User talk:Hux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PLEASE NOTE:

If you post a comment on this page, I will reply on this page! :)

Archives
Один

[edit] Shoegazing/The Scene That Celebrates Itself proposed merger

Hiya, I just came across your proposed merger of Shoegazing and The Scene That Celebrates Itself. After reading the discussion, I think it is save to conclude a merger is not what these articles need. I was going to be bold and close the discussion and remove the templates. But I thought it would be nice to notify you first, and possibly allow you to refute the given arguments. Have a nice day. -- Pepve 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, and thanks for letting me know beforehand. I appreciate it! -- Hux 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

I was under the impression that we were supposed to use the spelling, grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and dating style most appropriate to the article by how it would be done in the article's region and doesn't Kyrgyzstan use the standard? I mean, I have idea. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any convention like that. It is definitely a convention, however, that when one acceptable format/style type has become established it shouldn't be changed to a different formatting/style type. Also, even if your point was generally true it wouldn't apply in this particular case since we're talking about a template which, by nature, needs to maintain one consistent style wherever it's used. -- Hux (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country

I see you changed "England" to "United Kingdom" in the Draft Dodger article. While England is definitely a country, I am not sure about the UK. At any moment the component parts may separate, for one thing. The UK doesn't have a football team either, while England, Scotland, and Wales do. Furthermore, in the context of the article, the use of "United Kingdom" was not as common as "Great Britain" in the sixties, but in any case (context again) Bill Clinton was in England proper (at Oxford) when his induction notice was sent to him, so the use of England was both correct and more specific to the article. I'm not going to revert it, but it seems to me to lose specificity and period for the sale of political correctness. I too have lived in both the USA (Oregon, can I say that? Or does it have to be USA?) and Britain, now in England. TheNameWithNoMan (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How weird: I'm from the UK (London, specifically) and now I live in Oregon! :) But anyway, this is a fairly common issue with editors who aren't from the UK. The full name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", with the short form being "United Kingdom". England is actually not a country today in any international sense, any more than Oregon is a country, for example. England, along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is just one of the component parts of the United Kingdom. The existence of separate football teams is just a historical throwback and means nothing, plus there are other sports in which the UK competes as "Great Britain" anyway, e.g. athletics and rugby league. (Note that in those cases the team is called "Great Britain" and not "United Kingdom" because Northern Ireland is not fully represented - people from there get to choose whether they want to compete with the Great Britain team, or with the Republic of Ireland team).

Anyway, as far as this article goes, it would be correct to say "United Kingdom" when talking about where draft dodgers went because they did not only go to England. In the Clinton example, you can nominally get away with saying "England", since that is technically correct (he was studying at Oxford University, which is of course in England), but since we're writing for an international audience I think it's better to say "United Kingdom" in order to avoid confusion, since that's the name of country. If the situation were reversed, with British people dodging the draft and going to the US, the article would be talking about draft dodgers going to "the United States", rather than "to Arkansas" (or wherever), because we can't assume that everyone knows Arkansas is part of the US. See what I mean? - Hux (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even weirder: I'm from Oregon, currently living in California for this very wet winter. And by the way, many of us in Oregon would prefer to be a separate country! Thanks for the help with the photo tag, Hux! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatBear1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stay calm

I noticed you had posted a rather forceful response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia. Even though someone is being rude to you must stay calm as if you are rude you are just falling to their level. Wikipedia:Stay cool when the editing gets hot Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Case is now at an administrator's noticeboard. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being rude in response to rudeness is unwise and unreasonable. However, I don't actually think there's anything in the post I believe you're referring to that could be considered rude on my part. At worst, you can tell I was somewhat frustrated with the nature of the replies I was getting, but that isn't anything that's frowned upon as far as I know. Either way, I appreciate the heads up, as well as your offer to mediate. -- Hux (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kishlak

Please see "Kishlak" now. I didn't notice that it was a redirect. Mukadderat (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense now. Thanks for the reply. -- Hux (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain template use issue

Hux, I want to say personally that I appreciate your wisdom in dealing with the public domain template abuse that I have perceived, and your advice/comments in the Template talk forum and beforehand. I will continue to respond in the Template talk forum. But FYI, I am proceeding along the lines of addressing pics uploaded without source linking, which is the first level before addressing question of copyright after source is identified, with one user. My contacts on this point with the one user have mostly been in the following notices to his talk page:

I do feel awkward about being a negative enforcer on this, as I am mainly working in wikipedia to develop list-articles on National Historic Landmarks (NHLs), and this one editor has been adding to the NHL lists for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. My main previous interaction with him was also negative: I previously tore out a bunch of his work in those list-articles which was basically pasted-in public domain text (not a copyright violation, but in my view unhelpful in developing the list-articles). If you have comments for me about how I am proceeding with that I would be glad to receive them. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Tagging images for deletion that aren't conforming with policy is, imo, a valuable activity. Even though I think there are still problems with the way Wikipedia is handling licensing of creative works, I think it's better that we err on the side of caution and try to clean up those images that lack source information and proper tags. I don't think we need to go further than those established policies require though.

With regard to public domain text, I'm also not a huge fan of the mass cut and paste, but my objection is on the basis of style: cutting and pasting a bunch of text from elsewhere just doesn't result in a good article. However, it can serve as a basis for a good article, so while just cutting and pasting is pretty lazy, I don't think that wiping it all out is the solution. Better to improve on it, I think. Also, revert big chunks of text purely on the basis that it's been cut/pasted from elsewhere is very likely to create bad feeling, which is another reason I'd argue against it.

I guess that's my two cents! -- Hux (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jung Myung Seok

Hi Hux, do you realise that many of the refs you are removing have already been discussed and consensus decided they were appropriate? RB972 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which refs you're referring to, but I don't see any consensus on that page for any of the sources. What I do see is several people with different opinions, and I have to say that some of those people appear to be a little too personally invested in this article. Further, I believe the only links I removed were those from the rickross and religiousnewsblog sites, which were simply links purporting to be reprints of extant news articles. Such links are inherently unreliable (because a party with an axe to grind can so easily change the text) and in any case I see that you yourself conceded that they we shouldn't use them, so I guess I'm kind of confused as to where you're coming from here. I'm simply a disinterested party who is trying to improve the article according to WP:V and WP:RS. -- Hux (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The "rickross" and "religiousnewsblog" cites are cited to the original media. I've seen the media on the original publishers. 3 outside editors who commented -- Cirt, Bumm13 and John Broughton -- said this was fine. The other outside editor who commented didn't comment on the page, just policy, which is not in dispute. You also didn't just remove those cites: you also removed a 7days cite, a Donga cite, and an APTV cite. I do appreciate outside editors helping out, but please use the talk page to discuss changes, especially when they contradict other disinterested parties. RB972 09:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to discuss this further on the talk page. But I do strongly advise you to take a look at WP:OWN - phrases such as, "I do appreciate outside editors helping out", are not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are no "outside editors" and neither you nor anyone else owns that article, or any other. We are all free to take the initiative and attempt to improve articles as we see fit within the scope of established policy. -- Hux (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstood what I meant by "outside editor". I meant it to mean "a disinterested party" in your words. They weren't involved in the original dispute, hence they are "outside". I definitely not implying that I don't want them there, as implied by WP:OWN comments. I said "appreciate", didn't I? ;) Anyway, I'm waiting for your comment on the talk page. RB972 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Komuz

Dear Hux, I'm not a Wikipedia pro so I'll keep it brief. I was browsing the 'Komuz' page and noticed your request to know the tunings used for the komuz. If you're still looking, I believe the most thorough reference for this is Slobin's 'Kirgiz Instrumental Music'. I think there is quite a detailed account of tunings used, as well as chords even. If you can't find a copy (it's quite a ratty and rare 'Society for Asian Music' issue from 1969) then I'd be pleased to copy you the relevant sections. Anything to help popularise this relatively unknown instrument. For my part, I'd dearly like to know how best to restring the darn thing. Have you any experience with regard to this?

Sincerely,

Robbie Dawson (London) 207297 'at' soas.ac.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.233.46 (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the note. I actually emailed the webmaster of a site that had some CDs of Kyrgyz music for sale and he sent me some info from the very same source you mention, so I have a pretty good idea of the various tunings. As for restringing, I've yet to do that with mine so I can't help you, I"m afraid. If I find some info I'll let you know. Regards, Hux (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia logo

You said I could use the wikipedia logo modified. Do you know what tag it is? Signed, Nothing 444 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears that I'm completely wrong! The image page for the Wikipedia logo states:

"This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia foundation or by one of its projects. Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL. Use of the Wikimedia logo is subject to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines and requires permission."

So I guess that means you can't use it. Ironic, eh? -- Hux (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject?

Hi Hux, just noticed your flurry of fixes to Oregon-related articles and thought I'd pop by to invite you to join WikiProject Oregon. We've got a good thing going…a number of active editors, a collaboration of the week, a portal that just reached Featured status. Might want to check the talk page for some recent discussions. We can always use more good editors, so jump in if you like! -Pete (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I'll check it out. -- Hux (talk)

Well, you must have liked something you saw -- welcome to the project! -Pete (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Buildings and Pictures

Greetings from WP:WikiProject Oregon. Blah blah blah. This week we have our semi-annual Picture Drive and a article creation drive for the NRHP List. For the picture drive, go take a picture, or find a free use one (lots of links to gov sites above) and upload it Wikipedia. For the National Register of Historic Places, find a red link on the main Oregon list or one of the county lists at start a new article. If its more than just a stub, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK! Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging images for deletion

I've replied on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JD554 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama in Somali garb etc.

I should've warned you what you were dealing with. Seems 72.etc got you almost as off he's made me.[1] Yet, we've got an admin saying his and Wordbuilder's refusal to admit the obvious constitutes a lack of consensus to add the image, and a lack of consensus to add the image is a reason not to undelete it. And another admin who also improperly deleted the image (see here). DRV next? Such a fuss over something so small, but I guess it has to be done, lest bad faith POV pushing be encouraged by success. Andyvphil (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not off. I'm just tired of trying to clear up a misunderstanding in the face of someone who is calling me a liar. It's obvious he's sticking to his unshakable conclusion, so it's a waste of time carrying on down that road.

Regarding the more important issue, I'm waiting to see the result of the RfC. I'm confident that people coming into the thread from the "outiside", so to speak, will have a more open mind. We may yet reach consensus. We shall see. -- Hux (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 14 OR COTW

Hello again or welcome if you are new to WP:WikiProject Oregon! Last week we did a picture drive and a NRHP creation drive. It’s hard to track the picture results, but I know I saw quite a few pictures added, so great job. With NRHP we added 7 that I saw: Mitchell Recreation Area, Salem First United Methodist Church, Portland City Hall, Crater Lake Lodge, Central Library (Portland, Oregon), Watchman Lookout Station, and Alvin T. Smith House; with most now nominated for DYK’s! So great work everybody.

This week, its back to stubs with one of the largest newspapers in the state, The Register-Guard, and a request with Oregon Coast. Feel free to help with either one, and the paper article is so short a DYK should be pretty easy to get (just need 5X expansion). As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ARS Technica

Thanks for citing the Latin. To be honest, I completely overlooked that fact the it says that right in the title! I think the current citation is fine. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GrandpaGeorge Photo

That's the way the photo was posted on the web site. I can play with it a bit but I don't have any fancy photo editing software. We are not rich folk, except in writing and education. I don't think the photo is usable as the web page gives attributions but not very clearly. I suspect it is a US photo but have no way to prove it.

thanks,

MDaisyMDaisy (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

I hope you don't mind that I closed the discussions we were having on my talk page. I was becoming uncomfortable with the appropriateness of discussing a user who wasn't participating in the discussion. Also, due to recent developments the discussion may no longer have been necessary. One of the discussions contains a reply from me which you may not have seen. If you'd like to continue discussing some of the points we were addressing, I suggest you open a new discussion (and let me know; could be on my talk page) focussed either on general, hypothetical situations without reference to a specific user, or possibly focussed on a specific problem that still needs to be solved, even if it does involve a specific user. It was a pleasure to interact with you and I'm sorry to have had to cut off the discussion. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool - I agree with your point about appropriateness. I think we covered some interesting stuff though and I appreciate your considered responses. A discussion like that is proof positive that people can disagree on things while still maintaining an atmosphere of respect. Regards, Hux (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 07:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm not going to make an edit war about this coz i'm adult.So just listen to me a little. This question is very simple,i'm new here,but obviously these guys violate wikipedia rules with personal opinions unsourced references,fan theories.I ask them for proof here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Prede. No answer coz they are lying about this subject look how they avoided refused to change the article after this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Third_Eye-offical proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxnot (talk • contribs) 10:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) What can i do?I am right coz i showed official proof.They refuse to discuss the subject,etc.--Saxnot (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

I had a look at the article and the talk page and I don't see anyone vandalizing anything, nor do I see any copyright issue. You seem to just be having a simple disagreement with other editors about the content of the article. If you have a reliable source for the content you want to add then be bold and add it. If other editors agree with you then it will stay, if not then it probably won't. Insulting other editors because you think they're wrong is unlikely to help your case though. -- Hux (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Moudud.jpg

Hi there, I actually did not upload the image as a fair use image, but I needed administrator attention for the image to decide whether the image is copyrighted or not by the holder on the website to be release under a Commons license. This is the only image that can be used on Wikipedia I believe, because all other images do not allow any Commons license due to being produced by a news reports or industries. Moshino31 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, only the person or organization that owns the copyright on an image can release it under a free license like the GFDL or Creative Commons. If you can locate the copyright holder of this photo then you can ask them to release it under such a license. Otherwise, the only way we can use this photo is under the non-free content criteria, which are pretty rigorous when it comes to living persons: in short, as long as it is reasonably possible for someone to photograph the person - e.g. he's not in prison, or a recluse, etc. - and release that photo under a free license, then we can't use a copyrighted photo like this one. This may seem overly strict but unfortunately that's the way it needs to be in order to shield Wikipedia from copyright liability. -- Hux (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding uploading questions and request for assistance

For the first time on wiki, I have uploaded photos, I found two photographs on WorldNetDaily.net and Drudgereport.com Neither website shows there are any copyrights on the photos. How would I establish if there is a copyright. I don't think the photos are copyrighted. If they are not, how do I confirm this so I can use the photos for a wiki article? thanks, It is me i think (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know what photos you're referring to, but under US law a photo becomes copyrighted automatically as soon as it is created and, in general, the copyright is owned by the photographer. So you pretty much have to assume that unless specified otherwise (or unless certain specific conditions apply) any photo you find online is going to be copyrighted, which means we can't use it on Wikipedia unless that use conforms with the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks It is me i think (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image licenses

Just an FYI that images like this should have 2 tags. A copyright tag for the item being displayed and the pd-self tag for the fact that the person who took the picture holds a copyright on it. Only pictures of 2-D images are ineligible for copyright. MBisanz ^talk 09:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in images like this, the user interface (the buttons, etc), is copyrighted, but the text is from Wikipedia, so it has to be licensed as both fairuse of the interface and free use of the wiki-content. I'll admit its really annoying the details required. MBisanz ^talk 09:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm updating a lot of images per Betacommand's list of images with multiple tags so I'm not surprised I made a couple of mistakes! -- Hux (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idha/Andy

Can you please provide an external link to verify this breakup? Thanks. Until then I'm removing mention of it. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for that - I just got it from the Andy Bell (musician) article and assumed it was accurate. You're right: it's probably better to remove it. -- Hux (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandellas pic...

Yeah I knew this would happen, lol. I'm gonna delete the picture off their page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User's concern on Copyright use

User:Political Dweeb says the images needing copyright tags are Image:PUP Logo.gif for the Progressive Unionist Party article,Image:40078028 sinnfein 203.jpg for the Sinn Fein article and finally Image:Shimpu.JPG and Image:JN.JPG for the article on the political party Ishin Seito Shimpu. What types of copyright tags are needed for these images I've listed? Do there need to be particular copyright tags for political party logos? Political Dweeb (|talk)

I replied to this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Let's keep the discussion over there. I check that page pretty much daily so I won't miss your posts. -- Hux (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ars Technica

Hey, just a note, your edit summary here [2] claims you are reverting one of my edits. But that wasn't me, it was User:RockMFR. Are you using a bot to revert? You may want to check to make sure it's operating correctly. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a bot. I do reversions using TWINKLE - it's really handy. And look more closely: it says "Reverted to revision 211525034 by AtaruMoroboshi" (emphasis mine). ;-) -- Hux (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)