User:Valfontis/Archive 19

Your archives
Hi, Valfontis,

At Talk:Seaside, Oregon, at the very bottom of the talk page, there is a claim that there is a discussion about a city called Ocean Grove in Oregon at this talk page archive: User:Valfontis/Archive 13 - unfortunately, I don't see any discussion about this particular town at that page. It appears that the link goes to the wrong place? You don't know where to really find this discussion, do you? Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying because Valfontis isn't around much right now. There's a custom search at the top of this page (upper right, 'archives'). I found the relevant section here: User:Valfontis/Archive 9. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're Invited! Wikipedia Takes Portland 2012

 * Rats, I'm not in Portland on the weekends. Anyone is free to meet up with me briefly weekday afternoons though. Lemme know. Valfontis (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the props about Morning Edition. It was funny, because they actually interviewed me about the Philip Roth thing, but changed the story up. Hope you're well, Steven Walling &bull; talk   20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh, I think I stepped in something
This is for Val and her stalkers (boy that sounds weird) So, I'm checking my facts on the Coriolis effect. What little information on that page that is correct is so far out of context as to be meaningless. Expect for the first half of the first sentence, everything is completely wrong. Case in point, the animation in the upper right should show the black object being deflected to the right of it's motion in the upper animation. Whatever it's trying to demonstrate, it's not this deflection, which by definition IS the Coriolis effect. Obviously, this article came about with an inordinate amount of contention requiring 6 archived files of discussion. I understand that it is inadvisable to wade into this, but what advice would you give to me. Should I contact an admin, write a whole new page and see if it can't be locked. Watchwolf49z (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanks for your contributions to this wonderful project. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks
Thank you for the edit you made to Marc Bamuthi Joseph—a definite improvement. (Somebody is out to delete that stubby article) I am proud that something I wrote even attracted the attention of an awesome editor such as yourself. You may edit my edits anytime.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Awww. You're welcome. I had the redlink on my watchlist and I was just trying to figure out why. I think because I heard him on Snap Judgment, was surprised there wasn't an article on him yet, and then went around linking the dozen or so mentions I found of him in various articles. Just because something is a stub or is split from a larger article doesn't mean it should be deleted. And I think over a dozen incoming links should be taken into account since the mentions were added independently (I assume) and not as some sort of spam campaign. So threatening the article with deletion (it appears the IP is talking about an AfD and not a speedy--this asserts notability, so the only speedy criterion--db-a7--that might fit doesn't apply) seems a bit premature. Read up on WP:ARTIST to make sure you've included enough info (concentrate on "the person is a significant...subject of...major news agencies or publications", and "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") to satisfy the notability criteria and you should be good to go. Also, the phrase "award-winning" is kind of a red flag for some people. In other words, self-promoting editors/fans sometimes just state that someone has won awards without citing the awards. (See WP:PEACOCK.) Better to just state that he is a spoken-word poet and then talk about the awards in a separate paragraph. I think the fact that the Rockefeller Fellowship annually awards what they consider "50 of the country's 'greatest living artists'" is significant. Hope this helps! Valfontis (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For your amusement, you may want to take a glance the Merge proposal discussion here.--Foobarnix (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The unregistered user makes some good points, actually. You should perhaps write your own argument and link to the relevant policy and guidelines, rather than quoting the off-the-cuff statement I wrote above! ("Just because something is a stub or is split from a larger article doesn't mean it should be deleted.") I'd recommend spending time researching and expanding the article, instead of worrying about the merger proposal. Valfontis (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)