User talk:Katr67/Archive2.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Peer Review?

I was wondering if you might give me a peer review on Executive Order 9835, I just wrote it. You know, if you have time, I can return the favor, of course. Thanks A mcmurray 05:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

9835 and such

Thanks for doing the spell check and such. I would review that article for you if you ever post it. The DYK process is pretty easy. Just nominate an entry, mostly if it adheres to the criteria (inline citations, NPOV, etc) it goes to the Main DYK. The page to nominate entries is here. Sorry my response took so long, been away a few days. A mcmurray 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Povey Bros.

I noticed you added Povey Bros. to your to-do list. I have some materials which might be useful in that regard. I've taken photos of all of the windows they installed in The Dalles Evangelical Church (not on the Historic Register), and intend to do the same for other installations in the gorge area (which include a couple other churches here in town and in Hood River, besides Old St. Pete's).

I could e-mail you what I have, or wait for you to get at least a stub up, and post them directly to your article, or perhaps you have another suggestion. -- J-M Jgilhousen 07:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to take a look at how little I've managed to actually write on Jim Redden. I'm keeping it in draft form in my User space until it's ready for more active collaboration. -- J-M Jgilhousen 07:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My to-do list is a pipe dream, but since you have material, I'll try to get a stub up this weekend. I'm going to try to borrow my friend's digital camera and get some photos this weekend--one of the local historic districts is having an open house, and I'm sure there's some Povey Bros. stuff around here. Jim Redden is looking very good. Very interesting about the AIM controversy--I'll see if he got mentioned in In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Matthiessen. Katr67 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I know too well about pipe dreams. An occasional excursion into the world of the Poveys would provide me a welcome diversion from all the government and politics stuff. I think I'm gonna have to resort to creating some stubs in those categories... the redlinks are really distracting. -- J-M Jgilhousen 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Music of Oregon

Your comment on Wikipedia talk:Release Version Nominations has been duplicated to the right place : Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations. Thanks for the help you provide to the V0.7 project. Lincher 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

John Day (1770-1820)

Hello! I have read your excellent postings, mainly on Oregon cities. For John Day (1770-1820), you changed the identifier from Hunter to Fur Trader. I originally wrote hunter because that was his primary occupation in the old Oregon Country. He was hired to hunt and provide game meat, first for the Pacific Fur Company's Overland Party in 1811-1812, and then at Fort Astoria from 1812-1814. Between 1814 and 1820 he was both hunting and trapping. He never acted in the capacity of "trader" in Oregon. I am going to change the identifier to "hunter and fur trapper." I'm writing a book on the man. Take care, and thanks for all your detailed contributions! --Nick Sheedy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N.M.Sheedy (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

You're welcome and thanks for checking in. I think "hunter and fur trapper" is a little wordy, the identifier is mainly to help with disambiguation and I chose "fur trapper" for consistency with similar people, but if he wasn't a trapper, there is probably no need to include that part and you could go back to "hunter". I was just thinking it sounded kind of generic, I guess, and fur trader was more distinctive and more of his time and place, if that makes sense (whereas there might well be some guy around today named John Day who happens to be a hunter). Anyway, it might be worth asking at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). It says that you should "try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand", so I'd say go with "hunter" for now, but perhaps something like "Oregon" might make him easier to identify? Or maybe (though it is more than one word) "Pacific Fur Company"? Katr67 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I see your point for the identifier for John Day and agree that "fur trader" is probably best, so as to link him with others in that field. I was perhaps splitting hairs with details. John Day was not a "trader"--he was a profesional hunter and later a freelance trapper. At that time, there was a legal distinction between fur traders, trappers and hunters. In the territory included in the Louisiana Purchase, and governed by the United States, it was illegal for any white men to hunt or trap commercially, and traders were allowed to trady with Indians only by license. As such, the industry generally set up trading posts and outfitted the Indians with traps and tools for hunting, and partered for pelts and skins. West of the rocky mountains, these legal restrictins did not apply, and the companies found that the indians were less willing to trap and trade, so they outfitted their own men to trap and hunt. John Day's occupation in the Oregon Country was as one of the lead hunters for the Pacific Fur comapany, and he supplied much of the meat to feed the company's men. He did some trapping after that, but was never a "trader" in the specific or legalsense of the occupation. Nick Sheedy 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your note

Thanks for your edits, especially the wiki help under the Astor Party... I'm still trying to learn all the wiki formating styles. My formatting might be lacking, but the information I want to share is accurate.--Nick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N.M.Sheedy (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Boyd, Oregon

I needed a break from government and politics, and noticed there was no article on Boyd, Oregon, so I did one. My great grandfather owned the general store and post office there, and my family still has a wheat ranch nearby. I resisted the temptation to interject personal knowledge and recollections, and relied solely on published sources. Anyway, I thought I remembered your having an interest in defunct towns, and thought you might like to look it over... you're such a great copy editor. Also, I tried to use the "city" infobox template, but it doesn't really work for ghost towns. I could use a generic infobox if you think that would set the map off better. The last several weeks have been rotten for photography -- nothing but overcast, which creates uncharacteristic shots. I'll take some photos to illustrate articles on local and area subjects as soon as we have some decent weather... may have to wait til spring. -- J-M Jgilhousen 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! (And thanks for the compliment!) How cool to have those kind of roots in Oregon. I'm a first generation Oregonian--every generation in my family moved a little more to the west. I'm glad they ended up here though. Boyd has been on my list for ages. In fact, I've got the redlinked names of all the Oregon communities I run across on my watchlist, so I almost always see new community articles the day they get written. I'm doing a data entry project for one of the state agencies involving 55-year-old data, and seeing all the names of the little towns I'd never heard of is what sparked my interest in Wikipedia. I would google the names and every time Wikipedia:U.S. cities without articles would come up and I said "Hmm. I smell a project." There must have been quite a few people from there at one point, because the name comes up a lot. It's funny it doesn't actually link to anything. (I'll go add it to Wasco County.) I don't even bother with infoboxes on the tiny little places because I think it ends up looking silly, but if other people put them on, I leave them be. I just wikignomed a couple things on the article, and when I get home, I'll see if OGN has anything new to add. Great job on the article--it's a lot longer than the ones I usually come up with. BTW, did you check out the article on the Great Southern Railroad someone added recently? Katr67 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I qualify for "pioneer family" membership in the Old Wasco County Pioneers Association on both sides of my family. My grandfather (son-in-law of the previously mentioned Boyd merchant) homesteaded on Fifteen Mile Creek, moving to town to provide a better education for his daughters. His uncle was a photographer, back when it was a young profession, and taught the trade to several relatives, so our Family Association has an incredible archive of photographs. I'll be uploading some of them. I'm afraid that when I was young, I harbored somewhat of an inferiority complex about my rural background, preventing my appreciation of what, in fact, is a rich heritage.
Regarding infoboxes, I'm fond of them, because I use Wikipedia quite a bit to grab quick bits of data, and I like having the basics summarized in "at a glance" form. You're right that on small articles it does unbalance the page, but I've been placing them anyway, hoping it would provide further incentive for people to expand both the articles and the infobox data. I'll think about that some more given your comment. Perhaps my use of them should be more judicious.
It hadn't occurred to me that someone would have gotten around to doing an article on the Great Southern. I've walked its roadbed often... it runs through our ranch. It was very important to Shaniko during its heyday, too. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I had no idea of the origin of the building to which the article refers, which does appear quite out of place in its current location at the base of Brewery Grade here in town. It now houses a couple of businesses, and I had a friend who lived in an apartment in its second story. I'll grab a snapshot of it for the article. This is great. -- J-M Jgilhousen 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Joel Palmer

Hi Katr67! Knowing your behavior, you have no doubt read Joel Palmer. As there are no revisions, it's probably the case you haven't got around to making any revisions or suggestions yet. (I have trouble believing there is nothing to find.) Alas, I found his Journal online after several days work resolving the various references. With the discovery of that incredible resource—which I spent hours and hours reading just to get to page 168 of 311—the article can be corrected and expanded greatly. It looks like most biographies condense the information to the point of being misleading. For example, while they were looking for a way over south Mount Hood, there was fairly regular stream of other parties coming and going, bringing provisions from The Dalles. Anyway, I invite you to comment/revise mercilessly to help guide the direction of the next round of revisions. — EncMstr 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you wrote it, but believe or not, I haven't read it yet. (Trying to have a life outside Wikipedia, doncha know.) Thanks for the invite--I'll be sure to take a look at it tonight. (Or this afternoon if I come out of my post-office party food coma.) I'm glad my efforts are appreciated by most. I do tend to stick my fingers in all the Oregon pots. :) BTW, I ordered the book that lists all the people whose names are painted in the house and senate chambers at the Capitol--hopefully it will be a good resource. Katr67 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mt. Hood

I am most pleased to run across an Oregon maven. :) I got lectured (indirectly) by an editor for writing something about glaciers "softening" in warm weather. I admit I don't know much about glaciers. I wonder if you know: It's clear why December climbing is risky, especially on the north slope. But why is it (or is it?) dangerous to climb during the late spring and summer. Apparently the glaciers don't "soften", so is it simply that the snows on top of the glaciers melt, and crevaces open up? Because the crevace on the hogsback is not visible in the winter, just in the warmer months. Thank you. :) Wahkeenah 02:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wahkeenah. I may be an Oregon maven, but I don't know much about glaciers either. You might want to check in with User:EncMstr, since he's (I'm assuming he's a he, I've never asked) the one who took that part out. Better yet, find a source. I'd go look for one, but I'm busy catching up on a bunch of edits I promised I'd make. Cheers! Katr67 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing my userID might ring a bell. :) I might have a book on Mt. Hood that goes into that subject more. I think that book also has a list of all the catastrophes on the mountain (as of 1991 or so), which would probably be overkill (pardon the metaphor) for the article. But it might be interesting to list the first fatality on the mountain, and maybe the one where someone got too close to the fumarole of this "dormant" volcano and suffocated. Like many mountains, Hood is both beautiful and sinister. That may be one reason mountains have often been likened to mythological gods. Wahkeenah 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Otter Rock, Oregon

Hi Katr67; Otter Rock, Oregon could use some work; care to work your magic? Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm on it right now. :) Katr67 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions -- State political offices and government agencies

Confession: The MoS and other policies and guidelines are so voluminous, I have to admit that I had not read the entire section on naming conventions, and have been relying solely on the "most popular name" provision when creating articles.

Recently, I had occasion to delve into it more thoroughly, and it seems that I may be running afoul of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) as I go through Oregon government and politics to fill in gaps, de-redlink, etc. In mitigation, I appear to be in good company, as I browsed through the correlary articles for California, Wisconsin, and a few other states before starting to name government-related articles, and they seem to be equally noncompliant with the guideline.


Since I expect to be creating a good number of articles in the next few months, I want to prevent the occasion arising where our noncompliant naming conventions becomes an issue requiring the renaming of a daunting inventory of articles. On the other hand, neither do I want to use a naming system that is so inconsistent with the ones which already exist within the scope of the Government and Politics subgroup.

The logical course would seem to be to rename the existing articles according to the guideline, and then follow it in the naming of future articles. Frankly, I am not keen on interrupting the research and writing I'm doing in order to undetake such a massive "clean up" project. Any thoughts? And should I move this discussion to the project, sub-group, or other talk page? -- "J-M" Jgilhousen 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to copy this discussion to the sub-group talk page, with a note on the main project talk page. My professional bias would be to name things according to what the state calls them, with redirects from what people might actually search for. I believe this automatically "pre-disambiguates" them as most of the state agencies have the word "Oregon" in them. Can you give some examples of articles you feel don't fit with the guideline? BTW, a quick rummage through my training materials from the legislature does not reveal an official list of state agencies and divisions but if there are any questions in this regard, I'm pretty qualified to figure them out. (See answer to ORS question, below.) Katr67 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Except for this line, done... and thanks. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations

It appears that my liberal use of the ref tag to mark what content I have gotten from where is idiosyncratic, but everyone has been too polite to call me out on it. I understand that too many reference tags diminishes easy readability, but I am adding so much content right now, I don't know how else to keep track of what statements of fact I've gotten from where, and have already been bitten with a few Template:fact insertions, and other challenges as to sourcing. Care to provide some guidance? -- "J-M" Jgilhousen 01:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry to "spam" you by posting twice within minutes, but since they were on entirely different subjects, thought it best to separate them.

No worries. I just got done messing with the Peter French article and need a break, but I'll give both matters some thought and get back to you. Katr67 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't run into too much trouble in this regard, but my citation style is pretty random. I tend to go with whatever is prevailing on the page, though sometimes I stick embedded refs in as a stopgap, because frankly, using citation templates properly is a real pain during a quick and dirty wikignoming. I think I've also left the inline cites out and simply listed all my sources in a "References/External links" section. As I become more experienced, I tend to add more and more citation tags, though in the past I figured one citation at the end of a paragraph would suffice for the whole paragraph. Like you though, I've started using more than one source and blending the information, which necessitates the use of more tags in order to keep track of what comes from where. My most ridiculous amount of sourcing is in Neighb'rhood Childr'n, but nobody has read it, so no one has complained. :) (And in fact, I mixed templates with embedded refs, 'cos I was lazy.) I think using citation templates is a definite improvement in readability over embedded citations, though they do tend to make the readability in the editing box worse. If we are writing a real encyclopedia, and I think we are, then I think the emphasis should be on properly sourced information over readability (and I think Jimmy Wales would agree), because people naturally get used to ignoring footnotes if they so choose. If a person is not used to reading, say, professional journals or the like, the sourcing will seem annoying, but I doubt we should worry about it too much. I don't think there is going to be a solution that will please everybody--the minute you decide to not cite something that seems really obvious when you've cited everything else in a paragraph, I just bet someone will come along once in a while and slap a {{fact}} tag on it. On the other hand, the most ridiculous assertions sit unreferenced for months and nobody even questions them. Has anyone actually said anything to you about unreadability? I could see it if you cite every word, just like when people overlink things. But I haven't noticed that you overcite things.

Most of my edits have been creating articles from scratch, or doing a major expansion (usually from an existing stub of a paragraph or less). What brought the question up is that I have had people come through and remove all of my cite tags from where I had put them inline, and move them all to the reference section, where they had appeared with the reference/ tag already. I found it annoying, not because of a sense of ownership of the article, but because it effectively erased all track of which facts had been confirmed by which sources. And, no, nobody has mentioned readability to me, but it is mentioned as a consideration in the MoS, and my eyes aren't what they used to be, so I sometimes have trouble tracking lines that are packed with lots of blue superscripted brackets and numbers. And I hate the way line spacing is altered on lines with superscripts, which is as much an aesthetic sensitivity as an ocular problem. Like you, I have already settled into a pattern of holding my inline refs to the end of the paragraph, unless it's to document a source for a fact or quote that I think might be particularly open to challenge. That's about as far out on thin ice as I want to skate at this point, especially since so much of my work is in Government & Politics where cool heads tend not always to prevail. --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One final thought: In my college nature-writing class someone complained when I listed the Latin names of various critters in my paper after the common name, and I thought, well, if Barry Lopez can do it, why can't I? Of course, I'm no Barry Lopez, and I was writing for college students, not scientists, so I grumpily revised my draft and took out the offending Latin names. So when thinking about readability, consider your audience. For what level of reader are we writing Wikipedia? Katr67 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I'm enough of a dinosaur that I actually still pray in Latin, I think my obvious bias should prevent my commenting on the particulars of this anecdote, except to say that I appreciated reading it. I have no clue about our audience, and should think that it would vary radically according to content matter, as evidenced by the activity on the talk pages of, say, the Oregon High School articles as opposed to those on biographies of Oregon Pioneers. I would like to think the profile of readers of most of the articles I write would be a closer match to Britannica than World Book, but if I'm wrong, please don't disabuse me of that fantasy. It's a case of ignorance probably being bliss, and anyway, I intend to write as if it's true (or in as close a manner as I am able given my own educational and writing talent limitations). And of course we're contributing to a real encyclopedia, although I am sure there are many who would assert that my credibility with regard to reality is deeply undermined by my Faith... and so it goes. Thanks for acting as sounding board. It is of immense help. You probably noticed that I signed up for the adoption program, and in fact, became an adoptee. I tend to call upon you for precisely the advice I was seeking in that program. Lucky you, eh? -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ORS 401.615 meaning

Hey, Katr, maybe you understand the gibberish the legislature spews out. If you wouldn't mind, would you look at this which seems to say a law was put into effect, and this (especially the note just before 401.610) which doesn't seem to include it, except for recognizing the former. Confusing, eh? What does it mean? — EncMstr 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, a question I can answer! Either House Bill 3434 did not become law, or it has since been repealed. I would guess the former--if you look at the bracketed notes at the end of each statute, there are no changes that occurred in 1995. Give me a sec, and I'll see if I can find the tables for the 1995 session where one can figure this out. The note is confusing, but what it means is the legislation that enacted 401.605 to 401.635 did not include a section such as section 1 of HB3434 including those statues in the chapter. So the lawyers at the Legislative Counsel placed the new statutes in the the most logical chapter of ORS, but they are not actually *part* of the chapter. This is to make clear that the action of placing the statues there is editorial, not legislative. Yep, it's weird. Katr67 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, 1995 legislative history is here. It appears HB3434 passed, but maybe did not get added to the ORS chapter. Now going to look at Oregon Laws. Katr67 18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the bill as it was actually enrolled. No mention of adding it to ORS Chapter 401, so it resides in Oregon Laws 1995, which unfortunately is not online. The first 7 results of this search will show you all the amendments and such, if you're interested or masochistic. The bill you found was in its initial form, before being meddled with by both houses. It's the enrolled bill that matters, because bills are subject to being completely changed, including by the popular "gut and stuff", in which only the "relating to" clause stays the same. Anyway, for whatever reason, Oregon Laws 1995, Chapter 570 was not added to ORS. Katr67 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably just as well. I ran across some interesting materials arguing both sides of the issue—whether sufficiently "stupid" people needing rescue should pay. I've been looking for a place to put that, it seems a stretch in the Mount Hood, current incident article. Thanks for looking into that. At least I correctly got the flavor of it: that it is confusing. — EncMstr 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Trillium Lake

Is this a naturally-occurring pond? Or isn't that an earthen dam I see in the photo? Wahkeenah 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea and I couldn't find a reference to the fact that it was an artificial lake with a quick google--that's why I tagged it. Judging by the photo is original research. I just searched on "Trillium Lake" with "dam" and see that it is indeed a dam, so I guess it is an artificial lake. It would be good to find a source with some history about it. Katr67 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect Trillium is a natural lake, judging by its bottom (snorkel and scuba) and the lakeshores away from the dam. A forest service gravel road was built along the downstream side and that is probably the reason for a dam being built later to compensate for the damage to the lake the road builders inflicted. Gollie! That should be hard to find record for. I bet everyone involved wished it was forgotten. — EncMstr 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Railroad & Nav vs Oregon Ry & Nav

Thanks for creating the article and the OR&N one. I had assumed they were two names for the same thing, and since I got more google hits for Railway, I changed some of the references in articles from Railroad to Railway. Since you say you have the reference books, would you consider checking the "what links here" for the Railway article and make sure the references to the Railway are still accurate? Thanks for your help! Katr67 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhallanger"

They are two distinct, yet related, railroads. Oregon Railway & Nav was the first, it started in 1879 and ran until 1896. It built a 643 mile that made up the core of the Oregon Railroad & Nav. Oregon Ry & Nav started out by buying two smaller railroads that ran along the OR side of the Columbia River and then connecting the two small lines with a full routs running adjacent to the river. The railway was a Subsidiary of the UP, at least since 1888 (when ICC started listing) and perhaps before that as well. Why did they change the name to Railroad in 1896. It was sold and reorganized (through still a UP Subs). What changed in 1896 that would bring about a name change. Here's what happened - typically railoads modified their name after a significant change or internal reorgnanization, sometimes it was a result of changing from Narrow-Gauge to Standard Gauge, other times it was due to the line being electrified.

Reorganization is what led to the name change from Railway to Railroad in 1896. The Railway had two non-operating subsidiary railroads (below). In 1896 the two non-operating subsidiaries and the Railway were sold (reorganized- still UP Subsidiary) as the Railroad. The reorganization brought the railway and the two subsidiaries under one railroad. 69 miles came from the Oregon Railway Extensions Co, a non-operating subsidiary of Oregon Railway & Nav - the railroad ran from Winon, WA - Seltice, WA and from La Grande - Elgin, OR. The other line that made up the "new" railroad was the 154 miles of the Washington & Idaho Railroad that extended the Railway into Idaho. It too was a non-operating subsidiary of the Railway and had two lines. One line ran from Tekoa-Rockford to Spokane (Falls) WA. The other line ran from Tekoa WA to St. Joe, ID and then Wallace ID with branches from there to Burke and Mullan. Rhallanger 05:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oregon Government Stub Tag

Do I really, honest to God, have to go through the bureaucratic approval process before making and using Template:Oregon-gov-stub? I'm not sure there are yet 30 candidate articles, but there soon will be, and I'd rather be doing the researching and writing rather than assembling a list, posting it, and waiting, then going back through to replace the more generic tag, etc. "There are no rules" is seeming more and more like a fantasy by the moment. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 06:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, I think you really do. I merrily created a stub category after seeing that someone had created an unauthorized stub for Oregon sports venues and found out after seeing it slapped with some sort of deletion tag that that was sort of a bad idea. Discussion here if you're interested. (Speaking strictly for myself, it's a kind of a stub categories for dummies primer.) It turned out OK, I learned some stuff, but yes, the stub sorters keep really good track of things. Though I cleaned up the mess I made, I also chose to ignore the fact that {{Oregon-bio-stub}} is kind of unorthodox because that one wasn't my fault and it seems to be pretty handy. Katr67 06:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I read the primer, which was precisely why I was hoping to avoid having to jump through all of its hoops. One of these days, I'd really kinda like to get back to writing. Once I discovered the MoS I started a downhill slope that is rapidly taking me into full-time administration work with no time left to actually compose anything. Hrrrumph. OK. I'll finish creating thirty stubs, then post the !@#$#@ing proposal. Sheesh. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tigard

Wow. I didn't know we even had an article on Bull Mountain. (That's why I didn't add the link.) -- llywrch 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That would be EngineerScotty's work. Katr67 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Natural history of Oregon

In reference to your statement of: 'this is for the Natural history of Oregon', a US State, of the USA on the North American Continent, in the "American West". I didn't learn what i (sic) learned because i think I am smart. Other people showed me things; however that does not mean they had all the answers. You have removed for a second time a piece of the "Natural history of Oregon", (and of Washington) if i understand where Celilo Falls are. (the American Black Vulture article has a subsection Labelled: "Fossil history, Oregon USA and specifics") So don't claim your way is right by denigrating, or denying that you are removing a Natural history reference. You can pretend you have moral authority. Or that you your (Aarrgh!) has some righteousness. It does not. (I've watched others say they are doing "One Thing", when it is clear they have a different agenda. The Wikipedians not only have stolen the word "Cabal", they are clearly at times creating their Cabals... (I hope somebody from Oregon, or the Pacific Northwest has the gumption to reverse some of your clearly, one minded intentions.)) -From the ArizDesert-SonoranDesert.. --Mmcannis 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was merely replacing the intro, which your edits took out, that all categories should have, defining what the category is for. If an article belongs in a category, then it should be added to the category. I did so with Haystack Rock, but didn't add the other articles because I wasn't sure they quite fit, but I have changed my mind. Category pages aren't the place to add other commentary, however. This edit, with my "Argh" was me being mad at *myself* for messing up the bolding and having to make three edits in row. With this edit, you will see that I added Celilo Falls to the natural history category. This edit adds the vulture to Avifauna of Oregon, a subcat of natural history. That is the proper way to categorize things, If I understand Wikipedia guidelines correctly. There is no cabal. I have no agenda except for following Wikipedia guidelines and making the best encyclopedia possible. You would do well to assume good faith. If you can find a reference to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says it's OK to add links to articles on the categorization page, rather than simply categorizing them, I'll be happy to read it. Thanks. Katr67 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for the welcome message! I've been editing for the last 6 months or so -- this is a new username for me. I should set up my user page!ChartreuseLight 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Message to me re: naming conventions

I did not name the "Brisbane Light Plane Crash" article. It was already on Wikipedia as such, I just linked to it and included the name of the man who owned the company. Floracalifornia 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Katr67, you're so helpful and reasonable! Unlike some uh, mods around here.  ;) Floracalifornia 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, some people are just trying to improve the encyclopedia, I wouldn't take it personally, and please assume good faith and try not to fight incivility with incivility. Katr67 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AWB

You asked me to let yo know what I think of AWB. As you probably noticed, I finally got approved for its use last week. After staying up almost all night playing in the sandbox with it to get a feel for its features, I haven't actually used it much yet. It does what it is intended to do very well, and remarkably fast: semi-automating repetitive tasks. Today I turned it loose on the List of Governors of Oregon "what links here" list (one of several wiki lists it can read automatically, or it can work from a manually created txt file, or one entered directly into the program). With its "search and replace" function, it made short work of linking to the new Governor of Oregon article instead, stopping at each edit for confirmation (good thing, since some of the links really should point to the list). It would have been invaluable in our Mass tagging project, as it could have done it category by category in much less time than navigating to each article by hand. It will even use Wikisearch, but you know how functional that is. For a Wikignome par excelence like you, I think it is probably something you would want to consider having in your Wiki toolbox. Except, of course, it is another program to learn... I haven't begun to try all its features yet. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw your flurry of activity, because naturally I have a bunch of those government articles on my watchlist. Actually I went ahead and signed up for it too, after I had to laboriously hand repair the ISBN on several articles in which I had referenced OGN, because Twisted86 accidentally got one number wrong and I was copying his citation. (Hmm, I forgot to give him an extra whomp with my foil last night for that...) I already managed to screw something up using it and had to go through and laboriously hand repair my mistake, but I can see how it will be very handy. I did a quick find and replace for a common spelling error, and it was so easy it warmed my little Wikignome heart. I don't mind doing things the old-fashioned way sometimes, but I'm sure there will many uses for AWB. If I need help figuring out what it does I'll be sure to ask you. I don't quite have the hang of the search parameters--when I searched for Oregon categories, only the top-level categories came up. And there are still many articles that need to be tagged, though I've got almost all the categories tagged except for the county ones and any that don't branch from the main Oregon cat. So if you know how to make it seach for untagged articles within categories, I'd love to know how to do that. Katr67 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't, and it relies on the internal Wikisearch function, which itself has problems. An inelegant but possible workaround would be to use one of the third-party search tools, convert the result to a text file, and have it work from that. But, there may be some way to do it with advanced search from within AWB. I'll tinker a bit, and see what I can figure out. I am still on the learning curve with it myself. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

It was kind of you to notice, and kinder to bother acting upon it. I set the list aside a few times to do other things for sanity sake, but found that its total disarray haunted me. --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In-bloody-credible!

That's all I can say. Volunteer work shouldn't be this frustrating.

-- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 09:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi Katr, I'm sort of confused with the current situation with regards to List of survivors of air disasters, List of sole survivors of air disasters, and Survivors of Air Disasters. Which page should be where, and is the history in the correct place? Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

plants and animals

Editors pretty much do what they want and not much can be done about any of it. And some editors insist on repeating articles in both categories and their subcategories. Since there are so many WP rules, they can always cite a rule for whatever they want to do. I have not worked on Fauna/Flora for some time. There was much discussion that categories of Fauna/Flora by US State or by international country were not appropriate as animals and plants move/grow anywhere they want, disregarding human political boundaries. Since then, I have seen little work trying to settle what categories should be used instead/in addition to states/countries. Nor have I seen any biological-trained experts join any discussion. Sorry, I really do not know what I can do that would accomplish much. Hmains 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

wikirest

Hi Katr67! I hope you have a restful break. Please do come back. You are one of the heavy lifters around here and I truly appreciate having you around. Following in your footsteps, I almost always completely agree with your work. (The few differences are trivial matters of preference.) It is so rare—and so nice—to have someone who really knows how to write, as well as possessing a deep understanding of mechanical and spelling; "frosting" for the cake if you will. I looked around for something better than a barnstar, but decided on potentially over-the-top words instead. — EncMstr 01:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem!

(It was actually my first block, I'm a new admin.) If after the 48 hours is up he persists and I don't notice, please let me know. I will check though. That was a seriously large amount of spam... Dina 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sisters, Oregon complaint

Trying to recorrect your corrections to the Sisters, OR page. You dumped most of my external links without creating new pages to hold them. Very annoying. It took some effort to track down those links. I am trying to get some of those links back online. bberryhill@gmail.com User:BBerryhill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BBerryhill (talk • contribs) 6:30, December 31, 2006 (UTC)

Mt.Hood

This is User:Furon. I am sorry about Mt. Hood, but I posted rumors, although this is now true. Sorry for the screw-up.

--Furon 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion?

Not sure if it was indeed a deleted image or not, but the University of Oregon academic seal is no longer showing on the University of Oregon page, nor any of the pages in its history. I believe it happened after someone updated the image code in the infobox, but I'm not sure. I've tried reverting that section of code back, but the image doesn't show up again.

I'm asking you since you seem to be very knowledgable in Wiki, do you know how to undelete the image or...something? Cluskillz 19:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, just wanted to let you know I got your message. Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not so knowledgable about images, but I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can do. Sometimes it has to do with the image that is in the commons... Katr67 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi sorry this took me a while to get back to. It looks like the image was deleted, I checked the deletion log: "Image with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006". There's been a lot of this going around lately. *sigh* Seems like the UO seal would be fair-use. I try to steer clear of the copyright issues, so I don't know what using the seal would entail...plenty of other college articles have them, so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out... Katr67 00:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with embedded external links?

You seem to have a no-tolerance policy, but I don't see the harm (in the absense of there being a Wikipedia article to link to) in giving readers a shortcut vs. having to copy-and-paste a phrase into a search engine to find more information, so long as what is linked to is appropriate given Wikipedia's policies and the overall effect isn't that of a link directory. (I'm thinking of recent edits you've made to Maplewood, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Oregon.) Could you explain your reasoning?--ScottMainwaring 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Scott, I've probably under the influence of WikiProject Spam--they're *really* hardcore. I have a pretty flexible policy, actually. But my rationale is that by wikilinking rather than embedded linking, hopefully someone will see that, for example, the rollerderby team needs an article. I think embedded links discourage this, and that putting the external link after the redlink just clutters the page, though it is a better solution. As for Maplewood, I doubt the church merits an article and I'm not real sure we want to encourage links to every organization that happens to be in a neighborhood. In fact, I'm not even sure a listing of churches is particularly encyclopedic, but I left that section there because I don't want to be accused of any bias. So that's my reasoning--feel free to put the links back if you want. And I'd like to thank you for keeping the Portland article tidy. Sometimes when I'm in a hurry and I see a dubious edit, I think, "Oh I bet ScottMainwaring will take care of it." :) Happy editing! P.S. We talked once about the communities categories--did you see that Hmains has spruced them all up? Katr67 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason not to use footnotes to address this need? I know they don't work in every situation, but would something like [[Maplewood Church]]<ref>http://www.mwchurchsite.com</ref> work? -Pete 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd find it hard to quarrel with that. :) Katr67 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Katr67, thanks for the kind words, and for the explanation, which certainly makes sense, though I have to say I'm personally not a fan of redlinks (aesthetics) or of footnotes that mean something different than "here's evidence for this claim" or "here's additional editorial commentary that doesn't merit being in the text itself". But I don't have a constructive alternative to propose... --ScottMainwaring 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, this is Martin1971 from Vienna, Austria. Thank you for your friendly welcome greetings and your spellcheck of the Sager orphans. Martin1971 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Yamhill County Post Offices

Actually, the Yamhill County Genealogical Society in McMinnville, Oregon.--Zinc2005 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

South Tabor

Thanks for the immediate attention to South Tabor! Always nice when a stub gets some love right away. -Pete 22:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have a lot of redlinks on my watchlist... Helpful or obsessive? You decide. ;) Katr67 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Interstate 82

Yeah, that was my mistake. I saw the edit and gave it a quick look, and at first it looked like cleanup to me (and part of it was). It wasn't until I checked a second time after you asked me about it that I saw the inappropriate blanking. I've done a major cleanup to the article, and restored some of the stuff the IP had blanked. Take a look at it now and tell me what you think. -- NORTH talk 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

likeresume

oooh, I like that tag. Glad to know it! Is there a similar one for "like campaign materials?" -Pete 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't, there should be... Katr67 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sal Esquivel

Hi- I'm confused by your recent edit of Oregon statewide elections, 2006. Are you sure that the 2006 election was the event that moved Esquivel from the Senate to the House, or did that possibly occur earlier? I originally created that page using data from the state's web site, so it seems unlikely that I would have gotten one legislator wrong, as I was working from an authoritative list. Also, Oregon House of Representatives lists Esquivel as a Rep for the 2005 session. Of course, the Elections page was my first major wikipedia project, and I'll be the first to confess that I did a terrible job listing citations... -Pete 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused too. :P I just reverted my changes. Yes, he was the rep for the 2005 session. I was looking through the list and using Google trying to figure out who the freshman senators and reps were. I ran across this page, which seems to indicate that he was neither an incumbent nor a challenger, but I remembered his name from the 2005 session, so I after a little digging (not enough, apparently) I went ahead and assumed that he had made the jump *after* winning the election, not before. I've said it before, but apparently the Oregonian copydesk needs more beatings. :) Katr67 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I just found our answer -Pete 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC):
In March of 2003, Sal was chosen to replace Senator Lenn Hannon to represent District 3, which includes the cities of Medford, Ashland, Phoenix, Talent, Jacksonville and part of the Applegate region. Shortly after his appointment, Representative Rob Patridge announced that he would not be running again for his State Representative position. Sal chose to run for the House seat of District 6 because he knows Medford so well after almost eight years on the City Council. He served out the nine months remaining in the Senate, garnering knowledge and experience to take to the House of Representatives.

Inza Wood Middle School

ANNOUNCEMENT:

This page is for a creative writing class, and we would prefer if you would not mess with it.

Thank You,

Ted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teddibear4774 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not here for you use for your creative writing. Katr67 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit Inza Wood Middle School, as it was created for a class project and we will get our teacher to verify this. Email Boonec@wlwv.k12.or.us
We will add a note at the bottom that says that this is for a school project and not to be taken seriously. We will also add the real version under the fake part.
Thank You,
Teddibear4774 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to the article's talk page. Katr67 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings have been updated

Hey there, take a look at WP:UTM. Looks like the old warnings are being deprecated in favour of some new ones. --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm using the RC script, which automatically generates the warnings, so that will need to be updated, I guess. Katr67 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

months off

Clearly, you were having a look around and getting a feel for the place, to prepare for an all-out assault on sub-standard articles! A practice NOT to be discouraged in any way. By the way, I just about spat out my coffee when I saw your "nestled" google link. Priceless. -Pete 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I was actually able to let a "nestled" (a "cozily nestled" no less!) stand in the Salem, Oregon article for several days. I swear someone out there is testing me... And hey look, that Gopher Valley Oregon article even starts with the word. Must go stamp it out... Katr67 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ooops! Seems we collided attempting to remove that pesky nestling. I looked very quickly to see what you changed, but might have undid some of your work. Sorry for any confusion. I'll fix in a few hours if you're not doing anything with the article. —EncMstr 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your note, I'll "wip" away. Thanks! Katr67 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Official website"

I actually don't know of any set guideline on the topic; I've been relying on precedent. I guess my preference for the term is that a number of articles will link to popular fan sites for an individual without the title making it clear it is the official site for that individual. That and the fact it's so widely used already it might be better for consistency. But I really don't know. I've brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:External links#"Official website"; hopefully it gets some attention. Owen 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Creativity

Hey, Katr,

I was wondering if it is possible to create a new template-thingy such as This user is a citizen of the U.S.A., only new. I also have no idea how to create a message box, like this one, so, if you wish, reply on my user discussion page! Thanks!--Furon 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Roseburg Senior High School

Hello Katr67, Thank you for showing your concern about the name of Roseburg's high school. The official name of Roseburg's High School is "Roseburg Senior High School." Otherwise it would be a misnomer. You can search the name "Roseburg Senior High School" for schools you will find a search result of "Roseburg Senior High School" such as http://www.schoolmatters.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheberling (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I don't consider the above a reliable source, but I do see that the school refers to itself as such here. Confusing for it to be RHS and not RSHS though. It's pretty unusual for a high school in Oregon to have "senior" in its name, that's why I was wondering. Happy editing! Katr67 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
A more authoritative source would be the Oregon Department of Education [1] which is why I moved it there. Alangdon86
OK, I concur. Good thing too because to move it back now I think we will have to involve an admin. Katr67 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Another good source is here. Katr67 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gopher Valley, Oregon

I thank you for your edits to my article on Gopher. A little about me... I'm the Yamhill County Surveyor, a member of the board of directors of the Yamhill County Historical Society, and edit that organizations' newsletter, issued 9 times per year. "Gopher Valley" is the article I wrote for this months article. You are correct in stating the community was called Gopher. This was my first addition to Wikipedia. I submitted some of the information Lewis McArthur used in his latest edition of Oregon Geographic Names, relating to an early county road survey. However, I've not submitted the portion of the 1851 "Sketch of the Willamette Valley" to him, which takes the date of the place name back another 15 years or so. I'd like to insert a couple of neat photos, perhaps a scan of a portion of that sketch showing the name Gopher Hole, but I have no clue how to do the insertion. also, I see the warning to wait until all initial edits have been completed before doing any more to this.

Thanks again... you are light years ahead of me....

Dan Linscheid Sheridan, Oregon 503-843-2625 danl@starband.net

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Long Years in Space.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Long Years in Space.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

associations

thanks for your kind words. Yes, I noticed that the state associations have no over all category and I plan to work on them soon. Hmains 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at Oregon associations now. Comments? Hmains 04:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. I think the intro ties it all together nicely. I couldn't really figure out how fencing, government and cheese were related. :P Thanks for taking care of it. Katr67 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghost towns

It took awhile but I did some work on the Ghost towns project. Bring your friends. Also, I think you'll be pleased to see the new project userbox. I'll let you scope it out at the new and improved, albeit somewhat stolen, project page.A mcmurray 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I saw you were busy fixing it up. I'll put a note on the WikiProject Oregon page when I get a chance (I'm trying to keep my wikiaddiction down to a dull roar though.) :) Katr67 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And that, that can be hard, so hard. I want to move to Oregon btw. :). And of course, something for your tireless efforts:
The Barnstar of Diligence
You even revert bot edits gone bad. For extraordinary diligence regarding Oregon, National Register of Historic Places and Ghost towns articles, specifically. Also for overall high-quality work on Wikipedia. A mcmurray 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS

Hi! I'm not ignoring your request to edit the Salem and Corvallis pages - there have just been other things I felt more pressing. I will get to those! Meanwhile...would you mind weighing in on the talk page of Portland Public Schools, Oregon? Do you think that oughtta be linked to the "cleanup" page? I think it should have some opinions expressed by locals before unleashing the world of Wikipedia on it, but I'm curious what you think. -Pete 07:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey no worries. I've got a milliion things I have promised to do for people. I did fix up the transportation section in the Albany article. Yes, I'll take a look at the PDX schools page too. I unleashed the schools wikiproject on Roseburg High School and I found the results a lot more...sparse than I would have liked. Katr67 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Boasts NPOV?

Can you please explain why to boast how it was used in the Astoria article was NPOV? Boasting in general is definitely NPOV, but this is clearly a case of the second meaning of the verb, i.e., to have. -Yupik 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean "POV", correct? The word "boasts" is overused, especially in articles about cities, which "boast" about various amenities with abandon. I think it is much simpler and clearer to use words like "has", etc. Through overuse in real estate ads and tourism promotion materials, this word has even been added to a 2007 Banished Words List. A quick Google search on Wiki will show you that far from being used in the context of "has", "boasts" generally is used by inexperienced writers who are proud of their city and seem to be copying their writing style from adverts. Thus when I see it in articles I usually replace it with a more neutral term. In terms of the Scandinavian population of Astoria, I believe that Scandinavian pride (not that there's anything wrong with that) has led someone to use the word "boasts" in terms of the second definition, which is, "To possess or own (a desirable feature)". However:

Some have objected to the use of boast as a transitive verb meaning "to possess or own a desirable feature," as in This network boasts an audience with a greater concentration of professionals and managers than any other network. This usage is by now well established, however, and is acceptable to 62 percent of the Usage Panel.

Count me among the other 38 percent. I believe in most uses the word "boast" is unencyclopedic. In any case, I think reverting the article again would accomplish very little. (See: WP:LAME) The article has worse problems than that. Katr67 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, but I did have a look with google first. I don't know how far back the use of the word "to boast" goes, but it's in the 1911 EB a number of times with the sense of "to possess a feature". It seems rather arbitrary to start claiming it's POV based on a list someone decided to come up with. Furthermore, it's impossible to back up a statement about it being mainly used by "inexperienced writers" ... in talking about desirable features of their towns when Google finds these type of results: "Ironically, this town boasts a large Amish population." In that sense, while you find it lame to keep "boasts" in the article, I find it was lame for it to have been changed in the first place as it was a useless edit, especially as it was not used in the sense of "to possess a desirable feature" as it was used in the sense of "to possess a feature". On that note, you might want to keep an eye on the changes made by the other user in that non-revert-war, as he liberally saturates articles with misspellings, incorrect grammar (singular verbs with plural nouns) and incorrect punctuation (portuguese in lowercase). Be prepared though that he considers any changes made to be personal attacks.
Slightly OT: a large international company I used to write for decided one day to forbid the use of the words "neither", "nor" and any combination thereof. The only reason given was that the company's Asian customers couldn't possibly understand any grammatical constructions using them. :D -Yupik 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to the rest later, but: Please leave me out of your campaign against that particular user. Thanks. Katr67 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a weird place for this kind of discussion - what about the article's talk page? But as long as I'm here, I entirely agree that "boasts" is either unencyclopedic or uninformative. If it's considered synonymous with a word like "holds," then what precisely is the objection to using the word "holds?" In other words, while "boasts" may be controversial, surely "holds" is not - so Yupik, may I suggest you simply go with the word that satisfies all concerns? Oh the other hand - Katr, if the editor in question is approaching 3RR, I'd suggest moving the conversation to a more public place, and inviting input…rather than quoting policy (which could be MISinterpreted by an enthusiastic editor as being unnecessarily aggressive.) -Pete 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This would probably be a good question to take public so that "boasts" could either be corrected or left alone according to a general consensus on Wikipedia. I apologize for my comments about Ruskeapää; I should have walked away from the situation instead of allowing myself to be annoyed by his edits. And Pete's comment about policyquoting is a good comment as it did seem like it was unnecessarily aggressive.
The reason why I object to "boasts" being changed is that I don't think that the English wikipedia really needs to be generalizing words because someone might have an issue with some word that is not objectional to a majority (in this case some 62%) of people as that's what the Simple English wikipedia can be used for in my opinion. But as Pete said, this would be a good topic to bring up somewhere else, on a page of words to be avoided perhaps? -Yupik 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone slowly and clearly explain to me why quoting policy is agressive? I generally quote policy so people can see exactly how the wiki guideline is worded, rather than trust my memory and let them take my word that I "read somewhere" about some policy. If you mean my inclusion of LAME, well, I do think the edits in question were very minor and it would indeed have been lame to continue reverting them. It was not the inclusion of the word "boasts" I was calling LAME, but the revert war caused by it, as you will see by the silly examples on the humorous LAME page. In my opinion, the words were changed from adequate English to very precise English and it would be nonsensical to revert them, especially because I have the impression Yupik was wikistalking the other user. If my post was cranky, well, since your reversion of one user's edits seemed to based more on personal bias or the need to make a point than on an interest in grammar, yeah, that made me cranky. And though I didn't start this discussion here, I chose not to move it to the Astoria page because I didn't want to draw in that other user and start things all over again. (For the record, Yupik reverted twice, the other editor reverted once and I reverted once.) Now. Bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid sounds like it would generate an interesting discussion. Good idea. Though I suspect we would get very little guidance and certainly no firm policy about the use of the word. Unless *not* changing "boasts" to "has" is set down as an official guideline, I for one am certainly going to change the word "boasts" to "has" if I run across it in the articles I take an interest in. On the other hand, it would be LAME of me go around the entire wiki hunting down its usage and stamping it out. Katr67 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yupik has ignored what I think was the most important aspect of my comment: namely, what is the value of continuing this argument, when it appears there is no reason NOT to use the word "holds?" Yupik appears to be taking things very personally, and I share Katr's perplexity about why that is. Remember that we're pretty much all in this together; if we choose to argue about relatively trivial matters, it disrupts the spirit of collaboration that is Wikipedia's greatest strength. So, once again: "boasts" is a word that has generated controversy. The word "holds" has not - it appears that the only reason Yupik objects to "holds" is that he/she has a strong attachment to the word "boasts." Yupik, I would personally be very gratified if you would simply accept the word "holds," and go back to making constructive contributions to Wikipedia - your "talk" page makes it very clear that you have excellent talents to share. -Pete 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Mainly because "holds" would not be suitable as far as I can tell in any cases that it's being changed from. To "has" would be ok. And please, I'm not taking it personally and I did get both of your points about it. Please do bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid, I would be interested in hearing what other people have to say about this verb. Thanks. -Yupik 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to see this discussion moving toward resolution. I have no preference between "holds" and "has." Perhaps a complete restructuring of the sentence would be the best bet? At any rate, I think there might be an important lesson here - that in an edit conflict, proceeding as though there are only two options may be a big mistake. I wish you luck in the "words to avoid" discussion; I personally have no interest in participating in a more general discussion of the word "boasts," but I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. -Pete 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

Hey, Katr. I was just wondering if you know how to create a wikia, as I am wishing to create a wikia, called "Wiikipedia" Thanks.--Furon 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue. I'm more into the words, not the programming. Did you try Google? Katr67 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting & an Oregon Ghost Town to add

Hi, Katr67! Thanks for the friendly welcome to the neighborhood. I've seen your footprints around some of my favorite pages.

I know you like Ghost Towns, and I've noticed that one of my favorites is missing from the Oregon list: Golden, Oregon. I've been there and it's a real nice one. Here are some links:

[2]

[3] (beware of music!)

[4]

[5]

Why don't you write it up?

--DaKine 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

White Train

I started a stub on the White Train based on the information I could find quickly (was looking for information for a paper I'm writing and I hate seeing nothing on such subjects). Saw you had a link from your userpage, and seeing the context there thought you might have something to say/do/add/desire to know. CheerioDarker Dreams 03:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on the wine list

Sorry it took a while to get back, but I spent much of the weekend sick in bed with a nasty case of the flu.  :)

The "notes" column is, as you said, intended to augment the existing fields. It isn't intended to list wine awards, especially as most such awards are meaningless. I'm not that familiar with the winery in question, but I'm certain that it shouldn't be given praise in Wikipedia in a place where Eyrie, Domaine Drouhin, or some of the other truly-notable wineries aren't praised.

I wouldn't worry about COI, unless it can be shown that a person is acting in an inappropriate manner. If someone did write an article about the winery that met our criteria (and wasn't overly promotional), that would be fine.

You might ask over at WikiProject Wine, to see what they think. I'm certain some of the folks over there will be rather uppity about a minor winery behaving in that fashion.  :)

Talk to you later,

--EngineerScotty 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Oregon ballot measures

Hi there! Hoping for a comment or two from you on the "talk" page over there, if you got a moment. I'm planning to put a lot of work into that page in the coming weeks, and want to make sure I'm on the right track first! -Pete 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I haven't figured quite everything out yet, but your suggestions help and I will put them in to use.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scoreboard (talk • contribs) 04:18, February 7, 2007 (UTC)

Peter French

Interesting indeed. Shot dead, killed instantly, sounds pretty rough-n-tumble to me. The article was no problem, as I have been on a round barn kick lately. (Maybe I always was). Maybe just a barn kick would be a better description.: )A mcmurray 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my link

Portlandneighborhood.com is a realtor site that has alot of interesting things about some of the portland neighborhoods. They are linked to lots of pages- for example alameda, irvington, etc etc. They are a realtor website. Why are they on it? I have written a neighborhood guide that has taken months and months to do- with all my research on my website about the areas of portland- links, photos, maps etc. It is much more all inclusive than www.Portlandneighborhood.com I tried to put a link on wikipedia just like they did- two different times- and I was kicked off immediately. Why? If I am kicked off, why are they allowed to be on there lots and lots of times all over the portland neighborhoods? I think that if we both have good contributing information about the neighborhoods of portland with links- we should be treated the same. If they can be on there, we should be on there. Does that sound fair? My website is www.TheCreativeRealtor.com and I link each neighborhood directly to the neighborhood page. Another good neighborhood guide is MovingtoPortland.net. She has an awesome neighborhood guide too.

Anyway- please let me know why the rules are different. Thanks Helen HOyt helen.hoyt@comcast.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helenhoyt (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Did you read this part of the message I put on your page? "Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product." Your photo is prominently displayed on the top of the page, which seems to be pretty blatantly advertising your product or service. Now, besides that, "His link is there, so mine should be too" is not a valid argument for including your link. "They" didn't necessarily add the link to the articles--often it was an ordinary Wikipedia user. And in fact there is some debate currently happening about whether these links are appropriate at all. Katr67 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Also please read WP:COI. You should not be part of any discussion on your own link because you have a conflict of interest. You should not have added it and the arguments on the merits of the site only kicks in if a third party proposes your link and we then discuss it objectively. Cheers --BozMo talk 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PortlandNeighborhood.com is not a realtor owned website. The focus of the website is the urban communities (neighborhoods) in Portland. 24.22.1.168 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Angela Juon, Owner, PortlandNeighborhood.com

This conversation is going on at two places at once. I think these comments should be moved to the Talk:Portland, Oregon page. Couple brief points though: BozMo, please remember that WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. I think an owner posting their reasoning is a legitimate contribution to the discussion, provided that they recognize their conflict of interest. Angela has been very upfront in disclosing her COI, which is an excellent first step, and should be commended. However, as nobody without a COI has emerged to defend its inclusion, I think the time has come for Angela to drop her campaign. -Pete 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Imbrie Farm correction to more recent history

Hi, are you anonymous editor whose name change I reverted? If there is no edit summary, no cited source, and due to a lot of subtle vandalism by anon editors, we can't assume a change like yours was accurate. I'll direct the editor who wrote the bulk of that article to this post, but just so you know, posts like this can never "go away", even if I delete it, it will become part of the page history. When in doubt you can sign up for an account and use the "E-mail this user" feature. Thanks for letting us know. I suppose because of the circumstances you don't have any sources you can cite? Because one of the Wikpedia principles is citation of reliable sources. Not to imply that you're not reliable, but that's the guideline. Thanks! Katr67 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Katr, sent Jim an email regarding his request. Aboutmovies 07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm deleting his post. Katr67 15:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hey. Got your message. If it's something you can talk about here. Please do. - Donteatyellowsnow

I'd rather not, but I'll be in touch. Katr67 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a nasty dogpile. BTW, check out what they are trying to do now. Unbelievable. WP:ANI - Donteatyellowsnow 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, that's not exactly what I wanted to talk to you about, but I'm putting the matter on hold for now. Katr67 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bull Mountain annexation nonsense

It clearly fails to qualify for Wikipedia, plus it's misleading by omission; thanks for chucking it. 24.22.3.249 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm...I don't think I deserve any thanks. I don't think the addition was completely worthless. FYI, I wasn't supporting any particular point of view, as you can see from the article's talk page, all my concerns were directly related to Wikipedia policy. I'm an equal opportunity deletionist. Thanks. Katr67 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Chime-in request

Would you mind having a look at the verging-on-lengthy conversation I've had with user:Cnewmark beginning at Talk:Craigslist#proper_etiquette and continuing to the next section, Talk:Craigslist#Article errors. (BTW, I have no reason to doubt he is Craig Newmark.)

Somehow I'm failing to communicate what he needs to be done to add a few facts he has for inclusion in the Craigslist article. I thought I was clear, but what should be swift progress is not happening somehow. Is it me? Am I over the top? Thanks in advance for any help! —EncMstr 18:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just worked too long past my break to reply to the situation on the FOBM talkpage, but if I can squeeze in a few minutes I'll see what I can do. I don't know if I can contribute, but speaking for myself, I know a sanity check is always welcome. :) Katr67 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Boy oh boy. I think you did just fine. So it looks like Lumarine missed the point and CM is agreeing with him/her. *sigh* I guess all you can do is repeat the fact that Wikipedia can't be a source for itself. Q: "How do I solve this?" A: "Find some outside sources". Maybe suggest he tell his tale to the press, and after the facts are published, then they can be put in the article. But surely he has mentioned the disputed facts somewhere and he can provide sources? Surely he has talked about developing the list to dozens of people? If you want me to do it, so there are more voices in the debate, let me know. Check out the talk page for Dave Carter for an interesting example of this kind of debate. Jimbo actually did get involved in that one. They really couldn't use Tracy Grammer's word either. BTW, there's a process around here somewhere to get it verified that he is who he says he is. Katr67 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the check. That makes me feel a lot better. Jimbo apparently is watching this a little too—at least he reverted the article once or twice. I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) for help before, but no takers. (Maybe that was the wrong place?)
I think it would go a long way if someone highly credible—like you are—told him what the standards are. He must think I'm a huffing and puffing squeaky wheel or something. I don't think it matters whether he's Craig or not—if he's not, he can edit the article without WP:COI. Being treated as if it were him just makes the situation more controlled and less loosy goosy. —EncMstr 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've found getting help at the pump totally hit or miss. When DocTropics was watching the pages he was very helpful. At other times I've not heard a peep except that time one user thought my warning to another user was a bit rude. That was the whole Elk Cove thing and I don't really want to go there. :) Am I highly credible? I'm pretty good with the commas and stuff, not so great with the policy, but I can try. Katr67 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Donteatyellowsnow

Thanks for the message Katr. Yes, actually I was referring to you. Besides the other similarities, DEYS already assumed your familiarity with the issues, saying "they" and "it". So I see that he must have misinterpreted your original contact, as I misinterpreted his. I'm sorry about that. It was a mistake on my part.

As for my message to AM, it was really only incidental, even had it occured. And of course it had nothing to do with your behaviour at all. Sorry again. --JGGardiner 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Although I can see from your talk page that it isn't all happy. =) --JGGardiner 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

see also

Hi Katr, just wanted to inquire about your theory of "see also" sections. You have made a couple edits I don't agree with, and while my disagreement isn't strong in those specific cases, I'd like to share my general thoughts and see what you think. Essentially, I disagree that inclusion in the body should disqualify a subject from the "see also" section. I consider "see also" as a potentially significant part of an article, that allows a reader new to the subject to develop a sense of context. Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), for instance, contained links to the organizations that promoted it and opposed it. You removed the link to OIA, because it had been linked in the body; but the result is a "see also" section that represents only one side of the issue.

None of this is meant to say that bloated "see also" sections aren't a problem. I'm all for keeping them "lean and mean," but I don't think inclusion in the body should automatically disqualify an article from inclusion. -Pete 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you deleted my link in 'rafting'

I added an external link a couple weeks ago to the rafting topic, linking to my website, www.whitewatercampsites.com. You deleted that link yesterday, calling it spam. Since I added it, a steady stream of people have used that link. My usage data shows that visitors spend almost 600 seconds at my site, on average. And this month they return 1.69 times each to spend another 600 seconds. It is not simply a picture gallery, it is a unique resource on the web for white water rafting enthusiasts. Yes, it has Adsense and today I made 12 cents, no joke. In the course of a year, my advertising MIGHT pay my hosting costs. I returned yesterday to expand the link text. I suppose that is promoting the site, in someone's definition. But reading the external links qualification for Wikipedia, my site certainly falls in the "should be included" category. My site is a labor of love, and very appreciated by the river rafting community, but apparently not by you. I can only ask that you do a little research and reconsider.


Certainly if someone is looking for river rafting information, they want to find my site. Commerical rafting companies won't link to it; they want to keep their visitors. There are very few places on the web that make sense to link to my site. This is, IMO, certainly one.

However, if I make my case with you and the next editor that comes along is going to delete it again, then don't bother reinstating it. Will Hansen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcguy0 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

According to your user contributions I only see the link you added to Selway River, which another editor also deleted as linkspam. You must mean this IP: User:67.50.221.226. Please read {{Spam}}. Editors are discouraged from adding links to sites that they own. Though Wikipedia is not here to help you get hits on your website, I can see that your link isn't particularly commercial and that it is a "unique resource". What usually happens is that someone starts spamming Oregon river articles with very commercial rafting links and I quickly discover they have also spammed Rafting, Whitewater, etc. Then I go clean out those external link sections. Those kind of articles are magnets for all sorts of competing outfitters, guides, etc. Hopefully you can see my concern because the external links sections soon become unwieldy with so many links. I'm sorry I did not look at your link more closely--sometimes it's really hard to draw the line about which links "should" be included. The problem with links like yours is that people see it and say: "His link is there, so mine should be too." That said, my area of expertise is not rafting and I don't keep an eye on that article. I think it would be best for you to discuss your link on the Rafting talkpage, where the rafting experts can chime in, bearing in mind there is a conflict of interest in defending the inclusion of a link to your own website. But if there is consensus on the Rafting talk page, and the link gets added back, then it will be harder for the "next editor that comes along" to delete it again. I hope this helps! Katr67 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll take a look at the talk page for rafting and see where things go from there. I didn't intend to become and 'editor' and have said conflict of interest. Is there a way to delete me? I just want to repost my link (at some point) and continue using this wiki as a plain user.

Mt. Bailey in So. Oregon

Katr67,

If I recall correctly, you have a copy of the Oregon Geographic Names book? If so, could you look and see who Mt. Bailey is named after? I'm wondering if it might be William J. Bailey. Thanks. Aboutmovies 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I seem to be in semi-permanent posession of Twisted86's copy of OGN. I'll do it after I get back from fencing tonight and after I take care of the matter EncMstr wanted me to look into. Cheers! Katr67 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I figured I could count on you, and thought you might like some less controversial talk. On a side note I hope you are not fencing the OGN, the project needs that book. :) Aboutmovies 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The book doesn't have opposable thumbs--fencing it would not be a challenge and indeed it would end up full of holes. :P And I'm too tired to do anything intelligent about EncMstr's request, but I can tell you Mt. Bailey wasn't named after anybody in particular at first, might even have been a typo. In 1992 the Oregon Geographic Names Board (there's another redlink for us) voted to name the peak in honor of Vernon and Florence Bailey; Vernon was a prominent naturalist and Florence an educator and ornithologist. Everything else named Bailey in the state was named for local settlers. So there ya have it. Katr67 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Interesting though. Aboutmovies 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Warm Springs Reservation / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Katr67, Do you think there should be two separate pages one for the reservation (ie: more about the land itself) and another for the folks who live there? I noticed that the Umatilla tribe and the Umatilla reservation is set up like that? Just curious, because I put some stuff on the reservation page that is really more about the tribe. --Smartone100 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a general consensus that the reservations and the tribes who live on them should have separate articles. It's a little confusing since many of the modern Oregon tribal entities (consisting of several individual tribes) have "reservation" in their names. But the people are of the reservation, they are not the reservation itself. There is often some overlap between articles, but effort should be made to differentiate the information as much as possible. When the tribal article gets written, we can move your information there. Unfortunately there is still a lot to do in the area of differentiating the articles. It's been on my to-do list forever. Just to add to the confusion, the Warm Springs (people) is a whole other article that needs to be written. If you are interested, you can see which articles already exist and which are needed at List of Indian reservations in Oregon and List of Native American Tribal Entities in Oregon. Also the category Category:Native American tribes in Oregon. Thanks for all your hard work on the tribal fishing info! Katr67 00:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for that very warm greetings! Regarding Oregon I'm just an interested reader right now, but I enjoy fixing grammar and loose ends. Flagman7 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ships & More

Yes, the Iredale should go into the cat. I didn't work all the way through the History in Oregon cat as I had to write the Tonquin article. Which was slowed down by our northern neighbor also then editing the article. We'll see if he behaves. Good morning and happy rain! Aboutmovies 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of cats, while I was in the History of Oregon cat I came accross Living Enrichment Center. I don't think it should be in there and thought I'd see if you thought it did? Of course I am biased towards older history, but I had never heard of these people. And since there were no deaths like with Jim Jones, Heavan's Gate, etc. I'm not sure they are significant. Aboutmovies 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, just checking, since the Iredale wasn't originally an "Oregon ship", though of course she has spent many many more years in Oregon than anyplace else. I've seen several references to the LEC, I think it comes up in the Wilsonville article, the Dammasch article and the Pacific Northwest article. I suspect a bit of {{advert}}izing. But I haven't been in the mood to untangle that particular mess. I doubt it should be in that cat. I mean, when it comes right down to it, anything and everything that happens in Oregon is history, right? Why should that particular article be in there an not the 7,000 or so others relating to Oregon? I'll take a quick peek, and leave a note on the talk page. I managed to miss the downpour--hoping for a nice dry ride out to Minto-Brown but that's probably wishful thinking... Katr67 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Hey, How's it goin'? First off thanks everytime you do something on my peer review requests and what not. Anyway I am in the process of improving two articles in hopes of getting GA status (I have tried to rant about it incessantly wherever possible). One, I think you did some work on, Joseph F. Glidden House, which is currently undergoing two peer reviews. The other is one that had a peer review awhile ago but I just got around to improving, this one University of Illinois Astronomical Observatory is a bit long but it's already a "B" class and I have reworked some stuff today and it's a lot better, I think it still needs a bit of work though and I was wondering, if you have the time, could you give it a copy edit and going over for any glaring contradictions or errors? Thank you ahead of time. : )A mcmurray 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I think I still owe you a copyedit on Executive Order 9835, but I have the day off tomorrow and had plans to do some intense wiki-ing. BTW, I may let myself get dragged kicking and screaming into seeing about getting the Oregon article up to GA/FA status, would you be willing to lend your expertise to that? Your interest in our fine state confers honorary Oregonian status on you, I think. :) Katr67 22:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh most certainly. I would be more than happy to help. Just let me know if there is anything you need me to do. I'll take a look at the Oregon article tomorrow (the main Oregon article, right?). And I am contemplating a move to Oregon, the honorary status is flattering. Thank you. As for now, I must sleep. Good night.A mcmurray 04:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the main Oregon article. As long as you're not from California, we'll all get along great. ;) Katr67 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that made me laugh. I'm from the Middle Coast. Hee. Lake Michigan is like a small Illinois ocean, anyway. ; ) A mcmurray 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oregon people

Although I work on lots of categories, I think all types of people categories are the worst. I never know whether both categories or subcategories should include the same articles. It is just a mess; rarely does the category state what is expected; so anything goes. Then people get upset. Then things get worse. I have no insight. Sorry. Hmains 04:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

VoA's RC script warnings.

Hello! I saw you commented after my comment on Voice of All's talk page and I've yet to recieve any reply from him but I found this and I added the section under "For a collection of user warning templates, add:..." and this has changed my tabs to the new warnings and also given me the option to select the type of warning (blanking, vandalism etc) and an easy way to input the name of the page targeted. Just a suggestion for you if you hadn't found an alternative solution. Regards, --Farosdaughter 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

UO & Bach Festival

Regarding your comment about the University of Oregon trivia about the Oregon Bach festival - the festival was originally an outgrowth of the UO school of music. See [6]. But, that association isn't apparent the UO page, so the trivia seems irrelevant. The UO page is kind of a beast, isn't it.  ;-) --tess 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)tess 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the Bach Festival article but didn't see the connection. Yes, the UO page strikes fear into the heart of a wikignome like me. I prefer taking on projects that don't involve such a time committment! Oh well, I'm sure it will get cleaned up eventually... Katr67 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother is watching you!

Hi sis,

I've finally gotten around to creating an account and plunging into the editing game. Nothing major, mainly just some gnomish cleanup on some random pages so far. Talk at ya later. Finngall 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Hello. I am at a loss. I am trying to defend the Wiki against a spammer who wants to insert non notable information into the DeKalb, Illinois article, I attempted to get help at AIV, they were none. It seems the system is tilted heavily in favor of this person. The user is User:JazzButcher I don't know what to do to get this person to stop. Can you help me?A mcmurray 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured out where to report it at.A mcmurray 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I have created tools to simply your Where I have been section of your user page

I see you have a list of nations and/or states/provinces on your user page. I would like to offer you some templates for this task I created for my own list. One pair of templates will create entries identical to the one I use. (I suggest you copy my legend if you use them.) Other templates will provide just a flag or name (nation or province/state).

Will (Talk - contribs) 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mount Hood incident bullets

Hi Katr67! As a perfesshunal ed it torr (I laughed for three days after you wrote something like that), I wonder what you think of the removed bullets from Mount Hood#Incident history. I'm mixed, but also a bit biased having written most of it. The editor who removed them merged several paragraphs in the last two incidents to make it hang together correctly. Now those megaparagraphs seem a bit intense. Should they be bulleted? Or is the way it is now more correct (but maybe stripped down a bit more)? —EncMstr 08:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Hmm. I'm torn. Without the bullets, the single-sentence paragraphs look choppy, yet since this is an encyclopedia, it's preferable that things be written like prose and not a list. And it's alarming that the Oregon Episcopal School incident only merits one sentence (potential bias--I know someone who was touched by this, and I know it was a huge news story at the time), while the recent incident with the folks and their dog gets a huge paragraph. This is perhaps one of the problems with an encyclopedia "anyone can edit"! Speaking of the thing with the dog, most of the other incidents listed ended in fatalities, which unfortunately makes them notable. I'm sure before the advent of an instantly updateable encyclopedia, there have been dozens if not hundreds of people who have gotten lost in the mountain, but haven't died. Do they merit mention? Anyway, back to the point, I like the list format with the bullets, but I think that's probably not how it should look--would it make sense to split off the incidents into a separate article? If you called it List of climbing incidents on Mount Hood, then you could bullet it to your heart's content. Katr67 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The national press thought the last incident notable: there were five or six ENG vans parked (mostly in the way) for days during the busy President's Day weekend. Personally I felt they significantly overblew it, but what do I know? I don't think a death is required for an item to qualify as a notable incident though. Perhaps the January incident where a woman was injured by falling ice was air-evacuated should be included to help balance the statistics.
There is more coming on the OES incident, perhaps enough for a full article. If and when the rest of the 1980s accidents are added, the section will indeed be too weighty. Right now it seems on the edge. Thanks for chiming in.
By the way, did you see my answer here? —EncMstr 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's crazy, but in the light of the recent fatal incident, and the on-going debate about who should pay to rescue "idiots", I guess it makes a kind of sense. I just bet in a couple years nobody will remember anything about it except that it involved a dog. :) Yup, saw your reply, sorry. I had already linked to one of the policies, but nobody has come back to debate the issue. Still, though it seems really obvious, I still swear that somewhere it literally says that a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for another article. Oh well, "they" are always changing the guidelines at meta... Katr67 18:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Volcanoes

Hi Katr67, I noticed that you've been systematically removing the "see also" sections from a number of Oregon volcano articles I created. Why? They are there to provide quick links to other nearby volcanoes. If anything, the sections need to be expanded, not deleted. I made all those articles in a single concerted push, so I haven't had time to go back and fine-tune the list for each volcano. I will do so as time permits.

Please don't delete those sections entirely, but instead correct and expand them with other nearby volcanoes (obviously the "Cascade Range" link can be deleted, since it is redundant with other parts of the article). Maybe the sections should just be renamed "Nearby volcanoes" instead, since that's their primary purpose right now. But "see also" is certainly an appropriate name, too. Thanks, Seattle Skier 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all your hard work on those articles. Yes, according to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also, it's best not to add see alsos that are already linked in the article. As far as the others, all I could see was an arbitrary collection of other volcanoes, which seemed to me would become unwieldy if all volcanoes were included. The Category:Volcanoes of Oregon and the like serve the same purpose. I suppose if someone is new to navigating wiki categories, adding a hardlink to the category would be helpful to them, and yes, a heading "Nearby volcanoes" might work, but again it seems like it would be arbitrary (who determines what "nearby" is?). Another solution would be to add a brief explanation as suggested in the layout guide, such as *Mount Hood, next closest Cascade volcano to the south. The wording is a little clunky, but you get the idea. So if it's clear why things are in a see also section, I don't have a problem with it, but you have to think about what a user might want. Is s/he thinking "Hmm. I wonder what other volcanoes are around here?" and they don't know how to use categories, then maybe a hardlink to the category would be good. But for example, at Hoodoo Butte, I saw Mount Hood and Crater Lake... What do they have to do with Hoodoo Butte? Someone might click on Mount Hood thinking s/he would get more info on Hoodoo Butte and be confused. You say you need to fine tune the lists and that's fine, but at first glance it looked (and apparently was) completely random. (Maybe leave a <!--note--> about what your plan is next time?)
BTW, I didn't remove all the see also sections because I didn't start to notice them until halfway through fixing the sort order (leaving a space after the pipe causes the article to not sort alphabetically), and I'm lazy and not a complete ogre :), but "See also" should go above "References" and "External links." I hope I explained where I was coming from clearly. Thanks for checking in. Katr67 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Template talk:Volcanoes of Oregon

Talk:New Carissa

I noticed you added the peer review template to the New Carissa talk page; however, the peer review is already linked at the top of the page in the "Article Milestones" section of the FA template - it's just hidden by default. Not a big deal either way, just wanted to point that out. -Big Smooth 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh rats. I didn't see that, I tend to ignore templates. I did link the peer review to the archived version of the automated suggestions, so at least that was helpful. :-\ I wanted to make the NC review handy because we are thinking about FAing Oregon. Thanks and happy editing! Katr67 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New NRHP Collaboration Division

(Message generated via copy and paste, sorry to be impersonal but I am hitting up everyone in the project. But hello. : ) Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I-5

I think it's "Afterbirth" by From First to Last, which was in there, haha. I didn't get it either, but with so little info on it, it doesn't need to be there. Good call. Cheers! --MPD T / C 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhhh.... I get it. I'm out of the loop as far as Nu-metal is concerned. It sure sounded like they were describing the tracks on some album. :) Katr67 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Location of project banner

Re: your change to Lewis and Clark State Recreation Site. Thanks for the tip, I'm already using it on my next stub. And, BTW, your welcoming messages are very nice and appreciated. Cheers! Werewombat 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Valley Airport

Thanks for catching that. I wonder what I thought I was doing? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

re. Stubsensor Cleanup Project

Your opinion makes sense, I've replaced the stub tag on both Oregon's 1st congressional district and Oregon's 3rd congressional district - thanks for the input! (also copied to project page) PGWG 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, it was finally a good day to take pics. If the clouds stay away tomorrow I might be able to get a good outside shot of the capitol, if the big ugly yellow school buses stay away. Aboutmovies 06:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Made minor changes to Chemult, Oregon entry

I made some minor formatting changes, added a little more info on elevation/lat/long, and mentioned the post office and forest service since they are government. Feel free to get rid of it if you think I did it wrong. jimransier@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.78.245 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. It's not like I own that article, though so you can usually put discussions like this on the article's talk page where other people can see them. The lat/long was actually already there in the form of the mapit links at the bottom, which places the coords in the upper right corner of the page, so I took that part out as redundant. Happy editing! Katr67 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More movies made in Oregon

Hi, KATR! I saw your page of movies, realized some movies (such as "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest")were missing and set out to find you a better search phrase for IMDB. Check this one out and I think your list will get longer:

http://www.imdb.com/LocationTree?Oregon,+USA

I hope this helps. Did I ask you to check out the lovely Southern Oregon ghost towns of Golden (Douglas county) and Buncom (Jackson County) ?

Keep up the good work,

DaKine 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the location tree link. But actually, it's a work in progress and certainly not ready to "go live". (P.S. some people are a little touchy about other people editing their user pages, even if there are glaring typos...) I was mostly keeping track of the less-obvious ones, especially the ones filmed in and around Eugene (personal bias). You did suggest Golden, and somebody else suggested Buncom. Now that two people have suggested it, maybe I had better do it, huh? Of course, I'm mostly going to use material from the Internet, and maybe a line or two from Oregon Geographic Names so if you want to create the articles yourself with cited sources, feel free! Be BOLD. They're on my watchlist so if they get created I will see them, and I can't help but edit them after that! ;) Happy editing! Katr67 15:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

grammah

I was kicking myself for not going all-in on the stub-for-deletion debate, like "how dare you people offend Oregon's treasured and Most Excellent Grognard." Bet that woulda made you blush!

Yeah, Mom is pretty hip in her own way - now I'll get to figure out if she gets "yo' mama" humor. Dig that ND joke. -Pete 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammah indeed. IvoShandor 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. BTW, I am so stealing that plainlinks thing for my WPOR userbox... Katr67 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

nestled

The funniest thing about that "nestled" search is that the first thing after all those cities is "Fecal sac."

tyler skarz 04:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh...thanks for sharing! Katr67 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yaquina River

Hello, Katr67. I noticed that you edited Yaquina River to fix an image that I had inserted. For some reason the image was not displaying at thumb size, but you changed it to 250px and now it displays. I have run across this problem previously, where an image will not display at all at a particular resolution, but change it, even slightly, and then it displays. I had the same problem with the image Petroglyphs in the Columbia River Gorge.jpg that I added to Columbia River Gorge. It was not displaying at 300px, so I changed it to 298px and now it shows just fine. Any idea why this happens? Have you run across this problem before? ●DanMS • Talk 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan. Images aren't really my thing, so I have no idea what is going wrong. I just saw that someone (probably you) had used the same solution with a problem image, so I tried messing with the Yaquina one and it worked. I had a suspicion that if I changed it back, the problem would resolve itself (on the age-old principle of taking something apart and putting it back together again). I just tried that on Yaquina River and it seems to have worked. Strange. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) and see if anyone there knows what's going on. Katr67 04:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

HFMA

I see you removed the Yahoo! Top Ten part, which is fine. But I had to re-add the ref since it also covered the third largest museum part too. Odd thing. When I wrote the article it was just a top ten thing, then when the DYK person nominated the article it was #9, last night it was #14. Aboutmovies 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about removing the ref alltogether, but I figured that fact wasn't too disputable. I assume the Portland Art Museum and Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art are the top two? Anyway, as you can see, I found what I consider a better reference--I hope you don't mind--I just don't like that Yahoo page at all. One of the top ten is now a winery I've never heard of...advert city. I quickly tried to find a source not connected with UW that has a list of the biggest museums in the state, I bet there's one out there somewhere. Happy trails! Katr67 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed that all this relates to your DYK, oops. Katr67 17:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I didn't nominate it. But I looked all over and can't find any sort of museum rankings site, though I found just as good of a source as the Yahoo one for the UO museum, which is now #2! Aboutmovies 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wetlands

That was fast. I was going back in to populate the category after finishing Jackson Bottom, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Aboutmovies 18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. All in a day's...*ahem*...work. I loves me some categories, and was dying to put that plains thing somewhere, since it wasn't a grassland, so thank *you* for creating the cat. Now I had better go do what I get paid for... Katr67 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you'll be back. You will start getting the shakes and feel the need to feed your addiction. *huuumwaa aah aaaah* Aboutmovies 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I can quit anytime. Katr67 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Hey- as far as I can tell, the *mp template (could it be a weirder name??!) is a substitute for a "*", that overcomes some Firefox-specific problem where bullet lists crash into images.

As for DYK items, I misunderstood your list, but I think it would be cool to keep track of nominations, as well - and build up a list of interesting facts about Oregon. Sounds like a separate list, though.

Just heard back from the Gov, they're on it. They didn't have much clue what I meant by "license," which seems weird for a former attorney gen/scj who champions open source but…whatever, they're willing to play along. -Pete 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Open solicitation for input/advice

Hello! There's been some recent activity getting the ball rolling at WikiProject Journalism, and if you'd like to join us, I'm sure your input would be valued. In particular, User:Wiki Wistah has proposed a guideline for editing articles about newspapers, and although I've responded with comments of my own, WW rightly suggested that it should be more than just a two-way conversation. I've noticed some of your own edits on related matters and thought you might be interested. Any suggestions would certainly be appreciated. Otherwise, if this is not of interest to you, or if you've already got a plateful of editing, feel free to ignore this message! -Tobogganoggin talk 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

my cat removal

Thanks - it was hiding in plain sight, which is I guess why I didn't see it; I was looking in bodies of text where I knew I'd been naming various categories, but they all had the second colon in them; I guess what happened here is I copied the contents of a template, trimming them in the box, but didn't notice I'd also selected the category attached to the template......how's the weather in Oregon? It's actually warm here for the first time in months; don't know if your rain was as bad as ours, but ours was epic (60-year records all over the place, with predictions of a 100-year flood on the Fraser in the next month or two......); gonna go outside and play ;-). Thanks for finding that again; I keep on coming up with bits of Oregon history in BC sources I've got, y'know, I just don't have time to add them; mostly fur trade stuff but also cross-border stuff to do with the Similkameen, Boundary and Kootenay areas and washington in the Oregon Country days; it's always intriguing to me what I find about BC-side history in American histories and about American-side history in BC accounts; there's tons of material affecting various existin articles and suggesting others; I just don't ahve time, but Oregon/WA/ID/MT even UT/WY historians/writers/wikipedians should be aware that they may find things in BC history about their own areas that they haven't heard before, or told from a different perspective. This also includes more recent events like the Salmon War of 1996, although that didn't affect Oregon it's certainly as much an Alaska or WA story as it is a BC one; ditto the mining history of eastern WA, ID and MT with BC's Southern Interior districts/valleys, whose histories are often more involved with Spokane's etc (and even Denver) than they are with New West/Vancouver/Victoria. Oregon's a bit more removed but there's still threads that go back and forth; the reason I'm rambling about this is if there's any particular historical topic area that's of interest to you, I'll keep my eyes open for bits and send 'em along if found.Skookum1 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/User_talk%7EKatr67_Archive2.2_b445.html"