User talk:Jsayre64/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wikipedia edit-thon: Saturday, February 9, 2013

WIKIPEDIA EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to the upcoming Wikipedia edit-athon, scheduled for Saturday, February 9 from 2–5pm in Old Town. Sponsored by Wiki Strategies and Prichard Communications, the event will begin with an introduction to Wikipedia, followed by an edit-a-thon focused on Portland's food scene, all things that "Keep Portland Weird", and local startup businesses. Details and signup here!

Hope to see you there! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Astoria Riverfront Trolley

OK, I'm back to being generally available if you still want to nominate Astoria Riverfront Trolley for GA. As I indicated on my talk page, I don't personally have any interest in pursuing upgrades to GA, as I don't believe it's the best use of my time on WP, considering my particular skill set (I'm just talking about me here, not making any comment on the value of GAs). However, I'll monitor a GAN and will try to assist on any points that you or AB are not easily able to address. I'm still a little wary, because if the reviewer identifies something that he/she feels has been omitted, there may be nothing I can do about it, because, odds are, it was omitted because I didn't have that detail or didn't have a source for it. It was a real challenge finding many sources on the Astoria Riverfront Trolley in the first place, but my access to the Daily Astorian via NewsBank (via the Multnomah County Library) was a big help. However, that access starts on 5-28-2002, so doesn't include any articles written before the Astoria trolley line's start-up, in 1999, or during its first three years of operation. Do you have a Multnomah County Library card? SJ Morg (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping in touch; I'll alert AB. About the library card, no, I don't have a Multnomah County one. I hail from a different county. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready in terms of keeping an eye on the article and nomination page and helping to address concerns as they arise. I admit, though, that I am not familiar with either the article or the subject at this time, but perhaps fresh eyes would be beneficial to the review. I'll try my best to help. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jsayre64: I don't live in Multnomah County either, but I still have a Multnomah County Library card, because they are also available for free to residents of several other areas, including all of Clackamas, Washington, and Clark counties (as indicated on this page), the only catch being that you have to go into a Mult. Co. Library branch once to pick up your card when newly registered. I noted some of this at the WikiProject Oregon Reference desk (under "Newspapers"). I hope this means you are eligible. SJ Morg (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be eligible for a free one then. I searched here for one of the post-2002 Daily Astorian stories the article cites, but it only gave me a paragraph for free. Did you have to pay to access Daily Astorian stories from before 2002 that you used for the article? Jsayre64 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. All of the pre-2002 references in the article are from other publications, none from the Daily Astorian. It's possible the paper's pre-May 2002 content hasn't even been digitized, but I don't know. SJ Morg (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see… the 1997 article you used was from The Oregonian. My mistake. At least I have free and full access to Oregonian stories from 1987–present and I see one can find citations here; I think I've used that before. Well, I'm going to go ahead and nominate the article for GAN right now. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The nomination review page is now on my watchlist (as a red link until someone starts it). SJ Morg (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mine too. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Me three. --Another Believer _(Talk)

Happy to see that the article has now passed GA. Thanks again for the nomination and for working on the (relatively few) issues. I was willing to help, but it turned out that all of the issues the reviewer raised did not involve checking offline sources, and you addressed every one of the reviewer's comments so fast that they were all done before I even knew he'd posted his comments! Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I happened to be looking at my watchlist just as the reviewer posted his first comments. Give yourself some credit for the GA; you wrote the article, of course! Jsayre64 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Selway photo

Thanks for adding the image. It's a much better image, and the licensing on the other one was not verifiable. Thanks also for adding images to other lakes and rivers articles recently. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're welcome. I've recently been going through articles on rivers, lakes, etc., and WP:ORE reqphotos, and I'm heading to the Juneau area in late March, so that should allow me to get many more photos in articles. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've never been to Alaska, but it looks like the land of endless photo-ops. Have a good trip. Finetooth (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You're invited! Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon

Saturday, March 9 - Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon - You are invited!

Come celebrate Women's History Month at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, on March 9! This event, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, is hosted by the Fembot, in collaboration with ASOU Women's Center, the Center for the Study of Women in Society, the School of Journalism and Communication, and the UO Libraries. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is March 9, from 1-4 PM, at the University of Oregon Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On interlanguage links

Hi. Just so you know, Wikidata is now live, which means that the vast majority of interlanguage links in articles are no longer needed. It's annoying, of course, when users remove the links without explaining why, like with this one you reverted, and we Wikidatans are doing our best to keep them to a minimum. (I've left the offending user a friendly note on the subject.) Anyways, thanks for being one of the first users to actually AGF with such an edit (assuming it to be done out of cluelessness rather than malice), but in the future you can probably outright assume that the user was on the right side of policy. If you want to double-check that a removal was carried out soundly, you can use the script we mention at WP:WDATA#Editing interlanguage links, and execute it on the previous revision of the page. Thanks, and feel free to drop by my talk page or WT:WDATA with any future questions. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of this new Wikidata. Thanks for letting me know. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would really prefer to avoid finger-pointing and getting on the talk page in the middle of such an argument, but I can give you some thoughts I have about the article. (Have you tried getting a third opinion on the matter? If that doesn't work, go to dispute resolution.) Arguing about what to include and what not to include should seriously be based solely on the neutrality policy, so whoever is correctly following that policy in this situation is right.

The Political activity section of the article doesn't do a bad job staying neutral, in my opinion (that sounds weird, doesn't it?). I don't think it strays too far from what the article should cover; it sticks to what the corporation itself does in politics and what opposing sides say about that. One thing to watch out for, though, is stating "according to" when mentioning criticism and response to it, because that language seems to imply fact, not opinion. It would be better to just write, "Greenpeace has said" and "Koch Industries replied," and quoting their statements is I think definitely the best way to keep the article neutral. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

So the article should include more coverage of the political activity by more neutral sources (neither Greenpeace nor Koch Industries) and maybe a statement or two—by non-affiliated parties—that are in favor of Koch Industries, since the section does not have that right now, excluding Charles Koch's piece in the Wall Street Journal (but of course he's directly related to the corporation). Using the Forbes article is a good start. Follow the specific guidelines given in this section of the neutrality policy, and stick to reliable sources. I'll take a look at the Environmental and safety record section of the article and provide some more input if I have any. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Cowicide (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And as for the Environmental and safety record section, I think it needs to mention what the company has done to help the environment (if applicable, that is). Jsayre64 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RE Oregon Wild

You can absolutely build on what I started. I simply ran out of good references that I could get a hold of from Alaska. If you have access to better references, pleas do! Name Omitted (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful Photo

Nice picture on the front page :) JellyBellyFred (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this photo? I like it too. Great job by the Air Force. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Citationbot

Please see User:Citation bot. It's not a person. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've used it many times before. What I'm interested in is who keeps activating it on the Natchez Massacre article when I have reverted several times and explained why in the edit summary. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked User:Smith609? Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second, it was probably User:FallingGravity based on [1]. I'll leave a note on the user's talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you but the user behind these edits is just a mystery to me as it is to most everyone else, although you'll just have to take my word for it. In any case, you can place {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} on the page to stop any further Cite Bot edits. FallingGravity (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Burns

Thanks for proofing Burns and for the kind words and upgrades. I'm thinking of nominating it for GA. Coming across the recent supplement to the Burns-Herald got me interested again, and User:Cacophony's images were a happy find. Finetooth (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I especially like Cacophony's panoramas. I think the Burns article would pass GA, and I (and most likely the GA expert) would be happy to participate. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference format

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you changed "Reference" formula in Whitehorse Ranch article from "reflist|2" to "reflist|30em". Have always used former. What's the difference, I can’t tell?--Orygun (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

30em is a parameter of the template that makes the references display in a different number of columns depending on the size of a reader's browser; more columns for a wider screen and fewer for a narrower one. I think 30em is a good idea for articles with a long reflist, but if it's not that many, I'd just put {{reflist}} Jsayre64 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting...thanks!--Orygun (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Darius Dhlomo Drive

Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Sumpter, Oregon. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It should all be fine now, but I don't think such a tag was ever needed. Template:Citation needed should be enough for an article without that much prose in the first place. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sumpter, Oregon, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Restore maint tag -- much still lacks inline refs, has been challenged, and requires them to be restored. This is the second time I am communicating with regard to the deletion of such tags, without addressing the issue. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You must be talking about the demographics section. All city/settlement articles I've seen that include specific census data cite the information just like the article already does. Often the stats are updated by a bot, as in this case, and as far as I know, it is generally accepted that putting the census bureau citation at the start of the first paragraph is what should be done. All the data in that section can be found within the census bureau website using the American Fact Finder tool, so it would be redundant to repeat that citation further down. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Primarily -- also, one of the two sentences in the Geography section. I don't see any exception for census data. We need footnotes at the end of the appropriate sentences (or paras) so that we know there is an assertion that the material is from a cited source. There is no citation convention that a cite at the beginning of a prior paragraph covers material that succeeds it. I've certainly seen city articles where the cites follow census information, either uniformly or for the most part. Just look at Trenton, New Jersey or Grand Forks, North Dakota or Davenport, Iowa or Kent, Ohio, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All right, I will add more footnotes in the demographics section, but if someone else reverts I'm not going to get involved. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being rude by joining in. I've added a fair bit of additional info from my collection of obscure books about Oregon, and I have more to add. I'd be glad to squash the two demographic subsets into one and add an RS to each paragraph, as I've done for Burns and Ashland. I've been thinking that including more than the most recent set of census data in these U.S. city articles is too much; I think this is being done by a robot across a large set of articles. Anyway, I'd be glad to continue altering Sumpter, if you are both OK with that. Finetooth (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine -- you are doing fine work, from what I can see. I don't care about how it is done. Just that we have refs at the end of the sentence (or para) they relate to. Perhaps someone can speak to the bot creator to have the bot do that when it adds such material.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to see more in the history section. The article was pretty bare when I first came across it. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll keep going, and I'll see if I can figure out who to talk to about a more general solution to what I see as a bot problem. The root of this must go back to the early years of the English Wikipedia because nearly all of the U.S. city articles have had these unsourced paragraphs in them since I began editing in 2007. They don't conform to WP:V, strictly speaking. It would be a fairly monstrous job to change what must be many thousands of these articles by hand. Finetooth (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe monstrous is the only way to do it. Looks like User:Rambot created a large number of city articles starting in 2002. The expectation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Demographics is that living editors will improve these articles as time passes. The last sentence of these guidelines says, "The automated demographic information (i.e. 'As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were') should be removed as more location-specific information is added in dynamic prose." That makes sense to me. I think it is reasonable to remove most if not all of the 2000 Census data (as Jsayre64 has done for Sumpter), to round or omit some of the numbers in the 2010 data, to add a table showing population changes over the past century or so, and to add material about anything unusual or interesting about the demographics; e.g., "Barrenville is the only city in New York with no children" or "The entire population of Orangeville, Iowa, has red hair." I did something like that recently with Jerome, Arizona#Demographics after learning that 78 percent of the population was male in 1900 and that about 60 percent of the population was Latino in 1930. These male-female and race ratios were temporary, and both fluctuated greatly over time and are relevant to an understanding of Jerome. All of this required inline citations to reliable sources, including some beyond the census data. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that others have thought this through. I'll keep those recommendations in mind when working on city or settlement articles. Thank you. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sweet Home, Oregon

Thank you for your improvements to Sweet Home, Oregon. However, I'm wondering what to do about the copy/paste warning that was added. The Wikipedia information was written in March 2012. The City of Sweet Home Police Chief posting was created in 2013. It appears that the City of Sweet Home Police Department copied and pasted information from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Sword Fern (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought I remembered seeing some other city document, linked to from an earlier version of the article until the link went dead, that had the same text before the police department brochure was published. I can't find it in the page history, though, so I guess I was wrong. You may well be right that it's a mirror, because I see that links to Wikipedia articles were recently added to the online police brochure, and a copy-paste test of the "history" and "recreation" sections of the article revealed no significant matches except that brochure. I will remove the tag then; how odd to see a city or police department plagiarize text. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Portland Parks

I got bored a while ago and started transcribing stuff from the PP&R site into the List of parks in Portland, Oregon. But then I noticed that you moved some of this into User:Jsayre64/Sandbox. If I get the bug again, would you prefer that I start in a different quadrant? Or would you like me to add the stuff to your sandbox instead? YBG (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You should add them to my sandbox or to both places, because in my sandbox I'm preparing what we discussed on the list's talk page. I think I only have the north, northwest, and northeast parks in my sandbox at this point, so nothing needs to be changed there if you edit the southeast or southwest park descriptions on the live list. Thanks for the help. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do! YBG (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving Web Page References

Hello, would you help me archive some web pages that I want to use as references in an article currently in the sandbox? I have some issues with citations. How would you cite a name in the Polk directory? These sorts of things.Visitor7 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I really understand what you're asking, but you can go to http://web.archive.org and paste a URL into the Wayback Machine to view past versions of that page. You might find some help at WP:LR or WP:DEADREF. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Portland "Wiknic" 2013!

	"WIKNIC" 2013! You're invited to the upcoming "Wiknic", scheduled for Saturday, June 22. In typical Wikipedia fashion, you can help decide the location. Details and signup here!

Hope you are able to attend! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Colorado River at FAC

Good morning! Colorado River is up for FAC and could use a few reviewers. I thought you might be interested. If you could help that'd be awesome. Regards, Shannon 16:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lakeview

Thanks for your recent edits to Lakeview, Oregon. I sometimes forget to check the Wayback Machine for possible dead-URL fixes. Finetooth (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Any time. Sometimes I forget to see if the page is still live at a different address. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acer macrophyllum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] bigleaf maple is located in [[Marion, Oregon]]. It has a circumference of {{convert|25.4|ft|m}} (or an average [[diameter at breast height]] of about {{convert|8.1|ft|m}}, is {{convert|88|ft|m}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed My bad. Thanks, robot. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three Sisters (Oregon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Butte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Jsayre64 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quercus garryana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sierra Nevada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Jsayre64 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

TFA nom

I have nominated Williamette River at WP:TFAR. Great article. PumpkinSky talk 00:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What a great idea. Thank you. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I think I made the blurb too long. Since you are familiar with the article, could you trim it down? PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done but maybe not there yet. We'll see what the delegate thinks. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Willamette River

This is a note to let the main editors of Willamette River know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 1, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 1, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Willamette River is a major tributary of the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest of North America. The Willamette's main stem is 187 miles (301 km) long, lying entirely in northwestern Oregon in the United States. Flowing northward between the Oregon Coast Range and the Cascade Range, the river and its tributaries form the Willamette Valley, which contains two-thirds of Oregon's population. The state's largest city, Portland, surrounds the Willamette's mouth at the Columbia. Due to prolific rainfall in the basin and sediments from the glacial Missoula Floods, the Willamette Valley is one of the most fertile agricultural regions in North America, and was thus the destination of many 19th-century pioneers traveling west along the Oregon Trail. Since 1900, more than 15 large dams and many smaller ones have been built in the Willamette's drainage basin. They are used primarily to produce hydroelectricity, to store water for irrigation, and to prevent flooding. The river and its tributaries support 60 fish species, including many species of salmon and trout; this is despite the dams, other alterations, and pollution (especially on the river's lower reaches). (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Natchez massacre

I have been working on Natchez Massacre over the last few days with the goal of using as many secondary sources as possible, so that the article will be come ready for another try at FA soon. I would be happy to have your input.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you've been editing it a lot. I'll find a time to take a closer look and see what I think. Thanks for your help! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am considering whether it would make sense to convert the reference system used to Harvard references using the {{sfn|}} template? Given that you are the main contributor, you should decide. I think it would look nicer and make the references more standardized, as currently there seem to be different systems in use.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would look much better. I'll begin reformatting. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added the "ref=harv" parameter to the references. I was thinking of the style I have used here: Tattooed Serpent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer the style used for Colorado River, because I think the bibliography looks good as it is now. By the way, I'm glad you created that article for Tattooed Serpent. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. I like the hanging indent because it makes the bibliography more compact yet easily navigable. But we can just keep the bibliography as is then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've finished changing the refs now. There were some minor issues with those that were cited with the original year, to make them fit I had to cite the actual year of publication so we have "Dumont de Montigny 2012" which looks dd, but is more bibliographically correct. Let me know if you think I messed up somewhere, or just change it if you like. Best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ive looked over the two FA discussions and I think I have covered all of the concerns that people had including my own. If you would like to renominate it soon you might just want to have some copyeditors look over the prose to make sure that it is brilliant. I am not an excellent writer, and I am sure you and other copyeditors can catch me in sloppy typoes and bad grammar. I will be happy to support, and I am sure several other editors will too. Best, User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your edits and support. I will find a time to read through the article again (as well as the last FAC) and probably make some changes all at one time. I'm encouraged by the article's potential at this point! Thanks again for your hard work. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a map of locations mentioned, based on Montigny, if you dont like it feel free to remove it. I would like to include this picture[2] instead of one of those in the lead, but I am not sure about the licensing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I like that map. It's a great addition, and now the article is very well illustrated. It would be helpful, if not too much trouble, for you to put white rectangles behind the labels on the map so that the words are easier to read. As for the other picture, if you could link to it at a different page with more context, I could probably tell you whether or not it would be suitable for Commons. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Takes Portland 2013!

WIKIPEDIA TAKES PORTLAND 2013! You're invited to participate in the upcoming "Wikipedia Takes Portland" campaign, to be held during the month of September. The local campaign occurs annually in conjunction with Wikipedia Takes America and Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Photographing sites included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the main focus of Wikipedia Takes Portland. In typical Wikipedia fashion, you can work individually or create a team. Details and signup here!

--Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!

WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You're invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 1–4pm on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library, located on the second floor of the Museum's Mark Building (formerly the Masonic Temple). The edit-athon will focus on the local arts community (but you can work on other topics as well!). It will also kick off the Oregon Arts Project, an on-wiki initiative to improve coverage of the arts in Oregon. Details and signup here!

Hope to see you there! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: CCI

With the images, yes. Alas, there's still the matter of his text edits, but that's one step done. Wizardman 03:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A big step done. Congrats! Jsayre64 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding categories to the dust storm pano. They are good additions. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Great photography, as usual. I wish I could get around the state some more. I've been to The Dalles, Prineville, Newberry Crater, and this section of the John Day, but not much else east of the Cascades. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon in Vancouver, WA

	WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You are invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 2:30–4:30pm on Sunday, November 17, 2013 at the Vancouver Community Library (901 C Street) in Vancouver, Washington. The edit-athon will focus on creating and expanding articles related to Vancouver and Clark County. Details and signup here!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of WikiProjectOregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to California State Water Project may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |Central Valley]], a location with political influence and interest in the canal being built.<ref>{{cite news

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Jsayre64 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre

I am thinking of taking the article to FAC, what would you say about doing this sometime in december?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember that mil-hist project members recommended after the last FAC that I seek an A-class rating from their project before trying for FA a third time. But if they now think, after your beneficial work, that the article is fit to go straight to FAC, I will agree to that. I will ask some of them for opinions and will make a few edits to the article soon, based on a short list I have. Thanks for reminding me about this! Jsayre64 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We could definitely try to do the milhist first. Why don't we go ahead with that first?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can go ahead and nominate the article for that. The to-do list of changes that I have somewhere is not that much. Hopefully on November 29, 2014, the article will be TFA. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats, well done with the fixes for the A class review! Now we're almost there, and a FAC should be definitely bearable. I am ready to nominate when you are. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I am ready. Go ahead and fill out the form, and make it a co-nomination. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Alright! Done!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fossil Beds

Thanks for your recent edits to John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. I'd been wondering what to do about the batch of recent changes by User:Iceagecaver, and today I reverted them with an explanation on the talk page. Past difficulties with this particular article upset me more than any other article I've worked on. After the FAC fiasco two years ago, I stopped nominating anything further at that venue. I've thought about renominating the fossil beds article many times but haven't done so. I wonder if you'd be interested in co-nominating at some point down the road. I'd like to reduce my "ownerish" feelings toward the article, for one thing, and for another thing, the article might benefit from your input. For example, Iceagecaver raised the issue of the Cretaceous rocks (Goose Rock in particular) and the older fossil bits found near Mitchell, though not in the park. You raised this issue quite some time ago, but I resisted. Now I'm thinking it might be a good idea to say something about Goose Rock and the Mitchell finds at least in a note at the bottom of the article. Regardless, I think the original FAC opposer will still oppose on the same grounds as before, but I have never found any RS that summarizes the paleontology in the way he prefers. If we renominate, I think we will have to be prepared to argue that his objections are non-actionable and hope that the other delegates agree. Or maybe there is some other way. I don't know. No hurry on this. Just let me know if you are interested or have any suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply; I was traveling and thinking this through at the same time. I would be excited to see the article back at FAC eventually. I can't promise to have as big of a role as you, mostly because you are more familiar with the topic, but I will at least review what I added two winters ago. [3] So let me read through that once more and I will try to respond soon with a proposal for how to integrate some of that stuff again. We both know that this paleontology is often tough to grasp! [4] Jsayre64 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued interest, help, and advice. And, yes, the green precipitation color you switched to looks good. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

COTW

Thanks for the COTW award. It's been a long time since I've earned one of these. This one was fun. Finetooth (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods

This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:

• PDX Pods
• Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashland

Thanks for the kind words. I agree that the Ashland, Oregon, article does not need a lot more to make GA. I haven't read the whole thing closely for a while, but I'll take another look tomorrow. A WP:ORE collaboration would be fine. Finetooth (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

SG

Seasonal Greetings

Visitor7 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashland, Oregon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashland, Oregon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Montanabw -- Montanabw (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ashland, Oregon

The article Ashland, Oregon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashland, Oregon for comments about the article. Well done! Montanabw^(talk) 06:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jsayre64 for the nudge toward GA, for your nomination of the article, and for your hard work in getting the article up to GA standards. I was particularly happy to find that you had completed the RSing of that long list of notable people. I was getting really tired of that chore, and you did more of them than I. I thought it was very nice of User:Montanabw to do some of them as well. In the past, every time I looked at that unsourced list I said to myself, "OMG, I'm not going there." I think now it will be easier to enforce the RS guideline on that particular list. No RS, fuggeddaboutit. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazing how many people drop off a list once you insist on sourcing those! LOL! Bozeman,_Montana#Notable_people is a big reason that article will not be GA any time in the near future, yet no one believed me when I added Sarah Vowell to the list and they insisted on two sources! (As a teen, she babysat my daughter, I knew damn well she grew up there, but of course my personal knowledge is "teh dreaded" WP:OR!) Trivia sections can be a bane. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year on this foggy Christmas Eve. Finetooth (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7