User talk:Anne Teedham
If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your Talkpage, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
This space is used primarily for issues related to copyediting. If you have come upon my name with respect to articles, please direct your concerns onto the various Talkpages of those articles. I will answer your concerns there.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~).
unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
John Pitcairn, Jr. review[edit]
Thank you very much for your assessment, Anne. I will follow your advice, and then take you up on your generous offer of a GA review. --wormcast (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wormcast, before you come back, I would like to see that you clear those redlinked wikilinks. :) One suggestion is to use an extremely good, reliable external link until you can rectify the redlink with an appropriate wikilink. :o On the way to an A-rating the editors will frown upon anything untidy. :p Annie
- Will do, Annie - thanks. --wormcast (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wormcast, another way is to create an explanatory notes subsection within References, then babble as much as you want about the redlink until you can write an appropriate Wikipedia article on same. (See how this is accomplished here for explanatory note 4.) I believe Hag2 is in the proces of writing an article on Earl Brian; and once he is finished, I expect him to delete all unnecessarily redundant material from 4. (I think that he can do that now; so I'll suggest removal to him after you have had a chance to see what I describe.) Annie
- I took a look, and I may just use that approach (in any case, if I don't for Pitcairn, its a good technique to know - thanks). Its a recurring question: when to leave a redlink, whip up a quick stub, use a note, rely on an external link, or even simply choose not call attention to every proper noun that could be the subject of an article. Boils down to time and ambition, I suppose. In an case, its nice to have options. --wormcast (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I am going to ask Hag2 to join this discussion to explain why he elected his procedure. Personally, I like your concept: "simply choose not call attention to every proper noun..." A
- Hi, Annie. According to the WP: red links, Wikipedia encourages writers to use them if the writers plan to write articles on same. To me, this is too broad unless there is a time-period, e.g. a 30 to 90-day delay. But if it is going to be much longer, than I would discourage the use of the red link altogether, as Wormcast suggests. The reason that I use the "explanatory note" citation for my own approach is two-fold: I do not want to overlook important information while writing an article; nor do I want other editors to begin throwing at me templates about the need for one thing or another. Using my approach though, is time-consuming busywork. I doubt that I want to encourage others to use it unless they are comfortable with coding. If anyone needs further elaboration, please ask. Until then, I will consider that I have said enough. (p.s. I followed your advice and remove the "note" material about Earl Brian. But it took me appx. 30-days to provide an adequate article on him covering those same details...ugh. Thanks.) Hag2 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I am going to ask Hag2 to join this discussion to explain why he elected his procedure. Personally, I like your concept: "simply choose not call attention to every proper noun..." A
- I took a look, and I may just use that approach (in any case, if I don't for Pitcairn, its a good technique to know - thanks). Its a recurring question: when to leave a redlink, whip up a quick stub, use a note, rely on an external link, or even simply choose not call attention to every proper noun that could be the subject of an article. Boils down to time and ambition, I suppose. In an case, its nice to have options. --wormcast (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wormcast, another way is to create an explanatory notes subsection within References, then babble as much as you want about the redlink until you can write an appropriate Wikipedia article on same. (See how this is accomplished here for explanatory note 4.) I believe Hag2 is in the proces of writing an article on Earl Brian; and once he is finished, I expect him to delete all unnecessarily redundant material from 4. (I think that he can do that now; so I'll suggest removal to him after you have had a chance to see what I describe.) Annie
- Will do, Annie - thanks. --wormcast (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Lester Coleman[edit]
Thank you for all the hard work you're doing to clean up both the Lester Coleman article and what looks like a hoax Lex Coleman article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Patrick, thank you. I arrived at Lester's playground because he filed a sworn affidavit with Inslaw Inc. v. United States Government. His connection to Danny Casolaro gave credence to Michael Riconosciuto's allegations and/or insinuations surrounding DEA-drug-arms-CIA dealing and Nicosia and Lebanon and Micheal T. Hurley. I am not entirely certain how or why I found Hurley's book, I Solemnly Swear, but it certainly was a refreshing discovery in the "midst of all the above fog." I'll keep slicing my way through, though my foglights get awfuly buggie at times. I was tickled to see your January 2009 entry. It is nice to know we share a common opinion. Anne Teedham (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Patrick, I'm going to propose a merger of all material from Lex Coleman into the primary article called, Lester Coleman. I've never done this before, but I've read through the procedure and I think that I can handle the entire process—unless you would prefer to do it yourself, or that you would NOT encourage the merge. As soon as I see your response here, I will begin the insertion of the two proposal templates with their corresponding redirection to a single talkpage discussion which will be located at the destination-page (i.e. Talk:Lester Coleman), under a subheading called "proposed merger". How does all this sound to you? Anne Teedham (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Anne, your merger plan looks good to me. Regretably, I won't be able to assist because, crazy as it seems, I am now banned from editing any Lockerbie-related article, and Lester Coleman is one such!---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do. I imagine that your critics have suggested that you are too close to your subject. So...just give it a little time, back off a bit, and.... I will proceed with the merger. (p.s. Call yourself Lestoil and create a new name. It won't bother me.) Annie
- It'll probably bother my critics though — see their warnings about evading the ban on Lockerbie-related editing by such dastardly means as sockpuppetry.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do. I imagine that your critics have suggested that you are too close to your subject. So...just give it a little time, back off a bit, and.... I will proceed with the merger. (p.s. Call yourself Lestoil and create a new name. It won't bother me.) Annie
- Hello Anne, your merger plan looks good to me. Regretably, I won't be able to assist because, crazy as it seems, I am now banned from editing any Lockerbie-related article, and Lester Coleman is one such!---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Patrick, I'm going to propose a merger of all material from Lex Coleman into the primary article called, Lester Coleman. I've never done this before, but I've read through the procedure and I think that I can handle the entire process—unless you would prefer to do it yourself, or that you would NOT encourage the merge. As soon as I see your response here, I will begin the insertion of the two proposal templates with their corresponding redirection to a single talkpage discussion which will be located at the destination-page (i.e. Talk:Lester Coleman), under a subheading called "proposed merger". How does all this sound to you? Anne Teedham (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyedit[edit]
Hi, I saw your name on WP:PRV, and was wondering if you still did general copyedits. A list I have contributed to, List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes, recently passed an FLC, but Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) commented that it still needs a copyedit on my talk page. While the list did pass FLC, it still needs another lookover so the prose, especially the episode summaries, can be tightened. Can you take a look? Thanks! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Abusing multiple accounts[edit]
Hi. I have blocked this and the other accounts you have been abusing to feign consensus in article discussions. We don't tolerate that.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Anne Teedham (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Suppose you explain to me whatever is on your mind.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Note to reviewing admin: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anne Teedham, and the edits of the members of that category, should be observed. This is checkuser (me) verified. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Anne Teedham (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've done everything that I can imagine is necessary to continue as an active participant in Wikipedia. If you insist on penalizing me due to the harrassing nature of a vindictive woman named Rachael Begley [1][2] (talk), then I am not going to pursue the matter any farther. Ms Begley's harrassment is annoying; she has entrenched herself in a conspiracy theory involving Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Earl Brian, Peter Videnieks, Michael Riconosciuto, October surprise conspiracy theory, and Lester Coleman, but fails to recognize that the death of her father, Ralph Boger, may not be related to any of this, and that the answers to her suppositions delve deeply into a 28-year-old labyrinth of lies, deceptions, disinformation, and murky realms to which I am little more than a voice in the wilderness. With respect to sockpuppetry issues, guidelines, etceteras, I find everything very confusing. As I have stated on Merry Yellow's talkpage, I apologize. I can do nothing more than that. You either will continue to penalize me forever for something to which I feel I have been appropritely penalized, or you will accept my apology. I will not be answering any further commentary on this issue. If the block is lifted, fine. If not, that is also ok. I have tried to be a good, pleasant, and productive member of your community. Hopefully someone will take the time to read through my past contributions (for all the sockpuppets) and see that my mistake was never meant to be mean-spirited. I would like to suggest that you also look into User Desertfae's participation in Wikipedia, into issues raised here by User:TimonyCrickets which were probably in reference to Desertfae's use of User talk:Winksatfriend as her own sockpuppet. Thank you. Anne Teedham (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. The parts of your statement that do not accuse others do not adequately address the reason for your block. Sandstein 17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Note to reviewing admin: User:Anne Teedham was blocked last March for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus. Somehow, it slipped under our radar that she'd created at least one other account, User:Merry Yellow, almost immediately, and proceeded to edit from there. This was pointed out to me today by User:Desertfae, and I've blocked the block evading alternate account and suggested she seek unblocking from the community on this page. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Lester Coleman (1990).jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Lester Coleman (1990).jpg, which you've attributed to tagged CC but stated as "without permission" and cited source is a dead-link (and not on wayback). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)