User:Valfontis/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Insert profound knowledge and wisdom here with wacky side effects

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon. First, thank you to all those who helped improve the Ducks and Beavers football teams. Second, now on with the countdown. For this edition of the COTW, we have by request Portland Hempstalk Festival and Munson Valley Historic District. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

school has started!

yay. Having trouble taking a deep breath and looking at that edit objectively. Can you help out? tedder (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff G. beat me to the revert, but I warned him about WP:OWN. Your version is better. It might bear some discussion but YELLING at you and saying the article needs to stay the way it is are never very impressive to me. Yay for school being in. Get ready for the units on Lewis & Clark and Oregon Trail any day now... Katr67 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I suspect it's an eager student. No worries, just relying on you for some added patience. tedder (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Speak of the devil! Damn vandals. Everyone knows that Sacagawea had the hots for Clark, not Lewis. Katr67 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"The STD of herpes... Charbonneau suddenly died.... Charbonneau was killed by Meriwether Lewis." We have a budding linguist on our hands, apparently. The verbal equivalent of a painter using a Sharpie. Oh, my last giggle for you: http://xkcd.com/588/ tedder (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

10 to go: schools

I think that the redlinks in the second one are all in the first one. Not 100% sure though. Certainly OSAA believes they exist; how about using the Missing articles page to stage our content? For instance, checkboxes to see if they exist in OSAA, NCES, ODE, and so on. Dammit. So close, and now I have a list of 10 I can't handle well. tedder (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, I'm pretty sure I checked them all recently. See the page histories. Us obsessives have to stick together. ;) Katr67 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm astounded at the variety in the new fall fashions of hosiery. Katr67 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. It's been ~~entertaining~~tragic. tedder (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can these be connected? The news below and RiverBend Alternative Education School, that is. The article may need to be expanded to be about the school and the facility- which would allow it to be connected, at least.

In any case, I created the article today, and it would make a great DYK.. tedder (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't wrap my brain around that right now, though in the agency's dropdown menu, it's listed under "Transition/Work Study" instead of "Male Offender Programs", so perhaps the school and the facility are synonymous? Looks like a goldmine of scandal and corruption--always good DYK fodder. BTW, I'm 99% sure that the list of schools at OSAA is up-to-date (At one point I had an Excel spreadsheet comparing the OSAA list, H.S. list and redlink list), so any of the redlinked schools in redlink list and in the H.S. list don't compete in the OSAA, which may or may not make them less notable. There are a lot of alternative schools! I had no idea. I think it's a worthy goal to have articles on each public school district's alternative programs, but as for the private schools that don't compete in the OSAA, like that Harris one (7th Day Adventist, only goes to grade 10)...I dunno. BTW, just to open another can of worms, there's one private school that was recently dropped from OSAA: Open Bible Black Panthers. (Note there's another OBCS in Georgia). Katr67 (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My brain can't wrap around it either- that's what TBI does in the short term. Good times.

Alt schools- a lot, especially in Eugene SD :-) I still have a lot to do, just poking through my list. I have the OJ Simpson philosophy- if it exists in several sources (ODE, OSAA, NCES), I must ~~acquit~~ create it. We'll see.

OBCS: see my philosophy above. If it exists and has documentation, I should create it.

Thanks for fixing the alphasorts- one or two were before I knew that it was sorted by city, the others were mistakes, including gradeschool sorting rule errors. And a few weren't created by me :-) tedder (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn hippies and their "alternatives"--I was trying to figure out if Center for Appropriate Transport was listed--it's an alternative program of SD 4J but it's not in the ODE list... And yeah, at some point I forgot about "nothing before something" too. Also, I was just trying to figure out the deal with Portland Industrial Opportunity School, I believe at some point I determined it doesn't really exist. If it ever did... Or was renamed, or... Katr67 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My favorite hippie kid will be attending "A3": Academy of Arts and Academics, part of the Springfield school district. We are everywhere... Katr67 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about you, I assume this is your spawn? What age/grade? tedder (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, she's my unofficial niece. 15/10th grade and she edits Wikipedia too. Katr67 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BHS

No, not a new curse word. It's a school that is listed in the ODE dropout rates. Here's the info.

school: BHS Alternative Education
district: Harney County SD 3

autogenerated reftext: In 2008, 81% of the school's seniors received their [[high school diploma]]. Of 21 students, 17 graduated, 3 dropped out, and 1 is still in high school.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2009/06/high_school_dropout_rates.html|title=State releases high school graduation rates|date=2009-06-30|work=[[The Oregonian]]|accessdate=2009-07-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.oregonlive.com/education_impact/2009/06/Dropout-Rates.xls|title=Oregon dropout rates for 2008|date=2009-06-30|work=[[The Oregonian]]|accessdate=2009-07-01}}</ref>

Can you find anything on this school? It must exist. tedder (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's part of Burns High School (Oregon): BHS Handbook. Geesh, things have changed a lot since I was in high school--Breathalyzer Tests?! Here's proof they once acknowledged that Burns Alternative School exists. Katr67 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done finally. tedder (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks from France

Meissen —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

De rien. :) Katr67 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

why Oregon is like Ivory Soap

99.96%. Sweet! Aside from Wyoming, we're doing well. (zero of zero = 100%?) tedder (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was curious, but Wyoming does have high schools: List of high schools in Wyoming. Katr67 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I have a friend who graduated in a class of ~26. eep.

But 99.96% seems wrong. What is that number based on? It isn't 257/11. tedder (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what the problem is...this is why I dropped out of pre-calc twice. And I think they covered percentages sometime in Jr. High. I divided 11/257 correctly, getting a figure of 0.0428 or 4.28% not complete, but then for some reason I added 100, not 1, which would have resulted in the correct figure, 95.72% complete. D'oh. That's why I was a humanities major. Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Though to be technical, if we only included the redlinks that were in the initial list of 257, I'm sure we are close to 99%. But I'm not feeling picky enough to check today. Katr67 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point at WQA

wp:IAR is important. :) Everything is relative, and certainly not putting the WQA tag on an article isn't something anyone would even get a warning over, so "obligation" is probably too strong a word. Besides, you may be both wiser and smarter than I in leaving the notice off.- sinneed (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Compassion & Choices

Hey there:

Thanks for the note about COI and Compassion and Choices. It's appreciated.

Is it possible to flag the article for neutrality problems, then? The push from DavidOaks to categorize Compassion & Choices with euthanasia is completely inappropriate and biased. If it's not okay for me to edit--then someone should watch the page closely and deal with, if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaaxtman (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carla, I don't think it's biased at all. I think DavidOaks is acting in good faith and is not trying to push a POV. See my comment on the article's talk page. We can call some more third parties' attention to the article, but at this point, I don't think that's necessary. We seem to be doing OK talking it out on the talk page. I can give you some ideas of where to take complaints, however, if you think it's necessary. Also, can you please sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes? Like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Katr, thanks so much for engaging with me on this. Respectfully, I do believe that if there is not a POV problem, then there's some fundamental misinformation being propagated about what Compassion & Choices does and does not do. For example, C&C goes out of it's way on the organization website make clear that it doesn't support "assisted suicide"--but that appears to be, at least in part, the premise for the euthanasia category/citations. Please forgive my inability to properly offer citations (still learning how to work out the kinks in Wikipedia's system). You can view this information here: http://www.compassionandchoices.org//documents/LMPressKit.2009.pdf It is not uncommon for individuals to use "euthanasia" and "assisted suicide" and "aid in dying" (what C&C advocates for) synonymously, but in fact all three are not the same thing. I think it's very important to elevate people's understanding of this terminology and usage as it creates a misperception. I have been talking extensively with Pete Forsyth about the best ways to improve articles related to C&C, "assisted suicide", related court cases, etc. in order to make these informative and neutral. I continue to appreciate anything you can do to contribute to these efforts. (Sorry about the signature/tilde thing...will try hard in the future to make certain I'm following protocal. Carlaaxtman (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Carla Axtman

Thanks for your input--in working with this article, I learned a lot about the terminology and you're right that the supposed interchangability of the words is confusing. I added some categories to the article that should better address the scope of the organization. Frankly, I don't have much interest in these sort of debates, I just want the articles that come to my attention to look good and be as usable as possible for our readers. I'm glad Pete is working with you--he's good at that sort of thing and more patient. I will say that it's not really Wikipedia's problem is there's a fundamental misperception problem about the group and Wikipedia is not the place to elevate people's people's understanding of the issue. I do hear what you are saying--hopefully Pete can better explain what I mean. The job of the encyclopedia is to present neutrally worded information and let our readers draw their own conclusions. If the press kit explains C & C's stance on the misuse of terminology, then by all means it can go in the article. We can help you with citation format if you provide the links. No worries about the sig thing, and P.S. you don't have to write your name after the tildes. :) Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammock

I just clicked on the thumbnail of the hammock on your user page and laughed out loud. Very clever. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, one day I wondered if there just happened to be a {{lazy}} template as a companion to {{busy}}. There was! I love Wikipedians. Hey, BTW, I just created an article on Placer, Oregon. Did you say that you had a copy of that Illahe book? OGN says that it has a lot of info about Tom East on p. 89 et seq. if you get a minute to take a look. I don't know if it should go in the Placer article or maybe a new article on the three Tom East creeks...no pressure. Katr67 (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, and it does. A lot of it is anecdotal, oral-history stuff such as "It was generally known that Tom East and his neighbor, Elisha Meservey, had a tense relationship; perhaps incidents like the one described above caused Elisha Meservey to take a shot at Tommy East every time he walked out on the river bar at Potato Illahe." I'll see if I can find anything useful to add to the Placer article, although at first glance it looks like you've got the main stuff already. Might take me a little while to get around to it for all the usual reasons. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I added three-quarters of a sentence to the Placer article this morning from the Atwood book. Most of Atwood's anecdotal stuff about East seems unrelated to Placer, but I thought the bit about his movements after 1870 fit in nicely with the OGN claim that he died in southern Oregon in 1897. Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Chaba?

How did you get onto Chaba River? How did I get onto it?! I assume I did because I saw it in your contribs. tedder (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he who shall not be named spammed an Oregon-related article with his name and I checked his contribs and there ya go. Occasionally I run a Google search and make sure his name hasn't popped up anywhere else. Back in the day he even had his name in a couple foreign language wikis. You can ABF on this one. That editing note won't help. Luckily he's not prolific just consistent. Scientizzle was helping block him, but he's busy so feel free to take over! Katr67 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, odd. Good point. BTW, the reason for the editing note was to reduce the brainpower required to revert and especially to understand the reverts (i.e., for third-party reviewers). Good times. tedder (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, but unless he steps up his activity to the level of a certain person who is obsessed with a certain public space in a populous Oregon city, I think there shouldn't be too much problem keeping his contributions down to a dull roar. BTW, I just found two more mentions of his name today. Gotta hand it to him, his name still pops up in a few dozen Wikipedia mirrors. It sure will suck if some future employer googles him though. Hee hee. Katr67 (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. At this level he isn't even annoying- just a quick game of whack-a-mole. tedder (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just when I think I've seen everything, there's more. I will keep my eyes out for this variation on Kilroy. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of Oregon Trail article?

I'm just trying to reduce the massive backlog of cleanup listings under Wikiproject Protected Areas and in this article , I added some detail with inline citations under "Utah" subsection, then found two more tags in Ref section and other places. Does this article need all these tags? The tags, IMHO distract the reader of the article. A concerned editor-- Marcia Wright (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're a "tags are evil" person. I'm not. :) However, I'm not sure why you're asking me, as I don't own the article. Is it because I placed some of the tags? I quickly glanced through the edit history, and I did tidy up the tags here, and I tagged the linkfarm. The linkfarm needs to be pruned, and I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the tag. I don't know if I tagged the weasel words section, and the {{nofootnotes}} tag is no longer necessary, though vast swaths of the article, including entire sections, are not referenced, which is a real shame. Tags let the reader know, especially the thousands of schoolkids (judging by the hundreds of incidents of vandalism) who study the topic every year, that they might not want to take everything they read in the article at face value. Anyway, I think there is still work to be done, but if you're concerned about the tags, feel free to remove them. It's usually best to leave a note on the article's talk page where more readers can weigh in though. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply, and I too am a inline cite lover, I try to have one at end of each paragraph ( in addition to the must-haves at end of certain sentences), ideally, although sometimes the Ref section gets horribly cluttered, LOL! I won't do any more to the article as I am realizing this is walking up a DOWN escalator-trying to "cleanup" the cleanup list for a Wikiproject-. My attempt to reduce the clean up list is what I do in between writing articles-nope, not a Wikaddict, who me? ;)

Again thanks for your time and input. Marcia Wright (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

homeless wording

Want to help me set up the wording on this? I'm running through a big list of homeless rates by district in Oregon and using a script to get the wording correct. So it's a bit of blackmail- help me now and you don't have to be annoyed at the wording on 130 wiki pages later :-) Not including the above ref so it doesn't bork your page.

Ontario School District: In the 2009 school year, the district had 151 students who were homeless, a 5.8% change from the previous year.(ref goes here)

Thoughts? tedder (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here I was afraid you wanted to help out a certain operator of footwear-derived marionettes... Whew. So, can you tighten it to say, "In the 2009 school year, the district had 151 homeless students, a 5.8% change from 2008"? And is it possible to have it say "increase" or "decrease" instead of "change"? And then perhaps footnote the ODE's definition of homeless--I was listening to a story about this topic on NPR this morning and they include families living with relatives, etc. I think people confuse "houseless" with "homeless", I know I do. Anyway, make it clear that these aren't all kids literally living on the streets. Is there an article or section about homeless children we could link to? I'm not trying to be on a soapbox, but I find the topic interesting, maybe other folks would too. Maybe that's beyond the scope of a one sentence statistic... Katr67 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Butting in, and this I think might address part of Katr's concern: insert "classified as homeless by the state". Aboutmovies (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, with a little tweak:

Ontario School District: In the 2009 school year, the district had 151 students classified as homeless by the Department of Education ~~who were homeless~~, an increase of 5.8% from the previous year.(ref goes here)

This defines homeless as "despite lack of a fixed place of residence or a supervising parent or guardian." Not sure if that's worth including in the district pages. tedder (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Take two. I misread what the percentage represents.

In the 2009 school year, the district had X students classified as homeless by the Department of Education, or Y% of students in the district.(ref)

Any issues with the wording? tedder (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's fine, so I splattered the text on all school districts that currently exist. It's a lot of work, actually! (all the edits are by hand) tedder (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

student enrollment numbers

FYI, and not that you have to do the same, but I use a ref from the 2008 ODE directory for student numbers. The refs are partway down on my school notes page. tedder (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to my changes at Pleasant Hill High School (Oregon)? The enrollment number was updated by someone, but it didn't match the 2008 directory listing already cited, which has the enrollment numbers listed at each school's listing. And now the 2009 directory is out. I didn't see enrollment numbers for PHHS and when I searched the doc for "enrollment", nothing useful came up. Are you saying we should use the outdated directory instead of the school's own website? It might not make much difference for many schools, but PHHS' configuration changed pretty dramatically this year. Katr67 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm referring to PHHS. I'm just saying that in general, for fairly stable schools, it's probably better to use ODE (it's a reliable/authoritative source, and not the primary source). Since you were discussing the "news" related to the population, it makes more sense to use the updated figures. Still, it was more prompted by your editsummary than by the change. Didn't know if you knew about my preformatted refs. tedder (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

While we are on the topic, since you know A3, I assume you know Gateways High School. Can you give it coords for me? I don't know which building it is on google. tedder (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. But I can ~~look~~ guess. Katr67 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go: 44.046084, -123.017065 Katr67 (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

pasting in. Thanks. tedder (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye summer, hello Dolly!

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, it is time for another Collaboration of the Week. First, thanks to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Portland Hempstalk Festival and the Munson Valley Historic District articles. This week we have by request Rasheed Wallace and the Oregon Zoo. The later should have lots of recent news with the new/old exhibit opening. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Culp Creek, Oregon

Add a little more and it will be long enough for DYK. A couple sentences should do it as it is at about 1300 characters (needs 1500 of prose). Perhaps elevation above sea level from GNIS, or are there other schools, or state roads, or a variety of info such as that covered in another small community. Even notable residents worked into prose. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a little bit about a film shot in the area, pushing it up to 1,785 characters. Little Mountain 5 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome--I knew that The General had been filmed in the area. I think that abandoned RR site I cited has video of the filming? I think the firey trestle is our hook if was indeed closest to Culp Creek and not Disston or some such. I had been working on it and saved as a Word doc back in March. I think I was trying to figure out the deal with their post office being closed and reopened again. There was some thing with voters who had their ballots go missing because of the postal change, that might be mildly interesting but the trestle thing is cooler. I think I saved the browser session somewhere... I was also trying to track down the history of the mill there because that was pretty much what the town was about. Can anybody get their hands on that book about the company I noted in the further reading section? How many more days do I have to expand this? Katr67 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The book says 'in the Culp Creek area' but you probably know that region better than me... As for how long you have, 5 days is the maximum, although sometimes older ones slip through :) Great work! Little Mountain 5 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dang. Wrong film, wrong state. But the firey crash is still full of awesome. The locomotive came from Oregon and scenes were also filmed near Vernonia. Check it out: http://www.brian894x4.com/RingofFire.html. Katr67 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

With the 5 days, at least get a nom in, you can always propose a better hook later. It often takes a week before a hook gets approved, but as long as it was nominated before the 5 days is up, then all is good (you can even expand more if needed). Aboutmovies (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(moving left) Couldn't find that book at Powells or the catalogs of c-lib or the uni lib, but I did find this one. Want me to peruse it? An alternate option would be for me to drop a coin and read it at OHS. tedder (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for looking tedder! Thoele is a good writer (he used to write for the R-G), so yeah, that one is probably worth checking out regardless. Time to start an article on Bohemia, perhaps? (hint hint). How much coin do you need to drop for the ~~money grubbing~~ struggling non-profit OHS? Before you go for it, let me check the Hugh Morrow collection at the Salem library. Katr67 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

$11, only open afternoons Thursday-Saturday. sigh. So, no real rush.. tedder (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to save some money, WorldCat says OSU's library has a copy, and I believe they are a member of Summit, which means you could do a free inter-library loan as a PSU student. I'd do it, but I'm no longer a student. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Salem Lib. has the Thoele book and some pamphlet. I can take a look tomorrow, as this backwater can't afford to keep the library open on Mondays...P.S. For all my fave talk page stalkers, I might need some help with some POV edits at Yelm, Washington. Fascinating place that I studied in college. A typical farming-community-now-bedroom-community overrun with new agers/cultists (YMMV). Some folks don't want to acknowlege the people of alternative belief systems. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AM- I requested it via Summit. I think it'll arrive in "2-6 days". Otherwise, I need to run an errand to Salem this week anyhow, if you all want me to. tedder (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to run to Salem just for this as Katr is in Salem all the time, and we have more than enough prose for DYK. Anything else and we might consider GA, though it might be tough with such as small community. As to DYK, I've nominated it so we get it in before the type limit. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yeah, I was a little confused, but if tedder wants to come to Salem (the "backwater" to which I referred!), who am I to argue? Maybe he has time for a beer? And I didn't make to the library yesterday--I readily admit I'm a slacker. For the record, stalkers and interested others, and I used to be cagey about it, but now that online anonymity is a thing of the past: I grew up in Eugene, lived a couple years in Springfield (rent's cheaper), a couple short stints in Portland, five years in Olympia, Washington, in Salem since the '05 legislative session and Eugene the rest of the time. I'm also female.

Thanks for doing the nom AM! I'm hoping to add info anyway, and to get a stub going on Bohemia, maybe that could be our GA project. Katr67 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed out on all the fun! Dang, I always forget how expensive the ~~stupid~~ struggling OHL is. AM, have you checked the WU policy? I'm pretty sure Reed'll let me use ILL as an alum (though you probably would have to go back to some backwater in person). Anyway, good luck with the DYK! -Pete (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, somehow I ended up in Portland's Klamath Falls (guess that state, katr?), so probably won't be at Salem today. Thanks for the History of Katr67, do you have WP:RS to back those up? :-) In any case, I did put that one book on ILL. tedder (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pete, WU probably would let me do ILL, as I still have access to the online databases, but Salem is not that convenient. I'd assume the local library has ILL too, but I don't know with whom they have agreements. I'll have to check both out sometime to keep resources available. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got the Thoele book out of the Salem Public Library and made a copy of the Bohemia Story pamphlet from the pamphlet files. I'm still unsure why anybody else has to run all over creation and or spend money (I'm out $3.20 for copies) for these books but feel free--the Thoele book (Bohemia: The Lives and Times of an Oregon Timber Venture) is a 600-page epic, if anybody wants to start up an article on Bohemia it might take more than one person chipping away at it. Katr67 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I just got home and the Wally Hunter book was waiting for me. Shouldn't take long, it's 60 pages. Want me to extract Bohemia stuff from it or just Culp Creek? tedder (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I already made a copy of it, but feel free to add to the Culp Creek article and start an article on Bohemia if I don't get around to it. Katr67 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been horribly overwhelmed after leaving flying out of town with an hour's notice earlier this week, and I just got back. So I'll claim reading comprehension fail. tedder (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yelm, Washington

OK, I'm going to get nailed for WP:3RR if I revert again. Can someone restore the info with this citation: [1], at the bottom of the page, the place has a Yelm mailing address. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: GladRags

With regard to GladRags ... so an article squeaks through an AfD a year ago and no one cares enough in the time since to clean it up or cite any references, yet it's somehow immune from deletion? The page is just an advert, nothing more. It either needs to be cleaned up or removed, and considering the company doesn't meet notability standards and clearly no one is interested in even TRYING to make it appear to be something more than a company brochure, deletion is the obvious choice. I'm tagging it again; give the populace a chance to vote again now that there's an overwhelming lack of interest in the "article". -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I was just following protocol. Specifically:

"3. Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has:

not previously been proposed for deletion.
not been undeleted.
not been and is not being discussed at AfD." (emphasis mine)

I never said the article was immune. Forgive me if I'm reading something into your message, but you seem angry at me for some reason. It's true that I believe that since the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are male, a topic such as this might not get the same treatment as a topic of interest to men. But that's all other crap under the bridge. It is a shame it wasn't cleaned up or referenced and it's true the thing reads like an ad. I may do something about that or I may not. I have no horse in this race other than an interest in the topic and in the state in which the company is based. Of course you're perfectly free to take it to a 2nd Afd, which it looks like you have done. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not angry at all. Just didn't understand the protocol / difference between PROD and AfD, which was my own fault. If the company truly is notable, I hope someone will step up. My only interest in this is keeping advertising off Wikipedia -- I happened to stumble across this article while doing an unrelated search for "gladrags" and after looking at the article and its history was amazed that it was still around, untouched, following the AfD process a year ago. It's not a lack of interest in the product because of my gender (or any other reason) but simply a feeling that the subject isn't notable enough for inclusion here. Thanks for taking the time to clarify! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rogue celebrities

Thanks for tagging that growing unsourced list of celebrities. I was tempted to delete them, but I try to avoid provoking even the unregistered users. That list (Johnny Depp, et al.) and the mini-section on a 19th century hatchery have appeared since I wandered away from the Rogue and into myriad other things. "Some day I will have to fix that," I say to myself when I see another unsourced snippet added to pages I watch. Finetooth (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What 19th century hatchery? Shows you how much I pay attention. It's true a bunch of celebs live or have lived in the area, but I don't know how much it matters in an article about the river. ::shrug:: On the other hand, Johnny Depp lives in France, it's unlikely he'd be real interested in the Rogue Valley. Does he fish? Hmmm. [2] Yep, "some day", I'll simply fix a lot of things. Katr67 (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Even better: [3] Katr67 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Culp Creek, Oregon

On September 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Culp Creek, Oregon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mohawk River (Oregon)

Thanks for fixing up more and updating the OGN cite. I found a 6th edition used copy for less $$ than it would be new and indulged. I may be adding bits and pieces of name origin stuff to articles, but can only cite the 6th edition, page numbers, etc. ...just a heads up that there may be more to come. I assume there is no great difference between the 6th and 7th editions. Pfly (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome--glad to help/interfere! :) Sorry if I ec'd you. I'm done now--I'm writing a stub on Mohawk, Oregon and trying to figure out if Donna, Oregon is the same place. Congrats on the FA on Columbia River too! I wish I could have had the attention span to help out, but looks like you didn't need my help! As far as OGN, I think mostly they add stuff, not change anything, though there are inaccuracies... If you add any facts I'll double check them. And Finetooth has a 7th ed. too. Off to gazetteer and google... Katr67 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OGN

Hi Katr, I have a quick favor to ask of you if you have time: would you kindly look up Little Butte Creek in Oregon Geographic Names to see if there is any info about it? I'm working on the article and need some more history type information (name, native American history, etc.) to fill it out. Thanks, Little Mountain 5 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From the entry for Big Butte Creek on p. 79: "JACKSON: Mount McLoughlin was known by the early settlers in the Rogue River Valley as Snowy Butte. Big Butte Creek had its rise near Snowy Butte and was so named on that account. It flows into [the] Rogue River. A smaller stream rising in the same vicinity was christened Little Butte Creek. The name Butte Creek when applied to Big Butte Creek is incorrect." And that's all she wrote. Sorry! Katr67 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks anyway! Little Mountain 5 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiphoto ride

Londershausen House (309 Main St., Dayton, Oregon)

Could this be named any worse? Because of 409, I dunno what should be done. I should/may be going past there tomorrow for photos, might be able to see if there is some way to name them better unless you have a bright idea. tedder (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend not to agree with the kind of solutions the editor who created that article comes up with, so I usually steer clear. Unfortunately it appears there are two houses by that name in Dayton so I don't know if there is a better solution. I'll double check the official state NRHP list and the SHPO database. One of these days I'm going to bike to Dayton. Business or pleasure for you? Are you riding again? Katr67 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Easy Peasy:

Londershausen, Gottlieb, House 402 Main St Dayton c.1907 03/16/1987 87000383
Londershausen, Paul, House 309 Main St Dayton 1921 03/16/1987 87000384

I'll do the page moves. Katr67 (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Woot! I'm kinda surprised I didn't see you in the edit history. They seem up your alley :-) tedder (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I value my low blood pressure. If you go, can you check out that this is indeed mislabeled? Looks like Italianate to me. I think this is the Gottleib one, but it is labeled as Paul's. The SHPO data base says the Gottleib one is "vernacular" (aka if you don't know what to call it, call it "vernacular"). Here's more cool stuff in Dayton. Katr67 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(Note there seems to already be a photo of Paul's File:Paul londershausen house.JPG.) Katr67 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Printed out both of those pictures- the UO and the WP ones. I'll verify them and take more pictures. I'm no good at categorizing things, because they don't fit into nice little buckets. tedder (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's my turf! Well, actually I don't lay claim to the ridiculously over-historic Dayton. Outside of Palmer, is the place really that historic for that many entries? Anyway, a couple of notes. If you haven't done the NRHP ones yet, the coordinates are off, at least if you pull them up in Google Maps and such. I don't know about real life as I don't have a GPS unit, but if you compare the address to the coords on a map, it is usually about a block or so off, as I found out the hard way in Forest Grove earlier this year. Not a big deal if you are looking for a farm, but in a city it sort of messes stuff up. Next, I was planning on hitting the last Newberg one that isn't a restricted site along with the last Dundee one and the remaining Lafayette ones tomorrow as the wife is off to a sewing party. But if those are on your agenda, let me know and I can go elsewhere. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A real-life edit war would be interesting. Here's the rough route. Lots of bouncing back and forth for various things. Open the "waypoints" box and scroll past the numbers- you'll see the actual things we're headed for. Don't let that stop you, though- and if you see two ruffians on faux tour-the-world bikes, flag us down. tedder (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot to pack-in in 6 hours, especially with the earlier sunsets. Doesn't look like you are stopping at the places I was mentioned, plus you will be starting after I finish. When in Monmouth, if you have a chance I have an article in development for the arctic museum at Western. Also, with Chemwa Indian School, I don't know if you can get in as they have a guard/gate at the entrance. Well, have fun and hopefully its not too wet. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I guess y'all don't have time to stop in Salem for a beer! If you're swinging by Chemawa, you can see the cemetery from the Amtrak line. I don't remember if there's an access road parallel...I'll check Google in a minute...anyway, a pic of the cemetery might be interesting if you can't get access to the grounds. I got some pics of the outside of Hillcrest and a sign indicating that Robert S. Farrell High School was there. I thought about wandering inside the gates as there was a semi-public event happening, but I didn't do it. I think it's probably good to call ahead about those kind of things, maybe with Chemawa too. On the other hand, I've wandered all over the Oregon State Hospital demolition site and never had any trouble. "Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home." P.S. I was in Scio last weekend and got a pic of the storefront of Oregon Connections Academy and the small sign in the window. Katr67 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Coords for cemetery. Katr67 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(moving left) So I'm back and all the pictures are uploaded. I didn't see Katr's last two messages, but I did see AM's request for the Arctic Museum and got that taken care of. I also got Ellendale, Oregon (below) taken care of, there's definitely nothing "there" anymore, but it's more scenic than Whiteson, Oregon was. Dayton was a minor disaster; I don't think any of the coords are right, I left without my printed images of the houses, and one house that was supposed to be the John T. Hash Hosue wasn't- the residents were less than informative. Not going to say more about the city on here, but I'll try going again with a LOT of prior research on addresses and such. I took some of the airfields off of the reqphoto list, as they are private fields down long *private* drives, so public-access photos aren't possible. Perhaps someone has a plane :-) tedder (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah- other things. Katr, if you have better pics of OCA in Scio, replace mine. Also, I tried finding William P. Lord High School and failed. Can't figure out if it's on the campus of the prison or is/was across the street. Will have to go back for that one. Also, check out the pic on Woodburn Success Alternative High School- that's the principal of the school to the right. Finally, I think I'll send an email to Chemewa and see if I can get access for photos. tedder (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the non-wiki writeup and pics. tedder (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I warned you about the coords with NRHP. I think most date back to the original NRHP listings, as do the addresses. So accuracy back in the 70s/80s/90s might not be as precise prior to newer GPS units (as in I think they used maps and guessed). And the addresses can also be off a bit as my edit summary explains, and some of the roads have changed names or directional indicators. And the names of the NRHP may not be what people know them as now, thus the resident's confusion (that and possibly being at the wrong house). All-in-all pics of NRHP places can be an adventure. Just wait till you get the old house surrounded by hedges or like your "airports" that are down private drives. But at least you got to go to Dayton! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting an Ellendale pic--I think you made a good choice. I'll upload my pics of ORCA and we can decide--on the upside of my storefront pic there weren't any cars, on the downside, crappier camera and terrible angle of sunlight. For my pics of the sign the upside is that they are more close-up, downside same as above and they are both at funny angles (they hadn't taken in the hanging plant to protect it from frost yet). I guess the point of a pic of the sign is to "prove" that that storefront is indeed the offices for ORCA, but if we don't need show that, we should just nab the logo off their website and use that in the infobox. (I had been thinking we could crop the best photo of the sign and use that for the infobox, but that's silly when we have a nice logo to use.) I haven't done any logo nabbing and don't know how to deal with the copyright on those, so someone else free free! :) Katr67 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. AM--regarding annoying shrubbery, rest assured that when I rule the world, laurel hedges will be banned. (Or else we will employ people to punch holes in them, like in the movie Amélie. [4]) Katr67 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I found the coord issue: this note and what I was reading last night about Hells Canyon in the World Almanac 2008 discusses how once GPS was launched we discovered map based coordinates were off. Some by a lot, others not so much. So, that's why the old coords are off. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes for tedder

Ellendale, Oregon--if the GNIS coords are correct, there's no "there there" anymore, just a lot of trees and underbrush. I couldn't really figure out what to take a photo of, but there are some old buildings along the road from Dallas; IIRC, one used to be a bunkhouse for the mill, according to the gentleman who lived there. Katr67 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 'nothin there now. tedder (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Londershausen House

Hi, thanks for updating the Londershausen House dab page, still on my watchlist. Glad you found alternative names (which i am figuring must be from the Oregon state source?) for the two houses that NRIS had listed at the same name. That's an improvement, better than the awkward street addresses in disambiguation that I had set up. The alternative i had probably considered previously was to go with the Culp Residence and other alternative name given in NRIS for the two places, but i didn't know what they would be called locally. Thanks! P.S. I'll put a note towards asking the National Register to update their naming of these two places, into the wp:NRIS info issues error reporting system now. doncram (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

your specific skills = wanted!

I know, sounds like spam.

Turn SEHS into a dab page, per this
Nitpick through Oregon Environmental Council, especially these edits

Thanks. tedder (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fixing that hatnote on SEHS right now. Katr67 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some triage on the OEC article. Katr67 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that- thanks. Both those tasks seemed like things that would be in your wheelhouse. I may not have been clear, though, what about making SEHS a dab page to both the high schools, then removing the hatnote on South Eugene High School? tedder (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard ya. I'm supposed to be working. I'd want to seek out all the articles that might be abbreviated as "SEHS". I might get to it this evening...or not. Katr67 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Not like you'll forget, knowing you it'll be stuck on your brain until you get it done. Heh. Random: emailed Chemawa today to see about getting on their campus. Might do it on Friday when I'm rolling through (headed to California). tedder (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Done. SEHS dab page is done. Unfortunately, I can find no reliable sources for Sudden Exploding Head Syndrome. (Note: Video accompanying Uncyclopedia article contains graphic content.) Katr67 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done OEC is done too. Katr67 (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadway Street in Portland

(Context:Broadway Bridge entry on List of crossings of the Willamette River)

No such thing. It's just Broadway. The Broadway Bridge carries Broadway, not Broadway Street. Reverted Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Before reverting people, try researching and not going off memory. It helps prevent pointless edit wars and keeps people from getting poor opinions of editors who do so. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I did research. On most of the maps, it says Broadway. It even says Broadway on one side of the bridge of the map you were using. Don't accuse me of not doing research when I did research Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, I checked Google Maps before I changed it and if you do an address lookup, it lists Broadway addresses in Portland as "Broadway St." Google Maps has been known to be wrong, however. Looks like we need some additional sources. (Also for those who don't know Portland or the U.S., without the word "street" the entry may be lacking in needed context. I thought it looked weird with "Broadway" all by itself.) We both are acting in good faith, but maybe you could be a little less blunt next time. A message that simply reads "Reverted."? Seems a little rude to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Here's an example of a more civil exchange: "Hi Katr, I checked and if you look at [www.example.com some reference I found], you'll see that the street is just "Broadway", not "Broadway Street". So on the article List of crossings of the Willamette River, I added a citation and changed it back to just 'Broadway'. Cheers.". I don't really care that much, however, if you insist that you're right. No need to reply to me here, there's no use edit warring about it. AM, if you wish to reply to Purplebackpack, take it to his page. Thanks and have a lovely evening. Katr67 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Next time just direct me to the talk page discussion--it's good to keep the conversation in one place. I had no idea the conversation was happening on 3 pages at once. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

another headscratcher

Is it Southern Oregon RiverDogs or Southern Oregon RiverDawgs? Certainly this isn't the best way to move a page, even though I reverted it and told the editor not to. It seems most news sources say RiverDogs, but the one (possibly official) website says RiverDawgs. Hoping you (or a TPS) can try to untangle it. tedder (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they decided to rebrand: May 2009 Mail-Trib story. "'We definitely have more to play for now than we've ever had before,' adds the manager, who also altered the team name this year so it would stand out more after finding thousands of 'RiverDog' sites — from baseball teams to snowmobile clubs — in an online search." As you can see by the progression of news stories, the name change occured sometime after the 2008 season (assuming the Mail-Trib copydesk keeps the stylebooks up-to-date): Google News search. So the article should now be at RiverDawgs (and not at Riverdawgs). The camel case appears to be the correct spelling, although the official website is inconsistent (someone should donate some webdesign to them). So for now I'd trust the Mail-Trib. What does the article's author say? And did you note the RiverDogs article was deleted once? I think I did some clean up on that one. (And is it me, or is a team name like "Humboldt Crabs" kinda snicker-worthy?) Katr67 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew you could probably find a name change. Quick googling didn't help. But my favorite? "I did the cut and paste move by design". (steam rises) But yeah, there are a LOT of good jokes in the Crabs thing. Heh.

I'll be somewhat AFK fri-sun, three-day ride to California and back with a friend. Still have my laptop though :-) tedder (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigfoot trap

Sorry that I had to nominate it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot trap Northwestgnome (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're sorry, why nominate it? Anyway, it's not my article. ::shrug:: Katr67 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Merry Columbus Day 2 all and 2 all a goodnite, beware of large windstorms bearing gifts

Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, time to uncork a fine wine as it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving the Oregon Zoo, the Rasheed Wallace, Willamette Bridges, and the Vanport articles. This week we have by request Jim Paxson and Films shot in Oregon. The later can easily be improved just by adding some sources. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And with Halloween fast approaching, remember that pennies really suck as a “treat” and you can expect toilet paper and or eggs on your residence for your “trick”. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hazel Hall

good work on improving, i might quibble with you on pob and pod being in the lead paren, and like leaving the copyvio history in discussion, but have it your way. i'm debating how to handle the two editions of Curtains (i put them both there) Pohick2 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for starting the article, she was a redlink at Oregon Book Awards for a long time, and she's really interesting!

As far as I was aware, the current MOS said that place of birth and death are not to be used in the lede sentence. So it wasn't "my" way, but a Wikipedia guideline. I don't really spend much time thinking about it, though I think it looks kind of cluttered and usually doesn't add much when you need a quick overview of the person (which is what the lede is for). It turns out, however, that apparently the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which judging by the examples leaves the places out of the date span, was recently changed per this lengthy discussion, to which I was pointed from here. I don't have the patience to wade through the sometimes nasty discussion, but I guess the consensus is that either way is fine. So I acted in good faith, and don't particularly care if you want to change it back, but like I said, I don't think it adds anything.

Feel free to restore the note on the talk page, it's not like I own it, it just doesn't seem to add anything necessary to any discussions about improving the article, and the deletion log and talk page history will easily show what happened.

I wanted to get to cleaning up the works section so thanks for thinking about how to fix it. I'd only list her three books as originally published and link to whatever the best source of the full text is, if it is available. Then put all the other occurrences in the anthologies section. I haven't looked to see how lists of works are supposed to be handled but there's probably a guideline somewhere. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant style guides, I'm not sure they answer our question: Wikipedia:Layout#Works, WP:WORKS. I'm trying to find an example of how to handle anthologies and I'm not coming up with anything. I imagine with many poets there would be so many anthologies that it would be pointless to include them, but since Hall was nearly forgotten until recently, it's probably good to include them. If you don't get to it today, I may take a stab improving the section and you can see what you think. Katr67 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dixon (industrial designer)

Hi Valfontis/Archive 10! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create this, I just moved it from another article it was cluttering up. P.S. WP:DTR. :) Katr67 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

dates

In this edit, why did you change some of the dates to "Month DD YYYY" and leave the rest as "YYYY-MM-DD"? They are all in cites, after all.. tedder (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

'Cos the date of actual news story should be in the standard American format for readability, since this encyclopedia is for general readers and is not a technical publication. (And since we're not Chicago or MLA, or APA--again, not a tech publication, I don't put the year first.) I used to change the accessdate fields to the same format after they stopped being converted to reflect user prefs. I hate the YYYY-MM-DD format, but somewhere on the WP:ORE talk page and elsewhere there was a long discussion about leaving the accessdate fields that way. For standardization purposes if nothing else, or perhaps there was some talk of having the templates start converting dates again? Finetooth knows best of any of us, I think. In any case, as long as the fields in each article are consistent throughout, that's what really matters. I think that discussion was a couple of page archives ago, I'll try to find it later. P.S. Hot damn! There's a style guide template! {{styles}} </copy editor geekery> Katr67 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, didn't know you hate that format. MOSDATE is obviously not a fan, but in a citation it seems to make more sense (as MOSDATE says). I was involved in that WPORE discussion and was one of the people professing love for YYYY-MM-DD, especially in the cites. In the article itself, a prose-style date definitely works better.

There's definitely talk of a date delinker bot, so I assume templatized dates wouldn't be too far down the road. tedder (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Binford & Mort

Hello Katr, I am writing regarding my changes to the Binford & Mort entry at Binford & Mort. I deleted the historical portion of the entry because the text for the entry was lifted with some careful modifications from an article I painstakingly wrote for the Oregon Encyclopedia project. I believe that altering OEP entries and placing them on Wikipedia, although legal, is not ethical or useful to the researcher. It is incredibly frustrating to spend hours researching a subject, and report one's findings in one place, only to see them appropriated for another. You should note that after deleting the historical portion of the entry, I added a link to the Oregon Encyclopedia Project entry, which I felt was an appropriate way to direct interested parties to a more authoritative source. I encourage you to take a look at my original OEP entry at [5] to judge for yourself whether or not I am over-exagerating this problem. I have notified the editors of the OEP of this problem, and I expect they will be getting in touch with Oregon Wiki to discuss the larger problem. In the meantime I would appreciate it if you would reconsider the removal of the historical portion of this entry Thank you, Jeremy Skinner Poiuzxcv (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Mr. Skinner, I think you are over-exaggerating the problem. I can see no overt copyright violations or plagiarism, but instead the article as written by User:Aboutmovies (as shown in the article's page history) uses several different sources, including The Oregon Encyclopedia article. It makes no sense to me that you would not only delete all references to the Oregon Encyclopedia article (which was given full credit with a link to the Binford and Mort article at OE), but also all the other references used in the article. Since you did not use edit summaries to justify your actions, the only conclusion I could draw was that your edits were simple vandalism, so I reverted your edits. Of course you, as a new Wikipedia editor, would not know this, so thank you for opening a dialogue. This is what is known here at Wikipedia as the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. Personally, I think it is a credit to your article that a Wikipedia editor would use it as a source, as we have very stringent guidelines about reliable sources and we have deemed OE to be such. Wikipedia does not rely on original research, thus it can only summarize what has already been published in third-party reliable sources. There was also absolutely no reason that I can see for you to delete the "selected titles" section, as that does not seem to have any reliance on your OE article at all. There really isn't anyone to get in touch with at the "Oregon Wiki" to discuss this problem. We are all volunteers doing our best to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, many of whom participate in an informal Oregon WikiProject. My best suggestion is for you or the OEP to contact Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team. They will be able to give you guidance about how to proceed. Among other things, they handle "inquiries about re-using text or media". Let's keep further discussion about this topic at the article's talk page: Talk:Binford & Mort. I will copy this discussion there as a point of reference. I look forward to continuing the discussion there, where other editors can weigh in. (Please click on the blue links in this post and read the material there for more information.) Best, Katr67 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lookingglass, Oregon

On October 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lookingglass, Oregon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

So Why 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Made in Oregon sign

On October 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Made in Oregon sign, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Frank H. Schwarz

On October 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank H. Schwarz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Christie/Snakepit

Please do finish the Snakepit article. Robert and Denise were very dear friends of mine, as were Diane Beck(Rios), Mike Johnson and Al Larson. I played bass for a longtime in Al's band and Robert was such a huge influence on me. I miss him every day.

Martin Bernier

Thanks very much for the note. I used to work with Robert about the time he and Denise's apartment burned down. As a baker, Robert made a very good drummer! :) I didn't know them real well, but they were very kind and thoughtful. The Christie family was taken from us much too soon. I can't promise I'll get to that article right away, but I'm happy for the encouragement. I may have trouble finding sources, especially online. Let me know if you can help with sources (online or offline). P.S. My cat used to visit Diane's cat before she was my cat. Long story. She's a dear. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty with the Rogue River

Oh, gotcha. That looks like a very good piece of work on your part. I don't disagree at all. I simply assumed (incorrectly) that "Indian" had been omitted accidently. Finetooth (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I was cranky, but it took me hours to sort all that out. (And had to revert myself a bunch of times, so I wanted to make sure I got it right.) Part of the problem is that this part of Oregon's history is a victim of being written by the victors. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't detect any crankiness; I was slightly chagrined by my rush to judgment. About the victim history, I couldn't agree more. I added and redlinked Apserkahar and Tecumtum thinking there might be enough in the way of reliable sources to write brief bios and that something of the native view of things might appear in them. I don't know what records exist or if any were written (or spoken and recorded by others) from the point of view of the Rogue River natives. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

separation of govt=tribe and tribe=people articles

Thanks for doing that on stateside articles; I note Grand Ronde Community now has a separate item from Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; there are other instances needing doing, such as Colville (tribe) and organizing the Ktunaxa items, and more....I was pondering maybe on {{NorthAmNative}} somewhere a a subpage a listing where each group's article status could be compared, so we could keep an eye on which ones still need doing....a big table to lay out if so, I remember working on this long ago and know what a pain it is; to some degree with BC teh partial "sort" has been done on List of Indian Reserves in British Columbia and maybe List of First Nations in British Columbia (which pls note is different from [][List of First Nations peoples]]). The List of First Nations in BC is meant to be a listing of First Nations=governments, not First Nations in the so-called "ethnic" sense......Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Grand Ronde, Oregon, I'm not sure if that redirects to Grand Ronde Community and whether or not it means something more than the Reservation....quite often some editors in BC have been equating Indian Reserve names and the placename articles where they'er located, and whiel in some cases it's valid quite often it doesn't work at all; most of the Alexis Creek First Nation offices are, for example (I think) in Anahim Lake and they call themselves t he Anaham people; but Alexis Creek, British Columbia is where another Tsilhqot'in band has its offices; and even if the one were at t he other, so to speak, then it sets a model where the three Indian Reserves at Lillooet should all redirect to the Lillooet, British Columbia article, even though that's written about the municipality; other cases abound, see Hazelton, British Columbia (two municipalites and a collection of IRs....). Just noting this as a knot needing untying, not relevant I suppose to US-side peoples/bands (unless there's a case for Fort Colville, Washington to be merged with Colville Reservation.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tillamook Treasure

On Tillamook Treasure, the personal analysis was referenced with both the reference of the cast member website with photo included and the matched reference on Flixster using an alias which combined his last name and that of of his wife. Both pages have been saved and screen captures are in tact even if evidence of sock puppeting was removed and am willing to dispute the neutrality of this article on the basis that the director (husband to co-writer and father to two of the actors) acted outside of Wikipedia's ethical code with respect to conflicts of interests as well as manipulation of other sources relied upon by users to be accurate and non-biased. The possibility exists that someone randomly used the same headshot photo from the cast website to attach to a Flixster user ID, but this was most likely someone blatantly plugging their own movie, which represents a conflict of interest and disregards Wikipedia's policy of conflict of interest.

For more information regarding the mediation of this issue, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-01/Tillamook Treasure

In the future, please do not remove material that has been properly referenced, if the film was given a C- by a credible source, don't undo that. Proper referencing reduces exposure to bias, which should be considered given the username of the original author, the matching last name of the original author to the co-writer of the screenplay, the matching name to the alias used by the director of the movie to artificially inflate the review scores, the removal of referenced information, the reapplication of unreferenced information, etc. I've looked at your cases, look at the facts, manipulation is clearly evident simply by referencing the pages appropriately which does not constitute original research.

Respectfully, User: Vega625 —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

"My cases"? What are those? I don't think I have any cases. I don't dispute that what you've discovered is true, but that kind of information is not encyclopedic, and is a synthesis of the information found in the websites you cited. In other words, it is original research. Find me a third-party reliable source that these folks are manipulating the system, in say, a magazine or newspaper, and that can be cited. Maybe. If this is truly some sort of scandal that is notable. Which I don't think it is. The information in the article about the movie should be about the movie. If there's some evidence that there's a scandal, that would probably be better placed in an article about the person perpretrating the scandal. However he's not particularly notable. And honestly, who cares about a couple sockpuppets in a Flickster review? I never even heard of Flickster until yesterday. And honestly, why do you care? It's pretty clear these folks tried to use some creative ways of marketing their film, some of which used Wikipedia as a venue, which ran afoul of our policies and guidelines. These issues have been addressed. Rather than delete an entire section of awards, an {{unreferenced}} tag would have sufficed. If you really truly have an issue with this film/these filmmakers, why don't you take it to AfD and be done with it. Good day. Katr67 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What is odd about this article is that, writing as someone familiar with the area, when I hear the words "Tillamook treasure" my first association is to the legend of a buried treasure on (or at the foot of) Neahkahnie Mountain -- not a movie. -- llywrch (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is one of those "WTF?!" posts. Unless Vega625 comes forward with something rational or sane, it's probably worth ignoring. tedder (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, this user's actions prompted me to improve the article a great deal just now. (Though I've also prodded the articles of the producers' daughters and removed a great deal of hype in various other actors' articles placed by said directors.) Vive la NPOV! Katr67 (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Water & Electric Board

I work for EWEB and created our new article. I am also the web editor. I removed the text that was taken directly from our web page. I am hoping this removes the copyright issue and make it possible for you to reinstate our new article. Please advise.

--Ksproles (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got to run, so I'll take a look later, or maybe another editor will take a look. Thanks for contacting me. Katr67 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping to hear from you soon about how to get my article published. As I said before, I removed the text you identified. I don't think this is a copyright issue. Additionally, the article that it there in the meantime is incorrect. We are a public water, electric and steam utility. The City of Eugene manages the sewage and stormwater. We do not.

I would like to get this resolved ASAP so that the article I wrote can be reinstated.

Thanks!

Katie--Ksproles (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

First you will need to fix the remaining copyright violation. I initially tagged the article as a copyvio by running the first sentence in the history section through Google. As you can see, it's the same. And you can feel free to make the corrections you noted while your version is cleaned up. Though I'll take a look at it right now. I didn't realize it said anything about sewage and stormwater. You might want to take a look at this guideline, and do read the business FAQ if you haven't already. You can click on any blue link to learn more. Katr67 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The EWEB article is linked to in a few other places; you can find this at the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the lefthand side of the page. I've linked to EWEB from Leaburg, Oregon and Walterville, Oregon, which are articles I created. Please do let me know if anything in those articles is inaccurate. Are there any other notable locations that could be mentioned in other articles? I toured the water intake plant in 1978 and I believe that was in Springfield, but it was a long time ago. Katr67 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tax revolt in critical care at a hospital near you

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon member, once again time for the Collaboration of the Week in the land of Oregon. As always, thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving List of films shot in Oregon and Jim Paxson. This week we have by request Oregon tax revolt and not by request, the annual Hospital creation drive. For the later, I have laid out some sources here, and the remaining red links are all over the state, so you can find one near you! As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. May the wind always be beneath your wings. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Koussevitzky Conducting Prize

I did a search on www.bso.org for "Koussevitzky Conducting Prize" and got no hits. A search for "Koussevitzky Prize" came up with four hits. In spite of how it's designated on www.marinalsop.com, are we certain the former is the correct name? "Koussevitzky Prize in conducting" may be more correct. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Before I added it to the Sergei Koussevitzky page, I also searched bso (note there's really only two hits as the other two are repeats about the 1969 winner), and I did a Google search and came up the opposite results. (About 3400 for "Koussevitzky prize", and nearly 26,000 for "K... Conducting Prize", but I forgot to take Wikipedia mirrors into account so "'Koussevitzky Conducting prize' -wikipedia" only nets 3700 hits. There is exactly one hit for "Koussevitzky Prize in conducting" but it is from the New York Times. Change it to "for conducting" and you get 4 hits, including Time and the Christian Science Monitor.) I'm quite surprised that bso only mentions the award in passing. Note that apparently there's also a Koussevitzky prize for recording. I think "Koussevitzky Prize in (for?) conducting" is more accurate, but the popular usage seems to be "Koussevitzky Conducting Prize" that's how it is referred to in the journal article I cited. That's the most reliable source I had found for the name until I came up with the sources above. It's possible it doesn't have an "official" name? Feel free to change it if you find a better source or like one of the above sources better! It may merit its own article--it would be nice to add a list of the winners somewhere but it probably wouldn't be appropriate on SK's page. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you already changed it, so I put a {{cn}} tag on the name because the source I used consistently calls it the Koussevitzky Conducting Prize. I assume you can use the bso citation. I think it would be wise to add "(also known as the Foo)" because I've made a redirect from the other name to the article so it makes it easier for folks to find the redirected info. Katr67 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I decided that the BSO would be the best source to rely on, and made the change in a hurry just before I had to run off for an appointment. I didn't have time to do every occurrence, it's probably a minor point, and I'm not totally certain of it. I agree it's too bad the BSO doesn't have more information on the prize. BTW, I added the two prize winners from the BSO site to the Koussevitzky page before I saw your post here, but I don't know where else to put that info at this time (until an article can be created). We should add Marin Alsop, and any others we can get info on. The redirect from "Koussevitzky Conducting Prize" is a good idea, since it appears that way so commonly. We could consider making it a section link [I see you did this already!]. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there is now more than one category for the prize, it occurs to me the name of the prize may have changed since 1969. I haven't had a chance to read your article yet. I couldn't search it because apparently it's an image file. I'll try to look at it later. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate those PDFs that are image files, but at least they show up in a Google search. The part about the prize is on page 61, but it's a great source for expanding several other things in the Koussevitzky article. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I skimmed through Young's article, both parts. It has a ton of good information, also interesting technical stuff about old recordings. Regarding the Koussevitzky Prize for conducting, it seems there may be enough to create a good-sized stub. Given the fact that the Koussevtizky Foundations also give prizes for recordings and composition, Koussevitzky Conducting Prize seems like the better choice for a title, unless info on the other awards is included as well. In that case the title might be better as Koussevitzky Prize. Are you interested in creating the article? (Since you found the reference.) Or would you rather I did it? (I have plenty on my plate, so I'm not anxious.) BTW, do you happen to know whether anyone has received the conducting prize since since Marin Alsop? --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, my knowledge of classical music is hardly beyond "Peter and the Wolf" so you had better do it. I just went off on a tangent, as I often do, from the Oregon-related Marin Alsop article. I do recall seeing two or three other names when I was searching, I'll see if I can find them. There is also the curious case of Herbert Blomstedt, who, it is claimed, won the prize in 1953 and isn't listed in the Young article. I don't know what to make of that. Katr67 (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I found it in the article on Blomstedt in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.), and it does say 1953. That certainly doesn't fit with what Young says. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

reqphoto

Quote from Template:WikiProject Oregon/doc#reqphoto:

"The general idea is that a photographer expecting to be in a named area with a half-hour to spare can conveniently drive/bicycle/etc. to the site, spend ten minutes photographing and return."

So my problem with using reqphoto for the Made in Oregon sign is that we aren't looking for a current photo. We're looking for an archived photo and permissions to go along with it. It's imprecise for it to appear in the reqphoto categories, because we aren't asking someone to drive/bicycle/walk past it and snap a photo. Does that make sense? I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just trying to explain what I feel the spirit of the reqphoto system is. tedder (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think EncMstr wrote that, I'll go with his ruling, but I don't think it's writ in stone as it does say generally. But it's not hurting anything and might eventually might help. Anyway, I used a WikiPedia {{reqphoto}} tag not a WikiProject Oregon reqphoto tag. I don't see a restriction on user-produced photos, as it says "take a photo or add an image (from another source) to an article". Take off "in=Oregon" or take it off all together, but I find this exceedingly nitpicky. Katr67 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured we'd disagree. Whether it's used with the WPOR template or the reqphoto template, it still gets put into the geographically-located reqphoto categories. And it goes against the spirit of the rule, so IAR doesn't really seem to apply; it's almost like we need a "image research needed" tag that is separate from the reqphoto tag, which (I feel) is intended only for current photos. tedder (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I took it off, because I'm really feeling like ::big eyeroll:: "whatever" about this. Like I said, you could have taken "in=Oregon" off, but I really don't see what the problem is with having these historic photo requests in a geographic category. Can you show me the specific rule at Template:Reqphoto (as opposed to Template:WikiProject Oregon) that says it's not OK? You may feel the categories are only for recent photos, but what is that based on? Does this mean we can't put reqphoto tags on "Old Dead Guys" and other historic subjects? Isn't adding tags like that more likely to be helpful than detrimental? I mean, I hope somebody would realize if they go through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon (as opposed to Category:WikiProject Oregon image requests) that they don't need to go disinter Alonzo Gesner, for example. Please go ask EncMstr what he thinks, because like I said, I think he wrote Template:WikiProject Oregon/doc#reqphoto, but again, I didn't use a WikiProject Oregon reqphoto tag, I used the general Wikipedia one. In any case the WikiProject Oregon tag is used on numerous articles like this one: William Barlow (pioneer), so if you'd like to remove the reqphoto tag from all subjects except those that someone might be able to go take a photo of themselves, I think you're going to have to make a formal propsal. Katr67 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting to make bullets easier) Been thinking about this today, and not sure what the solution is, but a couple of observations:

The "reqphoto of dead people" thing doesn't bother me, because it's only geographic articles that become confusing- ~9000 articles, it's nice to know if they need current photos or research photos.
Having reqphoto versus the WPORE template attribute doesn't matter, they get lumped into the same category tree.
Should go to Enc, but might be time to go to VPP, since there aren't really many guidelines on the reqphoto that I'm aware of- Enc's is the most straightforward description/documentation I'm aware of.
I'm also okay if you want to restore the reqphoto tag and just drop it. I don't know what a better solution to the historic vs modern issue is, really.

tedder (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm too tired (and let's face it, too arrogant) to read through all the details right now, but want to point this out: often, you're looking at photos of people who lived all over Oregon, and are dead now. Or have moved to France. Or plants that are native to most of the state. Stuff like that. Being forced to choose a geographic region is not always appropriate, and I'll lend my support to any effort that says how incredibly cool the system is, but still grumbles that there are common occurrences that it doesn't address. I think it might be the prospect of moving far away from our delicious water source that's making me cranky. -Pete (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: the article about which we're debating was not put into a region-specific category as outlined in {{WikiProject Oregon}}, it was put into the general "Oregon" reqphoto pool by adding the parameter "in=Oregon" to the generic {{reqphoto}} template. The Made in Oregon sign reqphoto was never in the "reqphoto=Portland" parameter for example. I'd like to add that adding a general "in=Oregon" geographic tag to {{reqphoto}} is likely to yield better results than a generic reqphoto (no parameter). For example, would someone in Ohio care about Alonzo Gesner? Not likely, but if he's in an Oregon category, someone who works specifically with Oregon topics might go through the category and say "Gee, I have a pre-1923 book with a picture of that guy that I can scan." In other words, the article is much more likely to end up with a photo. Same with something that needs permissions or research. Someone in Florida is unlikely to try to find some free-use photos of the Made in Oregon sign, but a researcher in Oregon might. Of course you wouldn't put such historic/non-free image requests in EncMstr's regional subcategories, because I agree those are more for the "point and shoot" type of images we need. Of course no reqphoto tag at all will yield even worse results. We also can't stop folks who like to empty out the larger Category:Wikipedia requested photographs from adding the Oregon parameter. If we're paying attention and notice that, like in Pete's example, the article is about a plant that lives in the entire western United States, then it makes sense to remove the "in=Oregon" parameter. The system might need some fine tuning, but I think it works well enough for now. In the end it's all about helping us add content so that we can help our readers understand the topics about which we're writing. Katr67 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. that gives me an idea. Perhaps a subcategory of "historic" would be better than a regional subcategory? That way all of the "dead people" and "non-current locations" get lumped together, since they are likely to be found by the same person or same research session. Yeah? tedder (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have reached a stalemate over two points:

a) reqphoto in=Oregon is best suited for roving camerapersons and not for researchers.

b) Omitting reqphoto in=Oregon is likely to allow the tag to be lost in the noise of undistinguished photo requests.

Requesting an archive search and retrieval seems to address the issue, but how best to do this? The idea of the WP:ORE tag reqphoto=yes was to cover this type of case. I think I wrote somewhere that it is for finding photos which anyone—anywhere—might be able to help. A careful look at {{reqphoto}}'s documentation seems like the of case somehow would be useful for this. Using in= and of= places it into multiple categories. The most problematic issue is finding a useful category for of=. —EncMstr (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why this otherwise valuable discussion had me cranky from the start (a cautionary tale)

It was termed a "complaint"
A guideline was quoted to me that didn't apply
I was doing something that I've been doing in good faith for four years

I can see that the system needs refinement, but being told I was doing something wrong, when I wasn't, according to the current system, ruffled my feathers and blinded me to the larger issue. I took it personally, because it seemed personal. Katr67 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

recheck article

Hi,Katr, Could you please recheck the article Katherine Elizabeth Krohn -- substantial citations have been added. Thank you Ziljones (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Done Katr67 (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Supposed sockpuppet

I had no idea that he was a sockpuppet, and it is quite bizarre that someone would be talking to themselves. I'll say no more and wait for this user to go bye bye... LOL Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Hamilton Lambert

On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Hamilton Lambert, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Oregon

Hi Katr, sorry about the delay. Yes, I only wanted to get rid of the state symbol categories from Pear, Milk, etc. Do you agree about that part? If you think Category:Symbols of Oregon etc. are still worth having, then I don't mind. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for following

User:Nofla16 with a broom and a dust pan and a mop and cleaning up, for which you receive the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Friend or Foe

I thought maybe you had changed your username, but it looks like someone else. Any relation? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, but I found out I got my own website: http://www.katr.com. Katr67 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You have your own iPhone app too! [6] :) Little Mountain 5 00:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Too bad I don't have an iPhone! Katr67 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's sunny out, quick take a picture!

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon folks. It is time again for another installment of as the Collaboration Of The Week Turns. A big thank you to last time’s guest stars who worked on Oregon tax revolt‎ and creating hospital articles, we had 3 DYKs off the hospital articles createdd. This week is the star-studded affair of the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, starring Valfontis. You can go out and take a picture, browse through Commons for an existing one, or search for a free one on the Internet, and in some cases remove an old request (or even add a request to an article that has no images). See the bottom of this page for some links to a variety of free sources. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Bjorn Erickson

re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Bjorn Erickson

I attemtped to add some further supportive documentation concerning the Karl Bjorn Erickson entry. I like having this resource available for my readers, but, if I have indeed stepped on some toes at Wikipedia, I really don't mind you deleting the entry. I'd rather it be deleted than appear in its present state. I would like to note for the record, however, that the allegation of only a half dozen articles is incorrect. Still, as I said, I'm fine dropping this entry. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.92.249 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Several points:

What you like about the article has no bearing on the matter, as it's not your article
Wikipedia is not here to provide a service for your readers
I can't delete entries, as I'm not an Administrator
Please read about the articles for deletion process because:
We don't care if it's OK with you that the article be deleted since:
It's not "your" article
The community will decide if the article should be deleted through the AfD process
Whether or not it's a half-dozen or two dozen, your body of work does not appear to me to meet our notability criteria
Letters to the editor do not count as notable pieces of writing
Please read up on our policy about using multiple accounts
Writing a Wikipedia article about yourself is very strongly discouraged
Wikipedia is not here to provide free space for you to promote your writing career
Please try contributing something to Wikipedia besides self-promotion

Good luck, Katr67 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

the sock

How do you know that's the original sockpuppeteer's website? You can reply here or via email if you'd prefer. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I needed - taken care of. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

inbox is empty..

You obviously got my mail, I see replies from others, but I'm not seeing the reply from you. I'm on a new ISP (same domain name). Can you send me a direct email to see if that comes through? tedder (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Got your WP email, but can you send one direct? (ie from your email client)? tedder (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Already did. Katr67 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks. At least they are showing up now. It was surreal to see other parts of the conversation but not all of it. tedder (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think I'll go visit with Aunt Betty now. Katr67 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where's Bugs when he's needed? If he was Kibo, he'd show up now. tedder (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he only shows up for drama regarding possibly homicidal but fairly innocuous people-of-no-fixed-address. Katr67 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

look at a writer page? Kevin Sampsell

Kevin Sampsell is a newish article that needs to be looked at. I think you are interested in OR writers (versus WP:NOR writers? heh), so I'm hoping you can figure out WP:N on it. tedder (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Will I need pepper spray? Katr67 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What would Betty do? (apparently I'm playing questions only) tedder (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Aunt Betty carries a serious can of Whoop-Ass. Katr67 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Looks pretty darn notable to me (see the talk page). The computer ate my evidence, but if someone uses {{findsources}} or that horrifyingly tangled pile of links I moved to the talk page, it will be easy to add info and cites and expand the article at least fourfold. Oh yeah, and I'll see if the article is a good candidate for DMOZ. I'm glad it worked out the way it did, since I'd hate to be afraid to shop Powell's if my assessment wasn't positive. Katr67 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Katr. I only recognize the name of about three authors- I'm really no good at judging notability, especially when it was so loaded with ELs. tedder (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was simply a case of good-faith newbie overselling of notability using a ton of els instead of actual citations. (And we all know citation class is tough!) The signal-to-noise ratio on those is indeed very bad--I've found it's more often proof of non-notability and someone grasping at straws. BTW DMOZ didn't pan out. Katr67 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of overselling, did you see OHDG, the TLDR AFD, my message to the author, and what the cites looked like before I started on it? tedder (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I didn't know about the article until yesterday for some reason. Katr67 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Paul

Yep, I'm working on Mission Creek and should have a stub ready to post later today. The stream is so small and rural that I'm not finding gobs of RS stuff, but the GNIS and topo maps have a few things. The topo quads often have river miles marked on them but not so much for the rural shorties, so I go by map scales and what a ruler tells me. This is not terribly accurate because a ruler is straight and creeks are usually crooked, but hey. As for etymology and history, I'm travelling and didn't bring McArthur with me; I suspect a few more good bits might be in there. I'll do a similar stub for Champoeg Creek sooner or later. By the way, I noticed that someone had put "page needed" tags on the census refs in the St. Paul article. I've never seen anyone flag the bot-generated census data and templates before. I have occasionally replaced GR templates with regular cites, but I'm not sure of the long-term consequences (maybe none, maybe some, I dunno). Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Multnomah County Poor Farm Page

Hello. We saw that you have been making comments about how our page on the Multnomah County Poor Farm is still vague and needs more resources. This page is our school project at Portland State University and we are just trying to get it done before tomorrow and this is our first time making a Wikipedia article so there are going to be a lot of flaws. We appreciate the comments and your input.

WonderPanda (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting us know. We've needed that article for a while, and I look forward to seeing it expanded. Don't take it personally if several of us at WikiProject Oregon work on it too. You have been lucky (?) enough to be writing an article in an area that has lots of interested folk paying attention. I added a standard template to your pages for more help with school projects. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Pacific Northwest Inlander

Hey Katr, I saw you once made a minor edit to the article for The Pacific Northwest Inlander. Per an OTRS complaint I removed the uncited circulation number claims today, but if you know where they could be found, re-adding a cited version would be awesome. Happy holidays! Steven Walling 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time Spokane's way beyond my area of interest, though I did spruce up several Spokane-related articles at one point. On the Inlander article, I just fixed the dsort--bad dsorts worry me much more than accurate circulation figures! It's funny that it took an OTRS complaint to get the long-uncited (and likely COI puffery) info removed though. I would have just removed it. Interesting. Thanks, you too! Katr67 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

cabal

haha! Suede67 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Providence St. Vincent Medical Center

Accept I didn't spot link to main hospital in info box and subsequent removal as duplicate. Curious you removed YouTube reference quoting WP:EL. I understand this refers to copyright material. As far as I can tell, the whole idea is that as many people see this as possible. Whilst copyright clearly exists in the video, (someone created it, after all), no statements prohibiting the display of the video are displayed. What type of link or reference would be acceptable? Thanks. --Ormers (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Butting in as I would have done the same, as to the copyright issue, unless something is specifically released under a certain license or into the public domain it is not acceptable to Wikipedia (except in fair use situations). That is to say, it is not relevant that there are "no statements prohibiting the display of the video are displayed". Much like there are no signs displayed outside my house saying murder is illegal, but I'm pretty sure if I go killing people I might end up in jail. But this only addresses copyright issues, and not the bigger issue of what does a YouTube Video produced by the employees about breast cancer awareness add to the article? I don't see it being useful to cover the topic, the hospital. I think the one sentence mention in the text is enough coverage of the Pink Glove Dance in the St. Vincent's article (which I added). Aboutmovies (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about copyright. If there's no reason to believe the copyright holder objects to something being on YouTube, I see nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that would make it necessary to remove. Our guidelines and policies are pretty strong on what we include on-site, out of a desire to provide free content; but the stuff we call "copy-vio" here is often common practice elsewhere. Fair use is incredibly common out there in the wider world; holding other sites to the same high standards Wikipedia holds itself to simply makes no sense to me. And the analogy to murder is pretty provocative.

However, the second part of Aboutmovies statement (about the value of this link to the article) strikes me as a fair assessment. -Pete (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys. Yep, they pretty much got this right, though I'm fuzzy on the copyright stuff. I could also have cited WP:NOT, specifically, "Wikipedia is not a collection of links". The idea being, of course, that we should be adding content, not links. I glanced at the video which looked like it was cute, but didn't watch all of it because despite being female, I think the whole pink ribbon campaign is kind of a racket (see thinkbeforeyoupink.org). But any personal bias aside (and I don't want to argue the merits of the pink ribbon here or convert anybody, I just wanted to explain why I didn't watch the video), the addition of the link didn't give any indication why it might add to the article as AM mentioned above. It also kind of looked like an advert (and though I know it was not your intention in the above statement, we're not here to help St. Vincent distribute this information to as many people as possible). I had no idea that this had gone viral or what its importance to St. Vincent was aside from having been produced there. Yes, I could have looked into it more closely--assumed a bit more good faith perhaps--but the burden of proof for notability of anything on Wikipedia really should lie with the editor making the addition. Does that make sense? In a nutshell, it looked like a random addition of something vaguely related to St. Vincent. I like how AM handled it--giving context and references instead of a bare link. Otherwise, per WP:EL, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:SPAM, what's to stop folks from adding videos of every cute advertisement of every company in those companies' EL sections? If it had been "A video tour of the history of St. Vincent's" or something like that, I would have been much more likely to let it stay. Thanks for contacting me--obviously the situation is a lot more complicated than can be conveyed in an edit summary. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If the video has gone viral, there should be reliable sources discussing it. That might be worth keeping in the article- but simply turning Wikipedia into a linkfarm to promote a company and/or cause isn't my favorite. tedder (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, yes there are sources and they were already added. Pete, with the murder bit it was meant as over the top, as in just because nothing says you can't doesn't actually mean you can. And as WP:ELNEVER states: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." Now, it looks like the video was uploaded by the hospital, but there is also the issue of the song. We don't know if they licensed it, or just took it (i.e. what the UO students did with using the Oregon Duck mascot that created problems for the school because of the licensing deal with Disney) and the artist is too nice or wants to avoid bad publicity over a good cause to send a take down notice. We simply do not know, which is why in general we avoid YouTube stuff, because that info cannot really be assumed with YouTube (i.e. that's why Google I believe set aside a lot of money for potential lawsuits when they bought YouTube "While most videos posted on YouTube are homemade, the site also features volumes of copyrighted material — a problem that has caused some critics to predict the startup eventually would be sued into oblivion.). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

similar buildings

Dear Katr67,

it seemed to me appropriate to put Crown Point Vista House in an architectural context by referring to some buildings in the same architectural style worldwide. According to the official website of Vista House it is in the German Art Nouveau Style and it was built to commemorate pioneers of the mid-nineteenth century. These other buildings are in the same or a very similar architectural style, and as for the Voortrekker Monument, designed by Gerard Moerdijk, it too was built to commemorate pioneers of the mid-nineteenth century, oxwagons and all, just like in the Oregon trial. Indeed, they are 'seemingly unrelated', but there are wider historical and architectural connections that are certainly not far-fetched.

Thank you.

83.84.29.232 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest Mt. Hood tragedy

Context:Mount Hood climbing accidents I saw an article about it a little bit ago, and I see it's been added to the list of accidents already. What is with these characters climbing Mt. Hood in December? Do they have a death wish or something? And think of all the resources consumed in trying to find them. Oy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No comment. For the families it's still a tragedy, especially with two still missing right now. Give it some time before critiquing. Re: the article, I'm surprised more folks haven't tried to change the page actually. The last couple of these incidents got a lot of attention. Katr67 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A good friend's niece died in the OES accident. Katr67 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. That's way too close to home. In general, I don't think people with families should be doing this kind of stuff at all, but they do it anyway, and sometimes they pay a dreadful price. You're right, 3 years ago it seemed like the article was under constant siege of one kind or another. Maybe this is getting to be unfortunately common enough that fewer zealous editors are taking notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December is the second-best climbing season (first is early Spring, when the OES incident occurred): There is minimum risk of falling rock, avalanches are uncommon—or at least readily forecast—and visibility is typically either very good or very bad. In bad visibility, virtually everyone would postpone a summit attempt. In good, there are few climbers. —EncMstr (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So if I'm hearing you right, December is a good time to climb, IF the weather cooperates, yes? The writeup today mentioned something about a risk of avalanche connected with this particular rescue effort today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Take this somewhere else. My opinion on the matter doesn't have any bearing on how I edit Wikipedia. Katr67 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to chop this section. It's your page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) On another note, the page received over two thousand hits yesterday... definitely surprising there hasn't been more activity! Very sad though, this type of thing happens much too often. My condolences to your friend, Katr. Little Mountain 5 15:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PayLess at Sprouse-Reitz for your G.I. Joe's, brought to you by Troutman's Emporium and Frederick & Nelson

Hello WikiProject Oregon member, and seasons greetings. Here at Collaboration Of The Week we thank you for your efforts making Oregon better, at least on Wikipedia, and hope you are doing better than Joe's. Or, in the eloquent words of some marketing manager for another now defunct Oregon chain, Merry Christmas from PayLess... Merry Chriiiistmaaaasssss!!!

Now that pleasantries have been exchanged, thank you to those who worked on the last two collaborations, the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, and Oregon Country Fair and Geoff Petrie. For this edition of the COTW we have Gambling in Oregon and NRHP in Washington County. The hope for the later is to fill in the last few images (5) and then see if we can make it the first NRHP list in Oregon with an article for every entry (need 27). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

yet another article for you to nitpick

I have a COI with this, and it could use a katr-level of cleanup. tedder (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mrs. Tedder registered for an account and did some minor general ce, but I have a specific question: WP:SURNAME says to talk about someone after the first time as "Smith", instead of "Sue Smith". I try to say "She did this, she did that... Smith did foo". I say "Team Oregon.. Team Oregon.. Team Oregon" a lot, but don't know how. tedder (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Mrs. Tedder! Sorry, I've beem sidetracked reading about cults, I don't even know how...what was the question? Is it ever abbreviated as "TO"? If so, spell the name out in full in the first instance in each paragraph (or at least the first in each section if the 'graphs are short) then you can abbreviate it after. Mix it up with "the group" or "the organization" or...what is it exactly? Does that help? Katr67 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Never really called TO. The real trick, can I reduce the number of times I call them "Team Oregon"? I suck at editing my own text, because it all seems both perfect and entirely imperfect. Can you just do a quick pass on that subject, and anything else that catches your eye? Hoping to bring the article up tomorrow and get a DYK going. tedder (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Done looks like you moved it to mainspace right when I was working on it! I made the changes to your sandbox version. Lemme know if you have questions. Katr67 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, weird timing on that. I put your changes in and then fixed the 'fixme' entries you left. I figured that was easier than having you redo your work on the live version. Thanks. tedder (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) That was my intention. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding major cities boxes

Context: Oregon Route 36

The problem with waiting until someone writes a route description is that the work of removing the major cities boxes will never be done. Especially in such a large project as USRD, it's impossible to get the message out to people that the major cities boxes are to be removed and that route descriptions are to be written. The only solution is to do a mass removal of the boxes. We removed about 800 of the boxes today; this project had been sitting mostly neglected for a few months. Rather than just reverting me to reinclude a deprecated box just to fulfill bureaucracy (and to be lazy), you could have just fixed it yourself. Just a thought. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, it wasn't a deprecated box, it was a deprecated section--I don't think in Oregon any of these sections take the form of boxes. It also seems lazy to not fix the problem according the guideline your project set out. Why don't you change the guideline? I'll admit that I'm lazy--it's daunting to think about dealing with the 100 or so Oregon highway articles that now need cleanup. Though I can appreciate that you have more work to do than I do, (I'm assuming here that nobody else is going to work on the Oregon part of the project besides me) it's odd to me that you would fulfill one bureaucratic rule (remove the cities section) and not another (restore any cities not mentioned in the article to the prose text). Just a thought. This is why I stay away from highway articles for the most part--your project is kind of maddening for ordinary mortals. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A does not equal B

Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Minnis&action=history

Did you misspell "low" as "mid", change your mind, or get distracted by shiny objects? tedder (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's bizarre, I dunno. I would have said low, but I think by AM's criteria it would be mid (numerous statewide political posts, influential, scandal...) Very occasionally I think it's possible that an ec'd edit will show up in one person's contribs list even if the other person's edit is the one that "took". Maybe that's what happened there.

And, unrelated but better than creating a new section, do you have access to the Bailey book ("Main Street, northeastern Oregon")? tedder (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, don't have the book, it just popped up when I was working on Paradise, Oregon. I think I got a limited preview from somewhere and it looked good. I can't even recreate the search now. Here's the book I think you were referring to in your edit summary, BTW: Paradise paved: The Challenge of Growth in the New West. I dunno if they paved it, but Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away.</folk music geekiness> Katr67 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh, didn't know about "Paradise paved". Have you read that? Might have to go flip through it, as the local uni has it. I'll request the Bailey book through ILL at uni too. And I'm glad you got my editsummary. tedder (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

UAA?

Can you remind me the policy about Nwnatural (talk · contribs)? Is it only verboten if it's a role account, so the COI doesn't matter? tedder (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I ignore them if they're behaving, but if not I report them to EncMstr, who blocks them on sight regardless. I think the policy is that any apparent COI in a username is blockable. Is it at WP:USERNAME? Katr67 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(TPSing) Is WP:ORGNAME what you're looking for? Little Mountain 5 00:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks. tedder (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lee Arden Thomas

Sorry about that. Thanks for all the improvements. I think I restored them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your'e welcome and no worries, I should have checked to see what you were working on first. I get a little overenthusiastic about architecture. Nice series of articles! Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As long as I've got your attention, is there a reason why you don't pipe links? Usually we pipe them to hide the qualifier. Katr67 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the example you're thinking of, Katr? I'm just amused that CoM and I both have the same literal/straightforward/geeky quoting style, putting commas and periods outside of the quote unless they were truly part of the quote. tedder (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about [[Hugh Thompson (architect)]]-->[[Hugh Thompson (architect)|Hugh Thompson]]. "architect"=qualifier to avoid the ambiguous Hugh Thompson. I waffle about inside-the-quotes punctuation. I was trained one way (American), but I believe on Wikipedia we do it the other way (British), which is the way all y'all do it. I think I've ended up with some sort of mongrel hybrid. It's funny I have the capacity to nitpick about certain things but not others. BTW tedder--change of topic--you need to put the other Chaba article on your watchlist. Katr67 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm bad at getting the links as non-dabs at first. Then I forget to go back and check. And it's all I can do to not nitpick about the missing word in your comment right above this, Katr. (and I'll add the other one (the third!) to my watchlist.) tedder (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I kind of do the piping gradually. On new articles it's sometimes confusing so sometimes I leave more of the framework showing. Like I'll add a bunch of Wikilinks and then go back and try to sort them out. Like the Thomas article has led to a jump off onto Hugh Thompson (architect). So sometimes I have a bunch of things open. It's not really a reason I guess, but I just let the naming and all sort of evolve and come together. I try not to get too caught up in the details because they may change. Like It's not clear to me whether the Weatherly Building might be more properly name the Weatherly or whether building needs to be capitalized. But I think someone else might have changed it that way, so it's probably correct. I'm sort of messy, which I guess is bad, but sometimes these things evolve in unusual directions and I try to be flexible. Different sources use different names, so I try nto to get locked in too early on. Like Thompson is the architect for Bend High School, but it turns out that article is at Old Bend High School. But looking at it, I'm not sure the two article shouldn't be merged. So in a way I don't like to rush things while I'm drafting it all. But I really appreciate people helping clean up after me, because I definitely miss things. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking too it. I love architects too. It's neat to see how their work compares and how it ties together. It expresses the times, styles, and then things change or are destroyed or remodeled or added on to. It's very itneresting to me. And I think it's amazing to start on one, and then realize there are articles on a bunch of their works. So it's a way of linking all those things together and giving them more context. Anyway, thanks again for your help. I probably need to take a break, but I get into it and have a zillion windows open trying to figure out who's who and what goes with what. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Weatherly Building should be capitalized. I changed it. I sometimes get paid to do stuff like that so don't wonder--it is correct. Other than that, I guess I don't agree with your approach--I prefer to tie up most of the loose ends before I post an article, but I have a professional interest in things looking tidy. I'd suggest you start your articles in a sandbox for that reason, but who am I to stop you? I know about having a zillion windows open--down the rabbit hole! Have fun! Katr67 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it should Weatherly (building) according to the name used on the building's website. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(shift left) I let Katr sort out any "what should this be named?" issues. It's healthier for me that way :-) And I agree, I do things incrementally too. Windows: working on the theatre last night had me buried in tabs for at least 4 hours. So far that I'd ask Mz Tedder questions to answer, and had her look through a couple of things too. tedder (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

...and, oh, sandbox. How would anything get done if we set behind our walled gardens all day? tedder (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had new articles I'm working on turn out to already exist... so there are definitely advantages to going live and having others weigh in early on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alsea

Thanks. I had fun trying out a new camera on that photo shoot. The next time I'm in Dayville, I might try for another merc photo. It has the same sort of feel as the Alsea merc. I've not seen the historic Alsea merc pic. Where would I look for it? In some ways, I'm still a newbie on Wikipedia compared to you. I only know what I know, and the rest is a tabula rasa. Pete helped me learn a new trick this week, making a navbox for Johnson Creek and its Portland relatives. At this rate I should know absolutely everything by 2030. No? Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The pic is in the el in the article to the historic photo archive at Salem Public library. (A great resource if you haven't seen it yet--lots of pics of bridges if not of actual rivers.) I like the navbox--it's a great idea. My tabula rasa is pretty big, and I imagine it will stay that way--navbox class is tough! I think you're way ahead of me in many ways--your attention span seems to be longer, anyway. I'm envious of how long your articles are. Granted, I tend to write articles about things about which there just isn't that much to say, but still... I wonder how many of us will still be editing Wikipedia in 2030?! It will probably be owned by the World Government/MicroCocaGoogleColaPepsiSoft by then... Katr67 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

FT, you are no newbie. Your research and creation skills are fantastic. Way to go. tedder (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! Blush! Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

May your stocking be stuffed with barnstars and DYKs. Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

katr eye for the notability guy

Can you look at Terri Crawford Hansen with your discerning and educated brain? My knuckle-dragging brain can't evaluate notability of authors very well. tedder (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly enough claim of notability, but I would need to check WP:AUTHOR to see if she passes. It doesn't look like she's done anything major, but she has won a few awards. I think she's written more than she's been written about. Looks like the article is a good faith transclusion from Native Wiki, (Also here), of an autobio, hence the problems. It desperately needs cleanup, obviously. Also she's not the author of the water book, but an author, probably collected a previously written High Country News article. Also, not an overall fellow for NPF (which I can't tell how notable that is), but for a niche category (a cool one, but still a niche): [7]. Mother Earth Journal is her own website. Sounds like she's just getting her career back on track, so she strikes me as more of an up-and-coming type person than a truly notable one. Definitely smells like grasping at straws, but not speediable. Katr67 (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

my Holiday gift to you

Yes, Holiday. It's the holiday that I support this time of year, so by leaving this present with you, I'll make my god happy.

commons:Category:Chemawa Indian School

That took a solid 8 hours to get up, including human OCR work. I'll leave picking and choosing photos up to you, and I can lightly clean/crop/straighten a few them as necessary. tedder (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

template question

Hey, welcome back. With templates like Template:Wind_power_in_the_United_States, my understanding is that they are really only to be used on pages that are linked from the template. In other words, should it be at the bottom of pages like Leaning Juniper Wind Project? WP:NAV is the only essay I know of, and I figured you'd know better. tedder (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's ever been made a hard and fast rule, but I know I prefer them to not be in articles that aren't linked to. I looked at the above situation and it wouldn't be overtemplated to have the windfarm tl there. I used to say that we have a see also to a similar topic and it's in the category system that people can browse to find similar articles, so why do we need templates? (See this old example--tl;dr but scroll down to an excellent example of one of AM's slippery slope arguments.) But Wikipedia culture seems to be leaning towards more and more templates and navboxes. I would have said just add the article to the navbox, but it doesn't appear to be "large". Bottom line is, if I came across this situation, I'd probably ignore it. Use your best judgment. Katr67 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It is interesting. I'm not horribly opposed to it being there, just thought there was a MOS type thing. What a surprise it's an issue you've asked about in the past! (oh, thanks for this and this) tedder (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Boon Brick Store

Curious question (some would say nosy). I have long believed that stubbing out articles is good, despite a feeling against itin some quarters, on the grounds that creating articles is intimidating for some and that having a stub encourages editors to put some meat on the bones where they might not create an article from scratch, particularly one that required an infobox....

Obviously that doesn't apply to you. Why then, did the appearance of my stub cause you to jump on it and flesh it out to a reasonable short length? I don't, I should hasten to say, think this anything but great -- I did the stub only because while I was creating Brick Store (Bath, New Hampshire), the Elkman tool came up with six Brick Stores, so I decided we needed a dab at Brick Store. While doing that, I noticed that two other Brick Stores had photos but no articles, so I stubbed this and Sam Choy Brick Store.

BTW, why remove the map? I know it makes a very long right side, but I'm not used to seeing NRHP articles without it. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC) If you choose to respond, please do so here.

You didn't read the FAQ. :) I've had it on my watchlist as a redlink for a long time. If you look at "what links here" you'll see that a friend of mine and I have wanted to make an article for it forever--it's a place we frequent. Often I'm too lazy (no, not intimidated) to start a stub, but if someone else does, I'll flesh it out. Especially if I know the place is much more interesting than the initial stub would indicate, as it was here. My friend and I both also have AD/HD, which means starting a stub is difficult since we realize it will suck us in for hours and hours (the flip side of distractibility is hyperfocus) since with some subtypes of AD/HD comes a surprising amount of perfectionism. Now you know more than you probably ever cared to. Ask a nosy question, get a lengthy answer. :) Anyway, that's why I often don't start articles that might merit more than a few sentences, but I'll jump all over one that someone else has started.

I hate the maps. They don't add to the understanding of the subject, they're redundant (we have coordinates that allow someone to easily find a map of the location), they create clutter, and they're ugly. I don't mind them used as placeholders if there isn't a photo but if there is a photo, I often remove the map. This format is fairly consistent across the Oregon NRHP articles. Unlike most of my decisions on Wikipedia, that one is mostly based on personal preference. I won't edit war over it, but I'm also not interested in fighting with WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to get it changed because, well...it will generate pages of contentious discussion. You're welcome, thanks for starting the stub! Katr67 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You vindicate my reasons for stubbing, although not for the expected reasons -- anything else you want stubbed out? As for maps, you raise an interesting point of view. While I, too, have no interest in edit wars, I've often been unhappy with articles that have a long right side. It's even worse on my specialty -- lighthouses -- because there are two, sometimes three, infoboxes, see Doubling Point Range Lights. I'll give your point of view more thought. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

aha!

I knew you were a fan after all. --Esprqii (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The vandal made me do it! I got so sick of my OSU alum cousin giving me grief at Christmas that I've been rooting for the Buckeyes. Bah, Humbug! Katr67 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, now you know I don't have a horse in this race, but you should at least take a tour through some of the Buckeye pages around this encyclopedia and make your decision based on whose articles are least insufferable (most sufferable?). I'm sure the winner will be...a nice hot New Year's bath. --Esprqii (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is probably a good time to state I couldn't tell you which team was the ducks and which one was the beavers, at least without a little bit of thought. Go team! tedder (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ew, an anthropomorphic buckeye?! I've seen enough. Go Ducks! Oh, except I think this article might cancel out Brutus. This one time, at band camp... Katr67 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what is with the overhyped band articles?? I especially like how Green Garter Band has its own article, but all the text is also in the OMB article. Just in case you missed it. See also TBDBITL, perhaps the silliest redirect ever. But I'm biased against "marching" bands anyway. --Esprqii (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Shari's Restaurants Edit

BTW I am sorry if my edit was misplaced. I merely wanted to add current relevance to my fathers legacy in the industry. He was the founder and patent holder for the design and I felt the story need a continuance. It was in no way meant to spam. Sincerely, John Bergquist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.176.218 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, your message confused me. November is ancient history on Wikipedia. :) I looked to see which edit you were talking about. It's true--turning your father's name into an external link to his current business is spam, and there was absolutely no context, so I reverted it. It would be better to add a sentence or two about his current business activities, and the link to the lodge could be used as a reference, but it would be better to cite a relible source, like the Oregonian or the Ashand Daily Tidings. Or you can suggest change's on the article's talk page and I can help with the wording. It looks like you have an account, so don't forget to log in! Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One last time for 2009

Happy New Year to you, you WikiProject Oregon member! Tis the season for one last Collaboration Of The Week to get started this year. Thank you to those who worked on Gambling in Oregon and NRHP in Washington County the last few weeks. For the final COTW of 2009, we have Archiving Article Talk Pages and Mr. Standard TV & Appliance, Bill Schonely. For the archiving, we have a lot of old, stale comments on article talk pages from before 2009 that should be archived away, so that new comments are not added to things that either were addressed or not worth addressing. Personally, I archive anything older than a year. Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)