Jump to content

User talk:Jsayre64/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Thanks

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
With great appreciation for the time and effort you put into assisting with Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Your help there is greatly appreciated, particularly given how difficult that CCI is to handle. :) --17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Gee, thanks! I've never gotten a barnstar! Jsayre64 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I'm sure it's long overdue. :D You've certainly earned this one! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Jsayre64/Archive 2! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're Invited! Come Celebrate Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary!

<font=3> You're invited to help celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary! Visit this link for details. An informal celebration will take place at the AboutUs office located at 107 SE Washington Street, Suite 520 in Portland on Saturday, January 15, 2011. An Open Space Technology meeting is scheduled from 5pm to 7pm, with a party to follow. Admission is free!

--Another Believer (Talk) 18:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK problem

Hello! Your submission of Oregon Portage Railroad at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Prohodna

Hey, thanks for the review! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 19:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Eugene pop

Hi Jsayre, I did some work on the Eugene population chart we discussed at Eugene, Oregon and on Commons. I couldn't find a really elegant solution, but I did manage to reproduce the template/table on Commons using a bit of a hack. What do you think? -Pete (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I've seen some pretty complicated wikicode, but never anything like that to produce the table there on Commons. That was also a clever idea to cite sources for it as well. :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah-- it's pretty ugly under the hood =) Didn't take a whole lot of work though, once I figured out how to go about it. In case you're interested, here's what I did: (1) copied the HTML source code from (2) used a web based converter tool to convert it from HTML back into wiki text: http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/html2wiki-tables.php (3) This produced a problematic result, because the resulting table used HTML codes for all the links: <a href="…"> which MediaWiki will not render properly. So I used regular expressions to replace the HTML codes with wiki code (and used internal wikilinks while I was at it). So, tedious? Yeah, but at least I didn't have to build the table from scratch! -Pete (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon Portage Railroad

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Rough-skinned newt.jpg

Hey! Don't get discouraged that File:Rough-skinned newt.jpg probably isn't going to make Featured status on Commons. It took me a couple tries to figure out all the criteria, and it's a nice photo anyway. Steven Walling 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I must admit that I was experimenting a little, and I underestimated how picky some of these !voters can be. Oh well, hopefully I can snap a better photo sometime. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Collaboration of the Week

Hi Jsayre64, I am a PhD student from the Carnegie Mellon University. I am interested in the Wikipedia community, especially the mechanism of Collaboration of the Week. I noticed that you have participated in WikiProject Oregon’s collaborations before. Could you please take several minutes to answer five questions if possible? Thanks for your help!

1. How many times (approximately) have you participated in Wikiproject Oregon's Collaboration of the Week?

2. Why did you participate in the Collaboration of the Week?

3. Do you feel you become a better editor through participating in the collaborations? If so, could you provide some examples?

4. How did Collaboration of the Week change your behaviors (if any)? What caused the changes?

5. Are you still participating Wikiproject Oregon's collaboration of the week recently? Why?

You could leave your answers either in your or my talk page if possible. Thanks for your time! We have the same goal to make Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers --Haiyizhu (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to answer these questions. Here are my responses:
  1. Since I have only been a WikiProject Oregon member since last summer, I have only been around for three Collaborations of the Week (COTW). I did not participate the first time, but I worked hard on the second one and I did some tiny little things for the current third one, like adding links.
  2. I believe that collaboration is an efficient way to build articles on Wikipedia and is also a chance to get to meet your collaborators and their interests. Together, WikiProject Oregon's members make a project full of intelligence, which is a big necessity for improving a low-quality but important-to-the-project article.
  3. I feel that I definitely gain experience in editing and in how to build articles by watching how WikiProject Oregon's veteran editors do it and following their style(s). Take a look at Spruce Production Division, the second collaboration that went on after I joined this project. The article is rated B-class and mid-importance by the project. And if you examine the revision history, you'll see that I made a lot of edits but did not contribute most of the text. Instead I managed the images and turned a list of notes into the article's prose. I would have helped with writing the article, but User:Tedder did that all in one edit!
  4. The development of the article on the Spruce Production Division while it was in a workspace showed me how a good article was developed (see the earliest diffs). If I happen to create an article on a broad topic like that I will have an idea on the best way to get it started. The COTW also helped me relax a bit because these editors use some humor in edit summaries!
  5. I am not very interested in the current COTW, but I'm sure exciting ones will come and I'll be happy to participate.

Feel free to ask anything else if you'd like. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Haiyizhu (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

North Albany

I just wanted to say thank you for the extra clean-up of the North Albany, Oregon article that you did after I posted the inital information. MathewDill (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome for the copy-edit! Jsayre64 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Gorge casino

Thanks for notifying me about the deletion discussion! -Pete (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Stale warnings

Hey, in regards to your query here, we generally prefer a day or so for shared IP addresses. A shared IP address is an IP address that is used by multiple users - sometimes thousands. A lot of school districts and universities have shared IP addresses. We generally only block these for short periods of time, and only if they've been vandalizing recently - otherwise, we'd potentially be barring hundreds of innocent users from Wikipedia. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Cheers, m.o.p 00:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In reality, this depends much on the edits and reviewing administrator: if this is clearly one and the same person then warnings don't need to be more fresh than days for me, same if the vast majority of edits are vandalism. However, if this is a shared IP with mixed edits then what matters is edits and warnings of the last few days. We do have situations when one and the same IP is used both for blatant vandalism and very constructive edits. There is no standard solution for these. Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for explaining. I will now be able to better judge when a certain IP report at WP:AIV is a solution or not. --Jsayre64 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

14th Missile Warning Squadron

Thanks! Always nice to get DYK nomination. Surprisingly this article fixes red-links in half dozen Oregon-related articles.--Orygun (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding File pages to WP:ORE

Hi there. Did you know that you don't need to add images (Files) that are hosted on Commons, such as this one File:Blue River Map.jpg‎ to {{WikiProject Oregon}}? The template, per the consensus of those of us who developed it, is mostly used to enable us to keep track of edits to Oregon-related pages via our various watchlists, but the Commons pages really should not be being edited, per the edit note: "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia. Any descriptions should be placed there. This page should rarely be used except to indicate featured pictures. Please see the image description page on Commons for file information, a list of pages that display this image, or view the full-size version of the image." In other words, the page that appears when you click on a Commons-hosted image doesn't really "exist" and is only there as a convenience. I believe most of the Oregon File pages that were originally hosted at Wikipedia have been moved to Commons but if you run across any that aren't, feel free to tag them. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Yeah, tagging talk pages for which there aren't articles isn't a good thing. This could be a mess to clean up; I counted just over 400 files tagged Oregon. Really, they should be examined to see which ones are Commons and which ones are local, then delete the locals. Jsayre, I can come up with a list to post on your talkpage, and I'm sure you could enlist some WPOR help (like 'fontis) to click through each one. Once you have a completed list, I'll manually delete each file talk page. How does that sound? I guess I'm after two things- first is a discussion of the rationale of tagging "ghost" pages and second you to take lead on the human clickwork to clean it up. tedder (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm so sorry. I didn't know this was bad. I promise to help clean up when I have time. And I don't need a list here. I know that can be found at Category:File-Class Oregon articles. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries. It's not "bad" exactly, but perhaps a waste of your time. Thanks for all your hard work around the project! Valfontis (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Most of us have gone half-cocked on something- except Valfontis, who is perfect . The reason for the list is to coordinate work and make a list of files (erm, file talks) that need to be deleted. If you can come up with a better way, great. tedder (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already started removing {{WikiProject Oregon}} from the file talk pages of images on Commons, so after a while I can give you a list of the pages to delete. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here are the file talks that I've blanked (so far) and that now need to be deleted. I'll keep updating the list as I blank more. (Completed) --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I put them in a Template:Collapse top; you may or may not want to have them collapsed, I know I would. I may not delete them, as a bot will eventually clean 'em up. But I may. I'll think about it for a while. tedder (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfect? Nah, I'll own up to being really cranky. Tedder, someone else refused to let JSayre remove the tag from one of these pages, if you're around, I tagged it {{db-talk}} if you could do the honors. Valfontis (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
*zot*. tedder (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, those really shouldn't have been deleted as G8 - commons file talks are not eligible for G8. G6 would have done just fine though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I've passed on your message to User:Athaenara, the admin who's been deleting most of these file talks. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm done! Jsayre64 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Finished this latest batch. I noted your the suggestion on my talk page to use {{db-g6}} (uncontroversial) instead of {{db-g8}} but as one or more of these were considered controversial, even to the extent of undeletion, I decided to continue with the latter. This batch took longer than it might have because more than half of the files on Commons had not had their bot move status checked before I got there. – Athaenara ✉ 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing it off! Sorry about not having checked the bot moves; I was rather confused what to change. What are some possible errors? Regarding the deletion tags: you probably know more about that than I do. By the way, it was another admin's suggestion, as you can see above. --Jsayre64 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
On Commons, the task is checking the files and removing BotMoveToCommons (example) if they're ok (most of those I checked today had been transferred in April 2010). It wasn't bad, it just took longer than if they'd been checked earlier. – Athaenara ✉ 00:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 14th Test Squadron

Thanks for brightening February on DYK Victuallers (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Blank per WP:ORE

You know, with all the blankings you're doing, it strikes me that you're probably going through each instance of WP:ORE. You might get much more done simply by looking at my move log for file talk pages, and checking if it's WP:ORE, as I've done the vast majority of commons deletions recently. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's another great tool. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding content to all those Oregon Articles I created. I was out of the country at the time, and didn't get your message until I recently became active again. I would have liked to help out, and I feel as though I handed off a burden onto you. If you ever want help with anything, let me know. Thanks again, --E♴ (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. During the expansions, I was kind of wondering what was going on, but now I know why. Hope you had a good trip! Jsayre64 (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Climate charts for Commons

Hi, thanks for the update on the Lane County chart! I am pleased to see you're planning to work on this sort of thing.

I think my HTML approach is a really klutzy hack, but unfortunately, I'm pretty inept at porting complex templates from one site to another, so I'm really not sure how else to go about it. I don't remember if I sent you this link before, but here's something to have in your toolbox: HTML to MediaWiki table converter. (There are others like it, you can find them by searching the web.)

Hopefully one of us will find a more elegant approach at some point; in the meantime though, keep up the good work!! -Pete (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

AIV

Hello

This is to let you know that I have declined your request at WP:AIV. This is because the user has not edited since the final warning, the final warning was issued at 20:51pm and the user last edited at 20:44pm. Any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)--5 albert square (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. My fault. The final warning for vandalism to Castrato was issued after the IP had vandalized other articles. Boy, I've sure got to be careful doing this. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

barnstar 20110316

The Original Barnstar
For your work trudging through Oregon images, improving the 10kth Oregon article, and all the other work that goes unrecognized. tedder (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My second 'star so far. Thanks and glad to be of help! Jsayre64 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice graph

I like your graph of the Hillsboro population trends. It's much easier to understand the curve than to interpret the list of numbers. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made a few more before. My Gresham one is almost ready. --Jsayre64 (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, they are an improvement. Unfortunately they are hard to modify and expand in the future. You might consider using something like Template:Bar graph to generate them. tedder (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a bar graph would be best; line graphs are usually used when the x variable is time. And there's a census every ten years. It doesn't take too long to update the graph and re-upload it. --Jsayre64 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. Especially since the 2010 data is available, it's less of an issue- and I agree, a line graph is much better. Still, it's less editable. BTW, line graphs aren't used just because x=time; y must also be related values- so population works because 2000 is related to 1990 and 2010; something like the per-season win stats of the Trailblazers is poor, since one season's results are not tied to the next or previous season. tedder (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it depends why you're measuring the y-variable, yes, and a line graph would be awkward for how many wins the Trailblazers get each season, unless you're looking for how they improve or get worse. But if you think about population growth, it's indeed a line graph that comes to your mind first. --Jsayre64 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree population is a line graph. Unfortunately there's no SVG or template way to do line graphs. Anyhow, it's one of my rants when watching competition reality TV when a person/individual says "I'm on a roll! We're gaining momentum!" when each competition is completely unrelated to the previous competitions. Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now. tedder (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with the graphs. First, although I like Pete and you seem to be a fine editor, two editors do not make a consensus. This needs a wider vetting. Problems I see: I believe graphs may be a problem with accessibility; Graphs are notoriously easy to manipulate - as in Y axis can make it appear that growth is more or less rapid than it actually is; does not allow for updates between Censuses which happen yearly; there is a whole Cities WikiProject that have standards usually used in the assessment process. I don't know what an actual consensus will determine, but this needs to be examined on a wider scale. Maybe we have both the chart and the graph, but the discussion needs to occur. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Pete expected something like this. Should I give word at WT:ORE so we can establish consensus? --Jsayre64 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the Cities WP is probably a better forum and more likely to get more feedback on this topic. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've asked the city people. Jsayre64 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi JSayer,

We'd like to use your Willamette Valley image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Willamette_Valley_fog.JPG) on our website PureRainUSA.com that we are developing and we'd like to reference you as who took the picture...Do we have your permission and if so, how would you like us to reference your wonderful work?

Regards, Laura PureRainLaura@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.112.41 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

look this people that made this article music of greece has obvious untruth asrticles in LAIKO AND MANY MORE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.240.36 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Brightwood, Oregon photo

Hi there, do you think you could do me a favor and move File:Brightwood.jpg to Commons? I created a cat here earlier. It might help clear up some confusion about my edits to the Brightwood article with the photographer. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done No problem. Whenever you need to move one to Commons, you can add {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and it will give you a link to the CommonsHelper tool. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to tell you that some of your pictures are very pretty.  jorgenev (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2011

Thanks! I'm glad they are appreciated. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Hello, I have reverted your additions to the WikiProject TC. You are supposed to nominate these first at WP:CROWN/NOM, and not add them directly. Please read the instructions there. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis Comfort Tiffany

Just FYI, your reversion of the edit made by the IP editor to this article was good, but you then reverted yourself, restoring the IP's vandalism. Try to make it a habit to look at the article once you've finished editing it, as it's easy to get confused about where you are in the process. (I know, it's happened to me.) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I was confused. After I reverted the first time, I noticed that the IP had merely changed the information, so I reverted the revert. If you're sure it's vandalism, then whatever. I'll be sure to take a closer look next time. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You're right, sorry. I'm just frustrated at how quickly people ran around to all the nuclear articles and slapped up comments comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl when the difference is so blatant. Still, "fear" with a ton of exclamation points does scream of vandalism, which it isn't. It was that, or make the caption "Chernobyl exploded and sent radioactive material flaming into the night. If a bunch of stupid babies in Japan with a pair of leaky BWRs is a 7, then this apocalypse is a level 50". But then you would RVV me for sure :). Anyway, it was all in good faith, truly, and it won't happen again. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.246.37 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapsibe list

Hi, I wasn't sure from your response at the village pump whether you meant you were going to use the collapsible list option or not, but I templated them to help out just in case: {{le top}}, {{le mid}} and {{le end}}. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I was just wondering how to create a template with the code. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, just let me know if anything goes wrong with the templates or you need help setting up the lists. . — Bility (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand them. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsayre64/Archive_2&oldid=1139321217"