User talk:Tedder - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 8 December 2009 (→A quick ping). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:36, 8 December 2009 by GoRight (talk | contribs) (→A quick ping)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

GoRight Block

I disagree with your block of GoRight. The page is under a tremendous amount of dispute and flux, and the talk page agrees with this. If GoRight is guilty of edit warring on that page, so too is nearly every other editor who has contributed it in the past 3 days. Please reconsider. Thanks! WVBluefield (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you did place a warning on the talk page ... didnt see that before. WVBluefield (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WVB, I completely understand, but plenty of warning over the {{NPOV}} template was given. Continuing to place that template flies in the face of both edit warring and civility. The only reason I've been involved on the page is to keep it from being fully protected.

It's a delicate balancing act- is it better to block a few users, or is it better to fully protect the page to keep editors from being offended/blocked? I'm somewhat amused because (this week) I was told I should block users rather than fully protect another page- neither way is optimal. This was a good case for blocking (instead of protection) because there was already a very active discussion on the talk page.

EC- glad you saw the warning. tedder (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

tedder, my problem is that you applied blocks unilaterally. An edit war involves parties on both sides, and a unilateral block is implicitly a judgement against one side. A protection would have been better so the sides could hash it out; or, alternatively, blocks on both sides. Blocking two editors on one side and none on the other makes you appear partisan. ATren (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, ATren. See my response to GoRight below- I could have been done it better. tedder (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A few questions if you please

While I recognize that you do not have a "dog in this fight" and so are merely trying to contain the edit warring, which is fine in and of itself, I do take some exceptions with how you have been going about it. Before I pursue things further at WP:AN I wanted to discuss the matter with you directly in case the discussion and resulting disruption there can be avoided. Could you please respond to the following at your earliest convenience? Thanks.

Point 1: Blocks related to the edit warring.

I note that when you issued your warning at that you stated the following, :

"Okay, all of you. Quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header. Rather than full-protecting the article, I will block editors that insert or remove it for WP:3RR/WP:EW. Consider this your warning, I won't be leaving warnings on editor talk pages. tedder (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)"

OK, so far so good. Now when I ignored your warning, , you followed through with your threat. You did the same for ZP5, . But when WMC ignored your instructions, , you did not choose to follow through on your threat. So, can you please explain why you were selective in your enforcement here? Is this not a valid example of WMC edit warring over the POV template after you warned him not to just like myself and ZP5? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It is somewhat unfair to only block editors who added the tag, not those who also removed it. However, the two sitations aren't exactly even, either. Let me see if I can explain.

A user who adds the tag is definitely in violation of the "rule" I imposed. That's a clear situation- if the editor has seen it, and still adds the tag, it's very clear.

However, a user who removes the tag isn't in as direct of violation. They are restoring the state of the page to the "pre-rule" state.

I should have made the rule a little clearer so that reverting/undoing to restore state isn't allowed, so that "involved" editors don't try to enforce the rules themselves. And I probably should have blocked MWC. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that your original phrasing made the point quite clear, "quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header", seems to cover both sides of the issue quite adequately and unambiguously. However, I accept your acknowledgement that, in retrospect, "I probably should have blocked WMC" as being sufficient evidence of your neutrality on that point. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Point 2: Using WP:WRONG as an excuse to keep the POV tag off the page.

When I protested your leaving the POV tag off the article, , you responded with WP:WRONG, . Now, when we are talking about the CONTENT in a content dispute WP:WRONG seems a reasonable reply, however the POV tag is NOT CONTENT in the sense intended by WP:WRONG but rather it is a notice to the reader that the content is in dispute. By invoking WP:WRONG in this context you are completely thwarting the obvious intent of the POV template and the essay to which it directs the users, .

Can you please give your reasons for why WP:WRONG is an appropriate response for something like the POV tag given that doing so clearly is at odds with the purpose of the template in question? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WRONG was a bit of a flippant reply, but it was based on your phrasing: "You have issued your warning with the article in the wrong state." Generally, one party (or both) feel the article is in the wrong state. Note I followed WP:WRONG up with solid rationale for leaving the POV tag off, though.

Generally I'm a fan of leaving maintenance templates on a page. I can dig out some heated discussions about users who don't want them there. But in this case, it doesn't seem to do any good- it feels you want it to be there as a disclaimer, not to fix issues. If it was truly about fixing issues, they are already being discussed on the talk page. My feeling, in this case, is that the POV template isn't needed to raise awareness about the issues, so it would be causing a net harm to the article and to the editors. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that honorable individuals can legitimately disagree on such things, but could you please try to elucidate the things about "this case" which you believe makes it a special case requiring special handling or is it simply a "gut feeling" on your part? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Point 3: WP:CIVILity of the POV tag.

You assert that the POV template is provocative and uncivil, , yet the essay that the template points to states the following:

"By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required."

This seems to suggest that the POV tag should have exactly the opposite effect of what you claim. Can you please describe why you feel that the essay is wrong?

Also, if the POV template is considered to be WP:UNCIVIL then why is it allowed to exist at all? Is it not a policy violation in and of itself by that reasoning? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of this is personal thought and specific to this incident. Having said that, I'll try to explain. I gave the rationale for the POV tag above- in this article it isn't helping achieve consensus or civility. I don't think my position is counter to the thoughts in that essay, but keep in mind an essay is a few steps below guidelines and policy; I feel justified in stating that the use of the template, in this case is inflammatory and counter to WP:CIVIL. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto my question from Point 2 above. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sidenote on ZP5 A brief aside: I think that ZP5 is upset with your treatment of him at least in part due to your assertion that "as ZuluPapa5 said, the POV tag is provocative and uncivil", , because he subsequently claims that this is a misrepresentation of his position, . You may wish to clarify your statement a bit. Just FYI. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what the misrepresentation is- it's clear that I used his "provocative and uncivil" statement for the opposite argument than ZP5 did. Is that what is meant? If so, yes, I should fix that- just confirm this is what you think was meant, because the whole thing was confusing to me, because it turned into charges of corruption, so it makes me think there is more than that going on. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"it's clear that I used his "provocative and uncivil" statement for the opposite argument than ZP5 did. Is that what is meant?" - Yes, this is my interpretation but it needs to be confirmed with ZP5.

"turned into charges of corruption" - I have asked him to clarify his meaning. It occurs to me that he may have been meaning "corruption" in the sense of "altered or changed incorrectly" as in a corrupted database and not "nefarious activity" if you follow my meaning. It may simply be a communications issue. --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation and clarification. I've tried to correct it. tedder (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Point 4: When should the POV tag be used?

You assert the following, :

"the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't."

I interpret this to mean that the tag is best used for articles that don't have a lot of people watching them which certainly isn't this article. Is this how you meant this statement?

Assuming so, I direct you again to the essay pointed to by the template, , which states:

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

The above interpretation seems to be directly at odds with the stated purpose of the template in this case, or am I somehow misreading the portion I have placed in bold?

You seem to be acknowledging that we have not yet reached a consensus on this point, see , so can you please explain why we should ignore the intent of the template in this case? --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be completely on 'your side', that the template should be placed on the article. Because of the edit warring that was occurring over the template, and the crazy level of discussion on the talk page, it's a sort of Judgment of Solomon issue. Removing the tag appeared to be the better option, as the issues about POV were already lodged and under substantial discussion on the talk page.

Secondly, there were many alternatives, most of which would be considered 'worse' by editors:

Full-protect the entire page, as had been requested
Impose substantial editing sanctions (use of edit summaries, no reverts, propose changes on talk page, etc)
Intentionally pare content of the page, full protect, then wait for consensus on additions (sometimes used with WP:WRONG as an argument)

The POV tag is an easy first step. If an editor failed to follow that simple rule, it's easier and clearer to block them for that behavior, rather than getting into more complex blocking and banning issues. tedder (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto my question from Point 2 above, but can you try to be specific about why "removing the tag appeared to be the better option" in this case? What is it that makes this case different than other cases in your opinion? For example, I would assume that in most cases where there is a POV dispute on-going that there is already active discussion on the talk page so I am not clear on why this case is any different. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added your signature to each of the parts/sections so that I can reply individually. Let me know if you have a problem with that- but it'll keep me from having to make one large reply at the end that loses context. tedder (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Take your time. Tackle each in turn if you wish. --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been letting this topic sit for a while to let the dust settle a bit. I am considering making a proposal for a course of action that I would find acceptable before going to WP:AN, but if that proposal is not acceptable to the other editors then I will have no other alternative but to seek out additional guidance on the norms surrounding the appropriate use of the POV template. Your responses above will be an aid to that discussion if it becomes necessary. This is my reason for asking for more details. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5

Re User:ZuluPapa5 and Scientific opinion on climate change. I request that you ban him from that page, and its talk page. I've threatened him with RFC if his disruptive behaviour continues and it has. But RFC is a heavyweight, long, and often quite toothless procedure. ZP5, as far as I can tell, simply isn't worth it. His behaviour there is disruptive, pointless and childish; he just needs to be firmly shown the door. Quite a few of his edits aren't really comprehensible, e.g. . On a lower profile article he could just be ignored.

You've blocked him for disruption and edit warring. That I think is helpful (thank you) but I'd still like to see him barred from the article entirely (or at least for a niminal period of, say, a month).

Pretty well his entire history of interaction with Scientific opinion on climate change supports my view. Let me attempt to give you some kind of timeline or story to support this... how did he get into this? He isn't a long-term GW editor...

ZP5 is cruising BLPN and happens to run across List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and makes what is, in retrospect, a characteristically hard-to-parse comment .
For unclear reasons, he decides that Bayesian probability is the crux of scientific consensus . I revert this, with the obvious comment .
ZP5 follows this up by creating a rather odd page, which I redirect to GW and Vsmith deletes; ZP5 is not amused . ZP5 pushes his Bayesian oddness and we're onto Scientific opinion on climate change. From this point on, ZP5 does essentially nothing but edit that talk page disruptively, and to a lesser extent the page.
So, ZP5 starts adding non-relevant material to the page and when that doesn't work, the tag wars begin, as you know. Meanwhile, on the talk page...
This is the most weird bit. His talk page comments read like they were written by Eliza: 00:30, 1 December 2009, 01:33, 1 December 2009, 02:18, 1 December 2009 , etc. Looking through the rest, I can't see anything constructive that would make anyone say "he may be a bit annoying but he raises some good points". All he does is skip from one section to the next failing to make substantive, and in some cases comprehensible, replies to anything.

Well there you have it. Thanks for what you have done so far, and if you feel like doing any more it would be most appreciated,

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain Eliza-ish (perhaps ESL?) quality to ZuluPapa5. Let's see what happens when the editor comes back, okay? I agree about RFC/U being less than perfect, but there are other WP:DR things that can be done too. tedder (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was fairly sure you were going to say that. I woud expect ZP5 to be reading this, so hopefully he will take away the message that further disruptive behaviour will lead to trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you got sucked in to a blocking scenario anyway, mop and all. For what it's worth, I was not considering asking a single admin (much less you, you'll be relieved to know, because my instinct is to involve more admins when a situation gets like this, and not put weight on one person's judgement). I was exasperated at the circular way in which the discussion was being pushed to stay alive, and felt that alongside the article edits it amounted to disruptive tendentiousness. As it happens I then discovered some long neglected aspects of real life for over 24 hours so I missed the worst of the nastiness. Perhaps the essence of wisdom is knowing when to let nature take its course--I wish I could say my absence was due to wisdom! --TS 04:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personal, but I didn't block users because of you, TS, or because of WMC, or because of anyone else. The two editors knowingly ignored the rule I placed on the talk page. ZuluPapa has been making some crazy accusations about me changing a sig or something- other than that, I have no horse in this game. Hopefully ZuluPapa will take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, all I care about is trying to maintain some shred of WP:CIVIL on that page and talk page. Good times, eh? tedder (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was going to let this dog lay because Tedder’s intervention has ended an edit war, but it bothered me a bit that you couldn’t behave likewise. Calling for a topic ban for ZP5’s really crossed the line. ZP5 and GoRight were both blocked because they contradicted Tedder’s directions for everyone to stop inserting and removing the POV tag on the article. I think that you deserve a block just as much as ZP5 and GoRight because you also ignored Tedder’s talk page warning with this edit. You could have left well enough alone and allowed Tedder to do what he did (remove the tag himself) but you didnt, demonstrating that you are as much a problem on that article as the other editors. WVBluefield (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realized I was on this talk. Wow, that's a mouthful for a 3RR. Anyway, seems like I really threatened someone with the crazy idea that they may not have a NPOV. Sorry, but NPOV is what wiki is about. Appreciate WVBluefield rational interjection. For the record, I am ZuluPapa5 and puppetry is repulsive to my WikiDragon ways. I am not surprised in the least the complainer is haunted (in their mind) by their past. I wish them well to edit responsibly. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for userpage protection

Thanks for protecting my userpage. Do you think it would be appropriate to semi-protect my talk page for a similar period? I understand that limiting access to talk pages is generally not a good idea, but the amount of work that the attacker creates for other editors is getting pretty large. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, as I was writing this up, Tanthalas39 took the initiative and semiprotected my talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good- glad tan was able to help you out. And you're welcome for the protection. tedder (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Scoopmobile

Hey Tedder. You noted on the Redmond Caves page that one sentence needed clarification, namely the "scoopmobile." I too, would love to know what a scoopmobile is, but I can't clarify it any more because because the 1954 article doesn't say anything else about it. That's also why I put it in quotes. That clarification tag may be there forever. Can you delete the clarification tag? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Leit, wether it's in the source or not, it needs some sort of explanation. It may take a while before it gets fixed (maybe someone will know what it is personally?), but it still needs clarification of some sort. BTW, are you going to submit the caves to DYK? tedder (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never submitted anything to DYK. You are certainly welcome to do it yourself. I'm not to entrenched in the wikipedia universe to be acquainted with everything. About the scoopmobile, I suspect that it was a nickname for some kind bulldozer or backhoe. I kind of doubt there is listing anywhere for something called the scoopmobile. But I suppose it's worth checking out. I could delete scoopmobile and replace it with another piece of machinery they used, which was some kind of load conveyor. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the DYK thing for you. I doubt there's much (certainly no RS) for the scoopmobile- it's just such a red herring sitting there. If there's other machinery used, or you can rewrite it, that'd probably be best. tedder (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Depiping links

Re: Redmond Caves diff. Incidentally, some of us in WP:ORE (at least EncMstr and I) like to link cities and states separately, though I've abandoned linking "United States", however, per "hopefully you get the idea" and "not closely related to the topic of the article". It's a fairly common practice across the wiki in location links and makes sense to me. If you're going to unlink them, I'd like to see a clear rationale. I pretty much tend to leave "United States" linked if it already is (per "if it ain't real broke, don't fix it") and add separate (piped) links to community and state when I come across ones that aren't separate. I shrug and don't edit war if someone changes it, since I don't believe there's a rule about this, but I think it makes for easier navigation, especially if one is using popups to see what each bluelink is about. If one doesn't know anything about the state, it's one click to read about it rather than two and if one don't know anything about the state, one isn't as likely to be interested in reading about just the city. That's my take on it, anyway. Katr67 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually I don't change it, but that one was bothering me- I think it was because there were so many links surrounding it (_lava tubes_ in _Deschutes County_, _Oregon_, _United States_). My rationale for doing it is in Misplaced Pages:Linking#General_points_on_linking_style: "avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, as in "] ]". tedder (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

SmartDraw

Context: SmartDraw tedder (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like you were the admin who deleted the page about this company, however I was not able to find any "AfD" discussion on the topic only your note that it was because "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The article has existed for 3 years so this deletion seems abrupt. Just because an article talks about a company or product, it's not supposed to be considered advertising automatically. Please consider restoring the page or making it more clear why it was deleted. Thanks. - Emeseg user talk:Emeseg —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Hi- no matter how long the page had been around, it was still an advert, and an AFD isn't necessary. Would you like me to move it to userspace so you can work on it and make it into a non-advert article? tedder (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeseg (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Here it is: User:Emeseg/SmartDraw. I left some guidelines on your user talk page. tedder (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the content a bit. The original article was just a single sentence it seems so I've added more content while citing sources. I've tried to model it after Mindjet's page and have gotten some feedback. Let me know if you think it's ready to move back to the mainspace or if you have more specific comments. Thanks --Emeseg (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Emeseg, here's what I see with my first pass through it.

The "Product Features and Automation" section has no sources given. It's effectively advertising about the benefits of the software.
The "Business Visuals in Communication" section is speaking about business visuals in general; none of the sources discuss SmartDraw directly (AFAIK). This means it is effectively advertising too.
The "product history" doesn't really do much. It's effectively a 1-1 mapping between versions and dates, nothing more. It could be summarized as "the first version came out in 1994, the most current version is SmartDraw 2010, released on YY-MM-2009."
The only source on "Integration and Add-Ons" is to SmartDraw's site. Are there any reviews or other third-party coverage of SmartDraw from reliable sources? This would be secondary sources, which is what most of the article should be based on- see WP:PSTS.
The "Awards" section is pretty good. Wikilink things you can.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder, I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages's editing standards so perhaps you can help me understand what's wrong with SmartDraw's page.

The "Product Features and Automation" section contains a description of what the product does - it doesn't contain a call to action or a pitch as far as I can tell. What makes this advertising? In addition, if I included a link to ] description of the product's features, would that constitute a reliable source? Could the manufacturer's website be used as a source? I noticed that on Gmail's page Google is the dominant source for the majority of the feature's section. It seems like that'd be the case with any product regardless of who makes it. What mix of third party and primary sources are needed to meet Misplaced Pages's standards?
The "Business Visuals in Communication" explains the value proposition behind what people use the product before; how is this advertising?
The "Integration and Add-Ons" section contains links to SmartDraw's own definition of how it integrates with various products and services. How is the primary source (the company that makes the software) not considered to be a reliable source? I took a look at the Windows Home Server features section for reference and I saw a delimited list of features primarly sourced by Microsoft-owned or affiliated properties. What's the difference between what's in that section and this section?

Could you explain, broadly, what you constitute as advertising? In general doesn't advertising have to include some persuasive prose and a call to action?

Please let me know, --Omgcapitalism (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'

Tedder: just FYI -- someone removed the protection template you put on Jerkin' -- not being an admin I'm not sure if I should restore it or not. Regards. --Manway (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- I put it back. I'll AGF and assume it was removed during the weird database stuff yesterday. tedder (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Crayola colors

Thanks for closing. Didn't expect the vandal spike and I was probably too hasty in listing. PaleAqua (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, don't take it too personal. I don't blame you for listing it, but I bet the response wasn't expected! tedder (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Redmond Caves

On 5 December, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Redmond Caves, which you recently nominated. 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) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Hi Tedder

Just wanted to ask your advice on this. Someone keeps posting a rumour to one of The Bill's subpages about a character that's joining. The website that they're using to cite the rumour is Twitter and the page says it's the official page of The Bill's producer. I've previously reverted it because I didn't think the Twitter page would be allowed for two reasons a) it's a social networking site and b) I don't think it would class as a reliable source as anyone can set up a Twitter account and say that they work for The Bill. However, this person keeps telling me that they can't see any reason why the link wouldn't be allowed. I've also googled the rumour to see if I can find any other reference for this but cannot find anything. I don't want to keep reverting this. What would be your advice on this? --5 albert square (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey. It's pretty clearly not allowed, via WP:SPS: "For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." tedder (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that Tedder, knew you'd have the answer! I didn't even know of WP:SPS before!

Edit: Just noticed this, thanks for protecting Walt Disney. I came across that one totally by chance on the recent changes section but someone hit revert before I could. Checked the recent history as I always do when I come across vandalism for obvious reasons and couldn't believe what I saw! Thanks again and I hope you're well --5 albert square (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I had to google it, fwiw, though I should have looked at SPS first. tedder (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Disney- glad you saw that. Certainly out of hand. It looks like 4chan or an imitator. tedder (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you forgotten to change the protection level for Walt Disney? There's something about that on the protection page and when I'm logged out I can still edit the page --5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I happened to check the log and I think you must of forgotten to enable protection. I figured I should let you know this. Momo san 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. It's an easy one to miss. I probably miss the dropdown (and forget to doublecheck) once every 10 protections. tedder (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amos Marsh

Hi Tedder, here is my reference (http://www.wallowa.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=19972) for Amos Marsh being from Wallowa High School.Jazz3111 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks! I added that as a ref on Amos Marsh and on Wallowa High School. tedder (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to add a reference, it is probably better add this link: http://beta.lagrandeobserver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59935&Itemid=31

Althuogh it has some mistakes in it's information. Jazz3111 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC) .

Thanks. I may add both as a reference, but it's something you can definitely do! Let me know if you need help. tedder (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

I am not so interested in Amanda Knox but I accidently created the page after the guilty verdict. I didn't realize it until I started the Amanda Knox talk page and saw that it had been deleted twice. I immediately went back to wipe out the Amanda Knox page but saw that in the space of a few minutes, several editors had already edited it and wiping out their edits could be seen as vandalism. Since I wanted to do the right thing, I then asked an administrator for guidance.

For this reason, it looks like there might actually be a consensus for the article. Many people in Misplaced Pages don't know the inner workings so they are unlikely to find talk pages or RFC, etc. This can be manipulated by those who don't want the page and know how to outsmart the newbies. (That's why I have advocated a "how to" manual for Wikpedia but have been told by an administrator to fuck off -- I later found out that my idea is not bad as a Misplaced Pages Trustee has the exact same idea according to a newspaper article).

If we were to develop a really neutral way to gauge consensus, it would be for the Amanda Knox page to exist with a template on top pointing to a discussion about the article and then a link to the Murder article just below that. I am not so interested in Amanda Knox that I will not be doing it. If we wanted to see what could be written, we could have a draft article under that template and link but that would really be a bold maneuver, maybe too bold.

Let's try to cooperate in Misplaced Pages rather than fight. As for me, I have little interest in Amanda Knox except to know her pre-Italy background, which I find Misplaced Pages has no information -- I had to find it elsewhere. I think that your declaration that there is no consensus to create an article is not really accurate especially since there were quite a few edits in only a few minutes (unlike some articles which last weeks between edits) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Suomi, I'm not interested in fighting, and hadn't even seen that you were involved, my only concern is with WP:BLP/WP:BLP1E. The consensus I was indicating in my protection notice is on Talk:Amanda Knox; you did see that, right? I'm not interested in sides (create the article, restore the article, don't create the article, etc) but am wanting to make sure that WP:BLP is followed. I'm quite happy with the article being created- but it needs to be done outside of Amanda Knox so it isn't in-progress until it reaches some level of maturity. Hope this answers your concerns. tedder (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Having a draft page would be a good idea but I certainly don't want to host it on my user pages. There are countless bad articles that could benefit from that. However, it seems that WP custom is to not have draft pages. My involvement is ONLY that I accidently created an Amanda Knox article and didn't know it was deleted (technically reverted and redirected) until I created the Amanda Knox talk page and saw that it had been deleted twice. Since I am not a troublemaker, I raced to revert my own edits but found that in only a few minutes, several editors had edited and I wasn't about to wipe away others' edits.

Perhaps there should be a BLP warning and the article allowed to be created and someone submit an AFD in 2 days and see if a passable article can be written before the AFD? I am not in the Pro-Amanda Knox article camp, just wanted to find out her pre-Italy background, found that Misplaced Pages doesn't have it, and want to move on to another article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, on the talk page I suggested it be a draft at Talk:Amanda Knox/Subpage or something similar. Draft pages are used when changes are big, when it isn't ready for primetime, and so on. I don't think you are seen as a troublemaker (and certainly this proves it!), but this sort of thing happens quickly when it's in the news. We just shouldn't have an article up at Amanda Knox that says "Amanda Knox killed some girl in Italy" with a link to an AFD that needs to run for a week before it is deleted. The other information exists, if you or someone else wants it, the subpage can be very quickly developed and moved in place; I'd be happy to move the page history to the subpage so you can edit and revert to a fleshed-out version if you'd like. tedder (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon Trott

Thank you for protecting that article Tedder, your work is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Maybe I'm gunshy, but it isn't like that article has seen a lot of strong development from IPs. tedder (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Hurt

On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Hurt, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} 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) 23:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

I would have thought that tarring several identified scientists (not just one who happens to be a Misplaced Pages editor) as "co-conspirators" (in the context, the charge is one of massive scientific fraud) was a very clear violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Please keep an eye on it. I very much doubt that this will ever be reducible to "a dispute resolution issue" as you suggest. Nor is this a borderline matter. --TS 05:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, TS, but the specific policy gives a little bit of latitude for this sort of thing ("useful to making article content choices"). I mean, if the article was about Tony Sidaway and there was a discussion about fraud and coverup, it'd seem entirely reasonable that it should be well-founded. But on an article that is effectively about fraud, we're talking about apples that aren't far from the tree. This is just my take on it- if you violently disagree, feel free to post at WP:BLPN, since I'm occasionally wrong.

Assuming you are watching that page, just drop me a note if there are items of concern that come up that I can help with- for instance, if an IP or a user posts something like .111 was posting or other non-helpful comments, give me a diff and I'll step in. Otherwise, it seems to be headed down the DR/ARBCOM route. tedder (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have a straightforward disagreement here on what policy actually says. I don't think any part of Misplaced Pages's policy permits baseless accusations of fraud to be made anywhere on Misplaced Pages. That is why we have a BLP in the first place. --TS 06:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I may very well be wrong. That's my interpretation of it- and by no means would it be forumshopping to ask at BLPN. (and, as an aside, while I was looking to see if you posted there already, I totally agree with you). tedder (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'll blunder on and hope the nuisance goes away. If it becomes enough of a problem there won't be just me concerned at it. --TS 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

Sorry if I made it difficult by not using edit summaries. Usually I don't bother with them if it is just to restore sourced information that has been removed without an explanation, and use them when I'm only making actual changes to the article. Anyway I didn't mean to make things more difficult and since it's a volatile article I will make sure I use them for all my edits on the article. Thanks for you assistance. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's easier to distinguish between legit edits and vandals/trolls/etc when you use 'em. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Hi. :) I expect this will be completely uncontroversial, but wanted to let you know that I restored 14th Street Viaduct (Hudson County, New Jersey) in order to do a history merge with 14th Street (Hoboken) to repair a licensing violation (not to "prepare" one. Geez. Stupid deletion log forever mocking me. :P) After the DB6 was applied, a contributor copied text (including authored by others) with the edit summary of "import from delete". The contributor who had tagged it G6 (I'm not sure why they didn't just move the page) attempted to note this, I think, when he placed the following: . It would have been much easier to figure out if he had just supplied a rationale to the {{Db-g6}}! I stared at it for a good few moments going "What?" :) (The paste was noted by Corensearchbot and listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2009 November 29. Usually, those listings that aren't resolved by the time they come due at CP are complicated. Nobody else could figure out how to handle them. :D) I've explained to the copying contributor attribution requirements and will speak to the other about the "rationale" parameter on db6. --Moonriddengirl 13:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! It's even more complicated than I thought. We have not one, but two people copying content without proper attribution. The tagger copied the material to a different point. --Moonriddengirl 13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries- thanks for letting me know. Sounds like a handful :-) tedder (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick ping

In case you didn't notice that I had some follow-up questions, . If you don't have anything more to contribute there that is OK just let me know. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your reply (dated "01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)"), but not questions. What am I missing? tedder (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Read that reply. I am asking follow-up questions that are replies to your replies, if you follow my meaning. It is not a huge deal. Basically I am asking you for some specifics regarding your reply. No hurry at this point though. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user has returned

Just letting you know, anon user 85.83.19.103 you blocked for edit warring on UFO Hunters and making personal attacks has returned as a sock puppet. Dan Frederiksen, a newly created account has also made the exact same edits to UFO Hunters. Both account talk pages also have bizarre rants going on about abuse of admin powers and other conspiracies, so no doubt it's the same individual here. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree, based on the edits and modus operandi shown on the rants. tedder (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)