User talk:Tedder

St. Matthew High School (Orleans, Ontario)

Would you like me to Source the newspaper article again for proof that the school beat the world record, or are you so insane that you would like me to go to a local library and take out the guiness book sourcing that to satisfy your ego? Seriously, what is someone from Seattle who is an Athiest doing on a Canadian catholic highschool page? Troll!(angreh that catholics beat a recard arent you, you poor wittle athiest?) :| (Midousan (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Flip Video Mino

I have replied to your request. Stealth (talk)

AGV Sports

Hi Tedder,

My name is Julien, I'm a french Student in the IT department of the Ecole Centrale in Lille France. I would like know why you have deleted historical information and important racers names from the AGV Sports Group Wikipedia page without giving any reason for that on the talk page? I ask that because during my school course I had to present this company for a school paper and I'm very familiar with their history. That's why I can say that the first version of the AGV Sports Group Wikipedia page was valuable. Moreover you have deleted some valuable reference links and now there is the "Wikipedia article issues" tag on the top of the page. Finally, why do you choose only this company without the same concern for information about the others Motorcycle apparel companies which are doing blatant advertising on their Wikipedia page (Dainese for example ==> lines 5, 9, 13,18, 20). Please answer me by giving your reasons and where you get the information on my discussion page?

Thank you,

Julien —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterCobalt (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi MisterColbalt, and welcome to Wikipedia. I gave reasons for the deletions on the AGV Sports Group edit summary. The concern is that the article was written as an advertisement. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for spam, nor should it be used as a laundry list of individuals sponsored by the company. The external links I removed were per WP:EL: they aren't reliable, primary sources. For instance, having a link to the logo of the company is not necessary. If you want more assistance, let me know. tedder (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder,

I have read the WP:EL page and would like to note that the article was only meant to read as a historical and informative article in a neutral point of view. I haven’t linked any sites where products are advertised nor sold. So I would like to know what part of the article sounds like an advertisement or has impartial point of view? Also, the racer names that have been deleted from the AGV Sport page were important historical facts to the history of AGV Sports Group. Anyone can see these names and create Wiki page if they like. There isn’t any rule in Wikipedia that states you can’t mention names of actual people that are crucial to the development of a company if they do not have their own Wiki page. Furthermore, the critical links that I’ve posted, such as the AGV Helmet Official site ( www.agv.it ) or the AGV Helmet Wiki page are important to the history of AGV Sports Group, and were deleted without a notification on why or how or if they even needed to be improved. The external links aren’t a matter of advertisement, but as a reference to the history and evolution of the AGV Sport brand especially in relation to AGV Helmets in Italy. I have linked the logo of the company to specifically reference a legal trademark on a site (www.brandsoftheworld.com) to show the relationship and legal differences of logos from AGV Helmets and AGV Sports group and how they evolved from a common brand, logo and history. The use of this site is critical to identify and distinguish the intellectual properties of AGV Helmets and AGV Sports Group. It would also be helpful to describe the improper text or images that are controversial instead of deleting without proper notifying why and what? Such as the important images of Keith Code and the California Superbike School (20 years old) relative to important sponsorships of AGV Sports Group, or the pictures of the first AGV Sport Brochures made in 1985 that show the beginning stages of AGV Sports Group with the AGV Helmet logo. The deletion of the image of the historical CX1 Glove which was a critical point in AGV Helmet -AGV Sport history and evolution was also deleted without any proper reasoning. But the images of Giacomo Agostini in the early 1970’s wearing an AGV helmet and Bates leathers were left on the article that has less relevance compared to the CX1 glove, confusing me why or what your reason or intentions are. Why would a photo of Bates leathers be on the AGV Sport site and not the CX-1 glove. Should the reader think there is a relationship between AGV and Bates or AGV Sport and Bates? It is only creating more problems and making the article more difficult to write. I’m only trying to improve the article, not to advertise or write information that doesn’t have a neutral view. I’ve looked at other wiki site such as Dianese and Alpinestars and others as reference to improve the AGV Sports Group article, however it seems as though they have less historical facts and FAR MORE of a non-neutral view or commercial tone of a bias view than AGV Sports Group, yet they don’t have any tags or issues with their article. Two months prior, there was a tag for revision stating multiple issues with the article. Changes were made and the wiki tag was removed and it was my understanding that the article was legitimate. Now we have more issues and it’s becoming more difficult to write a factually accurate article and to understand why and what the specific problems you believe exist with the article. Please let me know how I can improve the article if we can find a common ground.

This article is much more than a historical story about the AGVSPORT brand. This is a unique story about a very unusual intellectual property issue that rarely occurs. Two independent companies in foreign countries sharing the same base trade name and history. It has happened very few times like with Rolls Royce Cars and Rolls Royce Aircraft engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterCobalt (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julien, let me sort this out a little bit.

• Be careful comparing article A to article B. Just because another article is written poorly isn't an excuse for this article to be written poorly too. (See WP:OSE; it's in terms of deletion of articles, but makes this point very well)
• I removed images from the article per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which says Wikipedia isn't meant to be a repository of images. In other words, it shouldn't be an image gallery. I'm sorry if I removed the wrong ones- I was trying to use my intuition on which ones were more or less notable. What's more important is the overall number of images- for an article that length, it should really only have two or three images. An example of a good image-heavy page is Motorcycle. There are a lot of images, but they are not in a gallery and don't overwhelm the article. Feel free to substitute "better" images for "worse" ones, but try to keep the overall number somewhat reasonable.
• My concern about "advert" is with the AGV Sport article as a whole. It read fairly heavily as a corporate PR piece- something you'd expect to read from AGV Sport, not something that should be on a balanced encyclopedia. Some highlights from WP:ADVERT: "public relations pieces designed to promote a company (..) articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language". The WP:NPOV cornerstone is very applicable here- notable companies have a good deal of third-party material written about them which can be used to create a neutral point of view about the company, rather than relying upon information from the companies.
• Notability of racers and sponsorees(?): if it's just a list of people that AGV Sport has sponsored, it falls under notability criteria. Lists are discouraged in general, but if it is a list, the individuals need to have clear notability. That can be done within the AGV Sport page, or it can be done on the individual's page. The latter is much more clear, and keeps the notability discussion from dominating the AGV Sport page. If, however, they are central to AGV Sport's history, I'd suggest writing it as a paragraph with solid references. Otherwise, simply listing who AGV Sport has sponsored isn't much different than listing who Paris Hilton hangs out with- it's not entirely encyclopedic.

I think I've addressed your main concerns- let me know if I haven't. And if you feel I'm personally being difficult, know that a good course of action is to take it to the AGV Sport talk page and then post to wpmoto's talk page if you don't hear back from anyone. However, I hope you don't feel that is necessary- I'm very interested in the subject, and I'm trying to keep the AGV Sport article on Wikipedia (as I stated on the AGV Sport talk page).

Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder,

why do you do so many changes on the AGV Sports Group page? What is the purpose to put the citation tag on a year or state of the USA?

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRobert86 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy- the idea is to get those facts backed up with reliable sources. Cheers, tedder (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to PageName, you will be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyRobert86 (talk • contribs)

Leaving here, but don't template the regulars. Please take it to the AGV Sport talk page. tedder (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tedder, You must stop vandalizing this site and applying your arbitrary and capricious thoughts and opinions to this one particular site. I have already referenced for you three of thousands of sites which show your "requirements" are a matter of your own imagination. Tagging my “undos” of your vandalism is really rather comical. If you do not stop your over month long deliberate interference and damage on this site I am going to contact every possible person within Wikipedia, the Wikipedia community including administrators, and also AGV Sports Group themselves as well as outside groups that seek to counter vandalism and the dissemination of false information. I have save all the records of every “edit” and “undo” you have made on this company’s sit for the past 60 days. Maybe this is a game to you; I am not sure what your motivations are. It is not important. What is important is that you are deliberately removing and adding information as well as imposing rules that seem to apply to no other page. Cease and desist. Julia Dzigora —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaDzigora (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tedder,

This is Julien from France again, I have often checked the AGV Sports Group wikipedia page this month, everything was right and I can't understand the changes that you made specifically the citation tags for the year of foundation and the founder of the company.. If you look at AGV Helmets, Dainese, Alpinestars, Suzuki, Honda or Harley Davidson Wikipedia pages you don't see any citation for the year of foundation or the name of the founder. Why do you think that this citations are needed only for the AGV Sports Group Wikipedia page? I will be quiet short that the information on when the company was founded or by is supply by the company itself and not by a third part. Finally I would like know what is your purpose to create all these requirements only on this and not on the other Motorcycle page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterCobalt (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bigweeboy's redlink removal

Hi Tedder:

Thanks for your comment on removing red links. I will be more vigilant to see that these links should be removed. I am not trying to create any hard with these changes, simply trying to clean up links that do not exist and where the Wiki entry is quite old, and the likehood of that link being created is small. I'll try to do better. Bigweeboy

I replied on your talk page. tedder (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder. But how do we know what the chances are that a page will ever be created for a red link? bigweeboy (talk)

BWB- there is certainly an element of guesswork involved. But you can use the guidelines of WP:NOT and WP:N as a general guideline. In other words, there'll probably never be an article about Bigweeboy's contributions to world peace, but perhaps there will be one about Malia Obama's contributions to world peace in the future, if she grows up to receive a Nobel Prize. In general, is it possible an article would be created? To use the spider example, it's quite possible those three links could be created at some point. Hope that helps. Your (other) contributions are excellent- you obviously have an editors' eye, which I don't. tedder (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder. I am a new editor and were not familiar with the policy on red links. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I really want to contribute to Wiki and I thought this was a job that helped Wiki get 'cleaned up'. I won't remove any more red links. My reputation on Wiki is important to me and I want to go on record as saying that I innocently removed red links and did not make any other removals like content, templates, I didn't blank out anything, as indicated by your posts on my page. Would you kindly clarify that on my user talk page - that the problem was just red links and it was innocent and I have stopped. Again, many thanks for your help and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigweeboy (talk • contribs)

No problem- actually, just delete what you want from your user page. Once you've done that, I'll post something complimentary on there. And don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes. tedder (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from RGB

Hi Tedder,

I will do my homework on the process of providing information to this remarkable resource. It wasn't clear to me, however, whether my contributions to the Loyalty Marketing article were accepted. Thanks. RGB (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi- the problem is that wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, including citing oneself. It's important to draw from reliable published sources. Let me know if you have more questions. tedder (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

High Point Market

Hi Tedder,

I was wondering why a link to our news source covering the High Point Market would be considered "Disruptive" and "Spam". Our publication, Furniture Today is a reputable website with daily coverage of this bi-annual event. If a user is looking for additional information about the event, why would our news coverage be considered spam and any reason to be blacklisted from Wikipedia.

Thank you,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.213.5 (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• High Point Market / the revert / the website in question

Hi John. I have a couple of issues. The actual content of furnituretoday may be fine, but it's mired in a couple of issues. First, conflict of interest: obviously you are related to the publication. That's okay, but it means you have to follow the COI guidelines very carefully- especially this section. Not that you can't post, but the conflict of interest certainly makes it harder.

Second, link spam and spam. The furnituretoday site has a lot of advertising, including an interstitial ad. That means any links you add look even more spammy and have a greater conflict of interest, since there is direct gain to be made.

Finally, these are both issues that can be overcome (though the interstitial rubs me, and probably others, the wrong way). Your case would be better if you made an effort to contribute to wikipedia outside of areas that you have a conflict of interest. For instance, if you had 50 edits and only one of them was a link to furnituretoday, it'd be a lot easier to ignore.

Keep in mind this is all my point of view. If you feel I'm way off base, you can take it to the talk page of the High Point Market. Having said that, I'm not opposed to that link being re-added, since it does appear to be a reliable source for this niche industry (i.e., something that isn't going to receive coverage from NYTimes or the Washington Post). But don't be surprised if the amount of advertising and spam causes other editors to reach the same conclusion.

So, I'm being verbose. Let me sum up again- you can go ahead and re-add the link, but read the COI and SPAM policies very carefully.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, thanks for the great information.. as a Long-time Wiki-User, First-Wiki Editor, I have a lot to learn. I'm currently going through the material you sent, but I am already understanding why my link may be considered Wiki-Spam, even though it is providing valuable information. Thanks again, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.213.5 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, John. Please drop by my talk page again if you have any questions. tedder (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

JamNow Deletions

Hi Tedder,

I see that you have deleted some links inserted in the From First to Last Page and Haste the Day. I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I am just trying to understand the system. I see the pages have links called "Interview w/..." and "Official MySpace page" and I was wondering how this is different from my link. JamNow is a music site which has had several live performances and interviews from signed major artists, similar to MySpace Music. If I was just to list the link as an interview or performance without listing the site name would that be acceptable? This would be fine, but they actually are profiles of artists, and I would not know any other way to convey this.

Thank you for the help, Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.158.56 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scott, and welcome to Wikipedia. The external link guidelines actually say that interview links are okay- but where your posts ran afoul is in the link spam guidelines. Basically, your edit history implies a possible conflict of interest, since all you've done is add links to JamNow.

Having said that, the links are useful. I'd suggest making other contributions (not related to JamNow), then gradually add those links back. Figure 50+ unrelated contributions. These are just my recommendations- again, I feel the links could be helpful, but the rules of COI and linkspam mean you need to be careful. tedder (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand where you were coming from. Thank you for the clarification and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.7.106 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Premio Zobel

Hi, I think we just had an edit conflict with this. I was tagging it for the mildly dubious claim of being the oldest literary award in the world, and I think the wikipedia monster ate the template. If it was me, I'm sorry. ;o)--OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries! Thanks for letting me know. tedder (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Laurelwood ELs

This revert/edit: my theory is as follows:

• the duplicated EL is the right way to go for important stuff from the infobox. This is how most articles appear to be, both in and outside of the school articles.
• the inappropriate ELs: outpostcenters might be okay, but not the alumni association; that's no different than a fansite.

Those are my thoughts, at least. tedder (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My explanation for those specific sites is on the talk page. As to the argument that other pages do that, often true, but that only means those need to be fixed, much like most articles on Wikipedia used to be unsourced (maybe even still). I know people consider the "official site" to be very important and hence often duplicating it in both the ELs and the infobox, but I've always wondered why? Neither with an "official" link or other links are we trying to drive traffic to these sites, so there is no reason to list it more than once. Same reason for why we only list one URL per domain, people can find it on their own (to me a perfect article has zero ELs and zero "See alsos", but that's just me). And the rationale for the better placement in the infobox is that is a much more prominent spot (plus as here, the domain is also used as a source, thus EL also says not to duplicate in the ELs). As to fan site, I don't think its quite at that level, but I also think it would then meet the "recognized authority" exception, as would most alumni associations of schools. But in general, I think you are doing a great job of removing bad ELs from Oregon pages. Good luck when you get to the college pages, there normally full of EL violations. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are usually a lot of EL violations, especially on neglected articles. So there are two bits that make me feel the official site should appear in the infobox AND at the bottom, both from WP:EL:

• 2: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox.
• What should be linked: Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

So I read those as saying (a) it's important to have the official site as an EL- if there are any ELs, the first one should be the official site, and (b) duplicating the infobox and the bottom is permissible. Combining (a) and (b) says to me that IF there is an EL section, the first one should be the official site. Does that make sense?

Using the worst argument of all, I picked two featured article high schools, Plano Senior High School and Stuyvesant High School. Both have the EL in two places. Again, it's the weakest of arguments, but it's another data point.

I'm going to quit removing alumni associations, but I still feel that booster clubs, school clubs, and single-year reunion websites don't qualify- does that sound correct to you?

Finally, I'll summarize on Talk:Laurelwood Academy when we are done discussing, but I didn't really feel like having a big discussion about it there. tedder (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree most booster club and the like sites should be removed, though there could be one that might be proper. Just like most alumni sites should be allowed, but there are likely times when those should be removed, such as if it has way too much advertising or the like.

With the #2 point you quote, I see that as saying external links in general (not specific to official ones) should not be in the article, and then if they meet inclusion criteria then there are two places they are allowed to be (EL section or the infobox), and you can have ELs in both places if you want. But that's it, in that it doesn't say you can have the same EL in both places. And the guideline later states: "[regarding official sites] ...it is normal practice to place the link to that site at the top of the list (if it is not already in an appropriate infobox)" which to me forecloses the issue entirely. But, then taking into account the prohibition of listing sites/URLs more than once, means if you have it in the infobox, then don't have it in the ELs. And yes it is important to have these links, which is why they should be included and at the top of the EL section (if not in the infobox), and this importance is why they are put into the infobox, which is a rather prominent place. In that spot you almost always can view the link without the need to scroll down. But we don't need to list it multiple times. Now, we're always allowed to ignore all rules and say this is just a guideline, but to me this guideline as a whole (at specifically) says to not have any sites, whether official or not, listed multiple times (and why stop at two places if they are really important, why not include it in the lead too and midway through long articles?). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your logic, and it makes sense why the EL shouldn't be duplicated. And yeah, IAR of course, but.. it's a copout. You are right, the "if it is not already in an appropriate infobox" is the decider. Consider the issue resolved, then! :-) tedder (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in. It's hard to argue with AM's logic. But I have noticed that people kind of expect to see the "official website" listed as the first link in any el section, and well-meaning folks tend to add them when they don't see them, because I don't think they know about the link in the infobox. There's our guidelines, then there's human behavior. My take on it is that I tend to leave the official links the way I found them (one or two, but certainly not three or more) and don't revert folks if they feel like adding them. That's mostly on city articles. That's probably on AM's short list of things I do to piss him off. ;) I do strive for consistency across Oregon articles, so maybe that's something I should work on. Oh, and kudos to you Tedder for taking on all those high school articles! They need clean up, but I hate doing it. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing it more, of course. And thanks for the thanks- editing the articles isn't difficult, but defending them is! tedder (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Opinionated adults are bad enough to deal with, but opinionated alumni? Yikes! Katr67 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WCYB/WAOW

I have reverted these two edits two the previous as the discussion you linked to as "consensus" isn't quite consensus yet. It is still in the discussion stage and we should wait until everything plays out before going and reverting users edits and calling it consensus. With WP:TVS, I would give it a week (as it is not a well traveled talk page) before we seen whether it is consensus or not. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 03:22

I understand the lack of consensus, however removing it also follows the RVB pattern. tedder (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe I am familiar with the "RVB pattern". - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 03:48

Hey, how about WP:BRD. Doh! Too much going on. tedder (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) That I am familiar with. I always have too much going on. As for "BRD", I am respect the boldness, I just always err on the side of caution when it comes to making edits before discussions end because you think they are going one way and you leave and come back and they have gone a whole 'nother direction and you have to revert your edits. So, I always wait until after everyone has a say and everyone figures out the consensus, then I edit. But I respect the boldness :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 04:27

You are right- the real sin was claiming consensus. I'm not claiming the boldness for myself, I'm claiming the revertness, especially when the images smell a little spammy. tedder (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much reverted based on the decoration argument more than anything else and the previous argument made on the talk page. It isn't a local logo, it's very tiny, and we have a perfectly fine logo on the network article instead of that low-quality one. Nate • (chatter) 05:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that- it was more FYI so you knew there was some discussion going on. And again, reverting follows the WP:BRD pattern anyhow. tedder (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Dembo

I've been asked to participate at the discussion at Talk:Ron Dembo concerning the accusation of vandalism. As you were the first to make such a claim, I thought you might also like to contribute. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw there was some talk activity, I'll roll back through the edit history and get caught back up on it. tedder (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And thank you, in turn. You may be interested in my last post at Talk:Ron Dembo. Victoriagirl (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:deletion sorting

Actually, I used to do it manually, but a few days ago, I began to use a script located here. :) Cheers, I'^mperator 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry. :D Although it looks easy, you actually have to determine what category it falls in, decipher its structure, etc. Trust me, there are a LOT of possibilities. But it is a LOT easier than manually performing the same action. :) And usually, I reply on the other's talk page in case they don't forget. Cheers. I'^mperator 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd on Charis School

It was suggested to be merge with Marikina City. I created the page and was hoping to get it pass the NPOV tag. All Phil. Schools follows the same cycle as that of Holy Spirit Integrated School. First Permit Phase and then Government Recognition. Xapis (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

John G. Cotton

Actually, I added him because someone who's head of an entire military branch seems pretty d---ed notable to me :) but I became aware of him while searching articles on W.T. White to see what could be added to the article of worth. With all the articles important to me that I have yet to build, I wouldn't have time to put together one on him just now. However, I'm not of the school that says we have to have an article right away for everyone notable enough to merit one; that's why I made sure I put info that met verifiability and reliability, though I concede your point and the input is valued. I did trim down the info on some of the listed notables, such as removing the name of every character some actor has played, especially since they're presumably in the person's article. Lawikitejana (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the person is likely notable- but in general it's probably not the best habit to be in, as then the school article ends up being used to discuss the notability of one person in the article, not the notability of the article itself. In any case, that isn't really a problem with this person. I agree about trimming the information after people's names too- I hate seeing "John Smith- professional football player, NFL, School A, Team A, Team B, Team C, voted Most Valuable Player in XYZ Superbowl (...)". The info after a name should just be enough to identify a person, not give their entire history! :-) tedder (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert Revert

Hi, I've reverted your changes to Sheldon High School (Eugene, Oregon)‎ because they removed a lot of information that rightly belongs in the article. I don't know about the style comment, but I know that much of the information taken out fits the style guide for content. If you have any ideas, which I anticipate you will, I'd love to hear them on the talk page. Thanks, Piratejosh85 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it to the SHS talk page for a centralized discussion. Thanks for the note. tedder (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've given my ideas and would be grateful for your continued work on the article, Piratejosh85 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I believe I've made acceptable changes on Sheldon High School (Eugene, Oregon). Ideas? Thoughts? Criticisms? Notes? Would love any and all. Thanks for your input and help! Piratejosh85 (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)