Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:09, 25 July 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Content Review Appreciated

• Context: Internap (tedder)

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

Hi, Kkeller. It looked like a cut and paste copyright violation; were sections of this from Internap's annual report, or somewhere else?

I've copied your version of the article to your user space- it's here: User:Kkeller0704/Internap. You can modify that version, or just made incremental changes to the Internap article itself. There are a lot of guidelines you should be aware of- to avoid deluging you now, just know that additions to the article should be supported by reliable and verifiable third-party sources, such as major newspapers that have written about the company.

As a random nitpick, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (trademarks) about using (r) and (tm) marks in the article. That's part of the reason I suspect it's copy/pasted.

That should be enough to get you started- let me know if you want me to look at your userspace changes. And thanks editing here! It sounds like you have some enthusiasm for the company, and it's certainly an article that needs some love. Cheers, tedder (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi- I'm really sorry, I confused you with the AGRIS post, also here on my talk page. I'm bad with names.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGRIS

• context: Agris: International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology (tedder)

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

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

Hi Isiaunia, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. The real issue with the AGRIS article is that it isn't written from a neutral point of view. I would assume you work on/with AGRIS in some capacity? That's okay, but make sure to read WP:COI. The whole article exists as a glowing review towards AGRIS, which certainly isn't a neutral point of view. Instead of convincing readers that AGRIS is a great program, it should neutrally explain the program.

In reality, the advertising tag doesn't have to mean the project is commercial in nature. There is a "this article isn't from a neutral point of view" tag I could have used, and perhaps should have. But since the article is currently overwhelmingly positive, I figured the advert tag was proper.

Unfortunately, it's a topic I know very little about. If you need help rewriting it, let me know, and I can find someone who can help with the rewriting. Otherwise, the advert tag can remain and someone will eventually come along and improve it. Let me know if you need further clarification. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi- and apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I kept seeing your note but forgetting.

I saw your changes to AGRIS, but it's going to take some more work to make it come from a neutral point of view. I'd dig into it, but my grammatical skills and knowledge of the subject are too weak. If you want to do it yourself, you can look at WP:NPOV and at the list of featured articles on Misplaced Pages (or the few featured articles in the agriculture project). In fact, a good article in the agriculture section that might be similar enough for ideas would be Avondale Agricultural Research Station. Especially note how it is laid out and neutral, and the lack of external links in the main article.

If you don't think you can fundamentally rewrite it, you can see if you can get other editors interested in helping out. Eventually someone may see the tag and solve it, but you can also try asking at WT:AG or WT:EAR. Since you've done a great job of writing content, there are probably editors who would be willing to reorganize it.

Hope this helps. Let me know if I can help further. tedder (talk) 00:13, 2 July

2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Re: Badagnani

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

Gotcha. It's all good. tedder (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To provide some context: Ronz has a long history of disputes with Badagnani, and would like to see him banned. Badagnani has a long history of contributing good content, but sometimes has some problems communicating clearly on talkpages, and occasionally adds imperfect source links. Please don't write Badagnani off as a troll. He is most definitely not a WP:TROLL, though he is not a perfect editor either. I find Ronz's black&white characterization of Badagnani (and of those who try to provide an outside perspective that doesn't align with his own) to be quite unfair.

(This is intended as a grain of salt.) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, no one should be characterizing Badagnani as a "troll".

Like I said, "those that support him like to find justification for their assumptions of bad faith". I should have mentioned they like to make personal attacks, harass, and disrupt wikipedia to make their point too. All to justify what is overwhelming agreed upon as improper behavior and an inability to follow multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As he says, Ronz did nip the "troll" talk in the bud, and deserves credit there. As far as the rest is concerned, whatever. I'll treat Badagnani and Ronz the same: focus on the content, discuss without edit warring, ESPECIALLY when an editor has already told you to stop reverting. tedder (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Trillium Charter School

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

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

Spray School

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

Ah, thanks for the heads up on the confusing sentence. I saw the template, but didn't know why it was there. I'll fix the sentence, obviously.

As far as the district is concerned, it's certainly short. However, it can be improved; I've been going through doing a school cleanup, but there are sources to establish the district itself too. So my opinion would be to leave it as a stub, since there is potential for improvement. If you vehemently disagree, we could combine them, I suppose. But I'd rather have some discussion about it first.

I'll reply on Talk:Spray School also, as I see your note there. tedder (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That deserves a barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awesome job on Oregon's high schools! LittleMountain5 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

LM5, thanks much! Back to work. tedder (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

		WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude.
		You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at WikiProject Oregon! And for all your work on schools in June. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AM. tedder (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback again

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

File:Yoder Store - Yoder Oregon.jpg

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

Thanks for the compliment! It was fun to get out and about. Here was my route for all the pictures. I thought the trainwreck pic was fun, and certainly implied that stopping could prevent consequences. OCF- obviously I'm wrong, but I thought it was last weekend. Was there a prep week or something? Finally, nice hall of shame! That's.. uh, special. tedder (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, somebody else I know thought it was last weekend too. I'm perfectly sober and I can tell you that it hasn't happened yet. But there are lots of folks who work pre-fair, and going out to the site on the 4th has become sort of a tradition too, so if you heard of someone going to OCF already, that might be why. Katr67 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, it must have been prefair, as the guy I knew that was headed down (from SEA) is a burner ranger and tends to be involved. tedder (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For beating me to all those spamlinks, you deserve this. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks :-) We were apparently sympatico on that, which is better than letting it be ignored. tedder (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Huell Howser and shredding EV+'s

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

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

Ready for the mop?

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

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

Bot approval and administrator concerns by 69.226.103.13

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

IP 103.13, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm trying to discuss the tool with you- I'm unsure what you mean by a "multi-pronged attack", though. tedder (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(FYI to talk page stalkers- the context is the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot) tedder (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean others support your stance not to discuss the scripting tool/bot with the community at RFA-by going after my suggestion-not that you are coming at it from many angles. You say you are offering a tool that is a weapon for a community, using strong words to describe the tool as another in an "arsenal," but you haven't asked the community if they want the tool. In my opinion the response of least work would have been to post at the RFA talk page.

This is a lot of discussion about you not discussing something with an interested community. Why? What's wrong about discussing something for the community with the community? I don't get it. It's even part of the rules for bots. Why should the rules be changed for your bot so you don't have to discuss it?

There are too many words said on wikipedia +/- doing something when it would take 1/100th the volume to just do it. I suggested it, you disagreed, others disagree, the conversation goes on and on, trying to convince me not discussing something with the community is no big deal.

Why not be an original and go for the "why not discuss it?" Why consider the "don't discuss it with the community" line on wikipedia? This community runs on consensus. Leaders, in my opinion, should be willing to listen to the consensus, or consider discussing the consensus, in my opinion. I didn't ask you to discuss the tool with me, but with the community you are proposing it for. I made that request after reading discussions there. It seemed like a simple suggestion. Appears it is all but. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I think I understand your concern. You are concerned that I'm ignoring the process for a bot approval because I didn't discuss the tool/bot before coming to WP:BRFA, right? My feeling is that the "discuss first" rule was put in place because bots are generally making changes to articles, which can be a serious issue. In my mind, the amount of discussion necessary for a bot is proportional to the size of the changes (and the risk) it is making to Misplaced Pages. Something like a date delinking bot is controversial and requires a lot of discussion; something like fixing double redirects, not so much. tedder (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my concern is the effort you're now putting into not discussing the bot with the community and the work you're putting into explaining why you're not discussing the bot with the community and your not discussing the bot with the community. Originally I wasn't concerned, just offering a suggestion. Now I'm concerned. I'm also verging on weirded out by it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what you are saying. We disagree on how much work should be done beforehand, and I think we're having trouble connecting. I'm sorry. tedder (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it really is just about discussing it with the community first. You've made it clear how strongly you don't want to discuss it with the community and how much support you will gather for not discussing it with the community first rather than taking 10 seconds and starting a community discussion. That's okay, because I can't change that. I get it. You won't discuss it first even if the rules say that-check. The rules don't apply to you-check. Community consensus doesn't apply to you-check. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

In my opinion, showing politeness even to IPs with whom you disagree, rather than turning to personal remarks about them, would show you consider the community an important part of wikipedia. If you can't understand me, ask, but don't dismiss me so rudely as if rudeness is the norm for administrators on wikipedia, even if it is. I'm obviously reading this board.

There is a specific course of action, Pete: discuss the bot first with the community. This is the course of action listed by the BAG.

While I disagree with Tedder and think the RFAB board is being stick, I don't have a personal problem with Tedder. I'm just weirded out by how strongly he is resisting discussing his bot with the community he said he's going to offer it to as a weapon. I'm even more weirded out now by how many others in the community are strongly resisting this discussion. Especially administrators.

Without looking I guess discussion with the user and the community is the first thing on most of the noticeboards you point me to, Pete.

But no discussion with user, no discussion with community-check. I got it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

"* performs only tasks for which there is consensus"

"Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales"

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

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

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

103.13:

• Just because you assert repeatedly that somebody is resistant to discussion, doesn't make it so. A discussion has been taking place, even as you say somebody is resisting it. I haven't the slightest idea what you're on about there.
• Everybody else in the discussion recognizes that regardless of what the initial request was, there's not necessarily a bot in question; and if the thing is not created as a bot, then the bot approval rules have no bearing whatsoever. Yet you keep quoting the bot approval rules as though they are the final word on the matter.
• Now, you characterize the tool as a weapon, which is completely bizarre to me, but I guess it gives me a little insight into what lies behind your statements. For some reason completely opaque to me (or, I'd guess, anybody else in the discussion), you see the tool as a potential threat. I have no idea what that's about, but I suppose if you think it's a threat, you must have some reason. Expressing those reasons would probably get you a lot further than throwing up a lot of ill-informed process blocks, and questioning somebody's ability or desire to engage in a discussion. If you see possible damage to the project or to the community, by all means, bring it up. If not, well...do as you please, I guess. -Pete (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! We agree! It's bizarre to describe a tool as a weapon, as something for an "arsenal." That's what caught my eye and keeps me focused on this. Tedder described the tool as one more "in the arsenal" for RFA. Why, I asked myself, would anyone consider a scripting tool a weapon? How bizarre, I thought. Exactly the same word you use here!

So, I went to RFA to find out why Tedder thinks he should offer them another weapon for their arsenal. Reading the boards it seems the last thing the community there wants is another weapon. More confusion, not less. I thought that Tedder might want to touch base with that community since he's offering them a weapon and they seem to want fewer weapons not one more. Discussion seemed in order to clear up the confussion! I suggested discussion. The reaction to suggesting discussion is negative and bordering on attacking me personally. Even more confusion.

Thanks! Exactly what I said, Tedder's characterization of his script as a tool for the "arsenal" was "completely bizarre to me!" Thank you. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your characterization of this comes across as bizarre to me IP. Tedder clearly described this item as a tool, as your dif shows. After that, yes he wrote it was one for the arsenal, but could have used "shed" or "toolbox" or something else, just a choice of words, not necessarily defining. He called it a tool, and only you are considering it a weapon. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not accurate. Tedder is the one who introduced the term "arsenal." But, I agree, that considering it a weapon, as Tedder did, comes across as bizarre. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he didn't introduce the term arsenal, I said he didn't use the term "weapon". So, yes, what I wrote is accurate, and what you continue to write is inaccurate. Tedder did not to my knowledge start calling it a weapon, if we are only going off the dif you provided where he clearly, and unambiguously in plain English calls it a tool, that can be kept in an arsenal. You may want to read the definitions of arsenal, particularly #3 on Wikitionary or #4 on Dictionary.com. Or to write it clearly for you: an arsenal can be used to store anything, which would include, say tools, which is what Tedder called whatever it is this discussion is about. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Montana Meth Project

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

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

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

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

I've been watching the talk page drama. Perhaps it'll open it to edit-warring, but (among other reasons) it's going to be hard to prove a sock otherwise. In any case, it's only semi-protected, the user's arguments for unprotection are weak at best. tedder (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're on the case; thanks for keeping tabs. Whatever404 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Not that I can solve everything (I'm not an admin), but at least there are a couple of us watching for things that quack loudly. tedder (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good sir, I nominateth thee!

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

Shameless plug for Adminship

This user is currently being considered for adminship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Tedder.

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

WikiProject State Legislatures

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

Thanks, and way to go! It's a lot of work to get a WP going, so I appreciate the effort. I'm not very active in the legislature area, though, so I'll pass. Cheers, tedder (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pete said something about you being good at automated tagging? --ilamb94 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ever done automated tagging, but I'm on the route towards bot creation, so if you give me a specification, I could probably help. tedder (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Tedder
Tedder and his bike
Nationality	Earth

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

Excellent! I'm looking for a somewhat generic motorcycle racer category. I'm specifically working on motocross/supercross, but I don't see much need to have a dozen templates to maintain. The current template I'm using is {{Infobox Motocross rider}}. What I like is that it has a fairly generic field for championships, though it does try to call it something very specific ("Grands Prix Championships"). Something fairly generic, that has all the bio fields, is all I'm really after.

In reality, motorcycle racers have a racer number, so the car number field can just be changed a bit :-) Otherwise, it could almost be copied directly across. Is there a way to inherit it and simply substitute the racer number, plus add a generic field for championships text? tedder (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To the your right you will find what I have done so far. Let me know what tweeks you would like. If they are not already, all fields should be/will be optional in case they are not dead/no championships, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one hell of an awesome bike you've got there, Tedder! -Pete (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially when you consider all the championships I've won :-) AM, I'll test it out on a page or two and get back to you. I want to make sure to have time to do it, so it might be a day or so. tedder (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview

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

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

Pioneer Courthouse Square and Dave Chappelle

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

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

RFA

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

Thanks, Gordonrox24. (oh, I finally get your username). Like I said above, I wouldn't have touched it if people were discussing ME and concerns- it would have been inappropriate for me to shut things down in that case. But it was just becoming an entrenched war. Cheers, tedder (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why that it was. Thanks again!--Gordonrox24 |  22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your closing the discussion. The discussion had more significance than is evident at first glance. It would have provided a precedent for future "nonsense votes". Aditya (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Heh, thanks Airplaneman. It means a lot. I'll be disappointed if you don't stop back by occasionally and correct me if I mess up.

And I don't see it as "practically passed", there's still plenty I could do to fail. Should I show where I hid the bodies? :-) tedder (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also will be disappointed if you don't come by and correct me. My first talk archive is where I hid the bodies (is that how you use the phrase?). Best of luck. Airplaneman (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep

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

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

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

re feline acne

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

Hello V.B., I deleted them on Feline acne, but I don't believe I did so on your user page. I looked at the history to double-check. Can you provide me a diff to show me what you mean? tedder (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think VB meant "explain on my user page your deletion of links". Makes no sense otherwise. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm somewhat literal, so that helps. In any case, I explained where it was reported (Wikiquette alerts), and I'll explain at Talk:Feline acne if requested. As you know, the issue appears to be COI more than anything. tedder (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Big Steve (rapper)

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

Your RFA…

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

Congratulations! I'm sure you have seen WP:NAS, so now it's time to get to work. Have fun. Plastikspork (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Tedder! LittleMountain5 00:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

\o/ - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, congrats. –Juliancolton |  00:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Me too -- congrats! Proud to have such great reception for my first nominee. I'll look forward to seeing you 'round the mop closet! -Pete (talk)
• Congratulations! Try out your shiny new tools on the backlogs at WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:AFD, or WP:RFPP! (Those were the first ones I went to when I became a new admin.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Congratulations. I hope you didn't take anything too personally. Keepscases (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, Keepscases, and (as I've said), I respect your opinion. I trust you'll pipe up if you see any evidence of me editing (or sysopping) in ways you were concerned about. Cheers, and see you around here- tedder (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Portals (album) deletion

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

Thanks for the pointer, MrM. You're right, the intent was A9, I somehow missed the link to Arsonists Get All the Girls. Thanks for the full explanation, and sorry for the hassle- I went through and manually merged in the extra content that was lost, feel free to improve or remove. tedder (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for re-merging the content, and I'll take a look at improving the article when I can. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

BQ

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

Gotcha. Reply over there and I'll prot it for you. I just wanted some clarification. (any idea why my reply isn't indenting correctly over there?) tedder (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I fiddled with it a bit but nothing worked. Seems to be specific to that page. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. :)

P.S. Congratulations on your shiny new adminship! I don't cruise the RfA pages, so I didn't know about it. Luckily, you didn't need my vote to put you over the top. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 04:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Bugs. Happy to help, especially for you. And thanks for the PS- I'm enjoying RFPP. tedder (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How dare you edit my comments! I'm going to tell an admin about this! Oh, wait... :) Baseball Bugs carrots 04:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, be a good do-bee; report yourself to ANI, and block yourself for an appropriate interval. Then file two or three obscenity-laden unblock requests, forcing yourself to extend your block to some unbearable length, such as 3 days. During your block, you could be working on your autobiography, detailing your life as a dedicated Scout, titled Mein Kampfire. Once your block is well into its second day, post a weepy apology and a promise to do better until the next time. Then unblock yourself early, being sure to post many stern warnings to yourself. And if this behavior persists, file an RfC against yourself. That should scare yourself into compliance. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 05:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You've thought about this for too long, bugs. I think that's why I like you. tedder (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Blush) Thanks. For sure, I know too much about how this joint operates. Be aware I'm writing this amateur prose during breaks while working, and late at night. I have to exercise my creative side now and then, or it gets rustier than an abandoned Chevy. You know what they say, a right-brain is a terrible thing to waste. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Stoppeth I say. Thou mocketh thy administry! —EncMstr (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. For one thing, that was far too girly a response. Being a straightened-arrow male, I never "blush". Although, pair o' docs-ically, I see red sometimes. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Never mind, I went ahead and requested unprotection. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you are frustrated, but User:Toddst1 seems to be correct- I mean, if it existed as an independent article (Band Queer), it would be appropriate to include there. tedder (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)