Aboutmovies

How did Harvey really spell his name? I see one Findagrave listing (of two--I sure wish Findagrave was editable like a wiki) is with an "E" at the end and apparently the elementary school is too? What gives? Katr67 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

All the references I used had it as Clark, including Pacific and the city of FG (citation includes a scan of a land claim map with it minus the e). So my guess is minus the e. I think Clark(e) county had the same problem when they named it after the explorer, but forgot how to spell it. Maybe all Clarks used to be Clarke? Aboutmovies (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good day, could you take a peek at the tag I added to the article? You can see the reconversation about it on my talk page. I admit I'm biased and still not convinced the thing is notable, will give a second opinion? Feel free to remove the tag, some of the wording was toned down after I added it. Katr67 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the talk page for the reason why I deleted the image link. It was primarly do to how it was being displayed. Somehow the previous vandalism revert corrected the file but the not the displayed copy of the page; very strange. When you added the image back in, it fixed the problem. Thank you. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:Oregon History has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ��� Cirt (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:Or hist navigation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I don't think either of them really belong (or Phil Knight either, for that matter), but I do think if one is listed we should also list the other. Are they really that important to the modern history of the state of Oregon though? I don't see how they should be listed as one of the 23 most significant people to the modern history of Oregon. How are people chosen for the template? Seems like subjective choices could present a NPOV issue. Was there ever a discussion on what people to name? VegaDark (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you remove both, I won't complain. Perhaps we could start up a discussion on the criteria for inclusion on the template's talk page. VegaDark (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Lovejoy Street and Lovejoy Fountain Park in downtown Portland are named in his honor, while the character Reverend Timothy Lovejoy in The Simpsons is named after this street."

This sentence is uncited and WP:OR in the original article, so as it stands it is unsourced in the blurb as well, and should be removed until proper sourcing is provided for this. However, this will then make the blurb during the meantime way too short in proportion to the other Bio blurbs. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

I'm surprised with all your Simpsons work you didn't already have a source for this. I've added three, let me know if you need more as they are fairly easy to find since its rather common knowledge. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had not ever taken a good look at the articles either Asa Lovejoy or Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, but thanks for taking care of it. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

See, you don't even need my help. Wanna take it to FA anytime soon? Otherwise I'll procrastinate about one of your other nominations. :P Katr67 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If it weren't for the damn writer's strike I'd have a really good acceptance speech... FA, no, there just isn't enough info in RSs out there for it. Min probably needs it more than the case. But don't worry, I should have a couple more ready for GA in the next week or so along with McNary for FA. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the additions, but there are some minor problems with all of the new ones:

1. Portal:Oregon/Selected quote/12 - Missing a free-use image - all of the other quotes have one.
2. Portal:Oregon/Selected quote/13 - IMDB is a dubious source for a quote, best to use a better source.
3. Portal:Oregon/Selected quote/14 - Same here, best to find a better source than a website like SongLyrics.com.

• Cirt (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
  • Done, sources changed to the WikiMedia subpages they were taken from. Image is a should, and there are no free images available for Glanville or the football team. Though there are pictures of the PGE Park where they play their home games if you would like. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • That image would be fine. We cannot, however, use other Wikimedia projects as a source, doesn't nearly satisfy WP:RS/WP:V. Try a book or newspaper or something like that? Also, what's up with our discussion thread being in bold ? Cirt (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
• Made the sourcing changes myself, I'll let you add the relevant image, which would be a nice addition. Sorry if it seems I'm being a bit stringent with the requirements as far as sourcing and such - but the more strict we are now - the easier a time we will have getting the portal through WP:PPREV and WP:FPORTC, and on to WP:FPORT. And if we keep those strict standards, it will be easier for the portal to endure the test of time. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
  • Nevermind, I added the image. Thanks for these additions, I was hoping to get a few more, so this is nice. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

• Thanks for adding the image. With the bold, I was wondering the same thing (I may have fixed it). As to sourcing, step back a moment and think about that. First, the instructions for the portal component says to list the subpage from where the quote came from, not an outside source. Second, if so we go with the normal RS/V requirements for the Portal, everything in the portal needs to have the sources (i.e. all the featured and biography articles). Portals are not set up that way, which is why all references are stripped from the blurps. I know Wikipedia:Portal says the normal rules apply, but I think common sense would dictate that is more that the sources within Wikipedia used need to have the info abide by those rules before including the information/article in the portal. Otherwise everything but the quotes at this point need to go, right? Kind of like the WikiNews component where the source is not there until you click through.
• But thank you for pushing us along to get this to FP class, we've only been slowing moving forward before. I'm all for making it easier to pass through. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• You raise good points. (Don't know why the bolding is still here, must have something to do w/ your DYK notice from above.) However, these do apply to the "Selected article" sections - if sourced in their articles, then a blurb is okay, because it's used in this fashion at WP:TFA. But with smaller little quotes like WP:DYK, where we can show it once appeared on the Main Page, and quotes, where sourcing is relatively easy to find, then why not? It just strengthens the position of those pages/quotes, etc., down the line. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

• OK, it sounds like you agree then, sourcing it by referencing the article it came from is OK if the source article conforms with RS/V/A etc.? That's what my point above is, not that no sourcing is required. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• For Selected article, picture, and bios sections, yes, I agree. For DYK, need a link/DIFF/archived link to its appearance on Main Page. For quotes - need sources. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for alerting me to those problems with my edits. Sorry if I caused you problems. Kakofonous (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing some of the sourcing. FYI, I added the numbers of the Wikipedia:Recent additions, up through Portal:Oregon/DYK/20, so far. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

• FYI,   Done, finished up the rest of them. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

• Great, so what do we have left before listing for FP status? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Personally, I always go for some feedback from some experienced portal people at WP:PPREV before going straight to WP:FPORTC. But as for what else we can do before putting it up for a portal peer review, the only other thing I can think of that would be nice would be to get up to a total of (20) quotes at Portal:Oregon/Selected quote, and have them all have free-use images and sources for the quotes on the subpages. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

• I noticed there is a free-use image for Barbara Roberts, former governor of Oregon. Any chance we can get a good sourced quote from her about Oregon from some speech somewhere? Cirt (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
  • Nevermind, found some good speech/sources for her. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
•   Done - expanded quotes to 20. Also found a great source for more quotes if accompanying free-use images already exist on Wikipedia, and noted the source on the subpage's talkpage, for future reference. But for now, 20 should be fine. Cirt (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
  • As a side note, I don't want to clog the folks who review portals at WP:PPREV - as I already put up Portal:Internet recently and it's still up there, no comments yet. Feel like giving me some feedback on it at its portal peer review page? I figure I'll let that run until I get some good feedback or for one week - whichever is shorter, and then put up Portal:Oregon for review. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

Take a look at the coordinates, this is in the middle of a new housing development at the old Oregon Roses facility which is likely where the airstrip was located. My dad use to work there back in the 1960s and talked about them using planes for spraying. So in all likelihood this no longer exists as of about 2004 when Arbor Custom Homes tore down the nursery and started building houses. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you are right, (I've never driven by the site myself) I found some minutes from the City Council meeting rezoning the land in 2002. Good catch and thanks for the input! If you dad has any photos of the place it would be cool to upload and post it on the article! :-) I'll move it to indicate that it's closed. --Trashbag (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

1. Portal:Oregon/Selected quote/21
2. Portal:Oregon/Selected quote/22
3. Portal:Oregon/Selected quote/23

I was more going for quotes about Oregon with the previous ones, but I don't really see the relevance of these new ones, perhaps you could explain? Cirt (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

OK, first, with much of the portal work, great job. However, please be wary of WP:OWN. As to these quotes: Greg Oden was the #1 draft pick of the Portland Trailblazers (Oregon's only major team), and the injury was not only huge headlines in the US sports media, but dominated the news here (in Oregon) for at least a week and the newspeople here (Oregon) still mention it at least once a week. Phil Knight is an Oregonian, co-founded Nike (the only Fortune 500 company left in the state of Oregon), and gives a crap load of money to the UofO (part of the Oregon University System), and by the way signed Woods while in Oregon after Woods won the US Amateur at Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club located in Oregon, where Nike is headquartered (there is also a Tiger Woods Center building at the Nike Campus in Oregon). Art is also an Oregonian, and Everclear is a Portland band the The Oregonain has termed along the lines of the best rock band ever out of Portland, and some of the lyrics in the songs reference Portland (I wanna buy you that big house way up in the West Hills), and in 2004 Art was a delegate from Oregon to the DNC. So hopefully that is enough relevance. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is certainly enough relevance, but the lay reader of the portal will not understand the relevance just from reading the quote, but if you feel it's appropriate to include them, okay. As to your bringing up WP:OWN - WP:OWN would be if I just reverted you and removed those quotes outright, or reverted any and all activity done by anyone else on the portal. I have not done anything like that. Quite the contrary - I have frequently sought out both your opinion here on your talk page, and the opinion of others on the talk page of the portal itself. So that is most certainly not WP:OWN. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

I'm sorry, but when you question other's inclusion of items, and tend to set the rules without discussing, that is OWN, and reverting edits based on those criteria certainly is WP:OWN. Again, we appreciate your enthusiasm for the portal. Just keep in mind the cooperative nature we have had on previous work to the portal. When you say things there like this on the portal talk page: "Thanks for this input, however, it's already there..." it comes across as, that's great I don't value the other contributor's opinions, which comes across as ownership. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

1. The "Thanks for this input, however, it's already there," was simply the way I was responding to the user's comment. There was no "ownership" meant in that statement, perhaps you are interpreting too much into what you feel the tone was. As it is, the News section has since been updated from Wikinews with another relevant Oregon event from January. Cirt (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
2. reverting edits done here, that you highlighted, was simply because the quote was unsourced, as explained above. If we have to abide by WP:RS/WP:V/WP:OR in main article space, surely we have to abide by it in portal space. This is not a "rule I made up". And I have not been setting rules without discussing - why do you think I recently proposed the idea of tightening the criteria of Selected articles and Selected biographies on the talk page to WP:GA and WP:FA only, when I could have instead simply been WP:BOLD and changed the criteria myself, and removed the articles other editors had previously added. I did not do that. I posted to the talk page, asked for feedback, and when I got feedback that others (you) wanted to also keep the "B" rated articles, I did not contest that comment. That is not WP:OWN. It is the opposite. It is seeking out feedback on the portal talk page and user's talk pages. Why do you think I have been doing that, multiple times? Cirt (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

• Summation: Look, my point is, if I really wanted to WP:OWN the portal, I would not have sought out the degree of feedback from you and others on the portal talk page in the manner I already have. I apologize if you feel that some of my comments to you felt that way, but truly I am trying to get feedback from people who have historically been more active on the portal. And from my experience with getting other portals to featured status, most of the changes I've made so far and the "rules" you refer to, are really run of the mill stuff that portal reviewers like to see to get something to Featured Portal Status. Aboutmovies (talk · contribs), I hope that you and I can continue to work together amiably on this. I would appreciate it that if I ask for your opinion on something on a talk page, that you not think of that as WP:OWN, unless I revert you on something. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
  • I apologize for reverting you here, I should have just asked about the sourcing, and left the quote max as is while we figured it out - I should have assumed good faith about the quotes themselves, left the quote max as you had it, and then just adjusted the sourcing on the quote subpages in the meantime. I'm sorry about that, and I'll do my best to discuss these things with you first in the future. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
    • Or better yet, take it to the portal talk page. That's part of the reason why it comes across as ownership. When you go to a particular user's talk page and start questioning them about their edits, that comes across as ownership, not to mention other people involved may not be watching that talk page. Like I said, I and the other editors here at WPOR really appreciate your efforts, but we tend to know Oregon better than outsiders, such as the bit about the federal courthouse and the assassination plot. We can help you with things like that, and by letting you know what Oregon is about, thus what should be covered. I also hope we can continue to work on this, it has expanded quite a bit, so I'll drop the ownership issue.
    • On a side note, the only reason the Wikinews had a newer story is because I went and wrote the story so things could be a bit more current. Hopefully others will do the same every-so-often or I would have to agree that it shouldn't be there if stories are too infrequent. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, I hope you can accept my apology and accept that I am sorry for reverting you. As you suggest, from now on I will address these sorts of things at the portal talk page. As for Wikinews, I have no idea if more Oregon-related stories will crop up over there, but time will tell. Certainly if WP:ORE folks wanted to write an article on Wikinews from time to time, I'm sure the Wikinewsies people would really appreciate it. Again, I'm sorry about all this, I hope you and I can get back to some good footing and work well together. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
        • I accept, no real damage, lets move forward. I'm reply to your portal question right now. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
        • Okay, great. I'm sorry, though, I'm so confused now I don't even think there was still an existing portal question, I think everything is okay with the portal at the moment? Cirt (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

Great job on getting the Portal lookin' featurable. For Portal:Oregon/DYK/10, how about using a picture of the Crumpacker house instead of SF Bay (a little more Oregony...)? --Esprqii (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's why you put the pictures in the article, otherwise I can't find them and have to use obscure stuff from that evil place south of the border. ;) BTW, swapped out. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I forgot to put it in the main article when I added the house article. Thanks, lookin' cool! --Esprqii (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about Image:Silcox vista P1857.jpeg? The department of non-tourism would approve! —EncMstr 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its a nice picture, but for use where? I don't recall a DYK related to the hut/Timberline. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I thought it was for general Portal picture suggestions. Serves me right for not tracing the conversation back to its start. —EncMstr 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, now that makes sense. I listed on the "suggestion" list. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Quick question, Quote 36 - Is that a typo? Cirt (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

On Clark's part yes, not on mine. He nott two good spellr. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you want to, you could put [sic] after the word. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Is "this" supposed to be lowercase "t", second sentence of quote 37? Lemme know if it's okay for me to be pointing these things out to you as I notice them - I'll let you make the changes if need be. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• The quote is correct, I left a hidden comment about the grammar/spelling in case someone down the line tries to correct it. I added the sic along with a coin that better represents the quote on Clark's bit. Asking me here is fine. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Okay, kewl. If it's okay with you, I'm going to put the portal up on WP:PPREV in a couple days. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Sure, I think we have more than enough "stuff" added. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Oregon is undergoing a portal peer review, you can find the link to it listed at the bottom of the portal talk page, or at WP:PPREV. RichardF (talk · contribs), a user experienced at getting lots of portals to featured portal status, has made some good points. Zaui (talk · contribs) brought up an interesting idea carried over from some other states' portals - of perhaps splitting off some of the articles from the "Selected articles" section, and creating a new Selected attractions section. What do you think? You could also alternatively comment about it at the portal peer review page instead. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Update

The portal peer review has been relatively stagnant lately, but I'm not going to archive it until it goes up for featured portal discussion. Currently, I have a portal up for discussion now, Portal:Comedy. Whenever that finishes, I'd be ready to put up Portal:Oregon as a featured portal candidate. Could you look over the peer review once more and see if there is anything left to address and/or that you'd like to add before that? Cirt (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but it will be a few days. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay. It'll probably be a few days before Portal:Comedy closes at WP:FPORTC anywayz. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yip, in the process of nom'ing it now... Cirt (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Done -- It's up at WP:FPORTC, now just cross your fingers and wait! P.S. Thank you so much for all of your help! Cirt (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your COI note, I was just going to do the same. I tried to fix that section, but I'm sure it will get jumbled up again. --Esprqii (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I hate those POV pushers. I'd be great if it was a rule that if your campaign edits on another candidate's page then your article gets deleted. It would take like a week for all the campaigns to violate that rule and lead to all candidate pages being deleted, and then no more POV problems! But that's just a pipe dream. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Much of this is likely my fault. I've had some contact with both campaign -- Frohnmayer's too, for that matter. All are aware of WP:COI, and attempting to comply. (That doesn't mean every single intern or volunteer will comply to the letter.) Anyway, a notice like this is probably a good thing, and I believe that any of these campaigns will gladly adjust their editing if given clear instructions. -Pete (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know it wasn't my personal property, but why were you editing my user page anyway? AKleinberg (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw your edit too and was going to say something similar to AM. Personally I wasn't editing your userpage, but saw the edit because I have your page watchlisted since I posted the welcome message on your talk page. Katr67 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for enlightening me. AKleinberg (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Archtransit (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you look at it on Google Earth, its crystal clear the cemetery is one of the largest in the area. Period. PLEASE tell me you at least live in Oregon. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I appreciated your clean-up of the Winchester Bay site. Finchbook01 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the information you provided on my talk page about assessments. It was very helpful for me as I am fairly new to wiki and am still learning my way around. Would be happy to help evaluate new articles with you and others. 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. I am sure we will be in touch more as time goes on. C. Williams (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Once again, thank you for your great direction on the article Kim Peyton. I appreciate your comments on how to make the article better and qualify for B class. I will work toward finding some old photo's of her and locating the information you suggested to improve the article. I look forward to working with you in the future to expand and enhance Wikipedia. C. Williams (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• No problem, thanks for going through some of the other assessments, and again welcome to the project. We always can use new editors. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

-- more ...? Victuallers (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I shouldn't get any credit on this one. I only added a bit after it was started and not enough to trigger the 5 fold. But I've got 2 or 3 other currently nominated, so I'll happily take credit for those soon enough. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

When little George cut down that cherry tree, when did you suspect he was lying? It would make a good section on his page. :) Awotter (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I was 100% sure she was or is not the age of 120. It seems unlikely, but you never know. As to lying, I'm not sure if she ever was. She may have been delusional or senile, or relatives made it up back then (maybe some sort of pity play to get money for an old lady), or even the possibility that at some time she actually believed her mother's birth year was her own and so she really thought she was that age. Hard to tell. Until someone does a full inquiry that looks at every census record back and can track down the mother's death place and maybe find some third party sources showing references to her prior to 1810 or so, we may not know one way or the other. Then as to motivations, we may never know, and any theory as to how/why would be speculation. It's interesting, but its also been tiring due to strong accusations on both sides from people not really familiar with how Wikipedia works. The WPOR people never cared how old she was, only that the rules be followed, and I know I take exceptions to people saying there are errors and what not since we could only go by what was published. But I digress. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I feel that the list of IB classes taught at Hillsboro High School should remain up. Since Hillsboro High School is one of only ten IB schools in Oregon, I believe it benefits people to view what specific classes they offer. A full class list I agree to be unnecessary, but a select list to rarely offered classes is a unique trait to the school.Nerdyback (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to let you know that I am back in Portland and will be resuming Oregon related photo contributions in the near future. I'd also like to be back on the COTW notice list so that I can help out with that again. I'll be seeing you around the Wiki-Project Oregon. Cheers -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, and welcome back. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, I did not question your integrity. You think I am targetting your integrity and unfortunately is untrue. Second, if you want EVERYONE to declare COI (such as working with him on blah blah blah project or co-write an article that is now FA), I think the list will go for pages. Lastly, "directly engaged" is a neutral word so I can't relate this to violation of WP:CIVIL in any way. Final advice, if you are troubled (as written on your notice's subject), then don't read it! No one is forcing you to read it, eh? Anyways, please take accept my apology if you feel confused because of my comments. Now I have to get back to study because I got an exam on tomorrow. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not really what I would expect from an admin. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aboutmovies,

You don't know me, so I don't mind that you reverted my edit. Probably you don't have much time to figure out if an edit was good or vandalism. It probably looked like I deleted a lot of text, but all I did was to replace a section (former ACS presidents) with a navigational box. I hope you don't mind if I revert your action. Thanks Mgnelu (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed the article against the GA criteria. It is on hold so that you have time to address comments that I left on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article Matthew Deady that you nominated as a good article has passed  . Well done! Royalbroil 04:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the new shiny barnstar! I don't think I have that one yet. Collect them all! Hey since you're all about DYK noms, can you look at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 2 and see if my Malheur Rez nom is up to snuff? Also if you could check out the Scappoose Airport and especially the Finley family threads on my talk page, that would be great. Thanks for chiming in about the frat. Back to work... Katr67 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The DYK is slightly long (200 character max), would this work for you: "that the Malheur Reservation in the U.S. state of Oregon was set aside for Native Americans in 1872 and opened to European American settlement by Ulysses S. Grant in 1876?"

I'll check in on the other items later. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the award! Thats all I wanted to say. AKleinberg (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've nominated Willamette Collegian, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 5, where you can improve it if you see fit. Nice work! -Pete (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the catch on my erroneous revert of the Burgerville article. I wasn't doing a good job of assuming good faith by the anon. editor. Cacophony (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Though it did take me a minute to make sure I wasn't crazy. Do you have a pics of Portland City Hall, especially the Fifth Ave side? Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just added one from the 4th Ave side that I took today. The 5th Ave side was much more difficult due to vegetation, parked cars, and traffic. Maybe it will be better if I try on a Sunday Morning. I'll create a commonscat and put my best efforts from today there. Cacophony (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK then you can revert. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The information given are present in the references. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for including that. I'm reminded of the flap around the Henry Wemme estate flap, in which George W. Joseph and T. Mannix were disbarred following Joseph's accusing CJ John L. Rand of colluding with Mannix. Crazy times back then. -Pete (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Victuallers (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm not sure exactly where to go for this, but I noticed that you're on both the Project Oregon and Project Biography collaborations, so I thought I'd ask you for some help. I rewrote the article on Brad Cloepfil a while back, but it seems that no one has gotten around to reviewing the changes. I believe the notability of the article was in question and hopefully I provided enough to establish notability. Would it be appropriate for me to ask you (or ask you where to find help) to look it over for quality? I didn't want to delete the cleanup tag without any outside comments, but would like to see it gone. I would also like to see it upped to at least a start-class on the quality scale (but I'm not sure what the requirements are) and want to know what the weaknesses of the article is so I can try to improve it. I'm just not sure how these things work... Thanks! Cluskillz (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking into it and doing those fixes. I tried looking into his personal life to expand his biography section but there was surprisingly little. All I've found are passing remarks about where he was raised and that he has a wife and three daughters. Cluskillz (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up that an editor has requested that you provide a quotation from The Oregonian article in the reference list for these two articles before featuring at DYK, as the newspaper's online archive doesn't seem to go back that far. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations - the pictured slot! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

and

Double congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it helps back up your claim, you could mention that I've posed for a fundraising calendar (Ms. August), as have the men of the Junction City grange... Katr67 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I don't think it will be necessary, they already took it. So it'll be on the main page, plus they took the picture too! With the house shoot, they were carefully done to avoid showing certain body parts, was it the same way with you and the boys? Aboutmovies (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The one I did was rather...alternative. My page, to quote a local publication, was "tastefully vanilla" compared to some of the contributions (you never know what your mom might get ahold of). Where I'm from it isn't even illegal to show certain body parts in public! But the JC boys had pots of flowers, bottles of wine, etc. with some slightly riqué captions. My friend was a teacher around those parts and said "My job was paid for by a bunch of naked old guys!" They raised a ton of money for the local schools. Katr67 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wanna field the POV golf edit question? Katr67 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your observations. "Wanna field the POV golf edit question? Katr67 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)"

I note this is not your first time with a newbie and I found the information insightful.

I am not writing to question your observation regarding the golf courses in Salem. You will note upon careful examination that there are only 2 golf facilities with in the city limits. Creekside Golf Club - Private requires country club membership and Salem Golf Club. A facility identified as Semi-Private with fees in excess of $55. A typical Municipal facility would have affordable fees in the $25 to $30 range.

While I may not like this situation it was not the point of my article and for my inexperience I apologize. I will have to do better.

Issues that concern me are Land Use Planning, Quality of life, truth and fairness, and educational opportunities for the entire community.

For some time now the City has ignored their "Quality of Life" commitments to the citizens, among them recreation and a subset of this Golf. This would be of little consequence except for the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

( [1] )

In 2004 the city stated

"Golf courses are the primary example of outdoor recreation use in the Salem urban area, outside of facilities contained within parks."

^[1] Why would a community make such a commitment to their citizens then take action to destroy the facilities providing the services by turning the facilities into housing developments. Sure if you have the money you can still participate in this "sport" but if you are an average wage earner you have lost the ability to ride a bus or bike to a golf facility. If your a kid and you want to learn this sport you are pretty much out of luck.

Each year I volunteer to teach golf to the middle school students at Walker (in West Salem) many who are from foster homes. What irks me is that I am given a reward to share with the participants "a chance to actually play a free 9 holes of golf" after they complete the program. The problem they have to have someone drive them to Independence, Stayton, Woodburn or Mt Angel in order to test their skills on a real golf course.

What are we teaching them? Sure how to swing a club, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, kind of like the first class in contracts at Willamette Law School. The most important lessons are Integrity, honesty, confidence, sportsmanship, courtesy, judgment etc. I have discovered that golf can serve as a tool to expose these traits in a person as they play the sport. I find this a great insight into individuals.

So to get back to the original issue. The City states they recognize golf as important in the community promoting the activity as a recreational community opportunity. Then the city ignores funding such facilities for their citizens by encouraging development on such facilities.

Now this may sound like a WP:SOAPBOX or an opinion, just the same these are facts about the city Parks and Recreation services. They are facts about the City of Salem and Golf in the community. Wikipedia has elected to identify sports and recreation in the City of Salem. Does this mean only certain facts and sports are eligible? (thus my question about hiking.) Likely this was a confrontational question and I will take the reply as a learning issue. How does one specify such facts and maintain the NPOV? I understand the value of historical reporting regarding the Oregon experience. Does this mean current history and civil issues are not to be included?

I intend to focus some of my activity on the Land Use issue history in Oregon. If I learn the Wikipedia writing style I hope such subject matter would be eligible for consideration. I am unclear if one just enters an edit or is there a peer review procedure to gain the "consensus" acceptance identified in the tutorial.

Your leadership would be valued. SLM463 (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:OregonTerritorySeal outer.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was working through a list of images missing information and I corrected the licensing of your upload to one for emblems, seals, etc. along with the needed non-free/fair use summary. After I finished, I noticed that the image was orphaned so that my correcting it wasn't needed.Shinerunner (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, if I'm mistaken you can always revert it back. The image has been tagged by a bot for deletion so you might want to use it in an article and then remove the deletion tag.Shinerunner (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aboutmovies, I'd be happy to take some photos of the Vera Katz statue on the Eastbank Esplanade and post the best one to the Commons for use in Vera Katz if you think that's a good idea. Just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, EL is not policy. Secondly, it's very annoying to arrive at an article about an organization, and not to be able to find a link to that organization's website. It really is just a question of common sense to include the link prominently in EL. Remember that people who read articles want to know about the subject. They want Wikipedia to make it easy for them to find the information, not create a maze for them to wander through first. :) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now that I look at it again, you're right; it's prominent enough on the infobox, so I've reverted myself. My apologies for causing the back-and-forth. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. Discourse is always healthy. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh people of the excellent library searching skills! Would you or Pete like to try to find this article for me? "Pulitzer-prize winning author has Eastern Oregon ties", East Oregonian, May 9, 2007. I can't find anything on the Eastern Oregon thing other than this vanished article. Not sure if anybody's library has access to the East Oregonian's stuff. I just want to know if she lived over there or what. Thanks! (cross-posted to Pete's page) Katr67 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw your note on the Southern Oregon Coast Range discussion page. It's hard working without a general consensus about valid sources of information. I just do the best I can with the advice I get. I'm going to bring up the subject over at the WikiProject_Mountains discussion page. I have no strong feelings about it other than that we should get it right. --DRoll (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I copy edited the article again and I hope it is up to your specifications. If not perhaps we can discuss it before you revert my edits again. --DRoll (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I can find no fault with my last effort. All citations use templates except one (that because it involves a template used commonly in Mountain articles). As for date format you and Katr67 need to talk that over. It's back to format of 2008-03-31 format. That is the format suggested in the template documentation and is the format implemented in edits made by Katr67. I've been watching the discussion at Wikiproject Mountain. There always is something for us all to learn. Thanks for your efforts. --DRoll (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting a picture of the Grand! Katr67 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I had no idea it what it was until after. I had some free time in downtown and just took pictures of as many old buildings as I could, figuring some had to be NRHP. Next time I'm planning it out, it was far too difficult to piece back together what was taken where and cross check with the NRHP listings. The code people need to work on being able to add coords to the photo requests and a way to then print it out on a simple map. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you pick up the pamphlet on Historic Downtown Salem, it will help you figure out what's what. Since most of downtown is a historic district, chances are good that everything you get will at least be a contributing property. Unless it's made of glass and chrome and steel of course. FYI, I have snaps of... The Boise Building, Boons Treasury, Garfield School, The Gray Building, some closeups of Greenbaums, The Manning Building, and the Union Street Bridge. I have Gilbert House and the Rockenfield House at A.C. Gilberts, but it was a cloudy day and the colors look like crap. Outside of downtown I have the Forestry building and the Adolph House, also the old gate at the Pen, but it doesn't look like much. Do you have J.K. Gill and I forget the rest, but the block with Wild Pear and Cook's? OK, I am about to completely lose my mind, more NRHP-geekspeak later... Thanks again! Katr67 (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

None? :( Katr67 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Later tonight, I was conducting an experiment to see if anybody would write without the notice. So far no new articles that I've seen for the current members, though I have two in the works. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interested? You have been a contributor more than long enough, and have helped greatly with the encyclopedia. If you think you could use the tools, I would be happy to write up a nomination statement (probably not within the next couple days, but I will likely have time this weekend). If so, I would suggest you look at past RfAs to see the types of questions you should be prepared to answer, as people have been asking a lot lately. VegaDark (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Just wanted to see how your doing! Life going well? My goal is to make friends with every single person on wikipedia! Will you be my wiki-friend?

216.229.227.142 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply