User talk:Njcraig/Archive1

Hasbrouck Heights
Do you have a source that Saccomano switched parties in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. The source I had inserted in 2006 had the democrats taking control without Saccomano, and showing that she voted with the Democrats, but hadn't formally switched parties. Alansohn 15:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

reply
Not sure how to reply to you so putting notes here on my talk page. I will speak with my references and double check. I have access to Saccomano directly if need be. Will try to find a reference in the local newsletter The Observer that can be quoted for reference. --C. Williams 03:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC) I have confirmed that Maryetta Saccomano did file a change of party notice with the Bergen County Board of Elections per Alice Vega, Hasbrouck Heights Democratic Municipal Chair. --C. Williams 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Richard Williams
A tag has been placed on Thomas Richard Williams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of deleting the article, which is clearly legit, I stubbified it mercilessly. Please don't take this as an effort to discourage you from creating a new, improved one without the copyright issues. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did reword it and we collided. I found a cache copy and readded it back. C. Williams (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That wording is still dangerously close to the Getty Museum's article. I'd advise more drastic revision, and a re-ordering of the information presented. Is there nothing in any other souce, such as the DNB or some photographic histories? -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help Mike. I will research some more at home over the next few days and reword and rewrite the stub.  C. Williams (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowy COTW from WPOR
Hello again from WP:ORE. Please note the Collaboration of the Week is running two hours late, no morning kindergarten, and routers are on snow routes. Thank you to those who helped improve Oregon, we are inching towards GA quality. This week we have another High importance Stub in our official state insect (who knew?) with the Oregon Swallowtail, and then a new article I came across, Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. Help if you can get out of the snow. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Good day! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Peterson says it time for Oregon COTW
Wake up! Wake up to a happy day! Says Tom Peterson. Greetings to the gang at WP:ORE, its time for another round of Collaboration of the Week. Last week was a very successful endeavor with great improvement to Oregon Swallowtail and Deuce Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. OK, so there’s no “e” but it makes me laugh. The Biglow production was so successful we got our first DYK out of it. So, let’s try for a second with the tallest building in the state, the Wells Fargo Center. Then by request we have the former governor (among other things) Neil Goldschmidt. Again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, visit here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
Hello from WP:ORE! Judging from your comments with Hillsboro Public Library, it looks like you are new to assessment and could use some pointers. I usually assess most of the WikiProject Oregon stuff, but never the items I start or do a lot of work on for conflict of interest issues. So I've assessed 5000 articles or so, hopefully all correctly.
 * First read through WikiProject Oregon/Assessment if you didn't already, focusing for the class part on the chart.
 * Second, try not to go too much by what you've seen around. Many articles have been improved since their initial assessment, so the current rating may not reflect the actual quality assessment listed. If you ever improve a WPOR article so you think it is a higher grade, please list it at the WPOR assessment page listed above. For examples to go by, use the ones linked in the quality scale assessment chart on that page. They link to the old version of the article from when it was assessed.
 * Then, remember, there are only three options for classification grades at the initial level: Stub, Start, B. Above that there is a formal process involving nominations, so don't worry about GA/A/FA.
 * Next, the first thing I do when I see the article is this: What do I think an encyclopedic article should have for this topic? If the article is only one paragraph of four-five sentences, it cannot possibly be anywhere near complete and is a Stub. If it has more, such as some structure/headings, an infobox, sources, images, etc. then think about Start. Though a Stub with an infobox is still a Stub. Then go back to the question: what should it have. If you can only think of a minor item or two that the article does not have, then it should probably be a B class article. If it looks fairly complete but has no sourcing, I usually list it as Start, since B class cannot be missing any major item, and sources are a very major item. But if it is sourced, covers most of the areas you would expect then B class. Remember, the coverage needs to be broad, but not deep at this classification. I.e. an article covering a topic's history covers a few events, but not all events is covering that part sufficiently for B class. The depth comes into play for A and FA classes.
 * The most common articles are biographies, so I'll use them as an example:
 * Stub:Bob Johnson is a person in Oregon, he is famous because he built the world's first gizmo. Example of the upper limit of a Stub. Anymore and it would be a start. But note that the WP:LEAD and infobox are both summaries of the article, so the information should be a repeat of what is in the article, thus the overall article appears to bigger.
 * Start:The above plus; Bob created the first gizmo while living in Seattle where he was working for XYZ company. He is married, was born in state Z, and is 44 years old. (but all of this written out better, in sections with some context). Example where the article is missing about 30 years of the person's life.
 * B class:Both of the above, properly sourced, plus; Bob grew up in Chicago where he graduated from Chicago HS. He then went to the University of Johnson, graduated in 19XX with a degree in Y. He then moved to Z where he married X. They then moved to Seattle where Bob began working for XYZ company. Example where all major sections of his life are covered.
 * Hopefully this is useful, and let me know if you have any questions. I'd love to have another person to help out with the assessments at the Oregon project. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for the information. This has been very helpful. Would be happy to help evaluate new articles. Just busy right now until after my step down as Emperor of New York.  After that, will have much more time to work on articles and help improve Wiki for articles that I have some interest in. Found the assessment section and added my two prime articles for review. Trying to figure out what I need to make a B class on either of them.  Specific feedback would be helpful as I prepare new articles for future inclusion in Wiki.  Again, thanks for your guiding hand. C. Williams (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from ICMA
Hi Craig, I see you are an avid Wikipedian too. I created the Nicole the Great article (which is still skimpy, glad you plan to work on it), as well as an article about Fiona and something like 200 other subjects. Do you plan to create any other articles about court members? I think Coco, Rick Ford and several others are probably noteworthy from a verifiable, encyclopedic point of view. I also note from your page that you have at least a passing interest in genealogy; who knew we had so much in common? Keep up the good work and best wishes on your stepdown -- I am sure it will be beyond fabulous! Best wishes always, John Raimondo Reeves, Father of the House of Scandal PS - Don't you know making articles about yourself is against guidelines? Tsk tsk tsk! (laughs) But I see no harm in it and enjoyed reading your article!

John - Good to hear from you. After my step down, I hope to do some more Wiki from the island this summer. Maybe you can give me some pointers. C. Williams (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)