Jump to content

User talk:Peteforsyth/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Oregon System

I came across this, you might find it useful. Aboutmovies 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BarCamp Portland

Hey Pete, glad that I got to meet you at Portland BarCamp Saturday. Looking forward to convening a sequel to the First Portland Wikimeetup. -- llywrch 06:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Legislative Initiative

Hello! I came across your userpage and the Oregon Legislative Initiative, to get Oregon state produced works released into the PD or licensed under CC. I would have to think this would also apply to institutionally-produced materials at each of the OUS institutions. Or does each institution (for example, the University of Oregon or UO Libraries) retain copyright on their products? This could potentially open up another stream of PD materials that might be available. akendall(talk) 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help - particularly where copyright held by the state universities is concerned - sign me up! akendall(talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still in, and the offer for copyeditin' still stands. Keep me in the loop via e-mail or whatever. Katr67 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I feel strongly that the work paid for by the people belongs to the people. Let me know how I can help on any aspect of the Oregon Open Content Initiative Duff 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OSC

Thanks, but you get some of the credit too as you did some of the work too. So one down, 5000 WPOR articles to go. As to your Lonewolf BC comments, though I understand your intentions, this thing goes much deeper. The issues I've had with that editor at Robert Gray (sea-captain) I believe are one of the reasons User:Jgilhousen left the project (not my issues but the actions by the editors there and JG's interactions with LBC and Skookum1). He is free to leave comments on my talk page, but not to restore items I have deleted, which he did twice. One of the other editors he left the same message for didn't care for it either, so hopefully he'll stop. Honestly, how would you feel if someone left a message on your talk page like that when I know you know how to deal with vandalism?

Anyway, hopefully we'll have another GA article soon with Katherine Ann Power, and I am hoping to work a few more up to that point over the next few weeks. But now back to writing an article about ferries and nominating a DYK from Betty Roberts! Aboutmovies 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: vandalism, fair enough, I'll stay out of it… it just bummed me out to see that kind of exchange. Re: Roberts, I just got through reading the whole article - well done! -Pete 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh

It seems that someone's changing the pronunciation again. I'm staying away from that. On another note, I noticed there's nothing about primary and secondary education in Oregon on the Oregon page. Do you think we should have a separate page for that, or have one page (i.e. "Education in Oregon") that has sections for both? Hmmmm. akendall 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bissel-Israel.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bissel-Israel.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Retrieval?

Hi Pete, Who do I need to talk to specifically in order to recover/rework deleted content? Thanks for the tip on that.Duff 08:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...anything you want to say, really, or not. I know I shouldn't let that sort of thing bother me, but it does. On the bright side, if I'm getting simultaneously of secretly harboring both Democratic and Republican agendas, I suppose I must be doing something right. I've just never had a essay written about me before, it takes some getting used to. -Pete 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I know how you feel. I have never had a troll before, and I have had one for months who is determined to remove mention of me from my work, and remove my photographs from articles. Someone in Washington State. They have enlisted a friend of theirs in Germany to also help them in the task. This has been going on for months. Months! Both are very skilled in Wiki policy, guidelines, tags, etc. I'm just surprised that they care enough. The closest I've had to an essay were a couple of long-winded attacks by an editor on Talk:Tara Subkoff where I was called a "careerist scumbag" because out of the 1,000+ photos I have on Wikipedia, four have titties. Jeez! What's so bad 'bout titties? I'll make a comment later on tonight. I understand your creeped-out feeling. --David Shankbone 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pete, right now the article is so far from meeting 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, or 2, that I don't want to get overly involved in its repair, which is not minor — it's got a long ways to go to be well written, comprehensive (is there not another side to the story? or are we only going to tell the version acccording to one journalist, and never offer the police side of the story?), correctly sourced (concerned about unsourced claims or claims not verified by sources, like the 700 number), and neutral (insertion of unsourced terms like "anarchist"). Shankbone's comments on the FAC seem to indicate he's not familiar with how the FA process works, but since you're working on the article, I'll be glad to peek in as often as you need, but I'm not interested in writing this article over from scratch. It would be easier to e-mail you the source documents; pls let me know if I can send them to you via e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, SG. I entirely understand your concerns about FA qualifications. Still, I have interacted with DSB on numerous pages, and can heartily endorse the value of his contributions to Wikipedia. That goes well beyond the assumption of good faith, it's based on sustained contact on various topics. I think he took a defensive posture in your discussion, but it's entirely understandable if you look at some of the silly objections people were lobbing at him early on; he was already stressed by the time you chimed in. His decision to take a break, I think, reflects a very mature recognition that he was in a tough spot and needed a fresh perspective. In my view, the FA process has numerous possible positive outcomes, not least of which is improving a few editors' understanding (including myself here) of what FA takes, and making improvements to the article even though they might not bring it up to FA status. I think you've already made a major contribution to that effort here; I hope(d) that you would continue to help in that process, but if you're over it, that's fine too. It's tough to cover controversial subjects from pre-net times…the library is sooo far away ;) -Pete 05:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Pete ... I haven't revisited the FAC, and didn't know DBS had decided to take a break. Are you taking over the FAC? I'm concerned, also, that it's not clear if all sides of the stoy have been told, or if it's only being told based on that one NYT article? I'll follow your talkpage ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Not much has happened, it looks like he's back from his break, but possibly still taking a break from this FAC. Not sure what you mean by "taking over," I thought FACs were a community collaboration aimed at both improving and assessing an article, not some kind of litigation. I'm happy to continue working on it, whether or not it seems headed for approval - does that answer your question? (Even if "both sides" have not yet been told, improving the accuracy of the recounting of the NYT version, even if that article is biased, seems like a strong step in the right direction.) Anyway thanks for getting back to me. -Pete 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there were many people willing to take on the amount of work that article needs; helping format refs or clean up WP:MOS issues is one thing, but it needs some serious rewriting. In terms of "taking over", the nominator is expected to address all issues raised by reviewers; someone needs to be doing that. Hope that explains, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't realized that. It sounds like more work than I'm willing (or qualfied) to take on, but I will continue to chip away at it as I can. -Pete 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow

That's one crazy page of accusations. The Internets sure are a strange place. If I had known you were not merely Pete, but were also a tool of the radcial right/left/middle/whatever, I wouldn't have even talked to you. Oh well, too late now. :) Have a happy Wikiday anyway... Katr67 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha…thanks for the wikilove in spite of my "radical rightleftmiddlism." Did he really say that? I honestly couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, I just saw the thing where he confused CNC (in Massachusetts) with CNI (here) as he was accusing me of radical Republicanism for taking money from Pamplin. Of course, I did work for a Pamplin-owned company, so pursuing the argument seemed pointless…that's about where I stopped reading. I think my Wikiday is over, I'm off to play in the sun. -Pete 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read it all either, but that was a loose interpretation. Enjoy the sun, I will be able to as soon as I can escape the cube farm... Katr67 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A quibble or two

You edited my edit of the James Kim article, and I have a couple of quibbles. But before I tell you what they are, I want to say: They're only quibbles. I looked through the discussion page and saw that there had been a big flame war there. I have quibbles, not flames. If you don't see it the way I do, I'm not going to go batshit about it.

You did a nice job of cleaning up my cleanup of the article, but I think your edits in two spots, the first paragraph that mentions their "tragic choice" and a later paragraph that says, "Instead of turning around and finding Highway 42 ..." embody a subtle but recognizable POV, i.e., that this was the Kims' fault. Now, before you scrape yourself off the ceiling, let me say that I have the same POV. That's why I think I recognize it in what you inserted.

If you read my own website about the Kims, you'll see that I don't pull any punches about my opinions. At the time, I took all kinds of grief from people who wanted them depicted as modern-day saints, victims and all the rest. Hell hath no fury like a mellow Californian scorned, is what I say.

But when I edited the Wikipedia article, I thought the only way to go was painfully straight up the middle. The use of tragic choice conveys a judgment (which, again, I personally share) that they wound up where they were through misjudgment. Those words aren't verifiable, but they convey a viewpoint. Similarly, the bit about them not turning around is factually obvious and therefore redundant; to include it carries the implied judgment that they should have turned around.

Now, if you read my website you'll see that not only do I think they should have taken Hwy. 42, but that I think they never "missed" it to begin with. Bear Camp Rd. happens to be the back way into Tu Tu Tun Lodge, and I think they went that way on purpose. I think Kati Kim concocted the story about missing the turnoff because the truth would have made them look really bad. But my hunch and a buck and a half buys a cup o'joe at Starbucks, so for Wikipedia I left that out and was really careful to try to scrub out anything remotely hinting at POV.

The main flaw of the article (other than, possibly, existing to begin with) was that it read like a testimonial. In stripping that stuff out, I was acutely aware of the risk of going too far and inserting my POV about the Kims (again, look on my website and you'll see that I deemed them "negligent"). Sorry for the long-windedness here. I can't help it, I write long. In no way, shape or form am I going to get in an edit war over this one, so I figured I'd lob these ideas your way and see what you think. Thanks much for reading this far (I hope). Pwok 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pwok, on the contrary, I appreciate your long-windedness, I think you make your point very well. I also find your interpretation of the choice interesting, I hadn't heard that before, and it does make some sense. The lure of adventure on a road trip can certainly be a powerful force - and I have personally experienced the attraction of Bear Camp Road, though ("there but for fortune") I opted for the speed of the state highway.
The only thing to which I'd take (mild) exception is the notion that I'm advancing a POV at all - I must say, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole issue. I followed it closely, and find it tragic, but have no solid idea of "who is to blame." I'm honestly not inclined to seek out a solid position on that - I think to do so would gloss over the complexity inherent in these kinds of situations.
So, you'll find no flame wars with me, and I heartily encourage you to re-edit my re-edit as you see fit. I'm glad you agree that my cleanup effort was successful in some respects…if I failed in others, please improve on my efforts! I take WP:OWN pretty darn seriously…once I hit that "save page" button, "my" edits ain't mine at all. -Pete 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
p.s. - compliment right back atcha, your major edit just before mine was a big improvement.
Hey thanks for the response, and especially for not going batshit. I'm in no hurry on the Kim article, so I'll give it a few days or maybe longer. I was also going to add a couple of other things, such as how the Oregon governor's office and a sheriff's group issued reports in January. I didn't have that info right at my fingertips while editing so I figured I'd leave it for later.
I might be reading too much into just a few words of yours. I got hypersensitized to it all about six months ago when I did battle over the story with people who thought the Kims could do no wrong, and that it was evil, heartless, etc. to think that they did. So when I edited the Wikipedia article I was tiptoeing like crazy but still trying to wield an honest machete. I guess I'm figuring that someone is going to wander in there and go crazy over two or three words, so I want to head 'em off as the pass.
Anyway, thanks for the good words. By the way, I've been on Hwy. 42 and Hwy. 38, the two main roads to the coast from I-5 between Eugene and Roseburg. Not Bear Camp, but one of these days I intend to have a look-see. I think what actually happened is that Kati Kim, who'd spent four years at the U of O in Eugene, had thought that Bear Camp Rd. would be the equivalent of OR 126 from Eugene to Florence, and that it would be o.k. to use it even though they'd gotten all kinds of warnings -- verbal, map and signs -- to the contrary.
One statement she made to the cops in her final interview, in which she compared Bear Camp to the road to Florence, makes me think that. But it's not a direct admission, so my hunch remains a hunch. I think their most fateful choice was when they re-confirmed their Tu Tu Tun reservation at 6 p.m. on the night of Nov. 25th, even though they were too far away to reach it comfortably. They committed to an unrealistic schedule, and I think "get there-itis" explains the rest. But that's just my hunch, so it doesn't belong in the article and I was really careful to leave it out. Pwok 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oregon's statewide elections, 2006/from Oregon House Elections, 2006

What's up with this article? Should the WPOR tag be removed from the talk page or should I actually assess the article? Thanks. Aboutmovies 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking…I had forgotten about that page. I think it should probably be speedied…it was part of an attempt to merge Duff's work into my own, but in hindsight, there's not that much info in there, and i'm not really sure what there is (basically, precise numbers of votes/percentages) needs to be in an encyclopedia. Including it in Oregon's statewide elections, 2006 would further clutter an already-cluttered article - not to mention the amount of work it would take. Sound about right to you? -Pete 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, I'll let you do the deleting honors, sort of a cyinade pill for the specret agent/wikipedian. Aboutmovies 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha :) OK, will do. -Pete 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hang on there, I'll do the integration work. In progress now. Less clutter, more info. Please stand by. Details noted on the discussion for the main page (the keeper), as well as at WP:OR subgov. Duff 05:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

old floods

I see your point. The Natural disaster article indicates an event is not a 'natural disaster' if no humans are impacted, so.... But if you look at the Natural history article, it seems that only the life of plants and animals go there. Doesn't seem to fit in Geography either. So where do old old floods and the like go? Hmains 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think CfD is helpful except for deleting categories or renaming them. This is about which categories are best for certain articles. Have you looked at the articles I referenced above. Any ideas? Thanks Hmains 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For you

VanTucky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Go Stumptown Wikipedians!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

P.S. What neighborhood assc. do you serve on? I live in the heart (or should I say, by the Sunflower) of Sunnyside. VanTucky 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I'm a surly bastard most of the time. VanTucky 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Test

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Lithia Motors, Inc., even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nothing big, so I wouldn't worry about it =) Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this warning, and my revert, which ended up lessening the quality of the article. I cannot apologize enough for my folly. Cheers, Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Southern Oregon edits on Oregon

Hey, that was nice of you to welcome the anon Southern Oregon booster, but could you double check and make sure his/her edits did not give the region undue weight? I'm personally rather skeptical about including Rogue Valley as a region as I think that section should be much more general. What do you think? I didn't check the other edits closely. Feel free to take this discussion to the Oregon talkpage. OK, off to lunch... Latr, Katr 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but one mis-weighted edit among several good ones ain't a reason to chase somebody off. I'd rather revisit that after a bit of reflection, and maybe with a more nuanced approach than outright reversion (like maybe a merged Klamath/Rogue region), than undo all his/her edits. (I don't personally know what the region is usually called.) -Pete 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep I agree it wasn't fair to undo all those edits. Maybe we should just call it the State of Jefferson... Latr, Katr 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is one approach to the regions that adds up to seven: http://www.oregonstateparks.org/searchpark.php Do the Cascades need to be treated as a separate region as they are now? Latr, Katr 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

Map of Oregon

That way there is a link to the PDF, but a smaller imprint on the article? Aboutmovies 21:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Works fine for me! Good work on the rest of it, the article's been needing a layout makeover for a while. -Pete 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is ColScott?

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, SqueakBox 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. -Pete 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comments on COI issues to do with Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). I appreciate the time you took to have a look at the page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the note! Best of luck finding the appropriate balance at that article. If you run into trouble I might be able to help with, feel free to ask. -Pete 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I humbly request...

..your opinion on this AFD on State terrorism by the United States. I ask this bc I have seen that you truly have shown you are interested in the sources and the policy, not pushing your personal POV. Whatever my thoughts on its deletion are (I have at least tried to be accomadating to consensus-building and other voices to some degree), it is really obvious that the users most vocally arguing in this debate are divided into two camps. Those who rabidly hate any mainspace discussion of the topic, and feel it is a crazy liberal fringe view (probably bc they live in Iowa and have never even heard of Noam Chomsky); while on the other hand there are the rabid liberals who don't care that the article looks really POV and isnt very well written and just want their personal political belief that the US government has performed acts of state terror out there. Perhaps even more disturbing is the attempt to label an article with over 100 sources, some from major published authors/academics and news organizations such as Reuters and the NYTimes, as fringe-view Original Research. I would be most grateful is someone such as yourself would lend their voice to the debate. many thanks VanTucky 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

X-Ray Cafe

I went there once or twice during one of my brief residencies in Portland...it was 1990 or 1991 I think. Too bad I'm not actually punk rock enough to have gone there a lot, though I did get into Satyricon with a fake ID back in 1986 or so... Anyway, do you think you could take out the ALL CAPS at some point per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps? Thanks! Latr, Katr 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Very cool! Unfortunately I missed my chance, though I was in town at the time. RE MOS: I know, it bugs me too…I'm not doing it on purpose…it just comes from the copy-and-paste approach. Yes, I'll probably fix it some time when I'm bored, if somebody else hasn't got to it first…but I gotta run now. -Pete 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prop 107 reversion

The text that you have restored to Arizona Proposition 107 (2006) is a direct copy of the language used on the publicity pamphlet available here. I am unaware of any statutes in Arizona that releases these kinds of things in to the public domain. I do realize that you have only restored part of the information, but I am uncertain of what value it is to have a single URL repeated in otherwise blank sections when said URL is already listed in the external links section? Arkyan • (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave the wrong link above, the one I meant to provide is here. Arkyan • (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The ballot title is the only text I restored. I'm not familiar with the specifics of AZ law, but it defies common sense that the ballot title would be protected by copyright. All kinds of news outlets reprint the ballot title, and I assure you their lawyers are not requesting permission to do so.
As to the links to arguments for and against, I agree that having each in its own otherwise-blank section is not optimal. Still, the links are useful, and simply deleting the sections seems like overkill. By leaving it as-is, the door is open for a future editor to either use the linked text as a source to write a section, or else move them into the "references" section. If you prefer, I could take a crack at doing that myself, but I'm running out the door right now, so it wouldn't be before this evening. -Pete 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed your most recent edit. I hadn't realized that the "ballot text" link included the arguments. I made a note next to it - seem reasonable? I'm perfectly happy with that. -Pete 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That seems fine. I didn't mean to infer that the title itself would be subject to copyright, and probably falls under fair use anyway. It was the rest of the information that was lifted from the publicity pamphlet (not just the ballot) that was most of my concern. You didn't restore that, I was just clarifying my reason for removing it per copyright concerns. Arkyan • (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying! =) -Pete 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sten

Totally agree about not deleting articles only because they O-vanish, but in this case, as I noted in my edit summary, that particular citation didn't refer to any particular part of the article. After I read the rest of the citations, there didn't seem to be anything left that it could have been citing anyway, so I removed it. I am not a fan of free-floating citations, but I have no objections if you want to restore it. --Sprkee 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your response to my message here

I know this was a long time ago, but I didn't see that you had addressed me until... well, today. I realize there are other allowed applications of fair use, but using a copyrighted image of a television program to identify the individual appearing on said program is not one of them. Perhaps I was unclear by limited my examples of acceptable fair use to critical commentary, but the point I was addressing was that it was not being used for anything related to the television program. Leebo T/C 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. I disagree with your interpretation, but I'm no attorney - I might be wrong. As I understand it though, the precedent set in Folsom v. Marsh says that it's okay to cite largely from copyrighted material if it is a review of that material. It does not say that no materials may be included unless the work is a review of the original work. Also, the Copyright Act of 1976 specifically states that "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is of particular importance; a single screen capture from a TV broadcast is clearly a tiny portion of the original work. If you have a different interpretation of more information, I'd love to hear it - at this point, more for my own edification than in regards to that specific image. Thanks again for following up! -Pete 19:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We may have slightly different focal points, and I think we actually agree, if I understand you correctly. On one hand, yes the use of a single frame of an episode of a television program is a tiny portion, and it's unlikely that a serious claim of copyright infringement could be made of its use. As a very small portion of the entire product, its possible fair use applications are greater than, say, a 10 second video clip from the same show. On that, I believe we agree.
Of course, it does get a little trickier when the images are used to identify living people who appear on the program. Such a use is easily replaceable with a free version, which usually trumps even trivial fair use applications (here on Wikipedia, anyway). In general, I think I try to steer users toward being more conservative with their fair use claims, but cases could be made for going the other way too. Leebo T/C 19:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That all makes sense - I had thought you were making an argument based on U.S. copyright law, not WP policy. I happened to like that picture for more than its identification of Sen. Coleman, but I can live without it…you're right, free content is definitely preferable. -Pete 08:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please see User talk:Athaenara#Question for my second reply. — Athaenara ✉ 22:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Striptease

Pete, there's a photo on Striptease of a Burlesque performer and there's an IP who continually re-inserts the name and the club where she performs at. This seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of advertising; neither she nor the club are notable. Could you weigh in with your opinion? --David Shankbone 13:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<looks at previous post> Hmm. That looks like fun, but I'm at work, so I had better not check it out. :) Well, PDX pop culture "survived" its Afd. Since I promised in the Afd I would work to improve the article...how shall we proceed? I'm willing to do some splitting and renaming. Let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page--I think EncMstr may have some input as well if he's not too busy. Let's make a to-do list and maybe a !vote on the article names (Pete, you're good at setting up such things), and maybe get input from the naming conventions experts--I think the top priority would be to rename the article so it's not misleading, or else add some prose so it's not just a list of lists... Katr67 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh...that one's not as fun as it might look…lions dwell there. ;)
No consensus, huh. Great. I agree, we should do that sort of stuff on the talk page. Though, I don't think you should worry much about your obligation, if you're looking to be wikibreaking…you've already done a bunch, and work will continue. I'll try to take a stab at it later today… -Pete 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Lions and tigers and pasties, oh my! Not a break so much, it's more like house arrest. I'm sticking close to home for now, where I'm pretty sure I won't piss anyone off. And I really do hate articles that go through Afd and then don't improve. Witness my copyediting of the article Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow. :) Latr, Katr67 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

why???

You might not remember this, but WHY THE CRAP did you put that deletion template on a redirect page? The Coastal Indians do live in Washington, you know. I want to know more about why you put the template there.

♫Deathgleaner 18:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

DG, I do remember it, but I don't have the link handy, so I can't reply in detail. I'm quite sure I explained my reasons there. -Pete 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Something of interest for laws/copyrights I found at Wikipedia:Public domain: Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level and the public record of any court case are in the public domain. [2] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign.[5]

So I guess were a free to add laws to Wiki. Aboutmovies 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for sharing that with me. It seems like common sense, but I've always had trouble justifying it in discussions that pop up. This will be vey useful! -Pete 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hopson

I noticed that about Steve Hopson's photos, too - all of them have the same low-quality issue. He's reduced the sizes so much that they are practically worthless as illustrations. --David Shankbone 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Striptease

Just to say that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the latest dispute, I'm glad people have taken an interest in this article...Might be an idea to introduce the topic of (stripper) Courtney Love at some point...as someone who has raised the profile of the art on American TV etc...Colin4C 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I'm all that interested, I only chimed in when a friend asked me to…I'm all for you "being bold" though! -Pete 00:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Map request

Since you've done a few maps I was wondering if you might be able to make/edit a map for the Provisional Government of Oregon page to replace the colored relief map in the push to FA? I'm hoping to add a map covering the entire region like the districts map, but a cross between political and geographic. I'm hoping to show the major/important settlements for the time period: Oregon City, Champoeg, Astoria, Fort Vancouver, the Whitman Mission, The Dalles, and Mission Mill (Salem). The major geographic features (though probably not labeled for cleanliness): Cascades, Coast Range, Columbia River, Willamette River, Snake River, and Pacific Ocean (labeled to provide context). Then a label for California, or whatever the name was under Mexican control. No rush, and if you don't have the tools just let me know and I'll see if there is a map making WikiProject. Thanks. Aboutmovies 00:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Flattered by the request - not sure I have the time to take it on soon. I think the main issue would be, is there a decent, appropriately-licensed map to use as a foundation to build on? If so, it probably wouldn't take that long. If I had to create it more or less from scratch, I'd have to decline, at least for the foreseeable future… -Pete 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No real hurry. I'll see if I can track down an existing map that could be modified next week. I'll let you know. Thanks. Aboutmovies 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think this Image:Oregoncountry2.png can be modified to work. I'll send you an email version for a rough idea of what I'm looking for. Again, no real hurry on this. Aboutmovies 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Article about me and Wikipedia

This is funny - lots of bombast: http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194
--David Shankbone 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well-deserved kudos, my friend…congrats, and thanks for sharing! -Pete 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: WMF Elections

Hi Pete, I stumbled over your comment about DragonFire1024 at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Oregon. He just missed getting my vote for the Board, but I hope if he doesn't get elected this time, he still will consider running again in the future. -- llywrch 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to know you're paying attention too, and that you found other worthy candidates. As I said, my research was limited…
Also, thanks for the note. What have you been working on lately? Haven't seen you around much. I did spot some nice photos of yours at commons of Crater Lake though. -Pete 00:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, away from Wikipedia, I've been busy with my new job; her I've just been keeping my head down & trying to improve articles. I managed to expand on the articles on the 5 woredas of the Gambela Region in Ethiopia to the point where they're no longer stubs. I did compliment Aboutmovies for her/his creation of Copperfield, Oregon, though. -- llywrch 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pete -- did you have plans to attend Wikimania next month? If not, I have an idea I'd like to share with you concerning a Wikimeetup/WikiWednesday. -- llywrch 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I figure that a few of us can get together at a wifi hotspot & participate together remotely with Wikimania. There will be an +8 hour offset (5pm = 1am the next day), but I'm betting that someone on that end will be willing to help connect with us & chat about things there, along the lines of Wikimania Lounge.
And if that falls thru, well, let's see if we can't get Aboutmovies & some of the other local Wikipedians together to say hello & chat. I'd like to get WikiWedndesday going on an open-invitation basis every first Wednesday so that no one feels pressured to come, yet everyone knows that they can show up -- hopefully with a friend. -- llywrch 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Should I assume from your lack of an answer that you aren't interested? -- llywrch 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh! So sorry, no, it just got away from me. I'm definitely interested. Please keep me posted. -Pete 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Message for you

Duff has a message for you over at User talk:Duff. Unfortunately he is autoblocked due to Tor and open proxies issues.--Chaser - T 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

US chapters

Have you been following this thread? Have you and your buddies thought about organizing an OR or PNW chapter? Seems to be right up you alley ;) 76.105.183.50 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is! Local Wikimedia chapters…sounds like an excellent idea. Thanks to the tip…wish I knew who to thank! -Pete 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just your local friendly admin who prefers to avoid social and political entanglements on en. You should sign up for Wikien-l, Foundation-l and wikipedia-l if you haven't already. Use a gmail account, since it automatically collapses the treads, otherwise the lists are unreadable. (About one out of twenty posts are worth reading)
See also: m:Chapters, m:Step-by-step chapter creation guide and m:Wikimedia United States of America 76.105.183.50 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

O-vanish irony

On your User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish page, two of your links listed after "See my comments here..." are now dead. Of course, they link to Oregonian articles. Heh. Never mind, I was clicking the links that you intentionally listed as dead.

I was wondering if you had written to anyone at the Oregonian to complain about the problem, and suggest a solution a la the NYTimes archives. Since you can access older articles using their paid archives and see a free preview, I don't understand why they can't make newer articles available that way. Perhaps a friendly letter pointing out how it makes Oregon look pretty rinky-dink might get some action. I'd be happy to co-sign such an article, or participate in a letter-writing campaign to get this fixed. --Sprkee 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not spoken directly to Michael Arrieta-Walden, who I believe is the right target for such a letter/call. Kari Chisholm of BlueOregon has, though (see this comment.) I agree that a letter signed by several people would be a good idea. Can you work up a draft? I could probably get Kari to sign on, and maybe a few other high-profile sorts. I'd say the main points to hit are:
  • rinky-dinkness (love that term!) Definitely focus on the embarassing image it gives the Oregonian, and how far it goes toward advancing the notion that they don't "get" new media.
  • compare to other local sources (the Tribune, WW, and Merc all do just fine by their readers) and national sources (as you say, the NYT and many others do fine by their readers and have a viable strategy to draw revenue for old stories)
  • economic development
  • public safety (these two are Kari's angle)
  • the general interest of providing for the dissemination of good information (tie in with Oregonian's editorial mission?)
  • list a few real-world scenarios of where it causes a problem (Wikipedia, blog posts, Kari's public safety example…)
Glad to know you're interested in this, I think we should make something happen!

-Pete 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Who, me? You wrote it already above!

I'll try to take a crack at it at some point soon and email it to you when I do. I did discover a backdoor workaround of sorts: If you use their old archive search at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/ you do get a list of articles with a brief summary. It seems to work even for recent articles. It's much better than their ballyhooed new! improved! search that seems mostly to search local businesses and the contents of the OregonLive blogs. --Sprkee 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of fiction set in Oregon

I see you are populating List of fiction set in Oregon. Coincidently, last night, I looked for and tagged articles to properly fill the categories Category:Films set in Oregon and Category:Films shot in Oregon. Regards, —EncMstr 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that List of Films shot in Oregon, which was deleted per a Cfd, was recently restored. You win some you lose some... There's a few more films that can be added to those cats that I know about, but they need to have a reference to Oregon added to the article. The Apple Dumpling Gang (film) comes to mind... ::Googles:: Hey, check out this link! Katr67 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Intriguing! I don't really care too much what these articles/lists/categories are called, just so long as it's clear what should go in them...that way we can make them good enough to survive the (aparently inevitable) deletion nominations... -Pete 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Popups

You reported an issue with popups where some text would sometimes be randomly inserted in the page. I think i might have solved it. could you try my version of popups ? User:TheDJ/popups.js --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will give it a try. Sorry for the delayed response, my wikitime is limited these days. -Pete 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV

sorry I didn't help more to overturn that absurd premature deletion on the Historical transportation in Oregon article. What was the final result about the category you created to salvage the content? VanTucky (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but you did help! Thanks. Currently the Category:History of transportation in Oregon page is intact. I'm thinking about working up an article with the same title, which could be sourced and more immune to these deletion nominations. I've put a few notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Transportation if you want to take a look (just a list of topics thus far.) -Pete 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiWednesday

Hey there! I'm at the Lucky Lab, inside facing the bar. You around? -- llywrch 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh :( I missed the notification over at WP:ORE. Did anybody else turn up? Sorry to miss that, my off-wiki life seems to be taking over lately…quite unnatural, I'm not sure I like it. I'll keep my eyes pealed for next month… -Pete 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If they did, they didn't talk to me. You were the only one to confirm, so I didn't wear my Wikimania t-shirt. My apologies to anyone who showed up but failed to identify me. -- llywrch 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well then I'm doubly sorry for flaking out. Beer on me next time. -Pete 19:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Columbia river images

The images chosen are very good, but stacking images one on top of the other is both unseemly and discouraged by either WP:IMAGES or WP:IUP (I don't remember which, but one of the images pages has a section on "image stacking"). Spreading them further out in the article and alternating between left and right placement is usually much better. VanTucky (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

here it is. VanTucky (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I wasn't aware of the guideline. My edit was meant as an experiment…feel free to revert. The main thing I'd really like to accomplish is to get some pictures to the right of the big "tributaries" map, which is a lot of empty white space; I couldn't figure out how to do it without the "image stack" template. Should we move this discussion to the CR talk page? Thanks for the feedback! -Pete 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

THF COI RFC

Hi - can you weigh in here, specifically on my comments re. editing while being paid (toward the bottom of the discussion). thanks Ripe 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF

Hey Pete. I really disagree with you when you wrote "I have seen no place where he crosses a line of what is acceptable, although his activities seem very close to the limits of what is acceptable." Without redacting what I've already written, I put a summation of what I, and quite a few others, find to be so objectionable about Ted's behavior. I've proposed amending the guidelines for putting in your own work, and outline what I had a problem with. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --David Shankbone 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

David, I totally appreciate where you're coming from, but I disagree with your approach. Human nature will drive people to defend themselves when attacked, and I can definitely see how THF regarded many of the comments as attacks on his integrity. I don't see the point of trying to "legislate" away the natural desire to defend oneself - which at times blurs into defending one's position. In short, I think that pretty much everyone involved shares some of the responsibility for the chaotic response that THF's request got - and I don't think trying to focus the blame on him accomplishes anything positive. I'd rather commend him for being upfront about his COI, and for ultimately accepting the consensus that denied his request, than nitpick the specifics. Just my opinion - you know I trust your judgment, I think, but there are times I disagree! Have a great weekend...I'm off for the computer-free hills. -Pete 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WPOR member, we are starting a weekly collaboration project where we will announce two articles that are currently stubs that we hope to work together to improve. No pressure to help, but if you would like to, just stop by one of the articles and see if you can find information to expand the article with, copy edit what is there, help with formatting, or add some images. This week’s articles are: Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis. Aboutmovies 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood

Mr. Forsyth, I'm extremely displeased that after a COMPROMISE on the Mary Ramsey Wood article, you chose to re-introduce the longevity myth.

FACT: Longevity myths are sourced, cited, and well-documented and have been studied for over 130 years.

FACT: No reliable source anywhere has any proof that this woman lived to age 120.

FACT: the general public can be easily mislead into believing fictional accounts as true.

FACT: In many instances of extreme longevity, the family often cites another relative who lived even longer.

Here are some reference that you may choose to peruse. Or not.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/02r.htm

Ryoung122 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RYoung, I think you are right about that one sentence. However, your reversion of five separate edits, by myself and other editors, many of which were non-controversial improvements to the article, is overkill.
Please let me remind you: NOBODY involved in this article disagrees on the facts. NOBODY. I agree with EVERY SINGLE POINT you make above, and have since I first read the article. Your research provides a valuable addition to the article.
The only question regarding this article is how to best REPORT the facts, so that the history - including the inaccuracies in her obituary - are adequately communicated to the reader, with proper citations.
If you would get over yourself for a moment, you might realize that there's nothing worth getting worked up over. The results of your research belong in the article; we all agree to that. It's just a matter of how to present it in the clearest possible way.
(Did you happen to notice that one of my edits, which you reverted, ADDED a citation in support of your conclusion - that the Guinness Book does not recognize Wood's age as having been 120?)
-Pete 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson age difference again

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italiavivi 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WikiProject Oregon employees. Well a big thanks to all those who helped improve Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis last week. This week’s Stub improvement are: Government of Oregon which should be easy, and Miss Oregon. Again, no pressure to help with the collaboration, choose one, both, or neither. Also, feel free to opt out of the notifications at the new page dedicated to collaborative efforts at WPOR (newsletter is in R&D). Aboutmovies 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Hello again WikiProject Oregon team members, its time for the next Collaboration of the Week. First a shout out to Sprkee for putting together some templates for this project. Now, in honor of Labor Day weekend and the outdoor nature of the activities that often accompany the three-day weekend, this week’s item is to de-redlink as many parks from the List of Oregon State Parks. Some may even by going to one of these places, a great opportunity to take a picture or two for an article. As always, participation is not required, though it is appreciated. And if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of your existence. Since we don’t want to waste any effort through duplication, please make a note on the talk page of which park article you are going to start. Good day! Aboutmovies 19:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth/Archive_3&oldid=1139360813"