User talk:Heraldicos

Lane splitting

Someone needs a good wiki-slap and none of the admins seem willing to do this. It really brings Wikipedia into disrepute IMHO when this sort of pedantry is allowed to carry on unchecked. Anyway, that small rant aside, do you have any opinion (for or against) the merger proposal for lane splitting and filtering forward. You seem to be a long-standing editor of motorcycling articles and so your opinion would be valued. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biker Biker. Thanks for the compliment, and I'd be happy to weigh in. Can you weigh in on the dbratland/born2cycle debate? Also, sorry that you got attacked on the AfDs by other editors. It's nice to have another editor interested in editing motorcycle-related articles. tedder (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have very thick skin so don't get easily upset by the likes of Jeff Dean. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. 76.210.72.26 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Lake School changes

Context: North Lake School and Paisley School tedder (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey tedder, usually on the single-school districts I upmerge the school into the district article and not vice-versa. There's no special reason for this except that school districts in general, since most of the time they are the larger entity, are more notable than the schools. Could you explain your rationale for doing it the other way around? Though I like it my way, I'm not real invested in it--above all I just like consistency, so if your way is preferable we need to make sure all the similar articles are done the same way. See Gaston School District for another small school district and Crane, Oregon and Blachly, Oregon for examples where it made sense (for the time being anyway) to upmerge both the school and district into the settlement. Katr67 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Katr, I thought about it for a while before changing it. My rationale is the following. First, the school is the recognizable "entity". It may exist under the umbrella of the district, but most references (outside of OSE) are based on the school, not the district.

Second, it's easier to talk about the school. It makes sense to have a (secondary/high) school infobox on a single-school page, but seems sort of awkward if the article is about the district instead. There's not much to say about a district, other than it exists and has a single school in it. There's much more that can be (potentially) said about the school.

It is certainly a chicken-and-the-egg sort of thing. I can see both sides of it, but it seems more straightforward to talk about a school than it is to talk about a district that has only one school.

I know there are lots of redlinked schools, schools only covered in the district page, and schools only covered in the settlements. Hopefully after I finish my Oregon schools cleanup project I can go back and create the missing ones. tedder (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, I thought I had done a pretty good job cleaning up the copyvio left by a semi-productive sockpuppeteer. The info left there seems pretty spare now. Are you going to research and restore the info about the area served by the school district? I think that kind of info is helpful in giving context to our readers. Katr67 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry we have to disagree. I don't know if there is any way to have compromise and get consensus on this- it seems like a fairly binary issue.

As far as the area of the district and/or school is concerned, do you know anywhere that lists that? I've been gathering general sources for schools, but that isn't something I've seen. tedder (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figure that barring a ruling from WP:ORE or WP:WPSCHOOLS, whoever is doing most of the work gets to make the (ignore all) rules. :) I can probably get used to your rationale in time. I was the one doing most of the work, so I did it my way, but I don't really care about it enough to go get a third opinion. Now, regarding this edit summary, I think you figured it out in the end, but I don't think there's any "should" involved. :) Anyway, I've spent a lot of time (almost-single-handedly, but slap me with a trout if I'm exaggerating) maintaining List of school districts in Oregon, List of high schools in Oregon, OSAA and even Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/Oregon (hey check out that micro-stub bluelink...) to be consistent with each other, and removing "data dumps" of school info from settlement articles. So likely if there's anything in any of those linking where it "shouldn't", it's probably my fault, so feel free to check in with me about it if you're wondering what's going on. I'm really trying not to be all WP:OWN about this, but I did put some thought into what I was doing! I'm quite happy, however, to share in the glory of being "S/He Who Keeps An Eye on Oregon School Articles!" I really do appreciate all the hard (and lets face it, thankless) work you've done in this area--so carry on with your bad self!

Oh, and with the area served, it easier of course with a school district that has more than one school. (In the case of my example I also feel it's admissible to use "looking at a map" as a reference and not cite it.) But if the school district website doesn't offer up a district map or simply state the area served, I guess we're out of luck or have to resort to original research. Likely the info on the North Lake article was OR since the person who created those article majored in copyvio but minored in OR... Katr67 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting because it's easier) Yes, the school area is thankless, but as you said it also means the rules are, uh, malleable. My style of editing them has changed as I've gone along- my infobox template is a little different, I add MANY more sources now (rather than being heavy on the DEL key), and am trying to get all of the articles up to the same minimal standard (mostly-populated infobox, refs, delete the egregious copyvio/non-notable/unencyclopedic content).

It isn't a case of OWNing the articles, as far as I can see. Unless "defending them against vandalizing schoolkids and overly eager alumni" is ownership :-) (I like your "majored in copyvio" quip. heh!)

As usual, we're on the same team, which is why it's nice to have someone looking over my shoulder occasionally. You did convert me to the "don't duplicate the external link" camp, btw. Finally, I worship you (so to speak) for the "List of Schools.." articles. It's what has made my editing possible. And yes, this is certainly the textbook definition of a stub article.

Another thing on my "I want to desperately handle this" list is to go through the OSAA lists and records, then do a mass-update of all of the Oregon high schools. It isn't worth it to do them a high school at a time- but I might do it per sport or per decade. But I wanted to get the articles standardized and infoboxed first. tedder (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello, Heraldicos. You have new messages at Mfield's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have left a stern warning for the IP as well. Mfield (Oi!) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peafowl

(the query below was originally posted on Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). I copied it here to keep the thread coherent) tedder (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Peafowl, why did you change from US to UK spelling? WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR say it should only be changed if an article is specific to one or the other region- otherwise, respect/retain what is already there. tedder (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This group of birds is native to south Asia, where tens of millions of people in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka speak BE; one species being kept in collections in the US does not make it principally American. This article was started in BE anyway, so there is no justification for US-centricity on an Old World genus, even if some earlier Americanisation had not been picked up.jimfbleak (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was started in BE- I just saw the changes on a frequently vandalized page, and thought it was weird. I'm wrong, which is entirely fine. Cheers, tedder (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I started the article, so I know it was BE. It's a perennial problem on Wikipedia (just reverted change of oesophagus to esophagus in a BE article) although strangely I seem to pick up more BE to AE than visa versa ;) jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NewBlue

Tedder! Thanks for taking a look. I've added the citations, e.g., Microsoft acquisition, and clarified notability after previously being informed I needed to do so. I don't see how it's written like an advertisement relative to, for instance, Red Giant Software. Can you please work with me to get make these improvements happen? I'd appreciate your insight. Thanks! --Torley (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on user talk page, we were editing at the same moment of time) tedder (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maley25ms

Tedder

I currently started a new website for the county I live in. It is a directory for businesses and organizations of the townships and cities in Schuylkill County PA. You removed my links from the 3 townships that I posted because of the fast growing content I had for those specific townships. Skookevents.com does not generate any capital and is a working project. It does not cost users to use this website. Is this site still considered spam.

Maley25ms (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayley, please read the policies and guidelines at WP:COI and WP:EL. Certainly there's a conflict of interest for linking to a site that you own. And the fact that you haven't contributed to Wikipedia other than to add your links certainly doesn't help.

Having said that, there are some great ways you can help contribute to Wikipedia! Check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Hi Tedder. With respect, I've always added any photos I've taken with my own camera to the Commons. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Finetooth (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're adding photos too. Nine hundred will take a while. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reading comprehension on my part: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons." Never mind. tedder (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

school

Context: edits like this tedder (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, who are you to judge the events at Glenbard South. You live in Oregon and don't know what is going on in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Stop being a creeper and just edit the stuff in your state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.37.20 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research. 'nuff said. tedder (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

way to be funny and put the above message on your page. What's with the implication that I attend that school? Isn't implying things like that against wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.37.20 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, or someone at the same IP address posted "hows this supposed to be referenced, myself and the res of the students are witnesses)" in relation to some other unencyclopedic and unsourced content. I don't believe it could be construed as outing in any way. If so, accept my apologies.

Please don't post these near-attacks anymore. Productive conversations are okay. I'd love to help explain to you the core principles of Wikipedia, and what they mean. However, I'll remove anything further as vandalism without response. tedder (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :)

Not a problem. I think the proliferation of coord missing tags is a real problem because they encourage users with no clue as to how to look up coords properly to insert incorrect ones from the likes of fallingrain.com. Quite apart from their being an editing tag which is inflicted upon readers - they should be IMO, if at all, treated like project tags and placed on the talk page. Specifically on articles such as Shire of Coolgardie, it makes no sense whatsoever as a neutral, reliable coordinate which is not a product of original research cannot be determined as the Shire covers a rather huge area that spans several degrees of latitude and longitude (each LGA article has a list contained within it of towns, each of which has a coordinate which is sufficiently accurate). That was why I did the reverts on the LGAs. Orderinchaos 07:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Heraldicos. You have new messages at DGG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StarM 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

Tedder, you have been editing terribly; the changes you have made are not appropriate or necessary. I will proceed by filing a complaint to the Wiki staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.70.110 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long history of vandalism. Feel free to file a complaint- if you tell me what the content of your complaint is, I'd be happy to point you in the correct direction. Having said that, check out the "Are you in the right place?" section at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, which can also help you find the right place. Cheers, tedder (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Beach edit

Tedder- the population of Myrtle Beach entry is incorrect. I was trying to fix it before you edited me. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.74.25 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was reverting. tedder (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, please

Dude, an RfC? Lighten up, man. Let's take a deep breath and get some perspective. I'm just some guy sharing his opinion on a Wikipedia talk page through friendly and (almost entirely) respectful discussion and debate. Yeah, I'm like a pit bull when I'm convinced I'm right. And in this case it's about making sure that WP:SOURCE and WP:BURDEN are followed.

If you have an issue with anything I'm doing, please let me know on my talk page and I would be happy to discuss with you. Each of the two times you have reached out to me on my talk page, I've responded positively. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond positively. You've shown a long history of wikilawyering, and the RFC is only in response to one of several times you've been complained to on ANI. Please take it to ANI or the RFC, not here. I won't continue on with you elsewhere, including here, and I suggest you do the same. tedder (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Dallas, Notable Professors

I noticed that you deleted a number of notable University of Dallas professors. In doing so, what information have you relied on? I take it that you have carefully Googled all their names, checked the books they have published, the responsibilities that the larger academic community has entrusted them, and so forth. If you have done that, your action becomes unintelligible. Would you please revert your edit? Wissembourg (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia is not a directory of all professors. One convenient shortcut for notability is if they have an article written about them on Wikipedia. General guidelines for notability can be found here: WP:BIO. Cheers, tedder (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at WP:BIO. The article begins, "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic." But a list of notable professors is not an article about a professor. So I don't see how WP:BIO applies here, except indirectly. It seems to me that someone who is identified as having authored several books, etc. is sufficiently notable for a mention in an article that is not about him or her. By the way, why are you saying that "Wikipedia is not a directory of all professors"? The list mentioned half a dozen; to my knowledge, the University of Dallas employs a couple hundred professors.Wissembourg (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines of WP:BIO are helpful for determining if someone might be included. For more, you may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines. "Notable" doesn't mean "notable from inside the university", it means "notable to the rest of the world". If you disagree, feel free to revert and discuss the reasons on Talk:University of Dallas. tedder (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

		The COTW award from WPOR.
		Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week! For all the pictures added over the last few weeks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Yes, photo ops all over the place. I like the Christmas trees you posted today. Finetooth (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those trees were the only thing interesting I could find in Redland. I never did find the school. tedder (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]