Archives

1) July 2007 – January 2008 2) January 2008 – April 2008 3) April 2008 – July 2008 4) July 2008 – October 2008 5) October 2008 – March 2009 6) March 2009 – June 2009 7) June 2009 – November 2009 8) November 2009 – February 2010 9) February 2010 – June 2010 10) June 2010 – October 2010 11) October 2010 – February 2011 12) February 2011 – July 2011 13) July 2011 – January 2012 14) January 2012 – November 2012 15) November 2012 – January 2014 16) January 2014 – January 2015 17) January 2015 – March 2017

My main Wikipedia activities have involved research, writing, photography, editing, and reviewing. However, since early 2018, I have been largely inactive. For copyediting, please try WP:GOCE/REQ. For peer reviews, please try WP:PR. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finetooth, compliments to your nice photo of the Painted Hills in Oregon and your extensive review of the Eastern Hills. It's a true pleasure to work with you to improve the article; you have a thorough understanding of geographical and geological subjects, are very polite and include extensive edit summaries. Not always do I find such pleasure in working on Wikipedia, I must say. Thanks again and we'll get another FA for your list! All the best, Tisquesusa (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a real pleasure to see your Oregon caves article at FAC, a reminder of happy times when such articles used to appear regularly. I will try and give it a prose review in a few days' time; on the face of it the presentation looks excellent. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm very happy to hear from you again, and a review would be most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, once again, for all of the helpful feedback regarding the Canadian Indian residential school system page. Your comments regarding the last third of the page were particularly helpful, and the restructuring they prompted helped establish a much better flow and presentation of ideas. It was great working with you! --Dnllnd (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

• Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
• Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
• Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
• Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during May. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth, is this one still in good shape? I'd like to run it at TFA in July. I'll leave a note in the current thread on the article's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so, though I was not the original nominator for FA. I'm satisfied that the changes (or non-changes) discussed in the thread are OK. No other editors, including the FA nominator, have said otherwise. I will run the link checker again today to make sure that no more dead URLs have appeared since the last check, and I'll check the very recent bot changes to two citations. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the text that will appear on the Main Page; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you. I'll give the article another once-over, and I'd be glad to look over the Main Page text. Finetooth (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page text looks fine. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I'm going to mention the 8th, the anniversary of the Antiquities Act, which is somewhat in the news these days. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I had thought of the connection but not the anniversary. Finetooth (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if Oregon Caves was the first use of the Act? - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Tower was the first, in 1906. See complete list. Finetooth (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Btw I got the date on the Antiquities Act wrong, but that's not a problem, this article doesn't need a date connection. - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Congrats on the Main page appearance! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congrats! Great to see your work on the Main Page! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't that I am stalking pages, but your page is on my watchlist and I saw a new article from your hand. With "not much else to do", I thought to check it out. As you I was happily surprised; a nice article about a female race driver. My mom used to race (even together with a later 24h Le Mans winner...) for a short while, so I have some affinity and decided to look up some more info in Spanish. Glad you liked my additions. I don't know if you also do GA reviews, but I have an article upcoming for that, Cesar-Ranchería Basin, as you know from me it is filled with illustrative images as I write for the visually focused majority of people, especially on geologic subjects. Articles about Law 19834X don't really need so much visual back-up... Hope it will pass, it became quite a nice article, I think. Due to the still many red links it wouldn't qualify for FA now, but that may be the next step in the coming months. If you like to throw a critical and interested eye over it, let me know. Also I will put up the Eastern Hills of Bogotá for FAC again, as the 2 weeks have passed and I still think it is eligible enough. Filling in the many blanks of the Colombian geology with new templates about volcanoes and sedimentary basins as well as a needed infobox that was missing until now. Have another infobox in preparation to be included in hundreds of articles missing a good infobox as standard "familiar" view to the right. If you like, please comment on the sedimentary basin infobox, that's why I placed it in /sandbox for now. It's still not right, missing some features showing up and the code is not too accessible for an amateur as me. All the best and keep the good articles coming! Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck with all of these, but I'm in danger of getting overwhelmed by FAC reviews, the articles I'm working on, and other attractions on-line and off-. I won't be doing more GA reviews in the immediate future, and I know almost nothing about coding. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. It's a pleasure working with you. Finetooth (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you four the uplift, and for today's Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve, "unusual marble cave and its surrounds, which lie in a remote sector of the Siskiyou Mountains"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today: Columbia River, "This article has been the subject of a broad and sustained collaboration by over a dozen editors since at least 2007. The river is of central importance to America's Pacific Northwest region: cultural, economic, transportation, environmental, and international political interests have intersected along the river for centuries, and it played an important role in the area's geologic evolution and native culture as well." Thank you, and the many involved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When should Bryant be TFA? Her birthday? Or next March, women's month? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think women's month is a great idea. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Louise Bryant --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for valuable comments to improve Der 100. Psalm, now promoted to FA on the day it was mentioned on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Saguaro National Park, "a two-district national park near Tucson, Arizona, that preserves large stands of giant saguaro cacti and other desert vegetation, much of it barbed, and a wide variety of animals that run like javelinas, crawl like zebra-tailed lizards, fly like whiskered screech owls, or hang out near water like lowland leopard frogs." - I love both, the park and the article! - Best wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Louise Bryant on IWD, - I made her a meaningful part of my talk today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today, thank you for Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, "a small university town that grew up along the West Branch Canal of the Pennsylvania Canal system in the early 19th century. Until William Penn's original woods were mostly felled, the town thrived on timber. In the 1930s, the town became home to Piper Aircraft and its famous Cub. In the 1970s, flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Agnes put a big damper on the airplane factory and much else in town. Beneath part of the city lie artifacts from other cultures dating back more than 8,000 years."! - I have a peer review open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits to the Disneyland Railroad article. I noticed that you created a sandbox page with a list of potential fixes for the article. I don't know whether you are aware of it, but I nominated this article for featured article status just this week here: FA nomination. If you like, you can copy and paste the entire contents of that sandbox page into the article's FA nomination page, and I can look into implementing those recommended changes. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Yes, that's the rough draft of my review. It's not ready yet, but I plan to continue with it tomorrow. After I've worked through the whole article, I'll go back to the beginning and read through a second time before posting my suggestions and questions. I'm glad you reverted the Main Street U.S.A. changes; seeing the reverts and your explanation, I realized I was getting tired and knocked off for the day. Back atcha tomorrow. Cheers! Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saguaro National Park you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Knope7 -- Knope7 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during June. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project. Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia. To receive feedback on your chances of successfully requesting administrative privileges, consider starting a poll: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll Thank you! Are you reading this on another user's talk page? If you are experienced and trusted, and would consider becoming an admin, you are very much encouraged to take the poll. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for contributing your time to help review the Disneyland Railroad article. It got promoted to featured status! On that note, I also nominated the Walt Disney World Railroad, and its FA review page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney World Railroad/archive1. Its review is going well, but it still needs a source review and comments on criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c, per Sarastro1. Any input that you can provide will be very helpful. Jackdude101 (Talk) 04:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if video game characters are your thing, but you are a level-headed sort of chap, and I wonder if you care to chip in at this FAC. There has been a little bit of dispute over content, and some fresh eyes would be good. The FAC takes a bit of reading, so I understand if you are too busy. Hope you are well. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm sending a message to everyone who supported or opposed at the original nomination. Just letting you know after addressing the concerns raised at the first FAC I have renominated the article again: See here. Your comments would be most welcome, and I would be happy to review something for you in return. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to step on your toes, but.... you did say you were fine if someone double-checked... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely fine. I'd appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed once again. How are you able to be so thorough? I got quite cross-eyed working my way through 317 citations. I was so happy it wasn't 417. Finetooth (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of detail work in my "real" jobs - I do a lot of proof-reading and editing with one job and the research I do is all on horse bloodlines. I've done insane things like scan entire stud book volumes for specific names ... 900 pages or so. As for picking out the iffy sources - the more you do, the more it becomes easy to figure out what might be iffy. User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet can help, but keep in mind the lists of websites predate the change in the FA criteria to requiring "high quality" sources. As a general rule - for a website, if you don't know it is reliable, then go to the source page. See if there is a byline/author for the article. If there is - see if the site lets you click on the byline to take you to an page on the author. If there is no byline/author that's a concern. If the "about author" page looks like a myspace page instead of a serious resume, that's a concern. Then see if the website has an "about us" page. If there isn't one - that's a concern. If there is one - check it over. Ideally the site will have an editorial team that is separate from the money side. It's a bonus if the site tells you what their standards are (see www.ign.com where they have an about page AND a page setting out how they handle reviews so that people know they aren't being paid for positive reviews) that's a bonus (assuming that they are good standards). If the site is backed by a media company - is it reputable? If you're still concerned - check the reliable sources noticeboard archives for discussions on the site. If you're still having concerns - then ask the nominator what makes the site a high quality reliable source. Most of the time, it's possible to have them show you that it's fulfilling the criteria - there is NO way everyone can possibly know all the websites in the world, especially in niche subjects. On journals - articles with a doi or in one of the standard databases (Gale, JSTOR, HighBeam, ScienceDirect, etc) will be fine. For books - if you don't recognize the publisher ... click on the ISBN and see how many libraries hold it and what quality of the library it is. Books held by a lot of university libraries are going to be generally reliable and of high quality. Watch out for works classified as "juvenile" or "pictorial" or that are outside the field of the article subject. WorldCat is good for giving you subjects on a book entry so you can see if it's in the field or not. Lulu.com/Lulu Press, iUniverse, AuthorHouse, CreateSpace, PediaPress, and the like are self-publishing firms and almost always not reliable, much less high quality. Books held only by a few libraries, especially if it's only the Library of Congress, are a concern. Keep in mind that the Library of Congress is a "library of deposit" for copyright so its holdings are not really an indication of reliablitiy because in theory ALL books published in the US are supposed to be deposited with them. It helps that I'm a book collector and I sell used books as a sideline - I'm exposed to a LOT of different publishers so I have a better grasp of what is likely to be "self-published" and what isn't. If you do enough source reviews, you get a feel for what's good and what's bad so it increases your speed and ability to sift out the crap from the good stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I've added a link from my toolbox to your cheatsheet. This is very helpful information. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I didn't really mean to type quite that much... sorry for the wall of text! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Saguaro National Park you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Saguaro National Park for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Knope7 -- Knope7 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Saguaro National Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saguaro National Park for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Knope7 -- Knope7 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Finetooth. Hope all's well. I was wondering if you might have any time to provide feedback for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barry Voight/archive1, which has stalled in the past week or so. I would appreciate any and all commentary you have time/availability to offer. Thanks, ceranthor 18:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ceranthor. I'm swamped at the moment, but I might have time on Sunday. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you get the chance is totally appreciated. Thanks! ceranthor 15:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews and one source review you did during August. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a long-term Oregonian from Curry County. I was perusing your page regarding the Rogue River and in the article I believe you state that the only fossils found in Oregon are found at the Otter Point formation. Did I misunderstand your intent? The John Day Fossil Beds are world-famous (as im sure you know) and so I suspect this was an oversight or possibly a misreading by me (tis early :). Cheers! GBexpat (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and your note. The Rogue River article says, "Oregon's only dinosaur fragments, those of a hadrosaur or duck-billed dinosaur, were found here," in the Otter Point Formation. The fossils at the John Day Fossil Beds are from the Age of Mammals, which followed the extinction of the dinosaurs. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the ten FAC reviews you did during October. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the O used your image but attributed to Restore Oregon. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finetooth. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finetooth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the seven reviews you did during November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Saguaro National Park article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 21, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 21, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finetooth. AfC submissions Random submission ~8 weeks 1,823 pending submissions Purge to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the eight FAC reviews you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting to the Main Page (again!) And a belated happy new year. Shannon [ Talk ] 04:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, congrats on the Main page appearance! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue Mountain Hospital is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Mountain Hospital until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to say thank you for writing the Signpost entry about common issues in Peer Review. This was very useful. It helped me spot several things I can fix before doing a peer review. Thanks! --Culix (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you commented at Jill Valentine's FAC1, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Is there something I could improve before renominating? Would you be into commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue anyone may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate your feedback, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been excellent help reviewing a couple of articles of mine before, and I'm looking for someone without much (or any) cricket knowledge to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1, which I'm hoping to take on to Featured status. Any help you could provide would be amazing. Thanks, Harrias ^talk 09:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the reply. Harrias ^talk 18:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finetooth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Finetooth, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you add these pushpin maps of California that just take up space and don't clarify anything? Perhaps if there's a pushpin map of the county it would do something useful. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to your question is that the guidelines for maps in river articles begins with this sentence: "Every river article should include a map." The map doesn't have to be a pushpin map, and many river articles include other kinds of maps. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's just silly project aspiration; it's certainly far from a guideline. Maybe a small map at the bottom if you must. But a big map up top that's uninformative is useless. (let's keep the conversation here where it started) Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Finetooth, I hope you are doing well. I noticed you were selectively removing "United States" links from leads in river articles since I have a ton on my watchlist. I was confused when you removed the link to United States in Kootenay River but left the link for Canada. according to MOS:OVERLINK shouldn't "Canada" also be removed? I don't understand why just the USA... Shannon [ Talk ] 16:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are right about Canada, and I should also be looking for things like Pacific Ocean and North America. Thanks for the heads-up. Finetooth (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I'm just not familar with the overlink policy so I was a bit befuddled thinking "it seems kind of US centric". Sorry for the confusion. Shannon [ Talk ] 06:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Lock Haven, Pennsylvania has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 18 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth. The article looks fine to me and so does the main page text. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Fossil, OR image is being used but lacks attribution. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Finetooth, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have such an experienced editor as a new member, especially as you are interested in covering women writers. As it happens, Women Writers is one of our priorities for September. I see you've already created Elizabeth Fenwick Way and that you are working on a couple more. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well F. MarnetteD|Talk 20:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Bellows, North River (1908), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.		Best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2020.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rem notice

Hi Finetooth,

I see you gave some excellent suggestions on the Mumbai article 11 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mumbai/archive3 I recently fixed most of the issues pointed out by you. Can you check it and review again if possible and suggest what more improvements can be made in the article?

This is the new PR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mumbai/archive4

Amazingcaptain (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amazingcaptain: Sorry. I am no longer doing peer reviews. Best of luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Edward Hines Lumber Co. logo.png. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Jerome, Arizona, "about the boom and bust town of Jerome, Arizona, site of two of the richest copper deposits ever discovered. William A. Clark, one of the Copper Kings of Montana, owned the first, and James Douglas, Jr., a friend of Georges Clemenceau, owned the second. Both men financed mines, railroads, smelters, and company towns (Clarksville and Clemenceau) in or near Jerome. When the mines played out, the workers left, and Jerome's population shrank from about 5,000 in 1930 to about 250 in 1960. Today the town is home to about 450 people who rely mainly on a tourist economy."! - Missing Jerome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Jerome, Arizona article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 11, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 11, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Finetooth, on Jerome, Arizona being today's TFA. It is a fascinating article and a welcome contribution. Ergo Sum 03:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're doing well and staying safe. Thought you might enjoy Stone House (Portland, Oregon). Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finetooth! Would you care to do a FAC review for Manganese, Minnesota? I don't know if it's Wiki-appropriate to recruit reviewers, but you have reviewed articles I have written before, and the FAC coordinators are suggesting that this article is likely to be archived if no other reviewers step up to the plate. I know your talk page states that you are largely inactive, so I will ask some other previous reviewers as well. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. Glad you are still going strong. Finetooth (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found out about Crane Union High School and expanded the article accordingly. If you have plans to be in that part of eastern Oregon to take photos, would it be OK if I started a photo request list?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for expanding the Crane Union High School article. I'm largely retired from Wikipedia and do not think I will be in the vicinity of Crane in the future. Best wishes. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The article Dant, Oregon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable location. The article contains a fair amount of information, but it is mostly SYNTH from sources that don't talk about this place at all, or only confirm that it existed (references 1 and 2). I can't find a single mention of Dant from the archives of the Wasco County press (except for people with that last name), and as far as books, the best I can find is [1], which only mentions the perlite mine "at Dant". Satellite view shows a cluster of buildings along the railroad tracks, but without any access roads into this remote area; these are probably just ruins of the mine. With no information about a "community" of Dant (as opposed to the mine) this isn't a notable enough place for an article; fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rutledge, Oregon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable location. This source, on page 484: [2] clearly states this was just a post office. From the satellite view: [3], it is plainly obvious this is not a community in any sense of the term. Fails WP:GEOLAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to object. GNIS, OGN, and a road map were all I ever found; they seemed sufficient at the time. Thanks for your work. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Globe, Oregon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sourced only to GNIS and maps. Does appear that there was once more there than at present: [4], but no information could be found; no mentions in the illustrated history of Lane County. Without sources this is a failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. Finetooth (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Globe, Oregon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globe, Oregon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin's lost expedition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Havana, Oregon, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havana, Oregon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325 Online events: New: Women who died in 2024 | Religion Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here Tip of the month: Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]