User talk:Aboutmovies/archive8

Thanks!
Thanks for catching my typo on this image! RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

bisbanding
You have a comment from Jan2 of this year on Talk:Tualatin Valley Junior Academy using the word, in quotes, "bisbanding". I assume you mean disbanding? tedder (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

redundant citing
BTW, the reason I use redundant citing on school pages (like this) is because infoboxes, and basic information, are very frequently altered by editors who don't know (and don't care to know) about Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS. So the changes are made to what they know, or what they've heard, not to solidly sourced data.

That's why I go through and use very good sources on that data. It prevents edit warring, single-pass IP edits, and so on- which saves me (and us) a lot of pain later. *especially* on things like principals, mascots, and colors.

As far as the lede is concerned, you and I disagree somewhat about what should be included. That's totally fine by me- I'm not terribly picky about it. Thanks for cleaning up after me on that. tedder (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasoning for most of (actually the vast majority) of the school articles. Most of them are crap articles that would fail even AFD in their current states. Though you have done a great job improving them and getting them to where they need to be. With the two articles (Laurelwood Academy and TVJA) where we have had some disagreement, these are two articles I did extensive research on and wrote from scratch, carefully citing almost everything. This includes most of the info that is in the infobox, which again with most of the school articles, this info does not already appear (let alone cited) in the body of the article. And if these articles were up for FA, redundant citing in the infobox or lede (except for exceptional claims) will be something brought up as needing to be removed (WP:LEADCITE), and FA is the ultimate (even if unlikely) goal for every article. There is no guideline/policy for infobox usage, only creation of the template itself, but if you take the first 10 FAs that use infoboxes at the start, only one has citation in the infobox, and it is only a single citation. So that's why I generally don't repeat, unless of course it is some sort of "likely to be challenged" issue (or such as student # and populations, something that constantly changes).
 * Plus, since these two are on my watchlist, so vandals will likely be unsuccessful in any significant changes lasting for more than a day or two. It would be the same for any of the 400 articles I have started thus far, all are still on my watchlist and vandalism/unsourced changes are reverted.
 * As to the lede, yes we apparently do disagree. I base my views on the reviews received going through GA and FA so many times to the point where I think I am a bit of an expert on leads. Not that every lead I write is perfect and can't use some fine-tuning, but the general content/gist that I write is usually what is expected in a lead. And with school articles, sports needs to be in the lead, as that is by far the most covered topic by the media. As I'm sure you've read, The Oregonian dedicates an entire section every week just to prep sports, and you would be hard pressed not to find coverage of prep sports everyday of the school year in The Oregonian and other daily papers, and often even when school is out for the year. Even on OregonLive, there is a "High school sports" section, but not one just for high school academics (the "Education" section covers HS, college, and middle/elementary). High school sports, for better or worse, tend to define schools. Which my sense is that this is even worse say in Texas. Thus they need to be covered in the article, and thus need to be in the lead as a summary of the article (unless they don't actually have sports like a few schools).
 * And not to beat a deadhorse, but accreditation for private schools is important to private schools, just as it is to private colleges. With publicly funded schools, it just isn't something most people worry about, it is just assumed the state is running an institution that can grant degrees worth something. Much like tuition for private secondary/primary schools is relevant, but obviously not for most public schools. But I digress. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can beat some of the same horse a little- I spend some time finding the accreditation for any nonpublic school, and usually will write a section about when they received the accreditation. Okay, easiest part done.
 * On to the lede. I'll respect however you want to do it. I'm not a good writer. I can make an infobox and I can do a mediocre job at all other bits of "content creation". But I tend to disagree that it's important to have the school's athletic division, and/or the school district, in the lede- they are already on the page. That leave the page up to the unique content, and all of the boring facts then reside in the infobox. However, I understand the point you are making about The Oregonian and such. Again, I'll leave that to you. Buy you a drink sometime, eh? tedder (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to agree with me on everything, I don't know of anyone on Wikipedia that I agree with all of the time. But as long as we understand each other and don't edit war, we're doing fine. As to a drink, sure, though when you stopped by L&C's law school you should have let me know, I was there and could have told you where some better vantage points are. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Scary Sleepover
Hi Aboutmovies, I have The Scary Sleepover slightly revised. But my English is probably not always correct. Could you please have a look to that? Thanks in advance. --Kelly-Olly (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your corrections! (Could you perhaps proof-read even the article about the author of the book?) --Kelly-Olly (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! (Even if you are not familiar with the subject, I assume that serious syntax errors, etc. you would have noticed.) --Kelly-Olly (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Institute
Hello About, you reverted one of my edits at Oregon Institute  the page claimed that it was the first school for "European-Americans" west of the Mississippi. Perhaps it is the first school in for European-Americans in the west as defined by the U.S census, but a quick search though Wikipedia itself as well as google show that there were many schools for "European-Americans" west of the Mississippi. Both Texas and Missouri have several notable examples from the 1700s. Would you be appeased if I changed it to "the west" instead of "west of the Mississippi" and placed a fact tag? Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Sorry! clearly my speed editing has gotten me in trouble. It says "Missouri" not "Mississippi."  Sorry to take up your time! Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Svenson thanks
Thanks for fixing the caption on Svensen, Oregon. There's a little discussion at Katr's tlak page about my images, if you want to contribute or help. tedder (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi, can I ask what makes Capacity in English law a C class article? I wrote it to give a clear, well sourced outline of the law on the capacity of individuals in English law, and I think it's pretty comprehensive there. Any feedback on what I missed would be welcome. RichsLaw (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed reply, I'll try and correct all the problems. I understand the 'too legal' concern, it's rather easy to write technically sometimes by accident :). RichsLaw (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing it's worth noting is that case citations do differ between and [ ], as explained here: Case citation. I must say I was not really aware of the policies on primary and secondary sources though, so that looks like the main issue in the content I've generally written. RichsLaw (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be wary of stripping the correct citations; they indicate what stage of a case the article refers to (whether it's an appeal, or House of Lords, etc), as well as providing information which can sometimes be necessary to find the case. Non legal experts googling just the case name could find multiple instances, whereas googling the citation may produce a clearer result. Equally, those with legal background would probably not be too happy if they vanished! I couldn't find a clear consensus however, so I've posed the question on the WPLAW talk page. In addition, I made some alterations for the better to the article, if you could give it another look at some point (would be nice to know if I'm heading in the right direction :). Thanks. RichsLaw (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

infobox creation?
Hey, you're good at infoboxes, right? I need a basic one either modified or a somewhat more generic one created. It's for motorcycle racers, of all things. If you can spare some time, I'll give you more info. tedder (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview
Greetings! I will be conducting a group interview with WikiProject Oregon members for the Signpost. Peteforsyth suggested that you might be interested in participating. The interview will be taking place here. Instructions can be found on the interview talk page. Hope you can participate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tigard Transit Center Station
Regarding your reverting my last edit: OK, no big deal, but I have to point out that the bus transit center&mdash;which has existed there for over 20 years&mdash;is named Tigard Transit Center, not Tigard Transit Center Station (and this has not changed with WES's opening), so technically I am correct that the subject of this article (as currently named) is only the rail station. However, the content does indeed also include (albeit with almost no detail) the bus transit center. Maybe the article's title should be changed to omit "Station". That would make it consistent with how Beaverton Transit Center, WES's northern terminal, is treated on Wikipedia. SJ Morg (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your issue, but note that the title of an article is not actually controlling of much. The naming conventions and thus how we title things are about common usage, not necessarily about what the article is about. Obviously we want to be fairly accurate, but common usage generally rules the day. The WP:LEAD is more about establishing what the article covers, is it can be easier to explain there than some long title; for instance here you could argue for Tigard Transit Center Station and the Tigard Transit Center as the title as the most accurate (but I think most would agree that is rather long and convoluted). For instance Bonneville Dam is more than just the dam, it includes the locks and the power generation portion, but that title is the common usage. For the Tigard one, the TTCS came up more than minus the station, likely because the old one opened in 1988 well before the proliferation of the internet and sources on the internet. Keep up the good work, and happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast action and thoughtful comments. And for the additions to the article. It's better now. SJ Morg (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles (2) Linked
I was not and am not trying to offend you nr anyone else when I added a link from Captain Gray from another Wikipedia article [] that not only stated this is the first American ship to circumnavigate but also states more than in one area that this ship was "privately owned". I myself do not know or really care if she was privately owned or not -- I just added what the linked to article already shows. Personally, I think the ship Captain Gray and her history should be linked. When reading about "the first ship" in the Captain Robert Gray article, the first thought that came to me was what was the name of the ship since she would be famous? Kind regards my fellow worker, we have the same goals in building up Wikipedia as much as we can. – Brother Officer  Talk  21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

coord fix
thanks. 45/122 is from my copy/paste template. tedder (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ivanpah Valley Airport
Just curious, was this a revert, or did you not notice my previous edit? --Conti|✉ 11:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy for more input on the whole issue. You're right, there haven't been a lot of comments on it, which is part of the problem: Most people don't care either way. If you've got any ideas on how to get people to comment anyhow, they'd be greatly appreciated. :)
 * To the issue itself: First of all, what do we warn our readers of, anyhow? That an airport is not yet completed? Why would that warrant a warning? The (and most others) template says that the article "may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change as the construction and/or completion of the airport approaches, and as more information becomes available on it." Does that mean that the article will suddenly cease to contain information of speculative nature once the construction of the airport is complete? Will there never be any further possible speculative information in some way, or are we going to exchange the template with a "Current Airport" template then? My point is that a warning about possible (not actual) speculative information is entirely independent of the status of something. A future airport might have as much speculative information as a current, former or fictional airport. That is why we do have the general disclaimer, linked from every article, saying that our articles might be, at any time, inaccurate or just plain wrong.
 * On comparing the template to other article-space templates: We use NPOV or OR templates when there is an actual problem, not when there might be, possibly, a problem. And such problems usually aren't nearly as obvious as the status of an airport, which should be made clear in the very first sentence of an article. Even missing citations aren't as obvious, as a missing "references" section doesn't necessarily mean that there are no references.
 * When the most common arguments for keeping these templates are "We've always used them" and "They do no harm", we should probably think long and hard whether they are really necessary, or helping. --Conti|✉ 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for the reply. It is much appreciated, even if I disagree with you. :)
 * Do you mean one of those notices that appear on top of every user's watchlist? If so, then I'm pretty sure that there won't be any consensus for adding the RfC there, as such notices are only supposed to be used for the really important things, like big elections and so on. Notifying various wikiprojects is a good idea, although I have done just that with the discussion for Template:Current sport, leaving message at about a dozen different wikiprojects, and didn't receive a single reply there, either. Still, it's worth another try. And I actually have asked the person who created Template:Future (the first of its kind) why he created it, here's his reply, largely saying what you said. As for "people making templates randomly just for fun", you won't believe what kind of templates I've seen so far. One about "recently deceased pets" (We got a "recently deceased" template, after all), or one that, with great accuracy, told you which century is the current one (we have one for the current day and current second, so why not the current century?), etc.
 * You say that "All of the tags get used when there is only a maybe problem". That's true, in a way, but not my point. My point was that people add an NPOV tag or a cleanup tag when they think there is an actual problem. There doesn't necessarily have to be a problem, but they're not going to add a template just in case there might be a problem in the future. And when I come across an article that has such a template and I don't see any problems with it, I can just go ahead and remove that template again. I can't do this with a Future template.
 * Of course we cannot say with absolute certainty whether an event in the future is really going to happen. But isn't the fact that we cannot see into the future common knowledge? Do we need to remind people of that? That's pretty much my main point: Someone who is going to read "...is a future/proposed/planned airport/bridge/TV show" will know about all the implications of that fact. He will know that something unexpected might happen, or that some information may not be final, or that things may change in the meantime. They will know that we (or anyone else) cannot guarantee that what is written will actually happen. You are right, there are people who might not read the first sentence of an article, but there are also people who might miss a big, colourful template (for example because they clicked on a link that leads straight to a section). What do we do then? Is it really our highest goal to inform people who do not read the lead (or who do not understand its implications) of something that is common knowledge? I would imagine that the number of people who do not read (or understand) the lead is quite small; tiny, even, and I don't think we should add a big template to tens of thousands of articles just to make things a bit more obvious for them. And even if we do, we cannot guarantee that they are going to read the message. And, anyhow, even if they do skip the lead of an article, it should be made clear throughout any article whether it talks about something that is in the future or not. (And in the case an article isn't clear about that, I do support the use of a Future template.) --Conti|✉ 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose we can agree to disagree here. I do think that the fact that things in the future are not certain is as obvious as coffee is hot, and yes, I would very much oppose any warning on Wikipedia-coffee to that effect, so to speak. Maybe it's just different mindsets, where I live there are no such labels on the coffee you buy, and no one would even think about changing that. I'm simply assuming that 99,8% (or more) of our readers do know these things, and that we shouldn't add templates to articles that might be useful to the other 0,2%. I mean, we could just as well create a template that says "This is an article about a person who is still in office. Information may change until the person retires." We could create thousands of similar templates that all point out something that is more or less obvious, and might help 0,2% of our readers nonetheless. I just don't think that's a very good idea. Yes, we should make sure that an eight grader understands our articles, but I'm quite sure that an eight grader knows that coffee is hot, and that information about the future is not set in stone. --Conti|✉ 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiBacon bot results
Hey Aboutmovies, I've been developing a bot to show collaboration and initial edits between two Wikipedians (i.e., how did we first cross paths?). Here are some initial results involving you: User:TedderBot/Bacon_Results. Please let me know what you think on my talk page: User talk:Tedder. tedder (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK congratulations!

 * Wow, that is awesome! Great job!  Little Mountain  5   14:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Most impressive. Katr67 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Please accept my congratulations as well. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow!
Pretty darn impressive award there, sir!

I dropped by for a different reason, to notify you of a detail: this edit actually converted an en dash to an en dash..in other words, not necessary. When doing such edits in the future you might want to blow up the text size in your browser, or paste the existing dash into a word processor so you can better see what kind of dash it is. Personally, I don't like the HTML code -- I think it makes pages a little less comprehensible to new editors. So I prefer to simply type an en dash, rather than the code like you used.

Also -- I really enjoyed your answers in the WP:ORE interview, lots of food for further discussion! -Pete (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. With the whole stupid – - &mdash; – I just wish it were all just one length. It would make it so much easier and it doesn't affect the meaning. It is just so hard to tell looking at them to know which is which, not to mention when is it supposed to be an endash or a hyphen? But thanks for the tip. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
Don't think I've ever relied of Archiplanet as only or primary source; www.nationalregisterofhistoricalplaces.com and State of Oregon NRHP database both have same info and aren't open-type sources. Don't use Waymarking as source very often. When I do its because there's photo of historic marker which I believe is legitimate documentation of marker's information since it allows reader to see/read on-site source for themselves. In any case, good reminder--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. Congratulations on DYK recognition!


 * Was just looking around inside Google news archives--you're right there's lot of good material there! Looks like there's some kind of library agree that provides free access to articles that are normally pay-to-view.  Do you know anything about that?--Orygun (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Van Voorhies Holman
Yes, that sounds interesting, and thanks for asking. By the way, several months ago you sent me a short list of Oregon articles that might be pushed to FA. Hillsboro was the one I picked from the list because I'd done a fair bit of work on other cities. I meant eventually to tackle something else on that list, but I've misplaced it. I think it must be somewhere in my archived talk-page files, but I thought if you could lay your hands on it without doing a time-consuming search, it might be easier just to ask you. Or perhaps you have a single favorite in mind. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The two files came through just fine. One is from the Dictionary of Oregon History, but the other is a mystery. What does Bench Bar refer to? Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mystery solved: History of the Bench and Bar of Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Historical Publishing Co., 1910. Finetooth (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have lift-off. Frederick Van Voorhies Holman. I think he might need some more categories and some tweaks to the templates on his talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I put in a DYK nom using the "Rose City" nickname hook. Also, I added alt text to the image description. This is the first time I've created alt text, which is now required of all FAs and FLs. This article won't become either, but the alt text makes the images meaningful to readers who can't see them. Finetooth (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I added some cats and the DSORT template. I also added some more incoming links. The template should be fine, I just usually don't use all of them. I tend to use the residence only on the living, and we only add parents/relatives/children if they are notable (otherwise just the number of kids if none are notable). That alt text is tricky, I did it for Hillsboro. It's just hard to try and describe something as someone who is not visually impaired. Great job. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, the help, and the kudos. I never noticed the DSORT templates before, but I now see that they change a category's sort order, in this case to last name first. Handy. Just now I removed the residence info, which was correct in 1920 or so but might not mean much of anything today. The father was notable but not, apparently, the siblings. I have removed the siblings too. This makes the infobox slightly shorter, which looks better. On a totally different subject, I don't seem to have received a COTW reminder (Mount Jefferson and Adopt 'o Governor) this time around. Did I accidentally remove myself from the list? Finetooth (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't sent the COTW notice out yet, and I may skip it this week as its almost time for the next one. So you were not dropped. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Umatilla Railroad and WPLaw
Did you mean to add WikiProject Law to Talk:Umatilla Central Railroad? I'm assuming it was an accident, so I removed it. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert. tedder (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was an error, thanks for fixing it. The WPLaw and WPORE options are one after another in the drop down menu in my assessment script, so just selected the wrong one. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me more about the script- I'm tired of adding projects by hand. (also tired of protecting pages and adding the reason by hand, if you know of a script for that) tedder (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First note that I am not a script writer, but I can sort of tell what things do if I see it in practice. This script is an early version of one written by someone else. It became a widely used tool until the editor who created it went on a backlash against assessment and came to think of the script as an evil thing. I always viewed it as a script that sped things up by automating the typing portion. So feel free to copy what I stole borrowed, or add the first part from my monobook to yours. You could even improve it if you like. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oak Knoll Winery
I am a Japanese Wikipedian and have just translated Oak Knoll Winery, an article that you started. I really enjoyed reading and translating the well-referenced article, but I found one phrase a little confusing. I detailed the question at Talk:Oak Knoll Winery. It would be appreciated if you looked into the talk page and clarified it. Thank you. --Occhanikov (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed, replied on article talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bronze badge
Thank you very much for the bronze badge. I had no idea there was such a thing, but I'm delighted to have one. I shall certainly work toward the silver. I think the last badge I ever earned was a Wolf Badge in the Cub Scouts. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of high schools in Oregon
Can you look over what I did and make sure I got it right? I can't wrap my mind around the whole "located in Beaverton but the mailing address is Portland" thing. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, I made some minor fixes. With the addresses, anything north of US26 and east of NW185th is a Portland Zip/address, so Sunset and Westview (I believe Sunset is actually within the Beaverton city limits, but Westview I know is not in Beaverton) have Portland addresses (as does St. Vincent's Hospital), same with Catlin Gabel (not in any city). To complicate things further, 97006 and 97007 are dual Beaverton/Aloha Zip codes (and I think Hillsboro works too for some of the addresses) so many things that are not actually in Beaverton are thought to be B-ton. For instance the International High School is in what is considered Aloha, and certainly is not in the city limits of B-ton. This causes problems around Tanasbourne where most is in Hillsboro, but a large section has a B-ton/Aloha Zip Code. I'm not sure why the Post Office is so f'd up about these things, as we've seen this with the Adair Village school, the Mennonite School, and at the ones you addressed too. Guess they have better things to worry about than pleasing Wikipedians. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can my head just explode now? Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Whitespires Church Albany Oregon.JPG
Very nice! I'll have to go look at what else you've put up on Commons. Might be incentive for that bike ride to Albany I've been thinking about... Katr67 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a few more of downtown to work on later, but lots of old buildings. Even the courthouse is nice compared to Marion and Washington counties' more modern approaches, though I'm not too sold on the color. If you do go, wait for a sunnier day, it makes the pictures a lot better. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey congrats--you've got more edits than me. Katr67 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AuCoin page feedback
I just read your suggestions re my page & want to thank you for your efforts. You can be sure that I'm going to continue working to improve the article, citations, etc. I know much work remains. Lesaucoin (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Corwin - need a little help with citations
Thanks for the re-rate on USRC Thomas Corwin (1876). I wonder if I could get you to take one more look at it, specifically the citations to court cases. I've been using the cite court template but the way some things come out makes no sense. See particularly The Catherine Sudden and The Revenue Cutter but there are a couple other cases cited as well. All have URLs to Google Books. Also there are a couple citations to house and senate reports in the Congressional Serial series where I have no idea whether I have followed convention. ThanksDankarl (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

McNary
We got a helpful review at PR, and I think McNary is ready to go. Since you are the main contributor, I leave it to you to decide if or when to nominate. I'll help as best I can with whatever needs doing. Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hillsboro edit reversions
I'm confused by your recent reversion of my edits. WP:CITE does say if citation formats differ, it's best to respect that used by the first editor. Setting aside that I'm not sure that's the best policy, there is still the point that numerous other editors who added citations before I made my first-ever edit to the Hillsboro article had failed to follow that very guideline, and the result was that the article's reference list is a mix of different styles with regard to publications dates. I was taking a step towards making them consistent within the article, using WP:CITE/ES as a guide. I didn't have time to catch them all, and was unsure what to do with citations that don't name any author (so I left them alone for now), but I don't understand how how can justify reverting all of the cases where I had changed the format to put to the date after the author's name, and yet not change any of the 25+ citations (added by others) which remain formatted the way I was trying to make all (eventually). How is such a high degree of inconsistency of citation formatting within a single article better than how I had left it? (And you also didn't bother to restore [after undoing all my edits] the unrelated edits I made, adding three transportation-related wikilinks.) SJ Morg (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Based on my experience with you to date, I figured I'd get a helpful and constructive reply, and I do appreciate it. I had noticed that the article had achieved FA status, and I was a little puzzled that it had (presumably) done so in spite of the inconsistency of the citation formats. It never even occurred to me that the formatting of some of the citations could have been changed automatically by a revision of Wikipedia's template output, rather than by inattention from individual contributors. This was the first time I've touched a featured article, and so (as you probably surmised) I didn't truly realize the potential ramifications, didn't give enough thought to what the article had already gone through (with multiple reviews, etc.) to get there.  I'll certainly continue editing, but for the foreseeable future I'll probably avoid editing any FAs unless I find a very clear error that is simple and indisputable, like correcting the name given for MAX in the Hillsboro article.  Regarding the paragraph break I added, it just seemed illogical to me to have a paragraph that was 85-90% about transit (really just MAX, as you noted) start out with two sentences that have nothing at all to do with transit (regarding freight railroads), but I sincerely don't wish to undermine the efforts of others who have far more Wikipedia editing experience than I, so I accept your explanation of that reversion.  I'm grateful that there are some very experienced Wikipedians such as you who are willing to put up with the mistakes of novices such as me, and who are willing to take the time to patiently explain what we did wrong!  I've been contributing (as a hobby) to small-circulation print magazines for over 25 years (including some editing and proofreading), but from time to time I discover that some general principle I've long used there doesn't really fit Wikipedia (usually with good reason), and I end up making an editing mistake of some sort.  Partly because I continue to contribute regularly to (specialized) print magazines, I don't know that I'll ever have the time to become a really experienced Wikipedia editor, which is why it may be best for me to just avoid editing FAs under most circumstances.  I noticed you've been editing the Hillsboro article while I've been writing this, but FYI, I've not yet looked at any of your recent changes;  I don't imagine I'll feel any need to comment on them, however. Thanks again for the helpful response. SJ Morg (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something still needs to be done about the article's use of the term "heavy rails" (with an s), which is not a proper term as used here (and rarely is). The terms "light rail" and "heavy rail" have nothing to do with the weight of the rails. They started out as adjectives only, but gradually became accepted as nouns. A rail magazine editor or book author would refer to a "heavy-rail line" or "heavy-rail system", or similar (with or without the hyphen), but in my experience unless the writer is making a comparison with light rail (or writing about a place that has both, which does apply to Hillsboro but no heavy-rail transit there), the more common term is "mainline rail" (-system, line, operator, etc.).  I placed quotation marks around heavy rail in my article edit, because that term only arose as a direct result of the coining of the term "light rail" circa the early 1970s, and so even railfans tend to use the term only when making comparisons between "lighter" rail modes (light rail, streetcars) and  "heavier" modes (ones with a "heavier" degree of engineering, such as viaducts and subways) and otherwise tend to just use the terms "subway", "El" (for elevated railway), "metro" (the common term outside the U.S.), etc., when discussing rail transit rather than using the term "heavy rail".  For that reason, even railfans sometimes put quotation marks around the term "heavy rail".  It's a term that really only came into being as a contrast to the term "light rail" but which remains comparatively little-used on its own, because there are far too many different types of rail lines/operations that fall under it — including intercity passenger rail service (Amtrak in this country), freight railroads, subways, commuter rail services, even monorail lines, and subgroups such as rapid transit within these!  I don't think there's much about this subject on WP, but you can see Passenger rail terminology and Light rail.  I suggest changing the phrase "over heavy rails" to "over a heavy-rail line", or "over any heavy-rail line", or similar (without the quotation marks, of course). SJ Morg (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Except for the "heavy rails" thing (which, as I said, was a terminology error), I wouldn't have been upset if you had not made any other changes in the transportation section. But I'm glad you did.  I think it's better now.  I'm moving on to other stuff.  Thanks again. SJ Morg (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates
Just to let you know that I, too, have found the abrupt changes to various templates annoying at times because something that was perfectly consistent suddenly becomes inconsistent in a global way. I've spent a good deal of time making things consistent and then making them consistent again after a template change. While the citation templates seem to solve some problems, they create other problems, and I've been toying with the idea of abandoning them and doing all of my citations by hand. I don't know if that's a good idea or not. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I've generally found them annoying as too set in stone and not flexible enough for many needs. Even now, I've converted most of the refs to templates on Hillsboro, and there will still be inconsistencies as the templates handle things differently for "news" if there is an author name or not. If there is an author, the date goes right after it in, but if no author then at the end without . That shouldn't matter, as I don't recall that from college, and my old MLA style book doesn't say to do it that way. But, if they are all in templates, GA and FA folks cannot complain about it, and even if you do the cites by hand, it seems inevitable that someone will later come along and add something using a template. Or in other words, resistance is futile. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All your citations are belong to us. Katr67 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

 * Think I must have been dropped from COTW announcement list. Last announcement I got was for Central Oregon.  I kept adding on to that article for quite some time before I realized Wiki-Oregon team had moved on.  Can I get back on COTW list?  Also, think COTW effort improved Central Oregon article beyond Start level--might want to consider new rating.--Orygun (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You weren't removed, I was just too busy/lazy to send one out the last time. I upped the rating on Central Oregon to C class, needs a transportation section, more referencing, and dealing with the WP:OVERLINKING in at least one section. But great work to you and everyone who made it a much better article than before. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Am, thanks for the COTW award...I didn't really do all that much with Julius Meier, hoping to do more, but your award has motivated me to go out and retroactively tinker with a few other Governor articles :) Thanks. -Pete (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent reviews of Articles Rend Lake, John Wood, Shawnee
Hello,

I recently saw your rating for the articles Rend Lake College, John Wood Community College, and Shawnee Community College and wanted to know what I could do that would increase the rating. Specifically, what about the articles made them a "c" grade. I want to improve them so I could submit them for a good article nomination. Your advice and input would be appreciated. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:William H. Willson.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:William H. Willson.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Dear Aboutmovies,

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, and I enjoyed reviewing the links you sent to me.

I look forward to my future contributions as a Wikipedian.

173.70.6.79 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Dear Aboutmovies,

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, and I enjoyed reviewing the links you sent to me.

I look forward to my future contributions as a Wikipedian.

Louiseanthony

173.70.6.79 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sheridan, Oregon
Hello! Your submission of Sheridan, Oregon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 09:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment request
The recently created article was featured on the Main page, WP:DYK on Friday. It has received a start class assessment from you for WP:LAW, although that was given two days prior to DYK listing and the article has expanded nearly threefold since your assessment. I am hoping you can reassess and possibly give details as to how you feel the article can be improved. I will watch this page for your response and direction on where to look for your comments on the article if you decide to review and place them elsewhere. Thank you – Sswonk (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Beyond words"
I have rolled back several of your changes that inappropriately linked that publisher in the name of a computer science book, which is published by an entirely different publisher. E.g.. Please be more discerning with your linking. Pcap ping  18:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese school?
You just happened to have a photo of the Japanese school? Impressive :-)

Obviously I got sidetracked before doing the talk page of the school. I'm easily distracted now. tedder (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And a few other schools too. My parents live there (I also was sentenced to one year there my first year of law school), so I take pics out that way every-now-and-then. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. Trying to get the connection between where you live, where you take pics, where you HAVE pics, etc..


 * At this point I'm a keyboard cowboy, doc says no riding or driving for a few more weeks. But I'm mostly done with the HS list- see User_talk:Katr67. tedder (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At least you have something to occupy your time with being stuck at home. As to pics, I have lots of pics of Hillsboro, Wilsonville, Sheridan, Salem (i.e. downtown and Willamette U), and the immediately surrounding areas of those cities. Some pics of places between Wilsonville and: Sheridan, Hillsboro, and Salem. More limited of other places in the metro area (though a fair amount from Portland), Corvallis, Albany, and Forest Grove. I take pics mainly in NW Oregon right now, but have a few older pics of Seattle, the Gorge, in the Cascades, Eastern Oregon, New York/CT, and Japan (Nagoya and Kyoto areas). And if my parents ever scan my really old pics, then I'd have a ton of Boy Scout camps/hikes that we don't have much use for on Wikipedia! Time for a new article. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of old photos, I went through ~5000 old prints this week, culled it down to 800 that I'm sending in for scanning (along with negatives and a tiny number of slides). It's nice to get rid of that huge box of prints. tedder (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if HP or EPSON came out with a consumer priced special scanner for just that purpose. Load into a slot about 100 of one-size of old prints and it feeds it through like a copier machine and scans and stores them automatically. Might not need it too long, but historical societies and archives could really use them (same with something for scanning microfilm). Or maybe it already exists, I guess I should check Amazon. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellsworth Bridge
http://www.scripophily.net/posfromwilri.html http://ragemanchoo.tripod.com/steelbridge.html http://www.kingbridgeco.com/GreatKingBridges.htm ''The King Bridge Company built this 400-foot single span cantilever bridge in 1892. It was held to be one of the longest cantilever spans in the United States at the turn of the century and probably one of the early steel bridges of its kind in the northwest. By crossing the Williamette River at Albany, the bridge played a major role in completing a vital road connection between Eugene in the south and Salem and Portland in the north as well as establishing Albany as an important center of interchange between river and road traffic. Its completion was the cause of much celebration by the local populace, for “it was wide enough for two horse and buggies to pass.”'' --RyanTee82 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Albany author and former office supply store owner Robert Potts wrote a series of books about Albany, which include historic photos, many of the Old Steel Bridge. I think the books are titled Remembering When - That was where I think I got the information I posted. http://albanyvisitors.com/wp-content/slotpdfs/SLOT.pdf The first image on the third page was taken from the top of the Steel Bridge, looking south. The old county courthouse, which was demolished sometime in the late 1920s (early 1930s?) is visible in the center. --RyanTee82 (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Charming
Here, have a kitten. Ignore the instruction to spam it, however. Katr67 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

 Katr67 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

DYK nomination of Hillsboro Artists' Regional Theatre
Hello! Your submission of Hillsboro Artists' Regional Theatre at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LargoLarry (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, and a query
I'm delighted to be welcomed formally, Aboutmovies: also intrigued, since I teach cinema classes, as well as composition & lit. I have my students write about the great wikipedia research debate.

I'd like to insert a photo into my Miriam Haskell article, but I seem to be too much of a greenhorn to have that power yet. Can you tell me what to do or whom to petition?

I'm preparing another article, as well, on the French poet Pierre Martory. Maybe when I've done enough articles, they'll let me put in images--is that the idea?

Thanks for your help on this query, and for your kind reception to this amazing community. Best, Zanniew (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)zanniewZanniew (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 9/14/09

Thank You for the welcome
Thanks for extending a warm welcome to me. Acts like this and people like you make this world a better place. I would also like to thank you for your contribution to the Wikipedia community.

Best Regards, virdi (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK steps?
Is there anything that I need to do to my DYK now? Just let it sit there? I'm not experienced at it, but you are.. tedder (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome letter and encouraging words!
Dear Aboutmovies,

Thanks for the welcome letter and encouraging words! It is so gracious of you to instruct a new comer to regard Wikipedia as the home of our knowledge. There are lot of interesting things to learn as a Wikipedian.

Thanks again for your contribution to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, and thanks for sharing your wisdom to the big world! --Garbolia (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Aboutmovies. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, ignore what people like RMHED say at AFD. You should certainly not be blocked for doing what you thought would help wikipedia. I've noticed your edits around here and your contributions in general are very good, many thanks in particular for helping clean up the Liberian county articles, they are looking surprisingly good, care to do the same for Guinea wink wink? I wondered if you could help me reference all of the district and town articles with population data for Liberia using this? Regards, Himalayan   13:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Up for deletion, your DYK article: Miriam Sakewitz
i notice how the nominator did not notify you of the AFD. Ikip (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Miriam Sakewitz has been preserved and is available for further editing on Knol should you wish.Wjhonson (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

question about adding picture to page
Hi, thanks for the warm welcome, just had a question, wanting to add a picture to the Sied van Riel page I created but not sure where to start, do I upload it? or simply provide a link? Thanks, Ilir Ilirs (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) Ilirs (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

incorrect signing
I think you missed a tilde. tedder (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed it. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes on Planar Systems entry
Hello! I'd like to discuss the changes that were made to Planar Systems page over the summer. The photo that was added for example, is not of our headquarters. There were significant events and information that was removed and some trivia that was restored. Can you let me know the reasons? --RossO (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an updated photo, but I would like some guidance regarding the process of uploading it. I have restarted the thread on Talk:Planar_Systems. --RossO (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Linas and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, linas (talk)


 * The admins have rejected mediation already. I am now asking you to voluntarily stop editing at Wikipedia, that is, to take an indefinite leave of absence from editing Wikipedia, for your actions. I have filed a formal complaint here: Arbitration/Requests/Case linas (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. Note, though, conspiracy theories usally are only that, theories. Nobody recruited anybody to do anything. As with your comment that led to my warning about civility, it is because that user's talk page was on my watchlist from the preceding interaction, much as Tedder has my talk page on his watchlist due to prior interactions, as do a number of admins, of which any would have blocked you for your remarks. As to taking a break, perhaps you should as I had to look up what you were talking about as I had completely forgotten about this issue of yours. But, please note, any further comments on my talk page from you will now be removed, see WP:USER for more info. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

question about the sied van riel page
Hi there, just wanted to ask yesterday on the page it was added on the top 'general notability guideline' and also 'conflict of interest' and I've updated the page, just wonder how long does that stay on top? Thanks, Ilir Ilirs (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, will do what you suggested. :) Ilirs (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

NowCommons: File:ORWUWaller.JPG
File:ORWUWaller.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Waller Hall dusk.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:ORWUWaller2.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Waller Hall autumn.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:ORWUWaller3.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Waller Hall sun through cupola.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:McCullochStadium.JPG is now available as Commons:File:McCullochStadium.JPG. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:ORmaryspeak.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Marys Peak - Central Oregon Coast Range.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

twist my arm..
Hope those pictures of the Arctic Museum are decent. I decided I'd better upload them when I saw you'd created the article :-) tedder (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They work fine, thanks. I'll have to go there sometime to get some shots of the artifacts. How did the trip go for you? Mine had a lot of wasted time as I forgot my memory card and didn't realize it until I got to Lafayette. You would think the camera would beep and maybe the shutter would not go, but my DSLR does neither. My older and cheaper point and shoot beeps to warn you, but not the much more expensive one. At least there is a Walmart in McMinnville. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have taken my helmet off for most of the photos- I took ~200 photos, almost all with my helmet on, and it's hard to aim a DSLR perfectly. Ah well. They are functional pictures, not perfect, right? No memory card- doh! I've had cameras like that. This one complains if you don't have the card in, complains if you open the access door while it is still writing out (the curse of RAW photos..), and so on. Kinda nice. tedder (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi aboutmovies
My name is Ariel. I'm from Cordoba, Argentina. My English is not very good (sorry for that), but try to write without errors. The Pampa de Achala article I created on wikipedia in Spanish and wanted to leave her seated in the English wikipedia, but without success. I set out to translate, but the weather played a trick on me and prevented me from spending the time it deserves. I will try to translate it in full and will go up. Thanks for the review Arianzaenglish (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for semi-protecting a page
Hello, As you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, I wanted to get your opinion on the what the liklihood of being granted semi-protection for a page that I am in the process of cleaning up (working on adding more content, applying better citations, etc.). The page is for a living person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracie_Young. It has been reported to me that numerous instances of vandalism have occurred in the past (but not so much recently). I did read the criteria for semi-protection, and did note that more leeway is giving for pages on living persons. Just wanted your take on this before I make a possibly unneccessary request. Thanks in advance. Gwh11 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! Gwh11 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions
Hello Aboutmovies,

could you help me with my questions here? --Brackenheim (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the Big Gold Dude award. I appreciate it, and I've added it to my treasure trove, guarded by Smaug. Although I seem to be hard-wired to love streams, lakes, and canals (hence the fishy odor), I haven't forgotten McNary, although I have so far neglected Hatfield. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI heads-up
Can you look at this thread and at least respond to Hans Adler's request for context? I know there is context and you've written it out, just don't know where it is. tedder (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF? FTW? Katr67 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One day it's the homeless, the next it's the asshole admins.. I'm just glad that Linas is so over the top that there is no doubt of the bad faith. tedder (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

McNary
Thanks for the heads-up. I took a look just now and attempted a fix for citation 7. Finetooth (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, FYI, the "alt text checker" apparently can't read the alt text if you have space in the "alt=image info" part, so all but the first image came up as bad. Easy fix, but I know you do lots of FAs so I thought I'd give you a heads up. I don't know if it actually effects the sight-impaired reader's usage though. Likely just an FA quirk. Thanks again. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made that spacing error on the Columbia River alt texts, which were the first I'd ever done. User:Eubulides kindly fixed them during FAC and explained what the problem was. I didn't think to double-check the McNary alt texts for the problem. I've run into some other alt-text glitches in different kinds of infoboxes such as the canal infobox (which had no provision for alt text), but User:Niagara has fixed those for me. As to the other questions, they are most interesting and nearly beyond my ken. I'm following the discussion at FAC with great interest and admiration, happy to be only the dust-mouse editor. I'll do what I can with the Keizer Times citation, but I'd like to find a copy of the secondary source, the Lossner book. I'm guessing it's self-published or museum-published, though, so even if I find it, it may not be ideal. I'd also like to get my hands on the Corps of Engineers manual or at least track down the original title and publication date. No promises, but I'll try. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do what you can. I'll be getting the Neal book again to see about some of the issues, then I think I still have access to JSTOR so maybe I can track down a journal article or two and shift some sourcing to them. Thanks again. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The second edition of the Lossner book was self-published in Keizer in 1992, according to this source. The Keizer Times cites the same title but gives 1981 as the publication date; I think it's safe to infer that this was the first edition and that it was also self-published. The City of Keizer uses the byline "Keizer resident Ann Lossner" for "A Brief History of Keizer", published at the city web site. From this I infer that Lossner has no academic credentials or standing that could be added to demonstrate that she is an expert historian or that her work has been peer-reviewed by experts. I revised the citation accordingly, although the clarifications do not appear to resolve the underlying RS problem. Is it possible to replace the KT source with anything more solid, I wonder? I suppose it might come down to examining each claim supported by KT and looking for stronger support. Citation 8a could just be deleted since two other sources support the claim, but that still leaves 8b through h. Some like 8h, things named after McNary, shouldn't be too hard to find. Would you like me to search for on-line replacements that are more likely RS? (P.S. Would you rather I post these longish comments to the article's talk page to avoid filling up your user talk page?) Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find better ones, go for it. But some of this is I think is beyond what Wikipedia/FA really require. Remember that a RS is not just an RS because it was per-reviewed, as we must take each source in context. With the Keizer Times item, what source would be more reliable about McNary's home in Keizer? There may be some peer-reviewed journal out there that covers this, but I find it unlikely as "professional" journal writers are not likely to delve into such local history. Same with finding peer-reviewed sources for his namesakes, these might get mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal, but maybe not, but again the most reliable source for these would be the entity itself (the dam, the schools). So I don't think we want to go too far away from what RS says. Where we can find stuff, great, but not the end of the world if we don't. And here is fine with the comments, as I don't want the FA review to get to cluttered with "workshop" issues. Thanks again. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That all makes sense to me. I'll go lightly. Finetooth (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have access to JSTOR through the county library. I checked just now to make sure, keyed "Charles McNary" into the search box, and got 884 hits. I could refine the search. Let me know if my access could be of any use. Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I've started picking off some of the less high brow sources. If you could continue, using JSTOR and maybe EBSCO if you have that as well (most libraries do), reduce the reliance on these sources. Mainly the Cong. Bio. and Oregon Bio Dict. as I think reducing the Keizer Times one to three items is enough for now. I have one source for some expansion, and I should be able to find some more to address the other issues raised. So hopefully we can work through these over the next few weeks. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I don't see EBSCO in my library list, but Newsbank is there and a lot of other possibly useful sources. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just hit the jackpot, an issue of Life magazine from August 12, 1940, featuring McNary. The front cover is all McNary, and the article, by Richard L. Neuberger, is full of personal and political details. I found it when I Googled "Charlotte McNary", hoping to find a secondary source for the adopted daughter claim. See . Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Urk! I was unable to find anything more of any use. Sorry this took such a bad turn. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, we finally got the comments we could have used from the peer review. I have a few sources to expand upon the senate years and then round out a few other things. Not sure when I'll get to it, but sometime in the next few weeks. Once I have that done (which should address all the FAC comments) I'll let you go through it and make sure all the Ts are crossed and Is dotted and what not. Then it should easily get through FA on round two. Thanks for all the work you did put in to this point, we'll still get there this year. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New user questions
Hi, first of all thank you or you message. i have the following questions, hopefully you can give me your advise:

1) I created 2 Frank Marsh pages, so my questions are: which page should i leave, how do i relate the page to the NFL players database, and where do i put the references needed from a reliable third-party publication ?

2) I came up with the Johnson C. Smith University page and the alumni section has an error so it displays like: How do i help fixing this ?
 * - valign="top" |- valign="top" | Frederick C. Branch | align="center" | 1942
 * First African American officer in the United States Marine Corps
 * align="center" | |- valign="top" |- valign="top" | Eva M. Clayton | align="center" | 1955
 * state of North Carolina politician
 * align="center" | |- valign="top" |- valign="top" | Dorothy Counts | align="center" | 1964

3) I added information in the Dextor Clinkscale page, and the user that created the page, deleted the information and just put in the summary field "Do it according to policies, and it wont be removed", and i never got an answer back in respects to what he meant by that. Do you kow what i did wrong ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz3111 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 October 2009


 * When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.


 * I removed the from the above request; you should only use "helpme" on your own user page; if you leave a message for another user on their talk page or another discussion page (such as this one), they will see it - no need for a "helpme"   Chzz  ►  22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all your help, i made the changes you suggested Jazz3111 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Thanks
..for the recognition on recent COTW drives :) I always feel like I'm not doing enough, but glad to see it adds up. -Pete (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

reply
Sorry about accidental edit! Replied at User talk:Doncram. doncram (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you review my revamped biography?
Hi. With the help of knowledgeable Wikipedians, I have spent a good part of the last month revising my biography in an effort to comport with Wikipedia's standards relating to point of view and citations. I posted the revised article yesterday (10/16/09). You have made valuable constructive criticisms of earlier iterations of the biography, one reason I turned to experts for assistance; I wonder if you would be good enough to evaluate the revision and give me your comments and suggestions. Many thanks in advance. Lesaucoin (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cooper Mountain Nature Park
Hello! Your submission of Cooper Mountain Nature Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing this up, nice work on the article!   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

and the best editsummary of the week goes to..
You. Nice :-) tedder (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The bustling metropolis of...
Ballston, Oregon!!! Ta da! Katr67 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad the pic finally has a proper home. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

adding insult to injury
Heh. I am removing it, but was amused by it. tedder (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I select the wrong project sometimes. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You have posted the incorrect picture for "Old Glencoe" in Oregon
What you have posted is Glencoe Road in Hillsboro, but this is not the old town of Glencoe. In fact, it's about ten miles to the North--In North Plains. Take GLencoe North all the way across Hwy 26. Continue through town on GLencoe. You'll go through a 4 way stop sign. Turn at the second left on to "Old WEst Union Road." This is the old town of GLencoe. On the left, you'll see the Walter's place, which is original to Glencoe, and a blacksmith's shop that was a working place until the 1960's. Hope you fix this, and get the facts correct too. It was a good try though. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.46.104 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was dubious, but I checked GNIS and the anon is right, though I'm still puzzled why Glencoe would become North Plains when they're practically the same place. Here's the map from GNIS. Hopefully it's a little more picturesque. :) Katr67 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Picturesque. More info:, , . Katr67 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info, I have correct the article. I always wondered where the blacksmith shop was, but the Argus article only said the town moved, but not which direction, so I had assumed it was from about where Glencoe HS is as there used to be some old buildings across the street, and McKay Creek also flows by there. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem editing template
I created a few templates for racquetball, and two of them need to be updated. I was able to access one - for the women's champions of the US Open Racquetball Championships (so I could add Rhonda Rajsich as the 2009 winner), but I can't seem to get to the men's template (to add Kane Waselenchuk as the 2009 winner), because it seems that it doesn't exist, despite the template displaying as desired on the players' pages. I find this completely bizarre. Any help appreciated. Trb333 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I was able to edit it after your work finding it. I did try to get to the template by typing it in the "search" box at left, but that also didn't work for me, which led to my frustration and call for help. Thanks again. Trb333 (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolving ambox/citation warning
I was wondering how to resolve/remove the citation warning that appears at the top of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracie_Young I've been editing/adding information and authoritative citations, so perhaps this is no longer necessary...? Thanks again for answering questions, Gwh11 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Law (law review)
Hey! Thanks for your help and suggestions -- what particular sentences do you take issue with? I'll do my best to fix them as you see fit as I am very, very new at this. Thanks again for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.139.48 (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Exchequer of the Jews
Thanks for looking at Exchequer of the Jews for WikiProject Law. I have since added a bit in the way of further reading, and also set out what's been published in the 20th century.

Any chance of taking another look, and maybe suggesting what else needs thinking about, to get it its next step up the assessment ladder?

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuality Forest Grove Hospital
Hello Aboutmovies. I noticed this article is written in the present tense, when describing some historical events. Would you object if it were changed to the past tense? EdJohnston (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Corban College
I added a source - a clip directly from the show. Thanks. TexianPolitico (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this on your talk page and reverted the edit that includes link to a copyvio, and that is not supported by the source. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Not a big fan of the show like you suggested, but I appreciate your analysis of the Corban College page. I'd never heard of that school before until it was on TLC and I bet I'm not the only one. TexianPolitico (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming
Hi, and thanks for the welcoming on my page, always nice, also for oldtimers (I´ve been on sv:WP some years). Since I´m new at en:WP, can you guide me to someone who can take a look at my translation of an swedish article about a photographer? I do not know every term in english, and the photo-portal (where I´ve asked) seems dead. Many thanks!--Godfellow (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, thank you for the nice welcome to Wiki. Even though I intend to focus on football (soccer), I do have a strong affinity for movies and will be more than glad to contribute on that topic. Abundant thanks. !--Footballer99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

Eugene Saturday Market
Have incorp Eugene Register Guard and other independent sources throughout article except Goverance section. Still use Satuday Market fact sheet as source for attendance and sales rules facts. Have draft version that removes both those facts and Goverance section which will completely eliminate all internal sources; however, thought I'd get your opinion on whether some internal source can be left before I delete those elements. Want article done right before I turn it lose.--Orygun (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better, and I have removed the tag. Some primary sources are fine, so no need to remove them all. I added the tag since an article would have problems with NPOV if it relies entirely or mainly on sources from the subject or affiliated with the subject (such as tourism councils or chambers of commerce). They just don't tend to comment on any negative things, as its bad for business. Thanks for checking in, and it is still a nice article. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrote article last Saturady before leaving on overseas trip; then uploaded it on Fri when I got back. Clearly, didn't spend enough time on research; also had lot of minor text errors that I should have fixed before posting. Appriciate your review/comment and taking time to do second look!--Orygun (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to reply, but it looks better, and someone else took care of re-rating it. Also, I just noticed (at least with your latest item Fort Harney) it looks like some of your articles do not having many incoming links. Don't forget to add links from relevant articles. This (Sat. Mkt) article only has three, and all look like they pre-date the article. I added some, but there might be other places too. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
Thanks for your welcome.

Cheers, Matt

Matt5AU (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

United Streetcar & Oregon Iron Works
Do you think this new article is good enough to be worthy of a DYK nomination? It's an article I've been wanting to put together for months, but only finally found the time to do (including uploading the needed photo) this weekend. It probably needs a little tidying-up, but I'd welcome your thoughts, including a possible hook. If you are too busy with other stuff, I'll understand. SJ Morg (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful input. Regarding the Oregon Iron Works article, I never really had much interest in doing that one (and almost all my Wikipedia editing is on topics that interest me, unless the changes require little or no research), and I did it mainly to avoid having a red link in the United Streetcar article, and also because there were obviously some efficiencies of researching both at the same time.  I almost mentioned this in my original post to your talk page.  I've already tried to find more info. on OIW at the Portland Business Journal and other free sites such as the Tribune, without success, and I don't have access to the paid archives at the DJC or The Oregonian, so I gave up on improving the OIW article anytime soon, even though you correctly noted that it is mostly a rehash of the other article, with way too little info. on the other sectors of OIW's business, which have been going for decades and involve far more employees and revenues. I suppose there are ways to find more info. via, say, NewsBank (which, so far, I've only used once), but the bottom line is I don't have enough interest in OIW to want to spend the time needed for practically anything more than what I already put up.  I have a lot of other higher-priority (to me) Wikipedia editing waiting for me to have time. Thanks, too, for mentioning the old Oregon Iron Works of the 1800s.  When writing the article, I had not been aware of that, but after I uploaded the article and checked "What Links Here", I was disappointed to discover that little problem which, I agree, needs to be dealt with.


 * So, considering my unwillingness/inability to do any significant improvement to the OIW article, I was really only thinking of pitching United Streetcar as a DYK. In that light, if you feel it has any significant issues, please let me know (or go ahead and make changes if you want). As to logos, I thought about that, and did a little reading of Wikipedia's pages on uploading such info., but I've never done that before, and so far I still feel I'd be in over my head on that, worried that I'd be posting something not allowed, or without a proper explanation of why it's fair use, etc.  I actually took a close-up photograph of the United Streetcar logo on one end of the new streetcar, and I wondered about posting a low-res file of that (but I realize that doesn't give me rights over the logo!), but I decided to hold off until I got some advice on the subject of logos from someone like you, since it seemed only desirable but not essential.  I'll check out the example you gave (Radysis logo), but I'm still not sure I'll know how to do it properly. Anyway, right now I want to get this reply sent.  Many thanks for your advice! SJ Morg (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but as far as I can determine, the logo isn't available on the company's (United Streetcar) website. I looked there, and also (just now) did a Google image search and found nothing.  So, the only way I know how to get it would be a screenshot (easy on a Mac) from the company's website, but I don't know whether that's permitted, and in any event there wouldn't be any url to enter in the logo upload form.  Not sure about how to do the shrinking, either, since I don't have Photoshop or any graphics program, but I guess I could do that in iPhoto, the image application  I use. SJ Morg (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try. Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed your instructions for uploading the logo ("click on the link I gave above, browse for the file name after you download the logo from the company's website, write the article name without the, and then add the URL you found the logo at. Then select the license (logo) and that's really it. The rest gets filled in automatically."), but I may have done something wrong, because the last part didn't happen. None of the license info. and fair-use rationale appeared. The logo is at File:UnitedStreetcarLLC_logo.jpg, but if I don't fix that issue soon, I suppose some admin will delete it. SJ Morg (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just refreshed the page, and I see it's all there now. I had already thought of that, and done it, but it hadn't worked until several minutes had passed. Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw. I've had some issues with Wikipedia tonight too with it not updating instantly. I added the logo to the article. FYI, to link an image File:UnitedStreetcarLLC logo.jpg ---> File:UnitedStreetcarLLC logo.jpg without displaying it, just add : at the beginning. Aboutmovies (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical)
I appreciate that you were trying to apply MOS:ABBR guidelines to the article, but I'm confused as to why you only changed OR to Oregon, it appears to me that by being inconsistent and only spelling out Oregon that the article has been worsened rather than improved.Naraht (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because 738 incorrect entries created by the original author are a bit much to correct all at once. I had "Oregon" copied so it was easy to find and replace that term, and that was what I was working on across articles. Feel free to start correcting the others, as not everyone in the world lives in the United States and knows what TX/HI/AK means, thus the MOS guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what sed scripts are for. 1/2 :) And BTW, I am the original article author. I'll see what I can do when things slacken off at work.Naraht (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a liberal arts major, so not really into scripts, but if you are, it will make it easier. I did a few more states to help out, and made the table columns a bit wider so there is less scrunching. Take your getting through them, no need to do it all at once, something about Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's easier to do them all at once which I've done. I copy the entire thing into my UNIX account and start substituting. Causes problems with restoring the long dashes in the U of Wisconsin Campuses, but I know to expect that. Couple of judgement calls: DC became D.C. because Washington, D.C. is the actual page name and but I ignored the cities whose pages are without state like Chicago, which I left as Chicago, Illinois for parallelism in the table. My original reason for leaving them as state abbreviation was size, it is about 70K and was actually split out from a *larger* table (more columns). Still two redlinks on the page, but they are both for colleges that have been closed for quite some time (Central YMCA, arguably since the 1940s, Frederick since the 1960s.) (and that I eventually want to see pages for)Naraht (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I hadn't considered using something offline, as I could have used MS Word. I think DC is fine, since that is what everyone knows it as, versus Boulder, CO, which I think most people would know it as Boulder, Colorado. And I think the size is fine, since there are no images that would increase the load time. Only time it takes a while to load is in the diff mode if a lot of changes were done. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

COTW
Awwwwwwwwwww... I'm blushing! &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review and Assistance
You gave me useful suggestions before regarding an article I authored, and I wanted to ask for your brief assistance with something.

As a part of my work on improving and wikifying community college articles, I am working on Rock Valley College. As can be viewed by the history, I have made several changes to the article by adding appropriate references and and NPOV content. However, there is a section called Rock_Valley_College that was put together by an editor that only edits this one page. I have entered into a discussion with the talk page and the room agrees the section should be removed or rewritten. I have not edited it yet but made a suggestion for the section at on the talk page atTalk:Rock_Valley_College. However, the user,Weezer4718 (talk • contribs

has begun to get personal. I have pointed him in the direction of the appropriate policies, but the editor seems to have an ax to grind, and I wish to avoid any edit war before it begins. I would appreciate any thoughts any one has on how to improve the suggestion, and the section mentioned, and if you do or do not agree the section violates WP:NPOV, WP:POV, WP:BLP, orWP:Universities standards. Also, feel free to tell me if I am in the wrong as well. All comments appreciated. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Augustus C. Kinney
Hello! Your submission of Augustus C. Kinney at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MuZemike 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images on Zephyr
Thanks for your attention to the images on Zephyr (sculpture). I noticed that you removed one of the images from that article. There seems to be a lot of confusion about how images of sculptures can be used withing Wikipedia and The Commons. Would you mind lending your expertise to this Wikipedia project so that it can move forward more directly? WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art!. While this project has its starts in this course, the hope is that this project can be used on an ongoing basis. Many thanks, --Richard McCoy (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for taking the time to so accurately explain the issues around images! It's a big help. Best --Richard McCoy (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on another copyvio
Re: The City of Newberg vs. Aboutmovies. You gonna sue? Katr67 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if they keep doing it, which this one is mine but is PD, and the library banner one is also mine (though attribution is required). I sent them an email about one of them, so we'll see what they do. Makes me a bit paranoid though. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently the city can't afford a camera: Not my pic, but I uploaded it and that's the version they are using; my pic and attribution is required so copyvio; my pic, but its PD, so its, OK, but I wonder why they went with the pic looking north to the Tualatin Valley instead of the ones looking towards Newberg? Aboutmovies (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Crime in Oregon
HI. I made a start on this. Could you flesh it out into a full written article. Now is your chance to include that Miriam Sakewitz bunny woman case if you must along with other general info about crime in Oregon. Good luck! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow!
[ That number] is truly amazing. Awesome job!  Little Mountain  5   01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keep going yourself and you will make it too. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice
Hi, Aboutmovies. I'm an independent journalist in Portland, preparing to launch a wiki devoted entirely to car-free and low-car life here. I'd expect to be its primary contributor, but when you have a resource-y Web site these days, it seems sort of silly to not wikify it. The whole thing is still a few months off, but I'm asking Wikipedians who edit on related topics if they have any thoughts, advice, or dire warnings. Eh? Anybody else you'd recommend my talking to? Andersem (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As to people, it looks like you have asked many of the public transit contributors, so I guess that is a good start. Another one is User:Peteforsyth, who I believe is also into public transit, and is now working for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in general is a community activist type (he also watches this page, so he might chime in).
 * As to running a wiki, I have little knowledge on that end, as I am not a software engineer type person, but my understanding is once the software is installed it is easy to maintain. Along those lines Pete I believe runs a wiki and may have some answers to technical issues.
 * With the actual site, my advice would be to come up with a mission statement. As in, what do you want the site to be and to look like in five years. Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia with aspects of almanacs, dictionaries, and other reference material, and it attempts to present material in a neutral/non-biased manner. That, along with the free content, is why Wikipedia has become such a big deal and near the top of website traffic rankings. But, you also must realize that though Wikipedia gets millions of hits a day, that comes from I believe 3 million plus articles. As in, if you look at the page view statistics of individual articles, that are not always that impressive. Take TriMet; go to that page, click the "history" tab at the top, then click the "page view statistics" located about the middle just above where the article history begins. TriMet only gets about 65 hits a day, which I'm sure pails in comparison to what TriMet.com gets. But, I would venture a guess that Wikipedia has become the standard reference tool for most people in the English speaking, developed world under the age of 50. And people have chosen Wikipedia because they see it as largely accurate, and for the most part not inhibit by too much bias (you can never eliminate it). So, in a rather round-about way, my point here is, do you want to be an advocacy wiki, or an information wiki. Wikipedia tries to be the later, and I think it has been successful because it has chosen the later route. It's kind of like the evolution in the news business in the first half of the 20th century where newspapers (and later broadcast journalism) moved to be more neutral and less about partisan politics (never completely went away). With that evolution, newspapers/journalists became more respected and trusted. And had there been an internet, they likely would have seen an increase site traffic. On the other end of the spectrum, you have websites such as Blue Oregon that have a specific bias (Democratic Party/liberal) and people who have differing views are unlikely to visit, let alone trust the content. Which takes as back to where you want to be; advocacy or information. And I'm not saying one is better than the other, just the later I think will have more of an impact. And to get to that point, you need to try to limit bias, which would include recruiting people who may not share the same opinions as you do.
 * Lastly, a few wiki points. I would suggest that contributors be required to register with an email account and email verification, thus helping to reduce vandalism. Be careful about copyrights, as most things on the internet are copyrighted, and if you are not careful people will add copyrighted material, which could possibly make you liable. Adopt a manual of style (e.g. AP style) to keep things looking somewhat consistent. And that's all I can think of right now. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much -- this is invaluable. I've actually met Pete, I think, so I may ring him up directly. On the NPOV discussion, you make a lot of good point points -- but remember that maximizing audience isn't the only goal of a media outlet. I'm hoping to be quite useful for a relatively small audience. As for the wiki points, I am planning on requiring registration for all editors. And that's a great call about copyright. Andersem (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK feedback
The dyk process is a little opaque/slow-to-respond, so can you review my two pending DYKs and tell me if anything should be touched up? kthxbai. tedder (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Did you know
 * Template talk:Did you know
 * LM5 took care of the caves. With Hurt, most things look good. For the ALT though, you need an inline cite on the sentence covering the 2,300 people, one later in the paragraph isn't good enough. Also, it was barely past the 1,500 character count before I add some, but you might want to make it a little bigger as shorter articles can sometimes be rejected. And since lists (such as the awards list) don't count, I would suggest converting it to prose and working it into the "Later life" section. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's certainly close to the DYK limit. My only access to the plethora of LATimes articles of him are on microfilm, so maybe I'll go up and work on it today to flesh things out. I'll copy the cite to the 2300 so that's covered- good to know. tedder (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank
Thanks for your wellcome. Lnegro (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Zephyer (sculpture) for Wikiproject Universities
Thanks for assessing that article. I have been interested in putting the articles in the IUPUI Public Art Collection in a variety of projects, but thought that you could only do that if you were an active member of each wiki project. Can anyone include an article in any project and also assess it? Thanks, --Richard McCoy (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, WikiProjects "own" their templates and members decide what goes in them, but it is normal to add projects to articles when they are first created. Just don't be hurt if someone then removes one, as a project may not actually cover the topic. For instance I do a lot of assessment for WikiPrject Law and will sometimes remove the LAW project template from articles, often times when they are really law enforcement (which is a different project). As to assessment, generally you would not assess an article you wrote or did major work on, as you really want a third party opinion. But, you can assess any article, as long as you know what you are doing. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks
Hello, .

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! I like the place even before I create my username, so I will stay.

Also, thanks for the highly helpful info that you gave about Wikipedia.

--UnderAngel (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

rewrite help
The first half of this paragraph is copyvio, and I can't figure out how to rewrite it. Can you take a stab, since it's semi-legal? Kthxbai. tedder (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-did it, and since its was little too much for a single pending lawsuit, I moved it to the history section and condensed it to 2 sentences. Didn't check to see if it was copyvio, so please double-check my work. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. You fixed the copyvio issue, and put it in context/scale. Perfect! tedder (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Civil War Stadia
In Civil_War_(college_football_game), you recently added pictures of the two current stadia stacked vertically. I changed the pics to horizontal so the key to the scores table would appear adjacent to the table itself. You reverted this because the opposite problem exists on certain browsers -- you mentioned FireFox, IE and Chrome. At least in my IE, this is not true, only horizontal puts the key adjacent to the table. So what should be done now? Ideally, we'd like something that appears nice both types of browsers. The simplest thing would be to move the pictures to another location -- like maybe to the Civil_War_(college_football_game). Any other ideas? YBG (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some experiments, and it looks like its not the browser type, but the browser width. I have my screen resolution set pretty high, so things are rather wide. But if I make the browser less than full screen, then I get the seperation effect, no matter how I manipulate the vertical images. I don't think going horizontal is the answer, as that creates a break, and the images are meant as more decorative than substantive. I guess we'll have to move them to another section. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your combining of tables looks great ... I probably would have done it slightly differently -- the way it is now, column breaks in the key are hardwired to match certain column breaks in the main column -- but it is a great improvement over the preceding if it works for more people. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GE - removal of website under 'external links'
Hi Aboutmovies,

You made a change to GE's page today (11th December) which I wanted to discuss. Disclosure - I work for GE, but we try not to overdo the editing of it, just to keep it accurate.

You removed the official site www.ge.com from 'external links' as it's already in the infobox. On reading the guidelines, you are correct in this (although they are suggested guidelines). I don't want to arbitrarily undo your edit, but feel that as the page is very long, if someone has got to the bottom of the page, and are looking at the external links (which are both by GE and about GE (some against GE)), then they are unlikely to scroll to the top of the page to find another link.

For this reason, I'd like to put the link back. Your thoughts, please?

Simon Sehlangford (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are just guidelines, but under that theory we might as well ignore all guidelines and policies, for instance maybe we should start adding links only to all the sites that attack GE, right? In general we try to follow the guidelines, and make exceptions where they make sense. Here, I see no reason to not follow the guideline. Many articles are long, but the point of the WP:EL guideline is to try and reinforce that Wikipedia does not exist to drive traffic to other websites. In addition to the part at EL covering placement of ELs that says no to double listing of the official link, see WP:ELOFFICIAL for the general thoughts on official links. Specifically the "Minimize the number of links" part that, although is focused on providing more than one link within the domain, you can read between the lines and see that we want to keep this links to a minimum and listing it a second time does not "provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". Thus, we don't need yet another link to a GE website (there are at least 8 that go to GE controlled domains within the article). And if someone is really looking for the official GE website, Google does a pretty good job. Otherwise, Wikipedia is only here to provide information, not promote other entities. Or to flip it on its head, how many links does GE have to Wikipedia? We have at least 8, and that's just on this one article. So I would leave it out, but the article talk page is a better forum for discussing this so it is opened up to more opinions. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

signing
Do you mind signing this line? The original isn't, but it seems to make sense, especially since the parenthesis are a personal comment. (Just got back from PeteForsyth's going-away wake celebration party.) tedder (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about categories
Hello. I edited many of the Oregon wind farm articles a few weeks ago by adding the categories Category:Wind_farms_in_Oregon and Category:Wind_farms_in_the_United_States. I saw all the automatically alphabetized US wind farm pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wind_farms_in_the_United_States and I thought adding Oregon wind farm articles to this category would improve it, but now I just noticed the subcategories on that page as well (wind farms in CA/TX/OR/etc). Am I supposed to add both categories to a wind farm article or just the subsidiary one (Category:Wind_farms_in_Oregon)?

I was reading about categories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, but I'm still confused. I noticed under the WikiProject Oregon recent changes page that you were removing the Category:Wind_farms_in_the_United_States from the wind farms in Oregon articles and I hoping you could tell me the correct way to categorize articles with main and subcategories. I'm new to (editing) Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate any help. I hope you don't mind a basic question like this. Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda curious about the removal of the windfarms category too. tedder (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple, the individual wind farms are in "wind farms in Oregon" which is a sub cat of the US one. So, per WP:CAT, we usually don't place them in both the parent and child cat, just like we wouldn't have them all in "Wind farms" either. Part of the reason for creating sub cats like the Oregon wind farms one is to difuse the larger parent cat. This is also the reason I removed the wind farms from the "energy resources in Oregon" cat, as the "wind farms in Oregon" is already in that cat, thus the individual wind farms are already in them by being in the "wind farms in Oregon" cat. Hope that helps everyone (see also the WP:CAT part of WP:DUPCAT). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense. I understand it now. Thanks for the explanation! TimeClock871 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't caught the duplication- I just saw the cat removals come across my watchlist and was curious. tedder (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

twitch
Angelfire. Yeah, RS, but.. my OCPD flares up when I see it. Twitch, twitch. tedder (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate them too, but the local historical society apparently can't afford a real host. I just modified it to look better. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We should hold a barnraising for them. That's too bad. tedder (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Washington County podunk for ya
Wilkesboro, Oregon--looks like a hotbed of turn-of-the-century railroad intrigue and entrepreneurial Mormons (see the talk page for more on the RR stuff, including interesting history from our own Rvannatta). Maybe you can dig up some more info. I was surprised it linked so easily to Glenwood--I didn't plan on it, I'm just going through the Oregon highways articles one by one and writing articles for redlinks. Expect I'll get 4 or 5 done before I forget about that and move on to something else. Anyway, I'd be curious if there's anything still there if you wanna drive by and take a picture. Later, Katr67 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I might have more, as the old Argus 100-anniversary of Hillsboro edition has coverage for almost every little community in WaCo. But, I'm starting to move on Sunday, so it is already packed away, and I probably won't unpack it till close to the new year. But after that most of the "only on maps" locales you will encounter have coverage in my source, so I can tidy up. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing this item reminds me that I ran across another Mormon-related Oregon town recently: Perry, in Union County. George Stoddard (who appears to have been Mormon) hails from Perry. A statement in the Charles W. Nibley article leads me to suspect that Stoddard's father (also George) was a big-shot businessman in Perry, then went east. --Orlady (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perry was a company town, but I don't know for whom--I don't have my company towns book handy--I bet not only was George, Sr. a big shot, but he was the big shot. I'll look into it. (But don't hold your breath.) I love connecting the dots. P.S. Orlady whenever I see your username I have to translate it to "Oakridge" because I instantly think you're from Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Two more

 * Farmington, Oregon
 * Witch Hazel, Oregon

Strangely, it looks like OGN might be wrong about Witch Hazel and that the name predated the good mayor. It would be cool to figure out where the old racetrack was. Katr67 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Can you check the route description of Oregon Route 8, especially the part near Hillsboro? Apparently you don't need to cite highway articles so don't worry about original research. I used the "squint at the Oregon gazetteer" method of research. Katr67 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One minor correction, and then I added some of my own OR/checked a map. One day we'll add sources. Thanks for the article on WH, I'm pretty sure I have more in my stuff. Not sure where the race track was, but I can recall several on older maps in the Reedville, WH, SE Hillsboro area (as well as one I use to go by). I think I recall other mentions of tracks writing about other old dead guys, seems it was the thing to do if you had the money. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was pretty sure I got the Intel part wrong. Did you see there was a bunch of Reedville stuff in the external link, BTW? Hey, re: this. Sigh, I remember having a similar conversation with him about the "former towns that are now neighborhoods don't count as towns" thing. Do recall which community that was? Was it Orenco? I think anything that used to be a separate place should be included in both cats. And why not have the template regardless? I think it makes it harder to find the information, and since it's a separate dot on the map it should be treated separately. It's not like Sunnyslope, Salem, Oregon, which is most assuredly only a neighborhood (the town was actually Liberty, Oregon). I almost put the template back, but I'll behave. We have a bunch of places like that in Washington County as the larger cities sprawl out and it was only recently that weren't still separate places and they were communities a lot longer than they were neighborhoods. What do you think? Katr67 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did take the liberty of making things consistent until things are decided otherwise. Katr67 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shepherds Flat Wind Farm
Hello! Your submission of Shepherds Flat Wind Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

amusing ec
I removed this note, but I'm amused we did it at the same time. tedder (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oregon law article for you
Figured I'd be lazy let you add projects/classify/rate. tedder (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * John V. Doe v. Holy See

Hardman, Oregon
Apparently it was city: Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What I found is a fine source, but would it be in that other source you found--I forget what it was. The whole incorporation thing seems so random. Katr67 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Winchester, Oregon, is one of the cities I used it on, though I'm pretty sure I found another of the "Special Laws" for a later year. I'll give Google a search. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This search turns up the different editions of the laws, so its a process of going through each one and searching for Hardman to see if a new resolution shows up for a modification to the city charter (happened all the time) or the original law from 1904, if your source is correct. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Found Lexington. And some other places that are still cities, but no Hardman. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More to work on later. Didn't find Hardman, but also couldn't find the "Special Laws" covering 1904. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. I have about a dozen more sources for stuff to add to Hardman that I need to weed through--lots of stuff on the 'net but surprisingly hard (haha) to find reliable sources. Then hopefully I can get back to Wilkesboro before time runs out. Speaking of "towns" I've been meaning to mention this but I may have to eat some crow (if anyone actually cares about this issue) so I dared not say anything, re: my continued ranting that Oregon has no towns. A search of GNIS reveals that according to the USGS (not always the most reliable source, as we know), the civil designation for several communities in Oregon is indeed "Town", specifically the Bustling (nestled?) Metropolii of: Bonanza, Butte Falls, Canyon City, Dayville, Lakeview, Lexington, Spray, Summerville, and Waterloo. I think I discovered that when I was looking over election results so I could update mayors. I guess for ORS purposes (and the Blue Book) a town is a "city" but it does acknowledge that there are still "towns" in Oregon. I wonder why some got upgraded to "city"? Anyway, just something to follow up on at some point. It's probably not the end of the world if we continue to let Wikipedia propagate such deception for a while longer. Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why some (most) changed to city, but I'm sure if we study the acts that incorporated a place as a town, and then later a city, we might be able to figure it out. It likely has to do with the amount of debt they could incur or perhaps governance, like maybe towns had only mayors, but cities had mayors and a city council. Should be a fun project. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Restaurants and shops in airport articles
Hi Aboutmovies, could you please just enlighten me why restaurants and shops at an airport should be listed in the respective article? I cannot see any encyclopedic notability, since airport articles are aiming at informing about the relevance and importance of the airport. IMO, this clearly collides with the WP:NOTTRAVEL guidelines. Including them is also not approved by WikiProject Airports/page content. Best regards and Merry Christmas. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

edit: I started a discussion on that issue here Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
May your stocking be stuffed with barnstars and DYKs. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy belated holidays to you too. I hope to be back in full force on Wikipedia tonight. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to do this, but you leave me no choice.

 * But, you left this remark at AFD, apparently forgetting this remark on the article's talk page . Although the two remarks were made some time apart from one another, the marked inconsistency between the two merits at least a minnow:

Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Oh, to have Oversight privileges and the freedom to abuse them :-) tedder (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May I point out that AM leaves those kind of notes on article talk pages in order to encourage their creators to expand poorly written/sourced articles instead of taking them straight to Afd? No contradiction whatsoever. Katr67 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article did fail BIO at the time, and as your nom for deletion proved out, it was subject to deletion, thus no real inconsistency. As Katr points out, I have left similar notes (and many notability tags) on many articles to encourage the authors to improve them. If I felt the subject was truly non-notable I would have sent it to AfD/PROD, but I did not. BIO and NOTE use to be far more about demonstrating in the article itself the notability of the topic, but now it is only about if the topic is notable in general. Thus the sort of change. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1; You said the article was "subject to deletion," but then argued that we never delete articles like this, so there is a contradiction there. 2. I was only trying to point that out, it's obviously not a real serious issue, the remarks were made over two years apart. I'm sure it would be easy to find remarks I made in my wiki-past that are inconsistent with what I believe now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Geesh, I hate being told to lighten up. It usually has the opposite effect. :) If it's no big deal, why point it out? Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but teasing one another about past mistakes doesn't really get the encyclopedia written. I might be unaware that you have the kind of wiki relationship with AM where you could tease him a bit, but it seemed to me like unnecessary needling. aka "Neener neener". Personally I only bitchslap my closest friends. Can't we all just get along? Katr67 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't a bitch, it was a trout! They're so much softer and squishier :) -Pete (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes an image can be both "free" and "unfree". Read about copyright law and derivative works, specifically read about what we call the freedom of panonrama, which the US does not have. Though we do have the doctrine of de minimis. Or, read the FUR where it explains the unfree part is the image contained within the picture taken by me. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it cannot, under Wikipedia's definition. If an image is in any way non-free, it must be treated as entirely non-free when used on Wikipedia. This means it must fully meet our non-free content criteria, and must not have free license templates plastered all over it. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that is one thing, but you actually need to quote me/point me to a policy/guideline, since I've never seen that within Wikipedia's rules. And, that still does not mean that a image cannot be both free and unfree, so next time perhaps let the people know that it is a Wikipedia thing and not something else, as again, images can be "free" and "unfree". And I would also suggest pointing people to the policy, otherwise we will simply ignore your efforts. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aboutmovies is right here. It's not possible for Wikipedia to rewrite copyright law. If the image contains both non-free and free elements, having that clearly noted in its description page is exactly what should be done. There's a non-free use rationale in there, which is all that's needed for it to be used in an article. (It would be nice, however, if there were a more complete description on the page of which aspects are freely-licensed.) -Pete (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pete, this has nothing to do with rewriting copyright law. Have you actually read this discussion? All we want is for the CC license tag to be removed- the discussion of how the photo is CC belongs in the fair use rationale, not with the use of one of our "THIS IMAGE IS FREE" tags. Aboutmovies, if you want to know a specific policy this is breaking, see non-free content criterion 9, and consider the inclusion of the image in what should be our freely licensed galleries at Category:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 images and Category:Self-published work. This shouldn't be about explicit policies being broken, this should be about common sense- an image as a whole cannot be both free and non-free. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read the discussion, but it's possible my comprehension was a big clouded by the fact you were telling an intelligent and good faith contributor that he was wrong on a point that lies within his academic expertise. Or by your hyperbole in stating that the image had anything "plastered all over it" when, in fact, it simply had a tag on it like thousands of other images on Wikipedia.
 * Now that you have proposed something specific, I can see your point a little more clearly. Inserting the copyleft info into the NFUR seems a sensible approach. But I still don't like the approach you took here. -Pete (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my approach wasn't the best. I was simply trying to step in a clarify what Sfan was saying. I didn't think that it was a particularly difficult point to get across; I'm a little surprised the discussion branched out so much with need for the word of policy and references to specific laws. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * J Milburn, you still have not provided any policy/guideline that discusses your assertion that an image can only be free or unfree. I am well aware of the NFCC guideline, but it says absolutely nothing about images can only be free or unfree. Specifically the text of #9: "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)" Nothing about that you cannot have both free and unfree tags, or really anything about multiple licensing tags period. The NFCC is only about usage of non-free content, and the image meets that guideline as it contains a FUR, is only used on the article covered by the FUR, and otherwise meets the rules.
 * Now, as I point out below to beta, the image cannot be uploaded to Commons as you suggest, as it contains some derivative works that are copyrighted by someone other than myself, which the policy Beta points out, specifically would prohibit this image from being uploaded there. And as to common sense, I find it hard to believe myself that we have some people here that apparently do not understand a rather introductory concept of copyright law, derivative works, and the multiple copyrights that can cover a work. As in, multiple copyrights means multiple licenses. And unless I license it, there is no CC license on the image, thus its status cannot be noted as such, since it would then not be in CC status. As in I have to publish the image under a CC license, which is what the tag is for, noting the status of it under the FUR as you suggest would not work, as that would not be a license. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "noting the status of it under the FUR as you suggest would not work, as that would not be a license". Are you saying that writing "I release this under CC-by-SA-3.0" would not be a valid release, and the only way to possibly release the image would be to tag it with a free use template? That's clearly nonsense. I accept that both licenses are at work on the image, and that is why I am requesting the note about the image's license be added to the image description/fair use rationale. As for "And unless I license it, there is no CC license on the image"- I'm not sure what your point is here, as you've already licensed it, and, as I said, there are other legally recognised ways of licensing something under a Creative Commons license than uploading it on Wikipedia and using the Wikipedia template. "Nothing about that you cannot have both free and unfree tags"- yes, it does. As I explained, the free licensed tags attach it to categories in which it should not be as a non-free image. Seriously, what is difficult about this? J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * J Milburn is correct this image cannot be released under a free license. see commons:Commons:Derivative works which is an explanation of what your trying to do. βcommand 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Betacommand, nobody here would argue with what you say ( this link points to the most relevant section)), but it doesn't do much to move the discussion forward. -Pete (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beta, couple problems for you. First, that is Commons, not Wikipedia. Second, very related to the first point, this was uploaded to Wikipedia, thus Wikipedia policies apply, not Commons. Third point, related to the first two, the fact that (as the Commons link you provided points out) "Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist." is exactly why this was uploaded to Wikipedia, as Commons does not allow for non-free work, which is pretty much what the whole policy is about, saying you can't upload this type of work to Commons. Fourth point, related to the last, and though that is a Commons policy, it does cover what is good law, in that a derivative work "...could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders..." (emphasis added) thus both licenses are needed, the one covering the underlying work (only the part that is the newspaper, not the rest), and one covering my picture. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely, all of this is accurate. The image is only hostable on Wikipedia (not Commons) because it must be treated as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth are you trying to achieve? Why are you so adamant that this image needs exactly that template to be used on it? J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto? And notice that it is not exactly that template, but something modified to address your only concern. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. This image is non-free, correct? J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The photograph is free, the roughly 20% near the center that contains the newspaper cover is most likely non-free. We actually don't know, I've never contacted the newspaper owner to see if they license their work in a free or non-free manner, which is why the template says "the copyright for it is most likely held by either the publisher of the newspaper or the individual contributors who worked on the articles or images depicted." I'm guessing your "right" is a, "no I'm not doing the same thing". But ask yourself, why are you so adamant that the info has to be in the FUR part. As in, if the image is no longer in "free categories" (a Wikipedia thing) then your issue disappears, doesn't it? Part of my problem is that your solution makes my work a bit hidden, and you omit the link to the license, which you might want to read the notice part of the license. There is a reason the templates include the links to the license. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a serious question, please don't take offense. Do you actually feel that what you're doing is appropriate, or are you just playing Devil's advocate? J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the serious question? Whether or not the image is free, since if that's it hopefully you have read where works can have multiple copyrights, and thus some parts could be free released under a free license or to the public domain and some parts could be in the public domain and some parts not released at all. As to Devil's advocate, no I am standing up for my legal rights as the copyright holder to the majority of that image, and indirectly to those in a similar situation. We have plenty of works on Wikipedia where there are multiple copyrights, and they all need to be respected. That's sort of the law in the US. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way do you feel your rights as the copyright holder are not being respected? You are credited as the author of the image, and the terms under which you have released your rights to the image are noted on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How were my rights represented in this version you decided to do? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, why did you revert every change I made to the image page? The FUR is technically inaccurate as I do not own the copyright to the portion under discussion in the FUR. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How should I know how your rights were represented? You wrote the description. If you want to ignore your own rights, be my guest. How about we stop playing games? How about you stop ignoring my questions, how about you stop being dramatic, and how about you drop the ridiculous legalese? I don't mind discussing this with you, I do mind these stupid games. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered your question before you even asked: "Part of my problem is that your solution makes my work a bit hidden, and you omit the link to the license". And when you removed the license (the edit I linked to above) you violated the license and thus my copyright, so sorry if I might be a little pissy as I don't appreciate my legal rights being violated and then told I'm being POINTy for my response. Taken in context you and your associate's edits on the image could also be seen as POINT (especially with the edit summary of your tag team partner). As to dramatic, what was wrong with the changes I made to the image? You are insisting it be in the FUR, I'm insisting it not be and removed it from the free categories which is the root of the your issue (or so you say), thus it should have been an acceptable compromise, but no, not for you. You want the licensing in the FUR where it does not belong (and no courtesy link to the license, which is a common courtesy), which is why there is not a field for listing any additional copyrights except using a generic field. Just look at the title for the FUR: "Non-free media use rationale for Wilsonville Spokesman". My copyright applies to more than just that article, but the FUR only relates to the use on that article. Which is part of my problem with having it there, as it buries it and makes is much less likely someone will see it and respect my copyright/license. And as to games, why on earth would you strike out something, just delete it before hitting submit, otherwise you are writing something you want people to read, but are I guess trying to play some sort of game. And to answer the crossed out question, my rights were represented by the license you removed, thus I didn't ignore my rights, but you did violate them as the CC licenses (or at least the 3.0) require either the actual full license be listed or at least the "Uniform Resource Identifier". With ignoring questions, I still haven't received an answer to where there is some text of some policy that discusses the inability to have free and un-free licensing on Wikipedia (the assertion of the originator of this thread), which your work here demonstrates there is no such rule. We may need them to be in separate categories, but that is not a licensing issue, that is a template and category issue easily resolved in the method I resolved it in this image, with an otherwise similar template that does not add the image to a free category. And lastly, this is about copyright, something created only by law, thus get use to legalese. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "My associate's" edits have nothing to do with me. If you have issue with them, contact him. You were being dramatic by trying to paint yourself as defending the rights of copyright holders. You're not some kind of hero. There is a "further information", an "author" and a "source" section on Template:Non-free use rationale- all of these are perfectly apt for discussing various authorships and copyrights affecting the image. As for it not applying to only that article- no, neither does the source, or the description of the image- that's why, when there are multiple non-free use rationales, people sometimes use Template:Non-free image data in addition to the rationale itself. Use that, if you like. Hell, write about your CC licensing outside the rationale if you like. Whatever. You know precisely why I struck out that line, so, again, let's drop the games. I'm not going to link you to text that happens to be tagged "policy" that mentions this exact situation because we're not a courtroom. I could just as easily challenge you to find a policy that says that an image should have both, but I'm not going to bother doing that, as I know there isn't one. And no, drop the legalese. This isn't a court. If you want to make a legal threat, make it. If you do not, let's discuss this like real people, shall we? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you (and everybody else here) essentially agrees about the underlying facts, with perhaps a few minor issues; but you're both talking to each other as though the other one doesn't know anything.
 * Is it possible to move the discussion away from who does and doesn't know what, and the nature of one another's approach to the discussion? We have two longtime contributors here, both of whom have contributed enormously to the project; let's aim to get back to a place where we're all building the encyclopedia, rather than yelling at each other, ok?
 * It seems likely that there is a specific outcome in here that would be acceptable to everyone. Let's make a bullet list of the issues that must be addressed, and see if we can move toward an acceptable resolution.
 * One party asserts that the image should carry two separate tags, reflecting the two different copyright holders' interests in the image. The other party asserts that both issues should be reflected within the non-free use rationale. From my perspective, either one could work; there is no "wrong" here. I'd suggest we leave this issue for last, and address the smaller component issues first.
 * One party (the copyright holder) asserts that the license under which he's releasing his intellectual property must be linked from the image page. and also would like to have a relatively thorough description of the license. This could likely be accommodated either within, or separate from, the NFUR. We've seen an example of how it might look separately; can we maybe also have a look at what a complete representation of the license would look like within the NFUR?
 * …other issues?

-Pete (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pete, it's nice of you to try, but J Milburn still hasn't indicated what is wrong with this version he reverted which was a valid compromise since it addressed his only issue, the free categories. He even above said "Hell, write about your CC licensing outside the rationale if you like", which that version did, so until he explains what the problem was, including why correct changes to the FUR were reverted, I have nothing more to discuss. And I have no idea why he would in essence dare me to make a legal threat or somehow imply I am not a real person (or perhaps it is an implication I may be immature). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aboutmovies, you're getting incredibly concerned about the specific word of policy. I haven't memorised policies, and I've got no interest in doing so. These copyright tags exist to indicate the license of the image- this image cannot be treated as free, which is what that image implies. Instead, it must be treated as non-free. The fact that it is not tagged with that license does not mean that that license has no bearing on the image. Compare to this example- an image of a sculpture from several centuries ago may be released under CC-by-3.0. This does not mean that the statue itself is not PD, but we do not bother listing that as a copyright tag- instead, we list the CC license. This is because the CC license is more restrictive than the PD one, and so this is the one with which we are concerned. Here, the non-free license is far more restrictive than the CC one, so we tag it with the non-free one, but mention the CC one. Using both is confusing at best, deceptive at worst. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * J Milburn, the most recent, and concise message from Aboutmovies contains no mention of policy. I'm going to ignore your characterizations of his approach, because I can't imagine what good will come of that line of discussion.
 * Aboutmovies asked what problem you had with his most recent rendition of the tags. There are two bits of explanation you have provided:
 * Your edit summary: "This image is non-free. Please treat it as such."
 * Your statement above: "Using both is confusing at best, deceptive at worst."
 * So, trying to be sure I understand you right: is it your position that having two sections (one relating to the reproduction of the newspaper, and the other relating to the remainder of the image) is inherently confusing to the reader?
 * I'll leave aside my thoughts on that for the moment -- I want to at least be sure we understand what your position is. -Pete (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. These tags exist to tell other editors and potential reusers under what terms the image can be used. This one cannot be reused under a CC license, as it is partially non-free. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to your contention that it cannot be re-used under a CC license, that is simply false. Anyone else can use the non-free portions just as Wikipedia has done, through a claim of fair use in jurisdictions where that exists. The CC part can then also be used under the CC license, or they could even attempt a fair use claim on that part as well. But that is not for us to worry about, only the re-users problem. Also, do you find it confusing, possibly deceptive, that every page on Wikipedia says: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." It doesn't mention there that the images may have different licensing, which is why I can find plenty of copyright violations of my work across the web where people have failed to attribute my work properly, as they just assume everything on Wikipedia is "free". Again, that's part of the reason I want it more prominent, to ensure they understand the entire copyright status. For one thing, if someone went in and Photoshopped out the non-free portion, then the image would be entirely free, and could be used as such without any fair use claim, but they would need to follow the rules of the CC license. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, feel free to remove the non-free aspects and then upload it under CC purely. I'm not quite sure I see your point here. As you say, if someone else misuses it elsewhere, that's an issue between them and the copyright holder. Not any of my business, not the business of Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should do that, as the non-free portion assists with the article on Wikipedia. But, if someone else what's to use the image outside of Wikipedia for something else, say they want to Photoshop in their own newspaper as a gag, then they are free to do so under the CC license, and that would not violate any copyright belonging to the "unfree" portion. But if they fail to abide by the CC license, then they would violate my copyright of the "free" portion. As to the rest of your message I have to say WTF!? Your argument above has sure seemed to be about other re-users "These tags exist to tell other editors and potential reusers". And before that categories. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The tags are partially there for that, yes, but it's not a great concern. They are primarily there to tell other editors the status of the image. As far as we (Wikipedia) are concerned, the image is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Help on contributions
Hi! And Happy New Year! I write to you as you gave me the welcome here in Wikipedia some time ago. Recently, and administrator tagged some of my contributions with "The verifiability of all or part of this article is disputed." He argues in both articles that there is little or none information online regarding the topics, but surprisingly, he missed to check Google Books. I wrote him explaining this politely but he never replied, which I think it is irresponsable as he must stand by what he claims. I contacted another member for guidelines to "improve or fix" the problem, but he was a bit rough. I'm not interest in starting a dreadful dispute or something alike, I like peaceful resolutions, so I'm contacting you for suggestions to follow. I'm open to it. The entries with problems are this (1) and this (2). In the talk page, you can read the claims. My response (though I apologize it was long, never to happen again) you can read here (Talk) under the headline "Contributions" at the end of the page. Hope you can give advice, that's all I'm asking, not to have you on my side or things like that as people can think. AcademieIT (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PrecisionCastlogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:PrecisionCastlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Thiry (architect)
I added a nice photo you took to the article. A few more good photos of his projects would be good. Some of his buildings have been changed a lot over time though, so hopefully there are some good examples. I should see if there's something of the stadium he designed for the World's Fair (Expo), or whatever it was called, that's out there. Anyway, nice shot. Take care. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad to see the image get used somewhere. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Blooming architecture
So can you tell is this (nice pic by the way) a really bad remodel with the bones of the 1920s church in there somewhere, or is the old part of the church back there to the left (the white part)? Katr67 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the brick church is new, as it doesn't look that old, especially with the cement blocks at the base. Reminds me a bit of a fancy Costco. Plus, in addition to the white parts you see, there were separate white buildings to the right that were the school, and most of those all looked like they could have been from the 1920s. Bad remodel on those too with the metal roofs. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah the roof makes it look like a fire station or something. Speaking of which...this awesome looking one, must be this one. Also listed here at 510 NW 3rd. I think it's outside the hist dist. I keep finding references to a Tribe Theater and Art Gallery at that address, but they don't seem to have a website... I couldn't really find anything else. I suppose the railroad or ODOT owns the building which means it may or may not have a future. Katr67 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! That building is familiar. User:Tamarino84 says "I wanna live there!". The address (3rd/Glisan) is correct, it's next to Union Station and on the new (as of this year) MAX lines, so we keep seeing it. tedder (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was driving by one day and was stopped at the light for the MAX and figured it might be NRHP and was likely an old fire station, but never found out much about it. Good to know it was a fire station and that it is at least PDX historic. Just wish I had a real camera with me that day instead of just my cell phone. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no idea it was a firehouse either, just that it had a lot of character. If one of you create the article, I'll get the pic before it goes through DYK. Okay? tedder (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's NRHP, alas, though having it documented in the SHPO database shows that someone thought it was worthy of preservation. But I suspect it's just going to sit there until it's too late. The minute you hear of a preservation effort, I'll get right on an article. BTW an old friend started a facebook group to save the Fireman's memorial on Burnside @...20-somethingth?...I only lived by there 23 years ago...ouch. Anyway, I didn't know it was endangered and being facebook, I happily joined the group without actually finding out anything, but since you're both into cool old stuff maybe you want to check it out. Katr67 (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Mathisen
Just wondering why you put up the needs citations for varification and notability guideline for biographies note to the Mike Mathisen page. Granted the page is just a stub but everything on the page is well documented and cited. I'm not seeing what needs further citation. Let me know. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the sources. Not all sources are created equal. Two of them are his campaign website, which means no notability conferred from those. The first source is a press release from him, so again no notability conferred. The CASA one does not mention him, so ditto. That leaves the Mapes on Politics item, which gives little coverage. So all in all, there is no notability, and there likely will not be with politicians who have never held office or even won a primary. Maybe as it gets closer to the primary there will be more substantial coverage in reliable sources so he will meet WP:BIO, but more than likely he would at least need to win his primary to even get that amount of coverage. Now, if he wins the seat in November, POLITICIAN would apply and he meets notability, but there is a long way to go. And until then, relying almost entirely on primary sources that are not independent of the source not only means he fails BIO, but it also creates issues with adhering to the WP:NPOV, which is part of the reason for having BIO/NOTE in the first place. If you can find more coverage in reliable sources such as newspaper, feel free to re-source and expand what is there. Hope this helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points. I was thinking that a campaign website had credibility but I guess he could say that he was once the King of England on a campaign site if he wanted to. I'll keep an eye out for better sources.Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That and if a politician (not saying anything about this guy as I don't know anything about him) was sent to jail for DUI or failed to pay their back taxes or was fired from there job with the government for taking bribes, etc., then they might not put that information on their campaign site. You might try a Google News search or look through the Eastern Oregonian as they are more likely to cover the race than The Oregonian. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added what I am hoping are better sources for this article and deleted some of the information that was unverifiable. I did leave the bit about his work as a CASA and the info about his family but added that these pieces are only claimed by his website. Since your the one who put up the banners and also know more about this sort of thing than me, I though I'd run these by you and see if you feel they meet the criteria. Just so you know I don't know this guy either, nor do I live in his district. I have no political motives for creating this page. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The new sources are a little better, but still have some problems. The SOS source is a primary source, and these do not confer notability. The book seller website does confirm he is an author, but the coverage is trivial and since it is selling his book there is the argument that it is thus not independent of the subject. So far, there just doesn't appear to be enough to establish notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm open to just scrapping the page altogether if the sources don't work. I get annoyed by the lack of quality sources on wikipedia and the last thing I want to do is contribute to the problem. This guy is a minor candidate and if the page is deleted I doubt anyone would really care. If he gets elected then a new page can be created. What do you think? Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you haven't found anything else, then scrapping it for now is probably best. You can have it speedy deleted, I think this is the right one, and then have an admin move into your userspace so you have the original to work from if better sources come up. Perhaps after the primary more sources will be out there if he wins. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

null edit
Yeah, sort of the definition of a null edit, eh? I know it came from a script (or I think it did), it's just funny. tedder (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was odd it didn't do an edit conflict. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to derive
I exchanged some Flickr messages with the photographer; he's happy to change the license on other photos too if there are desirable ones. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I never heard from Paulus, so this is great. I'll get to some cropping and uploading later. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to see that one illustrated at last! Good find. -Pete (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for an editor for BG News
Hi,

I saw you are the last to edit The BG News page. I know nothing of editing Wiki articles. Can you help? If you don't have time, where should I look for someone who would? Thanks.

Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meancode (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New category
I need the new category "Category:Silesian politicians", next to Category:Basque politicians or Category:Flemish politicians. Please help me.--JosefKożdon (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone else created the category, so you should be good. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--JosefKożdon (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up
Thanks for the award and encouragement. I haven't done much lately for COTW, not because of flagging interest but because Wikipedia offers so many enticing things to do. One pile of things (McNary, Morse, five houses in Washington County that need photos, several hundred streams that need TLC, etc., etc.) is growing bigger. That pile is but one among many. I love it. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. The more you do, the more you things you want to do. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome. Usually I write in wiki in spanish, but every so often I come round here to correct a link or whatever. Maybe I should start to do something here abouts, as some of the spanish articles are very good indeed and wiki in English might benefit from at least some of that info. At the moment and for some months I got a bee in my bonnet re "common goods" and am getting round it rather slowly. cheers: Lnegro (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks again for all the assessing of articles you did! all the NAIA schools are tagged, so that should be it! Thanks again! Moonraker0022 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Did You Know question
Hello! Your submission of One Main Place (Portland, Oregon) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals for others.) Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whole Hogg
Thanks for all your offline contributions to the Hogg man. I added some of the scandalous intrigue to the article but the story gets weirder. According to this detailed but unreliable source, after Hogg's death, his lawyer, Schuyler Colfax Spencer, not only married his widow, but then tried to kill her on November 11, 1920. He failed, but succeeded on himself. If you, or any of your talk page stalkers can dig up some RSs, it's a nice coda.

Not only that, but it ties into one of my original WP:ORE obsessions, Maurice Crumpacker. According to the records of the Portland law firm Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt (hi, Wendell!), Spencer was one of its founders and grew up in Valparaiso, Indiana--same home town as Maurice, and he "studied law" in the offices of the Crumpackers. Doesn't say which one, but I'm sure he knew old Mo. Wonder if the same guys who pushed Crumpacker in SF Bay really pulled the trigger on Schuyler. I blame, of course, Aunt Betty.
 * I sent you a more RS covering the affair, along with an earlier "poisoning" of Spencer (turns out it was the crabs). And it looks like your boy was a pallbearer for Spencer. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. You just can't make this stuff up. As I'm sure you picked up on, Crumpacker claimed to be poisoned too, leading to his so-called madness. I can't wait for the definitive Oregon Encyclopedia account of all this. --Esprqii (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Murder! Corruption! Scandal! Yay! FWIW, I've deemed that detailed but unreliable source "reliable-ish". Most of their info on p.o.s is pretty much verbatim from OGN and I haven't found anything contradicted elsewhere. (OGN is another matter entirely.) I think they are more or less an aggregator of other sources, if only we knew what those sources were. So I think it's OK to use the good Rev. as a tertiary source until a better one comes along. Katr67 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur on the reliableishness. Why can't people at least provide a handy list of the books/articles they looked at and help the world be a better place? --Esprqii (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the COTW thumbs-up. I thought this round was especially fun because so many editors contributed. I didn't figure out until reading your note that Ipoellet is Werewombat (an unforgettable name). Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cowlitz County Deserves Better
Will you please delete the notability box? The group's been very active and that's reflected in the daily newspaper. I sourced it. Thanks.Steelhead40 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You added one new source. And that source is not about this group at all, and only mentions the group in one sentence, that's it. As I explained previously on the article's talk page, this type of coverage does little to confer notability. As in if this group was truly notable by Wikipedia standards (see the guideline here for organizations) then The Daily News would write an article all about this group covering things like when and who founded it and what all its goals and activities are. Not just mention they passed out fliers. So until the group meets the notability guidelines, the "box" (we tend to call them tags on Wikipedia) needs to remain. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bela S. Huntington
Hi! You put a picture of the named person to Commons. What do we know about him, i mean, I search all the web to find out, when was he representative. what do you know about him? I made this, but even we don't know his death date and place... --Eino81 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you live in Oregon? Do you know any source in a local library, where the exact death date and place in mentioned? --Eino81 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I put the ready article to the article space: Bela S. Huntington. Have a nice day! --Eino81 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking for guidance
Thanks for adding the note to Tears Run Rings. After reviewing the notability guidelines I've added a few additional secondary source references. If you have a moment to review and add feedback I'd appreciate the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioblique (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The main musician criteria is at WP:BAND, and so far the article doesn't meet those criteria. So, basically, you will have to demonstrate the notability through reliable sources (think magazines and mainstream newspapers) that are independent of the band/label (as in their website or that of the label don't work) and that provide substantial coverage of the group. As in ref#1 & 6 are trivial references, basically phonebook entries and a list of tracks. Ref#2 is about the band member, and thus does little for notability of the band. Ref#3 & 4 are from the labels and thus not independent, thus no notability conferred, and same with #8. The one good source is #7, but it is very little coverage. What you will want to look for are magazine stories and newspaper articles, which for Portland would include The Oregonian and Willamette Week, but also try similar papers for the other cities the group has been based out of. Hope this helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

200 DYK Medal

 * Woo hoo! Katr67 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WOW -- big congrats!! -Pete (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stream cats and congrats
Sorry you had to change all those cats from County X to Geography of County X. I usually decide on cats by imitating, so at least I was consistent. If something else like this comes up in the future, I'd be glad to help. Congrats, by the way, on that truly impressive 200 DYK medal. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, none (except one) of the Geography of County X categories existed prior to a week or so ago. And the ones with county categories were the easy ones, the ones without I often had to look up in GNIS to figure it out. As to help, thanks for the offer, but sometimes I like these relatively brainless, non-controversial, non-stress inducing, repetitive tasks. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. My comfort-zone fallback is to create a geobox or infobox, especially when there's already a handy photo. They look nice, don't require much thinking (after the first 10 or so), and don't seem to annoy anyone. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Oregon location map
The current map used by Template:Location map USA Oregon is File:Oregon Locator Map with US.PNG. I've thought for a long time that this map is just too tall to use in infoboxes and that that File:Oregon Locator Map.PNG would be more appropriate. I know that you actively edit articles concerning the state. Would you be supportive of the change and is there a forum where this could be discussed by Oregon editors.

P.S. There would be minor technical matters that would have to be addressed (namely making sure that the boarder coordinates correct) but this is not a serious obstacle and I could take care of that detail. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  01:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can post a note to WikiProject Oregon of course. Katr67 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving discussion to WikiProject Oregon – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  02:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a Life is Needed
Come on! Do you just hang around Wikipedia, like a vulture, waiting for someone to finish a page, just so you can go in an vandalize it? I do not appreciate the gutting you did to the article I created on H. Wayne Holm, before I even had an opportunity to come back and finish the article. This is an issue of great importance to me, and your immediate intervention leads me to believe that you may in league with those who want this issue covered up. You would do well not to do anything to further that impression, because I promise you that EVERYONE involved in that cover-up, is going to to end up in prison! Word to the wise cowboy. JazzCarnival (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi JazzCarnival. I'd like to point out that you are being rather uncivil and your implications and accusations above border on a personal attack. Neither of these things are encouraged on Wikipedia, and they certainly aren't going to win you any friends around here. You should not take the fact that Aboutmovies removed some unsourced information from the article you created personally. As for his "immediate intervention", note the message below the edit summary box: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you feel the article is unfinished, it might be better for you to work on it in your userspace. Let me know if you need help with that. We have very strict standards about unsourced info about living people and that's what Aboutmovies was concerned about. It is to protect Wikipedia from legal action, among other things. Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that because of conflict of interest it is usually wise to refrain from writing articles on things about which you feel passionate. I'd suggest you also go get some other opinions on this matter. Here is a place to start. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * JazzCarnival, I will continue to edit as I wish, and trying to threaten me with implications of prison will get you nowhere, well except blocked if you do it again (that's your one warning for your entire personal attack that includes your section header). Anytime, and I mean anytime, you or anyone else adds unsourced (or poorly sourced) controversial information about a living person I will remove it on sight (Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.), as will many people, no matter what article it is in (note I did the same thing concerning Greg Oden and his recent picture problem, even though it was all over the news). That's because (as Katr points out) we have a very strong policy against that . So word to the wise cowboy, source it next time. As to the big conspiracy you see, I could care less about something that happened when I was in junior high. Though I would note that I find the header you left rather ironic in light of something that is more than 20 years old, yet a small group of people seem to be still obsessed with it. But to each his/her own. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment of University of Colorado Denver
Hello, Aboutmovies. I noticed that you had assessed the University of Colorado Denver article in 2008, and given it a C-grade. It would be great if you could reassess the article, if time permits, of course. I've made quite a few substantial changes to it, and have nominated it for a GA-rating. Thank you. Bobfreshwater (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Main page
Thought you might like to know that Columbia Slough will be the main page featured article on Feb. 23. Finetooth (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats and hope the vandals stay away. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with Frederick Buechner peer review?
Hello, Aboutmovies. I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at the Frederick Buechner biography? I've done a lot of work on it and would love a peer review if you have time. Thanks! (Godric1234 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

GA reassessmnet of Willamette University College of Law
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA  Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Willamette University College of Law/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

COTW Distribution
Haven't got COTW notice since late Jan when Wiki-Oregon team did Just Out and Terrell Brandon. Would you check to be sure I'm still on distribution list--thanks! Also, just saw that you have earned 200 DYK award--that's outstanding...congratulations! Am working toward 100, but still have ways to go. Finally, if you're doing any assessment work, have posted Tiller Ranger Station article and it needs review. ...200 DYK...wow!--Orygun (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood
Can you check out more information at discussion page for my 4ggmother. There had been new information shedding light on the birthdate. Samuelsenwd (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Less forgiving than Darth Vader?


 * It was inappropriate to suggest that Samuelsenwd get only one warning. What he said, while perhaps enough to make you reactive, was not all that offensive or over the line. Ryoung 122 06:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the upteenth time, learn how to format your threads on talk pages, read WP:TALK. It really isn't that difficult to add : before each line. Next, we only give one warning for personal attacks. In fact, perhaps take more time to read about Wikipedia and what we do, and maybe you will have less problems with the community that bubble up all the time on your talk page. You've been long-term blocked before, and continuing your behaviors will not make things easier for you. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1995 Cotton Bowl Infobox
Thank you for fixing the infobox after I spent two frustrating hours on it. I intend to create a few other college bowl pages. Can you PLEASE tell me what I was doing wrong? I couldn't find a single thing different from the 2008 Sugar Bowl and 1996 Rose Bowl pages; in fact I copied and pasted both of them. Can you tell me your secret? I'd be eternally grateful!

QuarterbackSneak (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

okay, fess up
Where are you getting the full school names from? I haven't researched them beyond that one article. Yet. tedder (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the whole every hs in Portland is named after a president thing, but I just Google searched the name and found a FaceBook page for Jackson (where I also found the mascot name), and a memorial site for Adams which includes some interesting things. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Maybe one day I'll punch the pages out, but I didn't bother looking for any more information. tedder (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions
I have recetly noiced that my signature has not been working properly. I know you are to u four tildes(~) but when I do it, you can't click my name. Please help me. Antoinefcb 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

boundless spamming
I'm bothered by this spamming too, but I tend to think boundless is okay, even if the method/editor is questionable. Wondering what your thoughts are. It's too bad a public resource isn't freely available to put on commons :-/ tedder (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, I find Boundless Oregon a good source and will occasionally use it as a source/EL, but I don't add just a link to the main Boundless Oregon page. That itself fails EL parts 9 & 13, and the method fails part 4. If the Boundless Oregon people wanted to work with Wikipedia to add relevant links in articles, great, but so far their approach has been spam it wherever. And the UO Libraries people have done it with the NWA Digital Archives links before too. So they've been warned before, but apparently they have their agenda and don't see a need to work within Wikipedia, which makes them an SPA, and I have little respect for SPA spammers. Lastly, if they add an actual relevant link (say to the Portland City Hall article with a link to their Portland City Hall content) then I would likely leave it. So those are my thoughts. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I link to Boundless all the time as it is a good resource, but consistently revert the UO IP that adds links to it. If the IP would communicate, or gosh, even contribute content, I might soften my stance, but like AM, I believe SPA + COI spell R-E-V-E-R-T. Katr67 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me, thanks both of you. I just needed a little more rationale than I could imply from the edit summaries. tedder (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, here's a little linksearch I use once in awhile: Special:Linksearch/*.boundless.uoregon.edu. I think most of the ones linked now (especially those godawful long urls) were added by me, or they are on talk pages. I generally title them as "*[http blah blah.edu (Historic) Images of Foo] from the University of Oregon digital archives", which I think is good enough. (As you've probably noticed, I like to put the source of el in its description. But it should be short and sweet.) The thing I have a problem with the the tiny little advertisement the IP adds when it spams a link. Tedder maybe you could try to do some outreach, as all I ever feel like doing is templating. You could get the Pete Forsyth Outreach Award™ or something if you could get them to talk. :) Katr67 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Left about 1/4 of a PeteForsyth on the IP's talk page: User talk:128.223.120.178 tedder (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Waldo (disambiguation)
Hello, justto let you know that this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

VanOrman
Hey, Full Disclosure I work for Representative VanOrman and have edited her page. I have only made minor corrections and formatting stuff. I can providea more recent picture of her. Would you update it if I did? Daniel Miller danieladammiller@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.142.189 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Savannah Outen
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Savannah Outen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Savannah Outen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

arrrth day
Are you sure I wasn't talking about Oregon's own International Talk Like a Pirate Day? (in other words, thanks for the fix) tedder (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Importance M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath article
Hi. I see that you had rated the abovementioned article as low on the importance scale on 13:47, July 31, 2009. The MC Mehta case is a widely reported case law as it introduced the concept of public trust doctrine in Indian jurisprudence. (See Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz;Oxford University Press; ISBN: 9780195661736) Therefore I am suggesting that the article be placed in the high category. Thank you. Nilotpal42 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the importance rating really means very little. It is only a rough determination of the importance of a topic to that specific Wikipedia project, and rarely is actually used for anything. Some projects do not even use it. In any case, how important is a case that is limited to a single country within a world-wide project? Further, the case is environmental law, so it would make it even more obscure compared to more mainstream areas of the law such as civil rights, torts, contracts, property law, or other areas of the law usually covered in most law schools during the first year. Nonetheless, I almost always rate a case as low importance no matter what country, because its precedential value is usually limited to that country. The exceptions usually are old English cases that are often cited or taught in many common law countries (that is as someone in the US, if an English case was in one of my textbooks I might bump it up to Mid). But higher ratings are usually for more universal concepts that cross jurisdictional boundaries, things like constitutional law, torts, contracts. Now if this was the Indian Law WikiProject or Indian WikiProject I would agree it would rate higher, but for the much broader Law WikiProject is not as important. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

law article access and summary
Can you access this or some version of it? If not, I'll dig and see if I can. I'm wondering if there is anything useful for my Wheeldon Apartments page. It's shy of a DYK. tedder (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to it online. Going by the little info in your link, it's likely not to have too much, but if you want it is at the Mult. Co central library. The legal citation is: 153 Or. 19. All that means is it is in the Oregon Reports (the Or.) in volume 153, page 19. Your county law library likely has these as well, though their website is horrible. If you can't get to it tomorrow, let me know as I might have time on Friday to get it at the Washington County Law Library. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wander down to MultCoLib tomorrow or Friday. Thanks! tedder (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, went to MultCo today (just now!) and pulled that legal summary. Seems to be some sort of trust or loan gone bad, secured partially by the Admiral Apartments, but .. really, I'm smartish and I can't figure out much else. I copied it and will scan the pages in tonight. If I email it to you, can you parse through it soon enough to add it for a DYK? tedder (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Weidler mug
Thanks for finding and posting that image; I just saw it. It's the same image that appears in MacColl's Money, Merchants, and Power. Here's a question for you. If I can scan and Photoshop the MacColl version of the image (and if it looks any better), can I upload it to the Commons under the same license (another version of the same thing, in other words). What I'm getting at is if an image was published pre-1923 in the newspaper, can the newspaper be listed as the source even if the scan comes from a different source? I ask because if I attribute the scan to the MacColl source, it will seem to be post-1923 and not acceptable. Finetooth (talk)
 * Yes you can. Just be sure to mention the source you are using, the tag I linked to, and that it was published in the Oregonian on whatever date I put. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. The image is much better, but I'm not sure I got the license data just right. I made a typo when entering the page number in MacColl's book. It's 228, not 114 (which is the image number), but the Comment section of the form on the Commons doesn't seem to be editable. If you see anything else amiss, please let me know, because this technique looks very handy indeed. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements. I'll just imitate what you did when I do another one like this. Finetooth (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much
I was trying to figure out how to add the Green Peter Dam article to the list of dams in Oregon. Thanks so much for the help. Savie Kumara (and Nini Kastoa) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Building Oregon
Thanks for your help with some of the Oregon architect articles I've been creating. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for the welcome message. I only just saw it! :) --Sanjay (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paulis.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Paulis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

another of your photos

 * http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2010/03/oregon_institute_of_technology.html

Nice. tedder (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very cool. And the citation is awesome. (but Wikimedia, not 'pedia? Typo or intentional?) I have to go get a raunchy username and take lots of valuable photographs. "Image by Hairy Nipples on Wikipedia." --Esprqii (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Guessing the picture is from Wikimedia Commons, hence that. But yeah, "Hairy Nipples" can be your nickname if you'd like. I like "Harry Seaword" because it's more of a spoken joke. tedder (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, he's used that pic a couple times now, and plenty of others of mine too. But my new personal favorite pic of mine is this one. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a nice pic. I'd like to pass on the nickname. It was only a model anyway and not descriptive...oh, where's Katr to moderate when you need her? --Esprqii (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fosbury claims to have learned the scissor technique before the Straddle
Hey, I`m not sure if this is the correct place, but in this interview Fosbury claims to have leaned the scissors first, then his high school coached said he would be limiting himself if he didn`t switch to the Straddle, that`s when he had trouble and had to switch back.

From:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=298ntjQb0Oo

(Alex) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.200.172 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you are contacting me about Dick Fosbury, or what the above has to do with the article, but the proper venue is that article's talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oregon population number
Hi, Aboutmovies, Katr67 and Tedder, It's Ross Degenstein. List of cities in Oregon in 1970-2008 Today I edited in edit But, I cannot edit in any Oregon. Katr67 said no. Tedder blocked me 3 months ago. Ross Degenstein (talk) 96.3.201.230 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

need a legal mind
this edit. I'm AGF, but the summary of the case could use an accurate translation. tedder (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the case yet, but that is a rather serious BLP violation, so I reverted. I'll look at the case later and see what it says, but I doubt it covers anything the BLP-POV pusher wrote. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I actually misread that as basically "the judge revealed that Sizemore's son.." which is why I didn't catch it. tedder (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CSd Declined of Political Sex scandals of the United States
Hi! I've declined the speedy deletion of the article Political Sex scandals of the United States as it was not an attack page. It is a split off from Political scandals of the United States. If there is something in the page that you object to, I would suggest you discuss it on the article's talk page. Stephen! Coming... 13:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, if the information is true and well referenced, how can it be an attack? I'm working on more references, but it will take awhile.  By the way.  What does "Reexists" mean?  richrakh````


 * Following our chat, I have raised the issue of attack pages and warnings at CSD. I have listed what I see as the problem, and how I think it could be resolved.  If you have any thoughts on it, please come on over and add them.  Thank you Stephen! Coming... 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kamm
I guess Jacob Kamm was taking the same hypnosis correspondence course as Governor Benson... --Esprqii (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * scratches head.. wait, what? What's this about? tedder (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that discussion must've been before your time, young man... --Esprqii (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are my glasses and dentures, I've got to get to Dennys for the early bird!? Aboutmovies (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Coincidence or small state
You edited my uncle's page, Ted Newsom.

Also, you went to Hill High. Did you know Tadd Reaney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelarken (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems I did edit Ted Newsom almost 2 years ago. But, no I didn't know Tadd Reaney. It looks like he was a couple years ahead of me. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File:OregonProvSeal.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OregonProvSeal.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:OregonProvSeal.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OregonProvSeal.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Culture of Salem, Oregon
Very funny. Katr67 (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They may not have much, and it may not be original or unique, but it is a whole lot more/better than what Wilsonville had. And besides, I think only Portland has more NRHP listings, and aren't old buildings like culture or something? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Spangler
You tagged my new article, stating that specific concerns about the article would be placed in the talk page. But the only thing you placed in the talk page was about Project Oregon. You did not specify what you objected to, nor did you make any effort to fix the problem. So what's the problem?Trackinfo (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Haswell
What would you think of sidestepping the issue by replacing the image entirely? As I understand the policy given at When to use the PD-Art tag the portrait of Robert Haswell found here:

http://roberthaswell.net/expeditionsportrait.html

should be in the public domain, and available for the Robert Haswell page. If you read it the same way, it seems better than a non-contemporary tombstone, whatever the size. If you agree, I would encourage the change (not that you need my permission). I will look for other possibilities as well, such as Haswell's own drawings of the Columbia. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the Warm Welcome
Thanks very much for extending a warm welcome into the wiki family !!! I have lots of ideas and articles in mind to upload on the wiki page as a knowledge reference to the world community in the field of indian music in particular. Looking forward to more regular contributions in the coming days...... Rajesh Chittor 17:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csriyer (talk • contribs)

Could you please discuss...
Rather than proding all those articles could you pause and discuss your concerns with me? Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District
Very nice work on creating Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District. I had been hoping that you, or another WikiProject Oregon participant would take this on sometime soon. It is clearly worthy of a DYK nomination. FYI, I'll probably now upload to Commons a photo I took last fall of the Sunset Swim Center (with THPRD logo clearly visible) as an example of an older facility run by the district (and one recently refurbished). Did you notice that whoever created the category for THPRD on Commons used "and", whereas you've used an ampersand for the article? As a result, the link to Commons at the foot of the article goes nowhere at present. For now, I've just changed the link in the article by piping it, but ideally (at some point) it would better to change the category in each of the handful of photos there to a (new) using-ampersand version and then redirect the then-empty current cat to the new one matching the name the article uses. (Were you able to follow that? I'm not sure I was.) Anyway, I was glad to see this, and it was a lot more than I'd been expecting to see at the start. SJ Morg (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and those were two things I planned on taking care of, just ran out of time this morning. The article has been nom'd at DYK, and a move request has been added to the Commons category to fix the inconsistency. Normally we avoid ampersands, which is why the other person went with that on Commons, but here the district uses it in their official title and a little bit of a majority of the media use it in the more recent sources. Now we just need some articles on the Terrping complex, the nature park, and probably the Conestoga center. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome message
Thanx for your welcome message and links! Good luck in your projects! --Yigor (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Spectrum Culture
greetings. I added the Spectrum Culture entry and see the comment about lack of notability. The site is a respected site across the internet, with references throughout the internet on both artist, fan, and other third-party sites.

Can you provide a bit more detail on what you feel should be included to establish notability?

Thanks for your time.

sincerely,

Walterrichards (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Walter
 * Going by the links provided in the article, there is nothing there to establish notability. The vast majority of the links are to the company's website, which does not confer notability. Notability in general on Wikipedia is covered at WP:NOTE, which better explains things than the "web content guideline" linked in the template added to the article. But, in a nutshell, you need third party sources covering the topic (here the company) in-depth. The less depth in a single article, the more articles you need.
 * So, going off what is in the article: The first three references are not independent, they are re-prints of the company's work, plus this would be what we call trivial coverage at best, since the topic covered is the item being reviewed and not the company. As in, we need sources talking about Spectrum Culture, telling us things like when they were founded, who owns them, who works there, and the other items needed to write an encyclopedic article about Spectrum Culture. From those first three sources we could basically write this: "Spectrum Culture is some sort of unknown media outlet that writes reviews about indie films, restaurants, and non-mainstream musicians." We wouldn't know if it is web outlet, someone's blog, a newspaper, a magazine, or even a TV show just from what is covered at those sites, let alone when it was founded, by whom, how many people work there, etc.
 * With the last few references, basically the same thing, there is either no mention of Spectrum Culture, or no real coverage of Spectrum Culture (in all honesty, doing a search for the name on those pages came up with nothing on the first one and only a search result on the second - with a link that went nowhere).
 * Thus, to get it where it needs to be, the easiest way is to add sources from regular media outlets. For a Portland based entity, you might try the local newspapers including The Oregonian, Portland Tribune, and Portland Business Journal; local TV stations; OPB; local magazine like Portland Monthly or Oregon Business magazine; or even alternative newspapers like Willamette Week or The Mercury. Then cast your net further for other media outlets across the globe. Just make sure they are providing coverage of Spectrum Culture. Lastly, no press releases or reprints of press releases. Hope this helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the inputs. I will work to improve the source material.

Walterrichards (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Walter

DYK nomination of The Valley Library
Hello! Your submission of The Valley Library at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Valley Library
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo Upload Question
Sorry to bother you, but I haven't uploaded logo before and I noticed you recently uploaded File:Hillsboro Symphony Orchestra logo.jpg. When I opened "edit" to review/capture rationale text for my upload job, there was lot of blank items. Looks like much of the text is standard part of logo upload templete with article title and source address as only varibles uploader needs to put in. Is that correct? If its complicated I'll be glad to go to Media Help Desk, but since I saw you upload thought I'd ask you first.--Orygun (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, almost all of it is blank and can be kept blank. When you do the "Upload file" and then "logo" option the only thing you absolutely need is the article title, but I also always add the URL source (or wherever I got it from). And that's it, everything else autofills from the template. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hillsboro Symphony Orchestra
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

University of Belgrade
Thanks for grading the University of Belgrade page, which I am currently developing. As an experienced Wikipedian can you give me some advice on how to improve it? I also understand I should provide more references. I am relatively new on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Comparativist1 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a whole lot! This was helpful. --Comparativist1 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

bio for you to check out
Curious about notability and if it applies to other projects you work with. Enjoy! tedder (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim Huffman
 * Yea, I saw that yesterday and didn't get back to it. He would come closest with WP:PROF as dean, but I think with his run for Congress he would meet BIO in general if someone were to source the articles announcing his run plus past news. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help. I am brazilian but want to contribute here in wiki in english. Sometimes I make mistakes and any advise will be helpful. A friend fixed some bugs in the article I created : Braz da Viola. He was very kind in doing this. Thanks a lot. Sincerelly yours. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hughes
Hi, I am the Tom Hughes about whom you have created a very complete wiki entry. It is very accurate and you keep it incredibly up to date. Hopwever, recently my place of birth was changed to LaGrande and it has me moving to Hillsboro in 1952. I was actually born in Hillsboro and we moved to a logging camp out side of LaGrande in 1943 then back to Hillsboro in 1952. I am not expert enough to change this, can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.136.193 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to contact your campaign about that, as the person who originally changed it to LaGrande says they are related to you. Could you do me a favor and use the "e-mail this user" option and send me an email so I can confirm you are Hughes? That option is located in the "toolbox" located on the left side of the screen, which opens up a standard email form like you would find on most websites. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Advertisement" Article Help
Can someone give me some advice on the "written like an advertisement" posting on my Sports Management Worldwide article? Not sure to what this refers to. Lisafenderson (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cancelled out duplication here; doing on user talk page.  Chzz  ►  06:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

John Craig (musician) - Notability Issue
Hi,

I have updated the John Criag (musician) page with further links and references to his accomplishments. It looks like you tagged the article for notability reasons back in January. With the new changes made, can you now reverse those tags so the notability disclaimer does not come up at the top of the page?

Thanks, RyanIntheband (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome
I'm kind of lost out here and you are the first human voice I have heard.. Looks like you are a star! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nconwaymicelli (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Official websites in EL section
I know that official websites are listed in infoboxes. But that's not where visitors look for external links. Moreoever, such a critically important link should be in a highly-visible and expected location. And in the vast majority of our articles, including college/university articles, have these links in the EL section; in fact, the College and university article guidelines require the link to be in that section.

So you can please discuss your actions, either with me or the Universities Wikiproject, before you continue to make edits that contravene the established guidelines? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Moreover, remember that WP:EL states that we should: "[I]nclude appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." Note that (a) the policy gives precedent to the EL section over infoboxes and (b) the clauses are linked by "and" indicating that we can places links in both sections. ElKevbo (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

DYK for Gilchrist State Forest
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome! Please help with the syntax and the grammar of El Gran Show: First Season (Dance). Thanks! Darkempiror (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Help! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkempiror (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Benny Beaver and AgntOrange
Would you have a look at the Benny Beaver article? AgntOrange is back, and has made a lot of changes and additions that really detract from the topic. Specifically, his Historical Connection section goes into minute detail about the fur trade in Oregon, which is unecessary in an article about a university mascot. He has even added a picture of Abraham Lincoln, presumably because he wore a beaver hat.

I have reverted his changes twice, but he has decided edit warring is the way to go, so I would appreciate your input before I revert again. If you think I am off-base on this, I will let it drop, but I think his changes are not germain to the topic, and really damage what was an informative article.--Edgewise (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

John Craig - Notability
Hi There,

I sent you a message on June 2nd regarding John Craig and your tag on his notability. Again, I have updated the page with more references and links to reviews, etc. If you can please undo the notability tag you put on the page that would be great.

Thank you, Ryan Intheband (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The article still lacks notability. See WP:BAND for the criteria, but in general you need third party (not really an issue in that article), reliable sources (not a particular issue for the article), that cover the subject in-depth (or substantial, etc). The last part is the problem. Craig is not even mentioned in most of the sources, thus those sources do not confer notability. The best source you have is the Portland Tribune one, but one with that little of coverage is hardly enough. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

List of counties in Oregon in July 1, 2009
Hi Tedder and Aboutmovies, I was here at the Grand Forks Public Library [STATION_1] for 1 hour.


 * 1. 726,855 Multnoham 1
 * 2. 537,318 Washington
 * 3. 386,143 Clackamas
 * 4. 351,109 Lane
 * 5. 317,981 Marion
 * 6. 201,286 Jackson
 * 7. 158,629 Deschutes
 * 8. 116,584 Linn
 * 9. 103,205 Douglas


 * 10. 99,037 Yamhill
 * 11. 82,605 Benton
 * 12. 81,026 Josephine
 * 13. 78,122 Polk
 * 14. 73,347 Umatilla
 * 15. 66,247 Klamath
 * 16. 62,795 Coos
 * 17. 49,592 Columbia
 * 18. 46,293 Lincoln


 * 19. 37,243 Clatsop
 * 20. 30,745 Malheur
 * 21. 25,038 Union
 * 22. 24,889 Tillamook
 * 23. 24,149 Wasco
 * 24. 22,566 Crook
 * 25. 21,883 Hood River
 * 26. 21,148 Curry
 * 27. 19,959 Jefferson


 * 28. 16,082 Baker
 * 29. 11,533 Morrow
 * 30. 7,089 Lake
 * 31. 6,889 Wallowa
 * 32. 6,795 Grant
 * 33. 6,756 Harney
 * 34. 1,711 Sherman
 * 35. 1,645 Gilliam
 * 36. 1,363 Wheeler

List of counties in Oregon

Changed population in July 1, 2009 Total population in State of Oregon in 2009!
 * 3,825,657 +35,597 increased up from 2008.
 * 2000 - 3,421,399
 * 2009 - 3,825,657
 * 2014 - 4,064,906


 * I used to lived in Portland, Oregon for 15 days in January, February and April 2009. I went to New Avenues for Youth Next, I will visit back to Portland in November 2010! What happened about User:Katr67 is last login in February 28, 2010... I don't know happened.

Have a good day! I have watchlisted Tedder and Aboutmovies. If you reply back me or here. Effective February 28, 2010: Typewriter #9821 Ross Degenstein I am 1,120 weeks old. I living in Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201. I am deaf. 165.234.184.69 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for ClearEdge Power
Hi Aboutmovies. I reviewed ClearEdge Power, an article you nominated for DYK. It looks like it's good to go, but I didn't think the image worked at a small resolution. Do you mind running it without the image? Cheers, Gobonobo  T C 04:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I only added it since it looked a little bare of free images in the older noms section. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for ClearEdge Power
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing an addition for "no ELs on dab pages"
On the wiki page for the WES acronym, you removed an instance of WES with the remarks: no ELs on dab pages and this would be the only redlink so bye bye

If I'm interpreting your abbreviations correctly, you're saying that there were no external links on the dis-ambiguous page. What do you mean? I had defined WES as the Wireless Enterprise Symposium and linked it to Research in Motions (RIM's) primary website which is www.attendwes.com. What more should there have been?

I don't think it was in the best interest of the community to remove that definition. Please explain your reasoning and/or what should have been done differently. Thanks.

157.130.35.50 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)gregofmd1


 * (I'm jumping in for Aboutmovies.) Disambiguation pages are explained at WP:DAB.  They are intended for navigating existing articles within Wikipedia, hence they may not contain external links.  AM's summary indicates that the external website does not have a Wikipedia article, so there's nothing to link the DAB entry to.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks EncMstr. Plus, the last part of my summary ("the only redlink") refers to the fact that we do not allow redlinks (i.e. this means there is no Wikipedia article) to be listed on DAB (disambiguation) pages unless there are incoming links that already exist for that redlink. As in, had another Wikipedia article already linked to "Wireless Enterprise Symposium", then that redlink could have stayed. But since the only link to that redlink (Wireless Enterprise Symposium) was the dab page, it had to go. And yes, we never do ELs (external links) on DAB pages, as the purpose of DAB pages is to get readers to the correct Wikipedia page, not direct people off site. Hope that helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It helps me understand, but it doesn't help anyone in the wireless community that hears about WES understand what that means. I guess they'll just have to use Google instead of Wiki to find out what WES means in the wireless industry.gregofmd1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Yes, they will, but since we don't have an article on it, they would have had to anyway. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy Woods (sic) page
I saw your tags on the Andy Woods page and did some basic cleanup. First, spelling his name right. ;) (It's now "Andy Wood (comedian)".) Worked on the tone, removed extraneous material and added a number of reliable secondary sources. Are you comfortable with it now?  I removed the tone tag before I thought to look up who added it, so heads up if you want to reinstate it (or I will if you prefer).  Are you comfortable with notability now?  I'm not sure what the protocol is for removing tags.  Thanks!  Mark Msalt (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The tone is definetly better, but the notability remains in question for Wood. It is getting better, but not quite there to be clear. Almost all the articles cited help establish notability for the festival, but much less so for him. The first source is the best one, as it covers him with some depth, but you need more like that. Basically you need third party sources (which is the majority of the current sources), that provide more than trivial coverage of him. As in more than a passing mention. Now it doesn't need to be exclusive, but we need to known about him, since it is his article, so we want biographical info, such as where he grew up, education, career, family, etc. Not just the comedy festival. For more details, see the guideline on notability for people. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a question
Thank you for your gracious welcome and for the helpful links. Regarding adding images: I've read that images are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons before being used in articles. In addition, I've been thinking about Creative Commons licence suggestions   Unfortunately I have no information on the mechanics of uploading images. If you have information to share or can point me in the right direction, I would be very grateful. Thanks again. Calogera (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

an apology
I owe you an apology for posting so hastily, because not two minutes after asking about the mechanics of uploading images, I found the upload link on the Wikimedia Commons page. Thanks for being there. Wish me luck. Calogera (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!
Just wanted to say THANK YOU for all the work you do for WikiProject Oregon. The Collaboration of the Week, keeping a record of the DYK hooks (I never have to add ones I submit to the list), editing, assessing articles, etc. Your hard work is noticed and greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, when will new collaborations be chosen? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!
 Hello Aboutmovies, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Aboutmovies! I hope you have a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Albany, Oregon
Hello Aboutmovies,

I have seen you edit on Albany, Oregon before and I am looking for so slightly more expert advice on what to do with it next, what I can do to improve it. I have added alot of material to it and need people to look it over and tell me what would make it better. I am still very new to the Wiki process and I think fresh eyes would help me make it a better article and maybe get it to B-Class.MathewDill (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marco A. Hernandez
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Electro Scientific Industries
I've now expanded the ESI article considerably, and although it definitely still needs work and more expansion, it's probably far enough long that it merits a DYK nom. The clock on that runs out in about 48 hours from now. I probably could have posted this on the article's talk page, but since Oregon DYKs are a specialty of yours (especially back when you had more free time than you evidently do nowadays!) and since you already posted a note there, I figured it would be OK to post this here, to be sure you saw it promptly. If you feel so inclined, you are welcome to submit a nomination yourself (although it would be nice if you requested credit be shared with me and the article's creator, EncMstr (and of course you as nominator under this scenario), considering that about 90% of the current content was added (today) by me. Not sure whether I'll have time to do any more expansion and (needed) organization (e.g. sections), logo, etc., but hopefully others will step up now. What do you think? SJ Morg (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply on my talk page (FYI, if you'd prefer to reply on your own talk page, it's OK with me; rest assured I'll be checking both when I ask you something). I've added a paragraph on the annexation stuff&mdash;which had occurred to me as a worthwhile topic to add, but I had saved almost nothing on it in my files, so I hoped others would have more info.&mdash;after I was able to find just enough free material to use for the citations. I don't have access to The Oregonian’s archives, and I see that online access to NewsBank has been dropped by Washington County libraries (when did that happen?). As I noted on the article's talk page, I wasn't sure where to place the new paragraph (in chronological order vs. by topic), but the article at some point will definitely need some additional subsections.  Maybe this para. could be its own little subsection, but I don't have any source to cite for why ESI (specifically) was opposed to being annexed, and it seems like we'd need that if we made this its own subsection. Can you suggest a hook for DYK?  Feel free to revise the text (and citation placements) to facilitate that if you want. SJ Morg (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out with this. It's looking better now.  The DYK nom wording is good (although I added a hyphen between "Oregon" and "based" just now).  Doubtful they'll use the picture, but you never know, so I suppose it was worth a shot including it with the nom. Maybe the mention of Nike in the hook will interest some DYK reviewer in giving it the top spot in the list (and therefore a photo). Did you intend to leave out "(pictured)" in the hook, assuming they were not likely to use the photo? (If so, probably a good call.) SJ Morg (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just forgot the pictured part, I'm a bit rusty these days with DYKs. Too much real life as they actually expect people to get jobs and pay back student loans. But I always add a pic if there is one, since sometimes they have nothing better, and I was hoping the Nike bit would help draw in some readers. It would have been better had there been something about sex, as that really draws readers in. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bond
two items: 1. Wikipedia uses surnames. 2. The website reference for his burial does not verify location of his grave. (Perhaps findagrave.com can help)--S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Have my recent edits helped?--S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to compose articles about the police officer or 2 ex-convicts in the Bond case, they are certainly welcome. Only I do not think they are notable.  Regarding one of the the dead links, I pursued it but it was not archived.  Hence deadlink applies. Since you've got the ABCF site figured out (which I could not), put it back in.  In the meantime, I did find Mr. Bond in the LA VA Cem and I did properly credit his war-time service.  (Indeed, your link to ABCF is more direct.)--S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the word ABCF used, expropriation. It sounds so innocent.--S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Electro Scientific Industries
 — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi Aboutmovies

Just a quick word to say thanks for the welcome message (and to try out my signature!) Caprenter (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit my username?
My username is really bothering me now. I want to change it from "Russ jericho" to "Russ Jericho", as this is my name and I should have an upper-case "J". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ jericho (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Oregon
As you have noticed, I am making lots of stubs of unincorporated communities in Oregon. I noticed you put the wikiproject oregon classifier on the talk pages of these stubs. I would be happy to add the classifier to the talk pages as i make the articles, if you would like. I just don't know if you need some sort of authority within the project to do that ( I'm not even a member). Please, let me know. --E♴ (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. And all of them would be Low for importance. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll start doing that from now on.E♴ (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

New Oregon Stubs
Since you have helped with the new oregon stubs I have been making, fixing errors and adding the wikiproject oregon classifier, I thought you should know that there is a discussion going on at wp:ore about the significance of these articles. --E♴ (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Solresol
Hey, Ansric, do you speak Solresol (still)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domisifado (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I don't even know what Solresol is? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing...you commented on his/her page and then I ended up following the link to here. Beg your pardon :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domisifado (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with cleaning up the article.
Appreciate it. Victorcmyk (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Victorcmyk

Sheridan
I noticed that you were a somewhat-recent major contributor to Sheridan, Oregon. Are there any major concerns lingering with this article before I send it up for GA review? Neonblak <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I didn't after the big expansion I did last August was that it needs a good copy edit. I was basically throwing-in as much information as I could find, but never went back to make sure all the sentences made sense and flowed together. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wallace Turner
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rodolph Crandall
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tx
For your uber-fast rating of the targeted killing article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

La Costa Canyon High School
You restored some vandalism on La Costa Canyon High School. Please self-revert. Goodvac  ( talk ) 06:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and reverted it.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 08:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the helpful welcome
First sign of life from anyone friendly in many years :) Tristan da cunha (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
You have rated many articles without any references or sources as start class articles. Those articles falls into stub category. 'Start' class article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and WP:BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. --> Gggh  talk/contribs 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, which interprets the "should" in the assessment criteria as just that, should and not must. Generally I agree that articles without sources are crap, but that does not always mean stub. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gggh, the following are the criteria we go by, according to WP:ORE/ASSESS. What you describe as Aboutmovies' approach to assessment seems to me to match this guideline pretty well:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. -Pete (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Betty Roberts entries
I am Betty Robert's daughter and the changes I made today in her wikipedia entry are to correct errors, as directed by her. The interview cited does not say that she worked at Shepherd Field (we have checked it). The book cited says she was the first to woman to run for governor, but that is not correct and the book does not cite reference. (She is contacting the author, since she knows him). The full court was not opposed to having a woman appointed, etc. etc. I don't know why you can choose to revert to the former factually incorrect version. Dian Odell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdodell (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dian, it's great to hear that you and Judge Roberts are taking this so seriously, contacting authors, etc. I want to speak up on Aboutmovies' behalf, just to give you a picture of how things often work here. It's a very common occurrence that knowledgable people would make factual changes to articles that either contradict, or simply go into more detail than, published sources. It's also a very common occurrence for people to make casual edits based on hearsay, or even to willfully publish misinformation. So without knowing your background or having anything to go on besides the sources he's found, it's a challenge for anybody here to evaluate edits like yours.
 * Aboutmovies is the most prolific author of your mother's biography here, and has put a great deal of work into it over a period of a couple of years (among numerous other articles). This work is difficult, as Oregon jurists -- even the most notable ones -- are often simply not covered very well in the kind of independent, reliable sources that we strive to base Wikipedia articles on.
 * While he certainly doesn't "own" the article, he has gone to great lengths to find the best available information about her. Most Wikipedians who have worked on an article like this will naturally feel a bit protective of it, wanting to ensure that it reflects the available sources as accurately as possible.
 * I trust that if you continue to seek out well-sourced information and engage in constructive dialogue about the article, you will come to a satisfactory conclusion. I look forward to reading the article again after you guys have had a chance to sort this out, I'm sure it will be a great improvement. -Pete (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To Allaboutmovies: (I am finding it very difficult to learn to navigate and use Wikipedia for comments and responses, so I hope this works.)


 * Your reference to Sheppard Field does match what it says in the oral interview, however we believe that the content as it reads is due to a transcription mistake, where two sentences or phrases were combined with a different result than intended by the speaker. As you likely know, and perhaps different from courtroom transcripts, oral historical interviews are transcribed not literally, but edited for readability (making complete sentences, removing all the “um’s” and fragments and start-overs).  Justice Roberts has a copy of the original tapes but we are not going to take the time to get them out of storage and go back to what was really said.  The truth is that she did not work at Sheppard Field, but worked for the Southern Bell telephone company downtown during the summer and met my father at the house of a friend.  (You can see the details in her memoir, “With Grit and By Grace – Breaking Trails in Politics and Law”.)  But in the greater scheme of things and the historical value of her life and activities, this is a nit.


 * I will return to her entry and make several changes to correct or add additional details, to fix sentence structure and spelling. But I will make each change a separate item and perhaps you will agree with most of them and leave them in place.  (As for the changes of the  …, I was just trying to make the name not red as I thought it detracted from the reading and implied some sort of emphasis in context;  I did not realize it was part of a Wikipedia standard.) I don’t really want to spent a lot of time becoming an expert in html or Wikipedia coding so my editing will be superficial.


 * You can find many more reviews and interviews posted on Justice Roberts’ web page, www.bettyroberts.net, that may be of interest to you for further additions and citings to the Wikipedia entry.


 * Justice Roberts appreciates your interest in adding to her entry, and is amazed that someone would take all that time to do so. If you would like to meet her in person, to complement your writing about her, I can arrange that.  Sdodell (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to update your footnote references, but I am sure you do. You might want to fix the title of footnote 2 to be tape 1, side 1 (instead of tape 6).  Sdodell (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Randall Giles
I removed your tags after cleaning this one up a bit. If you insist, you may take it to WP:AfD, but I think he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciated your welcome message. I'm still learning my way around here, and it's great to hear from another human! Jncraton (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Integra Telecom
I would like to get in touch with you about updating the Integra Telecom page. You reverted changes made to the page on Oct. 4 and I am curious to hear your recommendations so you won't delete the updates. Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.197.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
... and for appropriately correcting my first Wikipedia edit. I know nothing about html and editing, but I hope to learn. I have several edits I would like to make to existing Wikipedia entries relating to Oregon history, and a few new entries I would like to make in a variety of areas.

Question: I have written a biography of an artist not currently in Wikipedia which I gave to AskArt.com. Would there be any problem submitting the same article to Wikipedia? It is entirely my work and well referenced.

Thanks again for the welcome, ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianJohnsonXYZ (talk • contribs) 06:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the AskArt.com question, it depends on the licensing you have with that website. I cannot give you legal advice, but Wikipedia requires any submission to be available for re-use anywhere (attribution is required) and that there not be much in the way of restrictions as to those submissions, in addition to the submitter in essence having authority over the copyright. The best way to do this is to use the OTRS system to prove you are the copyright holder of the material you want to submit. Hope that helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your welcome note. I'd remember to ask you, when in doubt. Thank you. (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

John B. Waldo
Well I plan to make a second attempt to delete the sentence in the Wikipedia entry on John B Waldo about his father bringing slaves with him to Oregon in 1843.

Reasons why any statement about Daniel Waldo bringing “slaves” with him to Oregon in 1843 should be dropped from the Wikipedia entry on John B. Waldo:


 * 1) The current Wikipedia source for this statement is an inactive web link.
 * 2) This is an article about John B. Waldo and the statement about his father bringing slaves to Oregon does not belong here as it adds nothing to our understanding of John B. Waldo. This statement is especially out of place here since it is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia entry for John’s father, Daniel Waldo.  If the case is going to be made about Daniel Waldo bringing slaves with him to Oregon in 1843 it should be made there.
 * 3) Virtually all sources stating that Daniel Waldo brought slaves with him in 1843 do so in the context of his bringing two specific slaves, America Waldo and/or her mother. But it has been shown elsewhere that neither America Waldo nor her mother could have accompanied Daniel Waldo to Oregon in 1843.  Thus there are no known slaves or freed blacks that accompanied Daniel Waldo to Oregon in 1843, and no primary sources that make this claim.  (see http://www.oregonpioneers.com/AmericaWaldoBogle.htm )
 * 4) US Federal Census records from Missouri show that although Daniel Waldo did own four male slaves in 1830, by 1840 (three years before coming to Oregon) he had either sold or freed all his slaves because by that time he owned no slaves and there were not even any “freed coloreds” living with his family – and therefore he was probably not a “slave owner” at the time he came to Oregon.
 * 5) There are no blacks listed on the 1850 US Census living with Daniel Waldo and his family in Oregon (the only non-family member is John Blann who appears to be white based on a blank in the other race box and data from other censuses).


 * REFERENCES:


 * 1840 United States Federal Census
 * Name: Daniel Waldo
 * Township: Wablean
 * County: Rives
 * State: Missouri
 * Free White Persons - Males - 5 thru 9: 1
 * Free White Persons - Males - 10 thru 14: 1
 * Free White Persons - Males - 40 thru 49: 1
 * Free White Persons - Females - Under 5: 1
 * Free White Persons - Females - 5 thru 9: 1
 * Free White Persons - Females - 10 thru 14: 1
 * Free White Persons - Females - 40 thru 49: 1
 * Persons Employed in Agriculture: 2
 * Free White Persons - Under 20: 5
 * Free White Persons - 20 thru 49: 2
 * Total Free White Persons: 7
 * Total Slaves: 0
 * Total All Persons - Free White, Free Colored, Slaves: 7


 * 1850 United States Federal Census
 * Name: Daniel Waldo
 * Age: 56
 * Estimated birth year: abt 1794
 * Birth Place: Virginia
 * Gender: Male
 * Occupation: Farmer
 * Value of Real Estate: $5,000
 * Home in 1850 (City,County,State): Marion, Oregon Territory
 * Family Number: 263
 * Household Members: Name Age Birth place [relationship to Daniel]
 * Daniel Waldo 56
 * Malinda Waldo 45 - (born Mo.)[wife]
 * David Waldo 22 - (born Mo) [son]
 * Narcissa Waldo 19 - (born Mo) [daughter]
 * William Waldo 18 - (born Mo) [son]
 * Avarrilla Waldo 16 - (born Mo) [daughter]
 * Mary Waldo 12 - (born Mo) [daughter]
 * John Waldo 6 - (born O.T) [son]
 * Ann J Waldo 4 - (born O.T.) [daughter]
 * Jeddiah W Waldo 2 - (born O.T.) [son]
 * Joseph Waldo 45 (born Va) [brother]
 * John Blann 18 - (born Mo.) [??]
 * Thanks for your help and consideration in this matter.


 * BrianJohnsonXYZ (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I don't care enough to start my own page somewhere on the internet (as you have with the reference you keep referring to http://www.oregonpioneers.com/AmericaWaldoBogle.htm) and going by your full name, I am guessing you have a vested interest. But here are a few things to keep in mind as you research this:
 * Using the 1840 Census to tell what the facts are in 1843 are problematic. For all we known the Panic of 1837 forced him to sell off slaves, but by 1843 is financial state had recovered and purchased slaves again. But choosing one of these options (that he still didn't have slaves in 1843 based on the Census record or he bought them after 1840) is pure speculation as to either option.
 * Pretty much ditto as to the 1850 Census for what happened in 1843. See Holmes v. Ford as to the illegality of slavery in Oregon as of 1844ish (the court case was in 1853, but the links and sources can help you discover that slavery was banned with the Organic laws) and that you would hope Waldo had freed his slaves by then (if he even had any), which you seem to confirm on http://www.oregonpioneers.com/AmericaWaldoBogle.htm that the family did in fact own slaves in Oregon.
 * Census records are barely better than self published sources as they are pretty much self-published in that I know nobody from the Census department came to my house to count people, they just took my word for it, and I think pretty much always have. See Mary Ramsey Wood and the discussion on the talk page/talk page archives about her shifting age in the Census records.
 * As to the link that no longer works, see WP:LINKROT.
 * As to the relevance of this to John as to his father: First, it should likely be added to his father's bio. But, I think that if John came across the plains in a wagon train with slaves that living in close quarters with them and then living with them in Oregon might have an effect upon someone who later goes on to the career that he had. Maybe that's just me, but I would think it is very relevant (assuming of course this did happen, which seems to be in dispute). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aboutmovies,

It appears you created the John B. Waldo Wikipedia page, and as the moderator for any changes you have final say. You therefore have a certain vested interest in the content and I can live with that. Ultimately it is your decision what to include and what to exclude.

I have been researching Daniel Waldo for several years and am planning to write an article about him for the Oregon Historical Quarterly. In the course of my research I came across evidence that the widely circulated story that Daniel Waldo was the father of America Waldo, his illegitimate black daughter, was extremely unlikely. I contacted a few of the web sites reporting this error and was surprised to learn how difficult it is to correct errors on the internet. Once a story is widely circulated, it acquires a life of its own with each site referencing another, often with no citation of any original sources. I found one of the few ways to counter this was to create my own web page, including original sources, which gains credibility as more and more sites reference it.

You are correct that US Census information is often not 100% correct, but it is still a “primary” source, made at the time by the actual participants. In all my research I have yet to find any “primary” sources, including any contemporary “self published” sources that claim Daniel Waldo brought slaves with him in 1843. The sources most often cited for this statement are based on self reports by one family made over 100 years after the actual events. In that case, I believe the “contemporary” US Census data, flawed though they “might” be, are probably more reliable, especially since the family changed its story over time. If you have any primary sources that confirm Daniel Waldo brought slaves with him in 1843 I would greatly appreciate hearing about them.

John B Waldo could not have come “across the plains in a wagon train with slaves” because, according to the Wikipedia entry, he was not born until almost one year after Daniel Waldo and family arrived in Oregon. If his bio discussed ANYTHING about his relationship with blacks, minorities, etc later in life then the fact that he was raised with slaves (currently based on no evidence) could be relevant. But I see no such mention in the current Waldo bio.

Again, I appreciate your time to review my information. I thought I could correct some potential misinformation, but if you feel the weight of the evidence clearly indicates Daniel Waldo unquestionably brought slaves with him in 1843, then certainly add the original text back into the article.

BrianJohnsonXYZ (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I know all about how misinformation can eventually become the information and how difficult it can be to get that corrected. But how Wikipedia works is we need what we call reliable sources preferably published in high quality sources, such as OHQ. Once you do that, it makes it far easier to get incorrect items corrected on Wikipedia. And how Wikipedia actually works is not how you describe, as I do not own the article. But yes, as the original author, I do keep an eye on it to keep people from turning it into something Wikipedia is not, revert any vandalism, and as information comes along, expand it. But anyone else is free to do the same. Trust me, I would love more quality sources on the whole Waldo clan so that each of the three articles can be improved. As to sources showing Waldo brought slaves, have you reviewed Oregon's 1844 census (I think it is 1844, but it might have been 1845) that the Provisional Government of Oregon did? Th records are on microfilm at the state archives, which appears to be convenient for you, based on you working at WOU. Since I am out of law school at Willamette, it is no longer convenient for me to go back and see what those records say. Going forward though, it is probably best to have this discussion at the article's talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Presidential commission on the assignment of women in the armed forces
Thank you for the "welcome". Thank you for the notification that changes are needed in my contribution. Could you be reeeeaaaaallllly specific on at least one instance of what needs to be changed? 8-) I worked really hard trying to make this contribution look just like everybody elses, but I have no problem with re-working the contents. 8-)

11/09/10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Failure2002 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Failure2002 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your note on B. Kwaku Duren
Hi Aboutmovies,

I wrote the article on B. Kwaku Duren. The talk page takes me to you.

It says in the box above the article that the neutrality of the piece is disputed, also that it needs more citations.

The thing is, when I click on the "talk page," all I get is that the article has low priority in the WikiLaw Project. I get nothing about disputing neutrality or that it needs more citations.

Do you know anything more about this.

5404coolbrook (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wes Schulmerich.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Wes Schulmerich.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome message. I shall try to do my best. Joiesoudaine (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Hospitals
If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here). Saw your great work on some Oregon hospitals. If you`d like to do the same for a few more, please consider looking at the updated hospital infobox. Ng.j (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject tgging
Hi. Do you use some kind of program/script to tag pages? I kinda corrected this one. WPBiography is now a redirect of WikiProject Biography and priority is now deprecated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I use a script. I've adjusted it so I can update either the old or the new. Swapping them out can be left to the bot. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Citybikes Workers Cooperative page
Hi, I have added some references from the Oregonian and whatnot. Is this the type of stuff you think needs to be referenced? I assume so - let me know if you had something else in mind.--Sam.bellamy (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what is needed, which helps demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tillamook, Oregon
Hi, thanks for adding that contents, I am sure you will appreciate that the wp:burden is on you to provide verifiable source that these are the notable residents of Tillamook, Oregon Fasach Nua (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting assertion you are making. Next time, use the tag. The list is not original research, it is just un-cited. And it is not that they are "the notable residents", as that is not exactly what these sections are for, it is that these are current/former residents who themselves are notable (which is why blue linked people are usually required). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

James Stirling (Australian Governor)
Thanks for your helpful suggestions for improving this articleApuldram (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
Agree w/your comments at Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud, and I give you credit for trying to explain yourself more than once.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully everyone can now get back to editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration
When you inform WikiProject members of the collaborations of the week via talk pages, do you have a bot distribute the newsletters or do you copy and paste on talk pages one at a time? Just trying to think of ways to round of the troops for the WikiProjects I am a member of. Thanks for your hard work. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just copy and paste, though there is probably a script or bot out there. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tonquin, Oregon
Enjoy. And find more stuff if you can, of course. Probably some in some train books, but that would involve a *gasp* actual library. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's mine: Waconda, Oregon. Your image is much better. The sun was in the wrong place so I couldn't get a good long shot. No no trespassing sign though--excellently creepy inside. Now we just need pics of the ones at Quinaby and McCoy. Oh look, there's one in Donald also. Valfontis (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, and welcome back whoever you are you mysterious stranger. I doubt there's too many other sources for Tonquin, though I'd really like to find some sources for the Tonquin scablands in that area. If I was still in Wilsonville I could easily get those. But now with a job, there's just not the time for many picture road trips or library visits. Anyway, I'm sure the Tonquin station is creepy inside, which probably led to a lot of teenagers hanging out, which likely led to all the graffiti (and maybe some teenage pregnancies), which likely led to the big no trespassing sign. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Hospitals
I see you've done a lot of work on hospital-related articles, especially in Oregon. Perhaps you'd like to join us in improving the articles for hospitals in Oregon? Ng.j (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't be joining the hospital project, but I will occasionally improve the Oregon ones. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Acumed
Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Norm Winningstad
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Darin King Rating
You rated the page on Darin King a "C" and I was wondering if you had any tips to make it better?Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As it is, the article is well written and sourced. The problem is the coverage. The first roughly 18 years of this man's life is a single sentence. You need to, if possible, find more information such as when he was born, where did he go to school before college, and even when did he get married? This provides the complete picture of the subject. I know this information can be elusive, and often times only makes it into reliable sources once the obituary is written, but it is part of this person's story, and a biography without that information remains incomplete. An example I often give is my first article, David Hill. That is the most complete published biography of Hill in the world, but at most it can only be a C class article (if even that) at this time because there is just no information on his early life, only some speculation and random tidbits, in that there is a fairly complete and in-depth treatment of his last ten years or so, but very little on his first 30 years. Hopefully that helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

instruction (web address) how to add pic (image) to wiki article
Sorry for my question. I tried to find without success the explanation: how to add a picture (image) to the article? Thank you in advance 89.139.34.103 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend starting at Help:Files, as this page gives a good introduction on how to use files. WP:Uploading images has good information about the upload process.  From there, WP:Picture tutorial has detailed information about adding images to articles.  ~  Matthewrbowker  Say hi! 15:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a moral and technical support. Unfortunately, it is seemed that I made problems for the article Pumpable Ice Technology which I try to improve. I was going to do the best but a result is dramatic. The article is under ‹ The template below (Cleanup) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.› Is it possible to improve situation? Or: to save it during several months when I'll rebuild this article. Thank you in advance109.186.51.33 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, in addition to the original advice, I believe you have to be a registered user in order to upload a picture. As to your new question, again, I would recommend signing up for an account, then you can have an admin move the article you are talking about into userspace where you can continue to work on it, assuming it is deleted (even if it is deleted, an admin can restore it into userspace). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, I thank you for your cooperation. I succeeded to upload images. I'll follow your recommendations to improve the article. Swallow2011 (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rating an article
I was wondering if you would be able to rate the Kathy Dunderdale article. I noticed you had rated her predecessor Danny Williams article so I thought you may be interested in doing her's as well. I've been waiting a while now to see it be rated to figure out what else can be done to it but it has yet to be rated. If you can help or know someone else who can rate the article it would be appreciated. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you have any tips on the Kathy Dunderdale article to improve it? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, although possible, I find it hard to believe that not one of the sources does not have an author. Though if this is the case, you might want to try and find higher quality sources, as we give greater weight to those sources where someone puts their name to it. Then, there are some WP:OVERLINK issues (generally don't link to the same article in adjoining sections), MHA should be spelled out in the Infobox and where it is a section header, and it mentions she was home from university when she met her husband. Where did she attended, did she graduate, and if so what degree, and if not, why not (dates of attendance would be good too)? That is all I can think of after a quick browse. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Help about upload and change the picture on Riga Technical University of Wikipedia
hey,friend.i saw the history of you did the edition of Riga Technical University of Wikipedia. i tried to upload new logo and some picture of RTU to the Riga Technical University of Wikipedia,but always failed.i don;t know how to do that. if you have free time.could you helpe me to upload the picture of Riga Technical University of Wikipedia.this is website of RTU:www.rtu.lv.there are logo of rtu on this website.thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhn711 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will see if I have time, but the likely reason you failed is that you are likely a new user. You need to get a few edits and a couple weeks under your belt before the system will let you upload images. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

category Technical University of Lisbon Alumni
Hello! I've noticed you added some biography pages to the Category: Technical University of Lisbon Alumni. Some of those are about people who studied in schools before those schools were gathered in that University in the 1930´s, like Instituto Superior Técnico de Lisboa did... is it correct to put them in this cathegory? Formaly, that wasn't the name of the school yet. GreetingsQuiiiz (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally that is correct. As long as there is continuity between the entities, we will put them in the current name of the institution, even if it is a new name, or as here, the schools were combined into a new entity. If there are enough graduates of the individual schools, the alumni category could be split into more categories for alumni of each component school. See here for an example. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello! Understood. In that case we have some other pages to add to that category. GreetingsQuiiiz (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the others. I only added those in the alumni lists or those whose article linked to the main school article. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
The Valley Library has been promoted to Good Article status. If you have time, please consider reviewing a GA nomination. Nice work!-RHM22 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Landau (judge)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice please on how to provide info on the Horace Baker Cabin Historic Site
Good day and thank you for allowing me to ask questions.

I found you through the list of "Edits" having been made to the Horace Baker Cabin site. (If this is not in your area of interest perhaps you can direct me to another?

I am the BCHSPresident that tried to provide edits - but now understand that the process is more restrictive - and for good reason. I was naive.

My goal is to now learn how our Historic Society can provide info for, or updates to, a Wikipedia page for the Horace Baker Cabin Historic site.

As keepers of the Baker family and the site archives, we have much (boxes) of interest, such as original letters, documents, land-grant deeds, etc. Most of our archives are not available elsewhere to be 'cited' by professionals. Nor are we a professional museum so we just do the best we can.

Because we are volunteers, and mortal, our interest is to somehow authenticate and archive for long-term accuracy online critical info-  and either become an original 'source'; or feed authentic information to someone who is the gatekeeper.

We are all to aware that 'history' is made by those who write it.. hence I respect the validation rules. Unfortunately for our Society, much dis-information has been made immortal because of being published by some 'professional' source that failed to adequately research.

We are constantly concerned by the many published 'histories and info in various government databases that are just plain wrong... (such as dates out of order etc.)

Thank you again for your attention to this question; and for all the work you do for Wikipedia in general.

Best regards, Chris Guntermann [removed personal details] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.237.161 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Chiming in here. This discussion would be best at the article's talk page.  Please continue at talk:Horace Baker Log Cabin.  Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The operator theory
Dear Editor,

1. The operator theory is presently under consideration by the editors. Is it possible to -while it is under consideration- to start working on links to other pages. I think of the life (what is life) and the evolution pages

2. When the editors remark that no other pages/files link to it, does that mean WIKIpedia pages or should that be external locations?

Kind regards, Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis Jager008 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As to #1, yes, feel free to improve the article while it is at Articles for Deletion. I would however focus just on it, and not on linking other articles to it until the AfD process is complete in a few days. As to #2, the note at the top of the article about few or no other articles linking to it is solely about other Wikipedia articles linking to it. After the AfD is done, see if there are other articles in Wikipedia that should be linked to this article. For more info on this, click on the link in the notice on the article's page. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear editor, thanks for your speedy reply.

I would like to maybe specify in a new linked page a subject that now is dealt with shortly in "the operator theory" wiki (how the hierarchical arrangement of the operator hierarchy can be explained). a. should this better also wait until the AfD is done? b. The subject of how the operator hierarchy came about has only been covered at length in the introductory page of my second thesis. Would it suffice to include references to other publications on the subjects involved in this explanation or must the contribution itself be published separately (other than in the thesis?) c. When adding the above explanation page I will (have to...) be explaining/writing about my own work. Is this a deadly sin? The problem is that the operator theory is quite advanced and new, and the field is narrow (few general system philosophers around in the world) so that my work has not yet been referred to as much as I would have liked... This makes it hard to refer to others that refer to me. Would be better to write about C60 toxicity or something 'more practical'. d. would it help to indicate the opponents of my PhD on the talk page of the "the operator theory", such that people could see there has been a weightly screening?

Thank you again Jager008 (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks
Hello Aboutmovies, I appreciate all the updating work you're doing on these case pages, but can you stop removing links to case pages, please? The reason they are there is so that they will be created - and that's useful. At the very least they can be put in another section, that isn't see also, but they should not be deleted, and I would be grateful if you could revert the deletions you've made.  Wik idea  14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that redlinks can be useful, and I often leave them in pages just so people understand that Wikipedia is not complete. But the ones I leave in are in compliance with WP:REDLINK and the WP:MOS. Red links serve absolutely no purpose in a see also section, nor do links to articles already linked to in the rest of the article, as covered by WP:SEEALSO (part of the MOS). This is because the see also section is specifically (as covered by its title) for links to other articles no covered in the rest of the article, but in order for the see also to fulfill its purpose, there must be an article. For what the see also section has been used for in most of those cases is not what consensus has directed us to (consensus being the MOS). If you want to change it to "Related cases" or move those redlinks out, feel free to, but I will not be doing so as frankly I didn't create the mess, and I personally don't expect other people to clean up after the messes I create. Going forward, I will refrain from removing them from all those in the unassessed LAW que, but once that que is cleared out, anything new in there is fair game. I know this sounds ruff and gruff, but this has been a problem for a longtime in the UK law cases (that and the huge quotes of the decisions) and what is there is the problem, as those articles are not conforming to the MOS. I could understand if my edits were in contravention of established editing rules, but that is not the case, as consensus has long held that we don't have redlinks in see also sections. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Question
Noticed you updated rating on John M. Drake article. It was listed Wiki-Oregon assessment request page for long time. Just out of curiosity, did you find Drake article on assessment page or did you run across it in some way? In any case, thanks for all the assessment you do!--Orygun (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I came across it when I was updating the DYKs at the Oregon Portal and saw that it was rated as a stub, and it clearly was not. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Clackamas Wilderness
Thanks for adding the bold title and the 2 categories, but can you please explain your thoughts on the tone? I mean, can you give me a specific part or just the whole article? MetaCow (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This did help, thanks. I`ll see what I can do about fixing this up tomorrow. MetaCow (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Collaboration of the Week
Hi Aboutmovies, I am a PhD student from the Carnegie Mellon University. I am interested in the Wikipedia community, especially the mechanism of collaboration of the week. I noticed that you are coordinator of WikiProject Oregon’s collaborations before. Could you please take several minutes to answer five questions if possible? Thanks for your help!

1. From your point of view, why do people participate in the collaboration of the week?

3. Do people who participated in the collaborations become a better editor? If so, could you provide some examples?

4. How did collaboration of the week change editors' behaviors (if any)? What caused the changes?

5. What do you think are some of the causes for the cancellation of many Collaboration of the Week projects in other Wikiprojects?

You could leave your answers either in your or my talk page if possible. Thanks for your time! We have the same goal to make Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers --Haiyizhu (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will answer your questions, but it might be a few more days. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thrustmaster Page
Dear Sir,

I wonder why you have suppressed the update I posted yesterday on Thrustmaster but the article you have restored is both biased and out of date. Wikipedia commented it in March 2009 as "This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.", which I agree, so my update precisely clarifies the information and removes the bias, and then you delete my update on Thrustmaster.

1) If you considered a COI as I work in a company close from Thrustmaster: I registered with this company's address so I don't hide it, but my comments are neutral, I inserted no praise or criticisms. I never worked in Thrustmaster, I have used Thrustmaster controllers since 1992, so I know them well. 2) Please precise which signs of neutrality you consider I removed from the original article? If the attacks on "poor quality" of the old article were signs of neutrality, then Wikipedia should not consider the old article as biased. Except for allegations of poor quality, the comments I removed are related to products and licenses which no longer exist, and I updated a product information (the first article called Hotas Cougar the most expensive product: I added the 2 most expensive game controllers, since Cougar is no longer distributed).

Fgaret (talk) 27 January 2011


 * Let me chime in that all of Aboutmovies edits that I have witnessed are an exemplary model of complying with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. While it is true that the reversion reintroduces a tag for cleanup, that is vastly superior to the excessive external links you introduced.  You also removed all signs of neutrality in coverage of Thrustmaster.  Aboutmovies will be along shortly to further explain, but I'm sure his reasoning will be solidly based on the Five Pillars.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * EncMstr pretty much covered it. As to COI, I had said likely, which was based on the removal of any criticisms - i.e. the whitewash job comment - and additions such as "prestigious brands". The article is pretty much crap either way, but at least it was not completely promotional and was slightly better in the way of being in compliance with the manual of style. Feel free to re-edit the article and improve it, just don't go against our neutral point of view and please cite your sources while refraining from introducing more external links into the body of the article. For reliable sources to cite, try industry magazines or even the Portland Business Journal. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

My whitewash job was limited to the biased sentences or "poor quality" allegations. Moreover, Hotas Cougar, bashed in this old article, was not bad, far from it, but is no longer on the market for years. If you check this company's range, you will find none of the products listed in this article is still on the market. The mention of "prestigious brands" is not mine, it is part of the article you have restored, I just deleted out of date licenses in this sentence (Beretta and Splinter Cell). Asking to cite sources with no external links is not realistic for community products as hardcore flight simulation: paper magazines won't go so deep as describing the potentiometers, bashed as "low quality" in the article you have restored. I will keep on editing or adding other articles, but I will not re-edit this article, as we totally disagree:

- you refer to a neutral point of view while you restore an article including sentences I see as biased or defamatory,

- I didn't write any promotional sentence, so you consider as promotional my deleting these biased allegations.

If you consider as promotional an article with information but no bashing, then most of what I can write is promotional.

Fgaret (talk) 29 January 2011  —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Basically, see what original research is and you will see a rather huge problem for you and your editing attempts. Then, as I said, the existing article is crap, so anything from you about how bad the original article was is completely pointless and a waste of mine, and your's, time (if you want to deal with those problems, tag items you think are defamation with a citation needed tag and see if anyone can come up with a citation for it, and if not remove the sentence after a month or so). If you want to work towards improving it, add information from reliable, published sources, which is covered at our NOT OPTIONAL core policy of verifiability. Then do it using one of our other core guidelines, which again is not an optional one, of writing from a neutral point of view. Once, and only until, you get those policies will you understand Wikipedia and how to edit articles. As to promotional, you wrote "Thrustmaster flagships are" and list out the products and add a bunch of external links to the company's website, which although that may not have been your intent, it comes across as promotional (again, the original article was flawed as well). Lastly, there were manual of style problems, as there was before, but we don't introduce more problems just because it was already crap. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I don't see writing a joystick is a manufacturer's flagship as promotional, it qualifies this joystick as a flagship compared to this manufacturer range, not compared to other joysticks of the market. In Wikipedia definition of flagship,"the term "flagship" has been borrowed in metaphoric form by industries such as broadcasting, automobiles, and retailing to refer to their highest profile or most expensive products and outlets", and it is what I meant: I listed the 3 highest profile or most expensive simulation accessories of Thrustmaster, as in music calling an album "The cream of Eric Clapton" is not promotional, it just includes the songs Eric Clapton considers as his best songs, but it makes no comparison with the songs of other artists. I posted external links for Wikipedia readers to see an image of the joysticks, as I didn't find in Wikipedia image policy if it is compatible with posting on Wikipedia an image the manufacturer posted on its website for press use, and I cannot shoot by myself a photo as precise as the photos posted by the manufacturer.

Regarding your policy of verifiability: how can I transfer you data so that you verify the information? Hotas Cougar had several awards in flight simulation magazines, showing the "poor quality" arguments of the article you have restored are biased allegations. How can I transfer you the information of these awards so that you read these magazines and see the article you have restored was not verified? Should I scan some of these magazines' articles and send them by mail, and then to whom? If I just list the magazines issue numbers with the awards, I doubt you find these flight simulation magazines since these awards were given in year 2001, and you were not a flight simulation fan 11 years ago, otherwise you would know Hotas Cougar.Fgaret (talk) 29 January 2011  —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Small nav
Template:Small nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

thanx you
thx you for the invitation! by Syam Ahmedarino 11:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syam Ahmed (talk • contribs)

Kyron
FYI - I have started a new article, Disappearance of Kyron Horman, which you may be interested in since you voted to keep Kyron Horman in the last AfD. I believe that an article about the event itself would not fail WP:BLP1E like the original biographical article on the victim did. There is a ton of coverage, so sources are not a problem. Feel free to add to the article if you like. Thanks! <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#FEF7E3;color=#25900D">Snotty Wong  confabulate 23:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Gorge casino
Hi Aboutmovies-- Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Columbia Gorge casino, you may want to see this discussion on the article's talk page. <font style="font-family:Rockwell">Jsayre64 <font style="font-family:Rockwell">(talk)  02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Have I done a reasonable job with my first article?
Article on Ajai R. Singh Have I done a reasonable job with my first article? May decide to add more relevant matter later, if you advise. Or is this sufficient? Classicalmusictherapy (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hillsboro
Go ahead and cleanup Hillsboro how you want it. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been cleaned-up, but not how I want it, but in conformance with our guideline on disambiguation pages. Which means we leave red-linked entries, unless the only link to the red link is a dab page. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary Jane Haake
Thank you so much for working on my first submission. I do have a couple of questions (1) I was recently told she was born in Kansas City, MO but don't have a reference for that information - not sure how that should be handled (2) There is a List of Tattoo Artists - how (or who) do I approach adding her to that? I am planning on adding Bert Grimm and Don Deaton articles so this information will be very helpful. Oh, and (3) most of my information comes from newspaper articles and books, should I be trying to get more web references? Thanks again KatKalls (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for article assessment
You recently assessed the article Kevin Richardson (zoologist) as a C-class article. Could you give me the reasons for your assessment and any suggestions so I could improve the article? You can post it on my talk or the article's talk page. Thanks --Wmcscrooge (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
Hello Aboutmovies,

thank you for the assessments (1, 2). Could you please re-assess Palacký University of Olomouc? I spent quite some time working on that, and don't feel unbiased enough to do it myself. Thank you.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-assesing the page. Could you please give me a hint, what is in your view missing, to get the page to GA level? I would like to work on that further. Thanks. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ref. to your comments
Hello Aboutmovies,

Thank you for your comments to my new article. You are absolutely right, it has a lot of faults. It is my first job in Wikipedia and I need time to complete it perfectly. I am workin on it and I hope that within a few days these faults can be forgotten. Regards, László Hajdú — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laszlohajdu (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947
Hi there, thanks for rating Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. I wondered if you could give feedback as to what sort of improvements I should make? And I'll try to make them :) Thank you Jim Killock (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the lede needs to be expanded. Then, a good copy edit as some periods seem to be missing. More importantly though, you need more non-primary sources, such as journals, and not primary sources. The problem with such as reliance on primary sources is that it is far more likely to end up with original research. Lastly, and this ties into the last one, we don't usually have "Conclusions", as this should be an encyclopedia article and not an essay. As in there are no points to prove, and again, this would tend to lead to original research. What you have is a good start, but it needs refinement to get to the next level. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll give it a go. I have one academic study on this and the Cotton Board, which you also rated, which gives more information about how and why it was enacted and how the Development Boards policy was pursued. But it's not often that people write about acts as "units" of history, especially once they are absorbed into a general body of powers, and used beyond the original intent, so I think think there is some inevitability in resorting to primary sources to see how an act has been deployed, particularly this, as it is an enabling act used in very disparate ways. Nevertheless I've tried to avoid the main original research problem which is including original “facts, allegations, ideas, and stories”. Jim Killock (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the nice welcome! LaTourelle (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ranked List of United States and Mexican States for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ranked List of United States and Mexican States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ranked List of United States and Mexican States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I care why? Plus, see WP:DTTR, not to mention I already commented at the original deletion discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you !
Thank you for your welcome !

Thank you !
Thank you for your welcome !--Lbori (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
Thanks again for your nice welcome message. I'm stuck on something and was wondering if you could possibly help me with it. I would like to add a newspaper article with a review about someone under 'notes' in order to verify that the article exists and is genuine. How do I do that? Or rather how do I make it clickable, so that the article can be read? Hope this make sense. Thanks a lot for your help. Zaza888 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Portland
Ah, I just realized I was looking at the wrong column. Have a good night! Dawnseeker2000  04:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

New Wash. Co. podunk for you
Dixie, Washington County, Oregon. Valfontis (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, non-existent categories shouldn't be added to articles. I don't know if you're intending to create those categories or if you just didn't realise they were red links, but you've added a lot of non-existent cats to articles in the last few minutes. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to have to try really hard not to dive into some serious personal attacks. But seeing as very few people have more edits than me on Wikipedia, I am going to have to go with I sort of know what I'm doing. You see, you can either add articles to non-existent categories and then start them that way, or you can start a cat without any articles, either way you run afoul of CAT, as you cannot have empty cats, nor can you have articles in non-existent cats. So in order for categories to get started, you have to go one way or the other. I personally don't care how people do it, and since I am a nice guy, I don't revert after a couple minutes. Instead, I go the prudent way and check out the contributor's contributions to see if there seems to be a theme - it's really easy, we have a nice link to user contributions it is on the left <-- that anyone can click on. Or I wait a a day to see if the editor is working on setting up the cat. But reverting after a few minutes is like doing CSD on a two-minute old article, which is frowned upon. But happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would say that a cat that stays empty for a few minutes is a lot less unsightly than a cat that doesn't (yet) exist being added to dozens of articles. It might be a technical violation, but CSD C1 doesn't kick in until four days later, by which time the three-article minimum should easily be fulfilled. I don't know what I was supposed to learn from looking at your contribs other than that you've added a red-linked cat to lots of articles, but when I saw it on my watchlist, I just assumed that you weren't aware of the policy or hadn't realised the cat didn't (yet) exist, so I dropped you a line. I'm not sure why you'd have to try hard not to dive into personal attacks whn I've done nothing but assume good faith on your part. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AFG would mean you not revert first as you did at some British actor's article. AFG would mean you wait 30 minutes and see what happens. And a whole lot of articles? At most 8 were red linked, and they all involved the same school - hint that means there is a pattern. And 8 would be a drop in the bucket compared to 90,000+ edits for me, or around 500 just this month. As to technical violation, yes it would only be a technical violation, but either way it is a technical violation to have an empty cat or to have redlinked cats, thus why one has to give. You have one preference, I have another, and they are compatible. But just like I am not going to correct your British grammar/spelling to make it American, I would not force you to add redlinked cats to articles before starting your cats, which is my preference. FYI, CAT is not a policy, it is only a guideline, which makes it even more inane that you would not only revert someone, but then leave a message on their talk page. I mean, I could sort of understand if the editor had a redlinked user page, and no messages on their talk page or only templated warnings on their talk page, but seriously, did you not see all the messages and my extensive archives? There is a reason WP:DTTR exists (not that you used a template, but think of the general theme there). If I see someone is a rather experienced and active user I'm not going to go leave them message about WP:CAT unless I think they are doing something seriously wrong like violating BLP. But to each his own. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Ra for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Ra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Daniel Ra until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edits to History of Portland, Oregon
Hi Aboutmovies,

Thanks for writing to me about this. You make excellent points, and they are well taken. I think it is a fault of mine as an editor that I sometimes take a default view that articles should conform to standards and practices of things I've written for other purposes in the past. You accurately point out that Wikipedia is rather a unique case, and needs to be treated as such -- hence the repeated citations to a single source within one paragraph, etc.

Thanks again for pointing this out, and I'll be sure to keep it in mind in the future.

Derek — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustDerek (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FCI Sheridan
I see our edits crossed, but with the same result. Do agree that this article should be held to the same standard as the community articles re: Notable people? I figured it was simpler to be draconian about it, but the SHAC 7 person might be notable? I have no investment in it either way, just trying to cut down on the spam. Valfontis (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the blue link requirement is the only way to keep it reasonable. I think some of the ones you removed used to be blue links. The SHAC 7 guy, if I recall correctly, is borderline notable, but keeping him out for consistency sake is best. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. For your answer, you win a sausage festival. I had no idea the place was so happening. I am so biking there in November. Valfontis (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox motorcycle racer
Hi. You created some time ago Infobox motorcycle racer. Since it's redundant to Infobox motorcycle rider and unused. Would you think it would be OK if I delete it or should I send it for TfD? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox motorcycle racer
Template:Infobox motorcycle racer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit to John B Waldo page
Sorry but I was not sure where to best explain my edit to the John B Waldo page. I just edited my original "Thanks for the welcome" comment. Please see that edit for my reasons and sources.

BrianJohnsonXYZ (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Glenn & Viola Walters Cultural Arts Center/1
I have nominated this article for reassessment against the good article criteria, following the superficial review and fail by User:Wikipedian2. As far as I can see the article meets the criteria. You are invited to comment at the re-assessment page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sunset Esplanade
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harry T. Bagley
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George R. Bagley
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Assistance?
Hello, Aboutmovies. I see that you recently reviewed Monitor Group for WikiProject Universities; I had placed the WikiProject templates on the page. Earlier today, I posted a request for an independent editor to review the article in light of facts and research I have introduced. I do not wish to edit the page directly, because I am commenting on behalf of Monitor Group, and the subject matter I have inquired about is sensitive, especially now. If you have the time and are willing, please review and take any action on the page you see fit. Thank you, CanalPark (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably don't have time, I suggest posting at WT:UNI as they are generally an active group. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

City View Charter School
Aboutmovies,

It would be great if you spent a little time updating your page here. Our logo has changed and our state report cards have gotten stronger. Please revisit the information you have here about the school and update.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.35.46 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, though next time, feel free to update it yourself, just keep it neutral/unbiased. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello, Aboutmovies, Thanks for encouraging!

It's honor to promote European artists like as Ennio Morricone, Andrea Bocelli, especially they are cooperating with New Zealand amazing songwriter and graceful soprano Hayley Westenra! Eastenra (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

MERICA

 * context has to do with an image this editor downloaded from the internet and added to Sunset Esplanade, one that I actually doubt he was alive to create back about 1987.

show respect. This is america after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismattgon (talk • contribs) 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean 'MERICA? And what's up with the odd racism? tedder (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tedder, and the half-dozen other admins with my talk page on their watchlist, please block this editor and the IP s/he has used (50.43.36.157) if they attempt any further personal attacks or racist comments. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I need a little guidance on Orphaned articles.
Hi Aboutmovies,

Could you please clarify what makes an article orphaned? On this page it mentions five conditions under which an article can be classified as an 'Orphan'. Of these I don't understand the first one or what does it mean to have three incoming links?

Will appreciate you assistance. :)

Sin un nomine (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't really get it but your message did help me find out there was only two links linking to that articles and therefore Ayapaneco should be classified as an ORPHAN. I think I have got a lot to learn about Wikipedia.

Sin un nomine (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

infobox law school discussion
You might want to weigh in on the discussion at Template talk:Infobox law school. tedder (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

COTW Oregon
Hey, thanks for picking it back up, Aboutmovies! I cannot commit to any leadership role at this time, but will do what I can to help with the project. I really enjoy this project because participating in it takes me to pages I might never otherwise encounter and expands my awareness in unexpected ways. d u f f  18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Cedar Mill page
Cdrmil (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)04/23/2011 I publish the Cedar Mill News (http://cedarmill.org/news) and am involved in many other things in the community. I'd like to contribute to the Cedar Mill Page I found on Facebook, that apparently comes from your entry in Wikipedia.

I'm not sure how to proceed or if this is possible. Please advise.

Cdrmil (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Virginia Bruce

DYK nomination of Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility
Hello! Your submission of Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Did you know#Payments Council
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Did you know. Fayenatic (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (Using )

DYK for Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome, aboutmovies.

I have a special interest in Seattle U and Seattle city history through my father Jack Gordon. Once I've been "accepted" or "accredited" by wikipedia, I have an article on him I hope to publish. From the late 40's through the early 90's and retirement, he was one of Seattle and Washington's more active citizens. I have been updating and correcting articles for about a month now. Not just Seattle-related of course.

JohnRGordonPomeroy (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rabboni (steam tug)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

CollegeNET Article
Hey Aboutmovies. I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Thanks for adding a notability tag to the CollegeNET article. I've added in some new sources; how does it look now? Bancroft595 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Tigard TC and MAX station articles
I'm shifting to here the continuation of a discussion started on the Tigard Transit Center article's talk page, because it was covering a wider subject area than just that article or even just transit center articles. If any other editors had joined in that conversation, I might have moved it to the WP:ORE talk page, but since it has just involved you and me, I figured best to move it to here (but feel free to advise otherwise, as I don't know much about talk page protocol and I try to spend as little time as possible on talk pages, as my edit history shows). By the way, I wasn't able to go online at all yesterday, or else I'd have replied to this sooner.

It appears I created some needless confusion with my comment about the lack of familiarity of the name "Willow Creek", but I was not suggesting that the article for that station should be named "185th Avenue". My post could have been more clear, but I was trying to keep it from being too long (you can see from this post how long-winded I can be; you'll have to start a new archive soon just because of this one post!). However, I think you misinterpreted (and misstated) my position. I neither said we should go by conversational names nor by the names used in signage, but rather some balance between those two. In the case of Willow Creek TC, speaking as someone who uses TriMet buses and MAX on the westside a lot, my impression is that most people just call it "Willow Creek ...." ("transit center" or "MAX station" or "station" or whatever, but that's another discussion) without "185th", but that there are a significant number who, rather, refer to it as the "185th Avenue" station and also those – ones who are new to the area or new to using TriMet – who have no idea where Willow Creek is, and therefore might not be able to find this Wikipedia page as easily (esp. if they look in a list, rather than doing a search) if it does not mention 185th in its title.

On this basis, for that station, I do feel rather strongly that both parts should be included. As I said on the Tigard TC talk page, if Willow Creek were not a transit center, I might be content to call the article "Willow Creek/185th", but for this place the name needs to include Transit Center, since it is one. As to whether to include "SW" or "Avenue" here and in other WP articles on MAX stations, I have no strong feeling on that detail and would rather leave that to editors who care about it more than I do. Regarding your specific comment on this subject (in the last post): On the TriMet transit centers page, pop-up window for this station. Really? Your point falls flat, imho. The "Willow Creek Transit Center" (without 185th) label is a graphic, in the "bar" across the top of the diagram, i.e., it's limited by the space available and affected by graphic-style considerations in a way that most references (such in prose) would not be, so that label is irrelevant to this Wikipedia discussion. The very same pop-up window is headed "Willow Creek/SW 185th Avenue Transit Center". The diagram heading is shortened only for space reasons (yes, they could use a narrower font, but they don't do that on any of the other TC diagrams, and so I infer that they are trying to using a consistent graphic style on all of these, and would not want to make such an exception in order to squeeze in "185th Ave."). Even more to the point, both it and the "first sentence" to which you pointed do not need to be more precise (i.e. mention 185th) because that info. is contained elsewhere within the same small pop-up window. By contrast, the WP article would be listed in category pages, where only the exact title is shown. I say a bit more on MAX station article names later in this post.

A few other miscellaneous points (another reason I moved this to your talk page): 1. Regarding HITF: Are you saying there are people who refer to the westernmost MAX station as the "Hatfield Government" station? I've never come across that myself, but it appears that you live and/or work in Hillsboro (whereas I only live and work near Hillsboro), so if that is what you are saying I'm willing to accept it. But, this is news to me, and I always thought "Government Center" was a two-word noun, in this case, and therefore that dropping the word "Center" would be like referring to Lloyd Center simply as "Lloyd". That was my reasoning in making that one change in the HITF article. Notice I did not change your "8th Avenue" station reference to "Tuality Hospital/8th Avenue" or similar (although I admit I considered it, but definitely without the "SE"). I realize your link was correct. If your visible label had been, e.g., just "Government Center" station (without Hatfield), I definitely would not have changed it, as I would have assumed that it was just a (reasonable) editor's style choice, but omitting the word "Center" entirely seemed like a error to me, not a style choice. Actually, even if frequent users of this station commonly shorten its name to just "Hatfield Government" station in conversation (do they?), I think I would take the position that that is too casual writing style for Wikipedia. Still, I'm interested to know if that's what you meant. 2. FYI, I didn't move the PGE Park (MAX station) article, and personally I would have waited at least until TriMet actually changed the signs, and maybe even later. What happened was someone else moved it, but did it improperly, by simply creating an all-new page and redirecting the old one to it, which caused 6 years of page history to be disconnected from the article. I tried to fix it, but my fix didn't work, so I had to ask an admin to help, and I now see that the page history ended up omitting any indication of when, or by whom, the article's name was changed from PGE Park station. (JohnCD is the admin who fixed the problem.) Anyway, to quote Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it!" – I was just trying to fix someone else's improper move.

I really don't care nearly as much about the exact names of Wikipedia's articles on MAX stations as several other editors seem to, and if I had known the discussion about Tigard TC would veer in that direction almost exclusively, I might never have entered into it in the first place. There are relatively very few TriMet transit center articles on Wikipedia, but there are maybe 60-70 MAX station articles, so any major change to how they are named on WP – such as dropping the position (not mine) that they should all be the full official names – would involve a lot more articles and likely attract the attention of a few other editors who, as I said, appear to be much more passionate about that subject than I am. I don't want to get involved in that; I really don't care that much and have too much else I want to do on Wikipedia. If you do care enough to want to tackle that, I suppose there should be a discussion at WP:ORE or someplace. I suspect I might well endorse most of your suggested shortened names (and btw I certainly agree that "Gateway Transit Center" is the best name for that stn/TC's article), but I just don't feel it's black-and-white. Another westside station that I'd argue should retain both parts of its name is Merlo/158th, for multiple logical reasons (which I won't detail in this post), but I probably wouldn't object to dropping the numbers from any of the others (170, 206, 231, SE 3rd; maybe not SE 8th), though I wouldn't do that myself without first soliciting opinions from other editors who know the Portland metro area and use transit, and also allowing a few weeks (at least) for people to discover the discussion and give their opinion. Anyway, I'm definitely not going to be the one to start any such discussion.

I still believe the Tigard TC article ought to be moved back, based on the arguments in my original post, and I'll probably move it back soon unless I see some comments there (or here) arguing against that idea. But I try to respect others' views, so I won't do anything like that until a little more time (a few more days) has passed.

I hope you know that I consider your editing to be an inspiration, I'm very impressed with all you've done (and continue to do) on WP, and I credit you with helping me to become more comfortable editing when I first started, a little over 2 years ago. In case you'd like to contact me by email, I'm going to turn on access temporarily, but I've made a conscious decision not to give such access normally (mainly due to lack of time), and you're one of the few editors I would be willing to connect with via that medium. SJ Morg (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bicentennial Park (Hillsboro)
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

CollegeNET Updates
Thanks for your feedback on the CollegeNET article. I found a Portland Business Journal article and am in the process of getting it whitelisted (it was originally marked as spam). If approved, I think the scholarship aspect of the company alone could qualify it as notable. I'll keep on it - thanks for your advice. Bancroft595 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Classic Aircraft Aviation Museum
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

weird wording
"The college also had an issue with slavery, which was illegal in Oregon at that time".. it doesn't really explain what the issue was. Can you word it better? tedder (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I could, but the source doesn't give what the issue was. Given that it was illegal, and some knowledge about Joaquin Miller at that time, I would surmise that the school or many in the school were pro-slavery. If the OHQ volume with the multiple pages numbers could be located, that may provide the answer. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I wish I was still in PDX- I'd go grab the dead-tree OHQ and look it up. I assumed the awkward wording was yours- not that the information was missing. Sorry for the incorrect assumption. tedder (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete might still have some dead-tree OHQs, he posted a list somewhere. Just a heads up, I've been approved to get a Credo Reference account (which I haven't set up yet), and I also have access to JSTOR via a friend. Let me know if you need me to find something and I may get around to it eventually. Valfontis (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say, I now have Pete's stash of DTOHQs (they aren't permitted to cross state lines dontchaknow) and I'd be happy to sift through 'em if there is a particular reference we need to look up. --Esprqii (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Pete's old stash is a bit newer than what is needed here, but here are articles: OHQ vol. 32, p. 67; OHQ vol. 56, pp. 327-351. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Wow, congrats! Also, thanks so much for adding/correcting categories for the NRHP sites in Portland. The external tool I was using to create those stubs did not always generate the best categories (but it was a helpful tool nonetheless). Hopefully many of these stubs will become GAs over time! Thanks again. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. That is an amazing milestone. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa! That is awesome. Congrats! <font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5   16:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am so envious! Congratulations! Valfontis (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

high court infobox
Hi. I asked on the talk page whether it's possible to add a parameter for a second chief judge, i.e. a deputy or otherwise. I'm not too good with infoboxes and codes. Thanks, -- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody seems willing to respond. I'll try and do it myself.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HillsboroArgusCover.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HillsboroArgusCover.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Infobox parks
I noticed that you edited Bald Peak State Scenic Viewpoint and changed the nearest city. In the parameter descriptions section on the doc page for Infobox park it mentions that the nearest city "could be a city with a major airport or a large gateway town where supplies and lodging are available". That's why I've skipped past smaller cities in most of my recent edits to articles about Oregon state parks. I have to admit that I wrote that documentation but it reflects the documentation for Infobox protected area. I updated the documentation for that template as well, but the phrase was there before my update, if my memory is correct. Anyway, no big deal. Maybe "major airport" is a bit much and I'll change that now. If you have any thoughts on the matter, I would be glad to hear them.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  06:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One problem I see is that it could get into a rather trivial discussion as to which city then meet this somewhat ambiguous criteria. Or where you have a situation such as with Bald Peak where I am assuming you are not from the area? With Bald Peak specifically, Newberg has an airport and a major hotel now, Tigard does not. Not to mention Hillsboro is a lot closer than Tigard and has the state's 2d busiest airport and is nearly twice as big as Tigard (and about 4x bigger than Newberg). Which takes us back to the first point. I think it should probably be something like this: if a park is in a metropolitan area (which has specific definitions set forth by the Census bureau) go with the actual closest incorporated city. If it is outside of a metro area (say Crater Lake National Park) then go with the "gateway city" option which would have the amenities mentioned, and which I think I have heard many cities mentioned as a gateway to this or that national park/monument so one might even be able to have a citation and mention in the body. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rose test garden in Oregon
Thank you for spotting that. I'm afraid I mixed up my gardens listed in the World Federation of Rose Societies 2011 directory. This should have said the International Rose Test Garden in Portland, which has 10,000 plants and conducts international tests (whereas Eastman in Hillsboro has just 210 plants). I will be revisiting the page for checks on other gardens listed over the next day or so. Thanks again. Libby norman 09:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

Reassessment
Hi! can you assess this article. Hema Malini. I expanded the article a bit and added more sources. Regards! -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Also can you also re-assess these articles: K. Balachander, Chiranjeevi and Jayaprada. I had been working on these articles for the past few months and expanded those considerably. -- Commander (Ping Me) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article for a peer review. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. -- Commander (Ping Me) 07:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl Prine DYK
I have replied at the Carl Prine DYK and proposed an Alt hook for your review. Thank you. Silver seren C 07:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved around Henry Posner's name to give the hook a bit more flow. What do you think? I thought defining him as the owner would give it a bit more importance than just a random person with the company. Silver  seren C 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as the hook is still less than 200 characters. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Integra Telecom
I'm working on adding Distribution paragraphs for all of the major telecoms in the US so that shareholders (private and public) can know how exactly each company plans to grow its sales. There are many flavors of distribution in the marketplace and, in my opinion, it's very relevant to the topic at hand. I noticed you lopped off my entire paragraph citing conflict of interest. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion since nothing here in WP is making me (or anyone else) any money. My sole goal is to accurately describe the most important aspect of any company in America: distribution. If you would help me find alternative language to make it seem less biased, I'd appreciate it. The facts that I've cited therein are all reliable 3rd party sources. Thanks, and happy 4th of July! Obornp (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, COI was the last item listed, and it said "likely". Apparently the COI is not present, but please review the other policies/guidelines cited. Then think about what you apparently are planning for all the telecoms and see if it is encyclopedic. As to reliable, third-party sources, that just gets you to the point where you might be able to use the material. Just because something is in a reliable source does not mean we can or even should use it, as then we still have WP:NPOV and WP:NOT that come into play. For instance, Sunset Magazine is a very reliable source, but since it is travel focused, the tips on traveling somewhere are something we would not include since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Here, Wikipedia is not a investor's site (see #1), and thus a company's plan for growing sales is not really encyclopedic. Another issue if you plan to go ahead is that you need to review the manual of style regarding capitalization of headers. Otherwise, sentences such as "In 2008 a nationalized indirect channel was instituted to enable larger channel partners access to all Integra markets through a single point of contact" come across as marketing by emphasizing the companies efforts to make it easier for their customers to work with them, and it uses buzz words such as single point of contact. About the only thing salvageable is the first sentence added, which should be integrated elsewhere. But feel free to drop a note on the business WikiProject talk page for a broader discussion since this touches on more than just Integra. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality scale re.: Rumohr biography
Hi Aboutmovies, you marked the 10 March 2011 version of the Ruhmor biography as of quality «Start». I would much appreciate if you would explain your reasoning for doing so, in particular, which sections do you think should be expanded.

I kept the English version deliberately concise. I do not see the point of going into as great a detail as the German version which I also wrote. Little of Ruhmor’s writings is available in English and as far as I am aware, none of the secondary literature. Hence any English speaker with particular interest in Ruhmor will need to acquire some German. Considering today’s information overload a too detailed encyclopaedic entry can be counterproductive. RM Vollmer 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Vollmer (talk • contribs)
 * As to expansion, his first 17 years or so get a single sentence. He is a person and a biography needs to touch on his entire life. Obviously there will be less to cover during those years, but besides being born into an aristocratic family, we are not provided with who his family was (father/mother/siblings). Then did he attend school before university, was he educated by tutors, or did he suddenly just become educated enough to attend college?
 * But the main problem with the article is basically a manual of style problem. There are not really inline citations (something required for GA and above articles), there are just footnotes (and those that exist are problematic as all but one have a problem with the punctuation preceding it; as in there should not be a space between period and the footnote. Next, there is really just one section, Life. For that amount of text, there should be at least one or two more sections, see Manual of Style (layout). Then, the WP:LEDE is a single sentence, and for something this long it should be a solid paragraph, as what is currently there does not adequately summarize his life. Address these items, add an infobox, and work on the sentence flow and you will easily have a B class article. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will go back to that article.--RM Vollmer 09:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Vollmer (talk • contribs)

DYK for African Methodist Episcopal University
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Succession in state legislature
Thanks for catching my weirdly un-wikfied attempt to mark a citation needed with &lt;cn&gt; instead of in my edit of Bruce Starr. I looked at the reference you provided, and then I realized that between the 2001 and 2003 legislatures, redistricting had pretty much eliminated any hope of continuity in succession. Starr's 2001 HD3 was in Washington County, but the 2003's HD 3 was in southern Oregon. So I rather think it doesn't make any sense to include the succession information in legislative districts, especially when there is an intervening redistricting. YBG (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stella Maris Polytechnic
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi, can you review this and give your feedback. -- Commander (Ping Me) 07:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Robina Suwol Bio
Seeking help on the Robina Suwol page. Noted you are interested in Oregonians and entertainment industry Need help, as I believe I unintentionally ruined the page. Suwol was born in Portland went to Catlin Gabel and Grant High School. She worked steadily in entertainment industry as a professional actress in films, tv, and stage. I have no background in editing, nor am I a historian on Suwol, but her phenomenal environmental health efforts to protect kids is extremely noteworthy. Appreciate any help. CentralAbe (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)CentralAbe

Copyright problems with File:Tuality logo.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Tuality logo.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from source URL. As a copyright violation, File:Tuality logo.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Tuality logo.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Tuality logo.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Tuality logo.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Tuality logo.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Bobbyc3aop (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess the legal blustering was because the COI user Bobbyc3aop wanted a newer version of the logo. Weird way to go about it. tedder (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. Weird. Makes me think this is one of those people who shows up somewhere new and is unfamiliar with anything and instead of asking around or being respectful, just makes an ass out of themselves. Or is the new neighbor who moves in and starts mowing their lawn at 6 am Saturday morning in their pajamas as they are only concerned with themselves, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this guy. Valfontis (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tuality logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Tuality logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal system of Saudi Arabia
Hi, I noticed you recently assessed the above as C-class, and was curious to know why you didn't rated it B-class. Comparing it with other B-class articles such as Legal system of the Republic of Turkey, it's unclear to me what's missing. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Saudi article is superior to the Turkish one, and the Saudi one is very close to B status. But the Turkish one is really a C class if not start class article. Whoever assessed the Turkish one either did not know what the criteria was, or it was such a long time ago that it was B class at that time (C class is only about 3-4 years old, and in general the standards have been raised in the last 5 years). For me, why I think the Saudi article is still C class is mostly with the lede. For an article this size, the lede should be bigger. And more importantly, the lede comes across more as analysis of the system instead of a summary of the article. The other important issue, but less notable, is there are a fair amount of criticisms about the system that lack citations. My guess is that many of the sources already cited might cover them, but anything controversial should have an inline citation at the end of the sentence. The most glaring example is in the section "The courts and the judiciary" in the last paragraph. Lastly, many of the paragraphs are a bit long (the two I counted had 7 and 9 sentences) and could use breaking up into smaller paragraphs. These becomes more of an issue with run-on sentences such as "The main complaint reportedly made by Saudis privately is that judges, who have wide discretion in interpreting the Sharia, have no knowledge, and are often contemptuous, of the modern world." That should be two sentences at a minimum. Long paragraphs and sentences effect readability. But address the lede and add-in some more citations for the controversial items and it is B class. Address the other items and I would suggest it would pass as a GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks that's very helpful. I'll work on the Lede, paragraphs and run-on sentences. However, I don't understand the comment on in-line citations. I'm very careful on that and have made sure that everything in the article has a citation. The way I work is that everything in the text is covered by an in-line citation back to the beginning of the paragraph or the previous in-line citation. In the example you give, the last para of Courts and judiciary, it is all derived from the two cited Economist articles. Do you see something that's not covered in those articles? I notice you said that the citation should be "at the end of the sentence". But that would mean that where one citation is used for several sentences or a whole paragraph that the same citation would be repeated several times consecutively. That surely isn't good practice? DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With the inline citations, I know that is a common point people make, but that is really based on experience with writing academic papers. Wikipedia is not an academic paper. Think of it this way, as the reader, how would I know that the citation four sentences later is what sources the information I am reading now? Only the writer knows this with any certainty. And here, you are not the writer, but one of many writers with a potential of even more writers in the future. Which leads to the next major issue, how Wikipedia works. Unlike an academic paper, Wikipedia can and does change. So, in two years where someone inserts new information into the article, how does anyone still know that the citation four sentences down and two citations away still supports the sentence you are reading? It would be nice to think we will all still be editors in two years and we could clarify, but even if we are still here in two, three years, will you still remember which citations support which bits of information? Especially where not all sources are online and easily checked by the reader. This issue alone would not prevent it from getting to B, but could be an issue at GA or FA. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to be clear, instead of this:
 * "The capabilities and reactionary nature of the judges have been criticized. The main complaint reportedly made by Saudis privately is that judges, who have wide discretion in interpreting the Sharia, have no knowledge, and are often contemptuous, of the modern world. Reported examples of judges' attitudes include attempting to ban the children’s game Pokémon, telephones that play recorded music, and sending flowers to hospital patients. Saudi judges come from a narrow recruitment pool. By one estimate, 80% are from Al-Qassim province, the conservative religious heartland of Saudi Arabia in the center of the country. Senior judges will only allow like-minded graduates of select religious institutes to join the judiciary and will remove judges that stray away from rigidly conservative judgments. In 2009, the King made a number of significant changes to the judiciary's personnel at the most senior level by bringing in a younger generation. For example, as well as appointing a new Minister of Justice, a new chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council was appointed. The outgoing chairman was known to oppose the codification of Sharia. The king also appointed a new head of the Board of Grievances and Abdelrahman al-Kinya as the first chief justice of the new Supreme Court. "
 * It should be this:
 * "The capabilities and reactionary nature of the judges have been criticized. The main complaint reportedly made by Saudis privately is that judges, who have wide discretion in interpreting the Sharia, have no knowledge, and are often contemptuous, of the modern world. Reported examples of judges' attitudes include attempting to ban the children’s game Pokémon, telephones that play recorded music, and sending flowers to hospital patients. Saudi judges come from a narrow recruitment pool. By one estimate, 80% are from Al-Qassim province, the conservative religious heartland of Saudi Arabia in the center of the country. Senior judges will only allow like-minded graduates of select religious institutes to join the judiciary and will remove judges that stray away from rigidly conservative judgments. In 2009, the King made a number of significant changes to the judiciary's personnel at the most senior level by bringing in a younger generation. For example, as well as appointing a new Minister of Justice, a new chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council was appointed. The outgoing chairman was known to oppose the codification of Sharia. The king also appointed a new head of the Board of Grievances and Abdelrahman al-Kinya as the first chief justice of the new Supreme Court. "
 * I just wanted to make sure I've got what you're saying because I don't remember seeing a Wikipedia article with citations in that way. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the key points, yes (note you have the full cite twice in case you copy and paste this into the article). And yes, you do not always come across this, but the majority of articles out there are still poorly sourced in general (see the Turkisk article for reference). You would find this more often with the GA and FA articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll work on it. I'm the only editor whose worked on it so far (I created the article earlier in the week) and am very familiar with all the sources so it won't take me long to do - a day or so. Would you mind taking another look at it once I've made all the changes? DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, just drop me a note here. And again, nice article (though I was curious, do they have anything such as municipal codes?). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made the changes as you suggested (I think). Could you take a look? I've not seen anything about municipal codes in the sources, all of which only refer to royal decrees and sharia. The provinces are governed by princes from the royal family who act as "mini-kings" and their word is law, so to speak. But I don't think it's as formal as amounting to local codes. Rule of law is still a fairly fluid concept there. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I've upped it to B. That's as high as it can go with a formal review process via GA or FA. I think it is pretty much ready for GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there a country "Legal system of" or "Law of" you could recommend to take a look at for best practice? I looked at the WikiProject Law page and couldn't see any country GAs/FAs. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Orange Phelps
Your reverting a verifiable, reliable secondary source from Google Books which I added while retaining less reliable offline unverifiable references (both of which appear to be newspaper reports) does not make sense to me. Do you really prefer AGF to "good to go" in DYK reviews? I dont care for your retaining or reverting my edit but your motive seemed strange to me. AshLin (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Context It was a duplicate reference. In other words, it was already there--see reference #4. Sources from books don't have to be linked to be considered verifiable (see also this essay. Compare your reference:


 * Fitzgerald, Kimberli; Raber, Deborah; Hillsboro Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee (28 October 2009). Hillsboro. Arcadia Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 9780738571829. http://books.google.com/books?id=4fr22_GUH2MC&pg=PA91. Retrieved 23 July 2011.


 * To the one already there:


 * Fitzgerald, Kimberli; Committee, Deborah Raber with the Hillsboro Historic Landmarks Advisory (2009). Hillsboro. Images of America. Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing. pp. 60, 91, 95, 113. ISBN 9780738571829.


 * Valfontis (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What she said, and as I just noted on your talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously a case of not doing due diligence on my part. Thanks for the clarification, the both of you. Happy editing about Oregon issues! :) AshLin (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Oregon in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Oregon for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Orange Phelps
The DYK project (nominate) 04:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Highly entertaining and edifying article. Nice work. :) <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   04:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and glad you enjoyed it. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)