User talk:Valfontis: Difference between revisions

• Index of archives and temp pages

Hi Kat, I have removed all bias from my addition but have not cited anything. Citation will be added in the form of a Wiki leaks article which I will add within a day or two with proof of the employment practices. I apologize for not citing anything earlier. But nothing on the article is cited therefore I didn't feel it was necessary.

Thanks, Kitchenclerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchenclerk (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me Kat. (see note on my user page) Yes, the article is mostly uncited, but when inserting controversial opinions, these definitely need to be cited. See the related: WP:OTHERSTUFF I don't know what Wiki leaks is, but I doubt it is a reliable source. Do click on the blue links in the message I posted to you to learn more. A reliable source would be something like the R-G or the Weekly. Note also per the "not a soapbox" link I posted, that if you're only interested in contributing to Wikipedia in order to post about employment practices at a single business, this may be seen as a single-purpose account, and your editing may be taken less seriously and be subject to reversion by other editors besides me. I'd suggest learning about other ways you can contribute to the project. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance, can you check and see if I have added all the Oregon ones? Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Frank Estate at Lewis & Clark. There's probably several more. Katr67 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I figured there were probably some more. And I figured you were a little more familiar with the Oregon listings. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katr

I am an employee in the communications office at the Oregon National Primate Research Center. I keep an eye on our Wikipedia page as it has been the target of animal rights activists in the past who want to change the page so that it is only critical of the center and does not talk about our accomplishments.

I see that you have been editing the page and thank you for that. I think it is great to see information added so that the public learns more about us.

Because I am aware of the policy that organizations should not edit their own pages, I am writing you to get your advice.

There are a few things about the page in its current state that concern me and I would like your thoughts about how the system can work to ensure that the page accurate in its representation of the center

Here are my specific thoughts:

The page seems slanted right now so that animal rights issues as a whole heavily dominate the page. These incidents were part of our history and I certainly don't think they should be deleted, but we have existed for over 40 years and they are a small part of our history. It seems to me that in comparison the section about our research is incredibly short and not representative of the tremendous breakthroughs we have had. I would be happy to add to it but apparently cannot - thoughts on this?

One breakthrough, which is not even mentioned, is last year’s groundbreaking stem cell finding that was named by TIME magazine (along with a human study) as the #1 science breakthrough of the year. The finding was also reported in over 700 news outlets around the world. Here are a few links to illustrate http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16298417 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/science/15primate.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/15/MNHITCGT6.DTL&type=printable http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1686252_1690920,00.html

While this was a huge finding, we have also had many other very significant ones that are not mentioned at all on the page. It just seems odd to me that this section is so short when we have done so much

Another concerning issue about the page is that it fails to mention that in 2007 (just as was the case in the 2000 animal rights infiltration) we were cleared of wrongdoing by the USDA. Here are links to documentation (The USDA report, news articles) that prove this: http://speakingofresearch.com/2008/07/04/peta-out-with-the-new-in-with-the-old/ http://speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/11-26-2007_onprc_inspection_rpt.pdf http://www.katu.com/news/local/12163211.html http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8TBFBT80.html

The animal care oversight section is also incredibly short. The amount of oversight that we have and our outstanding record (it’s very common for us to get a completely clean bill of health) are not explained here. This is not as big of an issue, but for all the regulation we operate under, this seems really, really short.

If you have a chance to give me advice on how our page can become more representative of what we are, I’d value your thoughts – thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onprc (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw this now. This info would be better presented on the article's talk page. I'm neither pro- nor anti-ONPRC and don't really wish to be involved except in the formatting of the page. Katr67 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped eliminate some red links the last few weeks (the NWFP received little attention). This week, we have the stub High Desert Museum and then in honor of losing airline service again, McNary Field. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Xitit diff

I just wanted to send you a note saying such. It's been useful! -- Xitit (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where are the edits made? Ronleenow (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Ron Lee[reply]

The "Have fun" comment was a remark not towards the fact of having fun deleting the material, but rather it will be a long hard process to weed out the non notable airports in the list. It was no way in regards to Trashbag either. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sense of place? this seems right up your alley. -Pete (talk)

Cool, thanks! Fortunaerota is pondering what to tell you about the OE meeting. Maybe I'll just forward you what he wrote to me about it if it's juicy enough! Katr67 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page and at WP:EAR. I'm OK with your revert at Neighb'rhood Childr'n, but I'm curious what you think the external link adds to the article. All I could see was the name and home city of the band, plus a lot of advertising. Maybe you know something I don't. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it doesn't add much, but it shows images of all the albums, with the label numbers, and especially since the cheesy MySpace page got taken down, it perhaps gives folks a chance to hear what the band sounds like. The TWOS website looks to me more like a labor of love than a commercial site--he's got a donate button, and maybe he makes some money from Amazon click-throughs. I'd assume good faith, even if he shouldn't be adding his link to the big-name bands' articles. And I can assure you that I really hate linkspam and self-promotion on the wiki! I hope this explains. Katr67 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to when you said "You should read about dispute resolution and see if you need a third opinion. "

JakeGavin (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but I don't see myself putting in enough time on those articles to warrant being a member of the project. Let me know if my occasional edits get in the way, however. --ClarkLewis (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your deletion of the parent category in Category:Oregon school stubs It is there for the specific reason of making easier for users to properly categorize stubs and is consistant with the use in the other Categories Category:Education in State Name Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me and for your spirit of good faith and cooperation you wrote your comment with.

"Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." I think the Whole Wheat Radio wiki pages that I've been linking fit that definition admirably - perhaps better than the commercial pages (Myspace, Allmusic, etc.) that are frequently included in the External Links sections. Our non-commercial "good faith" mission statement

If you are in a position to determine if these links to a well-established, long-term, non-commercial, all volunteer supported Mediawiki collaborative site where a large database of additional information about these artists, albums and songs can be found is considered spam, please let me know. If the spam concern is because I was the principal founder of WWR, then it would be extremely helpful for me to know that so I can further encourage other WWR listeners to do the actual linking. I understand if you are personally unable to do that since it appears you have an active life outside of Wikipedia.

Once again, I sincerely appreciate your pointing out the potential problem - it's not entirely unexpected. I decided, as I significantly reduce my personal involvement with WWR (it is definitely no longer "my" site but a fully-volunteer supported wiki collaborative site I help facilitate), I would at least give it a shot with the independent artists found here. I have notified WWR listeners that I need their help in posting these links and I will cease doing the linking unless I am given some assure from the Wikipedia community that this good-faith cross-pollination of two non-commercial wikis is not going to be called out as potential spam again. I despise spam as much as...no...more...than anyone.

Thanks again for your input and any comments you may have. Jimkloss (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC) ADDENDUM: Further discussion/explanation taking place. Jimkloss (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to get in an editing war with you, until you clarified what is considered Wiki standards for Notable Residents regarding Coos Bay, OR. I will make all the appropriate entries in to Wiki, give John his own page etc, and then come back and edit the Coos Bay page. More then likely Muenchrath will be the next mayor of Coos Bay, so I may wait until then to make the edits. Kind Regards 12.107.135.146 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Donald Mackenzie (explorer) is one of them. Dictionary of Oregon History says the river is named after him, so my guess is its this guy. Plus this guy is the only one with that or a similar name in that book. But I think you have the Cap Names book? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's our boy! Thanks! I was going to search on my redlinks to see if any of them already had articles, but you know how my intentions are... Katr67 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm curious about the Mid to Low priority rating change on the Jerry Andrus article WikiProject banners. I classified it as Mid based on the WikiProject Biography priority scale. Thanks, --momoricks ^talk 23:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each WikiProject assigns an importance rating. The quality ratings should generally be the same across projects, but the importance ratings can vary. For Oregon, he seems to be of low importance, because although he lived in Oregon, his notability doesn't seem to be Oregon-related. You can see more about WP:ORE's guidelines here. The ratings don't reflect anything more than the priority we feel should be given to improving the article, and is not a reflection on the worth of the subject. I hope that explains. Katr67 (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I asked that question because I mistakenly thought you had assigned Low priority to all of the banners. Doh!

On a personal note, it's cool to see that you are a member of WikiProject Oregon. I was born and raised in Corvallis, went to school in Eugene and now live in Seattle. Do you mind me asking where you are from? Best regards, momoricks ^talk 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of those places. Went to school there too. The coolest one. :) Katr67 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy WikiProject Oregon humans. Time for another edition of the C to the O to the T to the W. Thanks to those who help out on McNary Field and Bend’s High Desert Museum. For this week, we shall tackle Bridges on US 101 and then with the last few days of decent weather, The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. Plenty of red links on the bridge list, or improve a stub! Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the thing about Oregon ghost towns that we engaged in some time ago, leading to discussion at the Oregon project talk page? I just discovered by accident rather relevant to this: §221.862 of the Oregon Revised Statutes offers a specific definition of "historic ghost town". Of course, I know that you might be aware of this; but I don't remember such a definition coming up some months ago. Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did. See: Category talk: Census-designated places in Oregon#Ghost towns where I mentioned it before. As far as I could tell then, it was a ceremonial and largely-abandoned statute. I was unable to find a list or hardly any mention at the time. I'm not sure who would bestow the honor on a place or who would keep track of it. Perhaps the state historic preservation office. However, looking more closely at the statute, it appears to be mostly an administrative designation vs. a ceremonial one. In that case, Greenhorn, Oregon clearly fits. This article talks about the tax base. So there ya go. Katr67 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to type the specific areas...Is this a problem? At least the reqphotos will come up on the main list; anyone else is welcome to finetune it by area later. If you live in Oregon, it would be great to take some pictures and add then. I appreciate the shoutout. Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Um, huh? You have to have signed up to be considered inactive!"

Oh. Well, User:Peteforsyth invited me to get involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon, and i wanted to indicate my interest even though i have not made the requisite five edits (i thought if i started editing, then i would move my name to the active section). Would that work for you? --John_Abbe (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Go ahead and sign up in the active section--the inactive section is an archive. I just clarified the criteria. If you sign up in the "2008" section we'll have a record of when you joined. Take a look at our to-do lists, take part in some COTWs, and you'll find that getting five edits in two months is easy! Happy editing! Katr67 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has blocked the user and has semi-protected the Pioneer Courthouse Square article for 3 months. That should choke off that sock for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for your vandal patrols at pdx.wiki.org! I'm writing to let you know that your RFA over there was unanimous, and you have been assigned a mop. Use it wisely!

Oh, and also. What's your level of interest in bikewiki? I have talked to two people recently who want to set one up. One is Ilana, and the other...well, um, I forget. But let me know if you want to work on this, and I can put y'all in touch. -Pete (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! I'll try not to let the power go to my head!

My interest level in a bike wiki is high. But my available time right now is low. Here in Salem, the bike community is a bit splintered and it would be nice to have a one-stop clearinghouse for all bikey related stuff in town. The closest thing we have right now is my friend's blog. Funny thing is, he's not interested in being involved in a wiki. On the upside, my other friend, Mike has offered to set up a bike wiki and host it on his server. He's already forgotten, but I'm not going to remind him about it until I have time to work on it, likely not until March. Long story short: it will happen, I want to keep it Salem-specific for now, I want to keep it viable and managable, I want to have lots of time to get it going, and I need to do some legwork in order to promote it around here. But I think once it gets going, we should throw it open and make it statewide (and likely membership only). I would love to hear other folks' ideas, and I gathered a list of existing bike wikis from which to take inspiration, so I can pass them along, but I won't have much time to devote to the project until later. But of course if folks want to start a PDX bike wiki, go for it! Katr67 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...So. You're a sysop on another wiki, eh? Hmmm... *nudge* — Scientizzle 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm a sysop on three other wikis. Neener. :P P.S. You got moved to inactive status on WP:ORE, you slacker... Katr67 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. I'm a terrible slacker. I've not contributed to Oregon stuff for some time--haven't managed more than a few vandal reverts. Too many important sciency things for me to write about, I suppose. — Scientizzle 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katr67.

I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the South Salem High School page. No edit explanation was given.

-Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanGFilm (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use rollback without an edit summary when other editors will surely agree that no edit summary is necessary. In this case, the edit summary would have read "Blatant self-promotion--non-notable and links to userspace". In other words, you aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, you're using Wikipedia to promote yourself, and Wikipedia is not a free advertising space, and articles do not contain links to user pages. (Also note that your page may be in violation of #7 on this list of things you shouldn't have on your user page.) Please read about conflict of interest and wait until you are notable enough to have someone else write an article about you. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from and protest that it was not done out of self promotion.

I'll explain myself this way:

A listed notable alumni is now principal at another school. Filmmaking is quite an achievement and considered even more so than becoming an educator. That is why I submitted that edit. If your opinion is that I'm self promoting myself then the link to my user page could have been deleted and all would be well. In terms of not being notable by Wikipedia standards - well - that in reality is a form of any given editor's opinion. Some may say, for instance, that becoming a principal at a school would be notable. Others would not.

What's your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanGFilm (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion and the opinion of the Wikipedia community as outlined in notability guidelines for people is that neither you nor the principal are notable at this time. Thus, neither should be listed at the school' page under "notable alumni", as that has been the consensus around here for quite some time. Also, please sign your talk page posts using ~~~~ after your comments. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you should learn to sign your posts and that Aboutmovies has it right. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Katr67 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you, Kat67, should not be so abrasive when communicating with the Wiki community. It makes for a poor experience. Aboutmovies gave me a sufficient answer and that was enough. And if you don't like how I do, or do not sign my posts then remove them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanGFilm (talk • contribs) 10:27, December 18, 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You're probably right. But ya know, when there's a giant red notice at the top of my page explaining how to sign posts, it does make me a little irritated when people don't do it. As a matter of fact, some editors don't even bother to respond to unsigned posts at all, so it's good to try to remember to do this if you want to learn how to communicate effectively on Wikipedia. Just sayin'. No need to respond--I shan't bother you or your edits again. Good luck with film and Wikipedia, and have a great day! Katr67 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Please take a look at the comment I left with regard to the two requests you posted at Speedy Renaming. Neither of them qualify -- basically, you went to the wrong place. I know it's a bit of a bother, but it helps if you take the time to read the criteria carefully. Best, Cgingold (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so darned non-intuitive, I think I'll just not bother anymore. Thanks though. Katr67 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medford Mail Tribune had an article on Sunday, 12/12/2008 about the re-emergence of the site of the former ghost town of Copper Oregon from beneath the waters of Applegate Lake. Thought you'd like to read it.DaKine (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks! I wish the picture was better! Want to go take one??? There are few other places that were flooded out by reservoirs...Celilo Falls of course...there's another town in Lane County I can't think of right now... Katr67 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a stub article for it. Katr67 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping edit this page. I've attempted to use only outside sources that are idenpendtly verifable. One of the earlier editors had suggested that there was no connection to the book "Debating te Death Penalty" so a link to Oxford University Press' own site was added. Coastda (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and the explanation (I understand the situation now); I've reverted the ZIP codes page to the way you had it. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please overrule PeteForsyth on this edit.

Joshua Marquis

Removed link: Opposing Discussion http://driedsalmon.proboards54.com/index.cgi?board=discussion2

Posted Reason: Unreliable source

Dispute: It is exactly what it says, a source of opposing discussion, alternatively it could be called opposing opinion. The fact that it is called "Opposing" indicates it is not likely to be in agreement with the subject, hence should transcend the bounds of "unreliable source." Users should not be prevented from seeing this source.

You could alternatively call it a debate forum since the subject DA is equally welcome to post as a registered user, anonymous user, or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will check this out, however, a) I am very likely to agree with Pete, and b) I am unlikely to entertain such a request from an anonymous editor who can't follow my talk page directions... Katr67 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod. A message board?! That is indeed not a reliable source. Please read up on Wikipedia policy by clicking on the blue links provided in our messages to you. FYI, I have no opinion one way or the other about the subject in question, I'm only interested in upholding Wikipedia policy and guidelines and I know Pete is too. Katr67 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please raise this as a complaint to your superiors until it reaches someone who finds common sense of more use than Wikipedia policy and guidelines. There is no sensible reason to exclude a link to a forum of opposing opinions. Wikipedia will never achieve the credibility of Brittanica by hiding useful information and diminishing interactivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.213.230 (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Good luck, you'll need it. Katr67 (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP, could you let me know when Brittanica posts your link, thanks. I'll be waiting with my snowshoes in hell. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, did you raise the complaint to your superiors? Who would that even be? Jimmy Wales? WNW3 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katr67! Thank you for your help on the article Associated Students of the University of Oregon! I am trying to start the article on the University of Oregon's student government so that other contributors can expand on the topic. I am wondering, however, why the sources and external links have been questioned. I provided several links from the official website of the asuo and media articles. What other links would be needed?

Thank you, EMUBoard (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no, read the policy in the links provided in the template. There are far too many external links, in other words, a linkfarm. Links should be used as citations but there shouldn't be so many links to the same website. Do watch the COI also. Happy editing. Katr67 (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion of a template for WP:SUP sounds like a great idea. Did you start a draft yet? I'd also like to let you know that Wikveristy has a v:Wikiversity:School and university projects. For some projects attempted by students that might be outside the scope of wp we could suggest that that they create a v:Wikiversity:Learning project. --mikeu ^talk 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way! How nice ... I think I feel like I'm going to keep doing some more then :D Thank you very much! Bobjgalindo (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have quite a few photos that might work. Hopefully the list gets a tad smaller. I should've done it a while ago. But it's happening and that's what counts. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. (No, I hadn't seen the categories: I'll consult them frequently). Bobjgalindo (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help clarify what about the two articles "epipe" and "ace duraflo" needs to be addressed in order to make it wiki friendly. I'm new to this and could use some feedback. Jdiemert (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katr67. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katr. Thanks for the note on my page. I'll chalk up the six degrees thing to Eugene being a small town! You cranky? Never with me. You were actually the one who got me started and enjoying work on Wiki. I've moved over a lot of articles more centered around my interests, but still check in with the Wiki:Oregon group now and then. Say hi to "the little bird" next time you see her. -- Ljmajer (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, thank you to everyone who has done work the last few weeks on the last two COTWs. This week we have by request Oregon and California Railroad, part of the lands involved in the Oregon Land Fraud Scandal. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have longtime politician Grattan Kerans, which hopefully can be turned into a nice DYK entry. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and sorry about that!! Manafan5 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an edit to the Entertainment section of Portland, Oregon to include myself as a new resident. Twice it has been deleted. Is there certain criteria I must meet to be able to establish myself as a working Artist, Musician, Producer, Engineer and Photographer? Or am I just doing something wrong? Countrokula (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Katr, but I can chime in--I've left a reply on your talk page. --Finngall ^talk 03:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I can't say it any better than Finngall except to mention that I'm very very very wary of folks who try to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. With that caveat, I always encourage folks to seek out other opinions. Finngall is very fairminded and has quite a bit of experience with articles about bands and musicians, so I'd say his second opinion is a good one. Good luck and welcome to Oregon! Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be overlooking the point as regards this feature. Maybe "cock rock" is what the Indians called it, but the user wouldn't provide a citation. Regardless, "rooster" was substituted in order to make the name G-rated. It was named for the male organ, not for the chicken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a newbie. The whole article is uncited, so why would s/he think s/he had to cite his/her contribution? Anyways, I quickly found some citations. Good day. Katr67 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't get the "rhyming slang" part, though. It's not rhyming slang, it's a homonym - "cock" meaning two different things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. I believe Mr. McArthur was being delicate, but leaving the reader enough clues to infer what the word in question might be. The exact quote is: "The modern name is of phallic significance originating from rhyming slang." In other words, not rhyming slang, but slang that rhymes. I'll reword it a bit. Maybe we should write the McArthurs (now the original McArthur's son and granddaughter) about the inaccuracy before the 8th edition goes to press... Katr67 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wikipedia is not censored, so we could just lay it on the line. Tomorrow, maybe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or today. Your revision looks good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting the lies on my editor review page:[1]. User:Markosjal said some nonsense comments about my revert to Rooster Rock. My faith was never a factor. The reason for the revert--which was made through Huggle--was what appeared to be vandalism. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't know about "lies" though. You might want to explain what you just explained to me to the user in question. I think this new user is just a bit grumpy for having been reverted. (see also the above thread.) Everyone would do well to AGF, ya know, innocent until proven guilty and all that. I looked at your user page, and it would be easy for a newbie to assume, seeing the "comment on my edits" link to your editor review, that this is where s/he needed to complain about how s/he's been treated thus far. Good day. Katr67 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted a note to the newbie's talk page about the matter. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. Willking1979 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible/wise to checkuser on him, then block his IP from new account creation for some period of time? Or has that been done already? tedder (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we can reopen the old checkuser case on him. But I believe he's using a dynamic IP so we can't block for long. Maybe contact the folks who did the last checkuser. I don't have time to look for it right now. But I wish everyone would stop rising to the bait and just ignore him. Occasionally I give some advice about how to proceed, as if he isn't a troll, but arguing with him is pointless and a waste of all our time. Katr67 (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I learned to RBI :-) That's why I'm posting here. Thanks. tedder (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My ears are burning. OK, it's in the "endless loop" phase of trolling at this point, so if he posts again I'll try and leave it be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They disagree with me and are trying to get me banned." [2] Curious words from a guy who hasn't even expressed an opinion that could be disagreed with. Ding-ding-ding! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to remove the "suspected sockpuppet" banner from his user page. Should we care? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Katr67 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we know about him now is that he lives in the Northwest (which was obvious) and I assume he's not among the homeless, since he eats and probably works at Red Robin. Unless he also lives there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the old checkuser case. I'd spend as little energy as possible on him. Yes that means you Bugs. But if this sock acts up again, I'd simply approach the folks who worked on the case and let them quietly block the sock. Katr67 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now back on my watch list. As long as the Square page remains protected, he's mostly harmless. And if someone "new" pops in with the same question, I think it is appropriate to ask the same question back. And if they won't answer, they're toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even bother. It's pretty obvious when they pop up that it's the same person. It's possible we may need to take this to Wikipedia:Long term abuse (someone should ask on the talk page about this before adding the case to the list). In the meantime, I would just calmly explain how s/he can contribute and if they don't answer, then we ignore them and if they continue to troll, we checkuser and block them. And that's it. No back and forth, no anger, no lengthy explanations, no good faith, no bad faith, no nothing. Seriously this is the last post I'm making regarding the subject. Whatever personality disorder this person has, they are feeding off any attention we give the matter. I'm done discussing it. No more posts here about it, if you please. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from you, I think, after attempting to edit out a misleading and inaccurate recent edit on the entry for Corvallis, Oregon. I had not done anything substantive on the edit, just entered a description, but when I returned I had the new message.

Please let me know what one does when he finds a new paragraph in an article which is not only inaccurate, but is unsupported by the (outdated) reference. In the meantime, I think the paragraph labeled "Religion" in the Corvallis, Oregon entry should be deleted in its entirety.

Thanks, and apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to raise this concern.

John L. Barlow (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)John Barlow[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about in regards to "a misleading and inaccurate recent edit". According to the page history, you added a section on Team Corvallis, a section on Craig Robinson, and an external link to Team Corvallis, then subsequently edited the paragraph you added. I don't see any edits where you changed something previously written by someone else, but if I'm missing something, please link to the page diff.

No, the reason I sent you a message about conflict of interest, is (having some experience in these matters) that it appears you may in some way be connected to Team Corvallis. You haven't done anything wrong, but I did want to make you aware that Wikipedia is not for promoting causes or businesses, no matter who or what is being promoted or how good a cause it may be. I apologize if you're not actually connected with Team Covallis, but several things about your edits set off my "spammer" alarms, including the addition of the Team Corvallis link to the external links section. However, seeing that your addition had some merit, I cleaned up your edits instead of deleting them outright.

As far as the "Religion" section, that kind of concern should be posted on the article's talk page, as I don't own the article and that sort of decision, that is, one that is not a cut-and-dried case of policy or guideline violation, should be made by consensus of several editors. I hope this explains. P.S. No need to type out your name when you sign a post--the "~~~~" will take care of that for you! Katr67 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. And thanks for cleaning up my edits so that they conform.

I was looking at the Corvallis page and started to edit that religious section when your message popped up. So it was coincidence--I attributed your message to be in response to what I was doing at that moment. I appreciate the clarification.

John L. Barlow (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. Actually, no one can "see" what page you are editing until you hit the "Save page" button, that is why I had no idea to what you were referring. Apparently you encountered what is called an "edit conflict" while I was in the middle of a major revamp of the page. Just a hint though, if you had planned to remove the Religion section without explanation, your edit would likely have been reverted. (Personally I think there is nothing wrong with a mention of Oregon, and Benton County in particular, as being very "unchurched"--I hear references to this fact in the media all the time.) It's always a good idea to use edit summaries. You should use them all the time, but especially when making a potentially controversial edit like blanking a section, since this can be seen as vandalism. I hope this helps. Katr67 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on User talk:Enigmaman#Copyediting you were looking for a guideline that said using reference-style references on talk pages was verboten. While I've never seen such a guideline, there is an obvious practical problem with using them: Unless the group parameter is used, all the references from all the various comments will be bundled together and put in the references section. Most talk pages don't have a references section.

The most practical way to do URL references in a talk or other discussion page is to use see here [http://blah.blah] or see [http://blah.blah here] syntax. If you are going to use the reference-style references, such as with a book, use a unique group, and put a reflist at the bottom of the section containing your comment. View the source to this example to see it in action.^{[rlotp 1]}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 03:50, January 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I know we don't have references on talk pages, but sometimes people use them as examples. I rarely use them, I just don't get why he was refactoring other people's old posts to remove them. I mean, he was flat out removing the refs and saying we could look in the page history, as far as I can tell. That seems pretty inconvenient. It's just a talk page. It doesn't have to be pretty. I don't see anything wrong with reformatting them in some way, I often put <nowiki></nowiki> tags around them or else just convert them to bare links. Sometimes they just have a {{reflist}} at the bottom of a section. Of course, if there is more than one post with refs, then obviously that can cause problems if not every section has its own reflist. But anyway, thanks for all the suggestions. Sorry if I sound snippy, but I've been around the wiki awhile, I guess I'm feeling a little templated. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm much better at responding to new people than experienced editors, unless I know they are experienced. By and large most people asking for help are relatively new. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry to sound snippy, but I wasn't asking for help, I was just asking for a link to the guideline. And besides the banners on my userpage that say I have 3 years and 40,000 edits...<shrug>...dunno how to show that I'm experienced. Anyway Enigmaman suddenly took a long wikibreak after I challenged him on some questionable actions, so it's likely he was just having a bad day. Thanks for taking time to look after the newbies. Katr67 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff and edit summary I was asking about, FYI. Katr67 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy to all those in WikiProject Oregon land! To start, thanks to those who helped improve Grattan Kerans and Oregon and California Railroad as part of the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’ll try and start some new articles with a red link elimination drive on a couple of Oregon lists. So, you have your pick of prisons, or museums. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped watching the page, as my efforts in defending it, and in letting the user know he's fooling no one, appear to be of no value to anyone else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of some supportive comments, I'll just add that things should be OK as long as the page stays protected. I've taken the page off my watch list for the time being, just to reign in my annoyance with that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hay problema. We both love Oregon. That outweighs any petty differences. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made comments on both my talk page and the rooster rock talk page. I DO NOT like that YOU are accusing me of leaving messages in ALL CAPS, when that is NOT the case. I use caps for emphasis only. I can also say that I have good reason to believe that that user is using a sock puppet, regardless of his denials. Additionally there are many pages on wikipedia without references. If any user wants to remove something they should do so either with a reference or a personal knowledge at least, or because it is blatantly incorrect. It is highly unlikely that a user in Kentucky, and from Kentucky has too much knowledge of Oregon, or Chinook Wawa. He should stick to his fried chicken and the Kentucky Derby.Markosjal (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about assuming good faith and civility. See also this essay about "but elsewhere on Wikipedia...". See why leaving personal attacks on user pages is a bad idea, and note that sockpuppet accusations should not the thrown about lightly as they are close to being personal attacks. Sockpuppets should be reported using the formal report process. As far as "so-and-so shouldn't edit Article X because s/he knows nothing about it", see this guideline about ownership of articles. As it so happens, I'm also from Kentucky and many editors here think I'm quite qualified to edit articles about Oregon. Your continued posting about this supposed bias against certain words based on various editors' religion, state of origin, etc., especially in light of the fact that your edits have been cleaned up, referenced and reincorporated into the articles in question are really becoming a waste of everyone's time and are becoming disruptive. I'd suggest you try editing articles in a different area for a while and be sure to click on the bluelinks provided in this message and read about how Wikipedia works. Ultimately we are all just here to write a really good encyclopedia. Happy editing! Katr67 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an external link on: Clackamas Town Center to: www.tripcart.com/usa-regions/Oregon-Cascades-Willamette-Valley/shopping-malls/Clackamas-Town-Center.html

I feel in general the shopping mall pages contain only the information provided by the mall and the real estate developers themselves. As the most popular entertainment and dining destination category I think a few external links to objective sites with independent reviews and write-ups are in order. I think the best 2 websites for this are - www.yelp.com and www.tripcart.com. Sometimes, www.fodors.com or other travel guide sites have good information. In this case, since I know the mall, I thought the TripCart page was most relevant.

I was going to repeat on other pages providing external links, where I can find good ones. How do you suggest I do this, and do you consider this a positive addition to Wikipedia. Thanks

207.232.5.116 (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Joe Greenblum[reply]

Please discuss the addition of the tripcart link here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#tripcart.com. It appears you may have a conflict of interest regarding that website. Also, if you haven't clicked on the bluelinks on the message on your user page, please read about the spamming of external links. Adding the links that you propose may be construed as spamming. If information in an article is not neutral and is advertising, then that needs to be corrected--adding external links that offer an alternative opinion are not the solution, and yelp and fodors may or may not be suitable external links. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, we prefer you add content, not links. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katr67, I was thinking about going to find a ghost town in the valley on Friday. Any suggestions? It looks like you've been to more than a few of them. I'm in Eugene so I was thinking about trying on of the following: Butteville, Oregon; Ellendale, Oregon; Kernville, Oregon; Ortley, Oregon or Zena, Oregon. I'm poking around ghosttowns.com but would appreciate the opinion of an Oregon expert. Thank you :) WNW3 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]