Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:46, 9 March 2010

Archives

2006 Archives Jan-March 2007 Archives April-June 2007 Archives July 2007- Sept 2007 Oct 2007-Jan 2008 Feb 2008-Jan 2009 Feb 2009-June 2009 July 2009-

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is my talk page and although I normally do not, I can remove anything from this page w/o archiving it. See WP:USER

DYK for Frederick Waymire

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Waymire, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on another copyvio

Re: The City of Newberg vs. Aboutmovies. You gonna sue? Katr67 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if they keep doing it, which this one is mine but is PD, and the library banner one is also mine (though attribution is required). I sent them an email about one of them, so we'll see what they do. Makes me a bit paranoid though. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the city can't afford a camera: Not my pic, but I uploaded it and that's the version they are using; my pic and attribution is required so copyvio; my pic, but its PD, so its, OK, but I wonder why they went with the pic looking north to the Tualatin Valley instead of the ones looking towards Newberg? Aboutmovies (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Crime in Oregon

HI. I made a start on this. Could you flesh it out into a full written article. Now is your chance to include that Miriam Sakewitz bunny woman case if you must along with other general info about crime in Oregon. Good luck! Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

That number is truly amazing. Awesome job! LittleMountain5 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep going yourself and you will make it too. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi, Aboutmovies. I'm an independent journalist in Portland, preparing to launch a wiki devoted entirely to car-free and low-car life here. I'd expect to be its primary contributor, but when you have a resource-y Web site these days, it seems sort of silly to not wikify it. The whole thing is still a few months off, but I'm asking Wikipedians who edit on related topics if they have any thoughts, advice, or dire warnings. Eh? Anybody else you'd recommend my talking to? Andersem (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As to people, it looks like you have asked many of the public transit contributors, so I guess that is a good start. Another one is User:Peteforsyth, who I believe is also into public transit, and is now working for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in general is a community activist type (he also watches this page, so he might chime in).

As to running a wiki, I have little knowledge on that end, as I am not a software engineer type person, but my understanding is once the software is installed it is easy to maintain. Along those lines Pete I believe runs a wiki and may have some answers to technical issues.

With the actual site, my advice would be to come up with a mission statement. As in, what do you want the site to be and to look like in five years. Misplaced Pages is a general knowledge encyclopedia with aspects of almanacs, dictionaries, and other reference material, and it attempts to present material in a neutral/non-biased manner. That, along with the free content, is why Misplaced Pages has become such a big deal and near the top of website traffic rankings. But, you also must realize that though Misplaced Pages gets millions of hits a day, that comes from I believe 3 million plus articles. As in, if you look at the page view statistics of individual articles, that are not always that impressive. Take TriMet; go to that page, click the "history" tab at the top, then click the "page view statistics" located about the middle just above where the article history begins. TriMet only gets about 65 hits a day, which I'm sure pails in comparison to what TriMet.com gets. But, I would venture a guess that Misplaced Pages has become the standard reference tool for most people in the English speaking, developed world under the age of 50. And people have chosen Misplaced Pages because they see it as largely accurate, and for the most part not inhibit by too much bias (you can never eliminate it). So, in a rather round-about way, my point here is, do you want to be an advocacy wiki, or an information wiki. Misplaced Pages tries to be the later, and I think it has been successful because it has chosen the later route. It's kind of like the evolution in the news business in the first half of the 20th century where newspapers (and later broadcast journalism) moved to be more neutral and less about partisan politics (never completely went away). With that evolution, newspapers/journalists became more respected and trusted. And had there been an internet, they likely would have seen an increase site traffic. On the other end of the spectrum, you have websites such as Blue Oregon that have a specific bias (Democratic Party/liberal) and people who have differing views are unlikely to visit, let alone trust the content. Which takes as back to where you want to be; advocacy or information. And I'm not saying one is better than the other, just the later I think will have more of an impact. And to get to that point, you need to try to limit bias, which would include recruiting people who may not share the same opinions as you do.

Lastly, a few wiki points. I would suggest that contributors be required to register with an email account and email verification, thus helping to reduce vandalism. Be careful about copyrights, as most things on the internet are copyrighted, and if you are not careful people will add copyrighted material, which could possibly make you liable. Adopt a manual of style (e.g. AP style) to keep things looking somewhat consistent. And that's all I can think of right now. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much -- this is invaluable. I've actually met Pete, I think, so I may ring him up directly. On the NPOV discussion, you make a lot of good point points -- but remember that maximizing audience isn't the only goal of a media outlet. I'm hoping to be quite useful for a relatively small audience. As for the wiki points, I am planning on requiring registration for all editors. And that's a great call about copyright. Andersem (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK feedback

The dyk process is a little opaque/slow-to-respond, so can you review my two pending DYKs and tell me if anything should be touched up?

• Template talk:Did you know#Redmond_Caves
• Template talk:Did you know#Hugh_H._Hurt.2C_Jr.

kthxbai. tedder (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

LM5 took care of the caves. With Hurt, most things look good. For the ALT though, you need an inline cite on the sentence covering the 2,300 people, one later in the paragraph isn't good enough. Also, it was barely past the 1,500 character count before I add some, but you might want to make it a little bigger as shorter articles can sometimes be rejected. And since lists (such as the awards list) don't count, I would suggest converting it to prose and working it into the "Later life" section. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's certainly close to the DYK limit. My only access to the plethora of LATimes articles of him are on microfilm, so maybe I'll go up and work on it today to flesh things out. I'll copy the cite to the 2300 so that's covered- good to know. tedder (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank

Thanks for your wellcome. Lnegro (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Zephyer (sculpture) for Wikiproject Universities

Thanks for assessing that article. I have been interested in putting the articles in the IUPUI Public Art Collection in a variety of projects, but thought that you could only do that if you were an active member of each wiki project. Can anyone include an article in any project and also assess it? Thanks, --Richard McCoy (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, WikiProjects "own" their templates and members decide what goes in them, but it is normal to add projects to articles when they are first created. Just don't be hurt if someone then removes one, as a project may not actually cover the topic. For instance I do a lot of assessment for WikiPrject Law and will sometimes remove the LAW project template from articles, often times when they are really law enforcement (which is a different project). As to assessment, generally you would not assess an article you wrote or did major work on, as you really want a third party opinion. But, you can assess any article, as long as you know what you are doing. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and Thanks

Hello, Aboutmovies.

Thanks for welcoming me to Misplaced Pages! I like the place even before I create my username, so I will stay.

Also, thanks for the highly helpful info that you gave about Misplaced Pages.

--UnderAngel (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

rewrite help

The first half of this paragraph is copyvio, and I can't figure out how to rewrite it. Can you take a stab, since it's semi-legal? Kthxbai. tedder (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-did it, and since its was little too much for a single pending lawsuit, I moved it to the history section and condensed it to 2 sentences. Didn't check to see if it was copyvio, so please double-check my work. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You fixed the copyvio issue, and put it in context/scale. Perfect! tedder (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Civil War Stadia

In Civil_War_(college_football_game)#Scores, you recently added pictures of the two current stadia stacked vertically. I changed the pics to horizontal so the key to the scores table would appear adjacent to the table itself. You reverted this because the opposite problem exists on certain browsers -- you mentioned FireFox, IE and Chrome. At least in my IE, this is not true, only horizontal puts the key adjacent to the table. So what should be done now? Ideally, we'd like something that appears nice both types of browsers. The simplest thing would be to move the pictures to another location -- like maybe to the Civil_War_(college_football_game)#Memorable games. Any other ideas? YBG (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I did some experiments, and it looks like its not the browser type, but the browser width. I have my screen resolution set pretty high, so things are rather wide. But if I make the browser less than full screen, then I get the seperation effect, no matter how I manipulate the vertical images. I don't think going horizontal is the answer, as that creates a break, and the images are meant as more decorative than substantive. I guess we'll have to move them to another section. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your combining of tables looks great ... I probably would have done it slightly differently -- the way it is now, column breaks in the key are hardwired to match certain column breaks in the main column -- but it is a great improvement over the preceding if it works for more people. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GE - removal of website under 'external links'

Hi Aboutmovies,

You made a change to GE's page today (11th December) which I wanted to discuss. Disclosure - I work for GE, but we try not to overdo the editing of it, just to keep it accurate.

You removed the official site www.ge.com from 'external links' as it's already in the infobox. On reading the guidelines, you are correct in this (although they are suggested guidelines). I don't want to arbitrarily undo your edit, but feel that as the page is very long, if someone has got to the bottom of the page, and are looking at the external links (which are both by GE and about GE (some against GE)), then they are unlikely to scroll to the top of the page to find another link.

For this reason, I'd like to put the link back. Your thoughts, please?

Simon Sehlangford (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are just guidelines, but under that theory we might as well ignore all guidelines and policies, for instance maybe we should start adding links only to all the sites that attack GE, right? In general we try to follow the guidelines, and make exceptions where they make sense. Here, I see no reason to not follow the guideline. Many articles are long, but the point of the WP:EL guideline is to try and reinforce that Misplaced Pages does not exist to drive traffic to other websites. In addition to the part at EL covering placement of ELs that says no to double listing of the official link, see WP:ELOFFICIAL for the general thoughts on official links. Specifically the "Minimize the number of links" part that, although is focused on providing more than one link within the domain, you can read between the lines and see that we want to keep this links to a minimum and listing it a second time does not "provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". Thus, we don't need yet another link to a GE website (there are at least 8 that go to GE controlled domains within the article). And if someone is really looking for the official GE website, Google does a pretty good job. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages is only here to provide information, not promote other entities. Or to flip it on its head, how many links does GE have to Misplaced Pages? We have at least 8, and that's just on this one article. So I would leave it out, but the article talk page is a better forum for discussing this so it is opened up to more opinions. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

signing

Do you mind signing this line? The original isn't, but it seems to make sense, especially since the parenthesis are a personal comment. (Just got back from PeteForsyth's going-away wake celebration party.) tedder (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about categories

Hello. I edited many of the Oregon wind farm articles a few weeks ago by adding the categories Category:Wind_farms_in_Oregon and Category:Wind_farms_in_the_United_States. I saw all the automatically alphabetized US wind farm pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wind_farms_in_the_United_States and I thought adding Oregon wind farm articles to this category would improve it, but now I just noticed the subcategories on that page as well (wind farms in CA/TX/OR/etc). Am I supposed to add both categories to a wind farm article or just the subsidiary one (Category:Wind_farms_in_Oregon)?

I was reading about categories at http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Category and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, but I'm still confused. I noticed under the WikiProject Oregon recent changes page that you were removing the Category:Wind_farms_in_the_United_States from the wind farms in Oregon articles and I hoping you could tell me the correct way to categorize articles with main and subcategories. I'm new to (editing) Misplaced Pages, so I'd appreciate any help. I hope you don't mind a basic question like this. Thanks. TimeClock871 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda curious about the removal of the windfarms category too. tedder (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, the individual wind farms are in "wind farms in Oregon" which is a sub cat of the US one. So, per WP:CAT, we usually don't place them in both the parent and child cat, just like we wouldn't have them all in "Wind farms" either. Part of the reason for creating sub cats like the Oregon wind farms one is to difuse the larger parent cat. This is also the reason I removed the wind farms from the "energy resources in Oregon" cat, as the "wind farms in Oregon" is already in that cat, thus the individual wind farms are already in them by being in the "wind farms in Oregon" cat. Hope that helps everyone (see also the WP:CAT part of WP:DUPCAT). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I understand it now. Thanks for the explanation! TimeClock871 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't caught the duplication- I just saw the cat removals come across my watchlist and was curious. tedder (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William H. Wehrung

On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William H. Wehrung, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

twitch

Angelfire. Yeah, RS, but.. my OCPD flares up when I see it. Twitch, twitch. tedder (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate them too, but the local historical society apparently can't afford a real host. I just modified it to look better. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We should hold a barnraising for them. That's too bad. tedder (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harry V. Gates

On December 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry V. Gates, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Washington County podunk for ya

Wilkesboro, Oregon--looks like a hotbed of turn-of-the-century railroad intrigue and entrepreneurial Mormons (see the talk page for more on the RR stuff, including interesting history from our own Rvannatta). Maybe you can dig up some more info. I was surprised it linked so easily to Glenwood--I didn't plan on it, I'm just going through the Oregon highways articles one by one and writing articles for redlinks. Expect I'll get 4 or 5 done before I forget about that and move on to something else. Anyway, I'd be curious if there's anything still there if you wanna drive by and take a picture. Later, Katr67 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I might have more, as the old Argus 100-anniversary of Hillsboro edition has coverage for almost every little community in WaCo. But, I'm starting to move on Sunday, so it is already packed away, and I probably won't unpack it till close to the new year. But after that most of the "only on maps" locales you will encounter have coverage in my source, so I can tidy up. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing this item reminds me that I ran across another Mormon-related Oregon town recently: Perry, in Union County. George Stoddard (who appears to have been Mormon) hails from Perry. A statement in the Charles W. Nibley article leads me to suspect that Stoddard's father (also George) was a big-shot businessman in Perry, then went east. --Orlady (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perry was a company town, but I don't know for whom--I don't have my company towns book handy--I bet not only was George, Sr. a big shot, but he was the big shot. I'll look into it. (But don't hold your breath.) I love connecting the dots. P.S. Orlady whenever I see your username I have to translate it to "Oakridge" because I instantly think you're from Oregon. Katr67 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Two more

• Farmington, Oregon
• Witch Hazel, Oregon

Strangely, it looks like OGN might be wrong about Witch Hazel and that the name predated the good mayor. It would be cool to figure out where the old racetrack was. Katr67 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Can you check the route description of Oregon Route 8, especially the part near Hillsboro? Apparently you don't need to cite highway articles so don't worry about original research. I used the "squint at the Oregon gazetteer" method of research. Katr67 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One minor correction, and then I added some of my own OR/checked a map. One day we'll add sources. Thanks for the article on WH, I'm pretty sure I have more in my stuff. Not sure where the race track was, but I can recall several on older maps in the Reedville, WH, SE Hillsboro area (as well as one I use to go by). I think I recall other mentions of tracks writing about other old dead guys, seems it was the thing to do if you had the money. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was pretty sure I got the Intel part wrong. Did you see there was a bunch of Reedville stuff in the external link, BTW? Hey, re: this. Sigh, I remember having a similar conversation with him about the "former towns that are now neighborhoods don't count as towns" thing. Do recall which community that was? Was it Orenco? I think anything that used to be a separate place should be included in both cats. And why not have the template regardless? I think it makes it harder to find the information, and since it's a separate dot on the map it should be treated separately. It's not like Sunnyslope, Salem, Oregon, which is most assuredly only a neighborhood (the town was actually Liberty, Oregon). I almost put the template back, but I'll behave. We have a bunch of places like that in Washington County as the larger cities sprawl out and it was only recently that weren't still separate places and they were communities a lot longer than they were neighborhoods. What do you think? Katr67 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did take the liberty of making things consistent until things are decided otherwise. Katr67 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shepherds Flat Wind Farm

Hello! Your submission of Shepherds Flat Wind Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

amusing ec

I removed this note, but I'm amused we did it at the same time. tedder (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Shepherds Flat Wind Farm

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shepherds Flat Wind Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oregon law article for you

• John V. Doe v. Holy See

Figured I'd be lazy let you add projects/classify/rate. tedder (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardman, Oregon

Apparently it was city: Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What I found is a fine source, but would it be in that other source you found--I forget what it was. The whole incorporation thing seems so random. Katr67 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Winchester, Oregon, is one of the cities I used it on (), though I'm pretty sure I found another of the "Special Laws" for a later year. I'll give Google a search. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This search turns up the different editions of the laws, so its a process of going through each one and searching for Hardman to see if a new resolution shows up for a modification to the city charter (happened all the time) or the original law from 1904, if your source is correct. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Found Lexington. And some other places that are still cities, but no Hardman. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

More to work on later. Didn't find Hardman, but also couldn't find the "Special Laws" covering 1904. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I have about a dozen more sources for stuff to add to Hardman that I need to weed through--lots of stuff on the 'net but surprisingly hard (haha) to find reliable sources. Then hopefully I can get back to Wilkesboro before time runs out. Speaking of "towns" I've been meaning to mention this but I may have to eat some crow (if anyone actually cares about this issue) so I dared not say anything, re: my continued ranting that Oregon has no towns. A search of GNIS reveals that according to the USGS (not always the most reliable source, as we know), the civil designation for several communities in Oregon is indeed "Town", specifically the Bustling (nestled?) Metropolii of: Bonanza, Butte Falls, Canyon City, Dayville, Lakeview, Lexington, Spray, Summerville, and Waterloo. I think I discovered that when I was looking over election results so I could update mayors. I guess for ORS purposes (and the Blue Book) a town is a "city" but it does acknowledge that there are still "towns" in Oregon. I wonder why some got upgraded to "city"? Anyway, just something to follow up on at some point. It's probably not the end of the world if we continue to let Misplaced Pages propagate such deception for a while longer. Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why some (most) changed to city, but I'm sure if we study the acts that incorporated a place as a town, and then later a city, we might be able to figure it out. It likely has to do with the amount of debt they could incur or perhaps governance, like maybe towns had only mayors, but cities had mayors and a city council. Should be a fun project. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dundee Lodge

On December 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dundee Lodge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Restaurants and shops in airport articles

Hi Aboutmovies, could you please just enlighten me why restaurants and shops at an airport should be listed in the respective article? I cannot see any encyclopedic notability, since airport articles are aiming at informing about the relevance and importance of the airport. IMO, this clearly collides with the WP:NOTTRAVEL guidelines. Including them is also not approved by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Airports/page content. Best regards and Merry Christmas. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

edit: I started a discussion on that issue here Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

May your stocking be stuffed with barnstars and DYKs. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy belated holidays to you too. I hope to be back in full force on Misplaced Pages tonight. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Caroline Duby Glassman

On December 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caroline Duby Glassman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to do this, but you leave me no choice.

• But, you left this remark at AFD , apparently forgetting this remark on the article's talk page . Although the two remarks were made some time apart from one another, the marked inconsistency between the two merits at least a minnow:

Plip!

Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Oh, to have Oversight privileges and the freedom to abuse them :-) tedder (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that AM leaves those kind of notes on article talk pages in order to encourage their creators to expand poorly written/sourced articles instead of taking them straight to Afd? No contradiction whatsoever. Katr67 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article did fail BIO at the time, and as your nom for deletion proved out, it was subject to deletion, thus no real inconsistency. As Katr points out, I have left similar notes (and many notability tags) on many articles to encourage the authors to improve them. If I felt the subject was truly non-notable I would have sent it to AfD/PROD, but I did not. BIO and NOTE use to be far more about demonstrating in the article itself the notability of the topic, but now it is only about if the topic is notable in general. Thus the sort of change. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1; You said the article was "subject to deletion," but then argued that we never delete articles like this, so there is a contradiction there. 2. I was only trying to point that out, it's obviously not a real serious issue, the remarks were made over two years apart. I'm sure it would be easy to find remarks I made in my wiki-past that are inconsistent with what I believe now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Geesh, I hate being told to lighten up. It usually has the opposite effect. :) If it's no big deal, why point it out? Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but teasing one another about past mistakes doesn't really get the encyclopedia written. I might be unaware that you have the kind of wiki relationship with AM where you could tease him a bit, but it seemed to me like unnecessary needling. aka "Neener neener". Personally I only bitchslap my closest friends. Can't we all just get along? Katr67 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't a bitch, it was a trout! They're so much softer and squishier :) -Pete (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes an image can be both "free" and "unfree". Read about copyright law and derivative works, specifically read about what we call the freedom of panonrama, which the US does not have. Though we do have the doctrine of de minimis. Or, read the FUR where it explains the unfree part is the image contained within the picture taken by me. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it cannot, under Misplaced Pages's definition. If an image is in any way non-free, it must be treated as entirely non-free when used on Misplaced Pages. This means it must fully meet our non-free content criteria, and must not have free license templates plastered all over it. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that is one thing, but you actually need to quote me/point me to a policy/guideline, since I've never seen that within Misplaced Pages's rules. And, that still does not mean that a image cannot be both free and unfree, so next time perhaps let the people know that it is a Misplaced Pages thing and not something else, as again, images can be "free" and "unfree". And I would also suggest pointing people to the policy, otherwise we will simply ignore your efforts. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Aboutmovies is right here. It's not possible for Misplaced Pages to rewrite copyright law. If the image contains both non-free and free elements, having that clearly noted in its description page is exactly what should be done. There's a non-free use rationale in there, which is all that's needed for it to be used in an article. (It would be nice, however, if there were a more complete description on the page of which aspects are freely-licensed.) -Pete (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete, this has nothing to do with rewriting copyright law. Have you actually read this discussion? All we want is for the CC license tag to be removed- the discussion of how the photo is CC belongs in the fair use rationale, not with the use of one of our "THIS IMAGE IS FREE" tags. Aboutmovies, if you want to know a specific policy this is breaking, see non-free content criterion 9, and consider the inclusion of the image in what should be our freely licensed galleries at Category:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 images and Category:Self-published work. This shouldn't be about explicit policies being broken, this should be about common sense- an image as a whole cannot be both free and non-free. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read the discussion, but it's possible my comprehension was a big clouded by the fact you were telling an intelligent and good faith contributor that he was wrong on a point that lies within his academic expertise. Or by your hyperbole in stating that the image had anything "plastered all over it" when, in fact, it simply had a tag on it like thousands of other images on Misplaced Pages.

Now that you have proposed something specific, I can see your point a little more clearly. Inserting the copyleft info into the NFUR seems a sensible approach. But I still don't like the approach you took here. -Pete (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my approach wasn't the best. I was simply trying to step in a clarify what Sfan was saying. I didn't think that it was a particularly difficult point to get across; I'm a little surprised the discussion branched out so much with need for the word of policy and references to specific laws. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn, you still have not provided any policy/guideline that discusses your assertion that an image can only be free or unfree. I am well aware of the NFCC guideline, but it says absolutely nothing about images can only be free or unfree. Specifically the text of #9: "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)" Nothing about that you cannot have both free and unfree tags, or really anything about multiple licensing tags period. The NFCC is only about usage of non-free content, and the image meets that guideline as it contains a FUR, is only used on the article covered by the FUR, and otherwise meets the rules.

Now, as I point out below to beta, the image cannot be uploaded to Commons as you suggest, as it contains some derivative works that are copyrighted by someone other than myself, which the policy Beta points out, specifically would prohibit this image from being uploaded there. And as to common sense, I find it hard to believe myself that we have some people here that apparently do not understand a rather introductory concept of copyright law, derivative works, and the multiple copyrights that can cover a work. As in, multiple copyrights means multiple licenses. And unless I license it, there is no CC license on the image, thus its status cannot be noted as such, since it would then not be in CC status. As in I have to publish the image under a CC license, which is what the tag is for, noting the status of it under the FUR as you suggest would not work, as that would not be a license. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"noting the status of it under the FUR as you suggest would not work, as that would not be a license". Are you saying that writing "I release this under CC-by-SA-3.0" would not be a valid release, and the only way to possibly release the image would be to tag it with a free use template? That's clearly nonsense. I accept that both licenses are at work on the image, and that is why I am requesting the note about the image's license be added to the image description/fair use rationale. As for "And unless I license it, there is no CC license on the image"- I'm not sure what your point is here, as you've already licensed it, and, as I said, there are other legally recognised ways of licensing something under a Creative Commons license than uploading it on Misplaced Pages and using the Misplaced Pages template. "Nothing about that you cannot have both free and unfree tags"- yes, it does. As I explained, the free licensed tags attach it to categories in which it should not be as a non-free image. Seriously, what is difficult about this? J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn is correct this image cannot be released under a free license. see commons:Commons:Derivative works which is an explanation of what your trying to do. β 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand, nobody here would argue with what you say ( this link points to the most relevant section)), but it doesn't do much to move the discussion forward. -Pete (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Beta, couple problems for you. First, that is Commons, not Misplaced Pages. Second, very related to the first point, this was uploaded to Misplaced Pages, thus Misplaced Pages policies apply, not Commons. Third point, related to the first two, the fact that (as the Commons link you provided points out) "Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist." is exactly why this was uploaded to Misplaced Pages, as Commons does not allow for non-free work, which is pretty much what the whole policy is about, saying you can't upload this type of work to Commons. Fourth point, related to the last, and though that is a Commons policy, it does cover what is good law, in that a derivative work "...could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders..." (emphasis added) thus both licenses are needed, the one covering the underlying work (only the part that is the newspaper, not the rest), and one covering my picture. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, all of this is accurate. The image is only hostable on Misplaced Pages (not Commons) because it must be treated as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth are you trying to achieve? Why are you so adamant that this image needs exactly that template to be used on it? J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto? And notice that it is not exactly that template, but something modified to address your only concern. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. This image is non-free, correct? J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The photograph is free, the roughly 20% near the center that contains the newspaper cover is most likely non-free. We actually don't know, I've never contacted the newspaper owner to see if they license their work in a free or non-free manner, which is why the template says "the copyright for it is most likely held by either the publisher of the newspaper or the individual contributors who worked on the articles or images depicted." I'm guessing your "right" is a, "no I'm not doing the same thing". But ask yourself, why are you so adamant that the info has to be in the FUR part. As in, if the image is no longer in "free categories" (a Misplaced Pages thing) then your issue disappears, doesn't it? Part of my problem is that your solution makes my work a bit hidden, and you omit the link to the license, which you might want to read the notice part of the license. There is a reason the templates include the links to the license. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a serious question, please don't take offense. Do you actually feel that what you're doing is appropriate, or are you just playing Devil's advocate? J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the serious question? Whether or not the image is free, since if that's it hopefully you have read where works can have multiple copyrights, and thus some parts could be free released under a free license or to the public domain and some parts could be in the public domain and some parts not released at all. As to Devil's advocate, no I am standing up for my legal rights as the copyright holder to the majority of that image, and indirectly to those in a similar situation. We have plenty of works on Misplaced Pages where there are multiple copyrights, and they all need to be respected. That's sort of the law in the US. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In what way do you feel your rights as the copyright holder are not being respected? You are credited as the author of the image, and the terms under which you have released your rights to the image are noted on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How were my rights represented in this version you decided to do? Aboutmovies (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, why did you revert every change I made to the image page? The FUR is technically inaccurate as I do not own the copyright to the portion under discussion in the FUR. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How should I know how your rights were represented? You wrote the description. If you want to ignore your own rights, be my guest. How about we stop playing games? How about you stop ignoring my questions, how about you stop being dramatic, and how about you drop the ridiculous legalese? I don't mind discussing this with you, I do mind these stupid games. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered your question before you even asked: "Part of my problem is that your solution makes my work a bit hidden, and you omit the link to the license". And when you removed the license (the edit I linked to above) you violated the license and thus my copyright, so sorry if I might be a little pissy as I don't appreciate my legal rights being violated and then told I'm being POINTy for my response. Taken in context you and your associate's edits on the image could also be seen as POINT (especially with the edit summary of your tag team partner). As to dramatic, what was wrong with the changes I made to the image? You are insisting it be in the FUR, I'm insisting it not be and removed it from the free categories which is the root of the your issue (or so you say), thus it should have been an acceptable compromise, but no, not for you. You want the licensing in the FUR where it does not belong (and no courtesy link to the license, which is a common courtesy), which is why there is not a field for listing any additional copyrights except using a generic field. Just look at the title for the FUR: "Non-free media use rationale for Wilsonville Spokesman". My copyright applies to more than just that article, but the FUR only relates to the use on that article. Which is part of my problem with having it there, as it buries it and makes is much less likely someone will see it and respect my copyright/license. And as to games, why on earth would you strike out something, just delete it before hitting submit, otherwise you are writing something you want people to read, but are I guess trying to play some sort of game. And to answer the crossed out question, my rights were represented by the license you removed, thus I didn't ignore my rights, but you did violate them as the CC licenses (or at least the 3.0) require either the actual full license be listed or at least the "Uniform Resource Identifier". With ignoring questions, I still haven't received an answer to where there is some text of some policy that discusses the inability to have free and un-free licensing on Misplaced Pages (the assertion of the originator of this thread), which your work here demonstrates there is no such rule. We may need them to be in separate categories, but that is not a licensing issue, that is a template and category issue easily resolved in the method I resolved it in this image, with an otherwise similar template that does not add the image to a free category. And lastly, this is about copyright, something created only by law, thus get use to legalese. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"My associate's" edits have nothing to do with me. If you have issue with them, contact him. You were being dramatic by trying to paint yourself as defending the rights of copyright holders. You're not some kind of hero. There is a "further information", an "author" and a "source" section on Template:Non-free use rationale- all of these are perfectly apt for discussing various authorships and copyrights affecting the image. As for it not applying to only that article- no, neither does the source, or the description of the image- that's why, when there are multiple non-free use rationales, people sometimes use Template:Non-free image data in addition to the rationale itself. Use that, if you like. Hell, write about your CC licensing outside the rationale if you like. Whatever. You know precisely why I struck out that line, so, again, let's drop the games. I'm not going to link you to text that happens to be tagged "policy" that mentions this exact situation because we're not a courtroom. I could just as easily challenge you to find a policy that says that an image should have both, but I'm not going to bother doing that, as I know there isn't one. And no, drop the legalese. This isn't a court. If you want to make a legal threat, make it. If you do not, let's discuss this like real people, shall we? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of you (and everybody else here) essentially agrees about the underlying facts, with perhaps a few minor issues; but you're both talking to each other as though the other one doesn't know anything.

Is it possible to move the discussion away from who does and doesn't know what, and the nature of one another's approach to the discussion? We have two longtime contributors here, both of whom have contributed enormously to the project; let's aim to get back to a place where we're all building the encyclopedia, rather than yelling at each other, ok?

It seems likely that there is a specific outcome in here that would be acceptable to everyone. Let's make a bullet list of the issues that must be addressed, and see if we can move toward an acceptable resolution.

• One party asserts that the image should carry two separate tags, reflecting the two different copyright holders' interests in the image. The other party asserts that both issues should be reflected within the non-free use rationale. From my perspective, either one could work; there is no "wrong" here. I'd suggest we leave this issue for last, and address the smaller component issues first.
• One party (the copyright holder) asserts that the license under which he's releasing his intellectual property must be linked from the image page. and also would like to have a relatively thorough description of the license. This could likely be accommodated either within, or separate from, the NFUR. We've seen an example of how it might look separately; can we maybe also have a look at what a complete representation of the license would look like within the NFUR?
• …other issues?

-Pete (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete, it's nice of you to try, but J Milburn still hasn't indicated what is wrong with this version he reverted which was a valid compromise since it addressed his only issue, the free categories. He even above said "Hell, write about your CC licensing outside the rationale if you like", which that version did, so until he explains what the problem was, including why correct changes to the FUR were reverted, I have nothing more to discuss. And I have no idea why he would in essence dare me to make a legal threat or somehow imply I am not a real person (or perhaps it is an implication I may be immature). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, you're getting incredibly concerned about the specific word of policy. I haven't memorised policies, and I've got no interest in doing so. These copyright tags exist to indicate the license of the image- this image cannot be treated as free, which is what that image implies. Instead, it must be treated as non-free. The fact that it is not tagged with that license does not mean that that license has no bearing on the image. Compare to this example- an image of a sculpture from several centuries ago may be released under CC-by-3.0. This does not mean that the statue itself is not PD, but we do not bother listing that as a copyright tag- instead, we list the CC license. This is because the CC license is more restrictive than the PD one, and so this is the one with which we are concerned. Here, the non-free license is far more restrictive than the CC one, so we tag it with the non-free one, but mention the CC one. Using both is confusing at best, deceptive at worst. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn, the most recent, and concise message from Aboutmovies contains no mention of policy. I'm going to ignore your characterizations of his approach, because I can't imagine what good will come of that line of discussion.

Aboutmovies asked what problem you had with his most recent rendition of the tags. There are two bits of explanation you have provided:

• Your edit summary: "This image is non-free. Please treat it as such."
• Your statement above: "Using both is confusing at best, deceptive at worst."

So, trying to be sure I understand you right: is it your position that having two sections (one relating to the reproduction of the newspaper, and the other relating to the remainder of the image) is inherently confusing to the reader?

I'll leave aside my thoughts on that for the moment -- I want to at least be sure we understand what your position is. -Pete (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. These tags exist to tell other editors and potential reusers under what terms the image can be used. This one cannot be reused under a CC license, as it is partially non-free. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As to your contention that it cannot be re-used under a CC license, that is simply false. Anyone else can use the non-free portions just as Misplaced Pages has done, through a claim of fair use in jurisdictions where that exists. The CC part can then also be used under the CC license, or they could even attempt a fair use claim on that part as well. But that is not for us to worry about, only the re-users problem. Also, do you find it confusing, possibly deceptive, that every page on Misplaced Pages says: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." It doesn't mention there that the images may have different licensing, which is why I can find plenty of copyright violations of my work across the web where people have failed to attribute my work properly, as they just assume everything on Misplaced Pages is "free". Again, that's part of the reason I want it more prominent, to ensure they understand the entire copyright status. For one thing, if someone went in and Photoshopped out the non-free portion, then the image would be entirely free, and could be used as such without any fair use claim, but they would need to follow the rules of the CC license. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to remove the non-free aspects and then upload it under CC purely. I'm not quite sure I see your point here. As you say, if someone else misuses it elsewhere, that's an issue between them and the copyright holder. Not any of my business, not the business of Misplaced Pages. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should do that, as the non-free portion assists with the article on Misplaced Pages. But, if someone else what's to use the image outside of Misplaced Pages for something else, say they want to Photoshop in their own newspaper as a gag, then they are free to do so under the CC license, and that would not violate any copyright belonging to the "unfree" portion. But if they fail to abide by the CC license, then they would violate my copyright of the "free" portion. As to the rest of your message I have to say WTF!? Your argument above has sure seemed to be about other re-users "These tags exist to tell other editors and potential reusers". And before that categories. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The tags are partially there for that, yes, but it's not a great concern. They are primarily there to tell other editors the status of the image. As far as we (Misplaced Pages) are concerned, the image is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Help on contributions

Hi! And Happy New Year! I write to you as you gave me the welcome here in Misplaced Pages some time ago. Recently, and administrator tagged some of my contributions with "The verifiability of all or part of this article is disputed." He argues in both articles that there is little or none information online regarding the topics, but surprisingly, he missed to check Google Books. I wrote him explaining this politely but he never replied, which I think it is irresponsable as he must stand by what he claims. I contacted another member for guidelines to "improve or fix" the problem, but he was a bit rough. I'm not interest in starting a dreadful dispute or something alike, I like peaceful resolutions, so I'm contacting you for suggestions to follow. I'm open to it. The entries with problems are this (1) and this (2). In the talk page, you can read the claims. My response (though I apologize it was long, never to happen again) you can read here (Talk) under the headline "Contributions" at the end of the page. Hope you can give advice, that's all I'm asking, not to have you on my side or things like that as people can think. AcademieIT (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Wilsonville Spokesman newsbox.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PrecisionCastlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PrecisionCastlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Thiry (architect)

I added a nice photo you took to the article. A few more good photos of his projects would be good. Some of his buildings have been changed a lot over time though, so hopefully there are some good examples. I should see if there's something of the stadium he designed for the World's Fair (Expo), or whatever it was called, that's out there. Anyway, nice shot. Take care. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see the image get used somewhere. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Blooming architecture

So can you tell is this (nice pic by the way) a really bad remodel with the bones of the 1920s church in there somewhere, or is the old part of the church back there to the left (the white part)? Katr67 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the brick church is new, as it doesn't look that old, especially with the cement blocks at the base. Reminds me a bit of a fancy Costco. Plus, in addition to the white parts you see, there were separate white buildings to the right that were the school, and most of those all looked like they could have been from the 1920s. Bad remodel on those too with the metal roofs. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the roof makes it look like a fire station or something. Speaking of which...this awesome looking one, must be this one. Also listed here at 510 NW 3rd. I think it's outside the hist dist. I keep finding references to a Tribe Theater and Art Gallery at that address, but they don't seem to have a website... I couldn't really find anything else. I suppose the railroad or ODOT owns the building which means it may or may not have a future. Katr67 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey! That building is familiar. User:Tamarino84 says "I wanna live there!". The address (3rd/Glisan) is correct, it's next to Union Station and on the new (as of this year) MAX lines, so we keep seeing it. tedder (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was driving by one day and was stopped at the light for the MAX and figured it might be NRHP and was likely an old fire station, but never found out much about it. Good to know it was a fire station and that it is at least PDX historic. Just wish I had a real camera with me that day instead of just my cell phone. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea it was a firehouse either, just that it had a lot of character. If one of you create the article, I'll get the pic before it goes through DYK. Okay? tedder (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's NRHP, alas, though having it documented in the SHPO database shows that someone thought it was worthy of preservation. But I suspect it's just going to sit there until it's too late. The minute you hear of a preservation effort, I'll get right on an article. BTW an old friend started a facebook group to save the Fireman's memorial on Burnside @...20-somethingth?...I only lived by there 23 years ago...ouch. Anyway, I didn't know it was endangered and being facebook, I happily joined the group without actually finding out anything, but since you're both into cool old stuff maybe you want to check it out. Katr67 (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Mathisen

Just wondering why you put up the needs citations for varification and notability guideline for biographies note to the Mike Mathisen page. Granted the page is just a stub but everything on the page is well documented and cited. I'm not seeing what needs further citation. Let me know. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with the sources. Not all sources are created equal. Two of them are his campaign website, which means no notability conferred from those. The first source is a press release from him, so again no notability conferred. The CASA one does not mention him, so ditto. That leaves the Mapes on Politics item, which gives little coverage. So all in all, there is no notability, and there likely will not be with politicians who have never held office or even won a primary. Maybe as it gets closer to the primary there will be more substantial coverage in reliable sources so he will meet WP:BIO, but more than likely he would at least need to win his primary to even get that amount of coverage. Now, if he wins the seat in November, POLITICIAN would apply and he meets notability, but there is a long way to go. And until then, relying almost entirely on primary sources that are not independent of the source not only means he fails BIO, but it also creates issues with adhering to the WP:NPOV, which is part of the reason for having BIO/NOTE in the first place. If you can find more coverage in reliable sources such as newspaper, feel free to re-source and expand what is there. Hope this helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I was thinking that a campaign website had credibility but I guess he could say that he was once the King of England on a campaign site if he wanted to. I'll keep an eye out for better sources.Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That and if a politician (not saying anything about this guy as I don't know anything about him) was sent to jail for DUI or failed to pay their back taxes or was fired from there job with the government for taking bribes, etc., then they might not put that information on their campaign site. You might try a Google News search or look through the Eastern Oregonian as they are more likely to cover the race than The Oregonian. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I added what I am hoping are better sources for this article and deleted some of the information that was unverifiable. I did leave the bit about his work as a CASA and the info about his family but added that these pieces are only claimed by his website. Since your the one who put up the banners and also know more about this sort of thing than me, I though I'd run these by you and see if you feel they meet the criteria. Just so you know I don't know this guy either, nor do I live in his district. I have no political motives for creating this page. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The new sources are a little better, but still have some problems. The SOS source is a primary source, and these do not confer notability. The book seller website does confirm he is an author, but the coverage is trivial and since it is selling his book there is the argument that it is thus not independent of the subject. So far, there just doesn't appear to be enough to establish notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm open to just scrapping the page altogether if the sources don't work. I get annoyed by the lack of quality sources on wikipedia and the last thing I want to do is contribute to the problem. This guy is a minor candidate and if the page is deleted I doubt anyone would really care. If he gets elected then a new page can be created. What do you think? Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't found anything else, then scrapping it for now is probably best. You can have it speedy deleted, I think this is the right one {{db-author}}, and then have an admin move into your userspace so you have the original to work from if better sources come up. Perhaps after the primary more sources will be out there if he wins. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Tigard House

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Tigard House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

null edit

Yeah, sort of the definition of a null edit, eh? I know it came from a script (or I think it did), it's just funny. tedder (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was odd it didn't do an edit conflict. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to derive

I exchanged some Flickr messages with the photographer; he's happy to change the license on other photos too if there are desirable ones. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I never heard from Paulus, so this is great. I'll get to some cropping and uploading later. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to see that one illustrated at last! Good find. -Pete (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for an editor for BG News

Hi,

I saw you are the last to edit The BG News page. I know nothing of editing Wiki articles. Can you help? If you don't have time, where should I look for someone who would? Thanks.

Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meancode (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New category

I need the new category "Category:Silesian politicians", next to Category:Basque politicians or Category:Flemish politicians. Please help me.--JosefKożdon (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone else created the category, so you should be good. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--JosefKożdon (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up

Thanks for the award and encouragement. I haven't done much lately for COTW, not because of flagging interest but because Misplaced Pages offers so many enticing things to do. One pile of things (McNary, Morse, five houses in Washington County that need photos, several hundred streams that need TLC, etc., etc.) is growing bigger. That pile is but one among many. I love it. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The more you do, the more you things you want to do. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome. Usually I write in wiki in spanish, but every so often I come round here to correct a link or whatever. Maybe I should start to do something here abouts, as some of the spanish articles are very good indeed and wiki in English might benefit from at least some of that info. At the moment and for some months I got a bee in my bonnet re "common goods" and am getting round it rather slowly. cheers: Lnegro (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks again for all the assessing of articles you did! all the NAIA schools are tagged, so that should be it! Thanks again! Moonraker0022 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Lair Hill

On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Lair Hill, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David Thomas Lenox

On January 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Thomas Lenox, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Did You Know question

Hello! Your submission of One Main Place (Portland, Oregon) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals for others.) Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whole Hogg

Thanks for all your offline contributions to the Hogg man. I added some of the scandalous intrigue to the article but the story gets weirder. According to this detailed but unreliable source, after Hogg's death, his lawyer, Schuyler Colfax Spencer, not only married his widow, but then tried to kill her on November 11, 1920. He failed, but succeeded on himself. If you, or any of your talk page stalkers can dig up some RSs, it's a nice coda.

Not only that, but it ties into one of my original WP:ORE obsessions, Maurice Crumpacker. According to the records of the Portland law firm Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt (hi, Wendell!), Spencer was one of its founders and grew up in Valparaiso, Indiana--same home town as Maurice, and he "studied law" in the offices of the Crumpackers. Doesn't say which one, but I'm sure he knew old Mo. Wonder if the same guys who pushed Crumpacker in SF Bay really pulled the trigger on Schuyler. I blame, of course, Aunt Betty.

I sent you a more RS covering the affair, along with an earlier "poisoning" of Spencer (turns out it was the crabs). And it looks like your boy was a pallbearer for Spencer. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You just can't make this stuff up. As I'm sure you picked up on, Crumpacker claimed to be poisoned too, leading to his so-called madness. I can't wait for the definitive Oregon Encyclopedia account of all this. --Esprqii (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Murder! Corruption! Scandal! Yay! FWIW, I've deemed that detailed but unreliable source "reliable-ish". Most of their info on p.o.s is pretty much verbatim from OGN and I haven't found anything contradicted elsewhere. (OGN is another matter entirely.) I think they are more or less an aggregator of other sources, if only we knew what those sources were. So I think it's OK to use the good Rev. as a tertiary source until a better one comes along. Katr67 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur on the reliableishness. Why can't people at least provide a handy list of the books/articles they looked at and help the world be a better place? --Esprqii (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the COTW thumbs-up. I thought this round was especially fun because so many editors contributed. I didn't figure out until reading your note that Ipoellet is Werewombat (an unforgettable name). Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Concordia University School of Law

On January 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Concordia University School of Law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cowlitz County Deserves Better

Will you please delete the notability box? The group's been very active and that's reflected in the daily newspaper. I sourced it. Thanks.Steelhead40 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You added one new source. And that source is not about this group at all, and only mentions the group in one sentence, that's it. As I explained previously on the article's talk page, this type of coverage does little to confer notability. As in if this group was truly notable by Misplaced Pages standards (see the guideline here for organizations) then The Daily News would write an article all about this group covering things like when and who founded it and what all its goals and activities are. Not just mention they passed out fliers. So until the group meets the notability guidelines, the "box" (we tend to call them tags on Misplaced Pages) needs to remain. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bela S. Huntington

Hi! You put a picture of the named person to Commons. What do we know about him, i mean, I search all the web to find out, when was he representative. what do you know about him? I made this, but even we don't know his death date and place... --Eino81 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you live in Oregon? Do you know any source in a local library, where the exact death date and place in mentioned? --Eino81 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I put the ready article to the article space: Bela S. Huntington. Have a nice day! --Eino81 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for One Main Place (Portland, Oregon)

On February 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article One Main Place (Portland, Oregon), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

Thanks for adding the note to Tears Run Rings. After reviewing the notability guidelines I've added a few additional secondary source references. If you have a moment to review and add feedback I'd appreciate the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioblique (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The main musician criteria is at WP:BAND, and so far the article doesn't meet those criteria. So, basically, you will have to demonstrate the notability through reliable sources (think magazines and mainstream newspapers) that are independent of the band/label (as in their website or that of the label don't work) and that provide substantial coverage of the group. As in ref#1 & 6 are trivial references, basically phonebook entries and a list of tracks. Ref#2 is about the band member, and thus does little for notability of the band. Ref#3 & 4 are from the labels and thus not independent, thus no notability conferred, and same with #8. The one good source is #7, but it is very little coverage. What you will want to look for are magazine stories and newspaper articles, which for Portland would include The Oregonian and Willamette Week, but also try similar papers for the other cities the group has been based out of. Hope this helps. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

200 DYK Medal

		The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		On behalf of the wiki, I would like to congratulate you upon reaching (and surpassing) the milestone of 200 DYK articles written or expanded by you. Fantastic! Quinon proficit deficit... Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Katr67 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WOW -- big congrats!! -Pete (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stream cats and congrats

Sorry you had to change all those cats from County X to Geography of County X. I usually decide on cats by imitating, so at least I was consistent. If something else like this comes up in the future, I'd be glad to help. Congrats, by the way, on that truly impressive 200 DYK medal. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, none (except one) of the Geography of County X categories existed prior to a week or so ago. And the ones with county categories were the easy ones, the ones without I often had to look up in GNIS to figure it out. As to help, thanks for the offer, but sometimes I like these relatively brainless, non-controversial, non-stress inducing, repetitive tasks. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. My comfort-zone fallback is to create a geobox or infobox, especially when there's already a handy photo. They look nice, don't require much thinking (after the first 10 or so), and don't seem to annoy anyone. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Oregon location map

The current map used by Template:Location map USA Oregon is File:Oregon Locator Map with US.PNG. I've thought for a long time that this map is just too tall to use in infoboxes and that that File:Oregon Locator Map.PNG would be more appropriate. I know that you actively edit articles concerning the state. Would you be supportive of the change and is there a forum where this could be discussed by Oregon editors.

P.S. There would be minor technical matters that would have to be addressed (namely making sure that the boarder coordinates correct) but this is not a serious obstacle and I could take care of that detail. –droll  01:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can post a note to WikiProject Oregon of course. Katr67 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving discussion to WikiProject Oregon –droll  02:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mountaindale, Oregon

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mountaindale, Oregon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a Life is Needed

Come on! Do you just hang around Misplaced Pages, like a vulture, waiting for someone to finish a page, just so you can go in an vandalize it? I do not appreciate the gutting you did to the article I created on H. Wayne Holm, before I even had an opportunity to come back and finish the article. This is an issue of great importance to me, and your immediate intervention leads me to believe that you may in league with those who want this issue covered up. You would do well not to do anything to further that impression, because I promise you that EVERYONE involved in that cover-up, is going to to end up in prison! Word to the wise cowboy. JazzCarnival (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi JazzCarnival. I'd like to point out that you are being rather uncivil and your implications and accusations above border on a personal attack. Neither of these things are encouraged on Misplaced Pages, and they certainly aren't going to win you any friends around here. You should not take the fact that Aboutmovies removed some unsourced information from the article you created personally. As for his "immediate intervention", note the message below the edit summary box: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you feel the article is unfinished, it might be better for you to work on it in your userspace. Let me know if you need help with that. We have very strict standards about unsourced info about living people and that's what Aboutmovies was concerned about. It is to protect Misplaced Pages from legal action, among other things. Note that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and that because of conflict of interest it is usually wise to refrain from writing articles on things about which you feel passionate. I'd suggest you also go get some other opinions on this matter. Here is a place to start. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

JazzCarnival, I will continue to edit as I wish, and trying to threaten me with implications of prison will get you nowhere, well except blocked if you do it again (that's your one warning for your entire personal attack that includes your section header). Anytime, and I mean anytime, you or anyone else adds unsourced (or poorly sourced) controversial information about a living person I will remove it on sight (Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.), as will many people, no matter what article it is in (note I did the same thing concerning Greg Oden and his recent picture problem, even though it was all over the news). That's because (as Katr points out) we have a very strong policy against that . So word to the wise cowboy, source it next time. As to the big conspiracy you see, I could care less about something that happened when I was in junior high. Though I would note that I find the header you left rather ironic in light of something that is more than 20 years old, yet a small group of people seem to be still obsessed with it. But to each his/her own. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sheridan School District (Oregon)

On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheridan School District (Oregon), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bela S. Huntington

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bela S. Huntington, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment of University of Colorado Denver

Hello, Aboutmovies. I noticed that you had assessed the University of Colorado Denver article in 2008, and given it a C-grade. It would be great if you could reassess the article, if time permits, of course. I've made quite a few substantial changes to it, and have nominated it for a GA-rating. Thank you. Bobfreshwater (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Main page

Thought you might like to know that Columbia Slough will be the main page featured article on Feb. 23. Finetooth (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats and hope the vandals stay away. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with Frederick Buechner peer review?

Hello, Aboutmovies. I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at the Frederick Buechner biography? I've done a lot of work on it and would love a peer review if you have time. Thanks! (Godric1234 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

GA reassessmnet of Willamette University College of Law

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Willamette University College of Law/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

COTW Distribution

Haven't got COTW notice since late Jan when Wiki-Oregon team did Just Out and Terrell Brandon. Would you check to be sure I'm still on distribution list--thanks! Also, just saw that you have earned 200 DYK award--that's outstanding...congratulations! Am working toward 100, but still have ways to go. Finally, if you're doing any assessment work, have posted Tiller Ranger Station article and it needs review. ...200 DYK...wow!--Orygun (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood

Can you check out more information at discussion page for my 4ggmother. There had been new information shedding light on the birthdate. Samuelsenwd (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Less forgiving than Darth Vader?

It was inappropriate to suggest that Samuelsenwd get only one warning. What he said, while perhaps enough to make you reactive, was not all that offensive or over the line.Ryoung122 06:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For the upteenth time, learn how to format your threads on talk pages, read WP:TALK. It really isn't that difficult to add : before each line. Next, we only give one warning for personal attacks. In fact, perhaps take more time to read about Misplaced Pages and what we do, and maybe you will have less problems with the community that bubble up all the time on your talk page. You've been long-term blocked before, and continuing your behaviors will not make things easier for you. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1995 Cotton Bowl Infobox

Thank you for fixing the infobox after I spent two frustrating hours on it. I intend to create a few other college bowl pages. Can you PLEASE tell me what I was doing wrong? I couldn't find a single thing different from the 2008 Sugar Bowl and 1996 Rose Bowl pages; in fact I copied and pasted both of them. Can you tell me your secret? I'd be eternally grateful!

QuarterbackSneak (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

okay, fess up

Where are you getting the full school names from? I haven't researched them beyond that one article. Yet. tedder (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is the whole every hs in Portland is named after a president thing, but I just Google searched the name and found a FaceBook page for Jackson (where I also found the mascot name), and a memorial site for Adams which includes some interesting things. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Maybe one day I'll punch the pages out, but I didn't bother looking for any more information. tedder (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I have recetly noiced that my signature has not been working properly. I know you are to u four tildes(~) but when I do it, you can't click my name. Please help me. Antoinefcb 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

boundless spamming

I'm bothered by this spamming too, but I tend to think boundless is okay, even if the method/editor is questionable. Wondering what your thoughts are. It's too bad a public resource isn't freely available to put on commons :-/ tedder (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I find Boundless Oregon a good source and will occasionally use it as a source/EL, but I don't add just a link to the main Boundless Oregon page. That itself fails EL parts 9 & 13, and the method fails part 4. If the Boundless Oregon people wanted to work with Misplaced Pages to add relevant links in articles, great, but so far their approach has been spam it wherever. And the UO Libraries people have done it with the NWA Digital Archives links before too. So they've been warned before, but apparently they have their agenda and don't see a need to work within Misplaced Pages, which makes them an SPA, and I have little respect for SPA spammers. Lastly, if they add an actual relevant link (say to the Portland City Hall article with a link to their Portland City Hall content) then I would likely leave it. So those are my thoughts. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I link to Boundless all the time as it is a good resource, but consistently revert the UO IP that adds links to it. If the IP would communicate, or gosh, even contribute content, I might soften my stance, but like AM, I believe SPA + COI spell R-E-V-E-R-T. Katr67 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks both of you. I just needed a little more rationale than I could imply from the edit summaries. tedder (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, here's a little linksearch I use once in awhile: Special:Linksearch/*.boundless.uoregon.edu. I think most of the ones linked now (especially those godawful long urls) were added by me, or they are on talk pages. I generally title them as "* from the University of Oregon digital archives", which I think is good enough. (As you've probably noticed, I like to put the source of el in its description. But it should be short and sweet.) The thing I have a problem with the the tiny little advertisement the IP adds when it spams a link. Tedder maybe you could try to do some outreach, as all I ever feel like doing is templating. You could get the Pete Forsyth Outreach Award™ or something if you could get them to talk. :) Katr67 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Left about 1/4 of a PeteForsyth on the IP's talk page: User talk:128.223.120.178#Boundless_links tedder (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Waldo (disambiguation)

Hello, justto let you know that this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

VanOrman

Hey, Full Disclosure I work for Representative VanOrman and have edited her page. I have only made minor corrections and formatting stuff. I can providea more recent picture of her. Would you update it if I did? Daniel Miller danieladammiller@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.142.189 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Savannah Outen

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Savannah Outen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Savannah Outen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Levi L. Rowland

On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Levi L. Rowland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

arrrth day

Are you sure I wasn't talking about Oregon's own International Talk Like a Pirate Day? (in other words, thanks for the fix) tedder (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Importance M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath article

Hi. I see that you had rated the abovementioned article as low on the importance scale on 13:47, July 31, 2009. The MC Mehta case is a widely reported case law as it introduced the concept of public trust doctrine in Indian jurisprudence. (See Shyam Divan & Armin Rosencranz;Oxford University Press; ISBN: 9780195661736) Therefore I am suggesting that the article be placed in the high category. Thank you. Nilotpal42 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the importance rating really means very little. It is only a rough determination of the importance of a topic to that specific Misplaced Pages project, and rarely is actually used for anything. Some projects do not even use it. In any case, how important is a case that is limited to a single country within a world-wide project? Further, the case is environmental law, so it would make it even more obscure compared to more mainstream areas of the law such as civil rights, torts, contracts, property law, or other areas of the law usually covered in most law schools during the first year. Nonetheless, I almost always rate a case as low importance no matter what country, because its precedential value is usually limited to that country. The exceptions usually are old English cases that are often cited or taught in many common law countries (that is as someone in the US, if an English case was in one of my textbooks I might bump it up to Mid). But higher ratings are usually for more universal concepts that cross jurisdictional boundaries, things like constitutional law, torts, contracts. Now if this was the Indian Law WikiProject or Indian WikiProject I would agree it would rate higher, but for the much broader Law WikiProject is not as important. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

law article access and summary

Can you access this or some version of it? If not, I'll dig and see if I can. I'm wondering if there is anything useful for my Wheeldon Apartments page. It's shy of a DYK. tedder (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to it online. Going by the little info in your link, it's likely not to have too much, but if you want it is at the Mult. Co central library. The legal citation is: 153 Or. 19. All that means is it is in the Oregon Reports (the Or.) in volume 153, page 19. Your county law library likely has these as well, though their website is horrible. If you can't get to it tomorrow, let me know as I might have time on Friday to get it at the Washington County Law Library. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll wander down to MultCoLib tomorrow or Friday. Thanks! tedder (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, went to MultCo today (just now!) and pulled that legal summary. Seems to be some sort of trust or loan gone bad, secured partially by the Admiral Apartments, but .. really, I'm smartish and I can't figure out much else. I copied it and will scan the pages in tonight. If I email it to you, can you parse through it soon enough to add it for a DYK? tedder (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Weidler mug

Thanks for finding and posting that image; I just saw it. It's the same image that appears in MacColl's Money, Merchants, and Power. Here's a question for you. If I can scan and Photoshop the MacColl version of the image (and if it looks any better), can I upload it to the Commons under the same license (another version of the same thing, in other words). What I'm getting at is if an image was published pre-1923 in the newspaper, can the newspaper be listed as the source even if the scan comes from a different source? I ask because if I attribute the scan to the MacColl source, it will seem to be post-1923 and not acceptable. Finetooth (talk)

Yes you can. Just be sure to mention the source you are using, the tag I linked to, and that it was published in the Oregonian on whatever date I put. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. The image is much better, but I'm not sure I got the license data just right. I made a typo when entering the page number in MacColl's book. It's 228, not 114 (which is the image number), but the Comment section of the form on the Commons doesn't seem to be editable. If you see anything else amiss, please let me know, because this technique looks very handy indeed. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. I'll just imitate what you did when I do another one like this. Finetooth (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much

I was trying to figure out how to add the Green Peter Dam article to the list of dams in Oregon. Thanks so much for the help. Savie Kumara (and Nini Kastoa) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Building Oregon

Thanks for your help with some of the Oregon architect articles I've been creating. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)