User talk:ZabMilenko/2009/July

AfD nomination of Pathway Family Center
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pathway Family Center, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orlady (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Review
I have reviewed you (and asked a question) here, just to make you aware.

By the way, of you do fancy being an admin, I will happily nominate you when the time is right. -- Athe Weatherman   18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That was a very nice review and I appreciate the question, which I tried to answer the best I can.  Admittedly, the longer I read the RfAs the less ready I feel, so the right time is still a ways off I think.  C'est la vie: the more I learn the more I realize what I don't know. ZabMilenko How am I driving? 05:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true for me your last comment! Heh, anyway, I like the answer to you question, and although a fair way off adminship, you are no that far, going on many other previous candidates.  Athe Weatherman   08:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hot outside, so stay inside working on the Oregon COTW!
Hello to WikiProject Oregon folks, and get ready for another Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on the land fraud scandal and Mr. Wicks. This week we have one by request, Central Oregon, and a gnomish task, the Great Infobox Drive of '09. For the infobox drive, just find some articles without infoboxes and add one. People and companies are two prime areas as many do not have infoboxes, yet infoboxes exist for those areas. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Table Rocks
I just have to say thanks. Those pictures and other info you added are great! I think we could nominate it at WP:GA very soon. Sincerely,  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I listed the article for in-house reassessment at WikiProject Oregon/Assessment. That will give us a few things I am sure, and that will give us a few more days to tweak things before heading over to GA. ZabMilenko 04:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found a nice map here, showing who owns what. It's copyrighted, but maybe if you have time the info could be incorporated into the map already on the article. Just a thought.  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find and good idea too.. The zoom is kind of low so I will look for where they got their info (I suspect from here) and see what it would take to shade the map in. Just tracing it wouldn't be right; I have to blow up the map image 10x and draw each little line by hand (this took many hours).
 * I think "40,000" is a slip of the finger... I can't find anybody to back up the nature conservancy on that one (which is important with press releases). I am looking all over but until BLM releases 2009 figures it may be hard to confirm that.  There is an out-of-state Table Rock I keep seeing on google that has 40,000 per year...
 * I still can't seem to get a decent picture of the rocks from a distance. I have been driving around a bit but finding a good spot with coordinated traffic, lighting, and weather has been proving harder than I thought. ZabMilenko 15:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not absolutely necessary to the article, the map alone is great.
 * I changed the visitors back to the original 10,000, thanks for catching that.
 * Yeah, it's been cloudy around hear for awhile... I'll see if I have any pictures I took last summer. Thanks,  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a picture of Lower Table Rock from Roxy Ann. It's not too great, but it might work for now.  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  02:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice detail on the pic! I can almost see my car parked at work in this picture.  I recommend retiring the BLM pic (it will still be in the res article) and putting your pic in its place.  I'll do it now! ZabMilenko 02:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A very interesting and informative article on the Table Rocks; nicely done!. However, you may want to reconsider the bit about "caves". Caves are natually occuring geologic features, yet the article identifies former mine works as "caves". Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I missed this one in the history check I did a couple weeks ago.  is the editor who deserves most credit for the article, I just helped out.  As for the cave thing, I will take a look at it.  Thanks for the tip.  ZabMilenko How am I driving? 11:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Rico402 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, you deserve just as much credit as I do. :) I actually saw this comment about a week ago (thanks Rico402!) and I think I [ fixed] it. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  5   14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks good. I am surprised now at the number of mines out there with "cave" in the name. ZabMilenko How am I driving? 04:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Just a quickee, when you put Upper and Lower Table Rock up for reassessment, did you mean to put it in the 'A class' section? It's fine if you did, because I think it meets the requirements, but maybe WP:GAN or WP:FAC would be a better, faster place. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  Public   01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Call me paranoid but I am worried about FAC requirements.  There is no real reason other than it seems like some topics need more discussion (like climate for one).  There is nothing keeping this article from being listed at GA, so I think we should nom there first.  Then again, FAC gives some excellent feedback...  It is a toss-up with me but if I had to choose instantly it would be GA first, then FA later.  ZabMilenko How am I driving? 07:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the very late response... I've been in the middle of nowhere for the past few days. I see you've [ nominated] it already, and I agree with you, it's better to start out lower and work up than to start at the top. I think it'll easily pass, but we may have to wait a while... GAN frequently has quite a backlog. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  5   22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my eavesdropping, but how about requesting a WP:Peer review? Many people advise getting one before nominating any article for FA, anyway. I haven't looked at the article yet, so I'm off to take a peek. -Pete (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to eavesdrop any time you want. A peer review would be very helpful, but would it be ok to have it sitting at GAN and PR at the same time? ZabMilenko How am I driving? 04:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)