User talk:Tedder/Archive 6

117:'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? -- 7089: 6819:

interesting. Tragic to lose those cool theaters. There are a whole bunch of old ones in downtown LA in an area that is now mostly Central American immigrants (as best I can tell) with some condo redevelopment going on. The history of cinema and all is quite interesting I think. Leads into television and so much of our culture. That theater, or theatre if you prefer (and I guess that's how it used to be spelled), sounds really wonderful. Maybe Durova or someone can dig up some old photos of it. Anyway, let me know if you have any questions. I kind of threw that article together so it's very reliant on one source, which isn't ideal, even though I used a lot of quotation marks. :)

7130: 7055: 6730: 6150:? Just about every edit I've been doing has been reverted by a bias, ignorant and arrogant editor who claims quoting a source is copyright violation, negative reviews shouldn't be present, and just reverts and reverts with absolutely no regard for the continuous messages which are placed explaining things to him/her. A protection was placed on the page, though it seems that now that has finished, the user hasn't bothered to login and is using their IP. I don't know how else I can communicate across the point to them, I've tried but please takeover! Any help would be appreciated, thanks. 3282:

should make clear, dialogue with this serial vandal is futile. And you then protected his version of the article. We're dealing with an editor who has a burn on for me because I've repeatedly caught him violating policy (note that earlier today I caught him uploading a non-free image with an obviously invalid fair use rationale) and has no interest in legitimate editing. I have more than 15,000 edits; a solid record of constructive editing, and have become a repeated target of vandals like this editor. It's very discouraging to find an admin siding with him without investigating.

1234:, an account started a couple of years ago but only used fourteen times. He (or she) replied, complaining about mistreatment by other Users. I now see that he has been blocked indefinitely. Dan Frederiksen made his first edit a couple of years ago, and has only made seven edits since 15 April 2008. Two of those seven edits were to his own Talk page, leaving five substantial edits since April 2008. I have examined those five edits very closely, and I find nothing offensive or in the nature of an edit war. When I looked at Dan's User page the block banner contains words about 8319:

to report various Knowledge editors to the police investigating the scientific fraud underlying the Climategate affair and the associated activities of certain scientific persons including the IPCC and its chairman. We have not yet decided whether to report you as one of those who have played a part in deliberately tampering with the biographies of those who are known to have spoken out against the (arguably fraudulent and now under investigation) "consensus" that small perturbations of the composition of the Earth's atmosphere can cause large warming effects.

8415:

calls articles "forks" when their content does not duplicate that of any other article. Someone needs to talk him down from the tree, and I fear that anything more from me will just inflame him further. If you have a spare 15 min or so, could you please look over his contributions of the last fortnight or so (in particular in a bunch of AFDs, and in talk pages), form your own opinion, and if you agree that he needs a cuppa, a bex, and a good lie down, then perhaps suggest it to him as a completely neutral party? Or else advise me what else to do? --

1392:. Knowledge has permanently blocked Dan Frederiksen, apparently without adequate explanation as to why he has been permanently blocked. Regardless of how strongly you believe Dan is a sock of the IP address, Dan is entitled to an adequate explanation of the reason behind the block. Similarly, Dan is entitled to the opportunity to defend himself against the accusation. Even though Knowledge guarantees that every accused sockpuppet will be given this explanation, and this opportunity, they appear to be missing in Dan’s case. 31: 7631:, I was wondering if you'd be willing to come in and make a decision on keeping or deleting the template. Its a pretty simple case, just a couple statements. Nobody new has commented since the day it was opened, and its been seven days now, so could you come in and rule on this? While the template itself is not too contentious, it is part of a much larger debate that's been going on for quite some time, and it will help move things along to know if it will be kept or deleted. Thanks! 4809: 8871: 8557: 6364: 3540: 578: 5084: 9577: 7960: 6022: 5126: 3184:. When I type in that name it redirects me to the cast list of Neighbours. When I look into the reason for this re-direction I've found that there was previously a page for this character but it was deleted and it was proposed that the page was simply merged with the cast list page for Neighbours. The reason for this was that the character is not notable enough as she is only a 6 month old baby! 9796:

there are a few points I wish more people understood, for example all scientists are supposed to be skeptics, why do the 'pro-CRU' editors keep using skeptic as if it's a bad word, etc. --BTW, love the STOP! graphic, *chuckles* I've wasted many hours of my life watching history documentaries and I even teach 7th grade history, but I've managed to miss that one, truly the epitome of train wrecks!

9524:

is. Right now it seems pretty amorphous and ill-defined to me. The best I can discern is a nebulous "look, these people aren't playing nice together." While that is true, I don't think that Arbcom can do anything specific to fix that, per se. Isn't that rather like asking them to produce world peace or something? Just something to think about while you flesh things out a bit more. --

8061: 7242: 6332: 6230: 4542: 3865: 742: 3086:

current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

8944:] is the reason that the editor shouldn't post there. I;ve pointed out the policy on ownership, and also pointed out it is only a suggest with a invite to come back when calm. When you look at the post, the poster was calm. Apparently though this editor thinks he has been appointed watchkeeper over Jimbo's page. Can you comment one way or the other? 468:

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.

9822:

Adam, the page is protected so that IP editors can't comment. I don't entirely understand why except to prevent it from getting taken over by new users or single-purpose accounts coming from forums and blog postings, perhaps. Can you register for an account? Once you make a half-dozen edits you'll be

9772:

Thanks, I'll probably follow up with an AFD at some point to get some broad opinion to see whether a company in "stealth mode" is considered notable based purely on the sources related to it getting some funding, I'm a little worried it's in crystal balling/vaporware territory until it clarifies what

8318:

Please explain which of the edits you complain of were vandalism and why. And please explain which of the edits were by "sockpuppets". It appears to us that you have made destructive edits without justification, and have then locked the page so that certain users cannot make corrections. We are about

6910:

Okay, trolled through that. Most of it seems to summarize/restate the results of the HABS/HAER source, and that's certainly where most or all of the photos are from. And I'm not a Beaver or Duck fan. I'm not much into college sports, and I'm not entirely an Oregon native (though I'm not NOT a native,

6257:

There is a need to add some authentic information in this articlle because Ahmed Rushdi is not only a national figure of Pakistan but also a famous singer of subcontinent.There is a lot of info yet to be added in this article.So its a request to unprotect this in order to give chance to improve above

3886:

Thank you. However, the problem remains: no admin has reviewed your addition of the tags. I ask you to invite an admin to review your addition of the tags (this was effectively an admin action, and therefore subject to admin review). Perhaps not Beeblebrox - he seems to have become somewhat emotional

3404:

I thank you for the prompt page protection. I've posted to RSN, although rather unhappily. Removing sourced content with an edit summary that reads simply "nope," followed by a personal attack on an editor with whom one disagrees, is not, to my mind, conduct that should be met with anything less than

2994:

As one of the other basically uninvolved people trying to keep a lid on this family of disputes, I endorse the result. I started this morning to put a plea for calm and consensus-based editing at that talkpage, but got distracted until after this blew up; meh. It would have been better if you had not

2220:

Can you spell out what you think the process should be, and at what point it should end? since i hardly think that this is ArbCom stuff. I've just asked GoRight to gain consensus for an RfC on the issue. DR seems to me to be written primarily with disputes between two editors in mind, which isn't the

409:

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

405:

For this reason, it looks like there might actually be a consensus for the article. Many people in Knowledge 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

9508:

Hey GR. The goal is to show that arbitration is needed and that alternatives (such as 3RR and RFC) have been tried, not that certain users are to blame or anything else. To steal from the case page, "You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are

7267:

Yes, you're right, the theater building is actually quite nice, and looks well designed with the corner stones. I like the van in front of it also. I think I was influenced by the descriptions of the buildings exterior as being staid, but I think those opinions are wrong and were just trying to make

6877:

which gives him big city notability. :) But the architecture up in Tacoma is pretty interesting. He did some cool bowl stadiums for schools also. I forget if he had any big Oregon projects, he was mostly up in Washington. Are you a Duck fan? Probably a Beaver I guess. Oh well. Still you have to pull

5862:

Hi, I noticed you wondered what the Barney Bunch is, when I asked about protecting The Drew Carey Show. The Barney Bunch is a group of Internet trolls who make fun of TV characters, corporate mascots, and celebrities, calling them gay and saying disgusting or nonsense things about them. I'm a member

5540:

No problem! When you move them, there's a box you can uncheck called "leave the original behind". IIRC that unchecking that will cause it to be deleted, but I'm not sure (and can't test it now that I'm an admin!). It's too late for that now, but you can ask for pages in your userspace to be deleted

4981:

Thank you very much. Yes I have a COI and will list it there. I stepped up because past attempts were by customers and ex-interns and they were too "enthusiastic." I write a lot so I felt I could do a better job of creating an evenhanded page. Interesting how sometimes it works that way. I will post

4869:

A new editor (ScienceAndTruth) has recently re-introduced things to the Schlessinger page that previously led to the blocking of TrutherTruther, including defamatory links and statements that led to earlier editing disputes. I have edited back to a non-defamatory state, which I hope is appropriate,

3281:

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. I added information from a highly reliable source to the article, a source that's recently become available through Google Books. Cubert reverted it with a phony explanation and a personal attack, then violated 3RR editing though an IP. As the diffs I provided

3114:

In the very early days of Knowledge, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally,

2801:

Instances of vandalism seem unrelated and will thus not be affected by a protection unless they land on the page when it is in effect. A temporary protection will therefore not have any long term effect. Anonymous accounts do contribute to the article, but with over a sixth of all edits being easily

2763:

article. I was wondering if you would consider extending it further than just two weeks? The cause of the vandalism is due to the nature of the topic. While it does indeed peak when whaling is in the news, the controversial issues related to it are ongoing and unlikely to diminish over the course of

883:

I would have thought that tarring several identified scientists (not just one who happens to be a Knowledge 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.

509:

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

413:

Let's try to cooperate in Knowledge rather than fight. As for me, I have little interest in Amanda Knox except to know her pre-Italy background, which I find Knowledge has no information -- I had to find it elsewhere. I think that your declaration that there is no consensus to create an article is

9523:

Well, OK. I am happy enough to wait and see what you make of this. You are obviously putting a lot of effort into the analysis aspect of who the involved parties are. But before you are done I think you will need to formulate something specific as to what the actual dispute between these parties

3334:

It's hard to draw the AGF line on my part, no matter what Cubert's intent was. RFPP isn't the place to confirm/deny socking or to settle disputes. As I said, just drop a line past RSN, get confirmation, and I'll happily defend the changes against edit warring/deletion/socking as much as necessary.

3319:

Because the RPP post was a crude and transparently false personal attack, and because the source involved is about as reputable as sources come; as I pointed out, it's from the leading publisher of reference works in the US. There's no good faith issue here. And you let him get away with an obvious

1867:

I'm assuming the ampersand article explains that & is a stylized Latin "et" (and) and that "ampersand" is a slurring of "and per se and", kind of a 27th letter of the alphabet once commonly seen in "samplers". The other one is an old joke that I doubt has a reference. Nathan Hale's "real" last

1433:

Thanks. My view is that Knowledge has failed to adequately explain to Dan Frederiksen why he (or she) has been blocked indefinitely, especially as the block is not related to anything written from the account Dan Frederiksen. The fact that Dan has not yet used his prerogative to contest the block

467:

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

9850:

Tedder, thanks for your speedy reply. I've taken some work home for the holidays and also have family over, but I do believe the issue is important enough that I will try to do that. Do all edits (talk pages) count or do I need to search around for articles I feel merit my own contribution? You're

8414:

editors and has attacked them with intemperate language. On being called on it he has refused to moderate his language, and has now filed utterly tendentious COI complaints against several editors including me. He seems to have no idea what COI means, or for that matter what FORK means, since he

8267:

Please explain why you have locked this page. The edits made were reasonable and did not merit your interference. Please advise us about how to obtain arbitration re your decision to lock the page. We shall be asking for your privileges as a Knowledge editor to be revoked on grounds of prejudice.

7977:

Well, the kitchen is clean, and everyone else has gone to bed! I'm sitting on my butt after a day of cooking and cleaning. I got a shirt and a pair of pants, and some guitar picks. My family aren't Pastafarians, so we had a big piece of dead animal and all that. What did you get? And any good news

7330:

article.. We have been through the origin of Ghorids and after a LONG discussion, we came to a consensus that we will use the term "Iranian" in the introduction.. However, the IP keeps on adding that they were Persians and Tajiks.. I don't want to waste more time and repeat the same thing over and

5768:

The only warnings I remove from my talkpage are those I feel have been issued in bad faith. I also find it ironic that I'm the one accused of not dropping the stick by doing a simple talkpage revert since you're deleting pretty much every issue people have with the page's status, while Tryptofish

4021:

I expect and ignore the kinds of accusations ATren and his like make as fact, but I do not expect them to be endorsed by an admin. I hope you will reconsider this quickly, and speak in your own words. Please stop making this situation worse for yourself. Please strike or remove your endorsement. I

3622:

As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather

1000:

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

477:

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 Knowledge doesn't

7454:

It's pretty close to being generic- a couple constants could be pulled out and made into command-line arguments, but I'm not sure the gain, as it isn't something I'd ever want to give access to from a commandline. It's likely to cause a lot of damage, real quick if that happened. Are you saying I

3737:

I haven't clamoured for anyone's head. What I'm asking for is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and some action to rectify that. Washing ones hands does not solve anything. If Tedder had not broken two basic rules (one for all editors, one for admins), then we wouldn't be in this situation. Other

900:

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

9795:

Hello, I am new to direct Knowledge involvement and was curious how I can add a "Statement by uninvolved party" under the climate change arbitration page. I don't see an tag to the top right of the climate section in the arbitration page. I will try to keep my comment succinct and rational, but

7521:

Hi- I can move it (really, by deleting the other page first), but it'd be better to have more talkpage discussion than just two editors saying "huh, where is that from?". Maybe post the best few sources you have and then let it sit for a couple days to ensure there is no issues? Then you can use

6818:

theaters, and I was working on one that article because an architect I was writing about designed one of them and then that led me to Hamrick, and that led me to the "Theatres" that Hamrick ran, and by extension to the Oriental I think (unless Hamrick ran that one too). It seems very notable and

5734:

I think it's clear from the thread above this one who is being harassed (cool personal attack, too), but based on your behavior at Crucifixion in Art and the AN/I thread about you, you clearly aren't interested in the truth or applying policy to your own actions. And if your talk page isn't the

9725:

article? I was on the bubble on whether to tag that one, since the closest it has to a claim to me is having Kevin Rose as an investor, but since it's in "stealth mode" and the description of what it does is along the lines of something to do with crowdsourcing I wasn't really seeing that as an

9091:

I didn't want to go to ANI and this seemd reasonable. I do feel in this case merely saying a juggling of power on administrative tools and responsibility is distinctly different from his Arbcom case. I happen to agree with this by coincidence but for different reasons. I think that ascertaining

5331:

against vandalism. However this page is permanently under attack from vandals that remove sourced content and some subtle edits such as replacing images of ameriand people for one of blond Chilean girls or putting "just an extra" immigrant photo in the article. Would you mind to keep and eye on

3349:

Confirmation of what? Are really saying that we need to go to RSN over a claim that Google Books isn't a reliable source for the contents of the books it presents? The justification for the last revert was that Google Books is unreliable because it displays "A supposed photocopy of a shred of a

3085:

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most

9799:

Also, thank you for attempting to bring sanity to this issue, I was originally one of the teachers in our school who condoned the use of Knowledge for casual research, and in recent weeks ('Climategate', Copenhagen) I've been outraged and have come to regret my position, as more than one of my

6999:

Indeed. But actually I am mistaken about the slide photo. It was taken before the building was completed and before the brick and terra cotta facade was added. Which makes sense, if you presume that modern architecture strips out adornments that are non- functional. The caption mentioning 1969

4316:

I took a look at this and, while I can see harsh comments and the unsummarized edit (should have been summarized, but on the other hand he did explain it on the talk page), I don't see much justifying a week-long block, certainly not for a first offense. There's been no direct personal attack,

2503:

I agree. The discussion should be on the article talk page. I think it was a bad idea for you to give GR "permission" to re-add the tag here, rather than joining in the discussion at the article (the discussion there is so ill-disciplined as to be unreadable, of course, and that could use some

676:

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

5291:

I was in rush, glanced through their talk, noticed your anonblock message and thought is Ok, but I missed the point that it was your signature and 1 month term there. Thanks for reminding, left now. Another thing - that block is borderline - activity is low, but not constructive - non-evident

401:

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

9492:

OK, I received your notice and I have reviewed your opening statement. I am unclear on what the nature of the dispute you are raising actually is and what resolution you are looking for. I am certainly not opposed to the idea that the environment on the GW pages is deplorable and should be

5677:

But by refusing to answer any of the comments by editors, regardless of whether they violated policy by using personal attacks or not, that's exactly what he is doing. They may be uncivil and unregistered, but that doesn't mean the points they bring up are invalid. Furthermore, the willful

9538:

Thanks, GR, and thanks for saying so both on this page and on the arb. It's something I need to formulate- though I'm deliberately trying not to point too many things out, nor suggest remedies, but to expose the problem and lay it out. That can be done in arbitration, though probably not by

3131:

Please confirm that you understand that articles are not to be protected in a "preferred" version, and that adminstrators do not have a special ability to "bless" edits or tags, and that you must make every attempt to avoid "Making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as

504:

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

9543:. It would be interesting to figure out how many warnings and blocks have been given to the "top 190" editors on those pages over the past three months, but even that is insufficient- I suspect those who really deserve blocks/bans/warnings don't get them due to intimidation and bullying. 8714:

Thanks for giving me support to my RFA. I may not have succeeded today but i'm sure in the future I may apply again. I have been an editor on here for a while so I figured I would give it a shot. I'll review what has been said to me and i'll try to get better at things in the future.

3935:

I only asked for the prot to be reviewed because it was the immediate issue. I'm not going to admin-shop outside of the ANI thread. The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling- it's unfortunate that the bickering has spilled over from the various articles into other namespaces.

2797:

From the article history and logs you'll find that the article has been temporarily semi-protected twice in the past. In the 494 edits since the last there have been 97 vandalisms, thereof 88 by anons (edits by anons that have been undone or reverted). The first hit the day after it

4470:

Excuse me, but telling a person he can't use the phrase "personal attack" to protect him from all criticism is not the same thing as making a personal attack myself. I don't quite understand what's going on here, but I do think it's contradictory to the stated ideals of wikipedia.

2557:. You've ignored that. For removing the silly tag, no you haven't given alternatives, you've enforced GR's will. You've reverted that tag 3 times already today - anyone else would be getting a 3RR warning (I give you one now, informally). A third revert with an edit summary of 171:. 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 -- 7436:

I saw you had drafted a BRFA for removing {R uncategorised}, may I suggest you make it generic to any template listed in the "Orphan these" section of TfD? It will be more long term value, and is unlikly to be opposed. (I may put in a generic BRFA along those lines too.)

1282:

Please let me know which of Dan Frederiksen's five recent substantial edits constitute the rants, and which of the five show a consistent modus operandi, such that permanent blocking is appropriate. Thanks for your assistance in helping me get to the bottom of this.

848:

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

5749:

Feel free to use the avenues suggested to talk about me all you'd like. I don't believe I've told you to stay off my talk page. However, the combination of article talk behavior, continually removing warnings from your talk page and implying a personal attack, and

6856:

People always seems to think things torn down or no longer in existence are no longer notable. But that theatre seems very notable to me. Did you read the descriptions of the interior? How fun. :) Anyway, I think I got sidetracked on that project indirectly from

7473:

Yes the application. If BAG trusts you to remove one template, it will trust you to remove others. I suggest you file the BRFA sooner rather than later, BAG is a little slow at the moment - looks like that template has been done, checking the discussion page.

6915:

was remodeled in the late 60s to remove any features, which is why the city leased "our" Oriental for a while. I need to dig out some photos of Keller from before then. It's a few blocks away from me, and it's always sad to see that brutalist/functional look.

4355:. I feel as though that leaves a comment directed at me (that I don't care about facts) just hanging there. Could you consider, please, instead removing the entirety of that thread, from where the other IP (24...) said "Wow, that's really rude."? Thanks. -- 7546:

sorry I did not and do not intend to attack any one, but I do respond the other editors with their own level of civility. I have no other choice to assume that he is ignorant If he calls me, and a whole people, uncivilized, underdeveloped, ignorant etc...

7207:. That's too bad, actually. I try to make a couple trips over there for photos in the summer, but not so much this time of year. And I've never done building articles before- I think Katr is best at places (towns/cities), but I might be wrong on that. And 9457:. I had motivated my move to take out the picture of the bunkers, when I saw your message. Please feel free to talk to me in my talk page for any Albania related topics. On a related note, I haven't motivated all the changes and I apologize for that. 3320:

3RR violation by hiding behind an IP. And take a look at what's begun happening to my talk and user pages moments after your action. I've been targeted by vandals for some time, Cubert is one of them, and you've just put me back in a free-fire zone.

2995:

done the placement yourself, but a dedicated discussion to address the issues raised by GR has been started on the talkpage. Perhaps they are overbroad and perhaps this can be perceived as a "victory" for one "side", but edit wars over tags are also

5994:

You protected this page a week ago because of excessive vandalism, I believe that the protection is due to expire later on tonight. The page has been relatively stable for the past week, one of the admin has found out that the character returns to

9092:

Jimbo's opinion is useful. My main thing is that if Jimbo doesn't want him to post there he has the power and ability to do so himself. He should be the one saying yes or no. Not one of us trying to figure out what he wants based off a suggestion.

803:

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

4402:

OK, I'm trying, thanks. I would not feel right about taking it on myself to collapse anything on the talk page, as there would be the appearance/reality of me having a COI. If you could feel able to do it, or ask someone else to, I'd be grateful.

6939:

Still need to look through all of that, I got distracted with finding photos at the Library of Congress, ended up looking for MANY photos of Oregon there. Doh! Anyhow, for the two buildings you created (that I saw), I've uploaded some batches:

1150:

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.

842:'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 Knowledge's standards? 6869:) that I was working on. Heath turned out to be very notable. Nelsen less so, but still worth including I think. I haven't pinned down all the details, and it occured near his death, but I believe the sources establish that Heath designed the 2700:

I'm afraid by ignoring 3RR, despite a warning, and protecting after reverting (also a no-no), you have acted wholly inappropriately. You should revert one of your two actions, probably the revert as it would rectify both issues. Please do so.

9695:

Fairly surreal. But I have to say it's about damn time SineBot was taken to task for what is clearly a very long and disruptive edit history. Someone needs to review the policy about changing the words of others on talk pages with that bot!

7036:

Okay, I finished blasting through sources. I said it was four hours of work at about 10:30. Now that it's 1:30am, .. damn. I'm done, and poked Durova to see if she'd clean up some of those images, as I can't do that. Want to take it to DYK?

1679:

KLG perhaps, but not now- KLG doesn't even look like KLG.. sort of like Kathy Griffin looks like someone doing an impression of Kathy Griffin. Oh- and Netflix lets you put things in the queue basically as soon as it's announced. OBNothing,

7622: 2583:

WMC, while you violently want the tag to be removed and to control the discussions, I won't give in to that pressure. I'm quite willing to full-protect the page and/or block users if the tag is removed again, and I'm justified in doing so

2064:

tag- it's been some time, the issues still aren't resolved. Go ahead and add it, make sure your editsummary explicitly says you've been "blessed" to do so. As far as the actual POV and content concerns, that'll need to be resolved through

3827: 799:

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

3920:

Yes, but it hasn't happened. However *you* have invited an admin to review your prot (subsequent to that discussion starting, so you cannot refer to that discussion as the answer). Why don't *you* invite an admin to review your tagging?

5526:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to give you extra work. For some reason I thought admins had to move articles from userspace to mainspace. I moved them; I hope I did it right. Can you tell me how to get rid of the original userpages. Thanks,

8495:

Hey Epee, I can handle requests here (as long as I'm around). The only problem is that article has only had one IP vandal since coming off unprotection. Ideally, it should have a couple in the same day before being protected again.

835:

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

7159:

If you're willing to put up the DYKs I'm happy to leave it up to you. The facade of the building and the chandelier photo with your hook are pretty good. I'm not really sure. Will any of the other Oriental Theatre photos play

406:

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 Knowledge Trustee has the exact same idea according to a newspaper article).

5614:

I'm not sure; I was just noting where he got his user name. I suspect that if one wanted to do some digging into the unsavory (I don't), there was probably some 4chan noise about that particular anime, but I'm just guessing.

1563:

Oh, I see. You are absolutely right, and I'll be careful about that from now on. (I did it as a rollback of obvious vandalism, but forgot that I shouldn't do it that way for this particular page. I should have known better.)

6516:

I noticed that 3/4 of your edits have to do with some type of reverting. Is this a second-hand account of another user that is meant only for reverting ? If it is, I think the account in question should probably be blocked.

4351:

Cooling off: so noted. At the same time, I hope that it is understandable that I am entitled to feel sensitive about what has been unjustifiably directed at me for what is now some weeks. Tedder, in that regard I note this:

1268:

This looks like it might be sinister. A User makes five unremarkable edits and is blocked permanently. The banner notifying this User that he has been blocked says that the page with the evidence for the blocking does not

7355:.. It looks like he/she is a sock-puppet of one of the existence members or active IPs.. He/She is editing the same controversial issues which we have been over (NPS tribal maps as a source, Ghurids being Tajik etc..). ( 2657:

Edit warring to your preferred version and then immediately protecting the page? Very very poor behaviour. I expected better. I hope you will reconsider your actions. Doesn't bother me, but it doesn't help the project.

3068:

I have serious concerns with some of your administrative actions recently. It appears you have edit warred on an article, and then used your tools to protect the version you were edit-warring to include. Please review

9749:

piece, and the read/writeweb piece that got kicked out. That's enough to pass speedy, even if the article doesn't end up being notable. I hadn't done it until now, but looking at google news it appears there are some

3721:

for are clamoring for your head. Do not take offense, though, this is typical for the GW pages which is why so many admins shy away from the fray. You are to be commended to being willing to at least dip a toe in.

8147:

Just checking in to let you know - as requested in the discussion for the Vic Chesnutt page - that there SEEMS to be credible confirmation of Chesnutt's death at the NYT as of about half an hour ago. Link is here:

3047: 9367:

really necessary? It's clearly a contentious issue already; while the joke might be humorous under different conditions, age may well be the central issue here and perhaps shouldn't be joked about. My two cents.

7816:

Hips and motorcycles have their moments. Glad we still have all four. :-) Thanks for the detail. I'll remember "Team Oregon" ... and you can remember that idiot who treated a skinned hip with a sun lamp. lol OAO

3716:

Ironically, it seems, I as one of the people you actually BLOCKED in all this wish to thank you for your attempts to foster a neutral and collaborative environment, whereas those whom you went out of your way to

3026:

Juliancolton: acknowledged. EdJohnston, thanks, it's nice to have feedback on what SHOULD have been done. Do you have any ideas on how this should be dealt with from this point? 2over0, thanks for your feedback.

1657:

It's in the theaters now, so I doubt it's on Netflix yet. Its being in the theaters probably accounts for vandalism, though. This has been a pretty good year for Sandra. This is a better film, as films go, than

677:

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

9803:

Please forgive if I have put this in the wrong section, I just didn't see a way to add my own comment, as it seems to be allowed, upon reading the various 'uninvolved party' statements on the arbitration page.

4387:

Try to let some of that roll off, but it's probably worth collapsing some of the random comments on the talk page. I didn't want to remove it further, because it is at least marginally related to the article.

1643:(see the thread immediately above, they tend to have that much drama!). Anyhow, I might have to add it to Netflix. Haven't heard of it, but I thought about teasing you for being a Sandy Bullock fan. Hi, BTW. 7268:

a contrast with the interior. It was actually quite a striking and stately facade. Thanks for doing the DYK noms. People are still moving out to Bend? Interesting. One of them needs to take some photos. :)

1985: 7761:

Half the way to said girlfriend's house ... I forgot there was a curve where there was one .. and ran out of the road ... holding helmet as I slid to absorb blow if I hit a tree while sliding through the

4429:

and see if someone uninvolved will figure out how to clean it up without losing the relevant content? As the above drama shows, I'm a little reluctant to edit on one side of a polarizing issue right now..

9877:. It should be 10 edits anywhere, though honestly I've never tested it to make sure. One good option would be to create your account, perhaps fill out your talk and userpages, then leave your input here: 3389:

BTW, you probably saw, I protected your userpage for a month, and your talk page for 6 hours. Let me know if you don't want that done- I took your comment here as request enough, given the silly attacks.

695:

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?

8776: 5999:

for one episode on Christmas Day and then leaves again temporarily so it does look as if this is a showturn lol! The page will always be on my watchlist so I'll report again if there's further trouble.

1069:

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. --

2733:

May ask as what your definition of consensus is? Is it unanimous agreement between parties? We seem to be stuck in a position where 2 editors (w. possibly a 3rd) are holding a dispute alive, despite :

853:

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?

8456:

I'm not entirely sure I understand. Are you saying that the frivolous nature of the COI complaint will be so apparent that it will lead to something being done about his recent behaviour? Or what? --

3125: 6053:

about disruption by reverting, civility, and ownership. Further, the editor was given an editing restriction by me on one of the article's they edit. It's all in the link I gave you above. Also today

3950:

Yes, the lack of admin comment *is* rather telling - unlike most such reports, there isn't any sign of admins saying "yes you did the right thing". You are wrong to assert that the prot was the issue

9493:

improved. I'll participate in the arbitration to the extent that I am an involved party, but unless you have something specific and actionable in mind it is not clear to me how I should proceed. --

2508:- no explicit indication of blessing was given; had he done so, people would naturally have objected. This discussion can be closed as soon as you make it clear that you are not going to answer GR's 9800:

co-workers now spurn me for supporting the use of Knowledge. I do believe certain editors are holding certain pages hostage and it discredits the entirety of ~3.5(?) million articles in some minds.

7182: 5059:

Hi Mijotoba. Since there was an AFD associated, it's worth preserving the talk page to point to the AFD. The projects may or may not be worthwhile- it depends on the project. Does that make sense?

4595:

has posted a {{uw-3rr}} on my talkpage. Not that I'm mentioning the word SOCK mind:). You know, I can understand people being enraged about the history of their nation, but this..... Ah, well. --

1447:

explaining the reason for the block, and explaining the opportunity for contesting the block. Hopefully this will improve Knowledge’s performance in the matter of the blocking of Dan Frederiksen.

3896: 3856: 796:

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.

5256:... but I'm afraid of MC Hammer. For the longest tl;dr EVAH. Congrats on having it Resolved. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about. I don't want to get accused of collusion or something. @_@ 7000:

confused me. That's just when it was copied into the Building Project files I believe. Maybe a side by side photo layout would be useful? The building is still under construction in both images.

1044:

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

6895: 5002:

I see that, and thanks. I'm of mind that most people have COI over articles they are interested in, it's just they don't admit it. Good job on the article, and please stay active here. Cheers,

2779:

Hi- generally, the protection should lapse, show signs of vandalism/POV/etc as it opens up, and then the next protection period will be longer. That proves that longer protection is necessary.

5754:

point to you being a high-functioning troll. I've lost patience to treat you with good faith. It's ironic that you remove everything from your talk page, yet accuse me of not handling issues.

957:

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,

7667:

Where did I violate that policy? I did not add any commentary or opinion into that article, or even changed the content of the article. I just removed a link which I deemed inapropriate per

3246:

Just want to say that I have sympathy for you in how you got sucked into all this. I think your intentions were (are) good. I could add some background but think I'll just leave it at that.

4200:

Hi Tedder, please have a another look at the talk page. I've linked the relevant source and a translation of it; the edit we currently have in the article really doesn't make sense, from a

7331:

over again and neither do I want to break the 3RR rule.. You had previously protected the page.. I was wondering if you can take a look and semi-protect the page once again.. Thank you (

5307:

No problem. I just usually look at the talk page diff to see why an IP was blocked, but there was no talk page diff. Thought a little prodding wouldn't hrut :-) IP blocks are always hard.

7144:. I'm really not a visual-arts type of guy. An alternate would be to talk about the weight of the chandalier (2000lbs) and that 5400 lights are used in the chandelier and cove. Thoughts? 7628: 7296:

Thanks! I can do basic color, straightening, and cropping. So about 0.01 Durova. Just talked to an 80 year old relative today, who remembers being in that theater. Small world, I guess.

8247:

Ah, no worries. Thanks for spotting that, I just jumped to a conclusion on where/what it was and assumed they just went with a generic address- like saying Salem instead of Hayesville.

4864: 402:

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.

8229:

Though I'm sure the house belonged to one of the Applegate Applegates, looks like it was in Jacksonville, not Applegate, which does happen to have a Jacksonville mailing address. Per:

3658:

You do realise you broke two rules, as I don't think I saw that anywhere. Will you be reviewing your actions or will you be taking no further action in regards to this specific issue?

2960:

for such a restriction. As it is, things are too confusing and the casual observer might think you were edit warring on the tag. I don't object to your full protection of the article.

8138: 7641: 9726:

assertion of notability. I'll probably follow up with a prod of AFD, but with one declined speedy an AFD I recently opened quickly following up with keeps I'm going to sleep on it. -

9656:

as a party to an arbcom case? I rofled. (for the record, I understand you are only aiming for completeness in the list of editors, but you must admit, it is kinda, well, funny!) --

4037: 3964:

The protection was the pressing issue. The tag-and-prot is being dealt with at ANI. Please discontinue ranting and stirring up the issue on my page. The ANI thread should be enough.

2345:. He said he removed it before reading the information. WMC, leave the tag. I know you two have a dispute, but don't edit war over it or let it spill to new arenas (like this page). 7014:

What do you mean, "slide photo"? In any case, the Weatherly looks different than it does now, they apparently stripped quite a bit of the corner cladding and tried to modernize it.

8262: 4763: 5830:

I know, but I looked at those links, and, not surprisingly, there's nothing there. (And it's pretty funny to have called your briefly-deleted comment to me a personal attack.) --

4654:

You're not evil, you've just shown a pattern of poor judgment, in my opinion, when you intervene in edit wars. Glad to see both of you are taking this issue seriously, though.

3979: 136:: "For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." 9141:

I've put it on the table at Jimbo's talkpage. I don't believe in the trust us we can handle things policy, Nothing happens. Sorry I know you probably mean well but so do I.

4226:. With that small of a consensus, it needs to wait a day or two so it's clear the the edit is supported. It won't hurt to let it sit in the current state for a couple days. 2304:

I've removed the tag again, before I read this page. All this is just troublemaking by GR. There is no POV dispute, there is only GR's dislike of this and similar articles

1845:

You've got me on both of those. I generally know stuff that non-wikipedians don't know, but I can't compete against folks like you :-) Want to give me links, or is it just

6814:(a movie theater business mogul), because an architect I was working on designed his house, or maybe was just mentioned somewhere. Oh actually it was because he owned the 1385:

I believe that no proper evidence page has been formed in relation to Dan Frederiksen. Knowledge’s advice in this situation is that Dan is entitled to remove the notice!

914:

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

3206:. Since notability isn't really established for the article, I'd just edit the page, remove all the content, and replace it with a redirect to the Neighbours page. Okay? 2956:

Hello Tedder. If your intention was to set up an editing restriction that nobody was allowed to add or remove the POV tag, you should perhaps have asked for consensus at

1831:

OK, here's one of my oldies: Do you know (without looking) why an ampersand (&) is called an ampersand? Also, do you know what punctuation mark a "Nathan Hale" is? ←

876: 9364: 7502:

reach GA criteria. I saw numerous press releases from AEG, Spears' official website and concert reviews where the colon is not mentioned. Could you change the page to

6269: 2842:

page is experiencing an unusually high number of attacks today from anon users. Could you up the protection level for at least a day, please? It would be appreciated.

1710:, mocking the subject of "Money for Nothing" who he got it from. "Thoughtlessly"? I'd like to see the "thoughtful" version of that. Though the retort was pretty funny. 501: 8283: 4879: 768:

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

9290: 8279: 2025: 9303:

To which behavior do you refer? Being able to find secondary peer reviewed sources in Medline, or leaving a dispute tag on an article in dispute? I've taken it to

2918:

You made 4 reverts. The next highest was 2. Nobody else had more than one. If there was edit warring, you were a major part of it. Admins are not exempt from 3rr. -

2819:

It seems you are under a bit of a load these days. Please let me know if you're unable to respond at this time so that I can take this to a less embattled admin. --

9653: 8291: 7370:

The last edit I see from the IP is "21:09, 22 December 2009". The talkpage warnings are after that. Let me know if there are more postings or another IP involved.

6451: 2744: 8161: 7781:

Happy holidays and best wishes for new year ... And perhaps someone will give you steel-plated leathers. :-) (Much better present than glue of any kind.) Cheers.

5863:

but I don't vandalize Knowledge; I just make/watch videos. For more info, just search the Knowledge Help and Project Pages for "Barney Bunch" and "Drew Pickles".

3455:

Murphy's law. If there are one or two more blankings of that section, I should probably semi-protect it. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll watch it for a bit longer.

8480:

Just seems to be an IP vandal magnet. You semi-protected him before ... is it ok for me to bring this to you, or do I have to go back to the noticeboard? Tx.--

441:; 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 1625:...is a good one. It's interesting to see a film do better at the box office its second week and even better its third week. That's "word of mouth" in action. ← 9790: 6969:

I'm dubious of the caption on the second Weatherly building photo. That looks distinctly like an image of the buildings AFTER facade work was mostly completed.

3678:

I'll be doing whatever is prescribed at ANI. So far the thread has just been continued bickering by the usual suspects, not a consensus among administrators.

2118: 9115:

Hell In A Bucket, my advice to you would be to drop this discussion. Between JV, tedder, and myself, you can be assured that your concerns will be resolved.

7933:

Merry Christmas, Tedder! Don't y'all celebrate Xmas out in the Northwest? Or is the kitchen cleaned already and everyone else gone to bed? Hope you enjoyed,

3795: 3771: 3270: 2204: 2162: 2144: 410:

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.

9816: 9257:

I have filed the report at SPI and a quick look at my contributions shows that I am familiar with BLP and ANI as I have edited here for several months now.

9077:

also. To Hell* and Proof*, you have both been here long enough to know there are better avenues to settle a dispute than by shopping around to talk pages.

7840:

Please refrain from from editing know public facts from the page it is very disruptive and unconstructive. Thanks for your support in the WIKI community.

7225:

Now that I've resized the photos.. yeah, the chandelier thing might work best. I kinda like the borders on the Weatherly (building), it has that raw look.

7952:, but yeah- I spent time with family yesterday and this morning, Mrs. Tedder is still off visiting family, so I'm poking around here. Of course, what are 927: 858:

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?

838:] 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 5386: 4136: 4100: 4071: 3617: 2756: 1415:. Where does it require that an SPI is used? It doesn't. Further, Dan's account is open for "appeal" through an unblock request, which hasn't been used. 1174: 877: 6905: 3994:

Note I'm not asking you to never come to my talk page, my real goal is to centralize this discussion. It seems like it's spilled over into many arenas.

2999:. As long as discussion remains on topic and moving forward, there is no great harm in letting readers know that our articles could be better. When the 1048:. 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: 234: 9035: 8327: 6985:

Re: architectural savagery--Oh, you've been to downtown Eugene, Oregon, then? ;) I believe the phrase an actual Eugene architect used was "butt ugly".

4269:

I understand. But if I change it now, I'm just continuing the conflict. If we wait until the consensus is a little clearer, it's very easy to justify.

1730:. I think I'd be shown the door in about 3 days for loudly using comparisons to Herr Hitler every hour just to see if he'd yell "I'm invoking my law!" 1662:

was, but that was only supposed to be a light comedy anyway. Sandra's not really my type, but she hits a chord with a lot of viewers. Oddly enough, in

1002: 780: 723: 678: 3187:

My question is, what should I do about this second page that I've found for her? Should I request that it be deleted, and if so how do I do that? --

2682:

preferred version. I don't believe I've stated my opinion about the article one way or another. I should have protected it a few hours ago, but I was

1578:

No problem. I figured you knew, but I wanted to state the obvious, especially because of how nitpicky I'm being about edits to the article right now.

1091: 9716: 8928: 8524:

5% of edits, yes, but that's for an article that hasn't seen protection lately. So yes, (as an example) 3 of 5 edits is more than 5%, but it isn't a

5521: 4871: 4521:, but it seems you might have missed a step in your admin actions, as a bot removed the protection template for being used on a non-protected page. 4308: 3416: 3399: 3359: 3344: 3329: 3314: 2872: 2336: 2249: 5927: 5891: 4663: 4381: 4364: 4003: 3989: 3973: 3959: 3945: 3930: 3915: 3880: 2605: 2570: 2544: 940:

part of Knowledge's policy permits baseless accusations of fraud to be made anywhere on Knowledge. That is why we have a BLP in the first place. --

9735: 7753:

Half-way there... up ahead of me ... there was a car stopped at the stop sign ... which few ever stop for long at, since there is no traffic there.

7668: 7568:"I see you as a bitter, angry person. Probably felt rejected due to your sexual orientation. I also do not believe that you have Kartvelian genes." 5562: 5535: 5474: 4353: 4317:

there's been no edit warring.. a week seems excessive. I say drop it to 24 hours as a cooling off period for everyone. Do you mind if I do this? --

3731: 1045: 901:

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

897: 9878: 7755:

I was thinking about why that car wasn't moving on, when I realized (remember the gin?) that I had not begun applying the brakes as I should have.

5506: 4240:

Well, it's no big deal; but basically, we have had the correct wording in that sentence, accurately reflecting a good source, for at least a year

4043:

There have already been too many words said about this. There's not much unique to be said about it. Please, pile on at the ANI thread, not here.

3638: 1897:

The abbreviation "etc." was once often rendered "&c." which is perfectly valid and means exactly the same thing, but it fell out of fashion. ←

519: 487: 458: 251: 9150: 9006: 8629: 7647:

Hey. I don't have any experience closing TfDs, so I think I'll pass. But- thanks! It's nice to know I'm thought of in some semi-positive manner.

6718: 6436: 5783: 5420: 5316: 4649: 4635: 3148: 2866: 1037: 775:

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 --

646: 9101: 9053: 8980: 8313: 5512:

I don't see any reason for admin intervention there- the pages don't exist and they aren't protected. You shouldn't have a problem moving them.

5435: 4604: 4326: 3291: 3115:

the maintenance and administration of Knowledge can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

3098:

Additionally, I am concerned that you have used your position as an adminstrator to "bless" specific changes to articles or tags. Please review

3036: 2969: 7612: 7596: 7484: 7468: 7305: 7291: 7277: 7220: 7194: 7023: 7009: 6994: 6980: 6925: 6887: 6851: 6034: 5382: 3780:

in this instance. Tedder, on the ANI thread I have invited you to review your own actions, especially in relation to 3RR and PROTECT policies.

3611: 3524: 3233: 3215: 2890: 915: 291: 194: 180: 145: 9641: 8391: 8377: 6293: 5914:

Good idea. If you want to learn even more about them you could watch one of their "swell" (why they're obsessed with that word, I don't know)

4850:

Thanks for your help and support this year, you are one of the best admins I have found. I look forward to coming across you again next year.

1522: 1105: 414:

not really accurate especially since there were quite a few edits in only a few minutes (unlike some articles which last weeks between edits)

9890: 9860: 9841: 9294: 8307: 7922: 7826: 7809: 7757:

Road was paved, but there was gravel down at intersection ... which when I laid the bike down to slide ... took skin off long stretch of hip.

6760: 6503: 6489: 6474: 5808: 5781: 5716:

to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person". Note the emphasis I've added. In any case, please take your objections to the

4611: 4506: 3903: 1961: 1947: 1934: 1920: 1905: 1890: 1876: 1862: 1809: 1795: 1778: 1766: 1756: 1739: 1721: 1697: 1674: 1652: 1062: 870: 776: 719: 9344: 9330: 9316: 9252: 9226: 8642:

Ciao, Tedder. You full-protected this article seven weeks ago due to a content dispute. Any thoughts on when this might be lifted? Regards,

8614: 7879: 7364: 7136:(left we go) Alternate DYK pic for the Oriental is at left. It's as good as I can do. Strangely, I couldn't even figure out how to do it in 4486: 4144: 4130: 4108: 4094: 3438: 1496: 981: 970: 944: 832:

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

9280: 9266: 8359: 8091: 8077: 7790: 7535: 7119: 6828: 6645: 6622: 6447: 6049:

talk page. I'll be going on holiday Monday for a week, thus if you can keep an eye on any issues that'd be lovely. Yesterday I gave them a

4972: 3496:

Just a quick note to say thanks for locking this page meantime. I've now warned two editors about the 3RR rule and set up a discussion at

3203: 2951: 1025: 8537: 8519: 8505: 8132: 5839: 5825: 5660: 5646: 5624: 5609: 4898: 4791: 4777: 4679: 4453: 4439: 4412: 4397: 4370: 3692:

Ok I reposted the question there as you asked, but now I'm unsure of one thing. Do you acknowledge you were error (3RR and PROTECT wise)?

3478: 3464: 2989: 1601: 1587: 1573: 1540: 845:

The "Business Visuals in Communication" explains the value proposition behind what people use the product before; how is this advertising?

562: 9782: 9763: 9321:

I'm referring to your knowledge of 3RR, RFPP, ANI, etc within your first dozen edits on Knowledge. You've been around for quite a while.

8861: 8738: 8699: 8685: 8669: 7734: 7695: 7419: 7396: 7379: 6246: 5794: 5763: 5744: 5729: 5265: 5194: 3160: 2472:

Thanks. I'll make an attempt to consolidate things into the new section that Verbal demanded on his talk page. This will be located at

1478: 1456: 1424: 1342: 1292: 1221: 349: 269: 9690: 8851: 8833: 8809: 8230: 6348: 6323: 5975: 5068: 4575: 4558: 4292: 4278: 4264: 4235: 4217: 4079: 2764:

the next fourteen days. You will see from the history that anon vandalism is ongoing and not restricted to the past few days. Cheers, --

2027:

and the good faith proposal I had made there some time ago. There has been no attempt by the other parties on that page to address the

958: 386: 343: 9589: 9569: 9552: 9533: 9518: 9481: 9176: 9086: 9068: 8180: 6967:

The interior shots of the Oriental look fantastic. I don't know what any of that has to do with seeing movies, but it seems very cool.

5405: 5370: 5242: 3753: 2851: 2645: 2484: 2467: 2453: 2380: 2354: 2296: 2282: 2096: 2078: 1369:

Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring,

1160: 1145: 8953: 8256: 8212: 8194: 7987: 7972: 7656: 7262: 7234: 7046: 6797: 6678: 6442: 5909: 5280: 5232: 5214: 5139: 5011: 4345: 4052: 3815: 3687: 3673: 3653: 3596: 3449: 3180:

characters. My friend pointed it out because the page title is obviously spelt incorrectly and she was suggesting that we move it to

3014: 2716: 2695: 2673: 2629: 2424: 2400: 2230: 2013: 1839: 1633: 1558: 825: 762: 705: 208: 9438: 9420: 9399: 8465: 8451: 6421: 6305: 4099:

Yes, I live in Oregon (the portland metro area). I've used Knowledge for a long time (as a reader) and I've recently begun editing.

3176:

I'm looking for your advice on what to do here. One of my friends pointed out this page to me before. It's a page about one of the

3132:

reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention." Thanks.

2927: 2913: 2811: 2788: 2634: 2528: 2521: 2324: 2320: 2313: 2256: 8024: 6603: 6192: 5053: 4191: 1444: 793:

The "Product Features and Automation" section has no sources given. It's effectively advertising about the benefits of the software.

631: 9722: 9708: 9625: 9058:

Tedder: See the last section on my talk page please, I'd appreciate if you could take it over, as I intend to go to sleep shortly.

9019: 6573: 6559: 6541: 6526: 6132: 6102: 5918:. Personally, I think they're funny (I actually made that video!). But I agree, Knowledge is NOT the place for that sort of humor. 5594: 5301: 1401: 1202: 977:

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. --

8963:

goes both ways- it's an advantage and a disadvantage. I can sort of see what you mean, but .. the best thing to do is probably to

7153: 6957: 5159: 4838:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! 3800:

Not sure if you may have missed the above request in the recent edits to this page, so applying a bump. Sorry if you already saw.

3255: 2473: 9751: 9671: 7170: 6695: 6511: 6299: 6012: 5872: 5381:

Sorry about protection requests, I misunderstood the policy. Thanks for the clarification - I'll come back if anything kicks off

3767: 3251: 2158: 2153:, no matter how entrenched their POV, to agree in those cases is unrealistic. At some point we need to say we agree to disagree. 2114: 7680: 7556: 6627: 6221: 4533: 3350:

book." That's utterly ridiculous, and if that sort of claim has to be argued on talk than you're leaving the vandals in charge.

2531:. At least it gave pointers here. As far as moderating the issue on the talk page, there are enough editors already. I'm trying 1193:

also have bizarre rants going on about abuse of admin powers and other conspiracies, so no doubt it's the same individual here.

8894:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 8580:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 6387:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 5960: 4583: 4465: 4022:

say this out of surprise and shock - I still think you are a good admin, but this is not the way to deal with valid criticism.

3563:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 3509: 2561:

is rather ironic. If you're trying *not* to be involved, then I suggest you simply back out - you are no longer being helpful

2240:. Keep in mind there are a handful of these climate-change articles that are hotly contested- they should be lumped together. 1073: 423: 126: 9125: 8910: