Jump to content

User talk:Jsayre64/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the archive index for a summary of all archived discussions.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

WPORE COTW 2.0 - the picture edition

Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the barnstar! Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Too soon

Before File:P3050273.JPG can be tagged for deletion, all usages must be fixed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Sorry. I thought the file links could be trans-wiki redirected but I guess it doesn't work like that. Thanks for saying so. :-) --Jsayre64 (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Me?

I would never deliberately make unconstructive edits or pages on wikipedia.

Maybe my account has been hacked.

I've created a new user account with a very strong password.

In the future I will change very strong passwords regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmadalieninvader (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the award. Shiny things are always pleasant. Finetooth (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the WPOR Award! That was thoughtful. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 00:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Willamette River

FYI. Upgraded Wiki-Oregon assessment of Willamette River article to .--Orygun (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice to know. The article certainly deserves it. In fact, a GA nomination might not be a bad idea. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I do have a copy of Rivers of North America, and I'm always happy to share it. In this case, I'm not sure what to add or how to add it in a way that would improve the article. I've posted a note about this to the article's talk page, right underneath the reviewer's comment about "recentism". The pursuit of GA or FA can be exhausting. You are doing a good job; please keep it up. I'm largely staying out of the way but glad to participate as needed. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. I watched it for a while, but finally had to stop, as it was making me dizzy. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Alvadore, Oregon

Thanks for uploading the pic! It's too bad the building is gone now. Valfontis (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to ease the pile of WP:ORE photo requests. I didn't take the photo, though. It was that hero Bruce Fingerhood (Slideshow Bruce) on Flickr who has taken so many great pictures in Oregon and has released many of them under CC-BY-2.0. --Jsayre64 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I know, I'm the one who added the Flickr link to the article, I just never bother with dealing with Flickr uploads. Valfontis (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

COTW

Thanks for the COTW award. As always, I am glad to help, and I appreciate the recognition. I commend you for taking on the administrative chore of running the COTW, for which you deserve recognition. Finetooth (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon and Northwestern Railroad

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

KJS edits

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the resumé and later election of KJS as Presiding Bishop to the Episcopal Church in the USA. Her detractors have inserted this in the body of the bio and then later as a huge footnote. I think it better that the controversy be addressed head on in a final section. I am not sure what you think are non-reliable sources, the references related directly to the blogs of the source of the controversy, which supported the copy in the newly added controversy section. If you are unfamiliar with the issue, perhaps you should leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermano Dahveed (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Google user content and a blogspot blog certainly aren't reliable sources. See WP:RS. Please also be aware of WP:NPOV. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then I think that you failed to actually read the edits that I made or you would have seen that in this case they were both appropriate to what the copy stated. The Google User content was a pdf that documents the changes that other folks have previously made to the KJF article, and the Blogspot reference was an example, that would also provide a reader with further links to other blogs, that bloggers were continuing to stir up this controversy three years after the fact. I find it hard to think that a blanket statement that these might not be relevant references is always valid. In the context of the edited copy they were relevant references. Did you read the copy and check that the references indeed were properly associated, or did you just make a dertermination becasue you think that these could never possibly be used as references.

I tried very hard to write in a neutral framework. How did I fail? I ask becasue English is not my first language and it appeared neutral to me. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermano Dahveed (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in arguing about this here anymore. If you think that you didn't do anything wrong, you should go to Talk:Katharine Jefferts Schori. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: My updates on the Chad Ochocinco page

I googled the "Chad Ochocinco, American Reunion" and the article was the best I could find. however, on the movie's wikipedia article there is a verified source on that page for his appearence in the movie. I updated without the souce hoping that source on the films article was sufficent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.180.98 (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you know

I'm really sorry ! When I've saved my commentaries, I have two different conflicts of edition. I didn't checked both as well as I have to do. Sorry again, Trizek here or on wpfr 08:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

STOP IT

I DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING STOP SPAMMING ME220.255.2.131 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't recall ever "spamming you." And please don't attack other users. --Jsayre64 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

List of parks in Portland, Oregon

Thanks for uploading the pictures to the List of parks in Portland, Oregon. I have been trying to increase the number of Portland parks images at Commons; every little bit helps! I need to learn how to upload images from Flickr, though I prefer to upload my own images. I always have my camera on me in case I stumble upon a park, site on the National Register of Historic Places, or other places of interest. Keep up the great work! (Hopefully WikiProject Oregon members, myself included, can get around to finally completing the parks list soon.) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I like showing off my own rather poor photography skills as well, but using Flickr can be handy. Any Flickr images marked under the licensing bar with or , or even "No known copyright restrictions" (public domain) can be uploaded. Commons has more about this here. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
More pictures! I love it. I have been uploading images from Flickr too, so thanks for directing me to the information. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem! I love uploading photos. This list will probably need to have photos for each park listing if it is ever to become featured someday. I'm trying to get closer to that goal. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
For sure. The list will look great once pictures have been uploaded for each entry, as will the NRHP lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nehalem photo

The photo you are adding to the Nehalem River page is not of the Nehalem River despite what its description says. The photo is of Rock Creek, a tributary to the Nehalem. The photo is taken from Bridge Street in downtown Vernonia from the bridge over Rock Creek. I live about 1/2 mile from the location. I assure you the photo description is incorrect. Bcostley (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would take Bcostley at his/her word since the original photographer is probably not available to ask about it, as he appears to have been inactive for a long time. As a side note, Jsayre, I've noticed that you like to add extra photos to articles that might not have room for them, as in the discussion here. In the future it might be better to create a {{commonscat}} for such images. Valfontis (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:TPS! Fine with me. We've ended the almost-edit-war. Ever since the Clarno discussion I've been careful to place extra images below the prose and to the left. Should Commons categories be used if there are three or more images? --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Butting in since I was in on the Clarno discussion. John Day River is another example of an article with too many images. It's not a matter of the total number but rather a matter of maintaining an attractive layout. I generally aim for one image per decent-sized section, and I generally avoid adding images to the ancillary sections like "Reference" below the main text. Articles can be under-illustrated or over-illustrated. When they're over-illustrated, the commonscat solution is a way to save everybody's work while at the same time preserving a nice look. "Nice look" is somewhat subjective, I admit. Finetooth (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations

The Original Barnstar
For pushing Willamette River across the Good Article finish line after it had languished for so long. With admiration, Finetooth (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
That was a neat three-way collaboration (Shannon, you, and I). Maybe we can get Klamath River to GA status next. I've already nominated it. Thanks so much for the barnstar! Jsayre64 (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The collaboration worked well. It reminded me of the five- or six-way collaboration on the Columbia River, though it was not as long and complicated. It helps, I think, to have one editor more-or-less in charge of the process. In the case of the Columbia, it was Peteforsyth; in this case it was you. I have done very little work (eight edits) on the Klamath, but I'd be glad to help if I can. Shannon, with 82 edits, has been the main contributor. By the way, thanks for creating the commonscat for John Day River and rearranging the images. That article has the potential to become much longer; as the text expands, some of the commonscat images might turn out to be just what is needed. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't done much work on the Klamath article either, but I was reading it one day, and I felt it was ready for a GAN. It will be a long time until the review starts, though, I'm sure.
I'll put the John Day article on my watchlist. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
One other thing I think I should mention is that it's more fair to the reviewers, who work very hard, to hold back on nominating anything for GA or higher until you are satisfied that it's in tip-top shape and meets all the criteria. I can see at a glance that the Klamath River, while good in many respects, still has problems such as displacement of heads and subheads by illustrations, inconsistent date formatting in the citations, incomplete citations, the odd tributary list at the bottom, and a difference of opinion, expressed on the talk page, about how to handle the water and salmon controversy. My advice would be to withdraw the nomination and address all the remaining issues before re-nominating. However, I think you should also ask Shannon1 what she thinks is the best approach since she is the main contributor. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, there are some problems. I've brought this to the article's talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Willamette River a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Thanks! Maybe I'll review one sometime. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Port of Tillamook Bay Railroad

Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks for letting me know about the Willamette River. I'm a big fan of the peer-review process, as you may know. By the way, I like the image you found on Flickr for Middle Fork John Day River. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that your talk page is often crowded with peer review stuff! I was working on reducing the backlog of requested photos for Oregon-related articles, and I found Sam Beebe's photo of the Middle Fork John Day. It makes me want to go there. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Oregon in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Oregon for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jsayre- I see you've made a pass through this interview. Can you discuss the recent FA/GA collaborations and the Triple Crown under the question about COTW? tedder (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! For some reason I didn't think about that. Will do now. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Klamath River

Congrats on the GA for Klamath River. That was impressively fast. Finetooth (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I had just logged in and I saw you had left me a message. Nice to know that it passed! Jsayre64 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, and well done! (By the way, I am glad you like the newly-created Roses in Portland article. Let me know if you are interested in tag-teaming the article to GA status!) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The article definitely isn't ready for a GAN yet, but when or if it is, I'd be happy to participate. Before considering a GAN, however, it would be good to get a DYK hook. This tool counted 1,742 characters in the article's prose, so it does (by a slight margin) qualify for DYK. But I can't think of a good hook with a reliable reference. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, no no, I realize the article is FAR from GA status. I was just recruiting quality contributors for expansion and additional input when the time comes. I'll try to throw up a few additional references to start and come up with a DYK hook. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to pick on you, but what a coincidence: FAR stands for "featured article review"! Jsayre64 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

You did it again!
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Klamath River a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

DYK for Tumblebug Complex Fire

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivers of Oregon

Love the work you are contributing relating to Oregon's rivers. Keep up the great work! I created a few new river stubs this week to keep you busy! :p --Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I have had some type of psychological attraction to rivers in Oregon in the past few months. Nice to know that there are new river stubs. I'll take a look at them sometime soon. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! Psychological attractions are a good thing... I am discovering an interest in Portland architecture having started numerous stubs for NRHP sites in the area. The things I learn from Wikipedia! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bitar Mansion

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for North Bank Depot Buildings

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

commonscat on Detroit Lake

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

Started; I'll do more tomorrow. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done Jsayre64 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Now back to work for me tedder (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rufus

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

You can blame Twinkle for that! --Jsayre64 (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsayre64/Archive_3&oldid=1136173979"