's the episode revolving around murders at Pioneer Courthouse Square? tedder (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do I sense an update to Aunt Betty is imminent... --Esprqii (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten AfD's

Hi, I have noticed that you have cleared out User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD in the past so I thought you might be able to handle these two incomplete AfD's:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunny boiler (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apis Technical Training

both of which are over 3 months old. I was tempted just to close them as stale but I thought I'd better let an admin take a look at them.

On a separate note, this one could also be probably be closed as the article has now been userfied and the redirect deleted. Again thought about doing it myself but there's a couple of merge !votes so left it alone. hope you don't mind? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- I took care of all three of those. They are definitely weird ones- you probably would have been safe to NAC the first two, but yeah, it's never a bad idea to let an admin screw it up and take the blame . Those first two were weird, they weren't listed on Incomplete or timesorted. Huh. tedder (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! If they were a bit more recent I would have just relisted them as I did with this one. It is strange though as it has happened before. I think DumbBOT just loses some AfD's sometimes. regards ascidian | talk-to-me 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are enough AFDs that they can slip through the cracks, eh. Often I find AFDs that haven't been closed properly by admins, often due to the page being moved after the AFD began- which is why I hesitate to move pages when an AFD is ongoing. tedder (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Mathisen

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a G7 request, and nobody but the author who created the article and requested the speedy has made any "significant" edits. See User talk:Aboutmovies#Mike Mathisen for more info. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's eligible for G7, but it isn't required to be deleted under g7. I wasn't aware of the conversation on your page though- I wanted to make sure it wasn't requested as db-author just because there were some articleissues on it. tedder (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to save time from a PROD someone might remove just because it does look properly sourced at first glance. It would easily fail at AfD, but with all the BLP morass I thought it would be more efficient to CSD it and restore if he gets more media coverage as the election approaches. Speaking of elections, I guess we will have some updating to do soon. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Yeah, it does look sourced at first glance. I just didn't want to see it own-y deleted, which is what it looked like without context. No worries. Yes, election, whee! Of course, I'm a handful of difficult-to-read books behind on this crazy thing, which I really want to finish so I can worry about other things. tedder (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Forward Caste

There is a dispute going on and one user is threatening others with RVV blocking. Can you give your views here: Talk:Forward_class#Namespace_Move ? Axxn (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I know nothing about the topic, and don't have time to get involved as an admin on it. I'd suggest using WP:DR, especially WP:3O. tedder (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Something you should read

This. It's up to you what to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see it. If you're okay with it, just remove it. If you're not, I can oversight it and stuff. I'll revoke talk page access if necessary, but I'd prefer to give a little bit of time for the newly-blocked editor to settle down. (gasp! Not a "cooldown block!" Send the RFA police after me!) tedder (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to warn the editor against doing such? I realize I was previously blocked when I did said something similar, but I just think that as you're an admin, your words might have more weight than my own, although I did get the editor to retract the attack, I still wish you to weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. And heh, I sort of remember that with you . I figured you had a thick enough skin that it didn't need to be removed immediately. tedder (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reason not to block pat indefinite? CTJF83 chat 06:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor's other edits seem decent. I mean, it isn't a VOA type issue. I was tempted to block for whatever the length of the Andy Dick issue would be, but went longer. tedder (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The thickness of my skin seems to vary.. sometimes I can take it.. sometimes, for whatever reason, I just upsets me to the point where I'm shaking with rage. This was one of those times, however, I managed to keep my cool.. in a sense on WP. I didn't lash out, I just got really angry but kept those feelings separate from my fingers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As to my revert in regards to Andy Dick, I looked in one of the sources and noted that the line Pat added in was actually lifted from one of those sources, and therefore we could not include it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Tedder, I guess I see no positive edits from the user, maybe you do...Daedalus, it is hard to keep cool, but you did good :) CTJF83 chat 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. They'd been given enough rope, after all. tedder (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

misc.

Peshawar, indef'd + 6 months. That's a while. I think they need something a little more colorful. Most blocks say how long they are. Indef's don't. I'm thinking, "The 12th of Never". And that's a long, long time. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Until of course someone decides to rename a month or specific year never.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

By then he'll be old and compliant.

Speaking of colorful...

This is what happens...

... when a left-brainer tries to exercise his right-brain: ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I like "12th of never". Of course, I don't quite understand why 11am is followed by 12pm, so I'm not the right person to ask on that. BTW, I do sometimes give indefinite blocks that say indefinite. tedder (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never liked that designation of "am" for midnight and "pm" for noon. Technically, neither is neither. They could have something like "mn" and "md" for "midnight" and "mid-day", for example. Too obscure, I suppose. But mathematically it's annoying. It's a bit like saying .5 should round up to the next number instead of the previous, which is a biased approach if your dataset has a lot of halves in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help that you can tell "am" or "pm" with 0630 and 1830, but you can't tell anything from 1230. I wish there was a way to say "noon:30". Hmm. It goes along with "next thursday". Is that 2 or 9 days away? tedder (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with 9, I'd consider 2 days away as this Thursday, next to me is over 7 days. CTJF83 chat 07:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Military time solves the problem. 1230 is half past noon. 0030 is half past midnight. And Ctjf83's usage squares with mine. It is now Wednesday the 27th. This Thursday, or this coming Thursday, is the 28th. Next Thursday is the 4th. Although once it gets to be Friday the 29th, you could get away with "next Thursday" being the 4th, for a day or two. Then it becomes "this Thursday" again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Peshawar is a sock. Who'd a-thunk it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Of who? CTJF83 chat 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Brucejenner.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pacifica Forum

This might be of interest. Katr67 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to hold up a {{spa}} tag in real life, similar to xkcd. tedder (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You declined to explain your actions

I now re-request you do so. --173.171.222.251 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like a grilled cheese sandwich. Chop-chop. We're waiting. HalfShadow 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want a pony of my very own. Absent context, I'll assume it's regarding this. tedder (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't eat a pony. Okay, you can, but not without a lot of trouble. HalfShadow 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You can dig a pony. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as you don't boil the bunny. Katr67 (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did the seashell go?

Someone mentioned a word similar to omphaloskepsis which I had never heard of, and when I read the article page I thought of the nautilus discussion. Thanks for having a good sense of humor. Carry on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Seashell went away because I archive my page rather quickly (4 days). I'd never heard of that term either! Certainly fits, I'd say I'll remember it but I know I won't. tedder (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I was acutally trying to look up the word omphaloskeptic, which seems to be somewhat different? I'm a little confused about it all frankly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WaPo poll about webcomics

Regarding the recent addition of a WaPo poll to a bunch of webcomic articles, including QC, would you care to comment at User talk:Starblueheather#Washington Post polls? Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been too busy to see it was added elsewhere, so I commented. tedder (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up

		The COTW award from WPOR.
		Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for a Gold Dude, but hey, thumbs are good too! tedder (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

It's me again, unfortunately. I wonder if you might keep an eye again on Crucifixion in the arts for a while, and perhaps consider doing something similar to what you did in early December. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm short on time and screen space. What's going on? Feel free to send it privately (email), since there are probably private issues going on. tedder (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'm not concerned about semi-ing my user talk, actually. More like semi-ing the page, and asking editors to discuss deletion on the page talk before making deletions. If this is a bad time for you, I don't want to impose, and I can ask someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all- I just can't really spend time untangling the edits and page and things. Can you give me a couple of diffs to show the problem? tedder (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

n/m, I trolled through some recent contribs. Guessing it's on SA again, based on the personal attacks/griefing towards you. tedder (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)For the page talk, start with this diff by me [14] and then quickly skim through the diffs after it to the present, noting the last 12 hours or so. Then, on the page, note [15] and the subsequent edits. Oh, I just now noticed that you've already protected it while I'm typing this. I also have commented or templated the user talk of each editor who deleted. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you got it, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For you!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Awarded for your work on TedderBot. WikiProject Oregon thanks you! Steven Walling 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded! Aha, I saw that new articles were popping up in the recent changes list, but I only just figured out it was the TedderBot! Awesome! Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) It's nice to have it up there. I have it set to run daily for the reason Esprqii mentions- it's kind of sad to miss new articles until they've been up for a week or more. tedder (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dingo-article vandalism

Hello, sadly since the dingo-article became unprotected, we had vandalism and edits without sources from unregistered people again. I think it would be better to make it permanently semi-protected. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi- I looked at the history, and it's less than 1 vandal hit per day. That's below the general threshold. tedder (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's hope that it stays that way. Because that's how it started the first time.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If it goes up, protection will be granted very quickly. But a low level of vandalism is expected, unfortunately. Especially for topics that schoolchildren may be interested in. tedder (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

Routerone doesn't seem able to stop personal attacks, and the edit warring continues. If it weren't for the mess on the talk page I'd just protect the article, but I'm wondering if we should be doing something else? I've got no particular sympathy for any of the editors involved, but calling someone an "insane wolf" after being asked to stop discussing other editors suggests to me that this problem isn't going to blow over, and editing is being poisoned for anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you- I actually don't care much for the current article, don't have a dog in the fight, and don't really think any of the editors involved are free from POV/COI. OTOH, I think most of the editors have some wisp of AGF and intent to produce a decent article, which is more than can be said for other protracted disuptes here on wiki (climate change and macedonia come to mind).

Let's give Routerone some time to remove his attacks and make sure they don't continue, either from him or from other editors. We might have to take a drastic step like cutting out the entire lede and waiting for consensus to add bits back. tedder (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish we have an easy way to put the page on some sort of 1R protection. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally I'd rather deal with the bad apple(s) than put a page under sanctions. There's a reason I won't touch the climate change articles anymore- the editors involved are so caustic and have so much time on their hands. tedder (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Quack Quack

Block Evasion. *sigh* Katr67 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, definitely obvious, but who is the puppetmaster? I can't remember the account name. tedder (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rossdegenstein (talk · contribs · logs) Katr67 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. It's nice to have a wiki-attached memory device, since my memory isn't that great! tedder (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

re: project tip

I'll see what I can do ;) -Mabeenot (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is the proper administrative forum to seek a decision about the inclusion / exclusion of content in an article? The basic situation is this: several editors want to include brief description of an incident that they feel is notable enough for inclusion in the biography of a living person, and one editor objects and will not allow it. Discussion is going nowhere, there needs to be a decision at a higher level. Is there a process by which such disagreements are resolved one way or another? =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Admins don't tend to make this type of decision, they 'enforce' consensus. WP:DR is what decribes the paths to take- the best is probably 3O. In other words, bring in more users, escalate up the DR path until something sticks. tedder (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the other thing that happens is 3RR is violated by one or more users, an admin babysits, etc. tedder (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reedsport High School or ???

Did you catch this? Katr67 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't, but thanks! I need to write about the charter school movement. And the alternative diploma scam.. tedder (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re. User:Eduwebads‎

• Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eduwebads&diff=prev&oldid=342163232

I've been trying to not tag userpages and I waited a while before I went back to this one, but I think it's pretty blatant from the username and all of their edits that they're only on WP to advertise and it's not really going to improve. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree, but am also willing to AGF. That's why I suggested blanking for now. What if the user is going to take a couple days to improve it? tedder (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They've already been warned about spamming WP, I'm all for assuming good faith but the pattern with this editor is nothing but spam edits. I think good faith went out the window when they kept adding spam despite being warned not to do so. XXX antiuser ^eh? 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

you big meanie

• Context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East County Blackshirts (2nd nomination)

That does it, no press box pass for the next game for you! -User:Esprqii 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to drop a line past your page, but I saw the AFD note was autoposted. Figured there was no need! tedder (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Falls City High School (Oregon)

Dunno if you'll find anything worth adding to the article from here. Age of the school building, perhaps? The new class structure? The former debauchery? Save a copy before it O-vanishes. Katr67 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'm pleased with the information I was able to integrate. But former debauchery? Did I miss something? And can you do something with this? Yeah, I am looking at the building out my window, but I really don't know how to organize the information correctly, or add the NRHP bits. tedder (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the sidebar the kids talk about 85% of them coming to school drunk or high. @_@ I say why ruin a perfectly good mind-altering experience by coming to school, but I digress. Yeah, I just was going through my e-mails and was reminded about Ladd. I'll see what I can do. Katr67 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I scanned for school info, didn't care about personal comments there. That's why I missed it. The two thigs I'm waiting for you on are Ladd and the "OreBot". tedder (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) BTW, the SJ has been doing a yearlong series on Douglas McKay High School--something about raising its morale after it was ranked one of the most consistently dangerous schools or whatever it is. Those articles might not have O-vanished if you have interest in adding to the article. Katr67 (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll go look it up. Yeah, McKay's reputation is interesting. tedder (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

note

I just sent you an e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD HELP

I nominated an article that clearly lacked notability: Southside Wesleyan Church‎; 14:48 . . (-347) . . Tedder (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 341508939 by Rak-Tai (talk) rm incomplete AFD, see instructions at WP:AFD.) I am not sure of your basis for the revert, as I lack your experience. Two other editors voted "delete." Would it be asking too much of you as an administrator to assist in the AFD listing? I clearly need help. User talk:Rak-Tai รัก-ไทย 16:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't dispute notability or anything else. The only issue was that the AFD wasn't created correctly. Please read WP:AFDHOWTO; you need to add the AFD tag to the page (like you did), but then go create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Wesleyan Church and do a few other little bits. It isn't hard- do your best, then let me know and I'll help you through any of the difficult bits. But there are only three steps, and they aren't too hard. Cheers, tedder (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You people!

You crack me up! You're breaking my heart! 173.97.227.106 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's "HAMMER TIME!" ohh! 173.97.227.106 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good time to invoke the expression "IPonU". 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a good time to use both WP:PLAXICO and WP:ROPE. Aside from replying to you, the pleasant thing is that the amount of energy I expend is significantly less than what the bored and unoriginal IP is spending. tedder (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I was just telling another user who got similarly spammed, the quality of trolling has really gone down the last couple of years. Trolls R Us will take almost anybody now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the 4chan types do come up with new and inventive ways to bother the machinations around here sometimes- the meme of Wikipedia:Griefing is a good example of that. And there are the obsessives who are worried about obsessives at Wikipedia too. I just watch Idiocracy and remember where we are headed. tedder (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I just got spammed myself. Oh, goody, I need some more inane quotes for my collection. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh joy. If you want your page protected, LMK. tedder (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was another lame comment. He says I like fascists. I deny this charge. Hey! How did that get in there??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Others would like to remind you that there is no cabal. tedder (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User page vandalism.

Normally, I'd just post them at page protect, but it seems every time he comes back, he chooses another user page on top of the ones he's vandalised. HalfShadow 20:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I'd protect it myself if it was annoying (or even original!). I don't mind seeing the vandalism here, because it makes it easy for me to block the IPs. tedder (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

RE: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing. Thank you for your positive feedback to betacommand. :) I think beta's bot will help so many people save so much time. Seeing your comments almost make me want to cry :), we have all spent so many hundreds of hours trying to figure out how to remedy the BLP madness This is a very positive first step. I think betacommand deserves a barnstar once he gets this going, I have already given him [[16]] but he truly deserves many, many more. :). Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 21:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, I have a rather checkered story behind that train image, which opens up when editors want to edit on your page, check some of the talk pages linking to that train image. My old user name was Travb, but I think it was on someone else's userpage. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 21:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This deserves much more than a barnstar- any way we can slice and dice the unreferenced BLPs, the better. On your PS- yeah, that image has been around :-) tedder (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

dirty image :) i agree. I sometimes wish there were paypal accounts for editors. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Chip Esten

• Context: File:Chip Esten on 10-17-09.jpg

If you clearly look at the original, I didn't want the other stuff in the background and that is the best picture I could find. So some modifications needed to made. I bothered to look for a better picture then this one. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the new one show as horribly squished to you, as it does on my computer? I assume so; I'm also really nervous about a picture being on Commons that says "and use is as it is intended and that is on Wikipedia.." which implies Wikipedia-only licensing. In addition, I don't know that the tree in the background, combined with the pale background, is really much better. tedder (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Further research shows: no OTRS, no proof of being allowable on Commons, let alone Wikipedia. [17] tedder (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what they say about assuming. You are going about the photo being squished. But you are missing the point. You obviously weren't looking at what part of the picture I did do modifications on. It has nothing to do with the tree at all. You see Ryan Stiles' arm on one side and someone on the other side. I put "use is as it is intended and that is on Wikipedia..." because it was requested specifically for Wikipedia and not for anything else. You seem to assume things that are different then the intent. That's why I hardly upload anything to the Commons, instead of guiding someone on the proper process, you would rather bitch about it till it satisfies you. Well, the picture is deleted. I do hope you are happy. This is what discourages people from trying to add content to the Commons. I at least made an attempt. But its okay as I done with this issue. Have a nice day. Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the spilled milk all about? It was a poor quality image, both technically and artistically, it was fixing something that wasn't broken, and it was against NFCC. Please find something legitimate to complain about- perhaps how your edit warring has left the page with NO image of Esten? tedder (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cher albums

• Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kekkomereq4#Cher_albums

Yes, I know. But as you can see, the article talks about albums, charts position and certifications. I think that the contents of the page aren't necessary here. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. It was merged, you removed it. I just wanted to make sure you understood why it was merged. tedder (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Henry Arthur Benning

Hello Tedder. I have just reviewed your latest submission at Dyk... and have a question. Any feed back is appreciated. Kindly Calmer Waters 12:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up, of course. tedder (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

About Zengar_Zombolt

Dear Tedder, recently I got involved in a merger discussion on Asperger syndrome article's talk page to oppose the merger. But I never edited that article. I only participated in the talk page discussion. Surprisingly, today I received a comment on my talk page from Zengar_Zombolt who identified my contribution(!) in that article as COI. I instantly checked his talk page and found that because of his abusive edit, he was blocked for 2 weeks. But soon after he was unblocked, he started doing the same activity again, at least on my talk page. I would appreciate if you have a look in this matter once again. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Naiz- I just blocked Zengar a few minutes ago, and he hasn't been unblocked yet. Am I missing something? tedder (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. He actually did it before you blocked him. I missed that. Anyway, thanks once again. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For each unreferenced living persons wikiproject list: Google search results and first paragraph of article

List of all scraped unreferenced BLPs with

1. google news,
2. google scholar,
3. google books and
4. the first paragraph of article:

Example: WikiProject_Cricket

I am adding this for all projects which already have betacommand's scraped results. Okip (formerly Ikip) 06:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- the links could easily be done with a bot, and the scaping should just be done by betacommand, fwiw. tedder (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like it all done with a bot. Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

RecentChangesLinked in API

Hi, I want to obtain something like RecentChangesLinked using the MediaWiki API, and I noticed this thread from mid-November in which you wanted to do the same thing. Like you I have experimented with using "links" as a generator to "recentchanges" but without any success so far. I wonder, did you find what you were looking for? If so it might save me a lot of hunting. If not, I'll try another strategy. --TS 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bandidos

• Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bandidos&diff=343771028&oldid=343365257

If I find a good reference for the 8, can I re add that detail on the page. Eight seems to be a good number. Senor Reparar (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How did you know about that page? You have some pretty decent wiki experience for a new user; what's your previous account name? Anyhow, the issue wasn't really the "8", it's also that the addition added other uncited information. Things need to be solidly cited, both because it's a controversial article and because it deals with crime. tedder (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bandidos is not a common "english" name. All wiki's use the same basic code, I like this wiki, but yes, it is new to me. I will try to find a good reference, I think that the information is notable, so I will look for you. Thanks again. Senor Reparar (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration: The Bar Method

• Context: The Bar Method

Hi, I would like to request your reconsideration of a deleted article - The Bar Method. PLease visit my userpage to see the revision. Thank you. 34pin6 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi- the content that was deleted was different than what you've given. I'd strongly suggest posting that userpage/draft at WP:FEED for some detailed feedback. Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will do that. I never saw the original one that was deleted, I just wanted to do an article on it and was about to post live and then I saw the deletion notice. Thank you. 34pin6 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PGE Park

The only reason I added those tags was because I felt it held some water. Just like when my mother calls MLK Boulevard, "Union" (assuming you live in Portland). I didn't find it pointy, I thought it was something that should be sourced, reworded, and possibly relocated. I actually don't see where it falls into WP:POINT, I added two tags, that was all. Thank you for your help anyway. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I was probably a little grumpier than I should have been, so I'm sorry. tedder (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob, keep up the good work. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Utah-Idaho Sugar Company

On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Added to userpage. tedder (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Deseret Manufacturing Company

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Deseret Manufacturing Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Added to userpage. tedder (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Overprotectiveness?

Can you look at Travis Outlaw when you have a chance? Someone semi-protected it a year ago; seems like overkill to me. I am not familiar with the policies on protection, but that seems like overkill given that there wasn't really egregious vandalism. He's about to be traded from Portland so I guess it would be helpful for a day or two more as everyone tries to be the first! to add the new info, but otherwise should probably be taken off. --Esprqii (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Three days, then it'll be opened up. I agree, it seemed extra-long with no previous protection. I asked the protecting admin to explain why, but they aren't terribly active, it seems. tedder (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about my contributions on medcodepix. I am sensitive to the need of not putting up promotional material, but I do think we have something valid to contribute in that our site and our technology provide a valuable new resource to individuals who need ICD lookup resources. Please let me know how which of the external links I have posted are the problem children and I will revise them. Thanks [User:ftaute]

LeBaron

• Context: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joseph_LeBaron

Personally imo it looks like the user is making a meal of a minor incident and the addition exaggerated its position in his biography, I have removed it and asked him to move to discussion, if the user thinks a comment is warranted then imo a small npov rewrite would be ok, lets see what happens. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Off2. tedder (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it was nothing as major as the insert suggested, a minor spat, locally reported and all citations leading back to a single source, if the editor returns i'll discuss it with him and insert a small comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"New books" bot

Any updates on the "New book bot"? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TOV against you

being discussed on ANI at Wikipedia:Ani#User:JazzCarnival.E2.80.8E. You should know about this. I would consider contacting campus police. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on ANI. tedder (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. --Esprqii (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1961 Indian Annexation of Goa

I noticed your recent edit, since I have this article on my watch list. What would you think of doing a month of semiprotection? The IP may conceivably have useful information, but he declines to work for consensus on the talk page and is full of WP:SOAP. The protection would be intended to force a discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just been going through and cleaning out userspace links. I'm not watching the page- if the IP comes back, it's probably worth evaluating. tedder (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

translation credit in Cologne War

Tedder, it is needed. It is not in the history, but part of an off wiki conversation, so I added it manually. Please leave the translation credit in the article. It is NOT in the history. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There's a pretty strong consensus against translation credits. It's certainly in the history now, since it's been added a couple of times, and it wouldn't be hard to find via WikiBlame or straight history views. If you insist it be added in, you'll need a stronger consensus than the linked VPP indicating so. tedder (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Xeugene

Perhaps you could check out User talk: Xeugene again? I made a suggestion there for a possible compromise (namely, indefinitely banning the user from editing Pacifica Forum or any Holocaust-related articles, but allowing him/her to edit other types of articles). I feel that this compromise would be fairer than what is currently being imposed. Since I was the user whose dispute with Xeugene was what eventually led to his/her being banned, I feel like I should contribute my own $0.02 to the discussion as well. I certainly didn't like the disruptive editing that he/she was doing, but I also feel that every user should be given a second chance if their apology is sincere, and Xeugene's apology does appear to be sincere. Thanks for your time, Stonemason89 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The user hasn't replied to your suggestion- it'd be nice to see their opinion of it. And yes, they can be banned from certain articles or subjects, especially with consensus. But it'd be nice to see something from Xeugene. tedder (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oregon Field Guide

It turns out there's no article for it, even if there's one for the High Five Challenge. Want to look for independent sources and maybe collaborate on it? We can put a draft in my sandbox if you want. Steven Walling 08:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gladly! I'll start adding bits to your sandbox. tedder (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

medcodepix

Thanks for your note, please see the comment on my talk page thanks [User:ftaute|ftaute]]Ftaute (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chatting on your talk page. tedder (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Arthur Benning

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Arthur Benning, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

moved to userpage. tedder (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the Portland high schools

In case you didn't know, this source may have the Oregonian from 1850 to somewhere in the 1960s now. This one has a lot of more recent newspapers. I don't know what each has for sure as I'm not a PSU student, but when I was at WU I had access to parts of those databases. LexisNexis has newspapers in that database, but I don't know if they include the Oregonian's current to 1987 archives (though as a Mult. Co person you can access those here and it looks like they have other newspapers too). Of the later, NewsBank does have a database that has the Oregonian from 1850-1960s, which I access through Genealogy Bank, but odds are the database is accessible for you through one of the school or county's library databases. I mention this as Jackson HS (apparently now the Middle school of the same name off I-5 near Lewis & Clark College if you want to get a picture) should have coverage, and you might get into at least the construction of Adams HS. Adams looks interesting and could probably have some good hooks if the sources could be found. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to dig through those. I didn't know the 1950s and 1960s were online. As a student I can definitely get the archives from PSU. tedder (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's great news, wasn't aware of that -- how about adding a note about this to the reference desk so other WP:ORE/PSU students can find out about it? -Pete (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just added that, plus just logged in myself to the database for 1850 on and it now says 1850-1962, though they add stuff monthly, so more soon I'm sure as I have noticed personally the results grow from 1923 to 1960s the last three months. Also, to navigate; main Newsbank page --> Historical newspapers --> Select Oregon --> select Portland --> select Oregonian --> then do a search. Though it is set up for genealogical research, you don't actually have to put in names, you can just use the "include keywords" part and use that like Google. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a separate NewsBank login, or are you able to access it via the library system? --Esprqii (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I access through the library system, but I'm not in Mult. Co. so I don't know what access you have. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

MultCo seems not to have it. ClackCo (where I actually am) just added a new, especially horrible online database system called Gale Infotrac which is not only a pain to use, but hilariously (or tragically, depending on your outlook) misfiles the Oregonian under "ORian" so you can't possibly find it unless you really really want to. Sigh. --Esprqii (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing, my Aunt Betty always referred to herself as an ORian… -Pete (talk)

Undercover Boss

Why do you think I have a conflict of interest?

"I notice that one of the first articles you have edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason."

Your edit of the reception page is unrepresentative. Before you decided your view was superior, a balanced edit was achieved as a result of a variety of edits. Maybe next time you should restrain yourself, what makes you think you are capable of summarising the show's reception? What do you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRiver28 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty good guess that you and all of the other single purpose accounts work for the production company. If not, great. My view isn't "superior", I'm simply reporting more sources to give the reception of Undercover Boss from a neutral point of view. tedder (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well considering I'm 18 amazingly enough I don't have a conflict of interest. I just saw poor use of English and an edit which was straining to be negative when reception had been positive. When a show is received in a predominantly positive way you don't have to handpick criticism in a order to create a 'neutral' edit. Edit where appropriate rather than where you wish to promote your opinion, it's a lesson you should learn as editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRiver28 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA, please. How does removing any hints of negative reception bring more "balance" to the entry? The reception has not been completely positive. tedder (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You dedicate 151 words to criticism and 51 to praise.. that's not balanced nor representative.

The criticism includes six or seven quotes vs. two positive quotes.

Millionaire was made by Boss' producers, so that's not even valid.

Your criticism's are far flung, you're evidently biased and should not edit Boss.

If you are going to be as ridiculously draconian as to block edits, have the compassion to edit appropriately.

See requests for unprotection for more information.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.19.199 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Undercover Boss rather than treading the WP:CIVIL line. tedder (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

i feel that you should have just added the negative reveiws you did delete alot of posotive comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.161.153 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Amalgamated Sugar Company

On February 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amalgamated Sugar Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

moved to userpage. tedder (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sock

Hi. Would you take my word for a new account being a sock of an old sock master with multiple blocked socks being one in the same? The editor Earththings has popped up to once again try to edit Dorothy Kilgallen. When I reverted him as a sock of a banned sock master, he took his article to the talk page for Lar, trying to get him to render opinion on both the content he wanted to add and also about sock puppetry. I prepared a long bit about the sock thing and basically, Lar dismissed Earththings postings as a content dispute. You can see the discussion at Lar's talk page, including my commentary on word use similarities, and the more the editor posts, the more similarities to the old accounts come up. I know in my gut this is Nyanrunning/Dooyar etc. and per WP:DUCK, I think he's given himself away. Thanks. Also note that he edited on the Kilgallen page as IP 64.183.42.51, Nyannrunning, Debbiesvoucher, Dooyar (all 3 confirmed socks) Onittles, and is fairly obsessed with the article and others related to What's My Line? and tends toward lengthy, involved edit summaries and the use of John McAdams sources for thoseWildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Since there's so much drama involved, I'd suggest taking it to WP:SPI. That's what I'd do- the only time I sockblock is when it's incredibly obvious, like signing as the sockmaster. tedder (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you thik there's enough in my post to Lar's page to do an SPI with it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there probably is, but it's easy to get distracted in the editor's wall-of-text replies. I'd suggest coming up with a couple of obvious diffs (for instance, showing linguistic similarities to the sockmaster or the other puppets). tedder (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh- and if the editor/possible puppet becomes disruptive, feel free to contact me for a block. OTOH, it's always nice to tie puppets to masters through the SPI, even after they get blocked. tedder (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Going through page upon page of that sort of content is what I was hoping to avoid. He just basically refused to stop editing the Lar talk page, even after Lar dismissed him by saying he wasn't interested, saying he "might join us eventually." This guy is a piece of work and has even stopped denying he's a puppet. It might take me a day or two because going through posts is really hard for me due to problems with tracking. I'll keep you in mind. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wyeth, Oregon

Why is this a redlink [18]??? Holy cow! What the heck is going on with the Oregon propject? I'm outraged. Also, I came across some interesing information on the Cascade Locks and Waldport Civilian Public Service camps. Some interesting hippies passed through... including Glen Coffield and Windsor Utley [19], who apparently didn't make enough of an impact to warrant and article... yet. A lot of schlocky arts and crafts going on up there. I will say no more. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Katr67 is the Queen of geostubs. I defer to her on this matter. Hopefully she's stalking. Hell, I didn't know about Vortex I until a week or two ago. tedder (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

KatarzynaSis sockpuppetry

Regarding my labeling of KatarzynaSis (talk · contribs) as a sock puppet. Sock puppet policy includes this violation: "Misusing a clean start: Making a clean start with a new account, but then engaging in disputes with editors your old account was in dispute with; or turning up at pages you used to edit with the old account while denying any connection to it—this is particularly inappropriate if the article or edits are contentious" which seems like a perfect description of [20], the reintroduction of advertising material, and reversion of discussion of bankruptcy, from Vectrix. For your consideration. -- Brianhe (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that, but they were only soft blocked for the username. That doesn't skirt the COI issues, and we should keep warning them for COI/POV/advert/spam. In other words, ILLEGIT, as I understand, is for accounts blocked for blatant vandalism (for instance). They come back for a supposed 'fresh start' and do the same blatant vandalism. This COI issue isn't as blatant, and I am giving them some rope to try again. tedder (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. I added a CoI warning to the user page since they seem to be the same individual. - Brianhe (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

re: done with Oregon Field Guide

I still need to work on it with the sources you added et cetera, but to avoid having the logo deleted as an unused non-free image I copied it into the mainspace. Please add it to your tally of create articles. :) Steven Walling 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Yeah, the NFCC thing was worrisome. Not sure if you saw my talk page message above that, but the NFCC was certainly a good nudge, eh? :-) I don't have a created-article tally, but I/we should figure out a DYK on it. tedder (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK: Template talk:Did you know#Oregon_Field_Guide tedder (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tanner Springs Park

Do sources 8 and 10 through 12 not have url links to add to the reference template? Just wondering, as I noticed they were missing when I was going through and working on reference formatting for consistency. Thanks so much for the great expansion and DYK hook nomination! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Oregonian ones? Yeah, I found them through a private database, not online. Just trying to burn through the parks one at a time- today is Jamison. tedder (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, send me an email on this if you'd like. (you don't have email enabled, so I can't email you first) tedder (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. How can I contact you? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Left bar: Special:EmailUser/Tedder tedder (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. BTW, normally the bot's talk page is redirected to the owner's talk page. You've also failed to mark your BFRA with template:BotTrialComplete, but somehow we're all survived. Josh Parris 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh, for approval and for the etiquette things. I'll try to remember the templates in the future. tedder (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Images in DYK nominations

Just FYI, regarding this nomination: there is actually a parameter for images built into the nomination template. Just use

{{NewDYKnom
 | article = 
 | hook =
 | author = 
 | image =
 | alt =
}}

This puts the image into the proper formatting. Putting the image in regular wiki syntax causes problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! tedder (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tedder!

Long time no speak, how are you?!

I'm looking for your advice if I may please. I accidentally stumbled across the page Sami Al-Arian whilst reverting on Huggle the other night and noticed an edit war brewing so stepped in to try and prevent this. I have never heard of this person until the other night, from what I can understand this person has been acquitted of several crimes and is currently under house arrest awaiting trial for more crimes, and a few editors seem to think that this article should not have a criminal infobox because the person isn't a criminal???? Personally I would've thought that if you are under house arrest and have a criminal record it would be ok to have a criminal infobox on Wikipedia!

I opened a discussion on the talk page to try and prevent the page being locked but after about two days of no improvement, further edit warring and sock puppets edit warring, I decided to ask for more help. So I sent a report to WP:RFPP to ask for the page to be locked and filed a report at WP:AN/EW to report the main editor causing all the trouble. We've tried to compromise with the editor by editing the infobox to show that this person was acquitted of some crimes but the editor isn't even willing to compromise. So when I filed my report at WP:AN/EW I mentioned that even if the page was locked, I would really appreciate it if someone could help out on the talk page, maybe try to get this editor to agree to a compromise so we can get this all resolved.

The page is now locked for one week so we can try and get this resolved. I've never ever had to take issues this far before with a page so I'm wondering if you can think of anything else I can try to get this page back so everyone can edit it again as soon as possible?

Sorry it's so long! --5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Yeah, a criminal is someone who has been conviced of crime, right? It appears the issue has been dealt with by the user(s) being blocked, so I wouldn't worry too much, right? Both you and another longterm editor, who know the policies and don't care about the individual are on the same side, so it should be straightforward. tedder (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently this person was acquitted so not convicted but he still has charges that he's to stand trial for. But unless this persons police force is extremely different to every other police force worldwide, even if he's been acquitted he will still have a criminal record. So in the eyes of the law he would still be a criminal! From what I know, one editor has been blocked but another anonymous IP is still arguing that he isn't a criminal. Dear me --5 albert square (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. In that case, WP:BLP applies, so report the "tried for X, acquitted on Y", but don't call him a criminal yet. Does that make sense? tedder (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so lol but from what I'm understanding this person has actually admitted at least some of these crimes, but just not had a trial for some of them yet. Hope that makes sense! --5 albert square (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Help to improve articles

Don’t want to violate your talk page rules, so if this note does, please ignore it with my apologies. You’ve recently rated several articles I initiated as , but didn’t leave any notes that would help me improve them. What do I need to do to get Goose Lake Valley and Lake Abert articles up to status? Thought both were pretty comprehensive and well documented articles. Any help would be appreciated.--Orygun (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, and welcome. I just tried to make a first-pass rating on the pages. I'm not a GA/FA type person- feel free to remove the rating and get them rerated, or (better) post them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment. But yeah, I'll claim WP:BEANS on what it takes to get from C to B. tedder (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don’t think its right for me to undo or change ratings on articles I began, even if I don’t agree with them. However, will post request for review on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment as you suggest. My experience has been that first-pass is also last-pass. In fact, I’ve started over 100 articles and only 1 has ever received a second-look rating….and that happened when another wiki-group finally got around to doing their initial rating and decided to change the Wiki-Oregon rating to match their first-pass. Oh well, maybe Wiki-Oregon’s COTW will do rating clean-up drive sometime. Thanks for your help.--Orygun (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Undoing ratings just puts it up for review, generally by someone like AM. In other words, I agree, "first pass is also last pass". It's okay to remove it on changes or when you've talked to the rater. I wouldn't worry about it- we'll let a better assessor look at it. tedder (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cave locations

Hey Tedder, it appears you added coordinates to an info box on a cave. We specifically removed the coordinate field to discourage people from adding coordinates. But it appears you have done just that, despite your foreknowledge that "cave people are .. sensitive.. about giving coords." From that remark it appears that you are sensitive about cave people being sensitive... Sorry, to discourage you. But there's a reason why cavers are sensitive about cave locations. The general public vandalizes caves. Wikipedia serves the general public. Tedder, do you clean up caves after the general public that has laid waste to them? I do. It's not fun. Broken glass, condoms, drug paraphernalia, garbage, graffiti, not to mention the irreversible damage to it's lifeforms via chemicals or outright killing.

Personally, I don't care if Lava River Cave has it's coordinates posted since it's a commercial cave. However, if we make an exception to post coordinates for Lava River Cave, then we would have to make an exception for more "sensitive" caves (that are not commercial). That is not an ideal situation. If you have a better alternative, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'm afraid that is the best solution. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The issue is to discourage people from adding coords to a cave that is secret or unknown. Using the slippery slope argument is silly- caves like Lava River Cave and Ape Cave are well known. If you want to use the slippery slope argument, then we shouldn't put coords on other places that could be vanalized, like bridges and Disneyland.

In other words, great, don't have coords on "unknown" caves. But on caves that are open to the public and well-sourced, they should be sourced. tedder (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I note on Template talk:Infobox cave that you said "I think that a compromise would be that if someone feels it necessary to have coordinates for any particular cave, they can add it in the main article (perhaps the lede) and it must contain a reference." The coord field is removed, so it's been added in another manner. I take it you've rejected your own compromise? tedder (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, discouraging people is the issue. The slippery slope argument is silly for most things. But I've seen examples in the caving world, where all it takes is one cave to be found out by the public, and then, POOF! suddenly all those unique cave resources are destroyed or stolen! Irreversible damage. Because that "secret sensitive" cave got shared with the general public. All it takes is one bad egg.

All caves should get the cave infobox. We have not voted on having two simultaneous cave infoboxes: one for commercial caves, and one for secret caves. That would be too hard to manage. The easiest thing to manage is to have a consensus on the infobox and apply it to all the caves. We have done that. By the way, you suggested that I personally take it to the talk page. I feel you should have done that first before acting, especially in light of the fact that you knew there was a consensus at Template talk:Infobox cave. Perhaps you should have discussed you're editing desires there, before boldly going against that consensus.

About my compromise, well I may have personally reconsidered. Sure, but that would have to be discussed at the talk page.Leitmotiv (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So secret caves should not be shared. I'm in agreement there. If they aren't published somewhere that is publically available, great. Keep the vandalism down. No problem.

On the other hand, "commercial" or "public" caves (is Ape Cave commercial?) should have coordinates, if they are easily available (guidebooks, GNIS, whatever). Just because the coordinates field was removed doesn't imply coordinates should not be included. I'm still confused about how you are drawing the connection from the "public" caves to the "no coordinates on secret caves" theory. Having coordinates in an article is unrelated to having a coordinates field.

And let me apologize- you are right, I should have taken it to a talk page first. I wasn't aware of the template discussion about removing the coordinates field. What now? tedder (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I did take slight by your remark that this is a "sensitive" issue. I think that was a little unprofessional, if that word could be applied to Wikipedia! At this moment there is no distinction as to what makes a cave "secret" or "sensitive." Defining that could be very tricky. Plenty of commercial caves are still sensitive and have restricted areas within. So it's a gray and fuzzy realm. At this moment, I don't look forward to such a discussion because it would be nuanced to no end!

Tedder, you are right, coordinates can be entered wherever in the article and there is no rule (that I'm aware of) that says you can't. But if it's unreferenced, it's eligible for deletion. We purposely decided to omit the coordinate field from the cave infobox because it was basically "begging" to be filled in with coordinates, regardless of what kind of cave it is. So we took it out. That does imply, in one definition of the word, that coordinates are not welcome. Whether one is aware that an infobox can have a coordinate field or not. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(moving left) Okay, so the coords field is gone. No problem with me, I understand. You're saying coord fields can be there if they are referenced. Lava River was referenced. So what's the issue with Lava River specifically? (not all caves in general). AFAICT, "sensitive" does seem to be caves with a secret location. GNIS is pretty much the top of the RS food chain for coordinates (something like Fodor's would be down a step). So what I'm saying is, I'm really having trouble understanding the reason for the Lava River article to not have coordinates. For you, does this come back to the slippery slope argument? That doesn't agree with what you are saying, about unreferenced coordinates should be removed. tedder (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that coordinates, at this time, can be in the main body of the text if referenced legitimately. But the consensus on the infobox, is that they cannot include them. Regarding your inclusion of them into the location field, that may spark another debate on the discussion page! About which caves are sensitive or secret: Just because a website has coordinates for a cave does not make it "nonsensitive." That's a whole 'nother can of worms. Plenty of immoral people have put up cave locations to sensitive caves when they shouldn't have. They put their own glory and ego ahead of the welfare of the caves.

If you feel it necessary to include coordinates to Lava River Cave, go ahead, but leave it out of the infobox. I personally don't like to see any coordinates for caves, because that will influence people to include them on other cave pages. But that's the slippery slope you are talking about. I've seen the aftermath of what happens to a cave, when people who don't have the best interests of the cave in mind, enter and deface the cave. These people learned the location through the grapevine, and it's not as protracted as you might think. Having coordinates on one cave page will beckon other cave pages as well. It won't stop with just the commercial caves, I can guarantee you that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I feel it is necessary to include coordinates. Why are you opposed to it being in the infobox? The coordinates field is not there, so the location field ends up the best place for it to go, and it's in the title anyhow. If that's a sticking point, I'll move this discussion to the article page or start a new conversation at WikiProject Caves, with a pointer to it at WP:VPP; it's a bigger issue than caving at that point.

As far as slippery slope and other caves being affected, that's similar to vandalism here on Wiki and elsewhere in real life. It happens. If it's truly a big issue, sensitive places (such as caves) should not have articles on Wiki. tedder (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a worry about possible vandalism in these caves, why have articles on them in the first place? Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX that exists to try and effect the real world, thus vandalism concerns are not really our place. We report the publicly available (i.e. published) information on notable topics and our threshold for inclusion of information is verifiability. Now we do have special rules for BLPs, but that is it, even though one could make arguments for special rules for a bunch of other topics (e.g. businesses that could lose millions of dollars and end up laying off hundreds of people if misinformation was in their entry). So, if the coordinates for anything are available in a RS (such as GNIS at the USGS) then we should not only include them, but in many was we really must include them, otherwise we are censoring the article and letting our subjective thoughts determine content, which goes against WP:NPOV, as we include the encyclopedic information "as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Aboutmovies (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tedder, I thought we agreed to not have the coordinates in the infobox, but to instead place them in the main body of the text?

And I don't really go along with the notion that Wikipedia operates outside of reality and has no influence upon it. Wikipedia users such as ourselves should put content up that has the best interests in mind for the caves. Does wikipedia post incriminating evidence on famous people, before it's gone to a court of law? Take for instance the geocaching website. They post locations for some caves that are based on hearsay. Geocachers think they are innocent in how this affects caves. What they cannot see, is that a set of coordinates focuses traffic to highly sensitive areas. Focused foot traffic does disturb the cave habitat and whatever else may be inside. And like I've said before... there are always a few bad apples. Geocachers think coordinates are impotent, but the truth of the matter is that it directs people to a finite area and this increases the changing of the environment in often negative ways (at least for caves). Wikipedia can claim innocence too, that having a coordinate up doesn't do anything, but it's completely the opposite. It's drawing attention and turning heads to specific places.

Re: Aboutmovies remark that this isn't a soapbox. I'm pretty sure that we're on a talk page here. Isn't that the core essence of a soapbox? If wikipedia users can't talk about what is important and what is not important about wikipedia, then wikipedia wouldn't be as popular as it is. Would a severely vandalized commercial cave that became so vandalized that it ceased to be a commercial cave (and hence a health hazard) be noteworthy to Wikipedia? If that same cave had coordinates to it, would Wikipedia's community claim it had nothing to do with it? It could and probably get away with it, but don't fool yourself. Wikipedia is about information, and it's up to us to deem what is morally right for inclusion. For the caves and the people that visit them. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You've laid your concerns out very well, leitmotiv. But Wikipedia is not censored. Having it from the infobox is simply a visual cue- as I said above, I don't really understand the point of that. And what does geocaching have to do with Wikipedia? It's certainly something that is being experienced across the 'net, but on wikipedia, we have policies about how we deal with censorship, what we publish, and what happens with legal threats. Again, for it to happen much differently would require a discussion on WP:VPP, which I'd be willing to join. tedder (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, BLPs have special rules. Thus, your attempt to compare them (famous people) does not work. Comparisons to other websites also do not work, this is Wikipedia and we have our own rules. For instance, we do not report the latest gossip that some blogs do. That is to say, just because another website does something does not mean we do it too, or if another website does not do something we also do not do it too. We are our own beast, and WP:V is the main rule (along with the 5 pillars and some exceptions for BLPs) for what we do. And nobody is saying that foot traffic doesn't affect these areas, but it is not Wikipedia's role to encourage or discourage people from going to these places.

Coordinates may or may not increase traffic, but I do know they allow me to easily see where something is located even though I have no intention of ever going to one of these places. We have a world-wide audience and not everyone reading Wikipedia is looking to go to Central Oregon to vandalize some caves, many just want to know where they are in general, beyond "near Bend". Same reason we include them for ghost towns that may get vandalized. The real way to deal with it is more like what the NRHP people do, in that the National Park Service does not give the address or coords for certain listings, such as archeological sites.

As to influence reality, nobody said it doesn't in fact influence the real world. We simply don't usually factor that into what we do (BLPs excepted), as we base what we do on V. We write all about the Pacific Crest Trail, despite that this may lead to increased usage and environmental damage. We don't advocate for vandalism, but if people choose to do bad things, we can't help that, nor worry too much about that. If we write about some public item, such as art work or caves or gardens, people can use this information for good or evil, and though we prefer they do the former, we can't just stop including information because maybe people will do the later.

As to soapboxing, I was not referring to your actions on this talk page. It is that you want to withhold the coordinates (and have done so via reverts on an article page) in an attempt to advocate that coordinates lead to vandalism, and thus non-pros should not be in these ecological sensitive areas (to paraphrase). It is certainly a reasonable position, and a noble thought, but again that is advocacy, and that is not what Wikipedia is for (thus why SOAPBOX is part of What Wikipedia is Not).

Lastly, to answer your question "Would a severely vandalized commercial cave that became so vandalized that it ceased to be a commercial cave (and hence a health hazard) be noteworthy to Wikipedia?" Certainly it would be notable as notability not temporary, thus once it was notable it always will be. Not to mention that the vandalism and closure would likely increase its notability.

In sum, feel free to advocate this in the real world through outreach efforts through your spelunking organizations, just don't expect Wikipedia to be used for these efforts. That's not What Wikipedia is for. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, I understand Wikipedia's stance. But I do not agree that Wikipedians can not do anything about it. Wikipedians are the ones who decided what is worthy for inclusion on the website. So thusly, they can also remove things as well. And it's been done. Wikipedians pick and choose all the time what they deem worthy. And I do argue that sometimes, it's in the eye of the beholder. Aboutmovies, when you say Wikipedia does not encourage or discourage, that's where you're wrong (and I'd think deeply about that for a whole day if I were you). Posting stuff on the internet does have an impact, which is why I made the correlation to geocaching. Wikipedians may not hold your hand and take you into the caves, but for those interested in visiting the caves, it does have a set of coordinates you can use to get there. That is one of the main reasons coordinate systems were developed. For navigation. Aboutmovies, I don't mean any ill toward you. But I do get a little frustrated when wikipedians say they are not at fault for leading people to places they shouldn't go. That's like saying you can point a pedophile to a house with desirable children, but once inside the house, you are not to blame for their actions. Sure, you may not be to blame for the acts, but you played a role in it. Your hand is in the cookie jar. Wikipedians basically make the pedophile's job easier.

And the only point I'm trying to make by this is that perhaps Wikipedia's core values are flawed. Not everyone has the right to go in any cave, even if it's on government land. There's a reason for that. What role does Wikipedia want to play? Wikipedians, such as yourself Aboutmovies and Tedder, play a role in shaping that future. You can either be sheep and play along, or you can consider what you're doing. And like I've said, the general public is good in sum, except those few bad apples. Unfortunately you can't distill them out of the water. So when you post locations to cave archaeological sites or other sensitive caves, please keep in mind what role you are playing. It's not innocent like you think it is.

Btw, I'm reminded of the music torrent issue. Sites being sued because they "point" users to torrents, even though they don't actually host the content. Sure they don't, but they're still sponsors of criminal activity, and they know it. I see no difference in this example that we are currently discussing.

Aboutmovies, do you have more information on BLPs for me? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For BLPs, see WP:BLP. That covers all the special requirements. As to the rest of your argument, I think we simply disagree. I'm sorry, but I will never feel responsible for someone else's criminal activity. I do not feel responsible if people use the coordinates I placed on Rood Bridge Park to go litter or vandalize. And that's assuming people use those coords for that purpose. I would think far more people use them to go visit the park in a law-abiding way. But why should we deprive those people of access because of a few bad apples? I also don't think we should remove coordinates from art museums that house millions of dollars of art just because some thief may potentially use those coordinates for evil. Seriously, if that is always a concern (bad acts by others via information obtained from Wikipedia) we would have a much smaller encyclopedia. We would exclude any personal information on living people due to concerns of identity theft. We would have to remove coordinates from dams and big buildings due to concerns of terrorism, as well as most structural details and pictures that could be used to study the subject for potential attack. An article on a city would have to omit the names of city officials for fear that they could be attacked after a controversial street re-naming. Even population figures would need to be removed because a terrorist might use those to determine the best targets for maximum damage. Thieves could use the demographic data from city articles to determine which cities in a metro area have the highest per capita income and would be good for burglarizing (Lake Oswego in Portland would be tops around here). There is no end to the ways in which people can use information for illegal acts. In essence, we have to assume good faith with our readers, not just fellow editors. And as to your pedophile analogy, the analogy would be that you think we might be responsible if we post the coordinates to schools. Which we do add coordinates to schools, as they are usually in GNIS too. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see you don't like the pedophile example but you surely didn't touch the music torrent one, which has more parallels. Sure, I see your point. Dams and schools are public information. A sensitive and secret cave is not. Some caves have so delicate of features, and all it takes is one careless person with good intentions to stumble and smash these features. Thanks for th BLP info! Leitmotiv (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the music torrent one, but in general links to copyrighted content usually do not lead to copyright infringement, see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. for example. Now, in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. the defendants could be found to contribute to copyright infringement, but they did much much more than just provide a link, or a platform. In a nutshell, they actively worked to get former Napster users to come and share material they new to be copyrighted works, and they profited from those activities (this does not constitute legal advice). But it is not analogous to providing coordinates on a page (see the Sony decision linked in the Grokster case where Sony was not found to be contributorily infringing in part because there were legitimate uses for the Betamax, as there are legitimate uses for VCRs such as time shifting). Secondly, those are civil suits as copyright infringement is usually only a civil matter, not criminal. But more importantly we are not talking about a secret cave. If the coordinates exist in published, reliable sources, it is not a secret. If they are not, then inclusion of coordinates would fail both V and OR and not be allowed, which I sort of covered this topic above in my first post. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about what a lawyer can do for a case. Plenty of bad decisions are made all the time. OJ Simpson anyone? But it's pretty obvious to the music community that a torrent site (being only the innocent middle man) is completely to blame for pointing people to files they can steal. Regardless of any legal decision.

Sure a cave may not be "secret" anymore, but that is missing the point. That doesn't mean it's not sensitive. There are a few bad apples in the caving community that don't care about the welfare of a cave, and do publish "secret" cave locations for self-glorification. In those instances especially, my point is most prudent.Leitmotiv (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to weigh in with my 2 cents: sensitive sites and potential damage to them is a legitimate concern. Using caution and restraint in publishing detailed locations such as coordinates of "secret" caves and other areas that are unprotected and fragile seems very reasonable. It's a judgment call. A standard along the lines of whether there are widely available sources have already published details on locations (balanced against any sources indicating risk and a need to keep something secret and protected) provides some guidance. The not censored guideline doesn't mean we have to include everything willy nilly without regard to the impacts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)