Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 3 December 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 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Chemical elements

Hi Tedder,

Thank you for your recent resolution of the Vanadium protection issue I raised. I would like to give you some more background behind my concerns, and broaden the scope of this discussion to other articles and perhaps a larger audience.

I am a registered, long-term editor and I have made significant contributions in other projects, but I would like to remain "anonymous" for the purpose of this debate, so I have just created this sock for convenience of reference.

I have taken the time to go through all chemical elements. Here are my findings

First of all, I am not asking you to address each of them.

Secondly, I am fully aware that each case is different. Some of these protections may be justified, some may not be at all. Some protection length may be too harsh, some may be adequate. I have not done a detailed analysis of each case, and that is actually not my primary goal here.

This table seems to highlight a recent trend (with a significant explosion of the phenomenon this month), whose rationale was made clear by editors supporting Vanadium's protection. The protecting admin, in particular, made it clear that

"We (i.e. project Elements) do have positive experience with users, anons or registered, posting a comment at talk page first."

I am concerned that WP:ELEMENTS, as a project, might be subconsciusly driving towards a clique-ownership of the articles, taking a blanket position that IPs are up to no good, and effectively changing the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, at least within that project, by discouraging WP:BOLDness and moving towards mandated discussion before editing.

Don't get me wrong, I relate to their frustration of continuously having to revert vandalism, which I do a fair amount of myself, and I am definitely grateful for their hard work. I can also see how days may be changing for WP, whose IP contributions are naturally getting less substantial and more disruptive. But then this needs to be brought up in a larger forum and clear(er) guidelines should perhaps be put in place.

Thank you again for your interest, please let me have your thoughts. Soque1 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soque, the attitude towards IPs and new editors has certainly been an issue at various places on Misplaced Pages. A project has been experimenting with this and trying to find ways to allow new users to contribute without causing a deluge of vandalism. I strongly suggest you check out WP:NEWT and become active there if you are interested.

Some projects have an attitude towards IPs, and sometimes it's justified. Articles that are homework assignments for schoolchildren tend to be a problem- most of the ones you've listed are things that children in grades 7-12 would be referencing, and often see substantial vandalism. I can show you dozens of articles and instances of vandalism to these type of articles. It's certainly difficult to balance all of the issues, which is why NEWT is an interesting idea. tedder (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am deciding a plan for action. In the meantime, I have gathered more information in the table above (i.e. the protecting admin column). As you can see, Materialscientist seems to have protected quite a few. My first thought is to politely ask him/her to reconsider each of those protections in light of the recent unprotection of Vanadium. However, I hesitate because s/he may possibly interpret it as taunting after what happened. Do you have any suggestions? Would it perhaps be appropriate for you to do that instead? The other reason is that I had the impression that your thoughts were much more influential on him/her than mine... Soque1 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have just asked him directly. Soque1 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Asking the protecting admin usually helps to understand the rationale. tedder (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You may want to share your thoughts on the more general issue here. Soque1 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Good job, it was getting totally out of hand. I was planning to go to RFPP later tonight but you beat me to it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Check out my note on the talk page; note TS brought it up at RFPP, I'm happy to help. I probably won't be watching the page going forward, so LMK if further babysittingadmin help is needed. tedder (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection level of climate research article

I requested rescinding your added protection level for this article, but that was not granted. I was instead referred to take this up with you. Could you please engage me on the article's talk page? __meco (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not unprotect the article. The editor above is spewing completely unsourced original research and speculation on the talk page and is plainly itching to add it to the article. If the article is unprotected at this stage the edit war you stopped is certain to resume almost instantly. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, would you mind repeating this assessment in the section of the article's talk page about my request to have the original protection level reinstated? __meco (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take User:ChrisO's accusations on face value but address the issue on the article talk page as I initially requested. __meco (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The contentiousness seen above underscores the need to keep the article protected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather interpret Chris' ad hominem as an attempt to make the impression of a tumultuous state of affairs and you assisting him in that effort. __meco (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem, it's a fact. You are pushing completely unsourced speculation and arguing for its inclusion in the article. You haven't even bothered to find any source, much less a reliable one, for your claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. I have made a couple of suggestions about inclusions to the article. One, a viral video with a song where I certainly have not made any attempt to assert that it should be included unless reliable sources for it surface. In the second case I have proposed that a quote from one of the University of East Anglia climate scientists presented in the Wall Street Journal be included. Are you referring to one of these? __meco (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A few editors are continuously trying to push a completely unsourced claim that the stolen files were not in fact stolen and that the UEA's statement that the files were stolen should be ignored or prefixed with a weasel-worded "alleged" formulation that is found nowhere in reliable sources reporting the incident. You've backed them up on the talk page. I have no confidence that you or the other editors pushing this POV OR on the talk page will not start pushing it in the article as soon as it's unprotected. I've already taken out - several times - POV weaselling and OR speculation from the article and I have no wish to keep doing so. The longer it's protected the better, as far as I'm concerned. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea this particular issue was so contentious, but I'm starting to realize it. Though I still don't understand why it is so vexing. But if it is, surely an RfC would be an appriopriate decision-making instrument? __meco (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only contentious and vexing because editors are flatly refusing to follow basic content policies. No reliable source that I've seen disputes that there was a theft. Nobody has cited any source of any kind on the talk page - the editors pushing this line are doing nothing more than repeating bloggy speculation over and over, ignoring Misplaced Pages's content policies and brushing aside the objections of the editors who don't want to see the article turned into a dumping ground for POV original research. They've been challenged repeatedly for a source and haven't provided anything. That should tell you something. This isn't the kind of issue that demands an RfC - it's as fundamental a content issue as you get: you do not add unsourced material, you do not misrepresent sources and you do not present fringe opinions from bloggers as fact or use such opinions to override reliable sources. The fact that some editors don't want to follow the rules isn't grounds for an RfC, it's grounds for blocking or topic-banning them for persistent disruption. As a matter of fact, many of the "editors" who have pushed this POV original research have already been blocked as sockpuppets. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get the impression that this one issue was the single one that caused the full-protection. You see, I haven't been following the conflicts on this page and I seem to have stepped right into the middle of the big one. Now, I prefer to have this discussion going in the designated section of the article talk page, so I won't respond any further than that for now. __meco (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this isn't the place to continue the discussion. There's already a fantastically long discussion at the right location. This will need to go to RFC unless editors can reach a clear consensus, which obviously isn't happening. Don't continue the argument on my talk page. tedder (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've written a new comment, "Why I proposed a week of full protection, and what we can do next", on the talk page of the article. I hope we can take it from there. --TS 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, TS. Get consensus on a change and I'll be happy to put it in. tedder (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

icarly episodes

I saw you protected this page yesterday, but it seems not to be protected. Is the page protected or not?Meancop (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops- I made a mistake when protecting it. It's protected now. tedder (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very careful when anyone makes any further protection requests regarding icarly or FETCH with Ruff Ruffman. They are mostly socks of User:Simulation12, who is the one that caused thiese articles to be protected in the first place. I've just blocked this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured. I smelled something ducky. OTOH, it was a mistake I'd made, and it should've been protected. tedder (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

KNUST Department of Planning

Hi. I was coming to speak to you about the salting of this space when I saw your note, much like mine, indicating that you are open to admin disagreement. :) I disagree with salting KNUST Department of Planning. According to policy, SALTing "is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor." So far as I can determine, this article has not been repeatedly recreated. (Long history, but I think I've got it. :)) It was created once. Its subsequent reappearances have been through admin intervention when admins User:MLauba and User:J.delanoy restored it, one in light of clear efforts to clear the content (though I disagree with his initial conclusion that it was cleared) and the other from a desire to clarify his deletion summary. The original contributor showed every effort to provide permission, and the article space may be useful. He or she has not attempted to restore it out of process, and I think that creation protection is premature until he or she does. Accordingly, I'm unprotecting the space. Of course, I'm open to discussion about this, should you disagree. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey MRG, I'm fine with you unprotecting it. I knew J.delanoy had restored to add more to the deletion summary (heh!), but hadn't seen the earlier restoration, and I get worried about persistent copyvios like persistent BLP issues. I'm perfectly fine with the unsalting, and I think you are right, I shouldn't have salted it in the first place. tedder (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that! I worry about them, too. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP for Syria

Hi Tedder. Since I issued the WP:3RR warnings, as requested, the two anons have stopped … for now. Although, one did not go quietly into that good night: He left hurling a few insulting salvos my way (see here and earlier, here).

I am not actually involved in the editing of that article, contrary to what that anon thinks. I merely came upon one of his rule-breaking edits while Huggling. Then I noticed, as the night progressed, his and the other editor’s edit warring. The debate is obviously one about content that is perhaps skating perilously close to WP:ECCN.

Thanks for your guidance and your offer of follow-up if necessary! — SpikeToronto 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, thanks for handling that. I'm more than happy to protect if necessary, but I'm also more than happy to block if necessary. tedder (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He has since been blocked (see here). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast

Thanks. The authors of that article "crossed a line" when they created it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was trolling the CSD list, and that was an obvious case. I tend to decline a lot of hoaxes and especially decline speedies from an AFD, but it really wasn't worth leaving that AFD up. I'm personally offended by that sort of thing. tedder (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for MogileFS

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MogileFS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 30#MogileFS for more details) Thanks. 67.100.125.142 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vermillion Lies

Hi, you speedily deleted Vermillion Lies on the basis of A7. I would like to disagree: IMO two studio albums is a reasonable claim of importance. Please consider restoring the page and nominating for regular AfD. - Altenmann >t 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree having two albums means something (I could bang out two albums at my computer before lunch), I'll restore it. tedder (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pleas notice "two studio albums", not just "two albums". Still, it leaves the question what studio, I know. When I was making some minor edits I was also tempted to question the notability of this duo. Let the community decide. - Altenmann >t 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just commenting; a studio album doesn't really mean anything. Recording studios are available for rent and fairly plentiful - which is probably why being a studio album isn't a criteria at WP:BAND. Of the criteria there, the closest one is #5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You also deleted the redirects Kim Boekbinder which pointed to Vermillion Lies with summary (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect). The correct criterion is "G8: pages dependent on nonexistent or deleted pages". - Altenmann >t 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. When deleting pages, please check the image used in them. Non-free images uploaded to wikipedia and used only in the deleted article must be deleted as well, since they would fail "fair use" criterion. I am talking about File:Vermillion Lies.jpg. - Altenmann >t 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha- thanks. I am not in the habit of checking for NFCC images. BTW, do you want me to restore the albums? tedder (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Nothing but track listing & cover. I de-linked them. - Altenmann >t 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 NBA All-Star Game

It looks like I stepped on your toes by semi-protecting the article after you had declined. It was a borderline case, but the editor in question seemed likely to continue the current pattern and there was little other activity. I figured a short protect might encourage the editor to move on. I can remove the protection if you would prefer. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! RFPP is a great place for ECs, and I'm fine with either option. Remove my RFPP response or tlx it or whatever you like. tedder (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll update the RFPP response. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection thanks

Hey Tedder, thanks~ (am I allowed to leave you comments on this part of the page?) If that person (or group of people) vandalizes the page again after three days, should I request for semi-protection again? Gloriac2 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gloria, and welcome. Generally vandalism can be taken care of without requiring page protection- for instance, an IP or user can be warned and then blocked. If it does happen again, you can always re-request at WP:RFPP. However, I'd suggest coming by here to ask questions. You're a new user, so I can probably help you out personally.

PS- you can always respond in any section of my talk page, but it's best to create a new section to discuss new topics. That's why I've moved this. No worries though, and (again) welcome to Misplaced Pages! tedder (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder, thanks again! :) So regarding the IP ban... I checked the IP address and it is from Cornell University, so if the IP gets banned then Cornell students can't edit the page, and when the offender goes home from school (assuming they live outside of Ithaca, which is very likely as a Cornell student... and if it's a Cornell staff member who did this I would be quite shocked) during breaks, he or she can again vandalize the page. :( Are there ways to revert malicious edits automatically? (as a general question for any wikipedia article) Gloriac2 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi- often there are many IPs used at a school. In this specific case, it's clear the IP is only being used by one individual, or at least very few. Generally, the steps are this:

1. Revert the vandalism using the 'undo' link with a good edit summary
2. Place a warning on the IP talk page
3. After enough recent warnings have been collected, you can report the IP at WP:AIV.

Generally, page protection is for many IPs vandalizing a page, because an IP can be blocked 'cheaper' than protecting a page.

There are cases where the IP is used by all of an organization- such as a high school. Generally there is little collateral damage caused by blocking the IP for a period of time (1 day, 1 week) because a school with lax control over vandalizing students don't also have students who are making good contributions to Misplaced Pages.

That should help give you an overview. I can point you at quite a bit of policy, but WP:VAND is a decent place to start. Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks! :) I put a warning on the specific IP's talk page, (and since I am new to wiki) I'm not sure if I did it right... so feel free to correct it if necessary. BTW, what is the most effective way to find vandalism? Do you just have to browse wiki pages? Gloriac2 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I use my watchlist to find vandalism to pages I'm interested in. The hardcore folks use Special:RecentChanges. But get some more experience before doing that. FWIW, if I were to vandalize the page four times before you reverted it, you should only give me one warning, then sufficient time to read it before giving me another warning. Hope that makes sense. tedder (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Books bot.

Any updates on the "New books alerts" bot? Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I need to mull an easy/better way to implement archiving, since that's needed for the first release. tedder (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Book-Class

Hi, I'm just wondering why you've semi-protected this template, given that it only has a single transclusion. PC78 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I was having trouble figuring out if the transclusion was transcluded anywhere- now I see the transclusion is the page itself, which is weird. tedder (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the only transclusion is on the template documentation. It's not actually used anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I see this was done per a request for protection. I believe that request was made on a mistaken assumption, though. Not all templates in this series are protected, and while they were at one time highly used, their transclusions have dropped significantly and they are now largely deprecated. I don't oppose protection as such, I just think it's premature for a currently unused template, and I don't think it will turn out to be necessary. PC78 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, via WP:RFPP. I'm going to unprotect it, since my assumptions were based on incorrect assumptions. tedder (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about WP:RS and WP:Synth IE Wikileaks

Tedder,

In the context of using wikileaks docs as a part of an article, where is wikipedia at on a policy for the sites work. From what I understand, wikileaks is independent and not tied to the main wiki. It uses verifiers to confirm the material they post, and then post it without comment. Wikileaks has been in the news alot as of late, most recently for the cell phone messages during 9-11. IIs a policy being worked on, and if so where can I view it. I am very careful with my cites and take them all seriously and dont want to use bad sources, or exclude good ones that enhance readers experiences within the confines or WP:NPOV.Your thoughts

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi IGR. I'm a big fan of Wikileaks, and they seem to have a good track record, but without any other sources verifying what they have to show, it's pretty much a primary source. The difference with the 9/11 pages and texts is that other media has reported on it- so it's appropriate to use what they've said is important. I hope that answers what you are really asking- if not, keep asking me, I'm not quite understanding your concern. tedder (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protection - I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! (UK series 9)

Hi, I noticed you protected the I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! (UK series 9) article. I've raised serious concerns on the articles talk page, but have yet to get a satisfactory answer why. Looking through the articles history, I see no justification for page protection- the history shows far less 'evidence' of vandalism or reverts than many, many other wikipedia articles. Surely the correct way is to block indvidual troublesome editors, not the whole article! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article isn't vandalism as much as it is unsourced changes to the contestant results. Look back right before the protection and you'll see tons of changes to the finishing order, who was voted in what position, and the like. It isn't possible to block individual editors because they are coming from (changing) IP addresses. If you look at the number of unique IP addresses that are reverted on 24 October, it's pretty clear. tedder (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh, NONE of the current editors have included any citations for the contestant results. There are ZERO citations for FOUR whole and substancial sections of that article - the Camps, Results and Elimination, Bushtucker Trials, and Bush Battles! And as the fundamental policy of Misplaced Pages is that all information should be verfiable, by all readers, then the article as it stands fails on that fundamental point. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that a few editors have a problem with trying to claim ownership of this article - they don't want anyone else apart from their little 'club', yet they fundamentally fail on the basics of including citations. I'm sorry, but the existing editors who demanded that this article be protected are just as bad as other 'IP' editors who fail to provided any citations. Please let me state again - this article should NOT be protected - and should be freely open for ALL to edit, and comply with the fundamental principles of allowing ANYBODY to edit Misplaced Pages. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Harry Hurt

Thanks for contributing to Harry Hurt. I wish we'd started this before he died, but at least now he has his own article. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed on both counts. I'm going to use my archived newspaper source (lexus nexusish) and try to fill it out. It's already nearly at DYK and we haven't even tried. tedder (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Tedder... Your hard work is valued and appreciated here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, you are welcome, that means a lot. I assume you are mainly thanking me for protecting Uncle Murda? tedder (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)