User talk:Peteforsyth/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peteforsyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Oregon System

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

Columbia River

Glad to be of assistance and sorry it did not pass. I will keep it on my watchlist for vandals and the like, but perhaps a better way to get my feedback on improvements would be to ask periodically (i.e. section A is done - any comments?). I imagine you already know about this [1] but if you do not, it should be helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That link looks very promising, thanks! -Pete 04:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

off wiki ideas

Hey Pete, how's it going? I looked at the database website and it does inspire several ideas. One is a solution for my failed attempt to enter all the USGS data for Oregon in a single article, User:EncMstr/List of Oregon GNIS features. Wikipedia seemed to dislike the size (it just hung after pressing "save page"). Only 2200 or so of the 27,239 entries seemed to fit, 442 kiB of about 5 MiB.

Yep, I'm aware of Wiki Wednesdays, and would attend if I could. The location is reasonably convenient, but finding a free evening is the challenge, especially a Wednesday. Things might change late spring though. —EncMstr 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

State copyright

If in doubt - google. Good stuff BTW, worthy of being in the Wikipedia project namespace somewhere. Megapixie (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Thanks for the help on the image issue -- it's not the browser cache (see my talk page), but hopefully somebody else will have answer. You might have seen similar maps I did recently of Public lands in Western States and US Forest Service land by state. Now that I've got the method down, I find it oddly relaxing to sit here and color in states. If you can think of any other maps that might be useful for Oregon/Washington articles (and you've got a set of data to go with it), let me know... I saw you've been moving forward on Columbia River too, nice work. I'm still working up the energy to get to it, but I hope to help out soon. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm excited to hear you're putting Columbia River up for FA. That's great news. I'll keep an eye on it & help with the nom. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WHEN you get a chance ... (not urgent!)

Have a look at what I did today (10 March) on Chelopech. I'm still wrestling with map & location templates - have realized what I need to do is export the code for the various templates, and SAMPLES of what produces what - to try to understand it. But (same goes for me as for you!) IFF (and when) I need to! (Do you know this useful mathematical 'word', iff? Means (far as I remember) "if and only if". --Martha (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the small fixes! I'm beginning to understand these things....but I still need to keep a "glossary and examples" page! -- Martha (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Sorry, forgot to let you know I did that...glad you found it! (Sometimes it's easier to just show you stuff, than expain "how" it's done.) Yeah -- keeping track of this stuff can be a challenge...since everybody has their own areas of interest and their own level of technical interest...you pretty much have to build your own glossary. (Or just remember where you saw things, and take the time to re-find things, that's what I tend to do.) Ah well, such is life!) -Pete (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Images and Commons

thanks for tip on this, can you give quick guidance on how to send over to commons PD images that are already on Wikipedia? (I've uploaded a lot, it seems).Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the reasons and methods, and a link to a script, here: Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. I haven't actually used that tool, but it comes recommended. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oh dear, this tool is hard for me to figure out. Right now I'll just upload to wiki commons and gradually get the other ones into it.Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbia River GAN

I will be glad to look at it in the next day or so. I have it on my watch list and have noted the flurry of activity of late - looks like it is much improved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I passed it - also made some suggestion for improvement, but it is clearly GA and getting close to FA quality. Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my, thanks for your kind words - I could tell that many had contributed from the history and the talk page, but I thought that you had been working at it longest and hardest, hence the barnstar. I liked the comment about Larrys Creek in the Columbia River talk page (not sure now who made it) - I agree using it as a model article here would be like basing an elephant on a mouse. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You did a Herculean job re-working this article, and in spite of the many IMO nit-picking critiques, always dealing with them with a such a positive attitude -- great job! — Myasuda (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Heya -- thanks for the thanks a while ago on this. It does seem like we have a nice team going, and with people from all along the great river. Pfly (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I say Rouge, you say Rogue, let's call the whole thing off

FYI, here's what it looked like before everyone started messing with it. Bkonrad knows what he's doing and it was clear enough... Katr67 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the DAB guidelines. If you disagree with them, take it to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation please. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You may not realize it, but your edit restored a redirect. I tried to find the part of the guideline that addresses that, but came up short. I'm pretty sure redirects are discouraged unless necessary for partial italics and other unusual situations (I have actually read the guideline recently.) I'm almost certain that the guideline says to use the exact name in this case, which would be Rouge River on one page and Rogue River on the other.

The reason I included the explanatory comment -- which is likely outside the guideline -- is because these particular two words are visually very similar. To the quick reader, it looks like an error. I could actually find a study from about a year ago, done at Columbia if I recall, that found that all it takes to recognize a word is that the first and last letters be in the proper order; the human brain takes care of the rest. (Pretty astonishing to see a paragraph randomized in this way; you can read through it at almost normal speed.) So, maybe it'd be worth updating the guideline taking that into account. For now, I'd hope WP:IAR might apply to what seems to me a pretty obvious solution. But you're right, it should probably be discussed somewhere first. -Pete (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Look for this on WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages (note I bolded it on your talk page to help you seek it): To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation) rather than America). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. (I really did look for that, honest. It's a long page, and I'm not really myself today. Excuses...) I will think about revisiting my second point later. -Pete (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think it over, I was mixing up piping and redirect in my memory. -Pete (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Katr67 watching this conversation? As I hope (s)he understands as well. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure, usually keeps a close eye on my talk page. If there's a problem I'll take it on. Thanks though. -Pete (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the guideline. And I hadn't planned to edit the pages anymore. Hence "Carry on" and "I'm unwatchlisting it", i.e. "Do what you will, I don't really care to edit war over a five-entry redir page." Then Pete said he would try to improve the pages so I posted the above link, which to me was a big improvement in clarity, to give him something to work with. Since you seem insistent on following the letter of the wikilaw, I personally don't see the point in any more discussion. Though I can certainly post a mild grumble on my collegue's talk page. I happen to think in this case the rules don't always make sense but I don't care to change the guideline. Honestly though: "accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones" really shouldn't be a problem on a disambiguation page vs. in the prose of a regular article. Seems a letter vs. spirit debate, but whatever. Do what you will, you don't have to work to convince me about the guideline, I don't plan on editing the page anymore. But if Pete wants to take it on I'm all for it. I think in some cases we need to think more of our readers and less about our rules. Katr67 (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Location map problem SOLVED!

And such a simple solution.... see User_talk:Martha_Forsyth#Location_map. Should've asked sooner - tnx for suggesting the proper place to ask (on the Talk page of the problematic template). -- Martha (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Got a minute look at something?

I spent quite a lot of time on an inscription on a painting at the Rila Monastery, the discussion about it is here. But now I'd like to "finish" this off, get the photos in an appropriate place and clean up the mess I left in the process, and I can't really see my way through it, could use a tip or two. Tnx! —Martha (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Actually, after I wrote to you, User:Cameltrader fixed up the tags pretty well, so that all those photos get linked together. And I do think that the "one-click-fixed" version of just the lower panel with the inscription should get put up in its own right - you can see it here (when I loaded the inscription one, by mistake I put the whole picture up first!). I do agree that it's good to leave the inscription, making that was important to untangling all the details of what it says.

I think most of the "help" I need has to do with deciding where to put these: on Wikipedia, or on Commons. Do you think the ones on Wikip should be moved to Commons?? (Also, I sure hope I picked the right licensing code!! that's a pretty murky area to me. The photo said it was Creative Commons 2, I think - OK to use as long as attribution is given.) Then I think I have a little clean-up to do so that ALL the versions I know about on Wiki are linked! (Camelt. did this for me, I didn't know enough to use the Image template.) —Martha (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC or maybe a project or 'Centralized discussion'?

I'm having my doubts about WP:RFC. I don't think there is provision there for what we want to do - other than putting on a tag as Nrswanson has already done. In any case going to RFC seems to label it as a dispute, which I don't think is what we want.

I'm wondering whether it would better to take it to a project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images seems appropriate though not widely used. What do you think? --Kleinzach (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be lurking; Pete's on my watchlist. I think this should be a matter for Wikipedia at large. WikiProject Free images may have a bias in favor of any method to increase free images. This not really a disagreement about free images. It's a disagreement about what kind of content is appropriate on article main pages. Not sure if it should be RFC or somewhere else, but I think this is larger than any particular WikiProject.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate feedback. Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images doesn't have a large active membership so I don't see bias being a large factor and it would 'ground' the issue in a home that it doesn't have at the moment. However if you can suggest somewhere better - or a suitable RFC-based procedure - I'd be grateful. (We've got one day to sort this out.)--Kleinzach (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on policy and conventions seems to work. In fact, it looks like we are active at RFC already simply by putting the {{RFCpolicy}} at the top of the page. {{RFCstyle}} may be a better fit than policy, I'm not sure. I've never participated in RFC before, but it seems like we could leave the discussion where it's at (on the image talk page); start a new section and clarify the RFC tag to reflect discussion on the new point; and then publicize widely on WikiProject free images, any other WikiProjects that have had disputes, any articles that have disputes, on the talk page of the male image, at the Village Pump, etc.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We've effectively done the RFC thing with the tag that Nrswanson put up, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Policies.2C_guidelines_and_proposals (though that refers to the existing proposal rather than the discussion that is about to begin).

However I've also been looking at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. According to that we could put up the box template {{cent}} to get attention. That might be more conspicuous than RFC. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also do you think leaving the debate in situmight result in the discussion being eventually deleted together with the image? --Kleinzach (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)--Kleinzach (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I propose to start a centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. (Title OK?) This will be similar to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth. It will be listed on the box template {{cent}} to get attention. Is that an acceptable solution? Do either of you (when Pete returns!) see any problems with that? --Kleinzach (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Might still be worth using an RFC tag on it, as that would bring attention to the new discussion (and also meets the suggestion of David Gerard).Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Yes indeed. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)~~
Sorry, seems I chose an inopportune time to get offline for a while! This suggestion seems good. Also, an explicit notification to the wikiproject you mentioned (free images) would probably be a good thing. Kleinzach, do you want help writing up the notification? We could write it ahead of time in userspace if that's something you'd like a few eyes on. Just a suggestion, fine by me if you want to just write it yourself too. -Pete (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Pete (and Northwesterner1, good morning (Japan time). I'm a little confused by your message on your talk page which seems to have been written after that above. I think we should stick with the plan above and not go to RFC because that would mean keeping the discussion on the Image talk:Replace this image female.svg which might be deleted in the future. Moreover the discussion would only be indirectly on RFC. What I intend to do is move the existing discussions over to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders and put it in an archive there.
What I am going to do now - assuming nothing much has changed during the night - is sum up the discussion and bring it to an end (insofar as this is possible). I suggest we then work together on setting up the centralized discussion. I've started a userspace page at User:Kleinzach/Imageholders for this purpose. When that is finished we can move it to o Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Is that OK with you? --Kleinzach (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now posted the summary and also seen your intro which looks good. If there are no other considerations I'm happy to go ahead and set up Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. As you will see from the blue ink above, I've started the new page at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Would you like to give it a test run? I think I've done all the things suggested by you and Northwesterner1. See you over there . . . --Kleinzach (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Bogus D.B. Cooper book~~
Pete, thanks for your interest on the DB Cooper book. Nishkid and I already talked about it somewhat. Let me tell you all the details. Someone posted in the discussion forum of the DB Cooper page that there was a new book out, published 2008. So Nish put it in the further reading section of the article. Intrigued, I decided to order a copy off Amazon.com, which advertises the book as being 52 pages long. Basically, I knew it would only be a short pamphlet, but it was only about $10, so I decided to buy a copy. When I got it, I found that actually 50 pages of text. Of those 50, the final 10 are simply the GNU Free Documentation License, which apparently is part of what's needed to print something verbatim off Wikipedia. The first two pages of the book basically just say that it's published by Filiquarian Licensing LLC. So that basically leaves 38 pages of text, which is all straight off the Wikipedia article only in very large font. This includes the Wikipedia references for the article (6 pages in all, in the book), and a Further Reading section. Everything is verbatim from the Wikipedia DB Cooper article, and I would estimate a January version of the article. The book was published in February, I believe, and it includes the stuff in the article about the FBI update on Cooper that occurred on Dec. 31, 2007. Everything is EXACTLY like the Wikipedia article, right down to the lead and the subheads ("You Are Being Hijacked," "Releasing Passengers in Exchange for Demands," etc.). The only author for the book is "Biographiq." You can check out their website at www.biographiq.com, but you will hardly find anything about them there besides some of their other books ... which I suspect also were pulled from Wikipedia articles. There is no way to contact them through their website, even though they have a "contact" section listed. Very, very shady. I don't know if the whole thing is technically legal or not. Even if it is, it is very disingenuous and misleading. I obviously never would have bought it if it had advertised itself as a copy of the Wikipedia article. As it is, I paid $10 for a lesser version of an article that I myself contributed to (coincidentally, the book was published before I really contributed much to the DB Cooper article, and also beefore the article became one of Wikipedia's feature articles). As you might imagine, whether this whole business is technically legal or not, I feel ripped off and outraged, even if it was only $10. It's the principle of the thing. If you have any more questions or ideas about what to do about it, I'd be more than happy to talk about it. Harry Yelreh (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your ideas, Pete. They are much appreciated. I will think it over and try them out. I have already talked with others about this whole thing, and they agreed that a book review on Amazon is of high order. I will put one up very soon and will also post something on your blog. Thank you also for your part in publicizing this. I think it's only fair to people that they have the opportunity to be aware of what they're getting into or purchasing. Please do stay in touch if anything else arises with all of this, and I will do the same. Harry Yelreh (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of possible interest: re "Biographiq" - note that "q" is a very common (though I find it repulsive!) transliteration for Slavic я (sounds like 'ya'), and the word Биография ('Biografija or Biografiya') is a standard slavic word meaning - surprise! - Biography. This may be a tiny lead to the source. —Martha (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article in the New York Times on publisher using a automated computer programs to generate print-on-demand books. I have no idea whether it's related to the DB Cooper thing but it sounds like a similar process, and I'm sure there's a lot of Wikipedia info mixed up in there. -Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued work on the subject, Pete. I really enjoyed your latest blog. That must have been an interesting phone conversation. I still share the same concerns and general outlook on the matter that you do. Frankly, I find "Josh's" reply unsatisfactory. I'm pretty sure that what they did was technically legal, but I still am much more certain that there is a more honest, more open, and better way of doing things than what Biographiq has done. Did he by any chance tell you if this is how they've "written" all their books (i.e., copying Wikipedia articles)? By the way, I've been extremely busy for the last week or so and hadn't been keeping up on things. I still certainly, at the very least, plan on writing a book review over at Amazon. Harry Yelreh (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Similar problem on Filiquarian's Middle Ages book, which I only found out after I'd started to rip out what I thought was copyvio. Does the DB Cooper book mention Wikipedia at all, as "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." I've raised the issue at the helpdesk here [2] -- it is ok if they acknowlege the editors somehow. Doug Weller (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
~~I stumbled upon an open source web based photo album organizer today~~
~~This may (or may not) be news to anyone but I thought I'd pass it along: Gallery. —Martha (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Signpost~~
~~That's a neat feature! I followed the "Wikipedia in the news" link and checked out What to Do With Wikipedia - was particularly impressed by point 3 in the section "Embracing the world of Wikipedia":~~
3. The most daring solution would be for academia to enter the world of Wikipedia directly. Rather than throwing rocks at it, the academy has a unique opportunity to engage Wikipedia in a way that marries the digital generation with the academic enterprise. How about these options:
~~• A professor writes or rewrites Wikipedia articles, learning the system and improving the product.~~
~~• A professor takes his or her class through a key Wikipedia article on a topic related to the course, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses, editing it to be a better reflection of reality.~~
~~• A professor or information literacy instructor assigns groups of students to evaluate and edit Wikipedia articles, using research from other sources as an evaluative tool.~~
• A course takes on specific Wikipedia topics as heritage articles. The first group of students creates the articles and successive groups update and expand on them. In this way, collections of key “professor approved” articles can be produced in many subject areas, making Wikipedia better and better as time goes on.
If you can't lick 'em, join 'em? But even better than that - there's nothing like hands-on experience to teach how something works. Maybe these concepts could help your cooperation with the OHS folks? —Martha (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Wow this really works - positioning coordinates at the top of a page!~~
Check out Template_talk:Coord#Fixing_the_position - I did the thing of adding importScript('User:TheDJ/movecoord.js'); to my monobook.js and b'golly, the coordinates in the upper right-hand corner of a page now sit "tied" to where they belong - just below the horizontal line, on a level with the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" text but in a smaller point size! Small thing, but it really affects how the page looks. Nice! —Martha (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Edits to Historic Columbia River Highway~~
~~Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken; thank you. --NE2 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)~~
~~the endless debate~~
I am concerned. It may all be just childish nonsense, but all that nonsense is a disincentive to any new people taking part. Why would anyone want to read all that garbage? (It's not just one editor either.) I think it would better to bring the discussion to a conclusion soon. 23 April was suggested and I've supported that. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, which I have just read. Regarding process decisions, I never expected the whole thing to become so big, but since it did, I feel some responsibility. . . . I don't think I'll say much more about Geni - he will doubtless be reading this anyway. Perhaps it's a case of the Teacher's Dilemma: If you have a class of 24 good students and one disruptive one, should you give equal time to each student - or special attention to the disruptive one?
The lack of an end date is serious though. Having no end date encourages delaying and spoiling tactics, not to mention canvassing. If it's in the minority's interest to gridlock the discussion - that's exactly what will happen. It becomes a stamina/shouting contest - nothing else. The only alternative to this - in all decision-making systems is due process (including time limits). Personally I'm not prepared to devote much more of my time to this (I've already given up trying to read the big page. Just too long - most of my attempts to subpage the question section (enabling multiple watchlist items) being blocked for tactical reasons). Best wishes. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion~~

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
~~You are now an administrator~~
Wear it well - VanTucky
- lol- What kind of flipper baby t-shirt is that?! --David Shankbone 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Malinaccier (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well deserved, congrats! May the force be strong with you.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah dude! Woohoo! --Esprqii (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Jeez! How did I miss voting on this?!? Strong support!!! --David Shankbone 23:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)~~
Congratulations, I trust that you will take the comments in the oppose section and improve upon them as you have always proven to do. If they community can trust you with the tools, than that is good enough for me. If you have any questions fell free to drop me a line! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations Pete! VanTucky 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I second that! —Martha (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
High five! Katr67 (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! First of many I have the opportunity to nominate I hope! VegaDark (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Was that a Stealth RFA or what!? This is the first I knew of it. Well, it was a few minutes before that when I saw this entry in my watchlist:
(User rights log); 16:49:56 . . WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Peteforsyth from rollbacker to sysop (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peteforsyth)

Congratulations! As James Bond once said, "You won't play with the switches and knobs, will you?" —EncMstr (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Finetooth (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your support, and kind words. I find myself ill-prepared for the obligatory spam "thank you" campaign, so for the moment I'm just leaving this one message here. But it is really gratifying to get all this positive feedback from so many of the great editors I've enjoyed working with. I also see a lot of wisdom contained in the various reservations expressed by some participants, and will be very careful about how I approach my adminly buttons. Above all, I'm looking forward to the break in all this administrative stuff, so I can get back to, you know, writing articles! -Pete (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations (and I did not know about the Google Earth flight simulator - thanks)! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I just discovered this -- congratulations and etc etc. I've always been impressed with your ability to stay cool in the midst of flames and kindly suggest focusing on improving articles instead of arguing. I felt like mentioning something like that here recently anyway, and now seeing this adminship section... well cool, makes me happy. Pfly (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
~~One for the success story files~~
I don't know if you caught this back in the fall, but Zab, a WP:ORE member, got the Geographic Names Board to change their listing for Lake Creek, Oregon! Details at Talk:Lake Creek, Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
~~RFA question~~
jc37, thanks for your thoughtful participation at my RFA. I find myself curious about your perspective on WP:IAR. I looked through your RFAs, but didn't see it addressed in much detail. If you're so inclined, I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the policy. -Pete (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
First, let me congratulate you on being granted adminship : )

And, no, my RfAs were quite a different experience. In the first, I made several mistakes mostly due to not knowing the "climate" of RfA of the time as well as I thought I did. I think things have definitely changed quite a bit since then.

As for IAR, I'm not certain what you're asking. Would you clarify? - jc37 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats. During the RFA, I was asked when it would be appropriate to invoke IAR (question 8 under Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peteforsyth#Questions for the candidate.) I gave an answer that I'm confident is a good one, as I think it's an accurate representation of what guides most of my work here, and I find my work to be generally well-received. Still, it may not be the best answer, and I'm sure there are many different good answers. At one point during the RFA, you said that you thought my answer was close, but "not quite there." It didn't seem appropriate to me to get into a debate over that during the RFA, but I'm interested in the perspective of someone who's obviously put some thought into it himself. (In rereading my answer, I see that I didn't spell out one thing that I maybe should have: basically, in any instance where I might be tempted to directly invoke IAR -- something that I don't think has ever happened -- I would try to reformulate my justification in terms of specifically how my action made the a better encyclopedia, rather than descend into alphabet soup.) -Pete (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know that RfA can be a "trying" (pardon the pun) experience. And sometimes our answers to questions don't well enough convey what we may actually mean. (If in doubt, check out my first RfA : )

But if you;d like to have a philosophical discussion concerning IAR, I'd be happy to discuss with you. I'll start a new section below, pasting your original response for reference. - jc37 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
~~IAR~~
~~8. When is it appropriate to invoke WP:IAR?~~
A. Ignore all rules is, in my opinion, the most interesting and the most important of the five pillars. At its core, I understand it to be a reminder that Wikipedia is what we make it, by the rules we agree to; and that the primacy of making something good is what holds it all together. I think it's important for anyone who takes their Wikipedia work seriously to think carefully about IAR at some point in their development as an editor.
Unlike other policies, I tend to be skeptical when editors invoke IAR to justify a specific action. Sometimes laziness, or an inability to fully articulate an argument, might make IAR a tempting principle to end a complex or contentious debate. This can be particularly dangerous with admin tools, where those who disagree may not have the ability to ~~admit~~ revert the invoker's actions.
I think that more than other policies, any serious invoking of IAR should be carefully considered in its context, and along with any accompanying argument, before being agreed to. In the abstract, all I can say is that it is probably only applicable in a case where there is strong consensus that a rule was created in ignorance of a specific situation, which demands a more nuanced solution.
I suppose, the simplest way to respond would be to suggest reading: User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles.
Your answer above shows that you've been on the "other side" of someone (apparently poorly) invoking IAR.
When I said "come close", that's what I meant. You skirt around actually defining what the policy means, and talk about what it shouldn't be, and how it shouldn't be invoked.
And this in particular: "At its core, I understand it to be a reminder that Wikipedia is what we make it, by the rules we agree to; and that the primacy of making something good is what holds it all together."
seemed to indicate that you almost grasped it, but "not quite". It's like skirting the edges of a fire, rather than jumping right in : )
Does that at least clarify why I said what I said? And please feel free to clarify your above response, as well. - jc37 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that statement of principles, that's a good read, and something I was unaware of. The rest of what you say makes sense, too. I guess I didn't see the need to explain what such a simple policy meant, in order to discuss when it should be invoked. (All it says is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.")
I guess I see what you mean about not giving a straight answer. I probably could have been more clear and direct, but that would not have been a good representation of my view. My standard for myself is, never invoke IAR. (Though there may be a circumstance I can't foresee where it would be appropriate.) But, I wouldn't impose that standard on someone else; it's a policy, and it's available to be invoked whenever somebody sees fit. It's not up to me to dictate to others how to enforce or apply policies.
Anyway..it was said a few times during my RFA that my answers were weird or unsettling. (Don't recall if you were one of the ones who said that.) Your response here, I think, helps me understand how people might have felt that way, so thank you for that bit of insight. -Pete (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
~~(Continuing the philosophical discussion.) Ok, so you wouldn't utilise the policy, and wouldn't hold others to your standard, but...~~
~~"(All it says is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.")"~~
~~So what does that mean to you? When and how do you feel it's appropriately applicable? - 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)~~
I regard it as more of a guiding principle than a specific rule. As such, detailed analysis is something that seems counterproductive, and would take me in a direction of making statements that are inconsistent with how it guides my behavior on Wikipedia. (Please note, though, I didn't say I wouldn't utilize it, but that I wouldn't invoke it -- as in, never use it as the justification for a specific edit or action.) Maybe I could put it this way: IAR essentially reminds us that every decision must ultimately be made on its own merits (in the context of improving or maintaining Wikipedia), rather than out of simple adherence to rules. So seeking a statement about this one rule that accurately describes when and how it should be applied in all situations is a fundamentally self-defeating exercise, and wholly misses the point. -Pete (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Well put! What would a rule to ignore rules be? Nothing at all. —EncMstr (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Actually, you just fell into the oxymoronic semantic "trap" that Peteforsyth is trying to dextrously stay out of. : )~~
I regard it as more of a guiding principle than a specific rule. - ok, nice start.
As such, detailed analysis is something that seems counterproductive, and would take me in a direction of making statements that are inconsistent with how it guides my behavior on Wikipedia. and So seeking a statement about this one rule that accurately describes when and how it should be applied in all situations is a fundamentally self-defeating exercise, and wholly misses the point. - Nope. Though I've fallen into that same logic pit myself in the past (my first RfA, for example). It has to do with getting so "hung up" on the question that you forget why it's being asked, or perhaps are too focused on trying to "guess" why it's being asked.
IAR essentially reminds us that every decision must ultimately be made on its own merits (in the context of improving or maintaining Wikipedia), rather than out of simple adherence to rules - Rather close. And that answer, at least, might have been enough for me to support, at least in regards to this question.
~~That said (since we're discussing this philosophically after-the-fact : ) - it isn't that decisions need to be made on their own merits. If that were true, Wikipedia would be a right chaos.~~
It's that a set of rules typically cannot be thorough enough to cover every contingency, every possible situation. So, while we may be mindful of the "rules", decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, while keeping both typical Wikipedia convention, and the current situation in mind. In other words, don't let the rules stop you from doing what's "right". With "what's right" not being a case of personal preference, but a case of following the "spirit" of the guidance of "the rules" rather than the demarked text of such pages.
~~This leads directly into the often misunderstood situation on Wikipedia that Wikipedia policy is not equal to Wikipedia policy pages. And also is reinforced by WP:NOT#BURO.~~
~~So yes, the question is answerable without needing specific details, or coming up with hypothetical cases.~~
Incidentally, I've found that those who best invoke WP:IAR are often those who understand policy very well. (Though without necessarily having ever read a single policy page.) - jc37 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks for spelling out your own answer in detail, that's what I was most interested to see. I disagree strongly with one of your premises, but can appreciate where you're coming from. And I definitely wouldn't presume to tell you that you're "wrong." But, as to the primacy of making decisions on their own merits, I could point to lots of articles -- many of them GA or FA -- where that is exactly the collective attitude that lead to the healthy collaboration that produced the articles. It was not an understanding of WP policy, but an understanding of the nuances of the subject matter, and of the academic and media sources covering them, that lead to vast improvements in the article. (I'd say that's the case with pretty much every FA and GA listed at Portal:Oregon.) I don't know if I'd consider that "right chaos," but maybe so. After all, it's been said that "Wikipedia is something that in theory cannot work; it only works in practice."
~~And EncMstr, I envy your ability to say a lot in a few words. Well said. -Pete (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)~~
~~So to clarify, what premise do you "strongly disagree" with? - jc37 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)~~
it isn't that decisions need to be made on their own merits. -Pete (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I asked, is that your statements directly above would seem to support that it's the situation, not the decision. That the "merits" of a decisions are and should be secondary to the situation at hand. (In other words, a case-by-case basis.) Would you further clarify? - jc37 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm having trouble making sense of this last question, and suspect that there's some inconsistency in the way you and I are using signivicant terms. (Maybe we mean different things when we say "their own merits.") So, more generally: human judgment is the essential stuff that makes Wikipedia work, and it's more important for an editor to understand the subject matter he is writing about, than it is to understand the rules governing the project. That's the key to improving and maintaining Wikipedia. The rules are not the most important ingredient.
~~I suppose what you said in the paragraph following the one I quoted is essentially the same thing. So maybe I just misunderstood that sentence. Maybe we don't disagree on much, after all.~~
~~Do you have an example of a case where you think IAR was invoked in a way that really helped the project? If so I'd be interested to see it. -Pete (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)~~
In general, the "rule" to WP:Be Bold : )

That aside, would you clarify something you said above:
"...I see that I didn't spell out one thing that I maybe should have: basically, in any instance where I might be tempted to directly invoke IAR -- something that I don't think has ever happened -- I would try to reformulate my justification in terms of specifically how my action made the a better encyclopedia, rather than descend into alphabet soup."

So essentially you have no trouble with "ignoring all rules", you just don't feel that it's appropriate to cite WP:IAR when doing so? - jc37 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You're close, but not quite. I have no trouble, in principle, with ignoring all rules; remember, I said I regard it as the most important of the five pillars. But I have yet to encounter a situation where it was necessary to invoke it, and continue to see it as a worthwhile personal challenge to seek resolutions that don't resort to IAR. Again, I do not hold anyone else to that standard, so you are incorrect to say that I don't find it "appropriate" to invoke the rule. -Pete (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
~~No free image--but she told me to use it!~~
Hey Pete, David hasn't gotten back to me about Mary Robinette Kowal's photo. She is bewildered herself at the news of the copyright issues but as a busy puppeteer and writer, doesn't have time to look into this herself. Please help me to understand, and to find some way to reinstate her photo. I'm not a WikiWizard, and generally my edits are limited to grammar and spelling corrections, but I'm sort of the unofficial caretaker of her page. ThorneyDayna (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Pete, I answered you on my Talk page, but I guess you didn't see it...can you indeed walk me through the steps? I have another photo with all the information I hope I will need...ThorneyDayna (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Page move~~
Per Talk:Blue Mountains, I'd like to move Blue Mountains to Blue Mountains (Australia) and turn Blue Mountains into a disambiguation page (splitting off some content from Blue Mountain). I'm still not sure about when I need to ask for an admin's help at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The article has a complicated page history (in fact it used to be at Blue Mountains (Australia)) and has nearly 500 articles linking to it, most of which are correctly pointing to the Australian article but some of which are intended to point to other Blue Mountains. Am I going to create any problems if I just do this? (I'm asking about technical problems, not people problems, as I believe Talk:Blue Mountains shows consensus for the move.) Thanks for any advice. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, good question. I am pretty sure that, even with out admin privileges, you can simply move it, because the existing page you'd be replacing is just a redirect, and has no revision history. My understanding is that the software's smart enough to recognize that, and allow you to do it without any problem. If there WAS revision history, it would require somebody (I think an admin) to merge the histories, both for tidyness and for GFDL compliance. I'd say let me know if you have trouble, except I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough to really be of help on this one...EncMstr may knw mre thn me. -Pete (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It takes admin privilege to delete any page, even a redirect. The redirect Blue Mountains (Australia) has only trivial history, so the proper action is for an admin to move Blue Mountains over the redirect. Northwesterner1 won't be able to mess anything up because it will refuse, unless she or he has admin privileges. If you didn't have any admin buddies, there's a template or a page to request page moves. Everything seems to be in order, so I performed the moves (1 article, 2 talk pages) and diverted the original redirect to the Blue Mountain disambiguation. —EncMstr (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Northwesterner, give it a try anyway. Like I said, I'm pretty sure the software is "smart" enough to allow this move over a redirect. I'm pretty sure I did similar moves before becoming an admin. -Pete (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, never mind -- I see now that EM did it. But in the future, I think it works sometimes. Oh, and thank you both for lending a hand to Mom! -Pete (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like EncMstr's right. I just tried moving A More Perfect Union (Barack Obama speech) to A More Perfect Union (speech) and got busted by the software. (I'll wait for a little more consensus on that one before asking for admin help.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK...well, he often is :) By the way, can you weigh in on my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#WPOR template update, since it's so closely related to your recent blog posts? If we're going to go with my suggestion, I think we should do it ASAP, to work better with this impromptu photo drive we seem to be on! -Pete (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Then again, according to Talk:A More Perfect Union (Barack Obama speech), they were able to make a previous move from A More Perfect Union (speech) to A More Perfect Union over a redirect. So who knows what's up? Maybe since that was essentially an "undo move" it worked? Unfortunately I don't understand template syntax, and I have no clue what you all are talking about at WPOR. Just sort of nodding my head on that one & leaving it to the pros.Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Everybody's kind of right. :) Yes, sometimes a regular user can move a page over a redirect him/herself, and sometimes it takes admin assistance. I think it has something to do with whether the page has already been moved between the two titles, essentially "locking out" us mere mortals. But it never hurts to try. If you realize you've screwed something up and can't move it back you can always fetch an admin--it's not the end of the world. I've found the admin help queue speedy enough, if none of our admin pals are around. You can also request a non-controversial redir deletion using {{db-move}}. Then you can move the page yourself, but usually the admin will do it for you. As far as "what links here", it's a good practice to fix all the redirects, though not an absolute requirement. There's a bot that comes along and fixes double redirects. If you don't have AWB already, it can semi-automate tedious tasks like that. Katr67 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Katr. I think I need to learn this AWB of which you speak.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Pete's asking for your opinion on the most useful way to manage photo requests. You can safely ignore the template's complexities. The essential question is how to best arrange the reqphoto= parameter to {{WikiProject Oregon}}. Should it treat the article the same as if {{reqphoto|in=Oregon}} were specified—for simplicity and backwards compatibility? Or is something more complex useful enough to be worth some trouble, probably mostly with training and education? —EncMstr (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I still don't get it. I've tried a couple of times to decipher the WPOR conversation but just can't get my head around it. It's not just the template syntax I don't understand. It's also some WPOR practices in general, particularly around categories and other administrative sortings. I've never taken the time to really sit down and look at all the various administrative projects at WPOR and see how they all fit together. Maybe this will be an incentive for me to do that. But for now, I think I better abstain from this one.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
NW1, re: WPORE admin sortings in general: I wouldn't try to understand it if you don't want to! There are a few of us who keep track of stuff like that, most people don't bother. I instigated the latest round of changes to the template to simplify watchlisting and tagging of cat and template pages and it evolved from there. The resulting mess resolved itself into a WP:ORE template that has more complex parameters, but hopefully is more intuitive to use. The gist of it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Project banner. re: The photo bit: I haven't looked into it. Katr67 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Understandable. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#WPOR template update covers a lot of ground on several somewhat unrelated areas. Most of the discussion subtopics are esoteric and can be ignored without peril. The essence of the WikiProject Oregon tag is to perform these functions:
Indicates that someone thinks the article is of interest to WP:ORE.

Categorizes the page (that is, places the page into a Wikipedia category) as a WP:ORE page, so the magic URLs for "recent changes" and "recent discussions" function.

Categorizes the page for importance (low/mid/high/top), or flags it so someone soon assesses its importance.

Declares the page's classification (stub/start/B/A/FA/FL/dab, etc.), or flags someone to soon assesses its class.

Optionally requests a photo, by putting it in a Wikipedia category that photographers routinely look through.

Optionally calls for attention.
~~Does that help? Perhaps this should be copied to the template documentation. —EncMstr (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~
Thanks. I started the thread a little higher above that section break & I think I understand it a little better. But I'm still not sure I understand the argument against Pete's solution. I would say that backwards compatibility as a goal is very important, because a lot of newbies like me don't necessarily always do things "the right way" (or the currently recommended way). Instead, we look to see what has been done elsewhere, and we copy and paste the syntax to the articles we're working on. So we don't always catch up to current methods or revised best practices. I think the regional breakdown will be very useful for some people, but if we can make it work more smoothly with the old system, so much the better. It seems to me that images with no identified region should be ending up in roughly the same place as images with an identified region, whether one uses the old system or the new system. I don't understand the technical arguments preventing merging the categories, but if it is possible to merge them, then by all means, let's do it. Eventually I think a massive redesign of the WP:ORE page would help explain administrative procedures to newbies. I might be in a good position to do it, since I don't really have a clue what's going on half the time, and trying to figure it out puts me in a good position for explaining it to other newbies. I don't have a lot of time coming up in the next few weeks, but I will make it a goal to try to look for ways to improve the "home page" sometime later this summer. Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Northwesterner, I think you're looking for more complexity than there is. I don't think backwards compatibility is the issue here; under either scenario, editors who use the old template will continue to contribute to the project without having to change their practice. In my view, this is a slam-dunk, but I want to be respectful of EncMstr's views too. To my mind, the question on the table is this: is it worth maintaining a distinction between (1) articles that are not geography-specific (like, say, the state seal or Miss Oregon) and (2) articles where the location is not known (like, say, the Wahkiakum County Ferry, which doesn't fit so neatly into the regional breakdown, or Dan Gardner who, if he retains a home in Portland, it's not widely known where it is.)
I don't see any need to keep separate categories for things that are not geography-specific and things where the location is not known. I don't think it's technically difficult to combine them, but EncMstr seems hesitant. If there's a reason to keep them separate, I'd be open to hearing it, but I can't see what it might be. -Pete (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
~~If that's the core of the issue, then yes, I would agree that the simplest and most elegant solution is to combine those two categories into one.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~
Strange how neither of us (Pete & I) seem to be clearly communicating this topic. My hesitancy is combining 1) articles which are known to have no specific geography—with 2) articles which aren't yet known what geography might apply, if any. —EncMstr (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
~~It's not strange, it's Mercury retrograde. Katr67 (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~
Thanks, EncMstr. That helps me understand things. I thought there was a technical problem. I see now there's no technical problem, it's just a conceptual question of which is better. I'm with Pete. I think everything uncategorized should end up in the same dark corner, and then someone should watch that dark corner for things that can be categorized geographically and move them to the appropriate folder. That seems to me analogous to how all categories on Wikipedia work. Articles get dumped into a general category. And then some dedicated soul moves them out of the general category into more specific categories. The general category is almost always a grab bag of "articles known to have no more specific category" and "articles which haven't been identified yet as belonging to a more specific category." It's not ideal. But it's pretty commonplace across the encyclopedia. And it seems to me much better than having two entirely separate dark corners.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
<unindent> Thanks for the remindr, Katr. Mercury retrograde seems to affect believers and non-believers alike. Powerful stuff. Northwesterner, that's a great breakdown, describes the issue very accurately I think. Are you immune to astrological oddities? -Pete (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if bringing this back to the "end user" experience might help us resolve this. To my way of thinking, the "end user" in this case is anyone willing to take a photo of Oregon-related subjects. If such a person is planning to take some pictures, the most fruitful place to look will be in the region she's located in or traveling to; I'd imagine most photographers will look at that first. But maybe when planning more long-range, for instance while thinking about several possible trips to take in the next year, she might want to look at a more extensive list. Or, potentially, a WP:ORE member planning a mailing to various biography subjects or companies to request photo submissions. In either case, I would think a single more general list, containing both "unknown location" subjects and "non-location specific" subjects, would be ideal. EncMstr, can you think of a circumstance where separate lists would help a photographer searching for possible subjects? Or another "end user"? -Pete (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the present Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon. Aren't you are endorsing maintaining at least one potpourri like that? It contains biographies, places, and some more nebulous things—like universities—and, what the heck is Yamasa? (I now know.)

I keep such a list from many months ago in the car. The problem is that I don't know where most of the sites are without reading the article. Which led to the idea of a regionally organized photo request system. At the time of printing there were ~600 entries; now there are less than 200, so maybe it doesn't matter which way it is done anymore. They are getting cleaned up, and we have the best of both. —EncMstr (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm endorsing a single potpourri category...things will hopefully get moved out of it into more specific locations, but we all know that many things will remain, either because they should or because nobody knows an exact location. -Pete (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
~~Blog~~
Hey is that Snapshots thing an option we can turn off? Do you like it? I have a browsing habit of opening links in new tabs while I continue to read an article, and it gets pretty distracting to have the article partially obscured by pop-up windows... Maybe I'm the only one who feels that way though... Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It sure is. I have been on the fence about it...as a new idea, I kinda wanted to give it a chance, but I think I agree that it's more distracting than useful. Go ahead and find it/turn it off if you like -- I'm trying to get offline...but if you don't find the button, I'll look for it tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Another decision would be, what should we do about trackbacks and pingbacks, like the one that's been sitting in the comment queue, and the ones that resulted from you linking from one post to another. I kinda think we should just delete them, they're confusing. But I'm not sure I entirely understand the benefit of keeping them... -Pete (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
From a reader's perspective, I agree with you. I find them distracting. Even more so, as this one is a trackback to ourselves! Most blogs I read don't seem to use them these days. If it's simply a matter of keeping tabs of when someone links to us, then it seems like Technorati does the job better (or just looking at the stats for incoming traffic). Someone more familiar with SEO could tell you whether there are benefits in generating traffic. Myself, I'm not a big fan of SEO strategies that provide no actual improvement in the reader's experience, but I don't have a strong opinion about this. You're the blogman. Be bold!Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the snapshots either. So that's an admin-level control, vs. a user prefs thing? Hmph. I think we should delete the pingbacks too, but wasn't sure what function they served. But I saw us pop up on Technorati as link in Jack Bog's blog so if that works, let's just rely on that. But since I actively try to foil SEO companies vanispamicruftising on Wikipedia, I'm not going to advocate any marketing strategy besides spreading the word among users on this wiki, in Meta, and doing stuff like getting added to blogrolls like ORblogs and talking to other bloggers. I like the idea of spreading the word through actual live readers and don't really want to think about how the word is spread using machines. Other folks are more than welcome to do that though, as long as the strategy isn't spammy or obnoxious. Katr67 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
~~Is prisonplanet RS?~~
Hi, can you please tell if this article published in prisonplanet.com can be considered RS or not? The article is written from pro-tobacco and pro-smoking POV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's a good question, but one I can't answer without knowing the context. What article is it being proposed to support? What element of that article? Will the article rely on it, or is it merely supporting a minor point? WP:RS states that context and editorial judgment are essential elements of determining whether something is a reliable source or not. I will say that it's a little hard for me to imagine a case in which a web site run by an outspoken talk radio host is regarded as having the kind of editorial structure WP:RS identifies -- but it's possible that's just a limitation of my imagination. If you'd like to point me to the discussion this arose from, I could try to give a better answer... -Pete (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to use it for the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. I did not use this reference, but it has a good information that the term "passive smoking" was first coined in Nazi Germany. I want to use this reference to support this fact. I have mentioned this fact in the article by using a different reference (Science in the Third Reich), but the book Science in the Third Reich does not mention the German name (i.e. passive smoking = Passivrauchen) which is mentioned in this prisonplanet article. Also this prisonplanet article has information that the Nazis equated smoking with the Gypsies, I did not find this information in any other article. I want to mention this information also, but confused if this can be used as RS or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the prisonplanet source is that the prisonplanet reference is trying to equate the present day anti-tobacco movement with the Nazis, which is a misrepresentation of historical fact. There is no relation of the modern anti-smoking camping with the Nazis. Yes true the Nazis initiated once world's strongest anti-tobacco movement, but that has no relation with the modern anti-tobacco movement. This prisonplanet article is written in a manner to refute the present day health care concerns by saying it a Nazi method ignoring several historical facts. The prisonplanet source is written from a pro-tobacco POV by diminishing the anti-tobacco campaign and labeling the anti-smoking movement as Nazi method. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I really should note that this is well outside any of my expertise. It sounds to me like you have a carefully considered opinion of the source, and are exercising exactly the sort of editorial judgment that WP:RS advises. I am definitely willing to accept that an article and publication that present a questionable analysis may still provide valuable supporting facts that may be used in derivative works like an encyclopedia. My advice would be to be bold, but be prepared to present your case in detail if somebody questions the fact or the source. Thanks for asking, it's an interesting question -- sorry I can't be more definite! (Out of curiosity, what led you to ask me? I don't think I've done any editing on related topics.) -Pete (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
~~Is something messed up here?~~
Or has something been moved? I was looking for some good description of "how Wikipedia works", and went to Wiki success stories to find something. So far, so good - but at the end of that page there is a link to WPT:ORE#.22no_free_image.22_images and I was pretty shocked at where I found myself - I reached a page that indeed has that address, but the page itself is titled "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon"!! I suspect that the link should be to this page, but I can't figure out how WikiProject Oregon's Talk page came to be named "no free image"!) - Martha (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You've found a complicated one! There's three things going on here. First, "WPT:ORE" is a shortcut (AKA redirect) for "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon". Second, the "#" mark indicates a specific section header on the page (the header "no free image" images). Third, that particular discussion has since been archived! So, the page you mentioned should be updated to link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/archive5#.22no_free_image.22_images (or to the equivalent http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WPT:ORE/archive5#.22no_free_image.22_images ). Got all that??! -Pete (talk)
That's actually about what I figured. I updated it (had to create an identity to do it! wasn't realy to do that, but...the sacrifices one makes!) — but I had to use this for a link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/archive5#.22no_free_image.22_images — the abbreviated one works from within wikipedia, but apparently not from outside! Something else to learn.... — Martha (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
~~AfD nomination of Cheryl Albrecht~~

I have nominated Cheryl Albrecht, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Albrecht. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aboutmovies (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

~~Minor (I think!) help needed -~~
Hey, I was checking to see what's happened with the images I uploaded. I put an improved "Information box" on the Image:Dospat Reservoir location one, and tried to fix the information on Image:Detail of Rila Monastery wall painting - but I didn't touch the Template 'cause it looked as if Somebody Who Really Knows What They're Doing was s'pposed to do that - in that non-existent spare time of yours, could you toss it a glance, and tell me if I should do more or leave it alone for said Expert to find and deal with? It's really not even a small potato - just a tiny lump - I'd like to be able to forget about it! (Eventually, if/when I move the Reservoir location to Commons, maybe I can do a better job??) - Martha (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
~~seemed pretty close to me~~
1.5%, about 1,000 votes out of 77000...but ymmv. http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may202008/results/rc.pdf
No biggie, there's too many words in that bullet anyway. (And who's Wilson anyway?)
--Esprqii (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wilson's the OTHER guy -- I just couldn't find a way to state, simply, that it was close between Erickson and Mannix, but not close with Wilson. So yeah, I went with the "too many words" theory ;) Feel free to keep muckin' with it if you want, that was just my quick take on the sitch. -Pete (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
~~Oh I git it now. To me, he's just RJ. You're right, it's better now. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Filiquarian Publishing LLC~~
You might be interested in this article created today (by another editor) after I'd wasted time deleting suspected copyvio from Middle ages and we then discovered that the book had copied the article (see some discussion here [3]. Anything you can do to help improve it would be great. We really need some 'reliable sources'. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
~~[defamatory, anonymous comment removed -Pete (talk)]~~
I find it interesting that this IP has apparently cut/pasted the same statement everywhere that this issue has been brought up, and has been editing the Filiquarian article to add POV statements as well. I've left a note on the IPs page mentioning that it may not be a good idea to edit the Filiquarian article due to potential COI. This may warrant closer attention...do you think these comments should be removed from the other pages? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, though I don't have a lot of time to put into it right now. Accusing an editor -- especially one who apparently uses his real name -- of lying is a violation of the policy on personal attacks. If the anon. has an issue, the dispute resolution processes are the way to handle it.
If you care to warn the IP on his talk page a few times, and if the behavior doesn't change, I'd be happy to impose a block. Otherwise, it will probably be a few days before I can look into this. -Pete (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'll be monitoring the IP's activity, and if behaviour doesn't change, I'll impose the block myself. I'm just new to the game and prefer to gather opinions on courses of action. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
~~OK, sounds like you're on the right track to me! -Pete (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)~~
I probably should have read this first. I responded on his talk page, then looked at the timing of his edits and decided I didn't want to wait that long, reported to ANI, one week block. Is there any problem with my removing his comments about me everywhere? If he really has been mistreated badly by Pediapress (which he says this pdf does [4] then that is too bad and needs to be rectified, but isn't an excuse for his behaviour on Wikipedia (although it may be the reason). Certainly the pdf of the Middle Ages Filquarian book[5] doesn't even mention Wikipedia and has no link, even though the Anon claims it is always included (could there be a difference in practice between Biographiq and Filiquaria? It would be nice go get these issues sorted, which is what I've been trying all along to do. I even noted his complaint about the claim another company owned Filiquaria and edited that out. Doug Weller (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
~~T4K~~
Hi Pete, I caution against excessive optimism that you will engage T4K in a productive manner. You should ask User:Wikidemo, an editor who is your equal in his patient, careful and collegial approach, what his long term experience has been. T4K's behavior on the Obama page is atrocious: he constantly edit wars, makes disruptive talk page comments, and on and on. See [6][7]
I've been lurking at the Obama talk page and it is a nightmare -- most "conservative" editors are very productive. T4K is painful.
I am discouraged that after he edit warred in the middle of a discussion in which he only made declarative statements while ignoring the other editor's comments, contrary to Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, that my request for admins intervention (I didn't want to edit war and I don't participate in discussions that are unproductive) resulted in admins stating that T4K was in the right. I don't thrive in this environment sans admins support.
My modus operandi is always WP:AGF. Not here. I wish you luck in resolving this issue and, if you ask, I'll be happy to participate. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
T4K has been blocked for a 3rd time Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page and now claims to have retired. I wish I could said I didn't wither under his disruptive editing when it was supported by two other admins (not you, natch), but I'm afraid I did. Nice work on the page. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Oh, I have it on my calendar to one day make it to a Wikiportland meeting. Thanks for the information. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Admin favor~~
~~Pete, could you update the {{WikiProject Oregon collab}} with these two:~~
Oregon newspapers

Owyhee Reservoir
Someone made it a protected template for fear of vandalism since it is a largely used template. Could you also change it to semi-protect, which I believe is the correct level used for vandalism, plus then I don't need an admin to update it. The admin has a notice on their talk page that it is OK to step down the protection. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, and done. You're right, full protection makes no sense for this. Plus, with all of WP:ORE paying attention to this stuff, it's not like any vandalism would be that hard to fight back. -Pete (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)~~
~~The Lafferty File~~
Hey, welcome to the old dead guy bandwagon! There were so many interesting nuggets, with the O&C stuff and the whiff of titillating scandal, that I actually went to the library and looked at old microfiche on the guy. Scary. Anyway, as you may have deduced from my COTW request, I totally want to get the O&C land/land fraud/spotted owl/federal county payments article going...any suggestions on a title for such a beast? --Esprqii (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It could definitely fit in with the other items in that article, though it's so much a planning thing. Planning seems like a subsection of an overall "History of land use in Oregon", or "Land and property law in Oregon" article. I guess there's no use trying to figure out what a random person would look for, as long as we provide it as a link in a template somewhere.
While the BO idea is fine, I think we need to tighten the outline a bit more. Maybe we should suggest some good modern jumping off points (assuming most people would be interested there): like the Measure 37/49 area, and then the recent failure to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, which ended a continuous string of federal payments to western Oregon counties for the first time in almost a century. I'll take a look at the outline and see if I can add a few things. A minor concern is also that the BO people may have a particular point of view to impart to these kinds of articles... --Esprqii (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
~~PRL&P~~
I don't know if the PRL&P was really part of that particular scandal. I think it was just the O&C. They may have had their own problems of course. Isn't the PRL&P the line that ends over by Oaks Park? I seem to remember reading some historical marker along there about it.
Looks like we got dog days of WP:OR around here. It's too nice out to edit WP!
Unrelated note: did you see this?: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/did-mccain-plagarize-his-speec.html --Esprqii (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
~~possible state legislative templates~~
I was poking around today to follow up on my thought of having a template to unite the state legislators and legislative sessions. I found a couple interesting ones that we could possibly adapt to our nefarious purposes:
Template:Politics of California: This one seems to be part of a grand politics project. Wouldn't be too hard to add a state legislators/sessions subsection. The vertical orientation might be a problem. Maybe this one would better augment a state legislature-specific template.

Template:Members of the Louisiana Legislature: Proves that 60 House members is not too many for a template (wow, 105??? I used to live in LA and can't imagine there being 105 people that interested in politics...)

Template:Current Oklahoma Legislature: a nice summary of the legislature; could be improved with a list of all leg sessions (see below), and listing all members, like the LA one above.

Template:PEI Assemblies: For when we get really ambitious and decide to document every session ever, in time for the sesquicentennial o' course (unless oregonencyclopedia.org beats us to it).
Just some idears.
--Esprqii (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Comment on my talk~~
I hit the wrong button, I was going to Twinkle-undo it with a summary. I am perfectly willing to discuss this, and am doing so on AN, I just don't want the discussion to creep around multiple venues. So thanks for your input, it is not unwelcome, I just wanted to keep things in one place (it's bad enough there already). Venue creep would only make it worse. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Fair enough, thanks for explaining. -Pete (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Alex Nimo~~
I thought i'd bring this here rather than cluttering up the deletion discussion anymore. The initial response at WikiProject football is that the WP:FOOTY/N guidelines are not used, or quoted by established project members as they were rejected by the wider comunity. If this turns out to be the case, at the moment it is a single response, then I will be changing to a keep. I apologise for the confusion that I may have been propogating, my comments have been based entirely on my experience of articles that have been deleted, possibly incorrectly it now seems, in the past under these or the more general WP:ATHLETE overlooking wider policy. This I would say is something that needs addressing beyond this single case as many editors take the footy guidelines to be generally accepted or close to policy and there appears to be nothing to the contrary on the guideline page itself. I hope if nothing else our debate will serve to draw attention to this problem. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologise before I start for what is likely to become a long message with my rambling thoughts on the subject. In response to your questions here and here, I think ideally the first port of call has to be WP:N, then WP:BIO's basic criteria, its subsection WP:ATHLETE and then as a last resort WP:FOOTY/N or equivalent, i.e. I think the latter options should be there to allow extra professional athletes to be included if they don't satisfactorily pass more general notability rules. I think this is how they were initially intended. This would mean an arguement to keep an article because its subject passes FOOTY/N would be fine but the arguement to delete because they fail it is only valid if they also fail ATHLETE upwards. All too often I see deletion nominations such as this one, which fail to mention N or BIO, (even though the article was originally kept as passing BIO), thus resulting in the current confusion.
However the danger then becomes having to allow thousands of articles if editors put in the work to find local/regional sources. I suspect it wouldn't have taken much more to go with the BBC source to allow the article on Sole under WP:N. As far as football goes this may only be a particular issue with players who appear as youth internationals, many of whom will have a brief spurt of coverage on a regional level with the odd bit of national exposure but may then disappear into obscurity. I think Nimo's dfficult begining in life made him a stand out case as far as young American players go, but in Europe, where press coverage of football is certainly more extensive, many cases like this could exist. It may be more of a problem in american football or basketball where players can rise to prominence in college but never achieve anything professionally. I imagine many articles are written both nationally and more locally on potential draft picks and i'm not sure if in these cases WP:ATHLETE is considered to override WP:N?
It is without doubt a difficult issue. It is my belief that if Wikipedia is allowed to run its course then eventually every single person who can verify there existence with a 3rd party, reliable source will get an article, but for now we clearly need to limit it using some consistent system across all sports. Basement12 (T.C) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
~~Side note~~
I just wanted to post this somewhere more easy to find than on the Columbia talk page, which looks like chaos and old night. You are doing a fantastic job coordinating an orchestra playing in several different keys simultaneously. I'm going to be traveling for the next few days, and I'm not sure what Internet access I will have, if any. I don't want you to think I've given up or marched off in a huff. IMHO the article is getting much closer to FA. I am putting you on my short list for sainthood. Finetooth (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
~~discontinuous terms~~
~~I would put his most recent continuous stretch as the main one, then use the '2' suffix for his earlier continuous stretch.Flatterworld (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Foot fetishism~~
~~Could you act as a moderator on this talk page? --David Shankbone 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Edit summaries~~
Tom, please exercise more judgment in how you're using the edit summary field on the Neil Goldschmidt article. A great many of us watch that article, and expect to be able to generally keep track of what's going on from edit summaries. You have already been criticized for your use of the field, and you apologized (which I appreciate). But if the behavior doesn't change, the apology isn't worth much.
Very few of these edits are accurately described as "copy edits" (ce). I will withhold judgment about whether they are appropriate edits or not; providing an accurate summary of your work is an important aspect of a collaborative project. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pete, yeah, I wasn't sure how to describe those changes in the edit summary. Should I have said "Changed section title from sexual abuse to sex with minor" or something like that? I guess so. Also, I know I am sort of late to the party on this bio, but it seems that "consensus" is an ongoing process and I know its a pain to rehash issues, but consensus can and goes change as more editors get involved with articles. For the record, I am no fan of this individual or a supportor of sexual relations with minors, I sometimes find myself "defending" some real scumbags in this project, see Tom Metzger for example. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps I just notice that Metzger has an Oregon connection, go figure :) --Tom 13:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
~~That ol' Pete magic~~
Could you work it with this user? I've just been reverting and templating, but maybe you could get him/her to start a dialog. I think a sandbox might help. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done some editing there now, looks like Tom and AM have jumped in too. I don't really think templating is necessary..some folks just need a couple reverts before they get the hang of how things work. Anyway, thanks for the notice, and I'll keep my eye on it.. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
~~Very Special COTW, act now!~~
Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped eliminate some red links the last few weeks (the NWFP received little attention). This week, we have the stub High Desert Museum and then in honor of losing airline service again, McNary Field. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
~~ballot measures~~
I finally got around to reading the voter's guide; do we really think that each measure is going to warrant its own page? Wondering if we should just create a "2008 Oregon ballot measures" article. I can see maybe a couple of other initiatives besides 65 might need separate pages, but some of them, like 54 and 55, are just housekeeping measures. I think a single page might be more effective for now, since 57 and 61 should really be discussed together; and then the Sizemore initiatives are generally lumped together, even though they are quite different. Your thoughts? (I'll spy on your page for a while so you can answer here.) --Esprqii (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think each needs its own article. I agree that 61 and 57 should have a combined article. As for the rest, I guess whichever ones are notable…is that a cop-out? ;) I think a new combined article would be confusing -- I'd rather see content expanded at List of Oregon ballot measures. If it gets too cumbersome, I think that page should be broken up into decades.
There are some other useful guides out there, for getting a handle on all this. The League of Women Voters just released their voters' guide, Defend Oregon has a brief and less impartial guide. The Rural Organizing Project has a brief guide as well.
~~Anyway -- don't know how much time I'll have to write these, but I will definitely keep an eye on them, and help out where I can. -Pete (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)~~
I don't have time either, and actually, it probably makes more sense to write the articles after the election when the result and impact is actually known (See WP:NOTAVOTERGUIDE). I'm thinking of Measure 37, which sorta snuck in and most people didn't realize its importance until later. Or is that a copout too? --Esprqii (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
heh...thanks, I had somehow missed that bit of policy =) I think any measure that meets the general notability requirements (i.e., coverage in several reliable sources) is fair game if somebody wants to write an article. That's not to say we need articles on all of them. If you want to de-redlink some of the more procedural ones that's fine with me. Also, are you aware of Ballotpedia? It was started by the Sam Adams Alliance, which frankly scares the crap out of me, but in practice it seems to have a fairly balanced community of editors...at least from what little I've seen. And I think they have a BP:HELLYEAHITSAVOTERGUIDE policy over there. -Pete (talk)
~~Current House and Senate membership~~
Now that we (aka you) have really fleshed out the 74th Oregon Legislative Assembly article, it seems like we should remove the listings of the "current" senators and representatives from the Oregon Senate and Oregon House of Representatives articles and leave those articles just to describe the general membership, history, etc., and then link to the legislative assembly articles, as you have done; we might even do it at the top of the page, like on United States House of Representatives. Whaddya think? I don't see the advantage in keeping track of two separate listings. --Esprqii (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've wondered about that. The subtle difference is, the one about the session includes all the changes, whild the Senate and House ones include only the current members. I think there's maybe some advantage, say, to a reader who's wondering what 30 people they have to talk to to get their bill passed, to seeing the simpler list on the general article, rather than needing to distill the historical article. But…maybe WP:NOTACITIZENLOBBYISTHANDBOOK applies. I dunno. Whatever you think is best…I've been staring at these things too long. Oh, but did you see we got a mention on BlueOregon the other day? -Pete (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd just use the United States House of Representatives example again; they don't list the membership on that page. I suppose we should discuss on the House and Senate pages themselves. I missed the BO mention, I'll have to go dig it up. --Esprqii (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
~~College radio stations~~
Aboutmovies' rationale for recreating the category stated that Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon wants the category to exist, so "wikiprojects don't control categories" really meant "my Wikiproject controls this and yours doesn't". I have no objection to opening a new discussion anytime somebody would like to shoot for a new consensus on the matter — but simply recreating a category that's already been deleted by CFD consensus really isn't okay until such a discussion has actually taken place. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 25 (it's part of the "College radio stations in Georgia" discussion). I can see how it might be arguable that there wasn't really an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, so if you disagree with the way it was closed, it would be perfectly valid to open a new discussion to revisit the issue. But a new discussion, with input from both Wikiproject Oregon and Wikiproject Radio Stations, would still have to take place before the category can be recreated. There are valid processes to discuss a disputed CFD result, but simply ignoring it isn't one of them. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are valid processes, but if people don't tell people something is deleted (ad don't mention there was a CFD in the deletion) then how is someone to know they need to take it to deletion review? And as to my comments when re-creating it, how about your comments when deleting it, which is what my comments were referring to. As I stated on the RFC, I was sarcastically attacking the reason for deletion while referencing why it was a bad idea to deleted it under the given rationale. Had there been a CFD to begin with where the cat was properly listed and then tagged as per the process outlined at WP:CFD, then I could have explained the entire rationale. But, again, there was no proper CFD. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Image:Roll On Columbia.png listed for deletion~~
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Roll On Columbia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Re:WP:IAR discussion (above)~~
Can I just say how much I enjoyed the above discussion about IAR. Being relatively new to Wikipedia, and deeply interested in the psychology of Wikipedia, I can't help but feel impressed that such deep discussions take place. I would agree that, as you said, IAR essentially reminds us that every decision must ultimately be made on its own merits (in the context of improving or maintaining Wikipedia), rather than out of simple adherence to rules. I recently invoked IAR (albeit in a minor capacity), here. I would say that IAR is a rule in itself, basically "Ignore all rules, but make sure you can justify why your interpretation is better than the existing norm." The reason I would invoke IAR would be to indicate that every situation should have flexible outcomes; that a blind adherence to the rules, in all situations, serves no-one well, least of all the encyclopaedia. Apterygial (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Signpost~~
Thanks for offering to help. What would be most helpful, really, would be to have you write occasional stories from week-to-week, as time permits, on various issues that are currently important. This week, for example, Zvika wrote an article on improvements to the MediaWiki search engine, I'm planning to write an article on the Foundation's fundraiser and a review of the book How Wikipedia Works, and we're also covering the ArbCom elections. These issues obviously change from week-to-week. On many weeks, I try to add stories I think are notable to the newsroom, under the "special stories" bullet point. However, that's by no means a complete list of everything important going on within the community, so you can add your own story as well (but if you take a story, make sure to note that you've done so, so other writers don't duplicate your work). Stories should be written in your userspace (many editors like to use a scheme like User:Peteforsyth/Signpost/ABC, where "ABC" refers to a short explanation of the story -- e.g. "Board update" or "New search engine").
Stories should generally be finished by Monday at 17:00 UTC. If you're interested, sign up for a story in any upcoming issue -- the current issue will be finished within a few hours, hopefully, and we'll start preparing for next week's issue then. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Wikiproject health~~
The other two of us are reactivating wikiproject health, including a new userbox Wikipedia:WikiProject_Health_and_fitness/Userbox. Feel free to take a look :) Sticky Parkin 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Re. Image:User contributions detail.png~~
It's a good tutorial but the arrows generally aren't very accurate and the one pointing to the page edited especially either points to the incorrect article or 'User' from the explanation should be deleted (since it's an article talk page that's being edited, the user talk page was above it). -- Menti sock 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Certainly, I could try. You did it with OpenOffice Draw? -- Menti sock 09:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Reply: Brandon Roy GA review~~
~~Thanks! Feel free to make suggestions on what next to work on. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Thanks~~
(replying from my talkpage)
Hi Elonka, just want to drop by to say thanks for your diligence in notifying WikiProjects about related AFDs. Most recently, you flagged the Chamberlain-Ferris Act, which we weren't aware existed, and yet which moves us significantly forward in our plans to cover a broader subject. Your note, like so many before it, is very much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind words. :) I just recently installed the Delsort tab for Twinkle, and I have to admit that I've been having fun churning through AfDs and figuring how to properly notify the correct projects. That particular AfD about the Chamberlain-Ferris Act was problematic, because it didn't seem to fit into any one clear category. So I opted to notify several, including California and Oregon. Thanks for letting me know that it was the right choice! Thanks also for your own efforts in improving the encyclopedia, --El on ka 00:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Template:GA-userpage~~
~~Hi Peteforsyth. Template:GA-userpage, a template you created, seems to be not working. -- Suntag ☼ 00:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)~~
When I look at the Template:GA-userpage page , I see in red "Error: invalid title in link at line 3". If that is not a problem, no problem. : )-- Suntag ☼ 04:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, people change the visual display in template space by putting code within <noinclude></noinclude>, such as <noinclude>}}</noinclude> to close out {{. I tried different things with the Template:GA-userpage, but couldn't figure it out. Template:FAstar-userpage shows the same problem. You might try adding a valid title within <noinclude></noinclude> at line 3 (what ever that means) to see if the display changes. -- Suntag ☼ 07:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
~~User:Opertof~~
I no understanding. What I do wrong? Why you threat me to block? I help user that get bad treated. I keep do what I think right thing doing is. I no care if you threat me to block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opertof (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I understanding plenty. I no realize Peteforsyth already admin, or I no bother taking you to WP:ANI. And I sure that "threat me to block" not threat, it promise. P.S. I defend things Oregonian, and I can write fake foreign accents as well as anyone. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
~~He indef-blocked now. So long, bye-bye! Till next sock come along! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Me watch strong-eyed too! Well fought justice writer of good will to wiki world! -Pete (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Freakin' A, Bubba! (See, I do other dialects, too. :) ) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)~~
He's put in a request for unblock. Now, how would a "new user from Germany" immediately zoom in on this subject, also using the same broken English as the guy who was banned in the first place? Must be a miracle of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Good show~~
That was a classy cleanup and message at User talk:OrangeStaple; thanks for making the effort.
Let me know if OrangeStaple doesn't come around. I don't have a horse in this race, and it may well be that he'll end up a single-purpose whitewashing account — but we've got to give him a chance to show us one way or another.
I'm sorry that I jumped on you earlier; I think I might have been a little bit too pointed in the phrasing of my criticism. (Actually, looking again at what I wrote, I'd say I was definitely shading into the obnoxiously sarcastic.) Best of luck, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
~~Tnx for that magnificent link!!~~
~~Wikipedia:Department directory — Martha (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)~~
~~P.S. I took the plunge and put an (abbreviated version) of Ilse Stanley up! 'D I do it ok?? xoxo — Martha (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)~~
~~DYK for Ilse Stanley~~

On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ilse Stanley, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

~~BorgQueen (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)~~

'Zooks! what a flurry of activity this DYK thing produced! Little changes, all improvements as far as I can see! This is just what I needed.... Thank you, Peter! — Martha (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)