Jump to content

User:Valfontis/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Aladdin Theater

Hello Valfontis. Just notifying you that Aladdin Theater (Portland, Oregon) has been created in case you are interested. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Albany parks and rec

I have been looking over the Albany Parks & Recreation page to see what I can do to improve it and I noticed you had talked about it last year sometime. I have made a comment on the talk page I would like you to look over if you have the time. (also if you ever feel up to giving me some advice on the Albany page that would be good to as I know there are things there that need improvement but I need some advice as to what to do there too.MathewDill (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

John Cornet

I was attempting to find references for Cornet (other than Amazon) and couldn't find anything about where he works (other then the sentence in the Amazon page about the book mentioning he teaches high school in southern Oregon and that he is an adjunct professor at SOU). I personally know him because he is one of my teachers, but those kind of references wouldn't work. What do I do? -Dpm12 (7:58 AM PST)

Well first of all, you need to recognize that you have a strong conflict of interest regarding this article. I did a bunch of searches and could find very little on Mr. Cornet, except many places that are selling his self-published book, and a couple mentions in the Mail Tribune. I suspect the reason you can't find any references to him is because he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. If he merited an article in the encyclopedia, there would be some significant coverage of him in the press or books. My advice is that if you respect Mr. Cornet, you would ask for the article to be deleted (it's no fun to be the subject of a discussion that concludes you are not notable). If he does something in the future that merits his inclusion in an encyclopedia, the article can always be recreated. Valfontis (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ESD

Context

I saw you moved the old page under the provision that Educational Service District is not a proper noun, as well. However, you are incorrect. Throughout both WA and OR government documents, the phrase "Educational Service District" is capitalized, and of course the abbreviation is capitalized as well. I will cite this WA OSPI webpage1 as an example; there are 1000s of other examples online. The name "Educational Service District" is also always capitalized by the local entity, too. It is a proper noun. If I do not hear from you within a week I will revert your edits. • Freechildtalk 07:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. I hope you are having a good day. Clearly I am exceptionally wrong in this case. I just wasn't thinking. I hope you will accept my apologies. I have already reverted the page. Cheers. Valfontis (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. My apologies for being abrupt- in six years of Wikipediaing I have never experienced another editor being so courteous. Thanks again. • Freechildtalk 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest

Context

What is your problem? Canadian's all hate the US they put us down call us fat, and stupid, yet apparently they are Pacific Northwest? No one from Seattle goes up to Vancouver unless they're getting on a cruise to Alaska, what are you going to do to fix the bias in the article which lists Vancouver British Columbia, in Canada first on an article which should rightfully be a US article because the Pacific Northwest of Canada is the Yukon. 99.99.50.100 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are being a troll. Please keep your comments civil. (Hint: referring to Canadians as "naggy" and calling them "girlfriend", isn't very civil, and isn't going to get your comments taken seriously.) If you have something constructive to add to the discussion about the Pacific Northwest article please do so. Otherwise, article talk pages are not forums. Also, I'm not a "bro". Valfontis (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for being un-civil, and for calling you bro. It seems to me that the reason for including Canada in the Pacific Northwest is because some Canadian's whined that they were "me-too" part of the Pac NW, I just don't get it, why is a US term Pacific Northwest, also including Canadians, I get they want to be part of the US, but they certainly don't show it in daily life with their anti-Americanism and their frequent America bashing politician's, artist's, and journalist's. 99.99.50.100 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You are making some very interesting assumptions and quite a few gross generalizations. Actually as far as I can tell from the discussion, most Canadians do not want B.C. to be included in the PNW designation. I'll have to ask my friend who gave up his Canadian citizenship to become a U.S. citizen about this. I've never heard him bash anything but like all Canadians, he is very polite. BTW, I'm American and I bash U.S. politicians all the time. Yes, I'm using a bit of sarcasm here. Now please read the talk page archives and continue your comments on the article's talk page. Valfontis (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, thanks for stating your point of view so clearly. Note there are citations from verifiable sources that explain why Vancouver is included in the "Pacific Northwest". In addition to approaching the issue from a neutral point of view, you might want to work on your grammar a bit- it's "politicians", not "politician's". tedder (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To not clutter up her page, I answered on the article's talk page. 99.99.50.100 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sybil Plumlee

Well, I think I have done what I can with online sources. I might be able to do more digging at the library or other official records. In the meantime, do you think the article is GAN-worthy, or is notability itself still in question? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, spaced this out. I'll look at it tonight after I take care of some domestic matters (like the fact that it's raining inside my house). Valfontis (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This is beautifully written and you made great use of the available sources and have clearly done your due diligence on the research. Still, I don't think she's notable. The three main points of notability--that she was "one of the first" female officers, longevity, and as an author (of a self-published genealogical book)--taken together still don't add up to notability, in my opinion. It appears she's just a long-lived person who happened to do some interesting things, much like any 100-year-old would have over the course of a lifetime. I don't see any evidence she made any particular impact on the PPB and being "one of the first" doesn't make her appointment groundbreaking, as far as I can tell. Perhaps an article or section in the PPB on the Women's Protective Division would be a better place to put the Plumee info. I wonder if there is a way to add some of the info to Portland vice scandal or create an article on (discrimination against) the LGBT community in Portland in general, to go with Hands Across Hawthorne, etc. Or at LGBT rights in Oregon. I find her participation in the "lesbian sting" (unfortunately common at the time) far more interesting than any of the other details of her life. Of course you should get a third opinion. I would recuse myself from this article, but if I didn't know you and respect your work, if this went to AfD I'd likely say "seems like a really interesting lady, but fails WP:GNG". Valfontis (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The DYK hook reviews did not seem to have any problems with the article. I will try to see if I can find any additional sources, perhaps re: her experiences w/ PPB. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Port of Morrow

nice article. my impression was that infobox was summary of info in the body of the article as well. but i leave that to you. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Diocese of Cascadia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cascadia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Stupid bot, I did that on purpose. Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon Star Party

 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

 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

 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

 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?

 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)

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)

Creffield part  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

Context

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)

Note: This user has retired. Valfontis (talk) 17:19, 7 March 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)

Thanks for the gnomery

I'll understand if you fall asleep on your keyboard and replace the entire text with jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

Also too, I am sort of cheating by adding the "Oregon legislation" template since it's at the federal level. But it seems important enough to be in some history template. If there's a better one, please suggest or replace. --Esprqii (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not that boring--it's beginning to make sense now. I'm fine with the template. Just DTTR....skzzzzsnkzzzz... Valfontis (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Harriman eh? Hmm...veddy interesting...his bio sure makes him sound like a good guy. Whitewash? Dual life? Evil twin? Maybe had a son? I'll poke around tomorrow. --Esprqii (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. But he liked to go camping so maybe he was really a good guy. Do you have access to JSTOR? I'm waiting to see if the S.C. can get this...and it's here. Check your e-mail. Valfontis (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin CJ Mongiello

I think we have the ability to see the wood from the trees now. The Background section still contains a load of detritus, but it is flagged at least as requiring citations. You may be able to form a better opinion of it now one way or the other. My own opinion after much heavy lifting to try to find any notability has not changed. Pity. I prefer to improve and keep articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim, sorry we have to meet under these circumstances. Thanks, I'll take a look. Valfontis (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What better circs are there to meet under? We improve Wikipedia :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This is true. :) Note I wrote some self-amused snark about my cat being notable enough for an article (Ted agrees!) but in the interests of not kicking a guy when he's down, I thought better of it. If I'm still feeling self-amused about my possible notability (and about my degrees of separation from notable people and desserts!) I'll send you an e-mail later. Valfontis (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why create a paradoxially lose-lose?

Context (Note user has been blocked)

Excuse me ...Valfontis, but what is the point of a talk page besides talking. You by denying my wish to do so deny my freedom of press and create a paradox in which your maintaining of the website thereby destroys the point of it. In your attempt to exert authority, you null the standards on which it lies. Alex V. (talk)

Wikipedia is not the press. We're here to write an encyclopedia, maybe someday you will help us do that. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Adolph Aschoff

You left a note on the talk page for Adolph Aschoff that it still needed further cleanup. Could you please leave a more detailed note about what needs further cleanup? It looks OK to me. RJFJR (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said in the talk page, it still needed copyediting and wikification. I didn't mention the serious issues about tone and the original research. This article was a problem from the start, when it appears to have been a school essay. Later a bunch of original research was added. There was weird parenthetical referencing that didn't seem to relate to the refs apparently used in the article. The Works Cited/References section had inconsistent formatting. Because of the tone problems, I suspect that some of the info was copied from the original sources. I've pruned the article to what is cited--some of the links are dead and a good faith effort to find new urls turned up nothing, so I have deleted those. The wikification (a few more terms could have been wikilinked) is no longer needed because of the text I pruned. I had hoped for 5 years that the article would be improved by the original editor, but that never happened. The trimmed aricle can now be a base for further expansion with cited sources. I hope this explains. Valfontis (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hattner article

Hope you are having a good weekend! I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the article for David Hattner, current conductor of the Portland Youth Philharmonic. I just finished an expansion and am considering nomination for GA status. Would you say the article meets criteria despite its short length? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's short? It's longer than most of my articles. I don't have the time to give this the attention it deserves at the moment (also not my subject area). Maybe tomorrow? Did you know I don't really pay attention to the GA criteria? (except to know my articles would get shot down for "overciting") So I'll have to check on those. I do know that it's so nice to glance at an article and not feel like I have to immediately do something about it because it's such a mess, appearance-wise! I'll try to read it for content when I'm not so tired. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great, thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Um, I suck. See the FAQ. But I helped with OR-7! Valfontis (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Helix, Oregon edits

Why did you delete my edits on Helix? --Ski67dOO (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In my edit summary I said "rv advert/spam", which means "I reverted what appeared to be a blatant advertisement as well as two spam links". The music festival might be worth a mention--with citations to reliable sources please--but the beer is not. The beer mention made your edit look like you were trying to promote the beer, especially because the brewery is in Pendleton and not Helix. I like beer and I like music festivals, but in an encyclopedia, we have to be careful how we write about those things. I'm busy right now but if you try again I can edit what you write if it needs it (hint, leave the beer out). Lots of people try to promote things on here. It makes me cranky. I hope this helps. Valfontis (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give it a shot. I only mentioned it because we don't have a lot going on out here and I thought it was interesting trivia.--Ski67dOO (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!

Hi Valfontis!

Thank you for welcoming me and all of the helpful information! Today is my first time editing and I'm here at a Women's History Event at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. I'm originally from Salem, Oregon and am part of the Chinook Tribe, so I'm looking forward to helping keep up the Oregon-related Wikipedia pages. I also met both Pete and Steven here, both Oregon Wikipedia folks -- seems like a friendly group! :)

Thanks again, Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngieLittle (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might be here because of the SF event. Say hi to Pete and Steven! We can always use more help especially with the tribal articles. I hope you like it here! Valfontis (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Salem-news.com

I see that you've removed the sub-article on the other news site that calls itself Salem News. It is a very common search result on many news topics, particularly middle east politics, and it is even used as a source for other wikipedia articles, such as Anti-Defamation League. It carries a lot a controversial content, similar to the American Free Press which also strongly opposes US policy towards Israel and Palestine, so the intent is not spam, but to shed light on an "alternative news" source for people who want to know where this news source is coming from. It is currently promoting stories that the Afghan massacre was caused by PTSD. I would appreciate it if you would not contest restoring the deleted edit. Redhanker (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It appears you added the content on an unrelated page. That would be like adding to the page on Tom Hanks that said "there's a barista in Seattle with this name". The options are as follows: first, create a page for the Oregon site, which means it must meet WP:N/WP:GNG. Second, add text for it on a related page. In other words, one that is related to the entry, not related only by name. That's what Salem, Oregon#Media is for. tedder (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I called it spam--I was in a hurry. I've seen owners of similar news websites with far less credibilty try to get something about their business on Wikipedia, thus "spam". But as Ted said, it's totally inappropriate to shoehorn infomation about a completely separate entity into an existing article. That looks like spam. It happens a lot. Moving on, personally, I don't like Salem-news.com and similar online "newspapers" (I'm old, I like paper), but I guess I didn't realize it's well known for reporting on certain subjects. If indeed it can be used as a reliable source and it's possible to show that it passes the general notability guideline and this notability guideline about media: WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals (not sure there is something similar for web news) then it should have a separate article (as opposed to attaching the information to the existing article). The redirect is the current solution approved by the community. Feel free to create Salem-news.com and I'll do my best to put my bias aside try to help with the editing and sourcing, but it's no guarantee the community will end up thinking the article is worthy of inclusion. I know it is hard to prove notability of media sources sometimes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice for a notability debate about a weekly alternative paper. Valfontis (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I just looked at the site, which I do rarely and it still looks amateurish and tabloidish. That doesn't mean it can't be a reliable news source, but it's going contribute to making it a hard sell as far as notability is concerned. Like I said, I'm biased. I prefer the Statesman Journal despite its many flaws. But that doesn't mean its not notable. Is it possible Tim King (journalist) is notable? He also writes for Examiner.com, which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source (lacks editorial oversight), so that doesn't bode well for him or his website. Valfontis (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheryl Strayed

Hi Valfontis, thanks for your welcome and comments on conflicts of interest - much appreciated. I'm not directly involved with the Bigraphile site although I work for the author's publisher. In my naivety, I thought the link was a useful one but I'm guessing from your the warning now put on the Cheryl Strayed entry you disagreed. Would you prefer me to take it down and if so would you remove the warning from the Cheryl Strayed page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMcNeill (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the compendium of information at that link did indeed appear useful, so I've left it there pending expansion of the article using cited sources that contain that information. Anyone else is free to remove the link if they feel it violates our external links guideline, however. If you check the page history, you'll see that the tags on the top of the page have nothing to do with your edit. It was more to do with problems stated in the tags--lack of sources, and a need for some copyediting. It looks like she added some info to the article herself, but if that info can be cited using reliable sources it can stay. Feel free to provide more sources and/or copyedit the article, then the tags can be removed. I haven't had a chance to do the work. Do please read over the general Wikipedia info and the COI info I placed on your page. I hope that helps. I have a bit of COI myself, as I heard Ms. Strayed on NPR and am looking forward to reading Wild. Valfontis (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

THANK YOU for the awesome photo on the go-go boots article. I was hoping for a better image..but hadn't had time. This is such an AWESOME image =) Sarah (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, you are quite welcome! I thought you might notice that as I saw you had edited the article. I was following the link to the image of the cute go-go boys from the Tom Morris blog you posted to the GenderGap list (blush, tee hee). And could not believe that lovely but inappropriate upskirt image was used to illustrate an article about boots. "Surely there is a better image on Commons?" I thought. "Those aren't even go-go boots!" So though I don't participate in the list (publicly archived, have to be careful), it indirectly contributed. Wikiblame says that image was there for 3-4 years! Geesh. The image may have copyright problems however, so the Mondrian boot image may be better. Meanwhile, I'm trying to decide about the image of the lovely young woman here. Don't want to be accused of censorship, but I think the mudpeople pic was more interesting. Valfontis (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Valfontis a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter and friends

Kelly Ritz

Hi Valfontis. Responding to your query, I did not link Kelly Ritz to Stone Bridge Homes NW because I assumed the latter was about to be removed (I still assume that). I agree about the lack of notability of Stone Bridge Homes NW (I've already had a discussion with editors about this), but I DO believe Kelly Ritz meets the notability standard. Look forward to your comments. Thanks. Expewikiwriter (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Afd has several more days to run its course, so it is not "about" to be removed. If you really think the article should go you could request it be deleted, I suppose. I went ahead and linked the articles together to help people at the AfD. I haven't looked at the article since this morning, but I really can't see Ms. Ritz as being notable, judging by the sources given. If you wish to be helpful in regards to building the encyclopedia, I think it makes more sense to have an article on the Oregon Home Builders Association before writing about individual businesses or business owners. Valfontis (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I was willing to assume good faith about your claim you don't have COI regarding Ms. Ritz, et al. But care to explain this? Valfontis (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You know, you probably won't see this but...I'm not against paid editing as long as the paid editor is good at Wikipedia (engages the community, knows not to put postal abbreviations in body text, etc.) and is 100% above-board. But lying about being a retired "school teacher" is completely unacceptable. During your indefinite block for sockpuppeting, you may want to think about how your actions actually harm your clients more than you help them. I hope Ms. Ritz is furious with you for allowing her name to get dragged through the mud. Valfontis (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Shama Kabani

One to keep track of, expanded by you-know-who. Hard to see it there's anything salvageable in there among all the self-promotional dross... Valfontis (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

William Kurk and other Expewikiwriter articles

I'm having trouble making up my mind about this Expewikiwriter article. The coverage seems decent, though I'm not sure I trust Expe's use of sources. What do you think? 86.** IP (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Argh. It's the "I've worked with lots of famous people" defense, aka WP:INHERIT. Not to mention I wish they knew how to format things properly. I'll take a look after I have some coffee. I feel sorry for some of these people. Re the edit summary: "I am a passionate music suporter who believes in preserving our musical history." Uh huh. Thanks for asking. Valfontis (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

David R. Stokes

I've taken this to AfD for you. I appreciate your enthusiasm but be sure to check each article's edit history and remember that each article can only be prodded once. Even if the prod was contested by someone with COI, it still needs to go to AFD. And while I've got you online--ya know, speedying Clif Bar just because Expewikiwriter touched it was kind of silly. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyways, have you looked at:

Valfontis (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Home Care Assistance

Context My apologies. As you may imagine, when you're judggling 20, 30 articles by someone, it's easy to forget a previous prod. 86.** IP (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not having trouble, made a spread sheet. It's 46 articles. Also I note you "can't be arsed" to look at edit histories. Try it. Valfontis (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
That was a joke about not wanting to check the history to make sure someone who sounds like me was. I do generally check them, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed Expewikiwriter in the first place. 86.** IP (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Good job

Hey there, Valfontis -
Just wanted to say "good job" for catching this edit. That was a good find. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ven. Polwatte Buddhadatta Mahanayake Thera

I don't see how this was a speedy a7-- it asserted he was a university professor, had written multiple books, and received an award. It'll need some checking, and I'm not sure we'll find the evidence for WP:PROF, but we might. (I know I have the ability to do so myself, but I want to ask you first.) DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker), but the page was also a copyvio. Aside from being listed on one page, Google isn't optimistic for English results. tedder (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm extremely doubtful this can be improved, but I've undeleted it since I don't have time/feel like doing my due diligence as far as research. Oh yeah, and "Bingo!" Valfontis (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Turns out he was kind of a big deal. Hopefully a subject matter expert will come along and help fix that up. I keep thinking I'll run across an existing article for him if I look up enough different versions of his titles. Thanks for calling me out on this one, DGG! Valfontis (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

concept? conception? misconcept?

I think both cases are wrong here but I'm bad at words. tedder (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. I don't like either one either, but it gets the point across, I guess. I'm too tired to figure out a way to recast the sentence right now. I'll think it over--remind me if I don't get to it in the next couple days. Valfontis (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
We both distract easily. Just reminded me of xkcd, "that wording is wrong on the internet!" tedder (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at BattyBot's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Cascade Range

Despite the obvious obstinacy of that one editor, I have to say the picture he's trying to insert is a better photo. Hood is crystal clear, whereas in the current photo Rainier is hazy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, works for me if you want to revert it, with an explanation, of course. I was just trying to not make this place Oregon-we-don't-give-a-rip-about-Washington-o-pedia. :) Meanwhile, I thought he might be one of my sock friends, but a quick search reveals it's probably just a young newbie. Valfontis (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I share your concerns. It was not so much the replacement as the refusal (twice, at least) to comment in the edit summary. Before I go changing it, though, I should hop over to commons and see if there's a really good image of Rainier or Shasta that would be better suited for the "main" picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This one, for example. Similar to the Hood picture only better - and definitely better than the current Rainier picture. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Where's the snow?! But yes that one is much better. Wsiegmund's work is always good. Valfontis (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
A pretty good mixture of glaciers and rock, seems to me. :) I'll insert that picture, with an appropriate edit summary, and if the other editor still has an issue, we can maybe move this entire discussion to the article talk page. Maybe we should anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha, he took both images! Maybe you should ask his opinion. Valfontis (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny. I can see a place for that other photo, in the article about Rainier. I just don't think it's that good for the Cascades. But I might run it by him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The photo was posted nearly 2 years ago,[1] but not by its author. The previous pic was Hood and the one before that was yet another Rainier pic. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha. I like the edit summary from Shannon. I'd agree that the Majestic Mount Hood

pic is too good to be true. Valfontis (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This? That's pretty much what it looks like on a bright day with the lake calm. Based on the angle of the shadows, probably mid-afternoon or so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Shh. Don't tell everyone. Valfontis (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey now! tedder (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
But Ted, you're a reverse Californicator. I think as a S.N.O.B., I'm supposed to be O.K. with that. At least I didn't nominate you for the AR award, above. Valfontis (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a double-reverse californicator. Originally from Oregon. I'm just down here on a spy mission. tedder (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That sure is not how it looks today. I've made that trek in winter before. It's a lot of work (at least the uphill portion)! —EncMstr (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been to Mirror Lake, but Trillium Lake has a parking lot, pretty easy to get to. Kind of like when you drive 6,000 feet to Timberline Lodge, it almost seems like cheating. (Imagine how much easier K2 or Everest would be to scale, if they had roads.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:BestFiens

You're correct and I re-blocked indefinitely. I was on Huggle, and the 5 edits I reverted seemed to be good-faith re-edits to the CompUSA article, from an editor who didn't know what s/he was doing. After a closer analysis of the contribs, prompted by you, I realized my mistake. Thanks for letting me know, and I will try to be more careful in the future. SpencerT♦C 14:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Molalla River

Category:Molalla River, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Irvington Tennis Club image

Hi Valfontis ... I replied to your message --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just replied, thanks for checking! Valfontis (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Liberal, Oregon

Thank you for your help with rewriting the economy section for Liberal, Oregon and for your patience with a new contributor. Your time is appreciated.

I have spent a good deal of time reading the help files and did try to present the information in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. However, as a fifth-generation member of this little community, I am passionate about preserving its identity as the town of Molalla, Oregon and community of Mulino, Oregon threaten to absorb us. This was my motivation for writing this page. It was not intended as spam.

Regarding what I originally wrote for the "economy section" that you marked as spam, I actually sought out other community articles in Wikipedia for precedent and used Mansfield, Missouri (Mansfield, Missouri#Economy) as the model. Actually, I nearly exactly copied the format there. So, that is why I was a bit puzzled by its quick removal. Is the Mansfield, Missouri entry also spam and just slipped under the radar of the editors?

As a historian by hobby and profession, I am interested in becoming a better Wikipedia contributor and would appreciate your mentorship and input. Here are a couple of specific questions:

  • This article is listed as a "Stub" of Clackamas, County. I do not know what else to include on this page. It is literally a blip on the Cascade Highway and I am not sure what else to write about.
  • Likewise, the article is stating that additional citations are needed. I worked at adding citations for all of the facts but the notice at the top of the page did not disappear. What additionally is required?

Thank you again for your time and help.

Best Regards,

Webfarmer (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Caveat--I hate spammers, so my response is colored by that. Please see my reply here: User talk:DGG#Deletion of Article: Victory Seed Company. {{stub}} designations are nothing to worry about. They are a tool for editors to sort and find short articles that might be able to be expanded. I specialize in articles about small towns and most of those articles are about similar blips on the map and may remain stubs forever. Again, it is nothing to be alarmed about. Your history website is useful, but please stop spamming mentions of your business on Wikipedia. Again, see WP:OSE in regards to other articles. "What about this other article?!" is a favorite argument of people who want to try to get around our guidelines, unfortunately. At some point I'll fix up the Liberal article using the sources I use for other articles and will remove the tags. I understand your passion for wanting to preserve the memory of Liberal as a separate community, but like Orange Mike said, we aren't here to promote causes, no matter how noble. The best we can do is write well-sourced, neutral articles about such topics. One way to help would be to list any sources that are not your website on the article's talk page. For example the titles and publication information of newspaper and magazine articles, books, etc., for follow up research at the state or local historical society. Valfontis (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The articles about the seed company and its founder in Mansfield were redlinks because they had been deleted for not being notable. I've cleaned up the entry, thanks for pointing it out. Valfontis (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I may be a little more (ahem) liberal in my definition of how to de-stub, but I don't think this is a stub. I'd consider this article a stub. Anyway, I reclassified it as a start. Take a look at the quality scale for the definitions. If you wanted to get it further along, you could beef up the history section, maybe add more about the current attempted incursions by the Molallans and Mulinoans. Adding pictures would also be nice. Definitely look at Valfontis's articles on similar small towns to get ideas. --Esprqii (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Esprqii. I usually count anything (especially articles I've started--I'm modest), I run through the DYK check software that shows as having fewer than 1,500 characters of prose as a "stub", but, yes, others are justified in classifying short but decently cited articles as "start". Again, I don't see anything wrong with something being called a stub, but getting an article past that point means it is on its way to becoming a featured article someday. Valfontis (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Valfontis and Esprqii for the great info. The imagery of the incursion is funny, although at times, it feels real to someone (this one :) residing in "downtown." I'll see what other information and documentation I can dig up, review Valfontis's work, and had not even thought about including current images of the community. Thank you for the tips. Webfarmer (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Springfield, Oregon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did that on purpose. Silly 'bot. Shoo. Valfontis (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Campus law enforcement in Oregon

Just looking through your campus Law enforcement page that you edited.

FYI: There ARE other agencies with sworn officers. Some colleges and universities have agreements with the local Sheriffs Office, making Public Safety OFficers "special deputies". OHSU also has formed a POLICE agency. PCC also has a Department of Public Safety and has sworn officers as well as support staff. Clackamas CC has armed Deputy Public Safety Officers. You're forgetting that all Universities and Community Colleges in oregon have more or less authority.

SEE ORS 341.300, ORS 353.050, and ORS 352.385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidscreenname (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "my" page. I'm linking the article so I can see what you are going on about. Take a deep breath, and I'll have some coffee. Valfontis (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time to look into this fully right now. Note that any claims in articles need to be cited, using reliable sources, and if you don't know how to format citations, someone will usually come along and help. You can also post questions on the article's talk page. {{tps}} feel free to comment. Also, if you want people to help you, you should link to the article about which you are asking (see note on top of page) and don't type in all caps. Many people consider that shouting. Thanks and have a great day. Valfontis (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mill Creek (Marion County, Oregon) flood

I stuck the State Street image in there by way of a placeholder. Could you pick the one you like best and use it instead? I'm not personally acquainted with Mill Creek, though it seems to behave like Johnson Creek in Portland. They are almost the same length, begin in the foothills, have been greatly altered by humans, and look placid most of the time. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do, though the one you chose isn't bad. Agree about the behavior/geography. It is also largely ignored until something like the '96 floods and January flooding happens and it is not all that accessible or "natural" anymore--not sure that is the case with Johnson. I have a couple more days' worth of pics I should upload that might have something better too. I love taking pictures, but boy I hate uploading them... At some point Pringle Creek (sometimes formerly known as South Mill Creek) would make a nice article too. They are planning on "daylighting" the portion at the mouth that used to run under the Boise Cascade mill now being (slowly) redeveloped. See also Shelton Ditch (Oregon). Valfontis (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed the Shelton Ditch article. Glad you linked to it in the Mill Creek article. Restoration of riparian zones along Johnson Creek are helping it recover somewhat from rough treatment in earlier decades. As for photos, I take bunches, but I delete most of them. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll do something with Pringle Creek next. I thought sources might be a problem, but I've already found three: one cited in your Shelton Ditch article, the GNIS entry, and the OGN entry. Anything you have to add to Mill Creek or Pringle will be most welcome. Maybe you have a Pringle photo? Finetooth (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. I think I've got a cool pic of the confluence of Pringle and Shelton after the storm. The confluence is here. Pringle Creek flooded in January too. Valfontis (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. What's hard to find sources on is the origin of Shelton Ditch. It may have started out as Shelton Creek. There is also what the Shadowy Cabal and I call the "Stream of Mystery" (somewhere about here), a tributary of Shelton Ditch. Not worthy of an article, but it shows on old Sanborn maps. I think it's mentioned in one of the sources. I haven't looked at them for a while. There is, by the way, a book on Salem's struggle to get clean water, I'm not sure how widely distributed it is. Valfontis (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you found this: http://pringlecreek.watershedcouncils.net/Assessment.htm The Pringle watershed association seems much more robust, as least as far as its online presence, compared to Mill Creek's. Valfontis (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't found that one, actually. Thanks. I went ahead and published a stub with a geobox as Pringle Creek (Willamette River). I'll come back to this tomorrow. I did find a 400-page City of Salem planning document about the creek, here. This is already reminding me of Balch Creek, which is little but has had many RS documents published about it. Finetooth (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Ah Salemia, they do like their planning. Valfontis (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you seem to like Oregon history

Came across this article, Steamboats of Coos Bay, and its references are unclear, thought you might be able to help it out. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. (sorry I'm laughing--"seem to like" is a bit of an understatement) If I were you I would have checked in with Mtsmallwood first, but since he is retired, maybe drop a note at WikiProject Oregon, though at some point one of us probably would have gotten around to it eventually. I find cleaning up Mtsmallwood's excellent but unorthodox articles a bit daunting. (Also, see my FAQ regarding copyedit requests.) This looks like one of his early works, and I bet he has listed the references he used in one of his other articles. I see it also needs some clean up of embedded external links and some wikilinking. Gotta run, but thanks for thinking of me. Maybe Finetooth (see above) would be willing to take a look. P.S. I see I've already discussed the referencing on the talk page. Valfontis (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a copy of the Timmen book cited in the article. It's Blow for the Landing, published by Caxton Printers of Caldwell, Idaho, in 1973. I'll add the bibliographic data to the Steamboats article. I don't recognize the other books cited, but I'll poke around, see what I can find, and post further thoughts to the Steamboats article talk page. Finetooth (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled into this because I was trying to add 'what links here' to the new Camp Castaway article. I appreciate anyones' efforts on related articles, I couldn't make heads or tails out of the references on the Steamboats one. Shearonink (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Camp Castaway was what I consider an "acute" situation, so I tackled it right away, vs. Steamboats of Coos Bay, which is "chronic". I guess we have just gotten used to it being sort of odd, and it takes an outside view to get things moving again. Thanks for pointing it out and to Finetooth for taking up the challenge. Valfontis (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Grown up and found better things to do with their time"

Direct quote from Lynn Neary speculating on why the number of editors on Wikipedia is declining. Stupid NPR. Valfontis (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Grmph. Link? tedder (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Gotta run. Someone reached a million edits. Jimbo mentioned the decline in editors and Montagne Neary added the usual cutesy story wrapup... Valfontis (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's this. Was in my podcast feed this morning. tedder (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Only one outraged comment, we can do better than that, surely? Meanwhile how does it feel to be part of a Secretive Clan? I had no idea Koavf was my rival either. I keep forgetting that Wikipedia is a MMORPG run by 12-year-olds. Valfontis (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I forwarded this to the Communications Committee list, because it's just plain offensive. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. I expect we'll hear an apology on Thursday when they do their "Letters" segment. Valfontis (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No doubt it will be in the form of the "oh dear, we made the nerds mad" apology. --Esprqii (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
But NPR listener=Nerd, silly. Valfontis (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
BTW, if anybody wants to thank me for this valuable scoop, write your praise on the back of this NPR Peter Max limited edition SongBook. And send it to "Val Fontis, 1 Valfontis Square, Valfontis, OR, 97304". Valfontis (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

intruding on your userspace

I'm not even sure if the apostrophe is correct, or if it violates wikipedia laws to create a law in the userspace of others, but.. feel free to keep or improve or delete or whatever you want. tedder (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also see this edit. tedder (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Stop trompin' in my userspace, punk. The apostrophe is correct! You've won a Jr. Copyeditors' badge, and a copy of the Chicago Manual! (the two-dot ellipsis means I get to take them away, however) But indeed the Law and the Nifty Yellow Box are Good Things. I was thinking that I spend more time 'splainin' things to COI editors than anybody, so that needs to be put in there, maybe. But perhaps short and sweet is best. Now it just needs a formula. Time=T and Volume of explanations=V? I don't know, there's a reason I majored in humanities. You math and science nerds figure it out. Valfontis (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought you majored in humanities so you could guarantee unemployment? Oh, sorry, that's harsh. Yeah, the "two ellipsis" thing is a habit of mine. Sorry. I was chatting on Barek's page and wanted the Law, so I posted it. tedder (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
As it happens, I believe I did have them mention pulling espresso when it was my turn to pick up my diploma. Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The recruiting material said "you'll spend great time in coffeeshops, discussing what you've learned." They didn't mention which side of the counter you'd be on. tedder (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the corners are all roundy? Or did I not see that when I looked at it using iE? I thought the new yellow and blue diffs were weird enough to get used to... Anyway I dropped out of J-school in favor of humanities, but now I feel strangely vindicated. (That's my crappy photo of the Eugene P.O., which is for sale. WP:ORE should buy it. I wonder if that's my crappy photo in the header as well.) Valfontis (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Roundy corners and the yellow background. I don't care the color, I just thought it looked better than being white- it was getting hidden. tedder (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Valfontis/Archive_17&oldid=1147978299"