User talk:Jgilhousen/2006 November-December

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion

Sir, I can't tell you how happy I am to have someone who probably knows the religion field as well as you do join the project above. You may have noted the rather sparse membership. The project page has actually existed for a fair amount of time, but up until recently it had no really defined scope and no membership list for people to sign on. I am trying to change that situation, and your joining is certainly a welcome step in the right direction. You may have also noted all the descendant projects listed there. Given your credentials, I am sure any of them would welcome input from you as well. Thank you for becoming an editor and joining the project. If there is anything I can do to help you in any way, please feel free to let me know and I'll do whatever time and my own limited abilities permit. Thanks again. Badbilltucker 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

doublecheck

this edit. Agathoclea 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Congregational Church

Do you know anything about this group? They are clearly not the same (nowadays) as the folks to whom this term currently redirects, though they once were; but I don't know enough about them to do them justice in even a stub. http://www.eccenter.com/ --Orange Mike 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical Association; United Brethren; Methodism

As close to a nutshell as I can put it: Jacob Albright and Philip Otterbein were both Methodists from the German Revival Movement in 19th Century Pennsylvania. Each felt a calling to establish ministries amongst the ethnic Germans, and unable to gain support from the Methodist Church for it, independently of one another, launched out on their own. The Evangelical Association (Church) arose from Albright's work, the United Brethren (Church) from Otterbein's. They merged to become the Evangelical United Brethren Church, which ultimately reunited with the Methodists to form the United Methodist Church.

Along the way to the United Methodist "big tent," some smaller groups split off along the way, many of which are still extant, including the Free Methodist Church and the Church of the Nazarene from the Methodists, the United Brethren (Old Constitution) from the United Brethren, etc.

The Evangelical Congregational Church is one such group, which split off from the Evangelical Association before its merger with the United Brethren, and thus long before the merger that formed the United Methodist Church in 1967.

Unleashing my opinionated streak begins here...

Thus, I think it is wrong to redirect it to the Evangelical Association, as it is a completely separate body which is a descendant (albeit "splinter," although that word has a negative connotation which would prevent me using it other than on Talk pages), not a predecessor, constituent, or affiliated organization. It would be akin to redirecting everything Anglicanor Lutheranrelated to Catholicism, from which they removed themselves. I suspect that this resulted from an unintentional conflict of interest on the part of some of the participants in the Wiki Methodist and/or Evangelical United Brethren article series projects.

I'll add an article on the Evangelical Congregational Church to my "to do," list and hope pie throwing does not result from my final product.

BTW, my fluency in matters relating to the Evangelical United Brethren and Methodism is a result of having been raised in an EUB Church which seceded over the Methodist merger when I was a teenager, and is now part of the Evangelical Church (ECNA). I have relatives and friends who are still active in that denomination, and others who went with the Methodists. (I, obviously, chose a third option.) Jgilhousen 22:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought; and you're exactly what I was hoping for; thanx! I only got involved because I was expanding on the article about a famous science fiction writer/publisher who also became an ECC pastor in his later years. --Orange Mike 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. You've piqued my curiosity. Wanna spill the beans on exactly whom that "famous science fiction writer/publisher" might be/have been? And I've put the ECC on my "gather more info" list. I'll let you know when I have something ready to "go live." (Dang, I always forget to sign these things --Jgilhousen 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Lloyd Arthur Eshbach. --Orange Mike 23:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Provides some insight regarding his famous LRHubbard quote. --Jgilhousen 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, Jgilhousen! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! --Daniel Olsen 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Dalles Carnegie Library

Hi, I just wanted to welcome you to WikiProject Oregon and encourage you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places too, since you expressed an interest in helping get rid of all the redlinks at List of Registered Historic Places in Oregon. I'm actively recruiting because there are so many redlinks and I'm the only member from Oregon so far. :) You did a nice job with the library article (which I just messed with a bit), thanks! Oh, and now I see you've added The Dalles Civic Auditorium too! Yay! If you ever feel like doing Fort Dalles Surgeon's Quarters, I would be happy, as I have a fondness for Gothic revival architecture and I believe it is Oregon's earliest example of it. And finally, thanks for being the person to finally get around to writing Democratic Party of Oregon. Be sure to ask if you need help with anything. Katr67 04:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, back atcha, and thanks for the welcome. The Oregon Historic Places redlinks seemed like a good place to get my feet wet, since it was on the project's "to do" list, and I had already been taking photographs and collecting materials on these buildings for the WascoWiki of the Wasco County AHGP. Since I haven't finished my sourcing, I'll be marking most of the pieces as stubs, but I should be able to tick off most of the ones here in town in fairly short order. I'll do the Surgeon's Quarters next, and since you appreciate Neogothic, I should put make Old St. Peter's Landmark a priority too. The history of each of these two buildings is so rich, I wanted to do more extensive research before uploading anything, but I'll swallow pride, and at least get first drafts up. I'll take a look at the revisions you made, to get a better feel for what I can do better. I'll probably be taking you up on your kind offer of help before too long too. Great to be workin' with ya'. -J-M Jgilhousen 09:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That WascoWiki looks very interesting. I am resisting logging in because I have a rule: "Only one wiki." I wrote a paper a few years ago on Gothic revival residences in the NW, and just the other day I remembered that there was this really cool church that I had seen in my travels on the Internet so I was trying to remember where it was. I was thinking John Day for some reason. I also had the distinct impression the building was pink, but maybe it was the background on the webpage! But Old St. Peter's Landmark is it, so thanks for mentioning it, now I will be able sleep. :) That is one gorgeous church--it's too bad their current webpage doesn't have the best photos of it. I'm rather fond of the First United Methodist Church in Salem, but Old St. Pete's just might be the best Gothic church in the state. (Well, The Old Church in Portland is pretty nice too...) Anyway, my computer is having issues, but if I can get it to cough up my Gothic revival paper, I might have some info and sources for the Surgeon's quarters. Katr67 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could refresh your memory, and yes, I would love to get my hands on any info you might have on the Surgeon's Quarters. Or, for that matter, anything regarding the history of the region... I'm pretty much hooked as a "buff." As for Old St. Peter's, I am very pleased at the job of restoration that has been done. The group behind it has gone so far as to re-acquire most of the interior appointments that were in use at the time of closure, including the statuary and the Stations of the Cross. I'm not satisfied with the digital pics I've taken of historic buildings around town, St. Pete's included. My camera was new, and I wasn't used to it yet. The next blue-sky-day, I'll see if I can improve on them. Oh, and another gothic church building you might want to check out, if you haven't already, is St. Michael's parish in downtown Portland. It's been a number of years since I have been there, and as I recall the exterior has a few inauthentic elements, and the interior is somewhat cluttered, but my fading memory of it is that it was quite remarkable, nonetheless. I think it's still in use as a church, too. J-M --Jgilhousen 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question on Conflict of Interest Issue

Well it seems like you've done your homework on this issue. You'll notice that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest doesn't ever say NOT to write when you have a conflict of interest, just to be very careful. You should read WP:BIO to get a rough idea of whether your subjects are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and then proceed with caution. If you can't find reliable sources to cite when you're writing information, it shouldn't be included. Good luck, and happy editing! --Daniel Olsen 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Law category

Hi there, sorry to revert your edit, but several of us already thought of this, and here is the discussion. I actually made a little list on one of my subpages, because it seems like a handy thing to have. I was going to ask User:Postdlf under which category we could put this, but I have been too lazy. Feel free to take it "live" if you want. Katr67 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can live with the revert, although the article does relate to a specific Oregon Law. It ceased being a ballot measure after the election, and is now in Oregon Revised Statutes... can't get much more specific as a law than that. But... whatever. Perhaps an Oregon Statutes category is needed, but I don't think the average person would find it, "statutes" is just not what most people would type into the search box. Nonetheless, I really don't feel strongly enough about it to craft reasoned debating points.

Meanwhile, what I'm trying to do is get a handle on what Oregon-related articles are already out there, and a bit of a sense of what condition they are in, and tagging them appropriately (as best I can). I have discovered that a miniscule number of them are tagged with the project, and some are not even included in an Oregon-related category, making it virtually impossible to generate a list. So, I was spending the day going through the results of a Google search of the entire Wikipedia on the word "Oregon". When I finish, it will be easier to "divy them up" between the five sub-projects, and prioritize them.

BTW, in that regard, have you noticed how the Biography Project template is set up to include additional information, and specifically whether or not a particular subproject applies? That would sure make creation of an agenda a lot easier. I guess I need to teach myself the template syntax and functions... yikes, another script language to learn. -J-M Jgilhousen 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask Postdlf about possible law-related categories. You're probably right that it's an appropriate category--I'll take a look later, I used to have to edit stuff like that for a living. Have you looked at Category:WikiProject Oregon? That will give you some idea what's out there. You know, I've done the same thing with the Google searches and each time I do one I pick up a few new orphaned Oregon articles. Would you believe that I have just about every Oregon article on my watchlist? Except I generally don't watch all the geography articles (the various creeks, buttes, ski areas, etc.), or sports stuff, or high schools (because of all the vandalism). Yep, the articles are tagged pretty randomly. If I run across one without a tag I add one, but I've never been systematic about it, and I generally don't tag the articles about schools, companies, and the like--that's just a personal bias of mine. I notice there's a couple people unrelated to the project who go through and tag them too. *shrug* Eek--biography template--I don't even know about that... Thanks for all your hard work. I'm glad I'm not the only detail-oriented person around here! Katr67 21:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the WikiProject Oregon category page. The point is that only a tiny fraction of Oregon-related articles are tagged, and so don't yet appear there, hence my effort to find and tag them. Even half of the articles on cities I've pulled up this morning and afternoon were not tagged with the WikiProject Oregon tag.

Template:WPBiography is the best project template I've seen. I don't know enough about templates yet to adapt ours to include its comprehensive functionality. You might wanna take a peek at it, and its available options, if only to drool.

Thanks for the kind words... and as for being detail-oriented, there's a reason they call us "clerics." -J-M Jgilhousen 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I was going to say "compulsive" but I can only speak for myself. ;) Now I want to get in on the fun. I'll go through my watchlist, which does include every single last city and community, and start tagging... Katr67 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the word "compulsive" to the anatomical reference most people who know me well tend to use as a descriptor. Since you're doin' cities, I'll skip them as I go through the Google results (although I should have been more specific, since some of the "cities" are, in fact, Census Designated Places and/or unincorporated communities. --J-M Jgilhousen 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that too. Does it have a hyphen? Anyway, I just went through my list backwards and did everything from Z-V, yes, "cities" used loosely to include CDPs, wide spots in the road, etc. and including the counties, a few rivers etc. I hope we don't duplicte our efforts too much. I'll be sure to catch all the cities/CDPs/whatevers by the end of the weekend though. Katr67 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How clever of you to work backwards. We should be fine vis a vis duplicative work, and I'm skipping all "places" now... just checkin' any other article that has the word "Oregon" anywhere in title or text. It's tedious, but think will yield a much better "snapshot" of project status. -J-M Jgilhousen 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor and a cleric(al), I will point out that yes, there is a hyphen in 'anal-retentive'! --Orange Mike 15:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You clearly win the proctological contest. Jgilhousen 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, but of course it only has a hyphen if you're using it as an adjective. :) More on topic, J-M, I finished tagging everything Oregon-related on my watchlist with the project tag, and I plan to go through all the Oregon categories and tag them at some point too. Cheers! Katr67 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gadzooks! I hadn't even thought about categories. I'm sure you have a fairly clear picture of what's "out there," given your longer involvement in the project and clearly superior synaptic processes. (I don't know whether you ever watched the cheesy old sci-fi series Quantum Leap, but its frequent use of the term "swiss cheese memory" resonates with me.) Anyway, getting back from my recitation of an "Old Man and the Ram," I am already finding the more comprehensive lists on the category pages produced by our tagging efforts quite useful. They would proven even more so if I could get over my terror of dissecting "Esoteric template" code to make a more comprehensive project tag. -J-M Jgilhousen 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, boy... How dare you call Quantum Leap cheesy! It's based in New Mexico, not Wisconsin! But I do appreciate your efforts to put right what once went wrong. (Just don't call it "sci-fi" please.) --Orange Mike 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I spent several years in Wisconsin, and although given the appropriate foam rubber headgear (which I can attest from experience looks even sillier on an individual also sporting a clerical collar), never officially made it to official cheesehead status. It's great to be back in Oregon, where I can don my black Stetson instead. (Which, I am sure, many find just as silly, but are kind enough to keep their own counsel on the subject.) -J-M Jgilhousen 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Creating Categories

Categories ar more of something to be bold with. However, stub categories should be discussed before hand at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. When creating a cateogry, make sure to add a short (one sentence will suffice) description at the category page (Category:Example, for instance) and add the category to parent categories (i.e. State Treasurers of Oregon into Oregon Politicians). See WP:CAT and Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create subcategories for more information. Happy editing! --Daniel Olsen 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oregon guy

John, I'll move it back for now, and have a more detailed look tonight if I get time. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Oregon stuff

Thanks for putting up the Old St. Peter's Landmark article--it sounds like it's really beautiful on the inside too. Any chance you can get photos of the windows? (There ought to be a article on the Povey Brothers--their stuff is everywhere: [1]) I'll need to get up there one of these days and see it in person. I hope you don't mind me popping in and wikignoming after you on various things. Us gnomes are useful, but people who actually follow through with writing articles are better. :) (I've had my Jesse Applegate article sitting in an open edit window on my desktop at home for days now.) And yeah, that troll...I'm glad he stopped. Maybe it was the full moon or something... Katr67 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First, you're welcome, even though it is only a hair's breadth above stub-level. Old St. Pete's is open on a reduced winter schedule. I'll need to check on when I can get in. We'd get better shots in the Spring when there is "warm light" through those windows. And yes, it is remarkable how much of the Poveys' work is still extant. A student came through town a few years ago who was doing a paper on them, and promised me a copy when finished, but it never arrived. I'll see if I can get back in touch. I've been trying not to get distracted from the work in government and politics. There are so many articles missing. I have been gathering newspaper articles on several people who have made a major impact on life in Oregon during their careers... and I don't have enough self discipline to avoid reading way past the parts that are pertinent for intended articles. And please don't give a thought to ruffling my feathers by cleaning up after me. I'm watching the edits you and a few others have been making to my work, and learning from them. Of course, they do sometimes contradict each other... one member of the categorization team added a bunch of categories to one of my stubs, so on my next article I followed his more comprehensive pattern only to have many of them deleted. Nonetheless, I recognize most of the tinkering to have improved upon my work. I don't think there is a qualitative difference between authoring and "gnoming." Both are important contributions... and I hope to become more accomplished at both.

Oh, if you do get up this way, do give me a jingle. I'm in the book. It'd be fun to go for coffee or lunch, and perhaps show you the sights. The Dalles has some wonderful architectural sites, and the rich indigenous and pioneer history is still quite evident. I was disappointed that I hadn't heard about the Portland meet up before it was too late to attend, and hope y'all had a good time. Now, I think I'll read some more about Judge Redden... what a fascinating individual. -J-M Jgilhousen 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Project 02

You mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon that Project 02 is real, with friends working there and all. Do you know of anything published? I added what I could find to the article already, but maybe you can find more? — EncMstr 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

They have long dropped the Project 02 designation, and have been advertising on their own employment opportunities site and classifieds since late last summer. My article for WascoWiki, "Google-The Dalles" was written about that time, and is pretty stale, but includes citations. At least a third of the people in my apartment complex are working on the final construction phase -contract workers for electrical engineering companies, etc. -J-M Jgilhousen 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Old St. Peter's Landmark

Hi. In this article, which I see from its history that you created, in the second paragraph under the heading Architecture and appointments there is the term Victorian which links to a disambiguation page. It was my aim to disambiguate it, however I can't decide whether Victorian architecture or Victorian era would be more appropriate. I thought I'd give you final say since you probably know the most about the article. Please let me know on my talkpage when you've done this. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to try to correct my oversight. I usually check my internal links for just such problems. This one, it seems, requires a judgment call. Within the context of "Victorian art glass," neither of the choices presented seems to fit with anything close to precision. Of the two, I would tend to favor Victorian era, although the style was common in this country long after Victoria's reign. I have neither the time nor the expertise to write an article differentiating the various styles of stained glass. Do you have a coin handy you could flip? -J-M Jgilhousen 14:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hermiston

Hi there, I saw your inuse template, I didn't know if that was meant for me or if you were going to do some editing there. I'm done for a while. BTW, does the wikiproject Oregon template belong on the talk page? I thought it belonged on the article page itself. EOBeav 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it looks like you removed some of my citations and then added the "citation needed" tag in it's place. I will look those over again a little later, and then re-insert them if they indeed did reference the fact I was posting. You did some good work on there, though, thanks for cleaning up those references.EOBeav 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for the help. I'll study up more on how to properly cite references for the future. EOBeav 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guy, no problem. I'm amazed at how much of a WikiWonk you are already. There's a you-know-what-load of policies and guidelines to wade through, and nobody expects you to memorize them all right off the bat. Since I'm presently on leave, I have been working at it pretty much full time for the last several weeks, and still am grateful to have some watchful eyes lookin' over my shoulder and cleaning some things up for me. I'll be happy to give you the same kind of leg up for a while, if you don't mind. Us Eastern Oregonians (defined as anything on the "right side" of the Cascades) have to stick together, right? -J-M Jgilhousen 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben Maxwell Images

I've added the link to appropriate photos from the Salem Library photo archive to several articles, but I didn't realize it was OK to use the actual photos. That is really good news. Can you direct me to the fine print about the copyright? Katr67 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all the photos in the database are free. It dependes upon the collection. Details at: [2] -J-M Jgilhousen 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Disambiguation

Hmmm, tricky situation. I'd check "What links here" and google to try to figure out which Randall Edwards most people would be looking for. If they're pretty close in popularity, I'd say put up a disambiguation page. If one is more popular than another, make put the more popular page on Randall Edwards and add a hatnote to the page that directs to the less popular one. Good luck, and happy editing! --Daniel Olsen 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I've failed to make myself clear, primarily due to having been unaware until now of the term "hatnote." Anyway, I had already placed hatnotes on both articles. My remaining issue is coming up with a reasonable criterion by which to determine which of the two relatively obscure individuals is, in fact, the more prominent. I appreciate your suggestions, and will leave things as they are, for now, even though it continues to bother me a bit that typing the name Randall Edwards into the search box takes one to a stub of an article on an "actress" whose career never really got off the ground, and who seems to have been out of work for over a decade. I'm obviously taking this all way too seriously. -J-M Jgilhousen 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A google search brings up pages for both people, so I went ahead and moved the pages, created a disambiguation page, and fixed the links that pointed to it. --Daniel Olsen 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Phew! Thanks. -J-M Jgilhousen 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mt. Hood

Thank you for your note. I don't generally give out my e-mail address, but I do appreciate the tip on the subscription article. I wonder if you can summarize, in a sentence or two, what the problems are of climbing in warmer months. I'm assuming it's got to do with melting snow, mostly. I "revisit" Oregon electronically from time to time, especially if the state is in the news as it has been recently, thanks to those three guys' ill-advised climbing expedition. If they survive, what a story they'll have to tell, eh? And maybe they'll get a bill for services rendered, but that's the least of their worries. Wahkeenah 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On December 15, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Crookham, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

<!-May 26, 2024 --> Hello Jgilhousen and thankyou for creating this interesting article. GeeJo kindly nominated your article for inclusion. Feel free to self-nom in future. Keep up the great work...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Grant High School Naming Conventions

Take a look at my entry in the talk page on Grant High's page I looked at the naming conventions, and perhaps we were looking at two different sets of rules, because what I read (and I link to it in the talk page) said that calling it "Ulysses S. Grant High School" would be great I know the crest has GHS in it, but it also says "Ulysses S. Grant High School," plain as day! BlackberryLaw 09:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I accidentally posted to your user page!! Sorry ;) BlackberryLaw 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Boyd, Oregon and various loose ends

Hi J-M (can I call you J-M?), I left a note on the Boyd page, don't know if you've seen it yet. I woke up too late to get any editing in before I had to leave for work, but I'm trying to follow up on all the editing I promised I'd do, so I'll be sure to get to it this weekend. And hey, I don't mind if you want to put infoboxes on the smaller articles, the leaving them out is just my personal bias. The Boyd article could certainly support one. But when I think of someplace like, say, Ash, Oregon, where there is little hope the article would get expanded, it probably would be best not to bother. I talked someone out of putting the full-on cities template on Rome, Oregon, but maybe a small generic one would be OK, as Rome still has a little going for it (it seems to still have a ZIP Code anyway). But I digress.

Congrats on the DYK--I've got to start submitting those...

Money and transportation issues mean I'm pretty much trapped here in the valley, but if I can ever con someone into doing a road trip to your area I'll be sure to get in touch. I didn't actually make it to the Portland meetup, my friend Twisted86 really wanted to go, but had a prior committment, but maybe we'll make it to the next one.

Oh, and I was going to mention about the categorization issue you talked about above that there are people who mean well on the categorization team who don't really look to see if there might be more appropriate subcats for things. Same with the wikification team--I've seen people who think that entails just slapping brackets around a bunch of likely words without checking to see what they actually link to. It gets things started though. So I wouldn't get discouraged about that part.

Thanks for the note about the Ben Maxwell images--that is such a great resource and I'm looking forward to adding some of those images to the appropriate articles.

A couple other things I've mentioned to people on the project: I ordered that book that lists all the names painted in the house and senate chambers at the Capitol, so hopefully that will be a good resource--I believe it has short bios of all the 158 or so people. Also, I'm interested in helping expand the ORS article, but I was involved in compiling the 2005 edition and so I'm not sure how much of a conflict of interest that is. I don't work for that agency anymore--if I did I probably wouldn't even go near it. Anyway, I don't think I should be the main person working on that or the agency that oversees the ORS process.

It's good to be working with you. Happy editing! Katr67 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First, feel free to call me J-M. Most of my friends do, and I would be honored to count you in that number, despite our so-far brief acquaintance, and all of it being through this peculiar medium. (Resisting temptation to insert spiritualism pun here.)

I haven't yet seen the Boyd note, but will go check it out anon. I have my preferences set to automatically add articles I create to my watchlist, but frequently forget to manually do so for others in which I have a particular interest. I haven't had time yet to go through our family association's archives for historic photos of Boyd, but remember that there are some which would be appropriate to illustrate the article. Amazing how one's "to do" list can grow once the WikiAddiction takes hold.

As for the DYK, I realized after posting the note to the project talk page that it might come across as shameless self promotion. That was not my intention. I think anything that has the potential to give the project higher visibility is useful as a vehicle for attracting new participants. DYK noms hadn't occurred to me in that regard, hence my passing the idea along. Since I am doing most of my article research via newspaper archives, I do frequently come across juicy tidbits which not only add a little flavor to otherwise dull subject matter, but might also lend themselves to DYK use... I'll be keeping that in mind in future.

I understand budget constraints all too well. I did not choose a particularly lucrative profession in the first place, and my current status of medical leave has moved me from a vow of poverty to one of dire poverty. Nonetheless, consider the previous invitation to remain open. The Dalles is a great place for history buffs to visit, and some of the nearby scenic views are indescribable. Can you tell I'm glad to be home after being away for most of my adult life?

I understand your points on both categorization and wikification. I have gotten a few hand slaps on both counts that I am still convinced were unwarranted. I haven't been around long enough yet to have a clear sense of which customs are in tune with prevailing consensus, and which are idiosyncratic to particular individuals or groups. The MoS waffles more than I would like, and I am trying to avoid getting involved in the internal politics of Wikipedia. I have more than enough of that in my life already. Which brings us rather naturally to your next subject...

The whole issue of what constitutes free use, especially with regard to images, is a matter which is being hotly debated among those who enjoy internal politics, and the matter is frought with so much ideology that I don't foresee anything resembling consensus developing in the near term. I have had to deal with copyright issues for periodical and book publishing, and have withdrawn from the discussion because it is being conducted so far outside the realm of the factual. I am sure there is someone who may well choose to delete any Maxwell photograph simply because it is taken from a site that has a (c) at the botttom of the page, without any further investigation of the matter. I am not willing to go out on a limb so far as to defy, for example, the Oregon Historical Society's claim of copyright over photographs that were taken by photographers dead for over 70 years, and first published even longer ago than that, but probably would be willing to go to the mat for photographs the Maxwell estate clearly intended to donate to the public. One has to use some judgemnt, and considerable care in these matters. The Portland Zoo, for example, claims a copyright to any photograph taken by anyone on their premises. I mean, come on! Sorry if that resembles a rant too much, but it is an issue which really is getting entirely out of hand, and I think has more serious implications than whether someone wants to add or remove a category from one of the pages I've created.

Finally, I think one can be a little flexible with regard to COI issues, too. It does not make any sense for someone with fluency in a subject to be barred entirely from involvement in articles on that subject matter precisely because of that fluency. To pretend otherwise would make useless all the requests for "experts" pasted here and there throughout Wikipedia. Perhaps you've already read my solicitation of advice on this subject and the response above. I've also recently added my own COI disclosure on my personal page, which may be a bit too snarky, but I think makes my point. We certainly don't want to get to the point where "Cats are dependent upon oxygen for survival, and I am dependent upon oxygen for survival, therefore I can't write about cats" seems like a logical interpretation of the MoS.

As for the instant case, I think it would be highly inappropriate for you to write about the quality of the preparation for publication, but you didn't write the laws contained therein, and that's what's really going to be the subject of the ORS article (which admittedly I have not yet gotten around to reviewing). Outside of that narrow restriction, to put it bluntly, I should think the article on the ORS would benefit greatly from one of the few people who has actually read the damn thing.

Well, I think that more than suffices as a reply to yours, except to say that this certifiable member of the POFS is very happy to be working with you, too. -"J-M" Jgilhousen 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

__________

DYK

On 16 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oregon Department of State Lands, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

<!-May 26, 2024 --> --Yomangani^talk 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On 16 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boyd, Oregon, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

<!-May 26, 2024 --> --Yomangani^talk 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it up well enough to stand a few hours of scrutiny. Yomangani^talk 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages don't cut and paste

Hi. You appear to know how to use the "move" link to rename pages, but you used cut-and-paste to move the content of Albert Conrad Ullman to Al Ullman. Please don't do that as the history (which is required for copyright reasons) is lost. I have fixed it up now. In future if there is a history in the way, please list the move at WP:RM and someone with admin privilege will do it for you. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, newbie flub. It wouldn't let me move the page because the new title already existed. I'll know better next time. -"J-M" Jgilhousen 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I hereby award thee...

The Working Man's Barnstar

For working tirelessly on Oregon government articles, including the tedious wikilinking of the entire List of Oregon State Government Agencies. Katr67 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you deserve this even if you need less sleep than most people. :) Katr67 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Henry Pittock

I'm not sure what you mean by unassesssed, do you mean on the quality scale? If so you can request an assesment here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. It will be rated 'B' class i'm sure. From there you get a GA review to get GA class then then post on the assesment list saying it passed GA and ask for A-class. With the image, could you please make it bit smaller as it's fairly large. Also under the section 'references' citations should be called 'references' and general sources called 'notes', note 1 also is'nt formmatted properly.

• This sentence 'was a pioneer Oregon (USA) newspaper publisher,' does'nt make sense.
• He is frequently referred to as , remove 'frequently'

The lead needs to be expanded into two paragraphs to meet the criteria for WP:LEAD Good-luck with this. M3tal H3ad 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

On getting the gov-stub approved... And *poof* the WikiGnome went back into hiding... Katr67 18:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See also

Huh, weird. The only reason I can think of for removing a see also section is if the person thought the links weren't appropriate, which wouldn't be the case here, or if all the articles in the section were already linked to in the article text. I looked at the history of Oregon Air National Guard and couldn't find where you added the section or where someone else took it out. Can you show me the diff? I'll maybe have more of a clue if I can see the edit. Did the person leave an edit summary with any hint of why they were doing it? Anyway, it's good that you had a thorough look at WP:MOS and familiarized yourself with that. What I'd suggest doing now is just discussing it on the talk page of the relevant article. You can find out why they removed it and hopefully come to an agreement about what to do. Let me know what happened with it, or if I can be of any help. Peace, delldot | talk 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)