User talk:Valfontis

Most of the American stuff in the articles I stubbed out came out of my old 1994 road atlas (Rand McNally, I think). The things about European passes was culled from various Web sites. Ksnow 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Thanks for correcting them. I'm glad someone else is paying attention. I started a major project to document them all, and then got sidetracked with my other geographic project on Switzerland. I might get back to them sometime to flesh out the stubs. Ksnow 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Hi again.

I hope you don't mind my bringing these things up here, rather on the project discussion page. I think they are probably reflective of my newbie status, and don't want to clutter up the talk page there with them.

As you may have noticed, I've been busy trying to fill in some gaps in the topics relating to Oregon government, with particular attention to current and former office holders, as well as some other random Oregon-related subjects which have caught my eye. In so doing, the following questions have arisen:

1. Fair Use of promotional photos of public figures. As you may be aware, the official portrait of Gov. Kulongoski prepared for and distributed by his office in Salem was deleted on the basis that a free image was readily available. While I doubt that is true, I happened to be in possession of a press photo I had been given for the express purpose of further distributing it (I'm on the local Democratic Central Committee), and so uploaded a scan of it. It, too was threatened with deletion, and I discovered that I had unintentionally stumbled into an area where some administrators are taking draconian measures based on an interpretation of the policy for which there is no general consensus (as evidenced by discusion at Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos of Living People. Since this has enormous implications with regard to illustrating complete articles on Oregon politicians and other priority areas within the scope of the Oregon project, I thought I should bring it to your attention. (As it happens, I had an "in" at the Governor's office and was able to speedily get official permission to release the portrait for publication and free redistribution, but this will not always be the case.) What are your feelings on this? And, should I avoid uploading press/publicity/campaign photos of Oregon politicians in future?
2. Template:Infobox_governor -- Most Oregon Governors have held prior offices. The Politician infobox accommodates including information on previous offices held, but the Governor box does not. Is it okay to substitute the Politician infobox in such cases so as to make the "at a glance" info more complete? Also, is there someone involved in the project with the expertise to adapt the Governor infobox to resemble the politician one in this regard?
3. Oregon project divisions -- I noticed the addition of this section on the project page with redlinks to three of the five divisions. Most of my work will fall within People or Government, with occasional forays into the other divisions. Unless you would prefer a more experienced project member to do it, I would be happy to create Division pages for the remaining ones that are redlinked, and maintain them until others step up to join in.

That's about it for now. I've added your userpage to my watchlist temporarily, so feel free to reply here, or on my talk page, or move the discussion to the project discussion, whichever you deem most appropriate. ---J-M Jgilhousen 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You know, you've picked two areas in which I am not at all knowledgeable. Though I just fixed up that Ted photo on List of Oregon governors because no matter how you feel about him, being confronted with a fullscreen image is pretty scary :)

Image copyright completely baffles me--I've only uploaded 4 images myself, one for the Klamath Basin article and three for an obscure band called Neighb'rhood Childr'n.

Infoboxes are also not my forté, but I think it would be easy enough to add a line or two to the governor infobox so it resembles the politician one. Go ask about it on the infobox's talkpage and see if anyone has an opinion. If not, be BOLD!

As far as the project divisions, feel free to do whatever you want! You can use the existing subpages as models. The project itself has been pretty quiet, so don't know if you'll get much company. The user who created the project (from the ashes of a previous one that's languishing around here somewhere), PDXblazers, hasn't been around since September (he's a teacher). Someone you might ask about infoboxes is a very active new user and WPOR member, Aboutmovies, who created a bunch of new infoboxes for Oregon history. EngineerScotty is also fairly active and good at the nuts and bolts stuff. My pal Twisted86 might be able to help when he is finished with school this quarter. He's interested in the government stuff. Ajbenj is also into the government stuff.

The project isn't very active, but several of us are quietly plugging away at the the Oregon articles on our own. I was actually going to post to the Project about whether it would be OK for me to divvy the project members into active and inactive status. I think it would be nice to breathe some life into the project and perhaps work toward another FA (featured article) push. The last one several of us worked on was New Carissa. Anyway, that's what I see going on. I think you should post the above query to the Project page, and also may be ask about the image issues at the village pump. It's good to have someone interested in the WikiProject--maybe we can wake it up a little. :)

P.S. the article I started Government of Oregon could use all the help it can get. Right now its mostly a repository for redlinks of state agencies. If we ever want the Oregon article to reach featured status, we will need Government of Oregon, History of Oregon (currently a subpage of EngineerScotty) etc. to look good so we can use them as {{main}} articles under those headings in the main Oregon article. I hope that made sense. Katr67 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to advocate for what I consider a more common sense approach to "fair use" images, particularly with respect to publicity photos of public figures. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I was hoping someone with more experience could take the lead, but I guess I'll learn the ropes of navigating our internal bureaucracy by just continuing to stumble through it.

I'll go ahead and set up the missing "Project division" pages, at least to give us a framework for keeping our work organized. I, too, am just "plugging away" as I find things that obviously need doing, and am in no way vying for a leadership role in the project. (In fact, I have more interest and expertise to bring to bear on the Christianity project, but it already has a very active membership, so perhaps I can be of more use as a native Oregonian on the state project. I do seem to find myself rolling up my sleeves on Oregon-related articles more than any others.)

I had already noticed the Government of Oregon and related articles you mentioned. As soon as I get some more experience under my belt, working on less comprehensive pieces, I'll turn my attention to them. This will have the additional side-benefit of perhaps eliminating some of the redlinks in the process.

On the "template" issue, I'll use the Politician one for now, and deal with revising the "governor" one later, again, to get more experience first. I appreciate the referrals to others who may be of assistance. Thanks.

It's great to be working with you. --J-M Jgilhousen 02:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I left you some edits for "Elk Cove, Oregon" including a summary of the plot line from "Overboard", some color about the local Oregon surroundings, and most pointedly: Elk Cove is not fictional, the movie was a piece of enjoyable fiction. Since you appear to control this item and since I can not edit it, I hope you can read my proposed edits and will consider implementing them (in your own words) at your leisure. Be well... Note that one can verify all of what I included in the edits... I/m not interested in being personally involved with Wikipedia, but hope you do consider my request. I will check back to see if you had a chance to make this entry more accurate and bearing more of the story behind the film that led to Kurt and Goldie's own love story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.135.20 (talk • contribs) 05:29, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

If one can verify the information, I invite you to do so. In the meantime, I have reverted your edits. Katr67 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive help! I am learning how to add info to wiki and every tip helps. Yes, the military does (at least the Air Force) dumps the "n" in "nd" for a simple "d". Example 3rd, 2nd etc. Also once it is referred to in the "142d FW" the "d" can be dropped entirely (142 FW) which is the less formal and most common way of identifying an Air Force unit.

Keep sending tips my way. If you need any facts checked concerning the military or other items let me know. Cory...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowerc (talk • contribs) 23:42, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll be sure to ask if I need help with military stuff, it's definitely not my field, though I've ended up writing a few articles about Oregon-related military history, like Ordnance, Oregon, Camp White, Oregon, etc. I want to get around to writing an article on Camp Adair one of these days too. One more tip--be sure to sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes (~~~~), which results in a link to your user page and a timestamp. Happy editing! Katr67 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A picture for you...because you rock! Cacophony 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush. NorCalHistory 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you requested a picture for Yaquina Bay Light, so I went out today and snapped a shot of it. Dark jedi requiem 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! It's a great pic--you certainly had good photography weather today. And I hope you had fun at the aquarium. Katr67 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was a pretty good day. I noticed you asked for the picture and decided to snap one since I live less than 10 minutes away. Both the aquarium and lighthouse was more of a trip for Wikipedia than anything else. I have loads more pictures to upload. :) In a round-about way I donated 6 bucks for camera batteries, and a couple dollars for gas to Wikipedia. (I get in the aquarium for free.) Better way than most to spend my birthday though! Thanks again, Dark jedi requiem 05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky! I want to live at the coast someday. Happy birthday! Katr67 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to get a pic of Mission Mill Museum yesterday, but my new camera malfunctioned. I'll try again Tuesday. Then after finals I'll finish up Champoeg Meetings, David Hill, Orenco, and then tackle Oregon Station. After that I'll see about coordinating with some other folks to flush out the History of Oregon pages.

Thanks for the award, and all the editing. Nice rock by the way, is that now of ProjectOregon?

As to stalking, its OK as long as there are no bunnies. But please don't try to kill Reagan to impress me. I'm happily married, and besides Reagan is dead. Though there is this one professor...

Aboutmovies 05:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's not an Oregon rock, but it rocks nonetheless. If I were of the sociopathic persuasion, there's a politician or two I'd rather take out first... Katr67 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably noticed from my contributions list, I haven't done much tagging or other editing today. I didn't want you to think I'd burned out already. I finished the "survey" process I undertook, although I am quite sure that I have not yet found a way to do a full text search, but enough of that for now.

I spent most of today reading more than I ever wanted to know about Oregon government. (I never really cared which agencies were divisions of which other ones, or who reported to whom, but these become significant when organizing an article.) Anyway, I am getting a clearer picture, but the way my mind works, I think I would get further by doing some articles on the agencies and offices first, and then tackle Government of Oregon. Otherwise, it would be so speckled with redlinks it would drive me quite crazy.

So, unless you really want me to work top down, tomorrow, I'll start de-redlinking Government of Oregon as it reads now; do articles on the major Departments, and meanwhile continue to gather material for the "big" article.

Oh, and on entirely 'nother subject --- I grabbed my camera before running a few errands today, hoping to grab a snapshot of Old St. Peter's, even though it would have been against a grey sky. Unfortunately, when I got there, they had spread out a huge ugly banner in front of the place promoting an evening concert... not exactly the view I wanted. At least you know I haven't forgotten. -- J-M Jgilhousen 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, you slacker. Actually, I managed to get away from the computer for several hours today myself. Knowing the names of all those agencies and their subdivisions used to be part of my job. Crazy boring stuff. You know the saying about knowing how sausage and laws are made? It's true. But all you really need to know is that the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) runs everything. And you may not have even heard of them. Scary huh? My NRHP stuff is on hold for the moment too--like you I'd rather take care of all the redlinked cities before I tackle the buildings in them. And now I think I'm off to write about Azalea--it's the last "A" name that's somewhat noteable... Katr67 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm writing from the Oregon National Primate Research Center. I check our WIKI page daily and was about to start adding info there when today I discovered that an animal rights activist in Wisconsin has posted some very one-sided and error filled info about our center with little to no actual info about our research. I made significant edits (there were so many problems with the false info posted I removed almost all of it because I didn't want to turn the entire page into a debate about what did and did not happen - and much of what was posted did not.)

I believe that the public has a right to many points of view but I also want to make sure that they don't just get false or bad info. For instance - if the page had alot of information about the center and included a reasonable amount of information about the activist claims in 2000, that makes sense to me. But it would also make sense to explain that the center had been cleared, and that the person who made the claims was known to make other false claims in the past. It shouold also explaini that the center has an excellent history of animal care.

I understand the in the past, Wikipedia has had problems with groups that want to use the online encyclopedia to further their causes - I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

Again - I would like to make the wiki page about our institution a useful resource and wouold be very pleased to get some input from you - thank you