Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 3

message: I'm going to try to add some articles on some of Oregon's lesser-known but still notable sports personalities.  I've started with Bob Gilder and I'll add more (suggestions are welcome!).  Anyone know if using images like this one:  qualify for fair use under a template such as Template:promophoto? -Big Smooth 17:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Down here in Southern Oregon, we can often feel left out from some of this kind of stuff. A few Southern Oregon sports figures? How about Dick Fosbury, Sonny Sixkiller, or Marshall Holman?--DaKine 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles already exist--are you asking us to expand them? P.S. This is a really old thread--in the future it might be better to add new posts at the bottom where they are more likely to be seen. Also check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/People as a place to suggest articles that are needed. Happy editing! Katr67 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports figures 

message: Anyone know what the other three elevators of the same sort are in the world? --EngineerScotty 05:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked, but couldn't find any others.  I did find one which said OC is the only one in the US.  That was a catalyst for reworking the article a bit.  Hope it's okay.  — EncMstr 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added [[Oregon City Municipal Elevator]] 

message: For WikiProject Ski and WikiProject Wine I created a new infobox  to clean up and format some of the usual metadata about a wikiproject.  I was thinking of adding it here, but ran into some issues with formatting.  I couldn't easily come up with a way to handle it that didn't harm the  box, or the main column content.  Perhaps someone out there with a better head for CSS issues than mine could find a way to do it?
Here's the code for using the infobox, and if I included it right, what it would produce should be on the right (and yes, I "randomly" chose a pretty picture instead of something like the state flag - revise as you wish):

 {{Infobox WikiProject
 | name = Oregon
 | image = 031 wizard island.JPG
 | caption = This WikiProject is about the US state of [[Oregon]]
 | shortcuts = [[WP:WPOR]]
 | portal = 
 | portal_img = 
 | commons = Oregon
 | parent = U.S. states
 | notice = WikiProject Oregon
 | userbox = User WikiProject Oregon
 | footnotes = 
 }}

: Figured out a way to do this, so I went a head and changed the project page.  Let me know what you think.  If y'all don't like it, just revert it.  I won't be offended :).  EvilSuggestions 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox for project page

message: A new WikiProject has been started, and may be of interest to members here. It is WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. It covers all listings on the Register, in all states and territories. Should you be so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.
-Ebyabe 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to new WikiProject 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 19:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Sorry for the late notice, but next week -- 1 November 2006 -- there will be a get-together of Wikipedians in Portland. The reason for this meeting? This guy named Jimbo Wales will be in town Wednesday & Thursday, & I thought some of you might like to meet him. (Please let me know if you're coming: we need a head-count.) -- llywrch 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have fun everyone--maybe I'll see you at the next one. Katr67 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Portland WikiMeetup 

message: The article Oregon lacks a section on climate. Jcam 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder. I'm going to remove the template from here if that's OK with you. You can see it on Talk:Oregon. Katr67 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: Now that the elections are done, I've started to prepare the State Senate and State House of Reps pages for the 2007 session's make up and listings. I have everything ready to post in text files. Because the Sec State's numbers are unofficial, I am holding off on posting what I have edited until they release the official numbers. There are still a couple of really close legislative races.
As for officers of the both houses, I am also holding off on making a list, as the House changed hands, and the Senate may elect some new officers despite staying in Democratic hands.
I plan on keeping the lists for the last session up in a lower section on the respective pages, as California's House and Senate pages keep track of make up and member names going back at least one session.
Ajbenj 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislature articles and the 2006 Election 

message: I ran across this article and thought perhaps "Oregon Outback" was just a tourist-marketing gimmick, however, The Oregonian refers to it in this article so I guess it is becoming a common usage, despite its origins. ODOT even has Outback Scenic Byway , so I guess it's official. Now after cleaning up the Outback article quite a bit, I'm thinking Harney Basin covers pretty much the same thing? My brain hurts so if anyone else wants to take a look at the two articles, that would be swell. As a side note, the Oregon High Desert might be a good related article to write, as this term gets used quite a bit in Oregon, and currently high desert just redirects to desert. Katr67 01:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oregon Outback]]? 

message: I'm not sure who is paying attention, but I thought I would point out that a couple of our newest members, User:Jgilhousen and User:Aboutmovies, have each started up one of the subprojects of WikiProject Oregon, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Government and Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/History respectively. We seem to have lost our fearless leader User:PDXblazers to teaching, but hopefully these new subprojects can breathe some new life into our project. I know several of us are quietly chipping away at the Oregon articles, but maybe we can continue to collaborate a bit too. Happy editing! Katr67 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome our latest wikignomes! 

message: Found your wiki project this evening. I wish I had found it a while ago.  We have a non-commercial hiking forum (portlandhikers.com) that is three months away from going live with a wiki project we've been working on for the Portland hiking community.  It's more of an online resource than an 'encyclopedia' but in many ways we will be redundant (or perhaps complementary) to your efforts here.  I'd love it if a few of the folks working on Portland area outdoor pages could contact me so we could decide if we need to redirect some of our efforts.  jeffstatt@portlandhikers.com.  I understand if you find this inappropriate for this discussion thread.  Edit or delete as you see fit.
Jeffstatt 08:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portland Hikers Wiki 

message: Hi everybody, I've been working on the Hermiston page.  You know, that place about 180 miles east of Portland where all of those delicious watermelons come from every summer.  I added the wikiproject Oregon template to that page, hope that was ok.  I didn't see any guidelines for making an Oregon city an "official" wikiproject, so let me know if there's something else I need to do.  In the mean time, I'm continuing to edit and improve the page.
EOBeav 22:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy, EOBeav. Welcome to the project. I'm a relative newcomer to WikiProject Oregon, too, hailing from The Dalles. So far, my impression of the project members is that of a friendly bunch, ready to encourage anyone who is willing to roll up his or her sleeves to pitch in, and quick to provide help in learning the ropes. If your interest is simply making the Hermiston page the best it can be, go for it. I'm sure some of the Cities subgroup members will be checkin' your page to add their two bits worth, and you might want to check out that subgroup, if you haven't already. I'm focusing my attention right now on Oregon government and politics, but also am trying to make some minor contributions in other areas of interest. Feel free to let me know if you have a question... I ain't an expert, but I know several. Hmmm. And maybe it's time to post a picture of myself in my clericals, stetson and boots to my user page. Nah. Wouldn't wanna scare the children. -- J-M+ Jgilhousen 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome both of you.  So far there's little danger of running low on work.  Glad to have some new faces...er...fingers helping out.  It is especially nice to have folks outside the big population centers to mix things up a bit.  — EncMstr 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello from Hermiston

message: Okay, here's the scoop. There are a number of buildings and other landmarks here in The Dalles and environs with historic markers bearing the Oregon State Seal (white plaques with Blue lettering).  Some are on the National Register of Historic places, but many are not.
I seem to remember there having been a section on the Oregon Parks Service about these markers, how to qualify for them, and even including the application forms and a list of all the buildings and places that had been qualified.  Since the redesign of Oregon.gov, the applicable section appears to have been deleted.  Perhaps my websearch skills are just deteriorating.
Anyway, some of these sites, I think, are sufficiently notable that they merit inclusion in Wikipedia, either as examples of a particular architectural style or because of historic significance.  I believe that the current owners of many of them have opted for state rather than federal listing to avoid restrictions on future development of their property.  Anyway, if any of you can point me toward where I can find more on this, or have ideas about why such sites should or should not be included, I'm all ears... well, eyes... whatever.  -- J-M Jgilhousen 03:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this it? http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/HCD/grants.shtml I didn't find a list of buildings yet. The SOS may have some stuff too... Forty million redlinks on the NRHP list and you want to add *more* stuff to work on? :P Katr67 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I'll do some digging from there. A small percentage ofthose forty million are within easy driving distance of here.  I was thinking about some for which I already have photographs, and others I could easily take.  I'l have to leave the other 39,999,980 or so to people who can more easily afford gas.  -- J-M Jgilhousen 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked historic Oregon places '''not''' on national register 

message: The project made DYK today with an item lifted from Charles Crookham. ...that U.S. judge Charles Crookham held a mock funeral for Roman numerals when they were retired from use in state pleadings?  -- "J-M" Jgilhousen 08:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hee! Katr67 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: Although it has some application to all articles within the scope of the Oregon project, I raised this subject with Katr67 in the user space, and we agreed that it was better to discuss it on the  Government & Politics talkpage.  -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions as applied to Oregon Government & Politics articles 

message: I added a mention of it last Friday to Portal: Current events, where no one noticed I had put it under the wrong day. Are all of the people who would work on this article still without electricity? Best to strike while the newspaper links still work. -- llywrch 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the criteria for the notability of a windstorm or other weather event? If the recent one is notable, then the 2002 "South Valley Surprise" rates one too. I see no mention of the recent storm anywhere, but that site is a great resource. So far, for storm articles, all I can find are Great Gale of 1880 and Columbus Day Storm of 1962. We also have Willamette Valley Flood of 1996. Katr67 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was noteable to me!  Our power went out just long enough to screw up a bunch of work since I don't have a UPS (ahem... nor save my work as often as I should).  Seriously, I haven't really had occasion to think much about notability at all, and certainly not as it relates to acts of nature.  I should think that something along the lines of a 25-year (or maybe longer) frequency might apply.  I still remember the "Columbus Day Storm of '64?" but given that tornadic activity is an annual event in much of the South and Midwest, I can't imagine our windstorm would warrant an article.  Maybe I've just lived too long, and so have experienced so many. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this definitely deserves an article. Though I actually never much realized anything was going on. The power didn't go out (at least, for longer than a second at a time) and by the time I started walking home at 11:30 the winds had pretty much died down. Though one guy I know had a very large tree narrowly miss destroying his house. I don't think there are precise criteria for a weather event such as this (nor should there be) but as there were human casualties (at least 10) and 1.5 million homes were without power I think most would agree it is appropriate. Owen 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I was about to start an article but found out that it's been here all along. Owen 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have subscriptions to two full-text newspaper article archives. If you don't have easy access to old press accounts elsewhere, I could run searches on their databases, and use "e-mail this user" to send you any articles that pop up (assuming you have registered your e-mail address with WP).  -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. I'm not sure I could get to work on them any time soon, but having information on-hand would be a good start. Owen 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay -- headin' to those sites now.  Follow-up, if necessary, on your talk page. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No article on the December 2006 Windstorm? 

message: ;Wanted --an answer:This new user created an account, asked how to post a talk page at the help desk, then left the following message on the article. I was doing routine welcoming patroling and thought you folks might want to run this down in the spirit of public service or the holiday! Cheers! // <B>Fra</B>nkB 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered at user talk:Sylviaa, and pointed her(?) to this.  The content should be included in Vanport, Oregon by clarifying the location.  — EncMstr 08:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I answered from the hip at the article's talk page, too. Katr67 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vanport, Oregon|Vanport]]'s location 

message: Anyone have ready access to a federal judiciary directory that could provide me a list of the current U.S. District Court judges for Oregon?  The directory on the Court's website lists senior judges, judges, and magistrates having offices in the courthouse in Portland without distinction.  I can puzzle it out by individually looking each one up in the federal judge biographical database, but it would give me a leg up if someone has a list they could scan and shoot me via the "e-mail this user" function on my user page.  Thanks.  -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judges, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon 

message: I was hoping some folks could weigh in on the debate about a propossed merger of the above page, if anyone has time.Thanks. Aboutmovies 18:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gray Sails the Columbia River]] 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: This will be meeting next month, Friday 2 Feb. thru Sunday 4 Feb. Cost is free anyone interested in assembling there for a Wikipedia Meetup/Birds-of-a-Feather gathering? -- llywrch 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://2007.recentchangescamp.org/Main_Page Recent Changes Camp] 

message: I just initiated discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28abbreviations%29#Mount_.2F_Mountain_.2F_Mt._.2F_Mt in case anyone wants to offer their two cents about when and if abbreviation should be used.  --"J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I commented there. -Big Smooth 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent "Mt. Hood" usage 

message: I noticed Gopher Valley Oregon after clicking through random pages, but am not sure what to do with it.  Perhaps someone from the area can make heads or tails of what is worth keeping?  --Klork 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That's one dense block of text. Thanks for the heads up. We'll see what we can do. Katr67 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in need of help 

message: Folks - I've been doing a lot of work on List of Oregon ballot measures, which I believe is a very important page - historical info about ballot measures can be hard to find. The Oregon Blue Book has a good list of every measure and votes for/against, but it lacks wikilinks or any detail on the more important measures.
If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see that I've put more work into recent years - the lists are complete only since 2000, and I've made a table only for 2006. Please let me know if you think I'm on the right track with this table. There's another possibility at User:Peteforsyth/measurechart, which doesn't explicitly state "YES" or "NO" for whether a measure passed - the color coding and a percentage over 50% would indicate passage of a measure. If the table format is desirable, I'll go ahead and convert previous years.
Additionally, I'm not sure the best way to communicate how a measure passed. Is the percentage good, or would actual number of votes - for example, 142,332 "YES", 564,050 "NO" - be better? Or both? The raw number has the advantage of clearly illustrating how many more people vote in general elections than special elections, etc.
Might be worth looking at the List of California ballot propositions for comparison.
Any comment welcome - but probably best to discuss over there.
-Pete 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting feedback: [[List of Oregon ballot measures]] 

message: I would welcome some help at Talk:Bull Mountain, Oregon. Just wikislap me if I'm being out of line. Thanks! Katr67 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone want to take on Friends of Bull Mountain? Katr67 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And another "situation"

message: Friends,
I have written a draft of a letter to members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, which would encourage them to pass legislation making works of the government of Oregon public domain (like works of the Federal government.)
I believe such a law would allow resources like Wikipedia to blossom in their efforts to provide coverage of all things Oregon.
Please look at the letter, and feel free to improve it - especially any of you with a better understanding of the legal details than I have!
Thanks, -Pete 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Oregon govenment-generated resources public domain 

message: Could anyone take a look at ENR Program and tag it appropriately. I am trying to avoid it due to WP:COI issues, as I think it is a candidate for major clean-up if not for AFD. Thank you. Aboutmovies 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try, but let me take this opportunity to state emphatically that I don't believe a conflict of interest disqualifies you from editing an article. I will also point out that the link you provide is a guideline, not a strict policy. I've seen enough of your work to know that you have good judgment, and enough of your discussions to know that you are reasonable when people disagree with you. So as far as I'm concerned, if you see a problem, you're probably the best-qualified to fix it - and so I hope you do. -Pete 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page had just been copied directly from the UofO website.  I redirected it to University of Oregon School of Law.  We really should be focusing on writing the school article before we get to programs within the school.  Cacophony 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, thanks for the vote of confidence. I know I could have edited it, but I just wanted to avoid any claims of bias as I would have removed just about everything from the article. Aboutmovies 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see what you mean now. Probably a good call. -Pete 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article I can't clean up 

message: Any WPOR members from FG? If so your city is painfully lacking much presence on Wikipedia. See the FG talk page for some suggestions on how to expand. Aboutmovies 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Forest Grove, Oregon]] 

message: Hey kids, just want to point out that Round barn was just listed for peer review. It's a pretty good article, and has two photos of Oregon's own Pete French Round Barn (one of them by yours truly ;) FWIW, the text does not address that barn very well - the comments about architecture and design seem to address a different style of barn altogether. I'll post that comment there, but any assistance on rectifying the issue would be appreciated…I'm no expert! -Pete 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review listing 

message: Portland Aerial Tram is currently a good article nominee. Katr67 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It failed, but it looks like with a bit of rewriting it could pass... Katr67 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland Aerial Tram

message: Greetings from a Washingtonian.  Your Oregon State article about Cape Blanco has an image that is either reversed/mirrored or upside down.  The water should be on the left.  Not sure how to change that but us Pacific Northwesterners ought to be accurate if nothing else. Cybirr 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from this satellite image, the photo on Cape Blanco (Oregon) is not reversed or mirrored.  Perhaps you are expecting that it be oriented with north at the top?  There's no requirement for a satellite photo to do that.  The current orientation might be more welcome for those from the southern hemisphere.  Somewhere I have a map of the world with New Zealand at the top center.  Guess where it was made... —EncMstr 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Hmm. We'll have to ask NASA to run the space shuttle the other direction next time. ;) I never thought about it being "upside down" but I guess you're right--there is potential for confusion. I'm not an image whiz but I bet someone on here could easily flip it over. In the meantime I'll tweak the caption.  Thanks and happy editing!  Katr67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Yeah, is insisting it be oriented north to south smack of "hemispherism"? Katr67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ahh, yes... hemispherism...  I'll report to sensitivity training ASAP.  But you do make a good point.  I came to the Cape Blanco article with the idea of most western point in the lower 48 in mind.  So it follows my thinking 'oriented' my expectation of how the image should be displayed.  Classic example of preconception and bias.Cybirr 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job fixing it, EncMstr. -Big Smooth 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure.  —EncMstr 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cape Blanco Sat Image 

message: ::Before supporting nomination Aranas for deletion, some things to consider:
::*Is he a "mover and shaker" or "up and comer" in the Greens?  I'm elbow deep in the major parties and their prominent figures, so it'll be awhile before I collect material on the minors beyond what would fit in stubs.
::*Should we consider merging his info into Pacific Green Party rather than nominating for deletion (do we really want to reflect a major party bias by treating their failed nominees differently than the biggies).
::*Notability is so subjective. While the deck is stacked so heavily toward the major parties that "third party" candidates seldom get elected, they more frequently have an impact, by forcing issues to be addressed and/or playing a "spoiler" role (especially true now that so many races are decided by razor thin margins).
::*I haven't really had time to think through the whole "vanity" and/or "promotional" vs. "comprehensiveness" thing.  I sure don't want to spend a lot of time researching the chairman of the "blow up the Columbia River Dams" party while I have a couple of full days' work ahead of me to get a decent article on Jim Redden up.  On the other hand, I don't want to neglect the little movements altogether... they are, after all, part of the strange and wonderful Oregon tapestry, and a picture of Politics in Oregon would be incomplete without them.  So, I'll just shut up and think on this a bit, if that's okay. I guess I'm just not up to bold tonight. -- J-M Jgilhousen 06:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we shouldn't be hasty. Merging sounds like a really good option. You're probably right about third party candidates, but judging by some of the candidate profiles I read in the Voters Pamphlet (hmm, there's an article idea...), where Joe or Jane Candidate say s/he has been Chair of the Podunk, Oregon PTA, been active in Podunk High School Soccer and Choir and is now running as the Blow Up the Dams Party (heh) candidate for the 5th congressional district, well... Does running for office make someone notable who otherwise isn't notable? People like that should definitely get mentioned in the Blow Up the Dams Party article, but do they need their own articles?  Just more food for thought. Katr67 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't wanna get me started on what the Voter's Pamphlet has become with the institution of a "buy a page, say what you want" policy.  But, back to the point, there is a distinction to be made between those who pay a filing fee and declare themselves a candidate, and those who have received nomination from a party recognized by the Secretary of State. As I am sure Ralph Nader would attest, the latter isn't as easy as it might seem.  -- J-M Jgilhousen 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, articles on Joe Keating and Teresa Keane were recently deleted. (Keating info is still available in hist in case anybody wants to merge it into Pacific Green Party.) Prolly shoulda said something sooner...oh well. -Pete 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do these articles qualify for WikiProject Oregon? 

message: Anybody care to chime in before I wrap up this moribund discussion? Katr67 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to work on something like this. I feel that the thing that's lacking is someone asserting their vision for the project. Y'all are smart and motivated folks, and I think if anyone were to step up and commit to shepherding this process through, many of us would get in line and offer our services. Personally, I don't have much interest in doing that at the moment, but I would love it if somebody else did. I'd mildly prefer Oregon over Portland, but would gladly work on either. In the meantime, I'll continue hammering away at List of Oregon ballot measures and other politics-and-gummint type stuff. -Pete 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to say I have no interest in leading the effort, due to preferring a wikignomelike existence, but when you said "Helpers", I pricked up my ears. Helpers=good! My vote is for Oregon over Portland as well. I think whichever one of us wants to lead the charge to an FA, the rest of us will follow, no matter what we've said. :) Maybe...just maybe...I'll take a stab at starting the process for Oregon. Katr67 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the spirit!  What else might create even more spirit?  —EncMstr 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A round of Oregon microbrews? Katr67 00:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No? Well, Aboutmovies created a cool new Oregon barnstar. Anyone up for making a (monthly?) newsletter? We have a ton of inactive members and that might help get them more involved. Katr67 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm late, but I'm kinda here.  I'm interested in helping where I can, but I'm a little immersed in another project right now (trying to get all articles related to PNW Wrestling properly sourced and, as much as possible, up to a "B" level article.  What would it take to do a newsletter?  I might be able to help with this.  Theophilus75 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up

message: How about we request a Good Article review, or a Peer Review, of Oregon, so we can get an outside perspective on what we need to do? I think we all have some ideas, but a perspective from somebody with no Oregon connection - and who doesn't look at the article every freakin' day or two - would probably be very valuable. -Pete 02:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea. I second the motion. =) akendall 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This would save us from using our energies in unproductive directions. Maybe we can get Stephen Colbert to weigh in... Katr67 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think that getting a review and failing it, with a resulting list of "things to improve," would be very helpful. But I'm becoming less convinced that actually attaining FA status in the near future would be a good thing. It seems to me that people can be timid when editing FAs, and I think the Oregon article has a ways to go before it attains anything like perfection. Thoughts? -Pete 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's definitely got a ways to go. We still need a bunch of sub-articles like History of Oregon, etc. But I still think it would be helpful to do a GA review to find out what areas are particularly weak. Latr, Katr 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a suggestion 

message: An administrator has semi-protected Oregon without explanation (and with a weird advertisement for a TV show in his edit history comments), set to last until May 31. I'm a bit surprised at the unexplained action to begin with, but I think it comes at an especially bad time for our Wikiproject. I have explained this to the administrator in question on his/her talk page; please take a look. -Pete 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine since semi-protection only keeps non-registered editors from making edits, so no anon-IP vandalism. We can still make changes. I think it also prevents newly registered editors (3 days or so) from editing, but again that doesn't stop us dedicated editors. Aboutmovies 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo is appearing on Colbert. I've explained it in more detail on the talk page. The protection will expire soon. alphachimp 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Take it from someone who's reverted a lot of vandalism--It's not arbitrary at all. I take it you missed the flurry of Colbert vandalism on the Oregon page back in...August I think it was? The whole California/Oregon/Washington/Idaho/Portugal thing? Believe me, Jimbo appearing on the Colbert Report will result in the resurgence of a bunch of anon vandalism on Oregon and several other articles. Let me know if you need further explanation. Katr67 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Semi-protection also prevents recently-registered accounts from editing, and I'm not sure where the cutoff is. We have very recently welcomed two highly productive editors to our team, and others are coming continually. Also, the current pushes to improve Oregon and to create a separate article for the name "Oregon" are perfect opportunities for newbies to get a feel for the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, rather than getting discouraged or becoming hostile by having an edit war be their first experience of the community. It's possible that Alphachimp has a good reason, but his/her failure to express it on the talk page, for such a prominent article, is irresponsible. -Pete 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly welcome to that opinion. It's worth noting that nothing I've done is without precedent. I think you'll find that this actually helps your article. alphachimp 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying Pete doesn't have a  point about communication, buthere's a link showing our efforts to fend off the vandalism, even with different two semi-protects in place. Katr67 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm well aware that Oregon is Idaho's Portugal, and I know that fighting off vandalism can be tedious. But 5-10 reversions per day doesn't sound so bad to me. The Colbert report airs over what, an 4-hour period from east to west coast? If it made any difference, I'd volunteer to watch it closely for that period, and frequently during the next several days. There are lots of smart people who watch Colbert, and if Jimbo's appearance on Colbert is intended as a promotion, why shouldn't we focus on promoting Wikipedia's accessibility, among other things? -Pete 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, Alphachimp: (1) Thanks for the welcome, but I'm going to have my opinion no matter what; (2) a link to something establishing the precedent would be helpful; and Katr, the semi-protect is a week, not four days. -Pete 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Gotcha, thanks. -Pete 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded on my talk page. Show over, page unprotected, nothing to see here...get back to improving articles :).  "Omegachimp" 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arbitrary semi-protection? 

message: Okay, I'm sure that everyone here has seen or heard about the guy in the SUV who played bumper cars on SW Salmon next to the MAC club (Youtube video clip here), but Did You Know that he was Broughton Bishop, executive and one of the family that owns Pendleton Woolen Mills, an Oregon business institution? This states that he is President & CEO, but the company website states that he is only a Vice-President. (The fact he is part of the family that owns Pendleton was mentioned in the 19 January 2007 Friday Oregonian front-page article, but very briefly & if you read the article too fast you might have missed the connection.)
I think this combination may just make him notable. -- llywrch 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another overlooked but notable Portlander 

message: The description says the town was founded by the William Mitchell Co. This is not true. The founder was Cobbs & Mitchell, which owned the company until selling to its sales agent, Herbert Templeton, who ran the town and mill as the Valsetz Lumber Co. It was then sold to Boise Cascade. So only three owners in its history. (I am the author of Company Towns of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press 2003, and there are several other sources documenting the establishment of the town and its ownership history.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.32.185 (talk • contribs) 5:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Linda. I wrote the article using information from OGN, which I consider a fairly reliable source, but feel free to edit the article if it is inaccurate. I'd encourage you to sign up for an account--it's great to have real writers contributing. :) It's also usually a good idea to mention this sort of thing on the article's talkpage as well. Thanks for bringing it up. I've been wanting to check out your book. Katr67 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Have you seen :Category:Company towns? There are several Oregon towns in there. Katr67 06:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Valsetz, Oregon|Valsetz]] description 

message: Sunriver Resort and Sunriver, Oregon need to be looked at. Take a look at the edit history of the resort article and the article's talk page for the background. Basically, what "Sunriver" consists of is a mildly confusing mess, and I'd like some third opinions about the content of both articles, as discussed on the talk page. I've sort of taken on the role of mediator, I guess, but I don't feel real strongly about a piece of property I'll probably never set foot on. :) Thanks. Katr67 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote no, as we don't want the template to get too big like what happened to the Oregon Cities template. And though Boone's Ferry still has a name impact on the area, so do some others (Scholls Ferry for instance), and the shear number of ferries in the early days makes it hard to pick out which ones. I'm thinking maybe a Oregon Historic Ferries article that could go on the template. The article could have a brief synopsis of the varrious ferries, then a link to the individual articles. Aboutmovies 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestions.  Thanks!  —EncMstr 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Historic ferries in Oregon, actually. Sounds like a great idea. Some of the individual ferries, like the ones I added on the transpo subproject, probably aren't notable enough to justify their own articles but redirects to the main article would solve that problem. Katr67 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There hasn't been a ferry for over 50 years—see Boones Ferry.  Even if it were still running, would that make the article important enough to put in one of the navigational templates?  Seems like the reverse is usually more the case.  I asked the question because living near the road for decades and all the local recognition it received, like Boones Ferry Days and old timers referring to the days before the bridge, etc. as a little kid may have distorted my perception of the importance of the ferry.  —EncMstr 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions needed 

message: My bias is warped by being raised living next to Boones Ferry Road.  Should Boones Ferry go in , perhaps as a place?  —EncMstr 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote no, as we don't want the template to get too big like what happened to the Oregon Cities template. And though Boone's Ferry still has a name impact on the area, so do some others (Scholls Ferry for instance), and the shear number of ferries in the early days makes it hard to pick out which ones. I'm thinking maybe a Oregon Historic Ferries article that could go on the template. The article could have a brief synopsis of the varrious ferries, then a link to the individual articles. Aboutmovies 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestions.  Thanks!  —EncMstr 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Historic ferries in Oregon, actually. Sounds like a great idea. Some of the individual ferries, like the ones I added on the transpo subproject, probably aren't notable enough to justify their own articles but redirects to the main article would solve that problem. Katr67 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There hasn't been a ferry for over 50 years—see Boones Ferry.  Even if it were still running, would that make the article important enough to put in one of the navigational templates?  Seems like the reverse is usually more the case.  I asked the question because living near the road for decades and all the local recognition it received, like Boones Ferry Days and old timers referring to the days before the bridge, etc. as a little kid may have distorted my perception of the importance of the ferry.  —EncMstr 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of Boones Ferry

message: I think we need to decide on the format of ORS citations. In ORS itself, the format is: ORS 221.333 (the year being implied as the most recent version--currently updated every two years, but with the annual sessions experiment, this may change).  Meanwhile, Aboutmovies introduced this snazzy style: Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.125 (2005). Is that how they're cited in the court cases? I prefer the former, but that's the form I am used to using. Thoughts? Since this is kind of state-specific I thought maybe when we decide we can add a little WPORMOS section. I ♥ acronyms... Katr67 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The style I introduced is the ALWD citation style. It's the legal, technical style, and probably more than what we need. I really introduced it to make a point on that page, namely cite the full statute plus they seem to be wanting to get legal in their description so I thought I might help them out. Aboutmovies 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of MLA, AP, APA and CMS but not ALWD. :) Shall we leave it that way on that page then? Or is that a case of WP:POINT? Otherwise, I was planning on doing some rewriting to improve the clarity of that article if it still needs it (because I was the one whining about it), and I can change it to the simpler style then if everyone agrees. Katr67 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it quite reaches WP:POINT, but feel free to change if you would like. Just no dashes from ORS, or parantheses around the chapter number, plus there needs to be a full six digit number. Aboutmovies 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPOR Manual of Style 

message: I am a river runner and hydrology expert. I keep editing the article on Hell's Canyon on the Snake River because the flow rates are quite inaccurate. I remove the part that says "The Snake through Hell's Canyon generally carries more water than the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon". I have run both rivers and the Snake River IS NOT bigger than the Colorado River, according to USGS. Here is my source to the average flow of the Snake below Hell's Canyon Dam, which is about 11,000 cfs, compaired to a low average of about 14,000 of the Colorado below Glen Canyon Dam. User:Peckvet55 22:48, 13 Feb 2007 [source http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13290450&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060]
:Thanks for explaining. I personally reverted many changes on that article by anon editors who blanked an entire paragraph without any explanation in the edit summary. Unexplained anon blanking looks like vandalism to me. Thanks for signing up for an account. This kind of discussion is better placed on the article's talk page. I'll copy this post there, and if you blank the material again, please fill in the edit summary. Thanks! Katr67 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hells Canyon]]

message: I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin as suggested awhile back.  It was eyeopening to see the amazing variety of articles in existence!  A few might not be enduring (:Category:MAX, :Category:Avifauna of Oregon).
I'm not planning on doing much more with this, unless several WP Oregon editors feel it is of value.  —EncMstr 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Day-um! That's really cool. I hadn't had a chance to look at it until now because it takes a minute to load. How did you do that? Katr67 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry for the slow response:  I hadn't noticed your message until now.) Yeah, it puts a real load on the browser.  I made it by listing the category, pasting it into vim, and performing several transformations (remove "talk", put double square brackets around each entry, etc.) to produce the wikitable.  Then I used many regular expressions to categorize.  Alas, that might have produced many mistakes.  —EncMstr 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin subpage 

message: As I have seen those listed as members grow a lot over the last month or so I wanted to take a moment to invite all members to take a look at the project's subdivions. There is no requirement or even urging to join one, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware of them and a bit about them.
*You like cities, do population figures get you fired up? Then maybe Cities is just for you!
*Perhaps you don't like other people, but you like mountains and rivers. Well we have Physical geography just for you.
*Wait, there's more. Do you like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? Then we have Transportation so you can expand the world's knowledge about Oregon roads, highways and choo choo trains.
*Perhaps your expertise is more in the art, music or sports scene. Then we have the Culture division to show Oregon is more than just rain and trees.
*Maybe you love old people. OK that may sound wrong, so maybe do you love to write about old people? Then join People and write biographies about politicians (dead & alive), pioneers, or any other notable person related to Oregon.
*Now, if you order in the next 10 minutes we'll throw in Government for free (OK, government is never free). Anyway, there you can spend hours upon hours writing about ballot measures, the Oregon Constitution, or the evolution and interaction of Oregon's different branches of government.
*Do you like antiques? Well history is all about old stuff so join History today, because tomorrow its history (I know, lame).
*Are you one of those people who is fascinated by the stock ticker at the bottom of CNBC? Well then don't just sit there staring, write something about those companies at the Companies subproject.
*Lastly, if you just like to draw or take pictures, maybe Graphics is for you. Make maps, take pictures, conquer the world. It's all in a days work. 
Aboutmovies 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <applause> I think we should nominate you as the WPOR Marketing Director... Katr67 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if we can increase market share. Aboutmovies 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Project Invitation/Blatant advertising 

message: is being considered for deletion as it apparently was not created through the proper channels. See the discussion here. I like this stub and voted to keep it. Katr67 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon-bio-stub up for deletion 

message: I'm moving some older discussions - only those that clearly came to some kind of conclusion - here. Hope that's OK, it just seemed things were getting unweildy. -Pete 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I see there's a process for this that I disregarded. I'll come back and clean up soon! -Pete 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Cacophony--see this post. Katr67 01:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I guess I beat Pete to it.  The archive that he created fit chronologically at the end of archive3.  Thanks, Cacophony 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving some completed discussions 

message: Rather than cross-post this to all the subgroups and folks who might be interested, I'll just say here that I just finished an article on French Prairie and though I'm sick of looking at it, it's an interesting place and the article could be expanded greatly if anyone is interested. I've stashed what look to be some helpful links as comments in the refs section. Happy editing! ...now go outside and play... Katr67 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Prairie 

message: The page on Oregon politician Michael Charles Smith is up for deletion. Worth a look. The article used to read like a campaign brochure, but I've edited it down considerably. My opinion: Smith is notable in Oregon (having two news stories cited, and many more as far-flung as Boston and NH), but is being improperly considered in the context of national presidential contenders. -Pete 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion 

message: Could some one pls confirm the motto for OIT? The wiki entry gives it as 'Magnus Frater te spectat', which is Latin for 'Big Brother is watching you'. I doubt that's right - sounds like a joker was at work. I didn't spot any motto on the OIT site, but some one must know. -Vince 68.6.39.9 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out. It was a very sneaky joke edit mixed in with a bunch of legitimate editing. Now if someone could explain what the heck a "Hustlin' Owl" is... Katr67 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oregon Institute of Technology]] motto - is that right? 

message: The New Carissa will be featured on the main page on Saturday March 31 2007. Yay! Katr67 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!  Just scanned the article to make sure it's still in good shape - it looks good, with a few minor updates I am researching.  The only thing that bothers me is this image of the stern laying on the beach. It's not a terribly great shot, and you'd think in the last eight years someone would have taken a better picture - I just can't find one that's freely licensed like all the other images on the page.  Does anyone else know a good place to look? -Big Smooth 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go! Let the vandal-fighting begin! Katr67 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''New Carissa'' to be on main page 

message: List of Oregon State University alumni has been removed as a good article, since lists no longer qualify as good articles, but it is now up for featured list status.  You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oregon State University alumni/archive1. Thanks, VegaDark 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Oregon State University alumni up for featured list nomination

message: I'll be in Eugene this weekend and I'm going try to get some photos if the weather cooperates and I can figure out my friend's digital camera. I'd like to get some NRHP buildings, especially Knight Library and the UO Art Museum, some of downtown Eugene, and a few train stations enroute. I'll be pedaling around the bike paths and venturing into the western edge of Springfield. Let me know if you have any photo requests and I'll see what I can do. Katr67 19:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Eugene Saturday Market?  (And an article? ;-) Portland Saturday Market is ready to link to it.)  —EncMstr 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank goodness for WP:NOT#CENSORED!  ;) -Big Smooth 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugene Photo Op 

message: I will be moving some WPOR members to the inactive section tomorrow if an editor has not been editing on Wikipedia much over the last few months (somewhere around less than 5 edits total since Jan 31). Its nothing personal, and if someone wants to put themselves back into the regular part feel free to do so. Moving those not editing should free up some space on the main project page, and let other WPOR editors know who to contact for questions and/or collaberations. Plus if we ever start a newsletter, we know who not to bother. Aboutmovies 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive 

message: I've made a proposal to the powers that be to make this official. Go express your opinion if you wish. Katr67 06:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was suggested we solicit more suggestions from project members. Please go make suggestions about the barnstar that don't involve an image of a forest. *yawn* :) Katr67 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Oregon Barnstar 

message: Dear Wikipedians, a list of possible Oregon-related articles found by bot is available at User:AlexNewArtBot/OregonSearchResult. Colchicum 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, cool bot. Are you going to be doing this regularly? Katr67 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is automated (a subproject of User:AlexNewArtBot), so it will need no maintenance as the rules are elaborated. Colchicum 15:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I glanced at the list and was surprised there could be so many.  I'm wondering what the bot was thinking it when tagged many of them.  The first one I looked at in depth was Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center.  Does anyone have an idea why it thinks this might be a WP:ORE candidate? —EncMstr 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The California tagging bot had the same problem. Under the :Category:Oregon umbrella are such broad categories as Amtrak, Oregon Trail, etc. Feel free to ask our friendly bot owner if he can rewrite his code to leave some of those sort of things out. I don't want to wear out my welcome... But that's why I wanted us to tag the articles by hand. The California tags were actually added to a bunch of unrelated articles and I bet there's some that are still there... Katr67 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi guys- It seems to me that Katr's concerns would be best made with a simple request that the results of the list not be used for an automated or wholesale addition of WP:ORE tags. I'm not sure I quite understand what you guys are doing - looking through every article, and determining if it should be added to WP:ORE? If so, why not simply delete those that you've reviewed, rather than leaving them there and recording your progress here? Seems that leaving that list untouched only leaves open the likelihood that it will be misused. -Pete 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I never asked Alex to add the tags. You can see our talk pages for the relevant conversation. 2) Yes. 3) Because a) It's easier to say ahead of time which ones you're going to do, rather than run into an edit conflict/duplication of effort later. b) Camaraderie c) Alex's bot crashed and I wanted to make sure about how he was going to handle adding new entries before I change the page. Except now I see that he simply ran a new version of the list over the top of the old one... 4) Misused how? Katr67 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, OK. Think I'll just pass on this one, I'm still kinda confused. But to clear up a couple things: (1) by "misuse" I meant something along the lines of "create zillions of largely inaccurate tags." (2) I didn't understand that you were claiming articles "in advance," I thought you were reporting what you'd done. Anyway, carry on…I may just join in if I, you know, run out of things to do… -Pete 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! Go us! And EncMstr, I hope you don't mind too much that you lost most of your classification tags in the effort. I guess I'll go finish G now... Katr67 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone! Way to go! Now what will we do with our time...oh yeah, back to work. --Sprkee 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine to delete. I think we might consider running it again once a year or so, just in case some old articles not caught by the new article bot become relevant. Some already famous person could move to OR and become appropriately mossy. Who knows. Of course, next time, it should be 99.9% old Blazers, trivial trains, and British Columbia lakes and mountains. --Sprkee 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be run once in a while, but we should definitely ask Alex to leave out :Category:Amtrak, :Category:Cascade Range, :Category:Hudson's Bay Company, etc. and perhaps a bunch of the sports folks too. I'm still wondering if there's any way to have it track down articles that say "Oregon" in them that haven't even been put in an Oregon category and make a list that wouldn't be ridiculous and tedious to check through. Probably not, but a girl can dream... Good job everyone! Katr67 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely nix the fixed objects like mountains and trains, but let's leave all the people, including sports people, in. Though it's sorta tedious to go through so many Blazers (who knew there were so many?), clearer eyes in the future may realize the OR importance of some of these people as they move around and get famouser or infamouser. --Sprkee 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: I had User:Alex Bakharev have his bot go through the Oregon category tree looking for articles that aren't tagged with  yet: User:AlexNewArtBot/OregonList. (Similar to when someone had the same done for California recently, though they had the bot actually tag the articles too.) As you can see, many of these aren't really about Oregon but about things that Oregon articles are also categorized as (train stations, for example). I asked whether we should delete the ones we've checked out or ??? Anyway, for now, I'm just going to volunteer to check out the first 100... Step right up! Step right up! What better way to spend a beautiful Easter morning than in service to your favorite WikiProject? (OK, don't answer that) Katr67 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I glanced at the list and was surprised there could be so many.  I'm wondering what the bot was thinking it when tagged many of them.  The first one I looked at in depth was Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center.  Does anyone have an idea why it thinks this might be a WP:ORE candidate? —EncMstr 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The California tagging bot had the same problem. Under the :Category:Oregon umbrella are such broad categories as Amtrak, Oregon Trail, etc. Feel free to ask our friendly bot owner if he can rewrite his code to leave some of those sort of things out. I don't want to wear out my welcome... But that's why I wanted us to tag the articles by hand. The California tags were actually added to a bunch of unrelated articles and I bet there's some that are still there... Katr67 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi guys- It seems to me that Katr's concerns would be best made with a simple request that the results of the list not be used for an automated or wholesale addition of WP:ORE tags. I'm not sure I quite understand what you guys are doing - looking through every article, and determining if it should be added to WP:ORE? If so, why not simply delete those that you've reviewed, rather than leaving them there and recording your progress here? Seems that leaving that list untouched only leaves open the likelihood that it will be misused. -Pete 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I never asked Alex to add the tags. You can see our talk pages for the relevant conversation. 2) Yes. 3) Because a) It's easier to say ahead of time which ones you're going to do, rather than run into an edit conflict/duplication of effort later. b) Camaraderie c) Alex's bot crashed and I wanted to make sure about how he was going to handle adding new entries before I change the page. Except now I see that he simply ran a new version of the list over the top of the old one... 4) Misused how? Katr67 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, OK. Think I'll just pass on this one, I'm still kinda confused. But to clear up a couple things: (1) by "misuse" I meant something along the lines of "create zillions of largely inaccurate tags." (2) I didn't understand that you were claiming articles "in advance," I thought you were reporting what you'd done. Anyway, carry on…I may just join in if I, you know, run out of things to do… -Pete 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old articles

message: I cleaned the list of many railroad and Intel things, alphabetized it, and reposted in on Alex's original sub page. Enjoy. Katr67 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Go us! And EncMstr, I hope you don't mind too much that you lost most of your classification tags in the effort. I guess I'll go finish G now... Katr67 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone! Way to go! Now what will we do with our time...oh yeah, back to work. --Sprkee 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine to delete. I think we might consider running it again once a year or so, just in case some old articles not caught by the new article bot become relevant. Some already famous person could move to OR and become appropriately mossy. Who knows. Of course, next time, it should be 99.9% old Blazers, trivial trains, and British Columbia lakes and mountains. --Sprkee 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be run once in a while, but we should definitely ask Alex to leave out :Category:Amtrak, :Category:Cascade Range, :Category:Hudson's Bay Company, etc. and perhaps a bunch of the sports folks too. I'm still wondering if there's any way to have it track down articles that say "Oregon" in them that haven't even been put in an Oregon category and make a list that wouldn't be ridiculous and tedious to check through. Probably not, but a girl can dream... Good job everyone! Katr67 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely nix the fixed objects like mountains and trains, but let's leave all the people, including sports people, in. Though it's sorta tedious to go through so many Blazers (who knew there were so many?), clearer eyes in the future may realize the OR importance of some of these people as they move around and get famouser or infamouser. --Sprkee 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning new list

message: *Katr67 1-400, D-G
*EncMstr items 600–899, O-P
*Sprkee I'll take N, S, T, U, V, W
*Aboutmovies finished W
=====The dregs=====
Hey, most of this list is done!! Who wants the rest?
*G-H Katr67
*part of L: -Sprkee I'll take it
*M Katr67
*Q
*R All done!
--Sprkee 23:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Go us! And EncMstr, I hope you don't mind too much that you lost most of your classification tags in the effort. I guess I'll go finish G now... Katr67 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone! Way to go! Now what will we do with our time...oh yeah, back to work. --Sprkee 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine to delete. I think we might consider running it again once a year or so, just in case some old articles not caught by the new article bot become relevant. Some already famous person could move to OR and become appropriately mossy. Who knows. Of course, next time, it should be 99.9% old Blazers, trivial trains, and British Columbia lakes and mountains. --Sprkee 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be run once in a while, but we should definitely ask Alex to leave out :Category:Amtrak, :Category:Cascade Range, :Category:Hudson's Bay Company, etc. and perhaps a bunch of the sports folks too. I'm still wondering if there's any way to have it track down articles that say "Oregon" in them that haven't even been put in an Oregon category and make a list that wouldn't be ridiculous and tedious to check through. Probably not, but a girl can dream... Good job everyone! Katr67 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely nix the fixed objects like mountains and trains, but let's leave all the people, including sports people, in. Though it's sorta tedious to go through so many Blazers (who knew there were so many?), clearer eyes in the future may realize the OR importance of some of these people as they move around and get famouser or infamouser. --Sprkee 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign me up!

message: Hey, most of this list is done!! Who wants the rest?
*G-H Katr67
*part of L: -Sprkee I'll take it
*M Katr67
*Q
*R All done!
--Sprkee 23:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Go us! And EncMstr, I hope you don't mind too much that you lost most of your classification tags in the effort. I guess I'll go finish G now... Katr67 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone! Way to go! Now what will we do with our time...oh yeah, back to work. --Sprkee 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine to delete. I think we might consider running it again once a year or so, just in case some old articles not caught by the new article bot become relevant. Some already famous person could move to OR and become appropriately mossy. Who knows. Of course, next time, it should be 99.9% old Blazers, trivial trains, and British Columbia lakes and mountains. --Sprkee 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be run once in a while, but we should definitely ask Alex to leave out :Category:Amtrak, :Category:Cascade Range, :Category:Hudson's Bay Company, etc. and perhaps a bunch of the sports folks too. I'm still wondering if there's any way to have it track down articles that say "Oregon" in them that haven't even been put in an Oregon category and make a list that wouldn't be ridiculous and tedious to check through. Probably not, but a girl can dream... Good job everyone! Katr67 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely nix the fixed objects like mountains and trains, but let's leave all the people, including sports people, in. Though it's sorta tedious to go through so many Blazers (who knew there were so many?), clearer eyes in the future may realize the OR importance of some of these people as they move around and get famouser or infamouser. --Sprkee 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The dregs

message: I've been working on Oregon Coast Range items the last week or so and was hoping we might have a geologist among us? If so could you take a look at Northern Oregon Coast Range to make sure the geology info is correct?
I'll tackle the Central Oregon Coast Range next along with Rogers Peak if anyone wanted to put together Southern Oregon Coast Range and Mount Bolivar (the highest peak in the coast range) then the main Oregon Coast Range article should be easy to put together with see: N/C/S parts and a summary of the articles. Thank you. Aboutmovies 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oregon Coast Range]] 

message: Someone prodded Kettle Foods. I contested the prod, but the content at the article is pretty thin, if someone wants to spruce it up a bit in case it gets taken to Afd. I found Kettle chips in France so surely they're somewhat notable. Katr67 05:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kettle Foods]] 

message: This article is up for deletion along with all the other states' articles. Some of us were working on revamping it, so it's kind of a mess right now, but I think it should be kept, probably renamed, judging by the consensus that is forming. Perhaps this can be incentive to improve the article? See the deletion discussion page. Katr67 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, the page was deleted.  I tried looking for a saved version of it, but couldn't find it.  Maybe someone save the last version as History of Oregon post offices or something like that?  —EncMstr 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like, I could restore it into your userspace. Just message me and I can access the deleted page to place at, say, User:EncMstr/List of ZIP Codes in Oregon for you to work with as you create a valid Oregon history article. — Scientizzle 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Scientizzle has generously restored the article in User:EncMstr/Oregon ZIPs.  I don't have much free time now (girlfriend hit by a car), but anyone who desires to should edit it, or use it as a basis to create History of Oregon post offices, or something like that.  —EncMstr 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of ZIP Codes in Oregon]] 

message: Hi!  New guy here... never posted to Wikipedia before so don't know the protocol, etc.  Just wanted to say Waldo Lake is one of the cleanest lakes in the world, and it might be worth mentioning something about this.  If I remember correctly they have to use special testing methods to test the purity of the water there because it has virtually no pollution at all.  Search Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Waldo+%2BLake%22%2C+water%2C+cleanest%2C+purity&btnG=Google+Search) for more info on this.  Thanks!
Daniel
(vagabondvet [at] gmail [dot] com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.55 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldo Lake... 

message: This article is up for deletion. Yes, it's kind of a rag, but it seems like it just might be notable enough to have an article. Maybe not. I've done what I can to save it, if anybody else can dredge up some notability, please share. Katr67 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Salem Monthly]] 

message: I was adding stadium infoboxes to Oregon sporting venues that did not yet have them (Gill Coliseum, Memorial Coliseum, and Civic Stadium (Eugene)).  If anyone else has more info, those articles are somewhat sparse.  Also, the Autzen Stadium article doesn't even have a picture!  If someone has a pic of Autzen to put on the infobox, it would make the article a lot nicer.Duckblazer 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium Infoboxes 

message: I'd like to make a push for people to make full citations (rather than just links) when citing The Oregonian, because so many links go "dead" at that paper's site, without any indication how to find the article.
Please take a look at my description of the problem at User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish. Feel free to edit. I'd like to start linking to that page when I "flesh out citations" on Oregon-related pages. -Pete 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. My philosophy is "a sloppy citation is better than no citation at all" but I'll try to make sure the Oregonian articles are done properly at least. Is this a problem with any other sources? I've noticed some S-J articles are impossible to find in any form short of microfilm as well. Katr67 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see you know that already... Katr67 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input! I basically want to point out the big problem with the "sloppy better than none" approach, which is what I used to adhere to. It's fine for a Trib or Willy Week story, because there's effectively no time limit to fleshing it out; but with an Oregonian or SJ story, a sloppy citation is not even a tiny bit better then no citation at all, once a few months have gone by. -Pete 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanishing stories in The Oregonian 

message: Hey fellas, (new to this, but) just wanted to point out that the Direct Legislation League was a national organization formed in New Jersey in 1893, with many "chapters" around the country.  Just want to make sure people don't get derailed from that (I think incredible) history.
Looks like yall have taken on a big project.  Good luck! Ogbn 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ogbn, thanks for the comment...can you expand a little, I'm intrigued. Sounds like the short article Direct Legislation League might be in error - was Willion S. U'Ren (in 1898) merely the founder of the Oregon chapter, not of the org. as a whole? Was the "Oregon System" actually conceived in NJ, and Oregon simply happened to be the first state where it was successfully passed? Do you know of a good online source for these questions? Much appreciate the input, I'm very interested in this bit of history, and would like it to be accurately reflected on Wikipedia. -Pete 05:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, just a quick note w/o much research, so I'm going mainly off memory from high school. I think the Oregon System is more that just the what the Direct Legislation League was trying for. The Oregon system as you know is three parts: initiative, referendum, and recall. It appears the DLL was more just for the int and then later referendum, but not recall (though the article I found was from the 1930s so they could have later picked up on it). And in both cases it looks like Oregon was the 1st to adopt the intiative and referendum. I browsed through: The Constitutional Initiative in Operation, by Winston W. Crouch. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Aug., 1939), pp. 634-645. Mainly about initiative and referendum, but some minor mention of the DLL. Aboutmovies 08:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recall was won in Oregon by initiative in 1908.  I don't know how to do it myself, but you should really rename the title of the article "Oregon Direct Legislation League" to distinguish it from the national league of which it was a chapter and which was coalesced, really, after a bit more research, in 1896 via the Populist convention that year through the work of Eltweed Pomeroy, publisher of the above mentioned record who was largely inspired by James W. Sullivan, author and publisher of Direct Legislation Through the Initiative and Referendum, the book that had inspired U'Ren and many others. Sullivan was founder of the People's Power League which was in large part responsible for I&R being placed into the 1892 platforms of both the Populist and Socialist Labor parties, and which quickly turned into the (original, but unsuccessful) Direct Legislation League of New Jersey in 1893.  The Google books project has got a few decent historical sources available online now, like The Arena, a magazine edited by B.O. Flower.  I'm reading this stuff in David Schmidt's Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution and elsewhere.  Ogbn 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like there's more great stuff on Google books all the time..  check out the "Direct Legislation" entry in the 1908  NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM (pardon caps- pasting.  url too long)  i found it very informative. Ogbn 07:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Legislation League 

message: Is there a source for the "more than 104,000 votes" comment in the section regarding the 2004 Presidential campaign?  It would be nice to have confirmation that the number was not arbitrarily selected to mirror the later reference to the "$104,000" of funding rejected by the libraries.207.250.133.36 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To which article are you referring? This would probably be better on that article's talk page. Katr67 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these numbers actually the same? 

message: ===Project templates===
Is the fact that all the articles are now in both :Category:WikiProject Oregon and :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles a transclusion thing that will work itself out or something in the coding? I'm no good at coding so if someone could fix that, that would be swell. Also, I'd like to keep the :Template:WikiProject Oregon category and :Template:WikiProject Oregon template templates because they don't say "article" in them. Can we keep these and change the non-article assessment criterion in the new rating system (unnecessary if the cats and tls are tagged properly)? If not, we need to add the new assessment coding to these or something. Katr67 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure I'm giving the right answer, but I'm going to take a stab at it.  The :Category:WikiProject Oregon list is not a list of every Oregon article, but rather a list of some articles as well as subcategories within the Oregon Project, and the rest of the articles are within the subcategories.  The :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles is a list of every article within the project (not bundled by subcategory).  I think, but I'm not sure, that I can change up the coding so that we will not need (or have or see or something like that) the latter, but I'm not sure.  If I do (and it works), I don't know if there will be a comprehensive non-subcategorized list of Oregon articles...nor do I know if it is really needed.  By default though, that is how the assessment pages are set up.  Let me know you all's preference and I'll do what I can.  Theophilus75 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Maybe it's cause it's early still...but you've pretty much lost me.  I'll keep reading and see if I can figure it out, but right now I'm lost.  Theophilus75 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project has three templates that mark things as related to WPOR: for articles, categories and templates. (See the templates section of the main project page) They all used to put WPOR articles in :Category:WikiProject Oregon. The article template has been changed to include assessment criteria and default move the articles to :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles, the other two haven't. Currently the assessment criteria includes an "NA" class, for non-article things (templates, categories). However we don't need this because all the non-article things are already tagged with one of the other two templates. So we can remove the NA class from the rating system (or maybe we can use it catch articles that need to be retagged?) I also think it would be nice to change the two other templates so that they automatically categorize their respective categories (categories, templates). But maybe other people want there to be only one template (I've seen different projects do it different ways), so I'm wondering if anybody cares how we do it? Does that makes sense? Katr67 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it is making sence now, then again maybe not...I don't see where you see the "NA" class.  I see the "Unassessed" class which tells you which articles haven't been tagged for class and I see the "None" importance rating that tells you which articles haven't been tagged for importance, but I don't see an "NA."  I might be able to fix the tags for templates and categories to be classified within the Oregon articles class/importance system, but I'm not sure if we would need to do that.  All templates would be of top or low priority, depending on who you talk too...and they would never reach a FA/FL status (same with categories), so I don't think they would need to be rated.  Am I making sense?  Theophilus75 00:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I decided to be bold and try to fix the template since I did sort of know what you were talking about and it looked like a simple cut and paste error. It seems to be OK now, but if I messed something else up, somebody please put it back the way it was... --Sprkee 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks right now, but I'm coming back after it was all fixed I think.  Now I understand better what you were talking about.  I don't think the NA category is even need if those things will be tagged differently.  Theophilus75 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I changed the color scheme to tone it down a bit (I think).  I really don't care what color it is, so if someone has suggests I can change it, or they are welcome to do it themselves.  With the new assessment page a link needed to be added to the project page...not being sure where to put it on the page and not wanting to change the page up too much I thought a nav box would be easiest (plus it allows for all the main links of the project to be at the top of any page).  I personally think it's easier to get around from page to page in the project with it, but that's me.  If others don't like it, I'm cool with that too.  Theophilus75 05:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I made my attempt at toning it down.  Zab 05:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I read Katr67's recommendation above that was crossed out about trying to match the template box and did that after you did your change (didn't realize you changed it)...if you want to change it back go ahead.  Theophilus75 05:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, whatever we choose should have very little red in it and primarily blue (to match the Wizard Island picture on the WikiProject home page).  Red will just tint the thing purple.  When choosing colors, keep blue at EE or FF and green should be only a few scales down.  Red still needs at least 20% of blue though (33 or 44) to soften.  Zab 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looks good to me!  Theophilus75 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project changes

message: Is the fact that all the articles are now in both :Category:WikiProject Oregon and :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles a transclusion thing that will work itself out or something in the coding? I'm no good at coding so if someone could fix that, that would be swell. Also, I'd like to keep the :Template:WikiProject Oregon category and :Template:WikiProject Oregon template templates because they don't say "article" in them. Can we keep these and change the non-article assessment criterion in the new rating system (unnecessary if the cats and tls are tagged properly)? If not, we need to add the new assessment coding to these or something. Katr67 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure I'm giving the right answer, but I'm going to take a stab at it.  The :Category:WikiProject Oregon list is not a list of every Oregon article, but rather a list of some articles as well as subcategories within the Oregon Project, and the rest of the articles are within the subcategories.  The :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles is a list of every article within the project (not bundled by subcategory).  I think, but I'm not sure, that I can change up the coding so that we will not need (or have or see or something like that) the latter, but I'm not sure.  If I do (and it works), I don't know if there will be a comprehensive non-subcategorized list of Oregon articles...nor do I know if it is really needed.  By default though, that is how the assessment pages are set up.  Let me know you all's preference and I'll do what I can.  Theophilus75 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Maybe it's cause it's early still...but you've pretty much lost me.  I'll keep reading and see if I can figure it out, but right now I'm lost.  Theophilus75 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project has three templates that mark things as related to WPOR: for articles, categories and templates. (See the templates section of the main project page) They all used to put WPOR articles in :Category:WikiProject Oregon. The article template has been changed to include assessment criteria and default move the articles to :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles, the other two haven't. Currently the assessment criteria includes an "NA" class, for non-article things (templates, categories). However we don't need this because all the non-article things are already tagged with one of the other two templates. So we can remove the NA class from the rating system (or maybe we can use it catch articles that need to be retagged?) I also think it would be nice to change the two other templates so that they automatically categorize their respective categories (categories, templates). But maybe other people want there to be only one template (I've seen different projects do it different ways), so I'm wondering if anybody cares how we do it? Does that makes sense? Katr67 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it is making sence now, then again maybe not...I don't see where you see the "NA" class.  I see the "Unassessed" class which tells you which articles haven't been tagged for class and I see the "None" importance rating that tells you which articles haven't been tagged for importance, but I don't see an "NA."  I might be able to fix the tags for templates and categories to be classified within the Oregon articles class/importance system, but I'm not sure if we would need to do that.  All templates would be of top or low priority, depending on who you talk too...and they would never reach a FA/FL status (same with categories), so I don't think they would need to be rated.  Am I making sense?  Theophilus75 00:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I decided to be bold and try to fix the template since I did sort of know what you were talking about and it looked like a simple cut and paste error. It seems to be OK now, but if I messed something else up, somebody please put it back the way it was... --Sprkee 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks right now, but I'm coming back after it was all fixed I think.  Now I understand better what you were talking about.  I don't think the NA category is even need if those things will be tagged differently.  Theophilus75 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project templates

message: Maybe its because I grew up in Eugene and despite graduating from the UO I can barely tolerate yellow and green together, but I think that new navbox is too bright. Can we tone it down a bit? I'm not sure we even need it? Discuss. Katr67 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I changed the color scheme to tone it down a bit (I think).  I really don't care what color it is, so if someone has suggests I can change it, or they are welcome to do it themselves.  With the new assessment page a link needed to be added to the project page...not being sure where to put it on the page and not wanting to change the page up too much I thought a nav box would be easiest (plus it allows for all the main links of the project to be at the top of any page).  I personally think it's easier to get around from page to page in the project with it, but that's me.  If others don't like it, I'm cool with that too.  Theophilus75 05:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I made my attempt at toning it down.  Zab 05:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I read Katr67's recommendation above that was crossed out about trying to match the template box and did that after you did your change (didn't realize you changed it)...if you want to change it back go ahead.  Theophilus75 05:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, whatever we choose should have very little red in it and primarily blue (to match the Wizard Island picture on the WikiProject home page).  Red will just tint the thing purple.  When choosing colors, keep blue at EE or FF and green should be only a few scales down.  Red still needs at least 20% of blue though (33 or 44) to soften.  Zab 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looks good to me!  Theophilus75 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox

message: If anyone's looking for an easy article to bring up to GA, I suggest Henry Pittock, for which our long lost J-M Gilhousen recieved a positive peer review. Katr67 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry Pittock

message: As those dedicated editors who are around most days will have noticed, starting in March we have had a fair amount of Did You Knows. The first ones were by accident, many of the later ones are not. First, I think it is a good thing as it brings recognition to the project and brings it additional editors. Secondly, here are some tips:
*Know the rules: Basically its easiest with a new article (massive expansion to a stub also works) and it has to be less than five days old. Then it needs to be more than just a stub. Think Start class size. Lastly, the "Hook" which is the line that shows on the main page has to be verifiable through references.
*You can self nominate, just go to Template talk:Did you know add add your Hook under the correct day the article was created.
*Let others nominate for you. This is how many of the articles last month became DYKs, they were first in the AlexGoodBot list. The AlexBot is a series of bots that searches new articles and classifies them (including one for Oregon). One is the "Good" article bot. This is not the same as GA good, it simply finds articles at a set length and sees if it has references (it may also look for sections). If it meets that criteria it is included in its list. That list is part of the DYK template talk page and any editor on that page can go nominate an article from that list. This happens fairly often. So if you write your article offline until you think you are pretty much done and properly cite things, then there is a good chance it will show up on the list and get nominated. About 80% of those nominated get listed in the template, with most of those not making the cut due to issues with the article (up for AfD, too short, too old, etc.).
That's my guide to getting WPOR more airtime on the main page, at least until we get more FA articles. Aboutmovies 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK FYI 

message: There is some question about our project's tag on the H-P article: Talk:Hewlett-Packard#Wikiproject Oregon??. I'm not much on the history of hi-tech in Oregon, but I know H-P is (was?) a significant presence in our state. Anyone care to add more about Oregon to that article or else should we remove the tag? EncMstr? Katr67 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the article doesn't have a lot, if any, content about Oregon, it still should be tagged as an Oregon article that way someone on the Oregon project can come along and add content about Oregon on it later. - Theophilus75 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's iffy to me.  I couldn't find "Oregon" on the page in a quick search.  The company was not founded in Oregon, nor is it based there.  If one of it's "holdings" were founded in Oregon, it may be worth a stub article with a link, but I don't think the whole thing falls under WikiProject Oregon.  More appropriate:  Category:Companies_With_Some_Obscure_Connection_To_Oregon.  Zab 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how obscure it is when HP's largest campus is located in Corvallis, OR. <http://www.visitcorvallis.com/explore/about_corvallis.html> - Theophilus75 02:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the 7th largest employer in of Oregon.  I would say that alone justifies the tag.  #6 is Intel, and it also contains the WP:Oregon tag. Cacophony 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright.  Those are significant figures.  Keep the WP tag.  Zab 03:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hewlett-Packard]] 

message: Sanity check on aisle three...I keep reverting edits to the article by someone ostensibly associated with this Portland institution and have left the appropriate messages. I obviously need take a break from this now. If anyone else wants to take a look, help keep an eye on things, etc., it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Katr67 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it on my watchlist. - Theophilus75 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted this article again as the same editor has added most of the info back (though slightly modified).  If someone wants to look at what they did this time and determine if it should have stayed you are more than welcome.  I'm too tired and been up too long to try and determine if it should stay...but looking through the article it seems pretty much the same as before. - T-75|talk|contribs 06:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Western Culinary Institute]] 

message: I just speedily deleted all the talk pages of the non-existing articles tagged with WPOR (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Admin), hopefully this will simplify the assessment project. If anyone is interested in knowing which ones they were for watch- or to-do-list purposes, you can check the link above and check for redlinks. Some of the redlinks are also from s and Afd's as well. Cheers! Katr67 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-existent articles 

message: thumb 
I made a locator map for Oregon. Similar ones are in use in infoboxes in state park articles (for example L.L. "Stub" Stewart Memorial State Park) or city articles (for example Elmwood, Louisiana). I hope this is useful, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So very superior to the one we've been using! Thanks! -Pete 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I may be able to write a script that generates dot maps based off of input maps and DMS coordinates.  If nobody wants to go through the trouble of manually recreating them all I could give it a shot.  It would take a bit of startup time because of the WP bot rules, but I have already coded and tested a the bot framework.  Zab 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doing my best to make sense of how to use this, but I'm having trouble. Can you point us at any kind of instructions? Do the templates currently in use for Oregon cities etc. support this kind of map, or will they need to be upgraded? Could you possibly provide an example of how to use it for an Oregon city, for example at Salem, Oregon? -Pete 01:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful map 

message: While working on Applegate, Oregon "see also" list, I came across the deletion of Applegate Christian Fellowship.  The consensus was that the church is not notable enough for it's own article.  Maybe not, but even though I am not religious, I know that to many Jackson County residents the church is notable.  Anyways, it does not need it's own article, but I redirected it to Jon Courson, who founded ACF and is now quite famous.  If it wasn't for the riveting success of ACF, he probably would still be in his two-bedroom house preaching to the neighborhood watch group.  I will keep my eyes open for some other notoriety, though both articles are of quite little interest to me.  Zab 10:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who put that article up for Afd. As it was, it was pretty much an ad for the church and did not assert its notability. If it could be written in such a way as to reflect its importance to Courson, it would probably be OK. But the redirect is a good idea. I don't care either way as long as the article is not being used to advertise the church. Katr67 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Applegate Christian Fellowship]] 

message: I bring this up as a current student of OS (formerly OSU), and I think it holds some significance, though not an incredibly large significance.  Apparently there has been seemingly frequent confusion between OSU - Oregon State University, and OSU - Ohio State University.  For causes which I personally have not investigated, OSU suddenly became OS instead to alleviate this confusion (that is, Oregon State University OSU became OS - simply Oregon State).  If anyone thinks this is a semi-important topic to note about, or add to the page then follow up on the research for it since I myself have very little knowledge about the direct causes for the change (and I do not read the school newspaper, so I may have missed the cause entirely).  However, last year there was an incident at Ohio State University where a student was killed in the dorms in an elevator accident, and there was a lot of concern from student parents from Oregon State University confusing the actual location of the death.  Whether this is part of the contributing factors that lead to the change, I am not sure of, but further investigation by someone who is seasoned at this sort of thing is welcome to look into the matter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.235.156 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-08T18:21:48 (UTC)
:If the choice had been ORSU, it would have made so much more sense....  Why wouldn't Oklahoma and Ohio both claim OS as well? —EncMstr 03:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing from OSU to OS 

message: Hi Wikipedia Editors,
We would like to add factual content to the Western Culinary Institue article. We have removed unnessecary words that make the entry seem advertorial and we have also included references. Unfortunately, we can't seem to get these updates approved and are willing to work on revised copy, but are stumped as to how to get the article accepted after making the revisions suggested. Any suggestions you would be willing to offer would be more than helpful! Thank you!
Westerncul 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finally heeding our posts on the article's talk page, your talk page and the edit summaries. I trust you have read about the various guidelines we have posted on those pages. I have created a temp page: Talk:Western Culinary Institute/Temp where you can post your suggested article changes. That way we can collaborate on getting the article to its final form and then replace the current article if necessary, without continuing to lose the formatting of the current article. Please direct any other discussion of the article to Talk:Western Culinary Institute so the discussion is centralized. Thanks. Katr67 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Western Culinary Institute]] 

message: Katr67, Thanks for taking the time to edit the Oregon Water Trust page & for making sure that our entry is certified Kosher and in keeping with Wiki Standards. Of course you're correct (in the page discussion) that this entry was a cut&paste special. I noticed initially that I had missed a "we" and an "us" or two, a dead giveaway. However, having removed them (and your tag) I got retagged & I'm not sure why. Anyway, we'll be happy to rewrite the page more appropriately when we can figure what's still wrong w/ it. -Michael Mintz 69.88.124.4 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a fine offer! You will find that you need to create an account in order to upload photos. If you need any help with things graphical, feel free to leave me a message. -Pete 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for contacting us, I believe Mr. Mintz already has an account and forgot to log in... Anyway, I retagged the article since even with changing the "we"s and "us"es, it's still pretty much a copyvio. It would be nice to see the article rewritten in such a way that it is not simply a copy of the website, and so that it tones down the promotional nature of the current wording. It also need some additional wikification, but I'll take care of that in a sec. Just a heads up, we do have conflict of interest guidelines, which don't preclude your editing the article, but will give you an idea of some areas of concern. Likewise, the guidelines about what Wikipedia is not will give you some idea about the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. I believe, however, that our copyright guidelines state that if you clearly post on your organization's webpage that the content is freely licensed, it can be used as is. Maybe somebody with more experience with copyright can weigh in here? Personally I still prefer things be written in people's own words--I'll see what I can do later on today. And thanks for the offer of the ghost town pics! Which towns do you have? If we don't have articles on them I can certainly whip up a stub or two (seems I've promised to do Buncom and Golden at some point but I haven't gotten around to that yet, alas...) Katr67 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW Michael, if you had logged in you could have seen my message to you on your talk page, which may have explained the issues I had with the article. Sorry I repeated myself, but we tend to do that a lot around here... Katr67 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon Water Trust 

message: Someone made them and asked for opinions....I like them, but I'm wondering if another color may be better.  Possibly a shade of blue (to match the Navigation Head) or some type of tan)--T-75|talk|contribs 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Pete, blue would be good. I admit they take a little getting used to, as I frequently check out the links in the categories section, and it's one more click I have to make, but that's just 'cos I'm lazy. I can deal. Latr, Katr 22:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with whatever color changes you guys want to make. Do it yourself if you like, or I will. Katr, if certain sections are commonly used, we could make them non-collapsible, or maybe expanded by default...I just wanted mainly to get the really big sections, that are likely rarely used, "out of the way." -Pete 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsable Headers on Main Page 

message: Would such a sub-category to :Category:American pioneers- be useful for applicable Oregon biographies?  WBardwin 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WBardwin, I think  and maybe  have the most experience editing articles on pioneers, so hopefully they will weigh in. Personally, I think such a category would be somewhat useful, but it would take a lot of work to add all the pioneers, so I'm not sure how it balances out. -Pete 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea. And I don't think it would take too long to do. What does our pioneer expert think? Latr, Katr 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory I think it is a good idea as I've been try to figure out a way to make :Category:History of Oregon more managable. The problem I see is in the application due to the ambiguity of the term pioneer (not to mention the racial issues with taking land from the natives). For instance Abigail Scott Duniway is a pioneer in women's rights, but not a pioneer in the sense of an Oregon pioneer. I'm wondering if Settler might work better or if there is a better term. However we proceed there needs to be an explicit categorization rule to keep it at what it is intended (time frame for instance), and be careful with the French & Canadians as those north of the border might not care for their folk being placed in an "American" category. Any thoughts? Aboutmovies 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Oregon Pioneers?

message: I'm sure a few of you have noticed these Wikipedia banner ads on people's userpages. Though I look upon them with horrifed fascination, I'm wondering if anyone is interested in submitting an ad for our WikiProject. Any press is good press... Latr, Katr 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you just want an ad created, it isn't necessary to submit one; ask me or Miranda or someone else who makes them and one will be made for you – Gurch 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Miranda 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incredibly awesome! You used the state seal--very cool! Thank you! Katr67 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, barnstars are always welcome! Miranda 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner ad?

message: I stumbled across this article, which was previously not a part of WikiProject Oregon.  The article is in need of some major cleanup.  I did a little bit, but I think that the article probably needs the attention of multiple editors.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some copyediting, but the article needs sources badly. Latr, Katr 06:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kip Kinkel]] 

message: ...is up for Afd. A couple of us had been discussing… Katr 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portland, Oregon in popular culture]] 

message: A while ago I was at the Oregon Historical Society Museum and I was going to buy some older images to scan and add here, but there was a sticker on the back that said digitization and/or distribution was prohibited.  The is a lot to copyright law, but the guidelines state explicitly: "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain".  Yesterday I was browsing around the OHS website and found that they want a $30 fee to use images they sell on the internet.  I have yet to contact them to see why they feel that people should pay $30 to use an image that is in the public domain.  The issue was a large reason that I decided not to renew my OHS membership.  Has anyone contacted them to inquire about using some of their images here?  I guess I would be willing to fork over the $30/image if they allowed high-resolution images published after January 1, 1923 to be displayed, but somehow I doubt they would agree to that.  Any input/ideas? Cacophony 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same copyright notice on a copy of a letter from 1850 I got from them. One thing to keep in mind with the 1923 thing is that published is not created. If there is a picture taken in 1888 but kept in someone's photo alblum at home it is not published. So 100 years later when the family donates the picture to OHS it is still unpublished and subject to copyright, with some other caveats/exceptions. This is good chart that sort of covers the unpublished part. I've found it easier to just find pre 1923 books and scan pictures from them knowing that the pictures were published prior to 1923 or find US Gov items (the WPA did lots of history work in the 1930s). You can even download some books from Google Books and then use the capture image tool in Adobe Reader to get a picture. I doubt we'd be able to convince them to allow uploads since that takes away a revenue source from them at a time when they are strapped for cash with the state no longer subsidizing them. Saddly this has also meant closing down OHS Press, but that's off topic. Aboutmovies 03:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One more reason to start looking closer to home for material. Case in point is that I need to get off my butt & visit my Dad & go through all of the photos he's taken in the last 40-50 years: in all of that material, there has to be some worth uploading to commons! I know he has several sets taken in Sudan (there's a couple of the Sahara covered with grass that are keepers), Nigeria & Saudi Arabia -- but I bet he has a few on the 1961 Columbus Day Storm & the 1964 Willamette Flood (no article on that? I guess I'm the only one here who remembers that one). I even have a couple of pre-1900 photos of the Portland area, but I'm not uploading them because they have my relatives in them. -- llywrch 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very cool! Thanks for doing that, it will come in handy. -Pete 07:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon Historical Society Photos 

message: Is up for deletion. Check out the deletion discussion if you wish. Latr, Katr 03:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of high schools in Oregon]]

message: I am proposing this be merged to our transportation subproject. See the article's talk page if you'd like to discuss my proposal. Latr, Katr 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon State Highways]] 

message: As I have been working on moving some articles towards Good Article class recently (3 have passed in the last two months) I wanted to encourage others to do the same. Nominate at least, as I know were all working on improving articles. And I wanted to share some insights from the process as I was confused to begin with, and judging by the GA review of Portland Aerial Tram I don't think I am alone. First, GA is not FA, but the quality is about the same. GA basically doesn't need to be as in-depth as FA (look at Waller Hall and you can see that even shorter articles can be GA). Otherwise it needs to abide by the MOS.
As to the review process, it is very different. For GA, it only takes one editor to pass an article. So after someone nominates an article at Wikipedia:Good article candidates, any single person can go in and then review and pass/fail the article based on the GA criteria (as opposed to say an AFD discussion). For conflicts of interest reasons you can't review an article you nominate or have done editing on (except for minor edits like adding a category or fixing spelling errors). Otherwise if a WPOR article is up, go ahead and look at the reviewing instructions and review the article. I've reviewed some the last few months, but no WPOR articles as none have been nominated. My personal goal is to get us to about 10 each of GA and FA by the end of the year for a total of 20 at GA and above. We're at 13 now, so it shouldn't be too hard. Though Oregon and Portland might be difficult, only because so many editors are involved as more editors, like committees make things difficult to agree on. Which is why the GA/FA items I've been focused on are less trafficted articles. But that's me. Aboutmovies 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing your interests on what can be a rather arcane process. I like your goal of 10/20 - ambitious, but doable. I agree about Portland and Oregon, but I think that soliciting outside input would be very helpful. The Peer review process is another excellent option, which is outside of the article-rating world. I think at this point, it would be worth one of us making a list of our own perceptions of what needs to be done to Oregon, and then requesting a peer review of that article. That way, we'd end up with both an "Oregon-centric" and an "outsider" list of needed improvements. I'd also like to take this approach with the Columbia River article, which has come a long way recently. -Pete 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA FYI 

message: I just created this article dealing with a wine growing region in SW ID and SE OR. It recently received official designation as an American Viticultural Area. I linked to the OR WikiProject, but did not assign an importance. Feel free to embrace (oh yeah) erase its stubbiness.  --Robbie Giles 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice start.  The Oregon wine article should probably be updated, I'll take a quick crack at it. -Big Smooth 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake River Valley AVA 

message: Is having some WP:COI and WP:OWN issues again if anyone wants to check it out. Apparently I'm a vandal, so I'm staying out of it. Katr67 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted the WP:COI edits, and I'll try to keep an eye on the page.  The editor with the COI issues is most likely co-owner Frank Faillace or perhaps some other close relative.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or how about an AFD? None of the sources on that page really assert notability per WP:CORP? Aboutmovies 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is (barely) notable, but the article isn't well written with quixotic references.  I think we had previously agreed the building is plenty notable. —EncMstr 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought about an Afd but that would be far too pointy coming from me. I think everyone should try to continue the communications process started by Pete on the talk page. My presence in the matter seems to be problematic so I'll defer to all y'all's good judgement. You can take out the bit about magazine ownership, however, because according to whichever WP:ALLCAPS thingy it is, subjects of articles are allowed to remove false information, and I did read something about the change in ownership somewhere. (but I'm no longer interested in finding the citation or risking checking the masthead of said publication while I'm at work). Katr67 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, I entirely disagree about your involvement being problematic, unless it's becoming problematic for you - in which case, yeah, stepping away would probably be good. I think I'm most comfortable on this one trying to guide the discussion (since you guys seem to find that helpful) rather than take a position, and I don't really HAVE a position…I don't see a lot of harm in a poor article on Dante's, I see it as being a very different thing than a poor article on the moon, or folk dancing, or gay marriage…topics that are broad enough to actually attract a wide number of readers actually looking to learn something. To me the ability to collaborate is the biggest thing at stake in that article, and if I can help steer things in that direction I'm happy to do so… -Pete 22:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I'm not a frequent contributor to this project, but as I happen to have the Admin bit feel free to get a hold of me over disputes like this, & I'll be happy to contribute an informed -- but objective -- intervention. -- llywrch 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dante's]] 

message: I’ve noticed some editors on some of the Portland articles like the Portland page and Blazers that are not members of our little gang. Now normally in a gang environment we would want to go subjugate them and make them work for our crime family, but in this case it is a cyberworld and that won’t work.. Plus I think there may be Wiki policy against this type of action. Anyway, I am wondering if we should start a sub group for Portland and try to recruit some of those editors into that group. Make it sort of like the WPBio taskforces that even have their own userboxes. Then maybe they can take the lead in getting some of the high profile Portland area pages up to GA and FA and maybe some Vancouver people will feel more welcome. Thoughts, suggestions, points of interest? Aboutmovies 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of one editor in particular who I'm surprised isn't part of the project, but when I see him edit the PDX-related articles I know all is well. It would be nice to have folks like that be part of the secret cabal our fine group of editors. Good idea. Katr67 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. By the way, have you guys seen this featured image candidate? I spent a good chunk of time gawking at this. Wow. Major kudos to Cacophony. -Pete 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks for pointing that out.  That's a beautiful panorama. -Big Smooth 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support of my PFC.  I hope to keep them comming.  To answer your question Pete, I took that Image from Marquam Hill at a classified location (hint...don't ask how I got up there).  It is kinda funny, but I was not at all a photographer before I started contributing to Wikipedia.  Here I am many thousands of dollars worth of gear later enjoying the heck out of myself.  Cacophony 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since no one is opposed I'll start making it happen. Any preference for a picture to use in the "I'm a Portland work group member" userbox? I was thinking Convention Center, Portlandia, or Pioneer Courthouse Square, any other ideas or pictures that would work good at the small userbox size? Aboutmovies 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rose?  Or the Fremont Bridge?  Ipoellet 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the rose idea.  I would avoid Portlandia because of copyright issues.  Cacophony 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea/Proposal 

message: Did someone from wikipedia land in a cartoon?  http://xkcd.com/c285.html  —EncMstr 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: Folks I just noticed there's only 2 hours left in the Wikimedia Board elections. Eek! I skimmed through the nominations and some discussion, and found in DragonFire1024 a candidate who seems to clearly share many of my values. If you've made 400 edits, you can vote. If you're making a last-minute decision, you might want to consider him. Things that stuck out to me: when asked about a controversial content dispute, he was quick to assert that the Board should not take a position, but let the community decide; he expressed what I think was an appropriately balanced view regarding non-free/fair use images, respecting both the value of free content and the need in some cases to use images that cannot be replaced by free images; and he is involved with WikiNews among other WM projects, which seems like a worthy cause.
Not having read all the candidate statements in detail, I can't say he is the "best," but I got the strong impression that he would make a positive impact on the Board.
For what it's worth… -Pete 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WM Board Elections - 2 hours left! 

message: I was going to add a link to the external link section on the HP page, but I saw the links shoudl be discussed in "talk" first. Anyone have a problem with me adding this link to a free company profiel page for HP? Here is the link: http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_m6j2k
Deaksarm 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding External Link to HP page 

message: :Category:Historic transportation in Oregon and :Category:Oregon historic ships are up for deletion,  here. Katr67 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories up for deletion 

message: I've taken the liberty of starting a portal for Oregon.  I'm using the Featured Utah Portal as a blueprint and will fill the content sections as I can.  Any help is appreciated.  Colors are up for grabs, I chose a Duck green for the box headers, a water blue for the background and a Beaver orange for the border, but feel free to change.  — Zaui (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The colors seem good enough to me.  I have a future List of lists about Oregon under development.  Is that what goes in the "lists" pane of the portal?  How about these "selected" entries for the time being?:
* article: Willamette River
* biography: Joel Palmer
—EncMstr 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone needs to put together a list of lists for the Lists pane of the Portal. I was starting one using this list looking at articles starting with 'list', but I'll let you finish your project. I'll get the 'selected' sections started.  — Zaui (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I took the liberty of changing the shade of blue to something a little more harmonious with the orange. Despite being a Duck who hates yellow and green together (and certainly not "Thunder Green" and "Lightning Yellow"), and who is rather fond of orange, I found the whole color-combo a little distracting but otherwise a good compromise. Other options might be the official state colors of blue and gold ala the flag and our shiny new banner ad, in combo with our "Keep Oregon Green" green, though this might edge toward a Duckish bias... Katr67 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Oregon|Oregon Portal]] Started 

message: There is some discussion about whether this page should be about the Red Hot Chili Peppers album and not the portmanteau word that I believe originated in Oregon, if anyone wants to check out the discussion on the talk page. I think most Oregonians of a certain age ::cough::pushing 40 or older::cough:: will remember hearing the term or seeing the "Don't Californicate Oregon" bumper stickers long before the Chilis were a gleam in Anthony Kiedis' eye. Unfortunately, all I have is my own memory--we really need some reliable sources for the origin of this expression--perhaps someone is willing to do some library research? Remember that old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill... Just kidding. :) Katr67 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question that the term predates RHCP by a number of years. A quick scan of the Oregonian has the oldest available online reference in an article dated 9/2/90 titled "TUG OF WAR OVER LAND USE GOES ON". The term is thrown out casually in the article with no explanation which would indicate that it was a well-known term. However, I'm not sure that's a valid argument...just because the term came first here doesn't mean that it's the most expected usage for people using WP. (Full disclosure: I'm a self-loathing Californicator.) --Sprkee 18:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of my best friends are from California. Heck, my Mom was born in California, though arriving here in the 1940s surely predates Californication. Anyway, I'm not attached to which way the page is disambiguated--how about we make Californication a dab page and move the portmanteau word to Californication (portmanteau)? I think I'll just be bold and change it. I'm guess I'm just not comfortable with the assertion that "most people" will be looking for the Chili Peppers album because there's really no way to prove that, is there? But "most people" are probably younger and hipper than me... Any better suggestions for the renamed page are welcome... Katr67 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. I think that was the right solution. --Sprkee 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, feel free to take it to articles for deletion. Katr67 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the history books say that, but the history of my family varies a little from that. One branch of my mother's family arrived from Back East by way of clipper ship: around the Horn, first to the Sandwich Islands, then to the California goldfields, then arrived in Portland at some point before the 1870s. In another branch of her family, after my great-grandfather separated from my great-grandmother, he moved to Alameda, where my grandmother spent at least one summer living with him growing up. (My father's family came to Oregon much later, and his siblings scattered up & down the west coast to where they or their spouses could find work.) In short, people had used the train or ship to travel between Portland & the Californian ports since the 1850s if not before -- as well as north to Seattle and Vancouver; & before I-5 there was Highway 99. I-5 was simply a more recent development of an old migration pattern; Oregon's never been that hard to get to from the south. -- llywrch 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, why do I feel that we're reinventing the Three Scotsmen sketch from Monty Python? Was it something that I wrote? My point was that there was an awful lot of interaction between the two states prior to the creation of I-5, & tried to offer some examples. I didn't mean to sound as if I were boasting. And the reason that branch of the family came by ship was that they were Yankee merchant traders -- my branch got as far as California before they ran out of money (to give the short version), & they ended up in Portland soon afterwards. -- llywrch 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way off topic comment Link to Youtube video of tribute to Four Yorkshiremen sketch with Alan Rickman, for context. </offtopic> </humor> Katr67 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Four Yorkshiremen? Why, in my day we only had two Yorkshiremen, & we were lucky if one of them weren't a Californian is disguise! -- llywrch 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Californication]] 

message: The project ad banner (see here) uses Cal colors - blue and gold. — Zaui (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am sworn to hate that color combination myself, it does accurate reflect the colors of the flag of Oregon.--Sprkee 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should have the The Oregon Trail (computer game) wagon on it... — Scientizzle 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of Californication... 

message: I think an item that would be  interesting would be a list of all the school districts in Oregon that ever existed.   Many would jibe with existing communities, but many others are completely or almost forgotten ghost communities.----as they tended to be every 5 miles down the road beause that is how far kids could walk to school.   It would be the 'other shoe' to McArthurs post office list.... Rvannatta 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we barely have consensus that the current school districts should have articles but it would indeed be interesting (though judging by how some recent Oregon-related Categories for discussion have gone, some might not agree that it's encyclopedic?) I think we should concentrate on getting articles written on the redlinked current school districts and communities first (there are hundreds), but if someone is willing to do the research it couldn't hurt to start a list of historic school districts too, though I would imagine it would almost number in the thousands! Katr67 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good to maybe create a History of education in Oregon that could also cover the time even before school districts when much education was through academies, move into the early colleges (which often were equivelent to a HS ed), and then into the more modern structure, and the forced school district unifications by the legislature in the early 1990s. Then the defunct school districts could be listed there and no problems with notability. But, this would be low on the priority list, so unless someone is really intereset it doing it themselves, it would sit on the back burner. If someone is interested, this book available for free download from Google books has a lot of info on early schools and colleges. Aboutmovies 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: historic school districts

message: Just an FYI, our capitol in Salem is now up for Featured Article status. If you would like to be involved in the process, go the FA page and read about the process if you are not familiar with it, otherwise click on the "leave comments" link in the FAC banner on the capitol talk page to participate. Aboutmovies 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oregon State Capitol]] FAC 

message: Lars Larson has been the target of several types of attack.  The current is a low key, but persistent effort to add point of view material.  I would greatly appreciate if there were several additional eyes on this.  (Maybe beginning with the last edit?) —EncMstr 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably noticed that I'm on it. (I got weary of having the thing on my watchlist but your request brought me back.) Attempts at getting the latest attacker to communicate seem to be just as futile as those directed toward the previous and apparently oppositely aligned attacker... *sigh* The article could use a rewrite, however. Katr67 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lars Larson 

message: Anyone have a good picture of the PDX terminal or from inside (something similar to SEATAC) to put in the PDX infobox so the current washed out photo can be moved to later in the article? Nighttime and the glass canopy I think would look good. Aboutmovies 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portland International Airport]] 

message: We currently only have the WPOR barnstar, and I was thinking we could roll out a few more. My ideas were an Featured WPOR award that incorporates the Featured Class star to be given to any editors who help get an article to FA, a list to FL, a portal to FP, or submit a Featured Picture. Then a DYK award for say every three Oregon DYK's (that is if you do one that has nothing to do with Oregon then it doesn't count), this would incorporate the DYK "?" into the award. Then a GA award just like the FA, but incorporate the GA symbol. I was thinking of making them user box size and editors could collect them like merit badges. Maybe even something like Bronze for a single one (i.e. the first one), then silver for double (e.g. after 6 DYKs), Gold for triple, and Platinum for quadruple. After that you start again, so you could have a Platinum GA and a Bronze GA. What are others thoughts and any ideas for other contributions that I may be overlooking? Aboutmovies 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, User:Durova has a triple crown award along similar lines. I like the idea of incorporating the FA star into the current gold guy design (hmmmm, bronze, silver and gold guy awards? Or does that make him too much like a bowling trophy?), and if we could get him to fit in a userbox, that would be cool. People do like to collect badges... Katr67 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of, but the triple crown requires one of each of three parts. This would be three seperate awards, but we could then make a WPOR trifecta too. Aboutmovies 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More WPOR awards 

message: An anon has removed the name of one of the students involved in the Thurston High School shooting three times in the past few weeks.    All three of these edits have come from Eugene (which of course neighbors Springfield, the town Thurston is in).  I'm fairly certain that the person removing the name is someone close to the student.  The third edit made by the anon is far more acceptable than the first two and is the current version.  Should I leave the name out or should I include it?  Does anyone have any thoughts?  Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On one hand, (DELETED) was nearly a victim.  On the other, he chose to act heroically.  I wouldn't think it would be a problem for him to be named as he is presented quite positively.  The only thing that makes me wonder why someone would delete it would be if it weren't accurate, or such publicity being against some belief.  If it's well cited, I'd favor leaving it in.  —EncMstr 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:BIO doesn't have anything, but WP:BLP#Privacy of names is relevant.  Per this guideline, "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."  So, the relevant question is: Is it valuable to include the name?  I'm having a tough time deciding whether it does or not.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of name in [[Kip Kinkel]] 

message: A group of us are trying to promote the idea of a Portland WikiWednesday. Unfortunately, I'm the only one in the group not attending Wikimania, so it falls on me to try to organize this for this Wednesday (1 August 2007). So far there are two of us -- anyone else interested? Contact me on/off Wiki. -- llywrch 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what time and where... —EncMstr 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have Wednesday free - I'm down. I vote for the east side! Now can an admin from maybe France or Taiwan drop in and determine consensus for an east side meeting please? -Pete 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since no one else has responded to this thread, I propose Lucky Lab at 6:00pm. (That gives me enough time to get there from work. Unless someone comes up with a better suggestion (& I'm quite happy to change the locale -- I only picked it because I always seem to end up there), does that work? -- llywrch 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWednesdays 

message: A new tool which checks the validity of external links from a HTTP perspective is now chunking through the WikiProject Oregon articles.  There are dozens of things it has found which could use attention, especially the "moved permanently" and "not found" (pink and orange).  For anyone with a particular fetish/appetite for dealing with external links, look here.  At its current rate of progress, I wouldn't expect it to be done until early tomorrow (PDT).  —EncMstr 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh!  Something is amiss with the tool.  It gave up after finding 162 links—some sort of misunderstanding of the article limit.  I'll give an update when/if it finishes correctly.  —EncMstr 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I discovered a bug and is now running with an appropriate limit.  View the results here. —EncMstr 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well....what else does one appropriately do with obsessives?  The spider just finished.  It found 1795 unusual conditions.  As for organizing any effort to fix them, there are so many articles and so few fixers, what is the chance of a collision really?  —EncMstr 14:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should note that while this is useful, it doesn't catch all the Oregonian articles that have gone dead. Those just go to a blank OregonLive page with no redirect. So if you happen to see some links to Oregonian articles while fixing other broken links, those should probably be turned into standard news citations. --Sprkee 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular obsessive volunteers to look at any articles about settlements; I'm skipping the PDX neighborhoods for now. I'll also be sure to check for O-vanish. Katr67 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've add oregonlive.com to the list of expiring news sources.  I'm trying to make this as automated as possible, so if you have any idea tell me.  —Dispenser 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm re-running the scan. I figured out yesterday a way have a signal to noise ratio.  It is effectly composed of the number of word that are not link divided by total words number of words, and since a site's navigation is effectively links those with really low scores are pages with content.   blanking.  However, this is only enabled for oregonlive.com domain and pages that return 4xx code, since it requires using more bandwidth.  —Dispenser 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external reference spider 

message: The following article has lots of good info on Vic Atiyeh, Glenn Jackson, Larry Campbell etc. Could be used to beef up these articles, and the forthcoming History of Oregon article too! -Pete 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good source 

message: As we have a lot of new members this month, and plenty of editors that are not so active, I was wondering if we should start a “Collaboration of the Week” type of thingy? No pressure on people to contribute, but a way for a message to be sent to each member saying “hey we are working on this if you would like to join in” to attempt to get people more connected to the project. If there are no objections, I would recommend we start with articles in the Top importance section that are stubs, working to bring them up to Start or B. The first three I found with this are: Alis volat propriis, Fusitriton oregonensis, and  Government of Oregon. Thoughts? Suggestions? Aboutmovies 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration? 

message: Looking at the page Neahkahnie Mountain today, I noticed right off that there are no photos. This spring / summer, I've spared about as many freebies for Wikipedia as I care to for now. Anyone have an image? I shouldn't add my own page myself, as an external link, but it does have one good size image, and a hyperlink to a Video of the trail / views of the mountain Neahkahnie Mountain page with photo / video link.
One external link looks rather odd - it's the one referring to the Legend from "yougoonie" - it looks like the linked page has nothing on it but advertising. Candidate for deletion? Just didn't see any relevant material when I visit the link.Mdvaden 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a decent site page with info on the treasure legend. I'll see if I can find it this week. From an Oregon author with several books, if that rings a bell for anyone else.Mdvaden 00:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I may have a picture. Let me check. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  yeah, I had a few, not my best pictures but im happy to help. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A good contribution, nonetheless! Neahkahnie is a difficult mountain to photograph, due to the terrain and frequent cloud cover...kudos to you, and thanks for contributing to the commons! (Any idea what the "deletion" tag on the photo is all about? I couldn't figure out where that came from, or why.) -Pete 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I had spent a week in manzanita, end of july and came home with 250 digital pictures and 3 rolls of film but the only time I really framed up Neahkahnie was on a hike when the lighting was very hard and flat. I have probably 40 pictures of sun-sets with just the cliff going down to the sea. Too bad I didn't know that the artical needed a picture, I could have made a better effort. The delete tag is just for my copyright template which some commons person doesn't like. The tag is on all my commons pictures. It's pretty interesting if you take a look at the nom. Feel free to vote "keep" on the nomination. ; ) and I dont think any of my pictures are in real danger. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neahkahnie Mountain 

message: This is a very unique area, an area that once was the Oregon Nursery Company - Orenco Town. After researching for real information at Washington County Historical Society and Museum , Washington County Tax Assessment , Hillsboro Argus , interviews with Mr. Lou Hanberg local historian, published the book Orenco Heritage Series – 1905 – 1938, would be possible to make the history of Orenco be part of Oregon History?
The material and supportive documents are from reliable entities. Can someone help?
Thanks, Ermdee 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, welcome to the Oregon wikiproject! I'm from the general Orenco area and have a copy of book one of the Heritage series (which I've used in the Orenco, Oregon article). I lived in and next to Orenco for the first 18 years of my life, and though it is an intresting story, it does not  really belong in the Oregon History section of the Oregon article if that was your aim. Nor should it be in the sub-articles that are being developed to cover the history of the state in more detail. All the history can go into the Orenco article. Not to be too blunt, but there is nothing that special about Orenco's history versus the other 100+ former towns in the state, each with their own intersting and unique stories. See Copperfield, Oregon, Shaniko, Oregon, Champoeg, Oregon, and in general :Category:Ghost towns in Oregon for other examples. We may be able to work in a small section titled "former towns" or the like in a History of Oregon article which simply mentions some towns of note, but going into details would be beyond what an encylopedia would do, even Wikipedia with its virtually unlimited space. Some brief info on the history of major/important settlements that are in the history books belong in the main articles, but thoseare only brief looks. Histories of individual towns or people or things belong in articles about those subjects. A better way to increase the coverage of Orenco history would be to start articles about items related to Orenco that are notable and add info about Orenco here and there in related articles. For instance the in Oregon Electric Railway article you could add a sentence about where the station in Orenco was and the years of operation. You could find info to start an article on the Orenco Herald, the Oregon Nursery Company, some of the company officers, and probably even the old Presbyterian Church building that is nearly 100 years old. I hope that helps Aboutmovies 16:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orenco, Oregon 

message: at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival article, where serious copyediting, WP:MOS work, and referencing is needed. There may also be WP:COI and WP:OWN issues going on. The expertise of the good editors at Wikiproject Oregon would be greatly appreciated. VanTucky (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attention is needed 

message: Is there an easy way to make a list of articles thart are in two categories, specifically :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs, and :Category:WikiProject Oregon articles?  Thanks, Cacophony 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross referencing categories 

message: Is up for rename to something that I believe is inaccurate, though I don't quite understand the whole highways vs. routes thing in Oregon. If someone who is knowledgeable about the subject can comment on the rename discussion, please do. Katr67 09:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Oregon state routes]]... 

message: FYI, I have prodded the article on Diane Linn.  It has had a notability tag in place for two months, and I do not feel that she is notable enough to merit an article.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Diane Linn]] 

message: This category is up for discussion. It seems to have been part of an abandoned effort to promote/improve coverage of Portland art and artists that is slowly being dismantled. If anybody involved in that effort is still around, you might want to check into this. Katr67 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Portland artists]] 

message: I'm trying to finish up the "Selected Anniversaries" part of the portal. My goal is to have 5 dates per month. All I have missing is one date for both April and August. Does anyone know of a good one for April, preferably from west of the Cascades, and from Salem south, and between about 1900 and 1960? For August, anywhere but NW Oregon and between 1890 and 1950, or 1975 to current? Thanks. Aboutmovies 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Oregon/Selected anniversaries|Portal Anniversaries]] 

message: Hey folks, I don't know how many members check out the link on the front page that shows changes to all the articles in WPORE, but if you're interested in helping fight vandalism, be sure to check the page once in a while. Now that school's back in session and half the schoolkids in the U.S. are doing history units on the American West and things like that, articles on Oregon subjects get vandalized quite regularly. Today's popular targets were Oregon Trail, Hudson's Bay Company, and Manifest Destiny. So if you see any anon edits to likely articles, be sure to take a look. You'll learn a lot about what words still make kids giggle and improve the project at the same time. There's lots of activity on the articles about high schools as well--I tend to feel keeping those up to standard is hopeless, but there's lots of fun with the delete key there as well. Have fun! Katr67 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we add a new secret page to the project to save all the funny edits? I liked the one about the penguin. --Sprkee 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Fraid not. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th nomination). Maybe if we figure out a way to make a double secret page. Katr67 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK fine, if I see another penguin joke, I'm leaving it in. --Sprkee 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if various members of WPOR "adopted" various of these "at-risk" articles and added them to their watchlists to take particular responsibility for monitoring for vandalism? Would there be interest in this? Could this run afoul of WP:OWN?  Ipoellet 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it.  Removing vandalism doesn't count toward WP:3RR, nor toward preserving talk pages.  I already watch 2000-2500 WPOR articles, and—except for the schools—usually stomp out vandalism on sight.  —EncMstr 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think that's good practice. And I was just kidding about the penguin. Didn't mean to create a controversy. --Sprkee 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you're not allowed to comment on penguins--that's conflict of interest. FWIW, I watch Oregon Trail and Lewis and Clark Expedition, but so does everybody else.  Katr67 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I watch Franklin High, it's near my house. I'd be happy to add a few other Portland schools…say, Cleveland, Marshall, and Grant? I will stomp the penguins on sight. -Pete 01:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schoolkid vandals

message: So we had our first meeting of Portland WikiWednesdays last week, at the offices of Aboutus.org]. It was lots of fun, and it looks like we'll be meeting monthly. We've set up a mailing list via Google Groups to coordinate, so please sign up if you're interested! PDXwiki
There were roughly a dozen of us, with experience and interests in various Wiki projects - not just Wikipedia by any means. We generally agreed that it would be good to reach out to the public and non-techy folks to promote the concept of wiki collaboration, that we should have some hands-on "work sessions" where we collaborate on a certain wiki or a certain article as a group, and that presentations by people with specific projects to share would be fun. I'm pretty sure we'll continue to meet the first Wednesday of the month, at AboutUs, for the foreseeable future.
So, come on down if you can! Feel free to sign up for the email list even if you're not in Portland…we may get to the point of streaming meetings over the web, or some such fanciness. -Pete 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: llywrch posted a summary of the event on socialtext, as well. -Pete 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Pete! VanTucky (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portland WikiWednesdays 

message: I have added two proposals for additions to the current instructions here for our assessment process out of concern for bias/conflicts of interest. Before being bold and adding them I waned to check at the larger forum to see if the wording sounds good, as well as the proposal in concept. Thanks. Aboutmovies 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment proposals 

message: Why should I have all the fun?  is a nifty thing you can add to a category page and it will show you where everything in that category is on Google Maps (if there's coordinates listed in the article, of course). It's super keen! Katr67 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|GeoGroupTemplate}}  

message: A dismal stub, needs justification for its existence. I tend toward "all high schools are notable", but this one? If you feel like saving it, please add some content and cites. Katr67 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Summit High School (Bend, Oregon)]] up for deletion 

message: As some of you may have noticed since the above was listed at FA and failed, it has gone through additional work with copy editing, and now passing GA. It flew through GA without a single comment or change, and I think that's because it is FA quality. It is structured much as the Michigan State Capitol which is FA class, and has the depth and quality needed for FA. However, FA comes down to support more than anything else. Unless people go and support an nomination it will not pass even if it meets the requirements. In that way it is much more like an AFD. So if we want to get it through FA, we need to coordinate. So first, I want to see if there is interest in getting it through FA. Then if those who are interested in supporting it need to look at it before we put it up and suggest changes before we nominate it. That way it will pass, otherwise stylistic differences will prevent it from going through. If you are not interested, or nobody is inerested that's fine, we can just leave it a GA, I'm just hoping to avoid a wasted effort. Thanks. Aboutmovies 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be happy to work on this, and will not wait till the last minute like last time. The extensive efforts you guys have put into this most definitely deserve the support of the community, and I'm pretty sure an FA designation as well. -Pete 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed the FA nomination the first time, must have been on a Wikibreak.  I just took a crack at tightening up one section slightly but overall it's well written and referenced, so I think it's certainly a good FA candidate. -Big Smooth 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is again listed at FA for those who would like to participate. Aboutmovies 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI, it will fail again if no one Supports the nomination, which seems likely at this point. Aboutmovies 19:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yippy! It finally made it to FA! Congrats and thanks to all who helped out. Aboutmovies 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And congrats to you, who put so much of the work in! That's great news. -Pete 04:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oregon State Capitol]] to FA 

message: Hey all,
Portland's WikiWednesday group is meeting up again this week! Come on down and share some wikilove…or just drink some beer and run your mouth, it's a pretty loose group. Whatever works.
Yes, this Wednesday (Oct. 3), 6:30 p.m. at the AboutUs space (107 SE Washington St., Suite 520, Portland, OR 97214). If you have any trouble getting into the building, call the offices at (503) 488-5763.
* MarkDilley has volunteered to come up with an intro to wiki discussion/activity
* We'll have refreshments, it's also been suggested that at around 9/9:30 the event might adjourn to the Produce Row Cafe down the street for beers and the more informal pub-related chats.
If there's time/interest, I'm hoping to do a quick presentation on WikiProject Oregon and the new Collaboration of the Week that AboutMovies has got going. As for the rest, we've adopted an open system where basically, whoever has something cool to share, shares it, and if nobody's sharing, we split off into smaller groups to work on wiki sites.
It's great fun, you should come -- and invite that family member/co-worker/hottie from the coffee shop that doesn't quite get what wikis are about yet. -Pete 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWednesday meetup 

message: I didn't look to see when it was created, but I just now added Great Cats World Park in Cave Junction, Oregon to the project. I'm about to review the Cave Junction article for GA nominations, and any help in that article once I finish my recommendations would also be appreciated. VanTucky Talk 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub added to project 

message: I have quick-failed the Cave Junction, Oregon GA nomination per major MoS issues and a clearly non-neutral section on "hippies". The attention of experienced WikiProject Oregon editors is probably in order. VanTucky Talk 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed project GA nomination 

message: I would desperatley like to know why the book/film 'One flew over the Cukoo's nest' why does it have this title what does it mean and represent??? 
I know it has something to do with an old American rhyme but what does the rhyme mean? 
Or is it something to do with the behaviour of the cukoo bird, for laying its eggs in other birds nests, therefore them being in the wrong place?
Or is it that when we use the word cukoo we associate it with someone being crazy? cukoo's nest being the Institute/hospital? This really has been bugging me for some time I've seen the film several times and read the book I even saw the stage production at the Alexander Theatre in Birmingham, England thsi year. Please help if you know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.145.166 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be better off asking this question at the Reference Desk. Good luck! Katr67 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'One flew over the Cukoo's nest'  

message: Just wrote Frank Ivancie and Michael Francke.  The latter, especially, should be controversial.  Have fun!  --EngineerScotty 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: I need help fielding a question that was posted on my talk page by an anon I warned for removing content from the Great Cats article. I suspected the anon was connected to the place and warned him about COI and such. Since he is willing to communicate with us, please be civil. Thanks. Katr67 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Great Cats World Park]] 

message: I just read the article stating that it is BELIEVED by local Oregonians that school children helped restore the Tillamook Burn by planting trees.  It is not just a BELIEF, it is a FACT, because I was one of those children.71.214.108.172 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tillamook Burn restoration 

message: In February or so, Portland Aerial Tram was nominated for GA status, and failed.  I've addressed the main problems; re-organizing the text quite a bit, adding new material to make it more complete, and removing all  and  tags (by providing refs, not just by deleting the tags :) ).  
Currently, the article is eval'd at B-class by this WP; could an uninvolved editor take a look and see if the article merits moving up to A-class?  (And if not, go ahead and fail the GA nomination--something that isn't A class probably shouldn't be at GA).
Thanks,
--EngineerScotty 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job getting this up to GA, everyone who worked on it! Katr67 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renom of [[Portland Aerial Tram]] for GA 

message: Per User talk:Jgilhousen. Since John-Mark isn't around to provide fair use rationales for all those images, it would be great if anybody on the project wants to help out with this. It should be a matter of writing one up for one, and then changing the relevant links and pasting it to the others. If you know a state logo image with a well-written rationale, please link to it here so it can be used for copying purposes. Thanks. Katr67 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to the post, Katr :) I'll take care of a few. But, there's about 20 of them, so more help would be great. -Pete 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of these, Aboutmovies! Don't be such a WikiGnome next time! Katr67 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About to lose a bunch of Oregon government logos 

message: Folks, I just nominated Columbia River for consideration as a "Good Article." If you have time, please consider evaluating it according to the criteria and posting your evaluation on the Talk:Columbia River page, or just follow the discussion there and weigh in as appropriate. Thanks! -Pete 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Columbia River]] nominated for Good Article status 

message: Extensively expanded, and managed to spawn two other articles in the process (Rose Quarter and Rose Garden arena bankruptcy).  Rose Garden Arena is a top-importance article for this WP; maybe it will be our first top-importance FA in the near future.  --EngineerScotty 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rose Garden Arena]] nominated for GA status 

message: I'd like to create an article for the new University of Oregon arena, but, given that there is no name for the facility, don't know how to name the article.  Should I simply go with 'New University of Oregon Arena'?  Any other suggestions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckblazer (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the one that's going to be the successor to Mac Court? Until it is named, I think perhaps write about it in the Mac Court article and move it to its own article once it is named. Who's donated money to it so far? That's a sure predictor what they will name it. Knight? Katr67 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think "New U of O Arena" is a very good idea either.  It's certain to be renamed, and the lingering redirect to the new name would be meaningless clutter.  Katr67's suggestion is a good one.  —EncMstr 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the consensus, I'll hold off.Duckblazer 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding a new section to McArthur Court?  That's a natural place for one to look.  Probably a lot of details will not be available for awhile, but it's a good gathering point for what you can scrounge up.  —EncMstr 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I did some Googling since I don't follow sports, live in Eugene or do my alma mater proud in any way whatsoever, and I learned there's all kinds of controversy about the siting of the arena (actually I know that was happening for years), the Phil Knight donation money, the state bonds the UO is going to take out to pay for it, and the $64,000 question--what are they going to do with Mac Court? Lots of great material in there for expansion. Then when the thing is actually being built, you should be able to gather building specs, seating capacity and all that kind of stuff to move into the new article. Katr67 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New University of Oregon Arena 

message: Some of the national rail line articles are being tagged with every state WikiProject that has lines for that RR. I chose to opt us out of these. These RR's are: 
*Talk:Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway‎
*Talk:BNSF Railway
*Talk:Burlington Northern Railroad‎
*Talk:Great Northern Railway (U.S.)
*Talk:Northern Pacific Railway
I don't want this to be a unilateral decision, so I'm bringing it up here. So the proposal is "Do not add  to these railroad talk pages."
*Support It's important that the regional lines within our scope are part of the project and since smaller, will benefit from being watched over by our members. I liken being part of these national RR articles as tagging the Burger King article with every state that has a BK. The trains WP will adequately monitor these articles without our help. Katr67 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto Talk:Union Pacific Railroad. Since we seem to have consensus, I'll continue to remove these tags as I see them and not mention it here, unless someone objects. I can see leaving one on Southern Pacific, as mentioned above, as it appears inevitable it will get tagged eventually. Katr67 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train articles within scope of project? 

message: I took the liberty of removing WPORE from Talk:Amtrak as well. Katr67 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto Talk:Union Pacific Railroad. Since we seem to have consensus, I'll continue to remove these tags as I see them and not mention it here, unless someone objects. I can see leaving one on Southern Pacific, as mentioned above, as it appears inevitable it will get tagged eventually. Katr67 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amtrak

message: This isn't part of the train series, but I opted us out of Talk:Treaty of Fort Laramie (1851). Please give that decision a sanity check for me, thanks. Katr67 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other articles

message: I've avocated a merge with the school district article, but my suggestion is lost within the usual, neverending, school deletionist/inclusionist debate. Some have suggested that The Oregonian is too "local" to be a good source for notability. Anyways, if anyone wants to help clean up the article or take part in the deletion discussion, please do. An infobox would be nice--I don't have the patience to deal with those things, but I may get around to it if nobody else does. Katr67 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Forest Grove High School]] up for deletion 

message: I've nominated Ted Pike for deletion.  He's a local anti-Semite; doesn't seem to be notable however--more than a few hits, but mostly his own website and/or his fellow-travelers, or anti-bigotry websites who like to catalogue every known nutjob in existence.  --EngineerScotty 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ted Pike]] up for deletion 

message: Folks - I've been doing a lot of work on List of Oregon ballot measures, which I believe is a very important page - historical info about ballot measures can be hard to find. The Oregon Blue Book has a good list of every measure and votes for/against, but it lacks wikilinks or any detail on the more important measures.
If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see that I've put more work into recent years - the lists are complete only since 2000, and I've made a table only for 2006. Please let me know if you think I'm on the right track with this table. There's another possibility at User:Peteforsyth/measurechart, which doesn't explicitly state "YES" or "NO" for whether a measure passed - the color coding and a percentage over 50% would indicate passage of a measure. If the table format is desirable, I'll go ahead and convert previous years.
Additionally, I'm not sure the best way to communicate how a measure passed. Is the percentage good, or would actual number of votes - for example, 142,332 "YES", 564,050 "NO" - be better? Or both? The raw number has the advantage of clearly illustrating how many more people vote in general elections than special elections, etc.
Might be worth looking at the List of California ballot propositions for comparison.
Any comment welcome - but probably best to discuss over there.
-Pete 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting feedback: [[List of Oregon ballot measures]] 

message: I would welcome some help at Talk:Bull Mountain, Oregon. Just wikislap me if I'm being out of line. Thanks! Katr67 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone want to take on Friends of Bull Mountain? Katr67 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And another "situation"

message: Friends,
I have written a draft of a letter to members of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, which would encourage them to pass legislation making works of the government of Oregon public domain (like works of the Federal government.)
I believe such a law would allow resources like Wikipedia to blossom in their efforts to provide coverage of all things Oregon.
Please look at the letter, and feel free to improve it - especially any of you with a better understanding of the legal details than I have!
Thanks, -Pete 19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Oregon govenment-generated resources public domain 

message: Could anyone take a look at ENR Program and tag it appropriately. I am trying to avoid it due to WP:COI issues, as I think it is a candidate for major clean-up if not for AFD. Thank you. Aboutmovies 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try, but let me take this opportunity to state emphatically that I don't believe a conflict of interest disqualifies you from editing an article. I will also point out that the link you provide is a guideline, not a strict policy. I've seen enough of your work to know that you have good judgment, and enough of your discussions to know that you are reasonable when people disagree with you. So as far as I'm concerned, if you see a problem, you're probably the best-qualified to fix it - and so I hope you do. -Pete 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page had just been copied directly from the UofO website.  I redirected it to University of Oregon School of Law.  We really should be focusing on writing the school article before we get to programs within the school.  Cacophony 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pete, thanks for the vote of confidence. I know I could have edited it, but I just wanted to avoid any claims of bias as I would have removed just about everything from the article. Aboutmovies 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see what you mean now. Probably a good call. -Pete 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article I can't clean up 

message: Any WPOR members from FG? If so your city is painfully lacking much presence on Wikipedia. See the FG talk page for some suggestions on how to expand. Aboutmovies 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Forest Grove, Oregon]] 

message: Hey kids, just want to point out that Round barn was just listed for peer review. It's a pretty good article, and has two photos of Oregon's own Pete French Round Barn (one of them by yours truly ;) FWIW, the text does not address that barn very well - the comments about architecture and design seem to address a different style of barn altogether. I'll post that comment there, but any assistance on rectifying the issue would be appreciated…I'm no expert! -Pete 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review listing 

message: Portland Aerial Tram is currently a good article nominee. Katr67 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It failed, but it looks like with a bit of rewriting it could pass... Katr67 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portland Aerial Tram

message: Greetings from a Washingtonian.  Your Oregon State article about Cape Blanco has an image that is either reversed/mirrored or upside down.  The water should be on the left.  Not sure how to change that but us Pacific Northwesterners ought to be accurate if nothing else. Cybirr 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from this satellite image, the photo on Cape Blanco (Oregon) is not reversed or mirrored.  Perhaps you are expecting that it be oriented with north at the top?  There's no requirement for a satellite photo to do that.  The current orientation might be more welcome for those from the southern hemisphere.  Somewhere I have a map of the world with New Zealand at the top center.  Guess where it was made... —EncMstr 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Hmm. We'll have to ask NASA to run the space shuttle the other direction next time. ;) I never thought about it being "upside down" but I guess you're right--there is potential for confusion. I'm not an image whiz but I bet someone on here could easily flip it over. In the meantime I'll tweak the caption.  Thanks and happy editing!  Katr67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Yeah, is insisting it be oriented north to south smack of "hemispherism"? Katr67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ahh, yes... hemispherism...  I'll report to sensitivity training ASAP.  But you do make a good point.  I came to the Cape Blanco article with the idea of most western point in the lower 48 in mind.  So it follows my thinking 'oriented' my expectation of how the image should be displayed.  Classic example of preconception and bias.Cybirr 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job fixing it, EncMstr. -Big Smooth 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure.  —EncMstr 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cape Blanco Sat Image