User talk:Peteforsyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

older discussions here --> User talk:Peteforsyth/archiveJan07

Contents 1 Wu edits 2 Grognard 3 Rail schedules 4 Whoops 5 portland bands 6 Oregon history cites 7 see also 8 Gordon Smith 9 Copyright Proposal 10 "Boasts" 11 Sock Puppet 12 Round Barn 13 AfD nomination of City of Portsmouth Boys' School 14 How to upload new version of an image (from Commons) 15 Licens for image on commons 16 Oops! 17 Don't Delete!! 18 107th Congress 19 Copy edit of Oregon 20 Lying Liars 21 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 22 Mill Ends Park cite 23 Format question 24 Toot own horn 25 Franken stuff 26 Dude, yew keep misspellin' grammer 27 TSPPR and Stefani 28 klamath mountains 29 If we're not supposed to talk to sockpuppets... 30 Cite 31 Rock on for calling the guv 32 DYK and mp tl 33 Dave Pierre

[edit] Wu edits

You're welcome! But note that I was too chicken to deal with the other reverts that you did earlier ;-) ...thanks! --Sprkee 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grognard

Hey, thanks for updating my Grognard! Did you know it's one of the few awards you can give to yourself? I figured even though I've been registered for a year, I didn't really qualify for the next one since I didn't edit seriously for several months. But since you deem me qualified, I'll take it! Do not be afraid. Come...come...join us here on the darkside... Mwahahaha! Katr67 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail schedules

Thanks for helping fix up that transportation section (re: the Amtrak info) in the Portland article. If you have a moment, do you think you could check out Albany, Oregon and Salem, Oregon too? I haven't had a chance to work on them yet, but I did drop a note on the editor's talk page. Luckily there aren't too many Amtrak stations in the state. :) Katr67 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Sorry, I reverted Archie Manning to the wrong version. Thanks for catching it. fethers 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] portland bands

Hi Pete, I commented on your Portland, Oregon band vanity edit.

Commented again.

[edit] Oregon history cites

Thanks for wikifying the cites I added a while back. I was just quickly adding them as a certain editor from up north had made some not surprising remarks regarding tribes in Oregon. Another instance of them not knowing their history. I think they thought the Nez Perze were only in Washington and didn't know where the Wallowa Valley is. Thanks again. Aboutmovies 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] see also

Hey Pete~ Sorry, I can see that my edit to Measure 37 created some imbalance--I wasn't really thinking of that when I removed the link. But here's my rationale--The 1000 Friends of Oregon link should definitely be worked into the article too, and also removed from the see also section. I'd quote you a bunch of wikipolicy but earlier this week when I looked for some (I was reverting the good faith "see also" addition that another editor I respect had added), it was buried in various MOS talk page archives. I'll see if I can do better though. From what I've gleaned from various sources, the "see also" section is somewhat deprecated and the inclusion of those sort of links in the body very much encouraged. See alsos are definitely useful in many cases, though, such as pointing people to the other ballot measures, and perhaps when the related subject is buried in a lengthy article. But when it comes to link bloat, I'm definitely something of a deletionist. It's certainly not a matter I'd start a revert war over. Things like "nestled" and "boasts" bother me a lot more! :) (And you're right about my talk page being a weird place for that particular discussion, but I felt like it was more about that one guy's campaign against another editor than about the article in question.) Anyway, feel free to let me know if you think my edits are hogwash, and we can work something out! It's nice to hash things like this out with a nice civil editor. Thanks! Katr67 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Smith

Pete, thanks for your supportive comments regarding the edits I made to Gordon Smith! Per your request, I tried to explain his votes on those social issue bills a bit more clearly. However, I felt that in an attempt to answer the question posed in the section title, my addition about those votes verged on introducing Original Research, so I moved it to the "Social policy" section where it seems more appropriate. Using the "Conservative or moderate?" section to list descriptions of his positions/ideology made by reputable sources seems OK, but maybe there's another section title (one that doesn't pose a question) that would be a better fit? I probably won't be editing that page any further, but thanks again for the comments and the terrific work you've done there! -Tobogganoggin ^talk 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Proposal

Moved comment from AboutMovies to User talk:Peteforsyth/leg

[edit] "Boasts"

Hello and thanks for your comment on this subject. I've added a comment about it to the original page and would appreciate if you would comment. Thanks! -Yupik 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! -Yupik 09:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppet

Sorry I didn't bring a citation to the Wikipedia policy. I appreciate your help in directing me to a citation and asking for more specific details of what I've claimed. Whatever the outcome, thanks for the help, and I'll be in better shape in the future. --Zz414 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Round Barn

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the picture and uploading it. —EncMstr 19:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of City of Portsmouth Boys' School

An article that you have been involved in editing, City of Portsmouth Boys' School, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Portsmouth Boys' School. Thank you. Adam 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to upload new version of an image (from Commons)

Look for “Upload a new version of this file” in Image:OregonCavesNM-HAER.png. It will lead you to an upload form. Select the new file you want to upload. Document the changes you made (cropping, fixing an error, tweaking lighting, etc.) in the “summary” field. This text will appear as a comment in the “File history” section of the picture page. It will not overwrite the original description field nor the license information.

Leave the license dropdown box as it is ("None selected") and tick the "Ignore any warnings" checkbox. As a result, your new version will get uploaded, your comment will appear in the File history section, the original description field and license information will remain unchanged. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a strange one. On the Commons page, the link stands between the File History section and the Links section. If you still can't see it, I'll give you a direct link. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha, the mystery unravels. You can't yet upload a new version because you're too green. If your document is light enough, you can send it to me by e-mail and I'll do it for you. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licens for image on commons

If you have created the image yourself, you can choose to license under one of the allowed licenses at the licensing page. If you did not create it, you must usually ask the copyright holder for permission to release it under one of the allowed licenses, and the written permission (or a link to it) must also be provided on this page. Please add a licese tag to the image. (like {{PD-self}} ord {{GFDL}} or {{cc-by-sa}}). For more informations you should look under licenses. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!

I see I've been neglecting wiki...guess I'm still not thoroughly house-broken (e-mail still works better for me....) The photo you sent me to is spectacular ("today's featured picture"). I looked over your letter - checked some of the refs. (I notice they have your page flagged as "needing to be updated" - same as the link to the US gov. page!) I like your point, but see possible objections maybe? Guess it's the basic question we all (should) have: "How do we know this is written by someone who knows what s/he's talking about?"

Speaking of pix, check out the panoramic photos I put into Google Earth - well, I put them in the place from which THEY decide whether to up them - of Nedelino and Draginovo! (hard form me to locate them exactly, but I do a better job than they do 'cause I remember where I took 'em from!) --Martha 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the picture IS identified - Karandila - that's above Sliven. We went to a Karakachani festival there (not the same place the photo was taken from! but high, windy, and cold). -M

+ + + + +

Check out my code-samples page, User:Martha_Forsyth/Mom's_Code-samples, to see what I did with your colored background thing! -- 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Delete!!

United States Congressional Delegations from Oregon, List of United States Representatives from Oregon and List of United States Senators from Oregon --> These are three distinct articles with differing information in differing formats. They should NOT be merged or deleted. There are similarly-formed articles on all the other states. The Reps article may not yet be complete (it needs all historical reps), but it should NOT be deleted. See the differences among United States Congressional Delegations from Massachusetts, List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts and List of United States Senators from Massachusetts—Markles 12:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 107th Congress

I was glad to see that you changed the link in the 107th United States Congress to United States Congressional Delegations from Oregon instead of List of United States Representatives from Oregon, although not surprised that Markles changed it back. He has done that after I've made that change as well. All of the Delegations articles are complete and consistent, whereas only a few of the Representative article are, and all of the Delegations articles link to the sub-articles (Senators and Representatives) where they exist. I think all of the ordinal congresses should link to the Delegations articles for each state (similar to the 80th United States Congress). A while ago I made a summary of these articles here. I hope you will be persistent and help to change the ordinal congresses for all states. thanks --Appraiser 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit of Oregon

Thanks, but that was just one section! There is still a ton more to do. :) I think a lot of the facts in the article are valid, but there is a severe lack of citation. I'm going to keep chippig away at it, though. -Big Smooth 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lying Liars

I keep waiting for the ball to drop and for D323P to link to the "good faith" guide again. That Frankenlines website is run by Dave Pierre - any change, you think, that the D and the P in D323P stands for those initials? --DavidShankBone 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We're on the same page - I looked over his edits as well and noticed that he has a long history of controversial edits. I have no doubt that whenever he logs on again he's going to do his "assume good faith" dance again (translation: accept all my edits) and start reverting. His edit history won't help him if we need to involve administrators on this. I left the Frankenlies.com on external links, but that should probably come off as well. I dunno. --DavidShankBone 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named as a party in a potential case brought forward by User:D323P. Please add your view to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_.28Al_Franken.29. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A follow up: the RfAr filing was rejected 0-5. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mill Ends Park cite

Hi Pete. I've been variously confused and baffled by the work parameter of {{cite web}}, etc. As the page didn't (obviously) say inPortland, but did say OregonLive.com, I figured it was a typo. I'll defer to your judgment. Would you like me to do the edit? —EncMstr 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format question

Hi, is there a way to prevent material in grey boxes with dotted outlines from stretching on endlessly? See http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Неделино for an example of what I mean. -User:Martha Forsyth | User_talk:Martha Forsyth 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Get your Mom over to the Al Franken pages - we could use another intellect ;-) --David Shankbone 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toot own horn

My article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot just passed GA status! Woo-hoo! Now I'm waiting on Evan Wolfson... --David Shankbone 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franken stuff

I redacted out the section that basically amounted to accusations that D323P wasn't being collegial. Given the progress of the mediation thus far- we have 1 section perfectly ready for inclusion, another section or two that are approved but awaiting bibliographical citations and cite web template formatting- we've made a lot of progress. Let's continue to work on improving the article, and let's focus on content, not contributors, and we'll get through this thing ok? (Please make any responses on my talk page, as I have 3000+ articles on my watch list and cannot always remember to check them all.) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dude, yew keep misspellin' grammer

Heh. Thanks for saying you find me inspiring. <blush> And...I've just been dying to say: "Yer mom edits Wikipedia". (see: "your mom goes to college.") Hi Pete's Mom! ;) Katr67 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TSPPR and Stefani

Thanks for the compliment on the TSP article - I worked long on it last year. But you *totally* brought me down with the Stefani link, you bastard! lol. --David Shankbone 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] klamath mountains

no problem, my apologies, I'm on a super slow computer tonight, and I had written a bunch when your edit came in, it was too complicated to sort out the edit conflict, so I just blanked what you added and then reinstated that reference tag. Go ahead and put in anything else i didnt see. I will work on the article some more later and try to reference it better, some was based on intimate first hand knowledge of the area too, yet its all to be found on the internet too so I'll add in some more references besides the links at the bottom of the page tomorrow. have a good one-CrystalizedAngels 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If we're not supposed to talk to sockpuppets...

...why wasn't he blocked from editing in the first place? <shrug> Katr67 04:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite

I added the citation to the ballot measure so its good to go. As to how to do it, normally just the first name of each side, then the rest of the information is reporter numbers that you can only get if you go to a law library or have access to one of the pay sites like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Though if you give the party names and (Or. 2002) that should be enough for someone looking to verify, especially in this case since you have a link to the decision. Use Or. only if it is OSC, otherwise abbreviate as best you can (such as Or.Ct.Apl for the Oregon Court of Appeals). But if you need another one, just let me know as it is easier with the pay cites that I get for free. Aboutmovies 06:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the "Opinion" of the court. AKA the decision. It's a little different than some cases, but fairly standard. If you want weird one's look at the English courts. The reason it looks odd is that most cases you read are edited to remove a lot of junk. Even the cases we read in law school are usually very edited with quick summaries of key facts. As I'm sure you noticed there is a lot of stuff that you don't care about in the opinion, so editors remove a lot of that before publisihing it in mainstream places. Another reason that there is more stuff is that it was a constitutional issue which tends to make the justices spend more time explaining their reasoning versus just giving a few citations and making a ruling. Plus a lot of organizations were involved so many arguements needed to be addressed. Sort of a shotgun approach, which means more bandages.

Thanks for the bot message. It rather annoyed me that it was treating me like some sort of spammer. Not my fault non-profits can't afford hosting.Aboutmovies 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock on for calling the guv

Good luck! Katr67 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the shiny (and spinny) new barny! Katr67 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK and mp tl

Hey Pete, I copied and pasted those DYKs from somewhere ages ago and I have no idea what that mp thing is! Also, I was using that section for Oregon-related DYKs that were actually featured on the front page DYK section, so maybe we need a blurb at the top explaining that the section is for winners or winners and nominees. Your choice, but I think it should just be for winners. Though the Union, Oregon one is interesting, I don't know that they'll pass it because it's not a new article? I've never looked at their criteria that closely. I think a couple other people have had Oregon topics listed as DYKs...I should go check... Katr67 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{*mp}} makes a bulleted list instead of it all running together, I think... Katr67 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Pierre

This dude is one odd banana! I wrote that to him three weeks ago; like, hasn't he ever heard of "letting it go"? These guys who are fuelled by partisan fury, they really hurt the discourse in this country. I'm just glad I don't have the angry place inside me from where so much of what they do and say springs. It took me a good 10 minutes to figure out what you were referencing, that's how much I had moved on. But those guys never do. --David Shankbone 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)