Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Jsayre, I'm really busy (13th day straight of working), hoping this is something you can do. this edit removed a bunch of images for an unknown reason. But a gallery isn't terribly appropriate anyhow. Can you make sure they are all in an appropriate category and add a {{commonscat-inline}} in the EL section? tedder (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started; I'll do more tomorrow. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jsayre64 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now back to work for me tedder (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me to delete that pic--I didn't even realize it was still out there. But fergawdsakes, don't template me, bro! ;-) --Esprqii (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can blame Twinkle for that! --Jsayre64 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, congrats on the Signpost interview. We'll see if any new contributors join the project. Also, thanks for the your contribution to the Roses in Portland article. I had actually forgotten about it temporarily--I need to roll up my sleeves and get back to work. I think it would make a great contribution to WP Oregon once completed. Feel free to offer any other feedback or edits to the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be following the article's progress and I'll probably make some edits once in a while. --Jsayre64 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since hordes of eager reviewers have not flocked to comment on the Willamette River FAC, I thought I'd mention that it is perfectly OK to seek reviewers directly by asking them. You can't ask them to support, but you can ask them to review. For example, User:Chipmunkdavis, who did the PR, might be willing to comment at FAC. You may know other reviewers who can be counted on to review without prior bias. (That leaves out major contributors to the article but not necessarily minor or incidental ones.) I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention this just in case you were unaware. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that, so it's good to know. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jsayre64, thanks for all your hard work in nominating your project members for the Oregon Project Triple Crown. A small favor. Can you please you make sure to put the editor's name and talk pages first, and then the nominator in brackets after? It will help me a lot. I nearly gave you the award a few times by mistake. Thanks in advance. – SMasters (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. – SMasters (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, thanks! I'm not one for collecting honors, barnstars, and so on, but finding that on my talk page made me laugh. :-) Pfly (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an editor named — Legolas [[User talk:Legolas2186|^(talk2me)]who is taking ownership of an article and not allowing any collaboration. Editor is trolling W.E (film) and is taking ownership of the article. As you can see, I have tried to make helpful edits and instead of taking it to the discussion page, Legolas has first tried to claim "plagiarism" and then "vandalism", threatening to have me blocked when I have been polite and courteous. please help. I am being bullied. Thanks(talk) 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now being accused of sock pupperty and I am on a shared computer. Legolas is on a vendetta. Can you help me? talk) 12:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for heads-up; however, map was previoualy replaced by geo-location auto-map so don't see any reason to keep stand-alone location map.--Orygun (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. That's what I said in the deletion listing. The stand-alone location map is what I nominated for deletion. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input to John Day Fossil Beds National Monument has been helpful, but things might go a bit more smoothly if you let me consider and respond to each of the PR suggestions. When you intercede directly in making changes to the article based on your understanding of the reviewer's comments, I have to check not only what the reviewer has suggested but also the changes you have made. In most cases, I agree with you, but not always. For example, the Rattlesnake was formed about 7 million years ago, not during the range that you added. If we run into substantive disagreements about anything, we can always discuss them on the article's talk page. Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It looks like I made some embarrassing errors, now that I've seen your corrections of them. I understand how you feel about my occasional interventions at the PR page; I'm eager to improve an Oregon-related article during a crucial period in its lifetime, but I don't always get things right. Is there a good way I can help improve this article without presenting more problems? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was in a hurry when I wrote my rather stiff note above. I was packing to leave on a jaunt, which is taking me away from my usual Internet connection. I can't think of any way for you to help further with this article offhand, but I'll send you a note if that changes. I'm almost ready to nominate it, but I need to work through the rest of Wehwalt's suggestions slowly. My goal when I go to FAC with something is to have it so well-prepared that nobody finds fault with it. I've never succeeded 100 percent, but I've come close enough on some occasions to make the FACs go fairly smoothly.

A reliable way to see an article through crucial periods is to pick a topic that you like and either create an article about it or improve an existing stub or shortie up the ladder to GA and FA. If you do that, you'll quickly become the main contributor, and you'll be in a good position to make decisions about prose, organization, images, layout, and everything else. Although you won't own the article, your opinion will carry significant weight because you'll know the topic and the resource materials better than most, if not all, other editors. You already have a good command of prose and Manual of Style issues and of much of the inner workings of Wikipedia, so you appear to be equipped for the job of writing GA- and FA-quality articles. A good way to get handle on what to expect at GAN and FAC is to do some reviewing at either or both places, and PR can always use reviews as well. Although there's no formal tit for tat, busy reviewers may be more inclined to review your articles if they notice that you do some reviewing. It can't hurt, in other words. Finetooth (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a footnote to say thanks for drawing my attention to the museum management document. I read it more carefully this time and found some uses for it in notes responding to suggestions by Wehwalt. Very helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your alert a few moments ago regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grierson1000.jpg. The photo in question is very old, of Canadian origin and has been in a box in our family for about 60 years and isn't subject to copyright any longer. I'm not sure why it's tagged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilja minou (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is provide proof that the image is under a free license (not copyrighted). You could e-mail the author or a website that has published the image, etc., and ask them if the image is free. Read about this at WP:COPYREQ. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence that the image is free, it will probably have to be deleted, unless it meets all the criteria at WP:NFCC. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After responding to a photo request for Mount Calvary Cemetery I noticed the wiki was flagged for speedy deletion (the photos were short on text). Since the September 30 anniversary is coming up, it might be a good idea to re-flag for speedy editing. Connie Lenzen posted her research at http://www.lenzenresearch.com/MtCalvary.html, but she does not want to edit the wiki (me neither). She suggested Tim Corbett, the cemetery superintendent, who has written a book. Visitor7 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you create an article, you have to include some textual information, and you're more than welcome to decorate the article with images that you took. If you want to create the article, please do, but you should read this page first. And the title of the article should be Mount Calvary Cemetery (Portland, Oregon), because that's the format at this disambiguation page. If you do create the article, don't forget to place {{WikiProject Oregon|class= |importance= }} on the talk page so that we can tell it belongs to WikiProject Oregon. Good luck! Jsayre64 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for the award. The skeptics are probably right about the premature thing. Visitor7 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Some of these creeks are harder to get to from the Willamette Valley than others. I applaud your success in finding CC-by-SA Flickr images for Succor Creek and others. Finetooth (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't expecting to find a properly licensed Flickr image of Succor Creek, but I've learned it's always worth a try. For some searches I am disappointed, though. No Middle Santiam River image? Elkhorn Mountains? Creswell? I suppose I ought to try taking my own photos for some of these. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Sometimes an infobox doesn't take kindly to a new image so I have put some of them directly below the box. Visitor7 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assisting the article through the GA process. The article looks pretty well-referenced to me, but hopefully this last concern can be addressed and we will have another GA for WP Oregon! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the article on my watchlist ever since it was nominated for GA, because I'm always eager to help get an Oregon-related article to GA or FA status (but there tends to be some trouble along the way). I think the sourcing problem concerns some unreferenced information at the end of paragraphs in the article. I'll take a closer look and see what I can do. I've also notified SJ Morg about the GA review. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you make a disambiguation to clarify the following Charles Drain Charles Drain, Oregon Charles and Anna Drain House

Also can a page name be changed, for example cutting the Oregon off of Charles Drain?Visitor7 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Charles Drain pages to better titles. You can move a page, although you no longer need to in this case, by scrolling over the arrow by the "View history" tab and clicking "move". Jsayre64 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for fixing this and the move info. On the File:Charles and Nancy Drain.jpg license, I sent an email to the appropriate OTRS address with the best info I have. "If in doubt, throw it out" is a good motto, however. A copy of this photo may reside in the Drain Family photo box at the Oregon Historical Society, and I have an email to them about this permissions thing. A copy of the photo probably is in the Douglas County Library system, and they're checking for it. Rumor has it there was a big version of the photo hanging in the hallway of the Drain school several years ago, but I don't want to go down there again to look for it unless there's snow. Thanks again for helping me.Visitor7 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had to tag the image for deletion because of a lack of information about its copyright status. I hope you hear back from the OHS or the Douglas County Library soon. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument was archived. I've never seen an FAC quite like this one, though I suppose there have been others. In any case, I don't plan to renominate even though I think the article is FA-worthy exactly as is. Since you expressed an interest in the article earlier, I thought I should say that I won't mind if you decide at some point to try to figure out what might please the single opposer, add it, and renominate. The six editors, including you, who supported promotion found no fault with what is there now; the prose, images, licenses, adherence to the Manual of Style, and so on are not the problem. If you don't feel like tackling the opposer's objection, that's OK too. Only do so if it interests and pleases you. Meanwhile, I continue to wish for a good outcome for Willamette River on which you have worked so hard. Finetooth (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you built a wonderful article and got very thorough feedback when you took it to peer review. Overall, your work was very successful. It was just a bit discouraging to see what happened in the long run.

I'm undecided about the article's coverage of science; I might work on that sometime and take a shot at FAC. I don't know a whole lot about fossils, but I think it would be fun to learn more about them and improve an article at the same time. In the meantime, I'm crossing my fingers for the Willamette's FAC (the article's fate should be decided very soon) and I wish you good luck on Oregon Caves National Monument, in case you have any major plans for that article. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making Wikipedia a much better place to be. Enjoy these stroopwafels! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 17:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]