User talk:EncMstr/Archive3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Blocking IP
The user as I have reported to the Administrator's bulletinboard has delibertly sought to destroy Wikipedia articles, as well as humilating or mocking religion. I believe that his edits were bad faith, even though he has stopped, OTHER USERS have warned him to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Appropiate actions such as a block should be implemented first. If he requests for unblock, review it and perhaps see if his motivations were ethical. (Users who aren't blocked in the first place will usually continue vandalizing Wikipedia) Prowikipedians (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking is not used for punishment. It looks like 59.10.224.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) stopped, perhaps in response to warnings, though it was 5+ hours ago. Or maybe he moved to another IP address. Either way, a block is unlikely to be effective, and more likely to prevent legitimate users from editing. —EncMstr 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that blocking is not used for punishment. I also understand the fact that this block may prevent legitimate users from editing. Perhaps a stronger admin/user lookup for Wikipedia? Prowikipedians (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Such as requiring login perhaps? That's been brought up many times and caused quite impassioned debate. —EncMstr 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting this article but can you roll it back to the last version by Momusufan here, which includes her birth name Silvia Krivosikova http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1162976/bio? The current version is incorrect and contains direct porn links as well as missing her birth name that the vandal believes is untrue. All edits made after momusufan is by an indef blocked vandal who shouldn't even be editing, for details see Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam--mCtOOls 10:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Those edits aren't clearly vandalism (but might be close—hard to say in such an article). See m:The Wrong Version. —EncMstr 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mention vandalism. The ips and new acount name who made multiple reverts is an 'indef blocked vandal' and you protected his version. Her true birth name was removed by him and porn sites were added into the article. Wikipedia articles are sometimes watched by under 18, including children. The article should be written similar as those found in Category:Female porn stars and also see discussion at Talk:Silvia Lancome--mCtOOls 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I changed it to the version you requested. Note that Wikipedia is not censored, so we don't care if kiddies watch them or not. —EncMstr 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mention vandalism. The ips and new acount name who made multiple reverts is an 'indef blocked vandal' and you protected his version. Her true birth name was removed by him and porn sites were added into the article. Wikipedia articles are sometimes watched by under 18, including children. The article should be written similar as those found in Category:Female porn stars and also see discussion at Talk:Silvia Lancome--mCtOOls 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hate to bother you again but you erred and locked in on the banned guy's version. I was saying to lock it here at Momusufan's version which adds back her birth name, Silvia Krivosikova. The current version has many errors and is written sloppy.--mCtOOls 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that: I used the "restore this version" on the left side of the diff page, which is the previous edit. It should be as intended now. —EncMstr 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hate to bother you again but you erred and locked in on the banned guy's version. I was saying to lock it here at Momusufan's version which adds back her birth name, Silvia Krivosikova. The current version has many errors and is written sloppy.--mCtOOls 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have left a note considering unprotection of an article you semi-protected here. Thanks. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I unprotected it as it seems okay now. —EncMstr 20:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Claudette Colbert
Hello,
I just saw that Claudette Colbert had been protected due to some absurd edit war. However, I just found several sources establishing that Colbert's first name was Emilie, not Lily (the latter being most likely a nickname). It would be nice if this bit of info could be reinstated, as it had been edited out by one of the participants in the edit war. I'm not obsessed about Claudette Colbert, but as I live next to Colbert's place of birth (with the commemorative tablet bearing her real name), I was pretty much sure of my information right from the start. Thanks, Wedineinheck (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could take a photo, upload, and link it as a source? There wasn't any obvious vandalism in the version I froze, so unfortunately WP:The Wrong Version applies. —EncMstr 09:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunetaly, I'm not equipped to do that at the moment. However, the Larousse encyclopedia is a very reliable source. Lily is very seldom used as a real first name in France, and is generally a nickname. "Lily" is to names like "Emilie" or "Liliane" what "Bill " is to "William". Wedineinheck (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello; thank you for unlocking the page. I'll add a picture of Claudette Colbert's commemorative plate as soon as I can. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunetaly, I'm not equipped to do that at the moment. However, the Larousse encyclopedia is a very reliable source. Lily is very seldom used as a real first name in France, and is generally a nickname. "Lily" is to names like "Emilie" or "Liliane" what "Bill " is to "William". Wedineinheck (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like your input, or even some editing on Hexadecimal
EncMstr,
You've been editing many Wikipedia articles, and perhaps you're even an 'unofficial' official of the site? I'm asking your help in dealing with some decisions on Hexadecimal; especially since you have programming experience (I'm familiar with perl, C/C++, x86 Assembly myself) which I'd consider a plus on this, and many other topics I've edited or just enjoyed reading here!
My concern is about an editor who added his ideas about attempts to change the world's use of the decimal number base to hex! One editor called links like this 'boarder line crack pottery,' and reverted them. Though I wouldn't call it that, I also tried to hedge off what to me seems like a very small 'clique' trying to pass themselves off as a much larger group of our society, by stating the links that were added had no merit since they didn't deal with anything in the body of the article about the hexadecimal number system and/or its use. What did he do? He rewrote one or more sections and changed the layout of the whole article to include a "Cultural" section to include this idea that many are pushing for society to change to hexadecimal.
I'd really like someone who's been editing here for a long time (not me) to make a decision on this. I could easily say (and others have already done so, and reverted this stuff in the past) this is self-promotion since at least one link is to his own web site, but I had wanted to use a more rational approach, and thought about telling him he should edit more articles that have nothing to do with this topic before changing an article in this manner. See his 'contributions' page: Special:Contributions/Hauptmech for the fact this is about the only thing he's ever done at Wikipedia (or he's doing his edits under more than one name).
So, I'd like some feedback, or edits to the article; perhaps with comments more reasonable than my own. Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, saw your message on my Talk page, and of course, thank you for all the editing you did on the article! I'm glad you were able to rework the layout the way you did to also include those notes about HexTime, etc., so Hauptmech certainly can't say you just dumped everything he added. I think it's a nice balance now. I saw a few grammatical/spelling errors which I'll fix as I get time, unless someone else gets to them first. Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Manson: Protection
Life at Charles Manson became instantly civilized, with your recent semi-protection of the page.
I personally have contributed to the article for about a year — sometimes through a Wikipedia ID, sometimes through an IP address. In one or two cases in which I returned to the page after a few weeks away from it, I discovered vandalism that had gone unnoticed and that had been buried, so to speak, beneath revisions subsequent to it. Keeping up with vandalism while the page is unprotected is an almost-constant effort.
I know very little of Wikipedia’s anti-vandalism procedures. My view of the polite, escalated warnings that are sent to obvious vandals — particularly those vandals who work through IP addresses — is not favorable. I think any Wikipedia ID or any IP address that is used for vandalism should be immediately and permanently blocked. (I should imagine there is some fair way to deal with widely-available computer terminals, as, for instance, those at libraries and universities; I imagine, too, that discussion of that and related topics has taken place somewhere at Wikipedia.)
My main purpose in sending you this message is to request indefinite semi-protection — if there be such a thing — of the Manson article. If my understanding is correct, the present protection will end on April 7.71.242.159.196 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I know, very few articles are protected or semi-protected indefinitely. George W. Bush is the example given in sysop discussions, but it looks like that isn't true either: there have been more than a dozen times when it was not protected over the last three years. It amuses me to ponder that Charles and Dubya seem to have a similar basis for protection.
- I'm watching the article: if vandalism becomes a problem, I'll deal with it. I'm inclined to let the current protection expire and see how it goes. My feeling is that it will need semi-protection within a day or so. If so, it's more easily justifiable to protect it for a longer period each time. That seem okay? —EncMstr 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes — excellent response. Thanks.71.242.159.196 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Editing my own comment
Yes -- I was editing my own comment at the Manson talk page. I'm pretty sure that when I posted the original comment, the page was locked; so I'm surprised I was able to edit it anonymously, as I apparently did. Anyway -- I'll remember to edit my comments under the same ID or IP address under which they were originally made.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, talk pages aren't protected even if the article is. Anyway, I kind of suspected you were the same person, though my talk-page-modification-by-the-wrong-user alarm made me issue the warning before I could soften it. Thanks for the confirmation. —EncMstr 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the locking of the talk page seemed strange; I probably imagined it. Anyway — you're welcome; your follow-up message did, in fact, give me the impression you had simply reacted quickly to apparent bad practice. Doesn't bother me; I'm glad somebody's watching out for such things.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That one guy is making thousands of changes without consulting anyone, so I reverted his changes to ballparks, on principle. However, I can't get anyone interested in the subject at WP:Baseball, so evidently they don't care; and hence, neither do I. This constant shifting sand of whether to put dates in brackets or not, is the reason I typically don't mess with it. Nor will I again! I'll let the date freaks fight it out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Understandable. As far as I know, the sand around dates hasn't changed in several years. It reduces to these simple rules:
- If a date contains both the day and the month, write
[[month day]]or[[day month]](U.S. style or non-U.S. for those without a date preference in Special:Preferences) - If a year goes with a month and year, put them all in brackets:
[[month day]][[year]].
- Optionally, a comma and spaces can be between the bracket sets:
[[month day]], [[year]]
- Otherwise, don't put any brackets around them.
- Exceptions seem to be limited to wiki examples, documentation, etc.
- If a date contains both the day and the month, write
- Hows that? —EncMstr 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Silvia Lancome
It's all rather sad and unfortunate business but yes I merely object to a user who has been banned by the Wikipedia community from editing. - dwc lr (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Columbia River
Hey there, thanks for providing some key data for sorting out the Columbia/hydropower confusion. Just got to GA, finally! Feel free to drop back in as we move to FA, your contributions are always very helpful. It's been very satisfying to see such a great team assemble around this article. -Pete (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Vera Katz and History
Howdy folks, its time for another installment of WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week! Last week we made some improvements to the Oregon Coast and brought The Register-Guard up to B class while garnering a DYK! Great job to those who lent a hand. This week we finish up the High priority Stubs with former mayor and Speaker of the House, Vera Katz, which is pretty much a Start class now and could easily get to B class. We also have History of Oregon by request. Help out if you can, where you can. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
suggestion I can't implement
Hey there, can you check out my suggestion at Help talk:Contents? I can work up some specific text if you like. I don't know what the process is for changing that page, but it ain't editable by the unwashed masses :) -Pete (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Help:Contents says it is semi-protected, so you ought to be able to edit it. Wikipedia:Introduction 3 isn't protected at all. I see no one responded to your suggestion, so maybe one of Wikipedia:Village pump forums, like proposals?
- Go ahead and put specific text on the page (or talk page if you really can't edit) and give me a nudge and I'll invoke WP:BOLD for it. —EncMstr 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
RE: AIV Reads1
Vandalism occurred at: Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series) (once), List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy (several nonsense edits), Dragon Ball AF (several nonsense edits), Son Goten (once). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the first one was almost self-revert: Reads1 added a lot to Ninja 2, then deleted the whole section. That's probably inexperience, not vandalism, especially since C.Fred immediately fixed it. In the second, the reverter calls it fancruft, which appears accurate. Reads1 was trying to improve the article, but not aware of "encyclopedia perspective". The same seems to be true of the others. I'll leave a note on his page. —EncMstr 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you look at the history page of Dragon Ball AF? Think that was where he placed most of his unconstructive edits. Perhaps the change he did to Son Goten may count as good faith instead. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I did. The change I wonder most about is Coolza/Coola. I know nothing of the topic and genre, but that seems pretty innocent. How does it strike you? —EncMstr 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, can't really say vandalism can I? Perhaps it was just a mistakened misspelling of Coola. In any event, I am watching the user. You? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, please keep an eye on him/her and give any assistance that seems reasonable. We were all beginners at some point. —EncMstr 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, can't really say vandalism can I? Perhaps it was just a mistakened misspelling of Coola. In any event, I am watching the user. You? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I did. The change I wonder most about is Coolza/Coola. I know nothing of the topic and genre, but that seems pretty innocent. How does it strike you? —EncMstr 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you look at the history page of Dragon Ball AF? Think that was where he placed most of his unconstructive edits. Perhaps the change he did to Son Goten may count as good faith instead. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Johnson Creek questions
Hi EncMstr, I like your most recent photo addition to Johnson Creek (Willamette River), but I'd like to add a couple more specifics to the caption. Can you tell me where exactly this is on the stream? I'm guessing it's part of the project at the confluence of Johnson Creek and Kelley Creek, but I don't know for sure. Do you happen to know in what year the bioswale was completed? (I can probably find this at a City of Portland web site if I know which project the bioswale is part of.) Do you know if those red thingies that protect the new plants have a special name? Much obliged for your help. Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The photo was taken here facing southwest—I put that in the image description, but it looks like commons doesn't have {{coord}}. I hadn't realized that there was a creek junction there, but as you can see, the topographic map says it is Kelley Creek. The photo was taken last weekend; It looked like the reclamation was either very recently finished, or will be soon: maybe some more finishing work, like posting signs, grass seed, etc. This PGE page indicates a Kelley Creek restoration project, but I don't see how to find more information there. This advertisement says they are called Seedling Protector Tubes. Seems there's room for imaginative enhancement, eh? —EncMstr 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Great work on the sorting problem
I appreciate you jumping in and getting the problem fixed. Will make Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 exceptionally more useful, particularly as November comes along. --Kallahan (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Manson
Thanks so much for giving us a long protection on the page. It's not a bad article, but it certainly is a target. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it received an incredible amount of vandalism right after protection expiration. It sure made my watchlist light up! —EncMstr 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Oswego Lake
I did make this edit, but I thought it was a typo error regarding the year of this picture instead of when the lakes were connected. If it is wrong, I apologize for that. Chris (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
blocking names with "hacker" in them
It's a bad idea to block names with "hacker" in them on sight. The word hacker has many connotations, with the one used in geek culture being a positive connotation, so describing oneself as a hacker is not necessarily a bad thing. Particularly in this case, I believe your block of User:Harduphacker before he even made any contributions was inappropriate -- you may have just blocked a good-faith user. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I was responding to HardUp more than Hacker. Somehow the combination seemed more disruptive than the sum of the parts. Now that I consider your point, I'm down to 50% thinking the block is valid. —EncMstr 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Elected Oregon
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks and entities. Thanks to those who helped out with improving Vera Katz and History of Oregon during the last Collaboration of the Week! As you may have noticed, we have changed the banners a bit, but not our dedication to everything Oregon! This week, in honor of the political process, we have: Current Oregon Senate members & Current Oregon House members. Hopefully by November we can have an article on every current member of the Oregon Legislature. So feel free to turn a red link blue or expand an existing article. Since it is an election year, there should be plenty of newspaper stories. Plus, the state archives has this site that allows you to go back and see when they started serving and district info, plus at a minimum show they were a state legislator from a WP:RS. And per WP:BIO, all state legislator's are notable so no need to worry about AFD. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Assessment and counts
Hey there, can you work your magic that updates Changes related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin sometime between now and Friday, April 11? (That's when we're presenting to the Oregon Encyclopedia folks.) I think that's the same thing that updates the assessment chart too, right? Also, keep your eye on WP:ORE/OE -- I swear I'll be updating it soon (have to in advance of the meeting!) Finally...come to WikiWednesday this week if you can! I know it's tough for you, but I keep hoping to meet more WP:ORE folks... -Pete (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It takes about ten minutes to perform. The Big Question™ is: when would you prefer it to be done? Closer to April 11 to include more recent additions, or closer to now to have more time to do something with it? —EncMstr 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aieee! Sorry, actually I ran into EncMstr at WkWdns, and we figured out there that I don't really need this after all -- the existing ones allow me to say that we've more than doubled the number of articles we monitor in a year, and for the more detailed stuff I can just print off the first page of this. Though, what WOULD be nice is to have the first page or two of that run through the script that tells how many times they were viewed in February...and maybe a couple other months, too...is that pretty easy to do, Enc? And, do the other thing too! Katr's gettin antsy! Oh, and both of you go see if you can talk some sense into the Sho Dozono deletion debate. I don't know that it'll go through, but the arguments being put forth are about as off base as I've seen... -Pete (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understood that to be the outcome, but I plan to overdeliver. I'll update the Admin article and counts in the next couple days, then produce a graph showing the article count progression. —EncMstr 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes -- I saw that chart, it's excellent! Thank you, that will be a big help.
I was also wondering -- might not have made this clear -- if you could run the script you wrote (below) on the articles in the first page of this list -- so we can see the hit counts on a larger selection of articles?
Thanks for making the chart, that'll be a big help. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
#!/bin/bash
function wpor () {
echo "|-"
wget $1 -O - 2>/dev/null | \
grep " has been viewed " | \
sed 's#^.*wiki/[^"]*">#| [\[#; s#</a> has been viewed#]] ||#; s# times in.*$##; s#_# #g'
}
echo '{| class="wikitable sortable"'
wpor http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_36_%282004%29
...
wpor http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Tom_Potter
echo "|}"
Okay, easy enough. Which month(s) should it be for. And how big do you think the first page is? —EncMstr 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess March is as good as any -- I can track down any weird spikes like D. B. Cooper individually where necessary. If you cut off the first page near the bottom -- using "high/start" and "mid/start" assessments as the cutoff -- that gives 407 articles. Seems like a good cutoff. (This approach will miss any high-importance articles at stub class, but I think that's OK.) -Pete (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- There ought to be a better place to put this. Perhaps a subpage of WP:ORE? It's here for the time being. Have your way with it!
—EncMstr 05:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you!! Yes, a sub-page of some sort is probably best. It's related to /Assessment and /Admin, but kind of its own thing. Your guess is as good as mine -- one of us should do something! Right now though, I'm scrambling on the printed version... Thanks again, this is great! -Pete (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I created a sub-page after all, I put it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Readership. Feel free to move it, expand the description, etc. -Pete (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Possible edit war
Hi, I'm not quite sure exactly what is going on but there may be a case of linkspamming and edit warring between Marcus22 and 86.202.37.235. Marcus 22 keeps adding this link to various Brittany related articles and the IP user keeps removing it. Maybe you could take a look and see if any action is required on this? Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Got msg. check out reply on my talk page. Get back to me as soon as you can. Marcus22 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied again on talk page. regards Marcus22 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Y2K cost.
Do you honestly think that $300 BILLION U.S.D. dollars were spent worldwide on Y2K? At that cost you could have funded the National Security Agency to buy all new supercomputers 600 - 1,000 times over! (Ok I realize the foolishness of this statement but it's true.) Indeed most of my family use Billion as a slang term for million, as do some British newspapers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.1.215 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem high. The alternative is that those are British Billions, which would make it 300 Trillion USD. That's obviously ludicrous. On the other hand, I know I did a few years work for many clients preparing their software for Y2000, at a cost of hundreds of thousands. Ross Perot's company did hundreds of millions for it too, I think. $3,000,000,000 I can barely bring myself to believe. The reference is clear, though it would be great to find other sources and contrast them in that paragraph. —EncMstr 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Synarchism
Thanks for your note. My main concern was User:Loremaster, who appears to be promoting some sort of esoteric or occult agenda, which I suppose is really neither here nor there. The problem as far as I am concerned is that he was repeatedly asked at Talk:Synarchism#Recent edit warring not to violate WP:BLP and WP:NOR, and he appears defiant. --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- This McCarthy-like accusation is absolutely absurd! My history shows that I have spent the last few weeks contributing to the improvement of the Priory of Sion article and related topics from a rationalist and critical perspective. I don't like making accusations but it seems to me that User:Marvin Diode and User:Terrawatt (whose blocking was completely justified) may sympathize or even belong to the LaRouche Movement and therefore will resort to wikilawyering to defend it. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, both of them seem intent in engaging in an edit war violating the three-revert rule despite the fact that I have explained my edits on the Talk:Synarchism page. --Loremaster (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Loremaster seems to be neither familiar with Wikipedia policies, nor interested in making their acquaintance. Perhaps you could have a word with him. --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Although I don't claim to be an expert on Wikipedia policies and I freely admit that I sometimes make mistakes which may have unknowingly violated some of them, I have been responsible for a number of articles getting Featured Article status so I think I am familiar enough. --Loremaster (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article is protected against edits until consensus is reached. Please address my questions on the article's talk page. —EncMstr 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Although I don't claim to be an expert on Wikipedia policies and I freely admit that I sometimes make mistakes which may have unknowingly violated some of them, I have been responsible for a number of articles getting Featured Article status so I think I am familiar enough. --Loremaster (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Loremaster seems to be neither familiar with Wikipedia policies, nor interested in making their acquaintance. Perhaps you could have a word with him. --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for taking the time to play the role of mediator at the talk page. It doesn't look to me like this is going to be resolved any time soon, and in the meantime, I am troubled by this edit, because I think it may violate BLP -- both because I don't think the sources support the claim, and also because I think the sources are of insufficient quality for claims against living persons. At WP:BLP, the policy page begins with Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. So, I would like to propose that you revert that edit until consensus is achieved on the talk page. The matter of whether the material is off-topic needs to be resolved as well, but that is less urgent. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your attention to detail and vigilance. However, the edit seems valid: It says "several critics accuse ..." which seems perfectly correct. The online cite covers all the claims of the addition, even if the two books are bogus. If it said "LL espouses conspiracy theories, etc. ...", that would require a more reliable source. Comments? —EncMstr 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went carefully over the online source (Chip Berlet) and found no reference to "historical revisionism." I have asked Loremaster, on the article talk page, to provide a quote that justifies that claim. Since you have evidently also read the Chip Berlet site page, does it impress you as the sort of source that we ought to be using for sensitive BLP edits? It reminds me of the National Enquirer. What is at issue, under BLP, is not whether the critics made such claims, but whether the critics themselves are reputable sources. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fifth blurb, Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag says ...the LaRouche phenomenon is a dangerously naive rejection of the lessons of history. That closely resembles revisionism, doesn't it? I glanced at part one of the article, and it follows that line of thought. It doesn't use the word revisionism, but it's at least a reinterpretation of history. Doesn't that seem close enough? —EncMstr 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not in my view. Bear in mind that part of Loremaster's gambit here is to link the Wikipedia article on Historical revisionism (negationism), which link is hidden with a more generic description. So Loremaster is making an extremely specific claim here, which demands an equally specific source, not just one that "closely resembles" it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fifth blurb, Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Wrapped in an American Flag says ...the LaRouche phenomenon is a dangerously naive rejection of the lessons of history. That closely resembles revisionism, doesn't it? I glanced at part one of the article, and it follows that line of thought. It doesn't use the word revisionism, but it's at least a reinterpretation of history. Doesn't that seem close enough? —EncMstr 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went carefully over the online source (Chip Berlet) and found no reference to "historical revisionism." I have asked Loremaster, on the article talk page, to provide a quote that justifies that claim. Since you have evidently also read the Chip Berlet site page, does it impress you as the sort of source that we ought to be using for sensitive BLP edits? It reminds me of the National Enquirer. What is at issue, under BLP, is not whether the critics made such claims, but whether the critics themselves are reputable sources. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears now that Loremaster has conceded that he doesn't have sources to back up his claims in this edit, so I'd like to renew my request that it be reverted until consensus is reached, which may take a long time -- Loremaster is now saying that he will no longer negotiate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the trouble to moderate what was admittedly a somewhat convoluted dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea a discussion had continued here. I find it troubling how pro-LaRouche editors can engage in wikilawyering and manipulation to get their way on Wikipedia... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- You made an edit early in this conversation; normal procedure is to watchlist such articles. I would have preferred the discussion remain entirely on the article's talk page, but since everyone involved seemed to be here too, I didn't think much of altering it. —EncMstr 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you unlock the Synarchism article now? I won't restore the sentence in dispute but I need to make some minor corrections to Joint rule and Rule by esoteric societies sections. --Loremaster (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, but if you have the slightest doubt if it will be controversial, please discuss proposed changes on the talk page first. —EncMstr (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Loremaster then made 21 edits with no discussion, including some highly controversial ones. I reverted them back to the point just before where he veered once more into OR, and placed the "controversial topic" template on the talk page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by all my edits. The only thing controversial might be describing Lyndon LaRouche as a political cult leader but if one actually reads the Wikipedia definition of a political cult, one realizes that this is exactly what he is. So I've undone the pro-LaRouche editor's revert. --Loremaster (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Loremaster, a controversial edit is one which people object to. (From Merriam-Webster: marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute) Whether you stand by it or not is not the issue. Yes, it can be hard to know if something is objectionable in advance, but you now have plenty of feedback—and presumably insight. You've been adequately and thoroughly warned now. You can minimize your chances of being blocked by using the talk page to persuade and/or gain consensus. (cc:user talk:Loremaster) —EncMstr (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Although I should be outraged by this dispute and its handling, I've now used the Synarchism talk page to make my case for consensus knowing full well that I am dealing with people who reject any reasonable compromise. --Loremaster (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- So what now? --Loremaster (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the discussion is proceeding nicely. It might take a day or two for people to contemplate what's transpired and follow up. Or maybe nothing more will come of it naturally; if that's the case, perhaps late Sunday or Monday you could float a specific proposal which asks for Support or Disagree opinions. —EncMstr (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Loremaster, a controversial edit is one which people object to. (From Merriam-Webster: marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute) Whether you stand by it or not is not the issue. Yes, it can be hard to know if something is objectionable in advance, but you now have plenty of feedback—and presumably insight. You've been adequately and thoroughly warned now. You can minimize your chances of being blocked by using the talk page to persuade and/or gain consensus. (cc:user talk:Loremaster) —EncMstr (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by all my edits. The only thing controversial might be describing Lyndon LaRouche as a political cult leader but if one actually reads the Wikipedia definition of a political cult, one realizes that this is exactly what he is. So I've undone the pro-LaRouche editor's revert. --Loremaster (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Loremaster then made 21 edits with no discussion, including some highly controversial ones. I reverted them back to the point just before where he veered once more into OR, and placed the "controversial topic" template on the talk page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, but if you have the slightest doubt if it will be controversial, please discuss proposed changes on the talk page first. —EncMstr (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you unlock the Synarchism article now? I won't restore the sentence in dispute but I need to make some minor corrections to Joint rule and Rule by esoteric societies sections. --Loremaster (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ORE welcome message
I like your welcome message--that's something we should have been doing a long time ago. Do you think we could make it a template and add it to our handy list of templates? Katr67 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent idea! Especially since I was kinda thinking that as I copied and pasted it around. —EncMstr (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hogenakkal Falls
Please place tag stating that current freeze on editing is not an endorsement by Wikipedia on disputed contents of the article. As per many editors the current text of the article has many errors. Thanks.Naadapriya (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- How's that? —EncMstr (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, can you explain your following statement please:
- Since no obvious vandalism nor defamation is present, it's simply The Wrong Version
- I really dont get how you came to a conclusion that its a wrong version. If you want further details on what is going on there I can help you with the details. If you are under any doubt that I'm just another adament editor who is pushes his POV and pretends to be pure as ever, then let me tell you that I did contact an admin to examine my conscience and if am just being a stuborn kid. Well, I will explain whats going on here. As you can see, this entry is about a waterfalls.
- This falls is the site of a proposed drinking water project, which as per reliable sources agreed by the parties involved in 1998, but was delayed because lack of funds and ::now that a Japanese bank is ready to fund the foundation stone was placed.
- I am leaving you some links here to let you know that am not lying[1] [2] [3] [4] and feel free to ask for more and check for yourself too.
- Now that it has been 10 years as usual some political parties have started causing havoc and the project has been put to hold (but not shelved). [5] [6]
- As you can guess the project and the issue by itself had been made into two separate articles, namely:
- Then there is the issue about to mention about the proposed project or not. You can notice in the talk page that user:Naadapriya argues that the project is not aproved. When we showed Newslinks from National Media now that person goes to say that Press do not decide Govt projects. You may be anoyed to see such a huge message left by me on your talk page, but it is because am not very happy to see your comment suggesting that the current version may be wrong without seeing what is going on. Hope you see the point now. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Wrong Version, since you didn't seem to read it, is a satirical essay about why articles are always frozen on a useless, unwanted version. The only reason for an administrator to choose a version other than the latest is the presence of vandalism, defamation, libel, etc. Does that answer your question? —EncMstr (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't. Nevertheless, I don't want to troll on your page. All I wanted to tell you is that your statement that ..no obvious vandalism nor defamation is present.. is actually not much true. But what is the point on blaming you for it? The article is frozen in a not so bad version. The problem with the current protection is, it spanned too little time so that there is no enough time to settle the disputes (given that the other user posts reply hardly once in every 24 hours). It is a pity that once the protection is off there will be spamers removing cited cotent and vandalising it. I guess that is where the reliability of Wikipedia ends. Thanks anyways. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Juxtaposition COTW
Howdy Ho WikiProject Oregon! Time for another installment of Collaboration of the Week. The last few weeks we’ve knocked out quite a few articles of our current state legislators, and even a few former ones too. Great job to all those who helped make it happen. On a related note, we have had several DYKs from this and now have 53 DYKs so far this year (not counting multiples), less than four full months into the year. Last year we had a total of 83 DYKs for the entire year, and 7 combined for 2006 & 2005. So we are well on our way to another record year. Each time an article makes it to the main page as a DYK it will typically get an extra 1000 hits, which is usually far more than the typical 100 hits per month most minor articles receive. With that said, this week we have two requests, Portland Lumberjax and Silicon Forest. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome :-)
Hi. Thanks for the welcome. This is a very nice welcome intro and I appreciate it very much. Looking forward to editing. Thanks again. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Overcleanup"
Hi EncMstr, I see you did a complete revert of the disambig of WTF I just did. Can I ask what specifically you had a problem with? I don't think we should be mentioning items that don't have an article - the aim of a disambig is not to be an exhaustive list of all definitions, merely a navigation aid to guide readers to the right article. It also seems somewhat counter-productive to revert back to what was a pretty messed up version instead of incorporating my useful changes, or are you saying my edit was without any merit at all? Thanks. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed "what the fuck" because however commonly used, there is no specific article on that. Likewise for "weight tranfer front" and the command line thing. Wikipedia:Disambiguation seems quite clear about not including dictionary definitions and partial article titles, and I would have thought that the link to Wiktionary offers readers a chance to look up dicdefs if that's what they're after. Finally, I did not remove "Werewolf: The Forsaken". Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- What the fuck, last time I checked, redirected to List_of_Internet_slang_phrases#W. I see that there is now a less useful redirect, so you are probably right. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help the user quickly find the article they're looking for. A more subtle, but equally important use is to help the user decode what some acronym or term might mean. Unfortunately that bleeds into dictionary definitions. (WP:MOSDAB ought to be fixed to reflect that.) Perhaps What the fuck should redirect to wiktionary instead. Sorry if I confused which items were deleted: the diff was rather complicated. —EncMstr (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
One more go, at Help talk:Sorting?
I responded at Help talk:Sorting: could you take a peek? Thanks! Whistling42 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help! I credited you on the Talk page. Whistling42 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. You once fixed up the format of this, do you think you could take another look? See the talk page for the issues I'm having. Let me know if you need a screenshot. Katr67 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
1. An AFD for this literally made my jaw drop. The ignorance astounds. 2. you actually ate a meal at the place? You lucky bastard. VanTucky 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did eat there. That's my menu displayed in the article. The pot pie was the only thing resembling disappointment; everything else was better than expected. There had to have been five or six waiters and waitresses dedicated to our table (two of us). Outstanding service, and never in the way. In fact they seemed to disappear when not needed, but there just as you realize you wanted them for something. I don't know about salmon coronets. I'm vegetarian. Somewhere, I have the menu my omnivorous date chose.
- At first I thought the AFD was a joke. I'm still suspicious about a "newbie" editor's second edit being an AFD proposal—whoa, less than twenty seconds after creating the account! Ah, I see someone else noticed that too (in the AFD discussion). —EncMstr (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I request you to extend the block on this particular user who has been indulging in persistent vandalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&action=history -RavichandarMy coffee shop 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting. Is this salvageable? Right now it appears that a great deal of the text is from the report to the DOE that I linked. I didn't have the patience to read through the entire text but is any of this in any way encyclopedic if we can get the author to provide sources? There must be a home for this info somewhere. I feel silly templating him. Katr67 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK. If I came across as too bitey, feel free to chime in. Katr67 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) and P.S. thanks for finding the section headers, dense blocks of text are so not my thing! Katr67 (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ahh, miles, feet...
What's the diff? Thanks for catching that. --Esprqii (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I, too, missed it several times while editing. During a preview I got to wondering why the ratio of ft to m the conversion template displayed was nowhere near 3:1. That forced me to really look at what it was saying. Imagine all the trouble non-geosynchronous orbiting satellites would have with a 5000 mi mountain! —EncMstr (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Would having Template:WikiProject Oregon category and Template:WikiProject Oregon template add the articles to Category:WikiProject Oregon instead of (or in addition to) Category:WikiProject Oregon categories and Category:WikiProject Oregon templates make it harder for the admin list to do its thing? I've got almost all of the cats and templates individually watchlisted, and I've decided that's silly. I can run AWB to make the changes. This sort of got discussed on the project talk page a long time ago, but apparently I wasn't making any sense! Or nobody cared one way or the other. What do you think? Katr67 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- As you probably know, the admin extraction only looks at Category:WikiProject Oregon articles. That category might be an outgrowth of a plan I abandoned quite a while back (which would have a dozen or so type categories) in favor of the article evaluation categorization we now have (category:Oregon articles by quality and category:Oregon articles by importance). It would be just fine to put everything in Category:WikiProject Oregon as far as I'm concerned. The editor script already handles most cases of entry types; only a few more need to be added. Just tell me where they end up this time! —EncMstr (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, WW is almost upon us again! Glad you guys connected on this, sorry I let it slide. My cell number's easy to find on my web site, but I'm sure we'll have a chance to make plans before then...looking forward to a good ride! -Pete (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
More like phonaphobia! Katr67 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
5/5 DYK
|
On 5 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warrior Rock Light, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Bedford 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Cinco de COTW
Greetings once again from the Collaboration of the Week at WikiProject Oregon. Thank you to those who helped out with the last set of articles. This week we have the lone Stub class article left in the Top importance classification, Flag of Oregon, and by request, Detroit Lake. Help where you can, if you can. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| With gratitude for your editorial advice about Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and for your photographs of the bioswale, the weir, and Tideman Johnson Park, I award you this barnstar. Finetooth (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
user: McTools (vandal on Silvia Lancome article)
Just to let you know he has been tagged and banned as a sockpuppet of user: NisarKand by the checkuser admins.
User talk:58.161.0.188
You have inserted the wrong template (indef vs 1yr) in User talk:58.161.0.188. Just a heads up. -- Alexf42 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I told twinkle it was 1 year. Perhaps it ignores the length parameter for the vandalism-only template. I "fixed" the user's talk page. Thanks. —EncMstr (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Zzzz Oregon COTW
Howdy ya’ll, time for another Collaboration of the Week from WikiProject Oregon. Last week we improved Flag of Oregon & Detroit Lake, enough I think to move them to Start class, so great job everyone! This week, we have another request in Oregon Ballot Measure 47 and a randomly selected two sentence stub that should be easy to expand enough for a DYK in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Reflist
The problem with reflist is that the text is small, making it hard to read - maybe not for you youngsters (?) but for those of us in our forties or with certain visual impairments. SB has done this before and was adding reflist/references as the debate swung back and forth, but the deciding factor in the present case is that the tag is recommended for short lists.
Incidentally there is no very valid reason for using small text for references, providing the references/footnotes section goes right at the end of the visible page.
Thank you for your kind words.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:00 3 April 2008 (GMT).
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Re:Cape Disappointment Light
It has been too long for me to remember where I got that from. I made started that article when I first started wikipedia so I didn't know to put references. Sorry. --Digon3 talk 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like our dynamic friend was forced to log in. I can't think of anyone else I've pissed off lately. Katr67 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've dealt with him. His actions made it very easy to decide on an appropriate course of action. :-) —EncMstr (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That went quick. Thanks. Squash Racket (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Centering timelines
I noticed your work and wondered if you could help me with centering a timeline. User:Dhatfield/Sandbox Dhatfield (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sam Adams
I note that Sam Adams redirects to Samuel Adams, the revolutionary guy. But he went by Samuel, whereas the mayor-elect (and the beer, for that matter) are really known as Sam. I had a hard time seeing the mayor in the list of Samuels. Any suggestions there, oh admin guy? Maybe a separate Sam Adams dab page? I was wary of stepping on toes there. --Esprqii (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a tricky one. Every Sam I know is a nickname for Samuel, so a redirect is appropriate for navigating to the right one. Making Sam Adams into a dab of people known as Sam interlinked with the Samuels is likely just as, if not more, confusing as a single list of Samuels. I kinda think Sam Adams should redirect to Samuel Adams (disambiguation) for the reason you give. The dab list isn't that long, but it could be structured better—maybe like John Adams (disambiguation) is broken down. —EncMstr (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think your solution of having Sam Adams go to a better organized Samuel Adams dab page is the right idea. I think someone searching for "Sam Adams" is more likely than not searching for someone other than the rev war guy. Maybe I'll be bold on that later, unless you have the itch now... --Esprqii (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Gustafson Logging
From: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
- "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
The company has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
- "All content must be verifiable."
All content is verifiable.
Done
~ WikiDon (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is an understandable interpretation, however I'm not sure that the article fulfills the obligations of notability:
- There is only one source. The standard is reliable, independent sources: That is, two or more.
- I haven't seen Ax-men, but was the episode about lumberjacks, and not about Gustafson Logging itself?
- —EncMstr (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is an understandable interpretation, however I'm not sure that the article fulfills the obligations of notability:
Whew!
Well, you're right -- I am knocking myself out because this is much more involved than I'd thought. That odd Antique Power Museum has its own article, so the intricacies of it can be explained there, but my hope was that the list could at least name everything that calls itself a museum in Oregon. As I look at it now, it seems to me that the Summary section for that item is really difficult to read. I do think all those names should be on the page. Perhaps in a list of 14 items below the sortable table (I'd take various items out of "Alternate names" because those items really don't fit there). I still want to work on this through the end of the week, but I think I'm going to be leaving most of the "summary" entries blank, except for website links. That's the way another editor does it, and now I see why. In any event, I'm going to work on it a bit more and then hand it all over to you guys to delete or rewrite or rearrange how you like. I will stop knocking myself out, though. Thanks for the note. Noroton (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, to answer your question, my completely uneducated guess is that there are potentially 50-60 more items. I think I found about eight previously unlisted items in the Coast sections of the museum association and state tourist authority websites. Multiply that by seven regions in total and it's in the range of 50 to 60. Just a guess. Noroton (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I meant deleting various things in it or doing things in a different way. Even having something there that is deleted at least gets someone thinking about the list, which may help to maintain it in the long run. My own interest is in having state lists so full that I can later mine them for, say, a "List of timber industry museums in the United States", or "List of clock and watch museums in the United States". Those, in turn, would be useful links to someone reading articles on those subjects. I'm also hoping that the red links on the lists will tempt editors into creating articles. Noroton (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
RTOS list
Thanks for your work on List of Real-time operating systems. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that should address everyone's interests: keep the main article clutter free, provide a place for an exhaustive list which every RTOS developer wants, provide a check list for potential customers, and avoid WP:NOT a link farm, since it provides useful details.
- It ought to be expanded slightly with columns for royalties and fees, source open or closed, approximate deployment numbers, and initial date of development. Feel free to expand it. —EncMstr (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good work on the list, thank you N'SallaNuto (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi EncMstr. I just want to let you know that the article that corresponds to the Fusion RTOS redlink has been deleted (see: [9]). I don't think that this was the right decision. It would have been better to give people a chance fix some of its content. Your opinion? Ghettoblaster (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
QWERTY: Oregon COTW
Hello WikiProject Oregon participants, time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week we made some great improvements to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Oregon Ballot Measure 47 (1996), with a DYK for the forest. Great job everyone! This week we have another stub, George Lemuel Woods, one of only two governor stubs left, and should be an easy job getting it to Start class. Then, in honor of the long weekend, we have our second State Park Article Creation Drive. Lots of red links to turn blue, lots of opportunities for DYKs. Help if you can, even if it is only adding pictures of state parks. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. May the The Schwartz be with you. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
RE:RedLinks
Thanks for the tip Sorry still trying to figure it all out. :) (~JDM~) (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hi, I was just wondering, being a fairly new user, how to revert more than one edit. A vandal, User:66.188.195.181, had vandalized To Kill a Mockingbird (film), twice. I reverted both seperately, not knowing what to do. Then I noticed you had reverted four edits on Marcus Whitman all at once. Is this a admin thing, or how do you do it? Just wondering, LittleMountain5 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sid Haig Page
Thank you for fixing the layout around that image. I didn't know how to do that without multiple breaks. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.199.200 (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. In the future, write in the edit summary your intent. That way someone like me doesn't have to think so hard to figure out what you were doing. :-) —EncMstr (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
re: Blond
Hello. I am referring to the space within the Geographic location section. There is only enough space for the map, anything else pushes down into the Culturally related ideas section. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
X marks the WPOR COTW spot
Guten Tag WikiProject Oregon team members! Great job last week with the Collaboration of the Week, we improved George Lemuel Woods and added eleven new state park articles. This past week we also surpassed the 6000 article mark as a project. The weather may suck, but WPORE is not. For this week we have by request Music of Oregon and Phil Knight. Both need some help, and with Knight we might be able to improve it to GA standards. Once again, to opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fonzie says good job
|
The COTW award from WPOR. | |
| Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week! For making parks happen. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
Blond
Hi EncMstr, unfortunately it may need protecting again, looking at the edit history. Could you look into it if you have time? Perebynis (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, looks like a bunch of anons are being disruptive. It's protected for two months this time. —EncMstr (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Page move
Re: User_talk:Peteforsyth#Page move, am I gonna screw anything up? Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, for the help. I created the two disambig pages Blue Mountain and Blue Mountains. One last thing seems to need fixing: The Blue Mountains talk page is currently pointing to Blue Mountains (Australia). Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please protect my page User talk:68.4.176.68
The page protection from my talk page has expired. Since then, the 75.47.xxx.xxx IP continues to stalk me and edit my talk page and my comments. Please protect my page, and please make it indefinite if you can. Thanks. And yes, I'm aware I can't edit my page either. 68.4.176.68 (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Racist abuse
Hi friend, you've done good work in blocking Vyaghradhataki and his sock-puppets. :-) . I wish to approach you with the issue of this Pakistani editor indulging in personal abuse, racism and religious fanaticism directed against me. I don't wish to go public with this issue due to personal reasons. However, it is a dire breach of civility and this user must be blocked. Thank you!
This is what he has said in my talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&diff=prev&oldid=216444420
"If you re-add the image again then I will go around and find the worst images of Hindus and place them in all Indian related articles."
Also, have a look at the article Pashtun people. I have not been examining it for a long time though but I suspect that he has been trying to take ownership of the article. Do take the kind of action you deem appropriate. I don't think such editors (who are upto no good) should be allowed to remain and edit Wikipedia. Thanks. It will also be good if you could semi-protect my talkpage as I shall not be logging in for quite sometime and there is a definite possibility that this user might come back with more attacks -RavichandarMy coffee shop 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be user coming from a variety of IP addresses all originating in Pakistan. As far as I know, there is no satisfactory solution for this. A range block might be possible, but requires the consensus of several admins. Your talk page is semi-protected for 3 months, since that is about the amount of time since the last IP (other than the vandal) has used it, when it was protected before. —EncMstr (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much :-). -RavichandarMy coffee shop 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess there has been some edit war on between this particular editor and another IP for quite sometime there. Well, the editor claims that the image is offensive. Well, I am ready for any discussion with regard to this. But then, I feel that unless there are a considerable number of people in agreement with his views, the removal of the image may very well regarded as POV. Also, he had been maliciously tagging the image for deletion just because he does'nt like it despite the fact that the copyright-status of the image has been clearly expressed . Have a look at this
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Old_Pathan_1921.JPG&action=history -RavichandarMy coffee shop 23:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Dog
I know maybe you don't know this but that picture of the lab is golden lab. Most labs are black, but some are yellow. The yellow ones are not called yellow like the black ones are caled black because they are called golden. Jack Russell Lover 12:03 PM 2 June 2008
- It was obvious to me that it was a golden lab. I changed it because "golden" inside the double-square brackets changed Labrador Retriever to Golden Labrador Retriever. A red link means there is no linked article—an invitation to start such an article. But it also means no one could click on it to learn about Labrador Retrievers. —EncMstr (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think I should right the article on the Golden Lab? I can do it if your too busy. Jack Russell Lover 12:26 AM 2 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRussellLover (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look at this section of the current Lab article: Labrador Retriever#Non-variants. Is there something there you'd change or add? What would the article you'd write have that the current general Lab article is missing? —EncMstr (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think I should right the article on the Golden Lab? I can do it if your too busy. Jack Russell Lover 12:26 AM 2 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRussellLover (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oregon protected area DYKs
Just a suggestion. I notice you've used {{infobox park}} for those. That's really best for parks like Central Park that are designed for recreation rather than conservation. I added both of them to the protected areas project, and you could either use that infobox or, if you've got a lot of info and you're feeling bold, the protected area arguments for {{Geobox}}. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada listed at AFD
If you wish, please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. hike395 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Samuel H. Boardman State Scenic Corridor
|
|
On 4 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel H. Boardman State Scenic Corridor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Devils Punch Bowl State Natural Area
|
|
On 4 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Devils Punch Bowl State Natural Area, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Flattery...
It appears I have a fan Katr66 (talk · contribs · logs). They have done nothing too alarming except turn the education section in the K Falls article into a linkfarm. So can I request s/he change her name? Katr67 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Done I've "encouraged" them to choose a new account name. —EncMstr (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Looks like this account was started at the same time. Go figure. Katr67 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
40 Mile Loop
|
|
On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 40 Mile Loop, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Thanks for the note -- if you want to join in any reverting, please feel free. As I told Geoff, I'm not too concerned about it, because BLP concerns trump 3RR. But any support would certainly be welcome. -Pete (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
re: 3RR
Hello. Thanks for the warning. However, it is actually user:Rewinn who is vandalizing the article by removing the image that I added. He is senselessly edit warring and vandalizing (removing the image). Can you please send him this 3RR warning also and also a vandalism warning? Thanks. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A is for Apple at COTW
Hello again to those of the WikiProject we call Oregon. Time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to Music of Oregon and Phil Knight, great job everyone. This week, by request is the Applegate Trail, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, I’m trying something a little different, with the Portland State stuff. We included the two high profile schools during Civil War week last year, so now its time for the younger sibling that gets no respect to get some attention. After all, it is the largest college in the state. Feel free to help with whatever aspects you like, though to help with some ideas I added some to the article talk page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Nana na na, hey hey hey, goouud byeeee. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Racism
(Personal attack removed)119.30.71.201 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your inquiry. In the future, please express yourself without attacking any other editor, and without assuming bad faith.
- The image is marked as being from National Geographic Magazine, November 1921. Googling provides this link which indicates it contains articles titled, Through the Heart of Hindustan, The Marble Dams of Rajputana, The Empire of Romance-India, Outwitting the Water Demons of Kashmir, and A Pilgrimage to Amernath Himalayan Shrine of the Hindu Faith.
- Given those titles, my guess is that the photograph does indeed come from that issue. The fact that the uploader did not provide additional information about the photograph simply means it is missing. Uploading media to Wikipedia is a daunting process with many demands for documentation and information. There's no cause to assume an abbreviated or omitted description is a lie.
- I'm sorry you are so easily offended. You would do well to consider how your conduct and method of expression represents your ideals. For some perspective, consider Jesus with erection. It upsets many Christians, but that isn't cause for deletion, censure, nor harassing the editors creating the article or author of the work. —EncMstr (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding the link, but the titled articles in the Nov. 1921 NG magazine are about India, Indian people, Hindu religion and Hindu culture. The old man with ripped clothes in the above image is suppose to be Afghan (according to the User:Ravichandar84), belonging to the ethnic Pashtuns. The problem is that we cannot verify the man's true ethnic background, if he is Punjabi Indian as I suspect then it is obviously in the wrong article. It should be added to Punjabi people and I've done it. That image of the old Indian man with ripped clothes being used in Pashtun people article is for the sole purpose to degrade Pashtun people and should be removed from the article. Pashtun people is a general article about a group of people so there should just be general NON-offending and current images of Pashtun people, BUT NOT included in it Indian people or very old as User:Ravichandar84 has done. Besides, the image is in the wrong section of the article because there already is one photo available dating to 1878. I've added the photo on the right to the appropiate section of Pashtuns article before User:Ravichandar84 uploaded his photo. This is an example of what kind of photos should be placed, ones that do not show anything that may be offensive to some people and this one to the right is that. I don't think there is anything wrong with what I believe about all this.--119.30.76.159 (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- User:Ravichandar84 is vandalizing articles by removing sourced content. [10] I think he is the one that is upto no good. There is a source (Profile: Shaperai Naghma) clearly explaining that Naghma was born in Kandahar, Afghanistan, but he removed that placed her birth location as Paktia province and that she is a prostitute.--119.30.69.250 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article Through the Heart of Hindustan is about the journey of Maynard Owen Williams through the Grand Trunk Road from the Khyber Pass to Calcutta through Peshawar, Attock, Hasan Abdal, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Amritsar, Delhi, Allahabad and Benares. And then, Hindustan under British rule also included the whole of present-day Pakistan. As far as those reverts are concerned, those are a part of the regular counter-vandalism process. Of course, since the anonymous IP above has a history of disruptive editing and has been suspected of sockpuppetry by a fair chunk of editors to Pashtun people article, edits made by him/her are bound to be regarded as acts of vandalism and reverted. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I have always been ready for a discussion of the image in the article discussion page. But then, the above editor has'nt been assuming good faith from the very beginning. The first time around he tagged the article for deletion explaining that it was due to lack of sources despite the fact that the sources have clearly been mentioned. When I reverted this edit of his, he responded with racist slurs and abuses in Urdu in my talkpage. And when Pashtun peoples article has been semi-protected by an administrator, he responded by introducing the image in an article on Indian Punjabi as a tit-for-tat measure.
- As for the description of the image, I had only reproduced the caption used by Maynard Owen Williams.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You don't like me because my IP is from Pakistan and your a Hindu from India, that's very obvious and don't pretend as if this isn't true. You have no rights to remove sourced content. I'm putting up facts, it's you who is pushing POVs. You placed a Punjabi speaking Indian man in the Pashtun people article because you think he is Pashto-speaking Pashtun. Pakistan was part of Hindustan at the time when the old Punjabi man's photo was shot in 1921, meaning Pakistan at that time also had a very large number of Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Most of them left for India before the partition took place in 1947. The old man with torn clothes is typical looking Punjabi Muslim. If you really have that 1921 NG magazine then there should be some description telling where the photo of the old man taken. There is no way of verifying his ethnic background, you saying he is Pashtun and I'm saying he is Punjabi man from Hindustan.--119.30.67.250 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have time to answer to 119.30.17.201's crappy accusations. Anonymous user from Pakistan, you've indulged in every possible act prohibited as per WP:NOT: WP:CIVIL ([11],[12],[13],[14],[15]), WP:3RR ([16][17]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21,119.30.67.250) and obviously, WP:NPOV. Consider it as sheer good fortune that you have not yet been blocked.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not violating the rules of Wikipedia and I have my rights to keep myself anonymous online, you are showing hate again. Please control your hate or anger and try to focus on the subject we're discussing here, which is the unverifiable ethnicity of the old man in the photo that you uploaded at the very top of this section. Don't worry about who I really am. We need to verify something on the old man, can you upload the same photo but showing the text of the National Geographic Magazine. Similar as how you uploaded the photo on the right here or the others ones you uploaded that shows historical text next to it.--119.30.75.148 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- A new version has been introduced as you wanted me to. Now shall we take a decision about you regarding your breach of Wikipedia's policies. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, now I see that he may be Pashto-speaking Pathan but it's still not 100% clear because the term "Pathan" also applies to Hindko-speaking Hindkowans who live in NWFP (where the old Pathan's photo may have been shot). I know alot about these Hindko-speaking Pathans, they are 50% Punjabi and 50% Pashtun. Their native language "Hindko" is much closer to Punjabi language than Pashto. If you hear it you think you're hearing someone speaking Punjabi and I have heard them speak because I have several Hindko-speaking friends. Anyway, I think to remove this mistrust on the old man's true ethnicity you can just replace his photo in the Pashtun people article with this new one on the right because the people in this photo are proven to be Pathans, with no doubt. This new photo is also much older than the old man's, which I considered it to be biased as well.--119.30.67.70 (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- A new version has been introduced as you wanted me to. Now shall we take a decision about you regarding your breach of Wikipedia's policies. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not violating the rules of Wikipedia and I have my rights to keep myself anonymous online, you are showing hate again. Please control your hate or anger and try to focus on the subject we're discussing here, which is the unverifiable ethnicity of the old man in the photo that you uploaded at the very top of this section. Don't worry about who I really am. We need to verify something on the old man, can you upload the same photo but showing the text of the National Geographic Magazine. Similar as how you uploaded the photo on the right here or the others ones you uploaded that shows historical text next to it.--119.30.75.148 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have time to answer to 119.30.17.201's crappy accusations. Anonymous user from Pakistan, you've indulged in every possible act prohibited as per WP:NOT: WP:CIVIL ([11],[12],[13],[14],[15]), WP:3RR ([16][17]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21,119.30.67.250) and obviously, WP:NPOV. Consider it as sheer good fortune that you have not yet been blocked.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you want even older photo of Pathans then this may be even better, to be used in Pashtun people article in the section that talks about ancient history or origin of the name Afghan.--119.30.67.70 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Are all parties satisfied now? —EncMstr (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, because I want the "Old Pathan" photo removed from the Pashtun people#History and origins (including the one with men of different ethnic background standing in desert in 1878) and instead like to add the ones on the right in their places. The old man's ethnic backgound is not clear because the source (NGM) doesn't say anything about who he is. The people in these photos are in fact ethnic Pashtuns. My photos are much older than the old man's so it's better that we use the older photos because the section deals with "history and origins". My photos are best suitable for the section that is about origin of Pashtuns. I find the photos that are currently there very offensive, like someone is trying to say that Pashtuns are inferior ethnic race. Little do they know that the current United States Ambassador to the United Nations (Zalmay Khalilzad), India's top bollywood super stars (Shahrukh Khan, Feroz Khan, Aamir Khan, Fardeen Khan and many others) are Pashtun (known in India as Pathans). A Pashtun man (Abdul Ahad Mohmand) went to space and spent 9 days in MIR space station in 1988, becoming the 3rd Muslim to do so. He beat people from UK, Japan, China, Israel and many other countries because they all went to space after him. Another Pashtun man (Muhammad Muhsin Khan) from Kandahar is responsible for translating the Quran into the English language and his bio is in the front to every Noble Quran. I can keep going but I guess it's enough to make my point that Pashtuns should not be looked at as inferior, they make the status as being superior. User:EncMstr can you please put these latest photos in place of the 2 in Pashtun people#History and origin because that article is full locked and I can't edit it.--119.30.71.31 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
List of rivers in Oregon
Thanks for catching those errors. I sometimes do things in too much of a hurry, and my error rate creeps up. Om, om, om. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Invite
Thanks for inviting me to the Oregon COTW project. ScottFish (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please consider extending the block of this user to indefinite. He is a very well known (and insanely persistent) sock puppet, User:JJonz, AKA User:PWeeHurman, who comes around every few days with a new sock to harass User:Sesshomaru. He identifies himself as such in his first edit[18]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure; his diffs are so complicated I wasn't easily able to evaluate most of them. The block I applied prevents his use of any account (on en.wikipedia.org) for the duration. When that expires, if he persists, it will almost certainly be a permanent block. —EncMstr (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's basically what he does whenever he comes around. Leaves a note on Sesshomaru's page, then runs around reverting a bunch of Sess edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
place names
I removed them, as they were red links. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
RE:broken interwiki on Galice, Oregon?
You just added an interwiki on Galice, Oregon. I tried it out, mostly because I wondered what language vi is. But it doesn't go to an article, but some sort of selection page. What is that page and is the linkage correct?
- I'm sorry. I am translating the article now. You will soon see it in Vietnamese page.Motthoangwehuong (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: 132.185.240.122
Hello. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'd appreciate a bit of advice on the correct way to deal with the repeated removal (by a user with the IP address of 132.185.240.122) of my edits to the Reece Shearsmith page. Thanks very much. Bogbumper (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. I've tried to improve my reference, but it's tricky because the information is only available online with a paid-for subscription and I can't link directly to it. I am certain the name is Wayne, not William. It's not exactly an issue dear to my heart, but it's irritating when someone else changes it repeatedly and doesn't cite a reference or add an edit summary. Still, c'est la vie. Bogbumper (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that illustrates why citing obscure websites is unwise... The births index itself (which the Ancestry stuff is based on) is also available on microfiche in public libraries. Thanks again for your assistance. Bogbumper (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Blue Mountains
You might want to see this discussion. giggy (:O) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that policy. There's no need to remind me. I'm making a valid point about the lack of consultation. JRG (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the help on the Heceta Head Light. It is much appreciated. Cheers, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Alvord Lake
Being a new editor, I'm a bit overwhelmed by your talk entry. Alvord Lake in Phoenix, AZ is a small urban fishing location inside CC Park. The disambiguation page sounds like a needed entry and please implement that. If you look at the history of the Alvord lake page you will see that I was requested to "name it properly" to Alvord Lake from Alvord, Urban Lake, Arizona (well not specifically Alvord, my talk page entry specifically addresses Surprise, another of the same class of lakes I'm creating/updating pages for). Anyway, I'm just trying to find my way ... MJonesAz (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed the Alvord page to Alvord Lake (Arizona) to make way for the disambi page, hopefully some other folks will pick up the page and add the missing data. Thanks much, MJonesAz (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Xtra COTW
Greeting once again WikiProject Oregon Folks. Time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. First, thank you to those who helped out on the last few COTWs. This week we have the soon to open Westside Express Service, formerly the Washington County Commuter Rail, so lets see if we can get it up to WPORE standards. Then there is a Coordinates Drive to add coordinates to any articles currently missing them, to help increase readership by allowing them to be shown on Google Earth/Maps. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
GSM - SMS Pricing
For some reason I wasn't seeing your edit summary, so I apologise for the confusion. I have reverted to your version, with a clarification that I hope you agree with. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Reason
This user runs and operates theexplodingwhale.com, the definitive resource for this topic on the net and whose site makes up much of the information found in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zobango (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Willamette Meteorite location
Thanks for the compliment. The replica is located here: [19]. Considering the plaque on the replica says the meteorite was found two miles NW of that place, I'm guessing the coordinates are wrong as they're NE of the marker. I couldn't find a more exact location online, but I'll keep looking.Ulmanor (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Qrazy sale at COTW! Act now! Total liquidation!
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week! Last week we saw some good improvements made to Westside Express Service, while we also worked on a Coordinates Drive. I don’t know how many articles had the coordinates added to, but thanks to those who helped out. This week we have two more requests: William Clark of Lewis & Clark fame and the famed Oregon Bottle Bill. Hopefully we can work both up to B class. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Abdus Ibrahim
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdus Ibrahim . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 208.54.95.14 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Article Renaming Issue
Last week I created a new article about a document called A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Within minutes of posting the article, which I'd worked on for a number of weeks before posting, User:RayAYang "got bold", and based on his feeling the title of the article did not conform to a neutral point of view, changed it via a redirect to use Burner Plan, named after one of the authors of the plan. My contention has been that the neutrality of the article about the plan and the neutrality of the document the article is about have been confused, and the article's title should retain the name of the document the article is about. You can read the details at Talk:Burner Plan. Other concerns about neutrality in the article, to include more citations about criticisms have been addressed, but it seems that the arguments made to justify changing the name of the article lead down a slippery slope and changing the name is in fact an act of unwittingly insinuating POV. I'd like to see the name of the article reverted to the name of the document the article is about. Thank you for your consideration. -Dankirkd (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's a tough one. The word "responsible" does seem POV, so my first reaction would be to agree with renaming. Burner plan seems pretty neutral. Perhaps conduct a search test experiment to see which term has greater popular usage? —EncMstr (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. Google says:
- "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq": 88,400
- "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" Burner: 9,960
- "Burner Plan": 2,800
- "Burner's plan": 401
- This is what I found:
- "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq": 94,000
- "Responsible Plan" Iraq: 92,600
- "Burner Plan" Iraq: 405
- Those familiar with the plan don't tend to use "Burner's Plan" unless they are writing about that specific candidate. Commentary that is focused on other candidates that have endorsed the plan don't use "Burner Plan", but instead use "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq". The most respected and high profile citations I have found all refer to the plan by the official name "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq". -Dankirkd (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is what I found:
- I want to add that there are plenty of examples at Wikipedia where the name of the article is the name of the document (Contract With America), legislation (No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Act of 2003), or military operation (Operation Enduring Freedom) has been used without issue. These titles don't reflect a neutral POV, but they're used nevertheless, and the articles about them are what strive to be neutral.
- I went to rename it back, but found it had already been done. Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) did it 20 minutes earlier. In the future, you could try using the "move" tab thing at the top of the article, but in some cases it takes administrative action to move an article over a redirect (which would have been left behind by the first move). —EncMstr (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Blue Mountain
Hi -- I would agree with you, except that there never was an article for the NH Blue Mountain. Bunnell Mountain/Blue Mountain is remote, wooded, and trailless, and while it's possible someone may eventually find the time or interest to write about it in the future, I would wait until that time to restore the link. See you, --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
John Dundee
I am the late John Dundee's daughter. The family have requested that Wikipedia withdraw this article as it is becoming too americanised (e.g anaesthesiologist - in the UK we use the term anaesthetist) and other facts are incorrect.
Please respect our wishes until this has been withdrawn by Wikipedia
Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- The block is only 15 minutes, but you can lift it if you're on top of it. I won't consider it wheeling. –xeno (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
|
The Citation Barnstar | |
| For your quick and diligent work finding citations for the John Dundee article. –xeno (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
- You must have little else to do!Again you have ignored the wishes of his family - obviously you have no respect for the feelings of his family.
Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
John Dundee
Just how well did you know this man and what gives you the right to edit this article.?
Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Xeno's comments "'She's' active again" is insulting. I asked a question which has not been replied to - how well did you know this man? I have his certificates, diplomas, publications etc. and knew him extremely well so I am perfectly qualified to comment on this article.
As for Wikipedia, if you want to publish articles again the wishes of people's families, then you are about to open a whole can of worms.
As for me, I have a life outside th internet, thank goodness - it can be so misleading and lead to all sorts of legal issues! Waltzingmatilda57 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Summer Time in the COTW
Hello again to those of the WikiProject Oregon Clan. Time for another new edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to William Clark and the legendary Oregon Bottle Bill, great job to those who helped out. This week, by request is the Owyhee Reservoir, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, also by request is a red link elimination drive on Oregon newspapers. Feel free to help out with either. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Userboxing
Just a short note, one of your userboxes is broken ({{Template:User mod2-4}}). I didn't want to remove it because I thought you want to fix it maybe. Oh and good work with the refs on the John Dundee article. Have a nice evening :-) So#Why 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks and thanks. I never got around to creating it. In the early years, I figured someone else would create it for me. Guess there's not much interest in Modula-2. Thanks. —EncMstr (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
MAX station names
I agree that some, like Ruby Junction/East 197th Avenue, are unlikely to need disambiguation, but it's pretty likely that there will be other articles about something named Cleveland Avenue or (especially) Gresham City Hall. --NE2 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I ran into several which couldn't be moved for that reason.
- I did it rather blindly. Undoubtedly some will need tweaking. Hawthorn Farm is likely to be a disambiguation someday, if the area's history gets written at great depth. —EncMstr (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why did you do it at all if they'll just need to be reverted? --NE2 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Be bold is all the reason he needs -- he saw a potential improvement, and did it. If that creates some problems, we just fix 'em.
- I think, though, that this flowed from my own little project this morning, which I maybe should have explained somewhere. I removed the (MAX station) qualifier from all the Transit Centers, since they serve many bus lines in addition to MAX trains, and since their names are clearly unique (with the words "Transit Center" already in them.) That was all I was planning to do. I probably could have avoided this confusion by mentioning what I was doing at WT:ORE or somewhere like this. So, sorry. -Pete (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Were you only changing transit centers? I missed that: it seemed like you were changing everything. sigh. Fixing the navigation template will be much harder than breaking it. —EncMstr (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The Dark Knight
You may want to return the semi-protection. There is an increasing number of Anons that keep wanting to adjust the fate of a particular character (sorry, being vague in case you haven't watched the movie), because they cannot accept the fact that that particular person died in the film. They keep reverting back to an ambiguous ending for the character that leaves more questions than the film did - which, the film actually made it plain and simple...they died. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Appreciate the re-protection. I'm now backing away from the article, because I got too involved this morning and ended up exceeding my reverting privileges by a lot. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done We thought that Luke Skywalker's father was dead early on, and Spock at one point too. I agree that the anonymous editors original research contributions are too much burden. —EncMstr (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, right on. Thanks again. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It's too bad I had to do that.
With the exception of 69.72.x.x and 208.103.x.x (who, based on edits, are probably the same person), most random-IP edits have actually been helpful. But, if they can edit from two distinct IPs, they can probably find others if they were range-blocked (if they could be without doing too much damage)... HalfShadow 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Bearing Specialists Association
I noticed that you deleted Bearing Specialists Association. I saw the earlier version of the article created by another editor and realized that it was overly promotional, so I created a new version and was careful to add several references from a number of publications. I realize that this is not an exciting association, but I think that, understood on the context of the references and its status as a long-established national organization of the United States, it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. --Eastmain (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed your version is not promotional at all, and you found decent sources which help with notability. I expect to see notability in the form of "received the (award) by (someone)" or "ranked (number) by (independent organization)". Lacking those, this is a very dry article which would only be of interest (presumably) to that organization. Do you want to work on it some more? I'll restore it to your user space, or maybe you'd prefer it be undeleted and prodded? —EncMstr (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
NTFS
You say "symbolic links have been there since NT 4.0/NTFS 1.2: but with poor OS support". What OS support was there? Can you provide some references? Reilly (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly, Microsoft sucks at keeping old documentation available, so it's very difficult to find that. However this is where sysinternals.com says that Win2000 supported junctions: note that link is from the WayBack machine. Also, there is this article which shows other ways of doing similar things. I knew about it from reverse engineering NTFS back in the day. —EncMstr (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Junctions aren't symbolic links as most people understand the term: they only work with directories and only on the same computer. The NTFS article already has a section for junctions so, in that context, symbolic links and junctions are not the same thing. Symbolic links were introduced in Vista. Reilly (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Mnc Entertainment
I had placed a hangon and had offered some comments on the talk page and the nominators talk page - whats with deleting so quick? - it is a valid Indonesian corporate body SatuSuro 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the slow reply: there was a recent whirlwind of activity.
- MNC Entertainment has five revisions over its 68 minute lifetime—three of which are by you. None of the revisions assert notability, and the article's content is over half "Coming Soon"—an undue amount of questionable content. The only reference is the corporate site, which mentions three television networks. So even if the article asserted notability, it still omitted the basics of the subject. Read up about stubs: Even they must assert notability.
- I apologize for missing your {{hangon}}, but I did glance at the talk page and didn't see any rationale for hanging on. I did notice the exchange by you and Ukexpat (talk · contribs), but it confirmed the article's lack of notability. If you like, I'll restore the article to your userspace for you to work on. —EncMstr (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey - I'm only seeing three edits during 2008 from this account; one speedy tagging (based on a vandalism from an IP at Ome Henk), one removal of a comment at User talk:Orangemike, and an unblock request. I note that you've blocked indef, so wanted to inquire on the matter - is there something I'm missing? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm working on a check user request now. I agree, it should be a shorter block based on direct evidence. —EncMstr (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, you're aware of it; I'll leave that to you, then. Thanks for the quick response, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was in the middle of writing a comment on this block on his/her talk page, but when I pressed the preview button, I saw you fully protected the page. Why? - Face 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so it was the annon after all. Thank you for investigating and solving the problem. The article will remain in my watchlist. Cheers, Face 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ehm, one more question: how long did it take you to write that excellent checkuser request? Are you using any tools? Cheers, Face 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- I got interrupted a few times, so something less than 20 minutes. No tools, just FireFox with multiple tabs, a text editor to accumulate items by Alt-Tabbing back and forth, and WP:POPUPS to verify the vandalism by mere hovering. —EncMstr (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Columbia Heights, Oregon
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Columbia Heights, Oregon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
- You beat me to adding the new articles back to Columbia...:-) Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)