User talk:Tedder

Flip Video Mino

I have replied to your request. Stealth (talk)

Nice

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for patrolling the 'pedia. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

-) thanks! tedder (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Redlink edit

It actually wasn't a redlink anymore when I de-linked it. I redirected NESBA to the New England Scholastic Band Association and that redlink was included. Therefore since I had never heard of anything pertaining to the NESBA organization, being a track and field athlete myself, I removed it and hoped that someone would come along and create the link with the full name. Also, if it didn't exist, it could possibly be an organization that by Wiki standards, is unnotable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. It's likely to not be notable, but I was curious. FWIW, here's what it is. tedder (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact date on magic numbers

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure either. But since I'd changed it I thought should change the fact date.

I am still not really happy about my additions for other magic numbers like pi, e, and other mathematical constants being removed. Perhaps I will make a separate section.

S.

SimonTrew (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I should make it clear, I am a pragmatic programmer, and come across magic numbers like that every day in my work. So will people reading this site-- newbie programmers. We are not a teaching site as such, but I think we should reference those, they occur too frequently to be ignored.

But on the whole well done to everyone for tidying this article up a bit! Thatprobably sounds patronising but I mean it.

SimonTrew (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all- thanks, and I agree with you. The list of magic numbers is fun, but there are useful items too. My theory on "resetting the date" is it should be avoided because it emphasizes how long a given statement has been there. It's a flag there is a missing ref, and the content may be deleted if the content can't be backed up with reliable sources. In any case, it is a case of picking nits- but it's what us geeks do best, right? tedder (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's tricky with things like Pi or e. You do find them a lot in code. Or the square root of two say. A lot of programmers-- especially from FORTRAN tradition-- just write them in cos it is easier than them looking up the constant, or even do mor bizarre things like the arctan of -1 which takes AGES (relatively speaking). These constants are all built in to the numeric processor, and (we assume) the compiler will program against them. You just need a bit of percussive maintenence to tell people not to use them.

User:Smratlik

Smratlik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I turned him in to WP:AIV for uncivil behavior and for being a probable sock of you-know-who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Katr67 turned him in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse 45 minutes earlier. We'll get him one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

shocking. s-h-o-c-k-i-n-g. :-) tedder (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should create a graph showing the frequency of attempts of that character to get his pet paragraph installed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean I have to quit working on the remote-operated cattle prod? tedder (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. We all have our projects to complete. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing I wonder is why he's so hung up on this one paragraph. It could just be an obsessive game. But I wonder if he got mugged at PCHS once, or some deal like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. The para itself is interesting, as it's almost a backhanded complement. It sure is a lot of calories to burn for that one inconsequential line, though; I mean, creating tons of accounts, making legit edits, keeping tabs on all the accounts.. tedder (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, they want more evidence at the checkuser case, and I don't have the patience. (It seems obvious enough to me--edited the same marriage licence article, etc.) Care to do the honors? Katr67 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added what we know so far about this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was enough evidence that they approved going ahead with the checkuser. If I were running wikipedia, any editor who even raises the question and doesn't give a straightforward answer to "what do you want to edit?" should be assumed to be a sock and blocked accordingly. I'm sure he's getting a big thrill, a power trip, out of wasting everyone's time here, making us go through these gyrations every time. An immediate smackdown might take some of that thrill away. The alternative, of course, is to just give him the cold shoulder, i.e. don't even acknowledge the question. Easier said than done, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea, similar to the Muhammad page where they have an ongoing disclaimer as to why the illustrations are allowed. If anyone raises the question, they are simply referred to the disclaimer and that's that. Similarly, one user today (User:Barek) has the start of that idea - to list the occasions when it's been fully protected. And he somewhat gets around the ego boost by simply talking about "the vandal" and not alluding to what it specifically is. If a guy asks what it is, tell him to read the history. And when he starts making insulting remarks, smack him down. That's one idea, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Basically "this page is full-prot because (x), (y), (z). If you'd like to make a change, please list leave a comment." Somehow it needs to say "if you whine about the prot, you are probably a troll/sock/jerk" without saying so in a mean way. tedder (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The one editor left that full explanation. That might actually be sufficient. Any new questions, we could just refer to that explanation. We can probably leave out the "troll" part, although it's tempting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be ideal, I think, is to add a link to the Protection Log to the talk page for that article. I have searched about a fair bit but I can't find a way of linking to it (other than the Protect page, which is admin-only, so useless for most editors). Meh. Try this: [1] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that I think of it, even summarizing the protection log amounts to an ego stroke for the persistent vandal. Where's Johnny Martorano when you need him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello tedder. Sorry for my disruptive edit. But this does not mean you want to send me a message about it. :( For prevention of blocking, I won't edit that page anymore. Hope you are not gonna block me....thank you for information. Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)