User talk:Valfontis

Wikimood = Fairly cheerful. This is subject to change without notice. Nicer Wikipedians may be able to help!

‡ My favorite symptoms are:

• Often avoids, dislikes, or doesn't want to do things that take a lot of mental effort for a long period.
• Avoiding or delaying in starting projects that require a lot of thought.
• Having trouble finishing projects that have already been started.
• Is often forgetful. (especially in terms of "Out of sight, Out of mind)

Take a Number

N Not done

1. South Wasco County High School, per User talk:Tedder#South Wasco County High School Valfontis (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Talk:Caulk boots Valfontis (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Hermiston, Oregon Valfontis (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Hope Abbey Valfontis (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

5+ Roy, USCGC Fir (WLM-212), Laurelhurst. Valfontis (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

6. Edgar M. Lazarus--add Teague info

7. Type out legislator bios for AM

Oregon Star Party

N Not done

Hey. I've been working on the Oregon Star Party wiki page for some time now. The main problem I have is quoting citations. Most of what can be explained, is from personal observations in attending OSP for many years. Also, the info that i can track down, always leads back to other personal opinions. I've tried to 'word out' the OSP page in a neutral tone as much as possible. Even their own website doesn't even talk much about the "real life" of OSP, so being able to create citations, can be a difficult task.

I did have citations that led back to part of their website, but they have been removed. I can put them back up of necessary, but in fact, most of the info on the OSP wiki page can be found on there main site with just a simple citation?

None the less, I'm still devoted in doing what I can for the OSP page, and Wikipedia!

If you want, just throw some helpful info my way!

Thanks! Sir Oaf (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Sir Oaf

Hawthorne Books

Dear Valfontis,

I am an intern at [Hawthorne Books] and am trying to simply add more detailed facts about the press but it appears someone of something is changing my edits to the page. I would very much not like to get into an 'editing war'. Is there anything I should be doing differently. I don't believe anything I have written is bias in anyway. Thank you and I'll look forward to your response.

Best, Gingercraft Gingercraft (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ginger, thank you for stopping editing and joining the discussion. If you haven't already, please read the information I posted on your page about conflict of interest--the text of which can be found here. You may also want to read our business FAQ. Unfortunately, I see a lot of interns such as yourself get in trouble with the Wikipedia community for doing what they were asked to do by their employer. But Wikipedia is not here to provide advertising space for your organization. Also, Hawthorne books does not "own" the page.

Especially problematic is the huge list of urls that was added to the article. This kind of thing is what we consider spam. If people are curious about the company, a single url will suffice. All the other content in the article should discuss any authors who may already have Wikipedia articles, or who may notable enough to have them. This is what I attempted to do with this edit.

BTW, the "someone or something" that is changing the edits would have been me. You can see the page history here (there is a tab at the top of the page that says "view history"). There you will find a list of all the edits made to the article, as well as edit summaries explaining those edits.

Please read the material you will find by clicking the blue links on your talk page and in this post. Then, going forward, the best way to accomplish your goals and those of Wikipedia would be to post suggested edits on the article's talk page where other editors can weigh in. I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Valfontis,

I am trying today to cite my references with some of the facts stated about Hawthorne Books. I've read much of the Wiki citing sources page so I hope I'm doing the right thing. As for listing the books Hawthorne has previously published, can I list those without it being spam? I was looking at other press pages that have their entire back lists including links to their wiki pages. Thank you for your help and I sincerely hope I'm on the right path now to becoming a better Wiki contributor.

Best, Ginger Gingercraft (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply right now, except to ask you to please read about "other stuff" to get some idea why it doesn't matter that other publisher's articles have links to their entire back catalogs. Those other articles will need to be cleaned up but it doesn't mean that in the meantime the Hawthorne Books article can contain an entire {{linkfarm}}. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but there are lots of places that you could have requested more help , like the article's talk page as I suggested. I think you're just not getting how the collaborative process works around here. If you get unblocked, I'd suggest you post all of your edit suggestions on the article's talk page, and not edit the article yourself. If you don't understand what any of this means, please ask. Valfontis (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Response

Context

This is in response to your message to me about Edward Dickinson Baker.

It's nice to know someone is paying attention. I plan to make more changes to that article, which was helpful to me when I started research about Baker for a lecture I will give in April. Doing the additional research took me to information from other sources that I thought would improve what Wikipedia has about Baker.Tbowers1942 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the message was just a welcome message because I saw you were a new editor, not specifically about Edward Dickinson Baker, but yes, I noticed you editing the article because it is on WikiProject Oregon's watchlist. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon timber communities

N Not done

I would like to get in touch with you about a project I am pursuing. I am a history professor specializing in the built environment and forest history. I am researching towns formed and owned by timber companies in western Oregon. My purpose is to reveal what can be learned about the companies' and residents' attitudes towards one another, social institutions, and the environment by investigating the way the communities were planned, built, and maintained. Finn of Offbeat Oregon (a fun podcast) brought your work to my attention. If you are interested in helping me in my endeavors please email me at [e-mail redacted].

Thank you, David Benac 174.69.113.226 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DeFazio (Bicycle) Bridge

Y Done

Hello Valfontis. Your caption that the DeFazio bridge is a bike bridge does not match the plaque that simply calls it the DeFazio Bridge. File:AltonBakerPond.JPG

It has been difficult to label the bridge correctly. Calling it a "bike bridge" has caused many to question why we spent so much on a bridge just for bikes. It is also a pedestrian bridge.

You can email me if you have any questions. jimwilcox (the special place sign) comcast(the dot thing)net 199.79.32.21 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. To me it's a bike bridge (I bike) but you are correct that it is also a pedestrian bridge. Who are these "many" who are referencing my slightly inaccurate caption and really crappy image to determine the truth about the bridge? And who is "we"? Do you represent ODOT, or the City of Eugene, or ??? Anyway, I can go ahead and fix the caption, but anyone is free to do so themselves. I hope that takes care of the problem. Valfontis (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the caption of the image itself, and the caption in the Alton Baker Park article. There are several more references to its status as a bicycle bridge. Feel free to fix these yourself--see {{sofixit}} for more information. Valfontis (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Lottery

Y Done

Hi Valfontis, I'm new to this process so please give me guidance. I was trying to update the Oregon Lottery Wiki page, with some new information. It was removed. Please help. Thank you for your assistance and what you do for Wikipedia. Rock and Roll!

P.S. this is what I was trying to post: [copypaste redacted]

April282008 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you need to quickly read up on page histories and edit summaries. If you look at the Oregon Lottery page history, which is reached by clicking the "View history" tab at the top of the page, you will see my edit summary, where I removed the information you pasted because it was copied from the Oregon Lottery's website. I may be wrong, but the copying and pasting leads me to believe you work for the Oregon Lottery. (Oh, and please don't paste lots of text onto people's talk pages, as you did here--it messes up the formatting and I can see what you wanted to do with the page diff). Please also read the information I've posted on your talk page. There may be a way to add the info you want to the page, but do these things first. Valfontis (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Valfontis,

I tried to make changes to the Oregon Lottery information page last Friday 17th, and have yet to hear back from you. You gave permission to reconnect if you did not reply in a timely fashion. A week seems like a sufficient amount time to respond although you may have a different take on that. I would also like to remove the reference to the Vista Sidebar gadget (on the bottom of the page), that we no longer offer. Thank you and I look forward to your response.

Jon

Valfontis,

My apologies for missing your response. I missed scrolling down to see that you indeed answered my post. I will go through your suggestions and respond shortly. Thank you.

Jon April282008 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So I quickly read up on page histories and edit summaries. And I would love to submit a draft. But when I click on my user name at the top of the screen, it gives me a prompt that says Wikipedia does not have a user name with that exact name. Do I go to the start user page and put the article in there and save? Does that get to you as a draft? It’s not that intuitive and when I look at the tutorials, there isn’t a lot of info. Yes, I did cut and paste, but the material is generally factual in nature. Please advise. April282008 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC

I don't know what's going on with the draft link, but a good way to start a sandbox for working on drafts is do so this way User:April282008/Sandbox, using the slash to make a subpage of your user page. You should be able to click on the red link and edit that page. However a couple of notes of caution. It's very unlikely you will be able to replace the current Oregon Lottery article with your chosen wording (I'm again assuming that you work for the lottery). Wikipedia is not here to provide the lottery with a place to promote itself or simply to create a mirror site of its webpage. It is certainly acceptable to point out factual inaccuracies and request certain information be added to the article. The best way to do this is to post on the article's talk page. You can also drop a note at WikiProject Oregon where more people will see it. Another good thing to remember is that Wikipedia is sometimes a slow process and that the lottery does not own the page about itself. The content of page should not be a direct copy of any content on the lottery's website, but should be rewritten in your own words. It's not a problem of it not being factual (though we do like things to be cited), it is a matter of protecting Wikipedia from copyright problems and advertising. Promotional language will need to be toned down and written in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. You might want to reread the information about conflict of interest and also our business FAQ. Sorry if this all seems overwhelming but it's what helps keep Wikipedia from becoming a spam-filled tool of special interests. However, after saying all that, you may note that I did restore some of the information you pasted into the article but have rewritten it to fit our guidelines (among other improvements). I also removed the outdated and unreferenced part about the Vista gadget. Again, go ahead and feel free to start a draft but keep all of the above in mind. You'll need to let me or another editor (on a talk page or project page) when you are finished with your draft and would like to have it reviewed. I hope this helps! P.S. In the future, could you please add to the existing thread rather than starting a new one? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. We are good to go with your assistance. No more changes are necessary. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by April282008 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You're welcome. That turned out well, despite your initial impatience. For future reference, because you keep saying "we", I hope this isn't a role account. It's also good to state your COI upfront, such as on your user page. Next time you feel the article needs changes, you can ask for them on the article's talk page. Valfontis (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chance to chat a bit about 'how to edit' correctly?

N Not done

Thanks much for your input and feedback about my editing correction of the item about me, David Oaks. Wow, that's great that we've met at Oregon Country Fair, I love that event. I'm glad that my citation that I added was 'perfectly' done. Would you possibly have a chance to exchange some messages about how to do this right? I'd like to get it right within letter and spirit of Wikipedia, but I'm so incredibly busy. I know I could figure it out, but if you did happen to have a moment to chat that would help. You can email me at [e-mail redacted]. If not, if you're too busy, or this isn't appropriate, etc. no worries, no problems, I'll learn eventually! Best, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-w-oaks (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get back to you this weekend. Valfontis (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Salem merge

Hey, the discussion is being held at redirects for discussion for some reason; rather than at the page or its target Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll think about chiming in but I think I've said all I have to say. Valfontis (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Kessler Interview Link

Context

Dear Valfontis -

I am writing about a link you removed from the entry on Lauren Kessler. The link is to an original interview I conducted with Kessler, which is posted at [url redacted]. I am the owner of the site, which is primarily used as a resource for readers seeking information on books and authors for children and young adults. I link to author interviews solely to provide more information to readers who are interested in learning more about an author, as I know it does not affect my search engine rankings.

Because my interviews are conducted with mother-daughter book clubs in mind, they often feature information that is helpful to group discussion of a book or its author. I often get feedback from librarians and book club members who have used information from my interviews in their discussions. I believe this interview helps anyone seeking more information on Lauren Kessler, and particularly her book, My Teenage Werewolf.

Was the objection more to my wording, "Author Interview at Mother Daughter Book Club.com" than to the link itself? If so, I could title it Mother Daughter Book Club Interview or even simply Interview. Again, my intent is not to promote my website, but to provide helpful information to anyone having a group discussion of this book. I appreciate any feedback you can provide, as I truly think this is a helpful link. Best regards, Cindy Hudson Cindy.hudson (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So even if it's a useful resources, wikipedia isn't a linkfarm to anything related about a subject. The linking guidelines are covered under WP:EL. As a rough guideline, a link to Lauren Kessler on NPR would probably be appropriate, but a fansite, blog post, or tweet wouldn't be appropriate. Note there are also some conflict of interest issues; Wikipedians aren't very happy about self-promotion, no matter the reasons. Cheers, tedder (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the linking guidelines and the conflict of interest and self-promotion guidelines before I posted. I truly do not believe COI and self-promotion apply to this. My own book is featured on my site, but I see that as more of an establishment of my credentials as someone who is recognized as an expert on mother-daughter book clubs than as promotion. Most everything else is devoted to reading, books to recommend, authors, and literacy. I know wikipedia isn't a linkfarm, and so things like book reviews and regular blog posts aren't appropriate as links. Also while I get that Mother Daughter Book Club site is not NPR, I do believe the Kessler interview adds something to an understanding of the author. Particularly because the book she is being interviewed about is a personal story of her and her daughter.

I won't pursue keeping the link as admin deems it be objectionable, but I did feel compelled to stand up for my reasons for thinking it was appropriate. I turn down links on my own site frequently when the posters are featuring something about books and reading, but their websites turn out to be about online degrees or insurance or some other commercial venture that's not related. That's not the case here. I don't expect to change your mind, and ultimately admin decides what's appropriate and what's not. I will keep these thoughts in mind for future edits. Cindy.hudson (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would have deleted your external link even before I was an admin, so my action has nothing to do with my being an admin. (Ordinary editors are allowed and encouraged to help other editors follow our guidelines.) I understand that your links appear useful, but people with a strong conflict of interest in regards to external links should sit on their hands and let other people add them to the article. I've seen well-meaning but COI editors like you get blocked for repeated adding of links such as yours. Especially because it looks like most of your contributions are to add external links. Many editors would consider this the actions of a spammer and block you, no questions asked. They would have even rolled back all your edits. So consider my deletion of the single link a friendly warning salvo. I believe you when you say you're not trying to drive traffic to your website, but on the other hand it would be nice if you contributed something other than external links. That said, I understand the links you wish to add fall into a gray area as far as our external links guideline. I'd suggest that you ask on an article's talk page about each link you'd like to add, or if the traffic on the talk page is too slow, check in with a project such as WikiProject Books, and let other editors add the links. After 6 years of dealing with linkspammers, I'm particularly impatient with people whose only contributions are to add external links, so you might get a fairer hearing on a page where more people are reading. And please consider adding content to articles as well as links. I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and suggestions. I'll look for opportunities to contribute content, and any other time I have something I think is worthy of a link I'll try the article's talk page first.Cindy.hudson (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Meek Cutoff External Links

Creffield part N Not done

Hi, I'm new to this process so hope you can steer me through. I understand the need to prevent articles from becoming commercialized or link farms but feel that what I was attempting to add was of value to readers interested in Meek Cutoff and Meek's Cutoff. I'm unclear about the appeal process. Should I make my arguments to you here? If I utilize the Meek Cutoff talk page, how is a decision reached, and by whom? Thanks in advance for your help Hdcinore (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First, look at the article's revision history; experienced editors will put a rationale in the edit summary. If there is nothing informative, begin by posting a query on the article's talk page. If there has not been a response in a day or two, a note like you did (above) on the reverting editor's talk page is a good place. If the article is part of a WikiProject (as Meek Cutoff is), a general note in a new topic on the project's talk page is a good idea, especially for active projects (like WikiProject Oregon). —EncMstr (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, first of all, Meek's Cutoff is a movie so links on that page need to deal specifically with the movie, not the backstory, which can be found at Meek Cutoff. You have a strong conflict of interest in that it appears that you are promoting the works of Linda Crew via book spam. Even worse, it's very rude to post your links at the top of a list of external links, further reading, or references, as you did here. Those are the actions of a spammer who clearly isn't here to help us build an encyclopedia. Historical novels can't be used as reliable sources, nor are they appropriate to be used as external links. Please add content, not links to Ms. Crew's work. Wikipedia is not here to help her sell books. You might also read our advice to the user in the section just above this one. As I state above, I am especially cranky about people who edit the way you do, so you might wish to seek out a broader audience, such as WikiProject Oregon as suggested above. Valfontis (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for any unintended rudeness. Obviously I'm new at this, so if my postings on Meek Cutoff, Edmund Creffield and Meek's Cutoff appear to jump the que, my mistake. As for promoting Ms Crew's work (no, I am not Ms Crew, although I admire her work), the line between building an encyclopedia article & promotion appears fuzzy to me. I've looked to Wikipedia articles on other authors and their works for guidance & sometimes find direct external links to their Amazon sales pages; that's not promotion? I've not attempted anything so brazen. I do plead guilty to attempting to inform readers of the existence of other works which many have found to be of interest as they explore these topics. Yes, these books are available for sale. They are also readily available at most local libraries and used bookstores. I've tried to suggest additional external content possibly of interest for readers of these articles. Your point concerning historical fiction not being History is certainly valid. However, a string of citations referring to earlier exaggeration, speculation and falsehood likewise does not lead to solid history or comprehensive encyclopedia articles. The historical record of what happened in both of these cases, Meek Cutoff and Edmund Creffield remains murky. The historical novels I've referred readers to are well-researched, thorough and respected by Oregon historians. They are often cited a credible sources of background on these topics. The same can't be said for some of the sources cited in the Edmund Creffield article.Hdcinore (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here so it's true different articles have had different levels of editorial oversight. So we have a saying about "other stuff" when someone says "what about article X?". Those other articles probably need to have their external links section pruned as well, but that has no bearing on the articles under discussion here. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, Oregon articles generally have a higher level of oversight as we have a very active Oregon WikiProject. If you think the links belong in the articles, feel free to ask about them at WikiProject Oregon, WikiProject Books or on the articles' talk pages. Not that I'm expecting you to (just from my long experience), note that replacing the links without discussion will not improve your chances and reflects poorly on Ms. Crew. Again, please consider contributing content, not links. Valfontis (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, points taken regarding content, Edmund Creffield, Meek Cutoff and "other stuff." Don't worry, I don't intend to just keep reposting links to see if you're on the ball; clearly you will be. Hdcinore (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I couldn't brag about editorial oversight and leave the dreadful Creffield article the way it was. I've cleaned up the article and restored Ms. Crew's book in correct alphabetical order in the further reading section since I saw it listed as reference in a couple 3rd-party sources. Valfontis (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Edmund Creffield article and for restoring reference to Ms. Crew's book where it appropriately belongs. I do think it offers a lot to anyone interested in this topic. Would it be rash of me to insert the word "historical" in front of your insertion of "novel"?

Having now gotten involved with this article, I find I have a number of corrections and additions to suggest. Since this project was put aside about ten years ago, I don't have the source materials immediately on hand but can locate them if useful. Here's partial list:

Creffield did not "purchase a small island;" he and his followers camped on Smith Island, a substantial island in the Willamette south of Corvallis, and raided the peach orchards on neighboring Kiger Island. When the weather was no longer condusive to camping, they moved into the house of O. V. Hurt, just south of Corvallis on the banks of the Marys River. When Hurt could no longer tolerate them, they moved east of the Willamette to the Beach house. It was from this house that Creffield was seized for tar & feathering, then run out of Corvallis. Many of the women were committed to the State Mental Hospital or the Boys & Girls Aid Society in Portland.

After fleeing to Porland, Creffield eventually snuck back to Corvallis and, unbeknownst to O. V., lived under the Hurt house in Corvallis for several months. By this time O. V.'s daughter Maude had become his first and only legal wife.

Later it was Lewis Hartley, brother of one of Creffield's female followers, who failed in an attempt to shoot Creffield near Waldport.

Following the shooting of Creffield and George Mitchell in Seattle, Maud Hurt Creffield remained there in custody, judged Not Guilty by reason of insanity for complicity in Ester Mitchell's shooting of her brother George. She soon died, either of intentional starvation, or more directly from strychnine poisoning (as later did Ester Mitchell). As she requested, Maud was buried beside her husband in a cemetery overlooking Seattle.

After her suicide by strychnine poisoning, Ester Mitchell was buried in what is now an overgrown pioneer cemetery overlooking Waldport, Oregon. I have personally seen all of these graves but doubt that my eyewitnessing of the headstones is to be regarded as a conventional source.

How much if any of this, would be judged useful for contribution to the article? I don't want to take time digging back for sources for material that is not wanted. Full Disclosure: Ms. Crew is my wife, but my interest in this article and other articles is their historical value, not personal promotion. Hdcinore (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank your for the full disclosure--it's alway good to declare any COI up front. At this point the conversation needs to be moved to the article's talk page since it's about the Creffield article (not even Meek anymore, like the heading) and not about anyone's behavior. I'll take care of it if I have time later, but I might not be able to get back to this for a little while. Valfontis (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dallas, Oregon

The unsourced section tag is required, as always for every location, university, etc., when there is nothing in the article to indicate any proof that the people listed come from that town. This is nothing new. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WikiProject Oregon has very high standards for this sort of thing (keeping out redlinks and dubious claims) and we do it a bit differently using a standardized template, only requiring that the person's article be cited, not the city article, but I'll go ahead and find sources to add to the Dallas article at some point. Next time, however, don't revert my legitimate form and style edits, including my removal of one person who shouldn't have been there. You could have just replaced the tag and not reverted the rest of the edits. Valfontis (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not trump site-wide standards. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I left the template so you win. If you have time to find the citations that would be awesome. Have a nice day! Valfontis (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	IDK . . . thanks for editing the error on my update to Dilley, OR. I think I'll learn a lot here and look forward to the adventure. Thank you for the welcome. I've used Wiki for years! Love it! Dewdrop mealine (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Aw, that's very nice of you! Yes, I hope you will stick around--we can always use more help! If you're in Oregon check out WikiProject Oregon. Valfontis (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)