User:Valfontis/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

USCGC Westwind (WAGB-281)

Dear Val, Name is Tom, new user. Your hair looks really good today, I like it, real sporty. Anyway, I need help. I would like to edit USCGC Westwind (WAGB-281). The article is jacked up, I reckon, or so it says on the articles talk page. I cannot figure how to make the shibox, which is full of facts, display completely. Please do not give me the Wikisplanation, I do not understand that mumbo-jumbo since I am a northern yankee hillbilly who was partially raised in the unincorporated community of Svensen, Clatsop County, Oregon. Please help. Blessed be all of your writings on Saint Patrick's Day. Yours, TJ Lynn Jr, Lakewood WA USA. Tjlynnjr (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Don't have time to help right now, son, but I reckon one of my talk page stalkers can give it a look-see today. I don't always get them newfangled box thangs either and I'm from the valley. Valfontis (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Williamson

Thanks. I'll see what I can do about the mountain. I gravitate toward these geography things and never seem to tire of them. To return the favor, I'll mention Weatherby, Oregon, which I redlinked while working on Burnt River (Oregon) a few days ago. Weatherby is pouting because its neighbors, Dixie and Lime, have their own articles. Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Turns out Weatherby is already on my watch/to-do list, but look, it has no need to pout because Dixie needs disambiguation! I have a couple other towns to clean up but I'll make sure to at least do a stub and a Dixie-dab. I try to look for redlinks in the river articles, but I missed that one. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Williamson Mountain is up and running. (It's frightening to see a mountain run.) Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Valfontis (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Weatherby has a longer article than Dixie or Lime as well as a dab page. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but thank all the post office moves too, there's really not much history there. According to GNIS there was also a Weatherby school up one of the creeks a piece, but I didn't try to search on that. I haven't learned if the place had a store, a church, a grange, you know the type of things that really make a place a place. But hey, being a rest stop, it gets far more attention than most podunks. Too bad the highway cam seems to be down today. Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The last two featured lists of state insignia were not "list of"

Context: (diff)

1. We don't say "article of".

2. The FL crowd support titles that are not "list of".

3. External sites do not list the content as "list of".

4. It makes the title longer and does not convey much extra info to say "list of"

5. There is no seperate article to disambiguate from.

6. I was the content creator and I prefer omitting "list of".

TCO (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you too! (Next time, maybe try not to Bullet List the Regulars.) I'll not pursue this any more. Happy editing and good luck! Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up with me. I'm actually a newbie (only editing for last 3 months, was banned for years before that). Am really getting into featured content and all. P.s. I had a boss at work who told me not to use bullets as it took people aback. But then I had a previous (ex-colonel) boss who wanted bullets. Figures. Get it? Colonel liking guns and bullets? I slay myself. hahahaha. see ya round the wiki. And I will try not to get repermabanned. Thanks again, man. TCO (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Hello Val - You recently sent me a COI warning for edits that I posted to Katharine Jefferts Schori's Wikipedia page [[1]]. Being new to Wikipedia, I apologize for making such an error, and I greatly appreciate the information and have been reading through it. In the future, if I notice anything that appears to be questionable, what would be best way to proceed? By posting a comment to the editor's talk page rather than making a change myself? I am primarily interested in helping to maintain the accuracy of Bishop Katharine's page as well as the Episcopal Church page, but I do not wish to do anything inappropriate. Thank you kindly.Matisse412 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressing inaccuracies

Thank you for the information on Wikipedia's policies, which I will uphold in editing my organization's page. I see that you've edited the page for Musician's Friend with inaccurate information. Our CEO namely has changed. How can I be assured edits made by company employees will stand in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namastace (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oregon ports

Hi, unfortunately I don't know anything about Oregon ports really... :) I only added in the tsunami information there to try to stop an editwar where people were adding those small locations into the main earthquake page. So I really can't help you out as far as those articles go, sorry! –flodded ☃ (gripe) 06:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

barnstar 20110316

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	For rescuing the three Pleasants and working out Dixies of Oregon. Nobody writes about tiny burbs of Oregon like you do. tedder (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! Dabbing Dixies and platting Pleasants is all in a day's work, thanks for noticing! And are you going to let that typo stand in my barnstar? Yeesh. Valfontis (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Doh. Of course you would catch it. When I see typos on other websites I always think "see, this is why wikis are better, because Valfontis can fix it." tedder (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that when I read the local "newspaper" too. Heads up, OPB radio (show: DIY) is going to have a story on Ward Cunningham in the next few minutes. Valfontis (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Julie S. has her own podcast? I met her as a producer of Think Out Loud. The podcast feed is dated, dunno if an MP3 will surface or not. tedder (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

here's the episode. I'll have to email Julie and let her know the podcast feed is out of date. tedder (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's time!

— Scientizzle 15:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on your way to becoming an admin user. You already have 7 supports. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! We'll see how it goes. Valfontis (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. You certainly deserve it! Jsayre64 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Valfontis"

Your username is derived from "Valfontis, Oregon"? Why haven't you created the article "Valfontis"? :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't you? ;) Because actually it needs to be a redirect to Lincoln, Polk County, Oregon, because it wasn't a place, just the name of a post office, and because researching Lincoln will take more time than I've felt I could devote to it so far. Lincoln at one time was the largest wheat-shipping port on the upper Willamette and now it's a ghost town. It pretty much got wiped out in one of the major floods of the 1800s. Lincoln was also a ferry landing opposite another important competing ferry landing, and each was owned by a notable "old dead guy" as we like to call them and all that needs to be researched and tied together with the history of Spring Valley (Oregon), and...and...etc. Then there's the dab page to be created and the other Lincoln, Oregon in Jackson County... I hope that explains! (And P.S. thanks for the support !vote.) Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Touché. Thanks and best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just happened to look at your redlink. Valfontis is also the name of a vineyard. (I, on the other hand, may or may not be a wino). Valfontis (stand alone) would be a dab page if the vineyard were notable, while Valfontis, Oregon would be the naming convention for an American populated place. More on Lincoln. Sorry you asked? :) Valfontis (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Successful RFA

Here is your T-Shirt! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased to report that your request for adminship demonstrates community consensus for you to take up the administrative toolset. Now go forth, and do good unto the wiki. –xeno^talk 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Job! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tofut, they gave you a *shirt*? Aww, how'd I miss out on that? Congrats, 'fontis. tedder (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! LittleMountain5 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. Now get in there and clean up this here town. (I'm speaking metaphorically, but you will clean up some towns, I know.) Congrats! --Esprqii (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I never had any doubt. Congratulations! —EncMstr (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations Valfontis. Grab your mop and start cleaning! ;-) —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations on an almost unopposed RfA - there's always one... ;-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me too. Feel free to raid my monobook.js, blocking is so much easier when you have a dropdown menu. ϢereSpielChequers 08:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to get rid of my blocking menu when I switched to chrome :-( At least Twinkle puts the text template up afterwards. tedder (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah that explains much - my netbook uses Chrome. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Congrats, good luck and I look forward to seeing you around. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:28pm • 10:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Two kittens for you!

SunCountryGuy01 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Congratz on your successful bid for adminship. Jessy ^T/C 22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebe123 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Congrats!!! I hope that you do a good job. You do seem like one. What is your first Administrative action? Felicitations again! ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing her first admin action will be in the Wikipedia:New admin school; after the school, I recommend blocking Jimbo or deleting Main Page. tedder (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You know Scientizzle deleted the main sandbox once, right? Valfontis (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know that. I've blocked ClueBot. Twice. Oh, this is a good time to make sure you have a secure password. tedder (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See thankspam below. See the Village Stocks. Password is strong. May do the committed identity thing. Whew! Valfontis (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya done good, kiddo. Never had any worries. Now careful with that delete button or you might bork up the 'pedia for a half an hour...<gulp> — Scientizzle 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here it is. My first admin action. I undeleted the talk page of the undeleted article 24 Hour Church of Elvis, with the declared COI that my Sacred Elvis Detector purchased from there says "In" (Elvis made me do it) and that I participated in a lovely $1 wedding there in the early 1990s officiated by Stephanie herself. Valfontis (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Steven Walling has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy! You need it after surviving the RFA gauntlet with poise and aplomb. ;-) To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

In Lieu of Thankspam

Big Gold Dude with Admin tool

Thanks to Scientizzle, Pete and Tedder, everyone who supported (or opposed) my RfA, the Big Gold Dude, my boyfriend, my cats, 3M, Full Sail, and all the fine folks at WikiProject Oregon! Huzzah! The BGD and I have laid in a supply of nuisance dust masks and look forward to helping keep Wikipedia free of spammers and vandals while continuing to tidy up grammar and write a great encyclopedia. I am honored to be trusted with the tools. Thanks again! Valfontis (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the congrats, t-shirts, kittens, and baked goods! Now go get busy and write something. :) Valfontis (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

McCook

This was done by students and it isn't necessary. I stripped it down. Maybe just delete. Do not want any vanity article in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracetupelo (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Jsayre64 has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Ohh, cupcakes are so good! Congrats on your RfA. To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

valfontis in the news

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Features and admins#New_administrators:

• Valfontis (nom) brings more than five years' experience as a Wikipedian to the role. She is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon, has worked for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, and is familiar with AfD and reporting vandals to AIV. Valfontis has helped to promote five articles to GA status, and one to FA.

nice! tedder (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Well aside from regurgitating the nom, it's OK. No interview? I'm ready for my close up, Mr. Wales... Valfontis (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, more Douglas Adams for you: Ainsworth, Washington. Valfontis (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good, but the quote is even more gooder. tedder (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know. I don't think any of our godforsaken podunks can even compare. Valfontis (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Verboort, Oregon

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of did you know, do you know Karl Erickson? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of the guy. I wish him well. Valfontis (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Pistol River

I don't whether the number of named streams in Oregon is larger or smaller than the numbered of named communities, but there sure are a bunch of both. It might take a few more years for us to create illustrated articles for every last one of them. I was happy to see that you'd done the Tumtum River (great name). I might add a geobox to it and try to get a photo when I'm down that way again. Finetooth (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I heart the Tumtum (pun intended)--any info and pictures you can add would be great--I couldn't find a whole lot. The other one I'd like to get to is the Millicoma River. Valfontis (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Against all odds that we would think of the same one simultaneously, that is the one I began working on in a sandbox about 10 minutes ago before seeing your note here. Finetooth (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

KROQ-FM

Why did you undo my edit on the KROQ-FM page?

• Jim Trenton is a Notible Former DJ at KROQ for over a decade
• He has his own Wikipedia page that includes a picture of him speaking into a KROQ Microphone
• I cited references. (Actually I copied the one that was used on his page)

As a former KROQ employee, I can provide valuable information to the KROQ Wikipedia page.... I must admit that it is frustrating to have my work erased within minutes by someone with no explanation. Jimmyhtz (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please learn to use the page history and page diffs. If you look at my edit, you will see I placed it in alphabetical order (see my edit summary "alpha", which is short for "alphabetize".) by last name (you will have to scroll down a bit to see the entire change), as these type of sections should be. I think you would do well to also read about assuming good faith. I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw that you moved it, when I thought you deleted it, after I wrote the above note... I tried to delete this message before you had a chance to respond, but I guess I was too late. I was a bit touchy... all of my work today has been undone up until that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyhtz (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Willamette University College of Law official ELs

In WP:UNIGUIDE I see "permission" to put the official website in ELs. The UNIGUIDE also says to use the university infobox template, which has an entry for the official EL. In this regard, it looks like duplicate ELs for official sites are endorsed. The specific official EL was not used, I believe, anywhere else in the article. --S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

For WikiProject Oregon articles, per discussion and consensus, we try to follow the guidelines at WP:EL, specifically "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." It's really only necessary to link to an official website once.

I note that the guideline at Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember used to read:

"Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." (emphasis mine)

And at WP:ORE we went with "or" and not "and". It appears the guideline was changed "per MOS" in 2009. Which doesn't seem like a change based on consensus. In any case, I don't think "permission" to include an EL twice should mean one should put the EL twice. ELs just serve to drive traffic away from Wikipedia, and it is easy enough to find the official EL in the infobox, which is a more prominent position anyway.

You could check in at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard if you disagree.

Note also the article became a Good Article with only the one EL in the infobox. Valfontis (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points, which I did not read before I reverted your edit. Excuse me for being hasty. (I thought you might revert the edit yourself after reading my note.) Further rationale: While the article is of interest to WP:ORE, it also has appeal to a broader audience. Indeed, Williamette was one of the law schools I considered attending back in 1982. I'm confused with the concern that an EL might drive traffic away from WP. How does that concern make WP more useful to the reader? The word "permission" was used for lack of a better term, nothing more -- my effort simply was to improve an already GA, as I did (hopefully) with my other edits. Bottom line, I completely understand if you revert my edit and certainly won't pursue an EL Noticeboard.--S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading on, you are correct about what the EL guidance used to say. I like the line "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:" Which is one reason why I added the Williamette COL EL to the page. Best regards, and congrats on achieving Admin status! --S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over such a trivial matter, but I still disagree. Valfontis (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Val, yesterday I was on my way back to add the asterisk when I saw you had reverted my edit. And then I got caught up in the UNIGUIDE question. Please feel free to delete the EL -- you have a much more direct interest in the article than I. And I certainly won't think a deletion comes even close to an edit skirmish, let alone an edit war! Best regards and continued giddy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Brightwood changes

Hi... I am here to explain the reversions of the entries I did to Brightwood, Oregon that you have changed twice. Firstly the present photo is not representative of present day Brightwood but left in place for historical purposes...the second photo is representative of the present day of the village of Brightwood. Brightwood has only 3 commercial businesses...a grocery store, a tavern, and a Post Office.... To keep the article current I choose to post a present day image of one of the 3 businesses but keep a latter one intact for historical purposes. This in no way undermines the information one can detract from the article but only enhances the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretagentmofo (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That sort of makes sense (but wouldn't a photo showing all three businesses be more representative of the community?), though aesthetically I prefer the current photo. But look carefully at your edit. See where it says "Motto" and how the name of the photo is now a caption? You cannot place more than one image in the infobox as it messes up the formatting. And I think the article is too short to have two photos. So reverting back to an incorrectly formatted version wasn't such a great idea. Next time ask for help with the formatting instead of reverting. I'll go ahead and switch out the photos in the infobox. Although interested people can see the other photo by following the link to Commons, which is found at the bottom of the page, I'll go ahead and place the second photo in the body of the article, even though it unbalances the layout of the page. (By the way if you check the page history, you will see that I only reverted your change once.) Valfontis (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I forgot to save the changes I mentioned I made above. I have just made them. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dellwood

Far out! That complex of rivers connecting to the Coos River gave me lots to write about. One thing I noticed was that there isn't much between Coos Bay and the hills west of Roseburg except Allegany, Dellwood, and commercial timber. Getting to any spot on the Williams River sounds difficult; whoever fills the photo request for that one deserves a chalupa. Finetooth (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Or a hearty logger breakfast. There don't seem to be too many Weyerhaeuser timber cruisers taking photos for Wikipedia, that's for sure. I wonder if there's anybody like that posting photos on Flickr... Valfontis (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could get permission to use one of these (pic 48 is a good one)? I don't think showing a clearcut is POV, right? Valfontis (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are impressive and hard to look at. I usually go for something pretty, but it might be that nothing much is pretty along the Williams River. The slash piles and denuded hills wouldn't be POV if they are representative, as I suppose they might be. I wonder if Weyerhauser publishes stats and text descriptions of the "tree farm" and its relationship to the river. Probably not, I'm guessing. Finetooth (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a note in the comments box of pic 48 this morning asking if the photographer might be willing to license it as CC-by-SA 2.0 for use in the Williams River article. There might be a better way to reach him, not sure. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think she's a her? Anyway, cool beans, looks like you were successful. I note that there is a more POV caption and description now! I think that's OK. For the record, I know folks on several sides of the foresty issue and my feelings are complex. But greed kills, and nature bats last... Valfontis (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I revised the caption to be neutral, uploaded the image to the Commons, and installed it in the geobox of the article. Looks mighty fine and puts the river in the context in which at least this part of it found itself in 2004. Thanks for finding this image and giving me a nudge. I used the same Flickr bot to upload a CC image of Sycan Marsh to the Commons and then Sycan River this morning, and that came from figuring out how to upload this one. I hadn't done a Flickr transfer in quite some time. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Monson

I'm trying to change the information on my husband. He is now remarried to me and we have a child together. It's common knowledge so I'm not sure what to do. I'm not leaving out the fact he has 2 other children but he's not married to their mother any longer. HELP!!! Monson.danielle (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danielle, I don't have much time to help out right now, but I wanted to let you know I saw your note. Has the information you want to add been published in a reliable source? That means, for example, a newspaper or magazine. If so, can you give me the url if it has been published on the Internet or any other publishing information? If it has, I can help you format the information you want to add. Valfontis (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I can send you our marriage certificate. Also on You Tube there's a video with him proposing to me. I'll look online for something....I can give you his number or Email...lolMonson.danielle (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to see your marriage certificate! It's not that I don't believe you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it relies only on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources, which means we can't use original documents to verify something--it has to be reported by a third party. Unfortunately, I think the information will have to be left out until it is published somewhere--maybe he could bring it up next time he is interviewed. I'll leave a note here and see if anybody there has any suggestions. Valfontis (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We have strict rules about information being subject to verification if it is to appear in Wikipedia; this is especially true about living persons. Verification must come from impartial third parties who can be regarded as reliable sources without a conflict of interest. YouTube videos are not proof of anything, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

..not to mention it shows your conflict of interest to mention your own name, your daughter's name, but not to mention the ex-wife's name or children. However, WP:BLP is most important in this case, and without sources it isn't worth mentioning Monson is married, remarried, and has children- let alone your name. Certainly there is zero reason to mention the children's names EVER. As far as your name and the ex-wife's name are concerned, read WP:BLPNAME for the rationale. Until both names are in reliable sources, it's best to leave them off.. simply getting your own name in the article is suspicious since he's been married more than once. tedder (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your impressive work on the hamlets of Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Awww! Thank you very much! Valfontis (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Redmond Spokesman

Thanks for creating rediect from Redmond Spokesman to The Redmond Spokesman. Was planning to do it myself, but you beat me to it.--Orygun (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice

I know you're among the few readers who have looked closely at Course of the Willamette River and Course of the Rogue River (Oregon). They are on the one hand extremely boring but on the other hand extremely full of details that might be of some use to somebody. I've wondered from time to time whether I should consider nominating either of these for GA, but I don't want to torture the reviewers. A reviewer who checked all of the details for accuracy would have to be cuckoo, and it's highly probable that I missed a gulch, sandbar, island, or something else that might be added to either article. In your opinion, would there be any benefit in pursuing GA for either? Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No hurry on responding one way or the other. The two course descriptions have been essentially done for more than a year. As to reviewers and their habits, it's impossible to generalize. I've mostly had good experiences, but a few have been stressful, and one was very stressful. I never know for sure what's going to happen when I nominate something. Finetooth (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick Christensen (journalist)

Am I misunderstanding the proper protocol? I use Wikipedia and value it as a source of reliable information. I nominated this article for deletion because, inter alia, 1) it's autobiographical, 2) it's poorly sourced, 3) it contains bias and opinion presented as fact, and 4) the subject is not noteworthy.

All of these issues have been present for more than two years, so after carefully reviewing Wikipedia's process for deletion, I nominated the article, and I believe I followed the correct procedure. Now the deletion tag has been removed. There's a note that purports to explain why, but it doesn't. The wikipedia page detailing the deletion procedure claims that editors give a reason when deleting the tag. I'd love to read it.

Is it really this difficult to remove something that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's own policies? Continued publication of encyclopedia articles like this one --for years!-- cast serious doubt on the reliability of everything else on the site. Peezy1001 (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you are misunderstanding the proper protocol. In my edit summary, which can be found in the article's page history, I wrote, by way of explanation "this had a contested prod once already--now needs to be takent [sic] to AfD" ([sic] means I made a typo in my edit summary--sorry if you know that already, some people don't), which means that here someone contested the Prod tag as some notability was asserted. As it says at WP:PROD:

"2. If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed."

So you will need to nominate this article for deletion by following the procedure here (AFD).

I fully support efforts at improving the reliability of Wikipedia. But I also fully support following the policy and guidelines of the project, as I have done with this article. You don't have to argue with me about the quality of the article--I agree that it's likely questionable. Let me know if you need help setting up the AFD. I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've spent 45 minutes scrolling through archives, unsuccessfully looking for the previous discussion of this issue. I have been unable to locate any previous discussion or comment from either RadioFan (the person who nominated the article for deletion in 2009) or Cyclopedia (the person who originally objected to deletion).

Yet this discussion forms the basis for your current objection to deletion.

I'm sorry but I give up. You've out-lawyered me on this one. I'm abandoning my claim, and the person who wrote this autobiography can stay on your site. It's not that important to me and presumably he's gotten whatever SEO benefit he was after a long time ago. Good luck. Peezy1001 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to out-lawyer you. Someone "prodded" (proposed a deletion) of the article and someone contested the prod. Though discussion is helpful, it's not a requirement in the process. The edit summaries of the edits in question give adequate explanation, I think. Removing the "prod" tag constitutes an objection to the prod, whether or not there is a discussion. You are now free to nominate the article for deletion. Again, EncMstr or I can help you with the process if you wish to carry it out. I personally don't have much interest in doing it myself, though I may get around to it eventually. I would imagine the outcome would be that the article would be deleted, but it might be improved. Either outcome would be a net gain for the project. Do make sure to read up on WP:POINT, just to be sure. I'm assuming good faith here, but since you're a new editor with an interest in deleting an article, I'm wondering if there is perhaps some COI on your part. Forgive me if that's not the case. Do get back to me if you want me to initiate the deletion nomination. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible tributaries in Oregon rivers list

Hi, Val. About two and a half years ago you proposed at Talk:List of rivers in Oregon that some of the tributaries indented from the rivers be collapsed in some way. Well, I recently brought up the idea of using tables instead of a plain list with indentations, mainly because it would look better and appeal to the featured list reviewers. EncMstr likes the idea of collapsing the tributary listings, and we're working on finding out if that's possible. You're welcome to join the discussion on the talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WPORE COTW 2.0 - the picture edition

Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tumtum

Hi Val. I added a geobox to Tumtum River this morning. I think it's OK, but I got stuck trying to get citation 4 to behave normally. For some reason, the url and title insist on appearing inside a set of brackets. If you can spot my mistake, please fix it. (This kind of small imperfection drives me batty.) On another topic, I've decided against nominating the river-course articles for GA. The nom process is always stressful, and it would probably not improve either of the articles much. I don't need any more stress just now. Om, om, om. I'm happily taking photos, making geoboxes, and staying out of trouble. Finetooth (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed per WP:TPS. --Esprqii (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged. Looks like the problem was caused by a big hunk of blank space in the original. Finetooth (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. ;) Valfontis (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Awarded Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Valfontis with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Though I'm curious what prompted this. I'm really not much of a vandal fighter. Valfontis (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert on my talk page! In the middle of law school exams so I didn't even catch the vandalism. Although if I am a sock, that would explain why I feel like I don't know anything at the moment. Take care!--Gnowor^T_C 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Any idea why he chose to spend his time doing this on this list of users? Just curious. I've kept a fairly low profile recently, and #1 I have no idea where he found my user name as a target and #2 how I'm connected to him at all. I don't have editing areas that overlap with this guy, and even if I hit him while on Huggle he targeted non-Huggle users as well. Thought maybe he was just trolling recent changes for targets, but some of his targets haven't edited in awhile. If you can't tell, I hate mysteries. If you can help me with that, great. If not, well I probably should be working on my exams anyway. :-) --Gnowor^T_C 21:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have no idea why s/he targeted those people, but a couple of them were on my watchlist and they are clearly not sockpuppets. The one person I don't think edits in the same area at all. It might be because of posting on someone's talk page who has offended him/her? So all my dear {{TPS}}s who have posted recently, judging by the recent activity on this page, strap yourselves in, we may be in for a bumpy ride. Good luck with exams! Valfontis (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, too, from my side! I guess his list includes editors who've worked on Kongu Nadu or Kongu Vellalar at some time; cf. User:Isai Velalar on Mukkulam's list and Pondheepankar's favourite site Kongu Nadu. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon Triple Crown

Your Majesty, Valfontis, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject Oregon and its hardworking volunteers. –SMasters (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cutest. Award. Ever. Said the UO alum. OK, so despite my hardboiled exterior, like many women, I have a weakness for Cute Overload. If all the Wikipedia awards were just so damned cute (::squee::), maybe we could get more women to edit Wikipedia. Thoughts? Valfontis (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's always Ducks and Beavers with you people! Come on, we're the Beaver State after all. Besides, I've seen Benny Beaver on the sidelines, and Benny Beaver is a friend of mine. Valfontis, that picture is no Benny Beaver. --Esprqii (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You were expecting, maybe, Dr. Bill Platypus, hmmm?

To make it more Eugene/UO we could see about adding a certain medicinal/herbal cigarette (the beaver has a card for his glaucoma). Aboutmovies (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad duck. No doobie. Valfontis (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WebMD and Oregon

Hey Val, congrats on the Triple Crown! That's terrific. But it's not the reason for this post. From the WikiProject Oregon recent changes list, I discovered that WebMD is tagged with the WP:ORE template, and I wondered why. I found not one hint of any Oregon connection in the article; if there was one at some time, it's gone now. I was ready to remove the template from the article's talk page, but then I found a post there left by you, almost four years ago. I followed the "instructions" and did a search of the Business Journal site and still found nothing. I'm not interested in taking more time to try to figure out what connection WebMD has to Oregon, but before I remove the project's template from the talk page I wanted to give you the chance to tell me why I shouldn't. Cheers, SJ Morg (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for the congrats! Within the first 10 hits searching ABJ, I got this summary: "helped a client, Web MD, move customer support operations to Montgomery Park, from the Old Town in Northwest Portland" (I note with amusement that nobody calls it "the" Old Town, but I digress...) so at some point, part of the business was run from Portland, dunno if that makes it WP:ORE-worthy. That's all the time I have to look for now. I don't mind if you remove the tag, since I questioned it 4 years ago, but you might check through the talk page history to see who added it in the first place and ask him/her. If I had time I would use my awesome powers of Google-fu to dig up the story. Lemme know if you want me to do that tonight, otherwise, I trust you'll do the right thing. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Butting in to say that they have a division of their business based here, WebMD Health Services. Historically, at least one acquisition of the company originated in Portland and they still have a presence here. So that, along with my vague memory that they used to hire a lot of people around here in the good ol' days probably explains the origin of the WP:ORE tag from User:EncMstr. That said, it doesn't seem like the company is Oregon-based or focused. Not sure the tag is justified, but the bar is set intentionally low to stir up activity. --Esprqii (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked again at the Business Journal search results and although it's now clear to me that the company did have an Oregon division at some point (through acquisition of, or merger with, Portland-based Sapient Health Network in 1999, apparently), I'm removing the tag. It can always be put back later. In the limited time I was willing to spend on reviewing said search results (about 20 minutes) I was unable even to get enough info. to add a single sentence with appropriate content to the WP article to indicate the Oregon connection in a logical way. And, even if I had, it's not clear to me that there's would be enough to warrant a WP:ORE tag. I'm not sure that leaving the tag in place in hopes of inspiring another edit to do something is sufficient reason, but in any case it's been four years since the tag was added, so that strategy (if it was someone's strategy) hasn't worked. Thanks for the input. SJ Morg (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SJ Morg, Thanks for looking into that. I worked at a consulting company back in the day where a few engineers worked it when it became WebMD, so that's how I knew about the Oregon connection. That it withered away is so typical of the .com .bomb idiom I have seen too many times. A few of our other clients have fared better, but not many. —EncMstr (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you let WOOD stay

Context: Charles Erskine Scott Wood diff diff

You don't live in Oregon. It is HUGE that a descendant of CES Wood was an instigator of the biggest (and really first) Sherman Anti-trust case in the US. Max Wood was the Ken Lay of his time. And, it is a fact that gives more credence to the rogue-like (yet revered) history of CES Wood. It is CES Wood all the time in Oregon... by talking about a grandson who has been deceased for half a century will help historians in their research. It was only found with the Department of Justice's help. This fact that CES Wood's grandson played such a major role in the Philadelphia Electric Cases with GE, Westinghouse and Allis-Chalmers is not something historians would find on their own. It might seem minor to you...but to others it is a rich tidbit. Rich. REALLY. Please let it stay. When you say he needs his own site... well, I just don't think so for others won't know to look for him. So, please let it stay... from a historical and legal standpoint it is a phenomenal piece of history. Portlandblackwhite (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think I don't live in Oregon? I do. And, actually, I went to school with C.E.S Woods' great-great grandaughter. Not that it matters, as I'm allowed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies from wherever I live or despite whoever I know. Anyway, I won't bore you with the several guideline- and policy-based reasons why I reverted your edits. Let it suffice to say that writing a reliably sourced article on W. Maxwell Wood would be a better way to go about what you are trying to do. Once that is completed, the article can be linked from C.E.S. Woods' article. Here is a way to search for sources to get you started: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Here's another Google search I did. Because there is another person named William Maxwell Wood. I'm not getting the sense that the C.E.S grandson is particularly notable but that may be because of the FUTON bias of online searches. Valfontis (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Valfontis lives in Oregon and very much has an Oregon personality- not that personal qualifications matter. What matters is reliable sources. Create an article for the grandson after reading The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Again, "phenomenal piece of history" is done through reliable sources, not because you say so. tedder (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Portlandblackandwhite: Valfontis is a dyed-in-the-wool Oregonian, lives in the heart of the Willamette Valley, and has lived for decades here.

Pleading that a subject is worthy, deserving, suppressed, conspired against, and the like are not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not even the wife of a highly notable person, nor their direct offspring is grounds for inclusion. See the biographical notability guideline. Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, preferably multiple reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If this makes no sense, have a look at Wikipedia's Five Pillars to see what we are doing here. —EncMstr (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I found this. See the last paragraph. --Esprqii (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Twickenham

A belated reply. Yes, this one was fun. I had no idea that it had been Contention until I looked at the OGN after I took the photo. On the same trip, I snagged images for Clarno, Kinzua, Service Creek, Kimberly and a few other nearby places. Finetooth (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ORE assessment page

You removed my addition of a comment and a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment#Requests for assessment and I'm curious as to why you said that was not the process for article assessment requests. Below the section header it says that assessment requests should be listed there. Can you explain? Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of the hidden editing note that says "<!-- REMOVE ARTICLE NAME IF YOU RE-ASSESS -->". All you have to do is reassess the article and delete the listing. If you feel like leaving comments, check the page's edit history to see who added the request and drop him/her a note, or better yet, leave a note on the article's talk page. It's not required though. If you think we need a better system--and its true it's kind of a neglected process now that Aboutmovies is so busy--be sure to mention it at WP:ORE. I hope that explains. Valfontis (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But I've restored the request I had that you probably removed accidentally. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It was on purpose, but I see what happened, because you left a post-assessment comment on one, which is not how it used to be done, and left your request at the same time, I thought it was another comment. My mind was elsewhere. Valfontis (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Povey Brothers Studio

Wow--great job! Looking forward to seeing the finished product. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I had to stop for a little while, but more is coming soon. It's absolutely insane how many Povey works there are--note that many of your new NRHP stubs are on the list, so I hope that helps with the "NRHP stub controversy". Next we need a Povey Picture Drive. Back to work... Valfontis (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw several of the new stubs listed. Actually, a couple of the red linked sites you listed may have a stub under another name (X Church (Portland) vs. X Church of Portland). Keep up the great work! I understand some contributor's dislike of stubs, but I figure at least they are now available for people to work on... I have already enjoyed watching a few of them expand, have images added, incorporated into other articles, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm 95% sure all the redlinks are correct as I've been involved in keeping the Oregon NRHP lists tidy for years (and spent hours getting them right) and know the naming conventions (always a space between initials, BTW--"A._B. Building".). But if you see any that need fixing, please do! It's the non-redlinked ones I need to follow up on, as I bet about half of those are actually NRHP but under a different name. I wouldn't worry about the stubs too much--you'll see I vouched for you at the WP:NRHP talk page. (I don't belong to the project anymore--too much drama for such an innocent topic--but I try to keep up on any new developments in technology (Elkman's tools=win!), formatting and such.) Valfontis (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Turns out you were right. I checked "what links here" on a couple of them to find how they were named on dab pages (as "NRHP-listed"), but I failed to notice a couple don't also link to the NRHP lists. So the Oregon NRHP lists should be correct (and note if you make the article under a different name from that on the list, be sure to make a redirect) but I recused myself from some of the proceedings there, so I'm not 100% certain. Looks like for sure some of the dab pages are wrong. Figures. Valfontis (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit of KQDJ (AM)

context Since I note from your administrative interests that you undoubtedly reside here in Oregon, and you don't seem to have spent a lot of time editing other articles involving North Dakota radio stations, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that your decision to edit the "KQDJ" page's alumni section, would arise out of a personal knowledge (and, I might posit, personal enmity as well) of me, rather than a true academician's quest. However, is it not also correct, that Wikipedia entries are not supposed to contain any original research, or be based upon personal knowledge? Forgive me if I'm extrapolating too much here, but one way or the other, I'm afraid that I am going to have to insist on an explanation. Thank you, /\/\ \/\/ P.S. If you DO know me, you also know that I do not take such stuff lightly, and that the best way out of this, for you, is to just come clean and be honest about it. 50.39.184.203 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that the community has decided that you're not notable by Wikipedia standards, and I also know you threatened a fellow editor with bodily harm (I guess that's what you mean by not taking things lightly) over something or other and that all of your accounts have been blocked. Feel free to revert the edit, but I'm sure other people don't think you are notable either. It's nothing personal, but I don't like it when people use Wikipedia for self promotion. Valfontis (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected however, you are unable to speak to the actual subject of my post, without admitting that you, yourself, have violated one of the central tenets of Wikipedia. You Sir (or Madam), are a hypocrite, pure and simple. As to my previous disagreement with the other editor you speak of, it's certainly very convenient, when one party to a disagreement has the power to alter, transmogrify, or completely delete the other party's side. It's also, truth be told, quite pathetic. As to my comments to you, I certainly meant no personal invective or threat; on the other hand, a shallow and insincere "editor", such as yourself, should not (and indeed, can not) be permitted to hold themselves out as worthy to offer information of value to others. 50.39.184.203 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My removal of non-notable people from lists within articles is perfectly acceptable. Could you please inform me of the exact guidelines or policies I've violated? You are certainly welcome to get a third opinion--there are many avenues of dispute resolution. Feel free to report me here--as an administrator I am open to recall and if community sanctions are in order, then others need to be informed so I that I will no longer abuse my power. Valfontis (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to my reversion of vandalism/personal attack on Tedder's page

Turder asked for it as seen by others comments. He/she/it shouldn't be a Wikipedia admin. That's the problem with Wikipeida: too many egotistical jerks looking to undo others hard work. S2grand (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC) s2grand

I'm sorry you feel that way, but note that personal attacks aren't allowed, whether or not someone "asked for it". If you feel he has abused his administrative powers, feel free to seek out the appropriate dispute resolution. Note that further attacks may earn you a block. Please concentrate instead on building the encyclopedia, and perhaps read up on civility. Good luck. Valfontis (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Povey Brothers Studio

Hi. I've nominated Povey Brothers Studio, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I had an idea for a hook, I'll see if you came up with the same one! ;) Valfontis (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Les Balsiger

I'm guessing that the reason that you made this edit is that the cited source doesn't actually say that Les Balsiger was responsible for the ads appearing in the Oregonian. Sheesh! That text and the cited source have been in the article for a looong time. Just goes to show that it pays to check sources rather than assume they support the text. Would you be OK with restoring the text if it were modified to represent the source faithfully (i.e. omitting mention of Les Balsiger)? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately. Yes, I think it was a bit of smear job--there were several anti-Catholic activists working (or supplying money to do work) in the state at the time, and the articles about the billboard incidents merely mention that the groups have connections, and not that he was directly responsible for the billboards and ad in Oregon. I could supply a sentence or two summarizing the incidents related to this in the early 1990s-early 2000s--I've got access to the Oregonian news archives. But I need some coffee first. Valfontis (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Povey Brothers Studio

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK. The article is lovely and well-illustrated, and I think it might be ready for GA in its present form. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It means a lot coming from you! I still think it needs better images (the one I took is very blurry!). I had been thinking about asking you to give it a quick copy edit before it hit the front page, as I can't seem to find mistakes in my own articles. Maybe a "wide tooth" once over? In other words don't spend too much time on it. Note that it is considered "over cited", so if this is GA-worthy, I'd rather tackle that before it even gets near WP:GAN. Any advice about that on the talk page would be appreciated. Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to. Will do. Finetooth (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, you found one of my favorite copy editing blind spots. Valfontis (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NRHP sites

(Using an arbitrary date for example), I see you have been taking the "1980 architecture" category route whereas I have been taking the "Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1980" route. Is there a preference for one over the other? My reasoning was that a building could be designed in 1978 (1978 architecture) but completed in 1980 (Buildings and structures completed in 1980). I don't want to be categorizing sites incorrectly so please tell me if you know something I don't! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Have I been taking a route? I didn't realize there was a fork in the road! Can you give me an example? If it's from the infobox generator, you should talk to Elkman. The buildings and structures category looks like the correct one, but why are there two categories that do the same thing? Valfontis (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps it is the off-site tool generating these categories. I must have been associating some of your edits with the infobox generator. Pardon me! It is a bit confusing to me (the architecture year category vs. buildings and structures date of completion category); who knows how many times they have been used interchangeably or incorrectly... --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I did use the infobox generator a few times and yes, I checked today and it defaults to the "Foo architecture" category. I didn't realize there was a difference since I'm rather indifferent to year categories. I'll be sure to pay more attention if I use it in the future, especially since I scolded someone about putting Portland buildings in the Multnomah County cat! (also an artifact of the infobox generator) P.S. I'll try to revisit the Bitar Mansion question tonight. Valfontis (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up!

Hi Valfontis, thanks for pointing out the potential COI issues related to citing articles I wrote. I got a little paranoid about it -- not so much worried about being blocked or having stuff removed, as I am about getting a rep as a spammer -- so I built a little disclaimer to post on the talk pages of anything I cite to my own stuff about.

cheers! Finn-jd-john (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Holman State Wayside

I noticed your edit of the Holman State Wayside article. You cite WP:MOSNUM but you should read MOS:DATEUNIFY, which asserts the validity of the YYYY-MM-DD format for access and archive dates. I don't object to your edit but I wanted to mention this part of the policy. Happy editing. –droll [chat] 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't cite MOSNUM, the script does!--I got it from Ohconfucius. I know the whole area is a bit controversial. I had originally formatted the accessdate field in the articles I contribute to as YYYY-MM-DD under protest, but since talking to Ohconfucius, when I run across articles where I had previously used that format, I'm changing them to the M-D-Y style. I think the styles in the date and accessdate fields should match. I don't plan on changing the style except in articles where I am the main contributor. I hope this explains. Thanks for all your hard work on the Oregon parks lately! Valfontis (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

More important, two different accessdate styles were being used. I'd prefer the overall M-D-Y formatting, but won't fight over it, as long as the style in each field is consistent. It looks bad to mix them. Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the format for archive dates and the access dates, for all citations in an article, should match and that other dates should be M-D-Y (or D-M-Y). No problem really. The edit summery is what caught my eye. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. –droll [chat] 00:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)