Misplaced Pages

Rollback

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

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

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)

Hello

Hi JSayer,

We'd like to use your Willamette Valley image (http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

JEREMIA

USER TALK I HAVE A NEW SITE FOR 3 YEARS STANDREWS.TV BUT YOUR CROWD WONT LIST IT , WHY BECAUSE IT IS NEW , OR ALL YOUR REMITS STANDREWS.COM IS A F..ING BUSINESS,STANDREWS.CO.UK ,IS A CO OP OF BUSINESS.My site www.standews.tv is for the people I do it for free .But YOUR WIKI WONT EVEN LIST ME SO ...Oi I am BANNED WELL

I DONT CARE......AND FOR THE RECORD JEREMY WHO HE IS WON!!!