Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 8 June 2009 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 15d) to User talk:Tedder/Archive 2.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

User:Pioneercourthouse

There is a proposal on WP:ANI to formally ban that idiot, now that he's branching out into harassment and trying to get other users in trouble. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that bozo has found a couple of other articles to vandalize. I don't see why we need 3 articles about one item. But I wonder if, now that he's found those, whether those articles should be added to the full protection list? Baseball Bugs carrots 04:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they aren't about the same object, right? I mean, what articles are you talking about? Pioneer Courthouse Square, Pioneer Courthouse, and Pioneer Square. The third is in Seattle, the first two are a block apart (and have really distinct history). More reasons to do my RFA. tedder (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote the first note this evening I was unaware he was also attacking the one in Seattle. His latest sock is attacking two unprotected ones even as we speak. An admin went ahead and protected Pioneer Courthouse, but as of a couple of minutes ago Pioneer Square and Pioneer Square, Seattle are under attack. You're right that they are technically about different objects. The one about the square has been protected for awhile. The ones about the courthouse itself, and about the mall, were just attacked tonight, along with the unrelated item in Seattle. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And you mean Pioneer Place is the one that is unprotected, right? Gotta admit, the guy has some amazing dedication.. especially after posting to ANI as the "coworker" recently where he claimed his 'coworker' was going to improve. Good times. tedder (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Pioneer Place. Too many similar names. I think all the pages are protected now. This is nothing more than a game to that guy now, to see how much irritation he can cause. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting confused too. Yep, it's whack-a-mole. The trick is to see if we can expend less effort than it takes him to cause the damage. tedder (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Road Trip!

Nice work getting all those (I-84?) pics. I always approve of images of grain elevators, water towers and old churches! :) I have a half-baked theory about how every town used to have a tall landmark like that, and how the world is going downhill because many places lack things such as church steeples. Anyway, happy riding!--I only managed to do 55 miles on Saturday, but it was all by bicycle. Now if I can only get around to uploading my pics of Talbot, Oregon, etc... Katr67 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it was a trip out to Tri-Cities, with some substantial detours. On the way back I was having trouble transiting some backroads, ended up doing a circle in a center pivot irrigation field, which looks very funny on my track log. (zoom out and you'll see the rest of the trip)

Oh- and I agree, if not a tall landmark, at least a public gathering space. They still exist outside the US, but here things have turned into malls and other private gathering spaces that don't have First Amendment rights. Sigh. I did this trip on my Suzuki DL650 V-Strom; I did motorcycle escort duties for Reach The Beach last weekend, that's as close as I get to being on a bicycle :-) tedder (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That track is very funny--I like "crop circles". I did 36 more miles yesterday and got some more pics of Hopewell, Oregon and Willamette Mission State Park. Thanks for escorting at RTB, I didn't know they used civilian motorcyclists! You're a hero! I haven't done Reach the Beach yet. It's pretty easy from Salem, but too close to the Monster Cookie ride. Luckily I've never gouged a chunk of flesh out of my calf either. *shudder*

BTW, I used to ride a scooter, so I know about that "Brotherhood of the Road" acknowledgement that motorcyclists give each other (and to scooters sometimes), I've noticed they are starting to acknowledge bicycles too! That's pretty cool. I don't know the etiquette if I was to start waving or nodding first--should I wait to wave until the giant guy on the Harley waves first?! Katr67 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I follow the "be ye not judgemental", so I'll wave at anyone, riding anything with less than four wheels. (I draw the line at cages). As far as bicycles are concerned- wave first at the motorcycle. There are some motorcyclists that are, uh, snooty at who they'll wave to, but for the most part I think the feeling is that bicyclists have an attitude against motorcyclists because we are polluting the world. :-)

RTB was my first time volunteering to escort, but I'm looking forward to more. It was a blast. Looking forward to seeing your new pictures! tedder (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I don't even think about them polluting (though I do have a problem with the sound of Harley engines--not so much the volume, but it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me). I just think, "Now there's a dude who knows what it's like to hear 'But I didn't see you!' after someone has hit them." Share the road! Katr67 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Loud pipes are silly on any vehicle, especially a bike. You can only hear them from BEHIND the bike. One of the moto associations coined "loud pipes risk rights" and I agree. Ah well. tedder (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse

User talk:Jake Wartenberg has suggested you post the PCH saga at Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse at some point. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

10-4. Any comments on my saga writeup? tedder (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I wonder how much detail we want to get into? We could list all the different angles he's tried. There would be no shortage of diff's. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, that's a good writeup. I suggest that, since there are specific claims about what a user has done, that it should come from specific people; I'd suggest adding a section for people who endorse this writeup to "sign" their names. You'd have my signature. (Maybe best to make sure the test is through and stable before adding that, so there's no question about what revision people have endorsed.) -Pete (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete, but can you expand further? Do you mean claims about what PCH has done, or about what others have done? tedder (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that whenever anyone complains about the page being locked down, it always turns out to be another sock. No one else complains. One twist on it was back in January when a well-meaning admin dropped the shields for a day or two, and the vandal was on it right away. He talks about "reforming", etc., but all he really cares about is posting his one or two sentence claim about the homeless, while refusing to answer any questions about it. The twist the last time was that he created two socks, one to post the claim and the other to argue against it. Both were blocked, of course. Is it worth documenting that kind of detail, or is that too much? Baseball Bugs carrots 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

About an hour ago I added a line to the MO about how he asks on the talk page, teasing that he has information to add. OTOH, a user may come along and actually HAVE information to add, but they'd be willing to share the information with us, not ask about the protection and such. tedder (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. And I recall one time when he actually did come up with something, some innocuous bit of information, and it took like 3 days for him to scrape that one up. Another key fact is that he gets overreactively defensive when pressed about the information, claiming that I, in particular am cruel to "new users" - a claim which he continued in the recent harassment under a couple of other user ID's in the last week, which for once didn't even discuss PCHS, they were aimed straight at me. CU'd and blocked, of course. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, he's tried every angle he can think of, in furtherance of this 2 1/2 year old game he's playing. At first glance, it seems like he's bewildered that we always figure him out. But that's not really it. Trolls don't care about getting found out, they just want to keep playing the game. That's why it's important to just choke this guy off and end the game. When he can't play anymore, then he'll go away. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I pretty much agree with what you say, but one thing about our goal -- I think it may not be possible to totally end the game. A motivated person will always find ways around the edges. I'd say the goal is to reduce the game to a level where it takes a minimal amount of Misplaced Pages editor time to fend off the new "plays." I think that's a little more attainable than a "once and for all" end.

Tedder, to answer your question -- I think there's something unsettling about an official-looking, dispassionate writeup of someone's behavior, that is not signed by those who wrote it. I guess you could call it a matter of transparency. Suppose that nothing really happens over the next few years, and most of us drift off to other tasks outside Misplaced Pages. If some new WP:ORE person happens upon this page -- or seeks it out because of new activity from PCH -- they'd probably want to see quickly who wrote it up, in order to be able to ask any questions, etc. It would be part of how they evaluate how much weight to give the claims made here.

I've never seen a page like this on WP before, so I'm not sure if there are relevant policies or guidelines. But what I'd suggest is a section called "Endorsers," that says "The following people have endorsed this as an accurate writeup of the events in question." Then we could all sign our names with date-stamps.

But, like I said before -- probably best to make sure the text is pretty complete before taking that step...so I think the discussion you and Bugs are having above is a good first step. -Pete (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Pete. That makes sense. EncMstr put some stuff on there too. I'll make an endorsers section and encourage signing (WPOR? individual notes on talk pages of parties who have been fairly involved?). I completely agree, which is one of the reasons I thought it worked better in WPOR than in Category: or somewhere like that. It's definitely one of those weird IAR type pages. tedder (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Followup- I posted the endorsement section. I feel so alone! tedder (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Peafoul

Hello Tedder. I figured I should take a moment to acknowledge and thank you for your recent comments on my talk page. They clearly come from a place of good intentions, and have been appreciated. With that said however, I will also mention that I'm well aware of the warning templates you speak of, but believe they often invite and promote much more vandalism than they prevent, especially when not used sparingly. In the case of my edit at Peafowl for example, a single, simple revert was fully effective for the purpose of restoring order to the article promptly (the goal of the patrol). Had I templated that user and provided them with the attention and response they were trolling for, it probably would only have increased the potential for retaliatory vandalism, as I've witnessed happening time and time again. It is my understanding however, that any user can template a vandal whether they were responsible for the revert-in-question or not (I've seen this a few times), but with administrators reserving the right to block any disruptive user without advanced warning, one must question whether the silliness of sending intentionally disruptive users to the sandbox is really worth all the fuss and clutter. Calling in the cat and mouse just makes it more exciting for them. I will always remove vandalism on sight (as I've been doing for the past four or five years), but if it ever became mandatory for patrollers to template vandals, I'd probably stop patrolling recent changes altogether, and move on to other areas where I actually felt I was doing something for the betterment of the project. I just don't believe in feeding trolls, or adding trophies (vandal equivalent barn-stars) to their mantles.

Sorry we've had to become acquainted through a disagreement as such, but luckily it's just a small matter of opinion. You do seem like a decent contributor with your heart in the right place though... so I look forward to seeing you about :). Should there be anything I can assist you with, please don't hesitate to ask. -- WikHead (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, WikHead. While I disagree with you, I don't have a problem with users that choose not to template vandals, as long as the user knows about the templates.

We can get into reasons, but I respect your reasonings against templating vandals. (I didn't know you'd been around so long- I used some of the comments on your talk page to guess your involvement)

Best, tedder (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Important question

Do peafowl eat chickpeas? Or would that make them vaguely uneasy? Baseball Bugs carrots 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought eating asparagus is what makes pee foul. tedder (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! And the boy gets a cigar. :) Which, by the way, makes everything foul. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lane splitting

Someone needs a good wiki-slap and none of the admins seem willing to do this. It really brings Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

replied

North Lake School changes

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

(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)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's OK, I started the article, so I know it was BE. It's a perennial problem on Misplaced Pages (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)

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages other than to add your links certainly doesn't help.

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

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)

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

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

school

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

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)

Misplaced Pages:No original research. 'nuff said. tedder (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, and what they mean. However, I'll remove anything further as vandalism without response. tedder (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Talkback

StarM 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, which can also help you find the right place. Cheers, tedder (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

I have looked at WP:BIO. The article begins, "Within Misplaced Pages, 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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

The guidelines of WP:BIO are helpful for determining if someone might be included. For more, you may also want to see Misplaced Pages: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)

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)