User talk:Duff

WPORE (re)welcome
Not sure if you got this before, but just in case not: Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: User WikiProject Oregon. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome! —EncMstr (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oregon COTW and randomness
Greetings fellow WikiProject Oregon member, it is once again time for the Collaboration of the Week (yes, I know they are not actually every week anymore). Thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving Terrell Brandon, Just Out, 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly, and all the unreferenced BLPs. This week we have by request Oregon Coast Aquarium and Arvydas Sabonis (maybe the Blazers can sign him as I think he's healthy). Both need more sourcing. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. And remember folks, the only thing we have to fear is death and taxes, unless of course the dingo ate your baby, at which point you may feel the need, the for speed to get away from said dingos, which in turn can lead to a failure to communicate due to the dynamics of sound waves, though at some point hopefully we can all just get along. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Duff, it's great to see you back -- hope to see you 'round the wiki! -Pete (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, here's an article I started long ago that might interest you -- I'd love to understand this bit of history better, but have not had time to do more thorough research… Egan (Paiute) -Pete (talk)
 * Oh cool! I put the northamnative wp template on there, so we should get some help from that project, too.  That is Pony Blanket, brother in law to Has No Horse (Chochoco) and I'm pretty sure both were Snake dog soldiers, not Pauite.  I may poke around on that one too, but I should have a draft of Chochoco soon as well. Duff (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

scientists and Alkali Lake dump
Do you have a cite for "against scientific advisors' protest" at Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump? And do you mind if I take it to DYK? tedder (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, done, and wow, that would be great! Thanks for the prompt to learn how to do that type of cite.  I need practice =) Duff (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing so. I saw it and thought it was worth adopting. I've learned quite a bit now.. tedder (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adopting it and making it a much more robust article. I've been meaning to do that page for a very long time.  It's a disturbing local fact and a public comment process that I am actively participating in.  Duff (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. BTW, watch this video. It won't pass legal muster as an external link here, but.. wow. tedder (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, gosh. I've seen it. Gnarly.  Where are the specific requirements to pass legal muster as an external link?  The caption says that the footage came from the Oregon Historical Society. Duff (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OHS, plus it is actually from KGW or something (I'd have to watch again to know for sure). Anyhow, we'd have to be confident it was posted fully legally- meaning OHS and the TV station have "released" it. tedder (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alkali Lake Chemical Waste Dump

 * Woohoo! My first DYK!

Visual edition of the Oregon COTW featuring the Glass Palace
Hello WikiProject Oregon member, time for a new edition of the Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out the last few weeks improving Oregon Coast Aquarium and Arvydas Sabonis. Also thank you to those few of you helped with the attempt to celebrate Women's History Month with Barbara Roberts and Ursula K. Le Guin.

This week we have by request the Memorial Coliseum that has been in the news a lot lately, and then one of the more important political figures in our state's history, Douglas McKay. The MC needs some ref work and EL work, and McKay really needs a lot more sourcing. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Thanks for catching my misspelling on McKay, and great work on improving it in general. Just an FYI, no need to sign your name in the edit summary, we only sign on talk pages. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be dipped. Years, I've been mustering the tildes on every page I edit; thought that was required.  Are you serious?  I feel pretty silly about that and wonder why no one has ever brought that to my attention b4.  That's a great relief, as they're 3 layers deep on my new main editing device, an HTC Touch Pro2.   You did some fine work on McKay, too, and yer welcome.  That's my first dive into a COTW (highly educational) and I will try to play on more of those.  Duff (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I think I did the same thing my first few weeks. Nobody said anything since its not a big deal, it just looks funny in the edit summary. The only reason we ever sign anything is because on talk pages where people are replying to each other it makes it more convenient/easier to read if the author's name is next to what they wrote. Otherwise, everything is kept track of in the history automatically as to who edited what. And thanks for diving into the COTW. Happy trails. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Nation
I agree with you and i like your suggestion. The Ramapoo of Connecticut also have alot of history. I have a copy of a map showing their village. I also have a copy of a map showing the Ramapough Village in Mahwah in 1710. I would like to work with you on this, if possible. ramapoughnative1 69.242.43.243 (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When could we make this change? Ramapoughnative (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm clipping this discussion from my own talk page to the talk page at Talk:Ramapough Mountain Indians where consensus (either support or oppose) may develop, since it may be contentious (or not, so far not). Duff (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture
I removed Arborsculpture from the See also on Arboriculture as the name of the article is Tree shaping and it should be the wording used or going by your edit comment I could just as easily have put Pooktre instead. Blackash  have a chat  09:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember that new topics on talk pages go at the bottom, not the top, of the talk page. I have accordingly moved your post on my talk page to the correct position.   Also, your sig is HUGE, and practically shouts over my talk page, so I've reduced it to a less dominant size.

Concerning your point, please read this: Redirect. It is not appropriate to find and eliminate all references to the generic term arborsculpture, which redirects quite effectively, as you are obviously well aware, to the now-renamed Tree shaping article, particularly given your history on the article. Pooktre is not a generic term. I have followed your campaign and am aware of your opinion. You have a very clear COI, are edit warring, and should step away from the article. I hope you chose to do that and to continue to make valuable contributions instead of continuing to press your opinion on this topic. Duff (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for moving the comment to the right place. I forgot. Sorry about the size of my sig, on my computer it is small and I didn't realize that it was a problem on other computers which must be using a different font.
 * I wasn't aware of that policy, I read it later tonight. It takes two to edit war and I'm the one who called a truce and put a stop to it. I made an edit and if someone has an issue I talk about it, I don't just revert and war on. Thank you again for pointing out this policy. Blackash   have a chat  02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Duff (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture
Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture I know you know but I did say everyone. Blackash  have a chat  08:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal is potentially disruptive. This is an issue that has undergone a fair degree of attention already, and re-opening it now will serve only to reawaken recent arguments and divert attention from building the article - an article that still has a fair amount of problems. There are other issues regarding the article that you could look into that would be helpful, raking over a resolved issue is going to generate more heat than light. It would be appreciated and helpful if you withdraw your proposal.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was perplexed at Silks suggestion to ignore a discussion on the title. I just found this side explanation. I assumed the current presents of several experienced editors would easily keep the flames tamped down. I think your fear of heat is understandable given some of the past behavior expressed on this page, but at the current time fears of disruption are probably unfounded.Slowart (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Blackash for handling the invitations. Please note that I have again reduced the size of your signature, as it conveys undue weight at 13px.  Most sigs are at 10px by default.   Thank you SilkTork for your helpful suggestions.  I recognize both your concern and your already significant investment of time in mediating the discussion.  My attention is squarely on making this a good article.  Let's allow a reasoned consensus to emerge on the talk page for this article, Talk:Tree shaping please, in an orderly and civil way, as I suggested there.  Duff (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Silk, you removed the word arborsculpture from [Axel Erlandson]'s bio. here are 9 academic sources describing Erlandsons work as arborsculpture. Any chance the word can be use in the bio ? *Master Gardeners *.edu*American Society of Landscape Architects*Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressSlowart (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, are we to understand that the word arborsculpture should not be used in the article? Should only be used in certain sections?  Should only be used to describe one artist's work? Should only be used to describe the work of those artists who do not object to the use of the word?  Why should or shouldn't any or all of the other alternate names be used in the article?  I seek understanding.  How does this compare with usage of alternate names in other Wikipedia articles?  Please explain the distinction.  Could you please respond to this on the Talk page, at your convenience?Duff (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the Tree shaping article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as Tree shaping should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as Bonsai and Pleaching. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage:

"I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended Axel Erlandson to remove arborsculpture."

The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the Axel Erlandson article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now.

I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the Tree shaping article. WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional give some loose guidance on this.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. I respect your opinion and I thank you for the nod to the work I have done recently on the (now) Tree shaping article.  I find the topic meaningful.  I am confused by the extent to which the use of the term in the article  disturbs you, but I accept that it does.  I understand clearly your desire to move on, because I've read all the archives on the page carefully, including your past efforts to mediate the controversy, which are laudable.  It has been a wrestle to get even some of my most seemingly non-controversial edits to stick on that page.  Questioning the authority or challenging the control of the dominant editor has led to several instances of necessary conflict resolution in the form of complaints to admins from the controlling editor.  She's determined, I'll give her that. I've moved your comment into the pre-existing subsection by the same title, upwords on this page, to keep it with the several other comments about arborsculpture, so I don't lose track.


 * The word used outside Wikipedia and Blackash's circle of offended artists, to describe the topic that is now being called tree shaping, at Wikipedia and on several websites over which Blackash exerts influence or control, is arborsculpture. Arborsculpture as a concept has transcended Reames' work and encompasses the topic with little controversy, except here, whether the artists who do the work prefer the word or do not.  One particular artist, Becky Northey, who also, as you know, is a prolific editor of the article, feels quite strongly about it.  She has taken it upon herself to stir up and maintain controversy about it among other live wood sculpting artists, creating a false 'branding' association with the term.  She has exerted an entirely inappropriate influence over first the titling and now the content of the article, in which she and her work is prominently featured.  She is strongly associated with the phrase "Tree shaping," and you've caved to her extremely persistent, dramatic but fallacious argument.  I haven't.  Becky Northey aka Blackash is the registered domain name owner of the websites |http://treeshapers.net |http://www.treeshapers.net and [|http:/www.pooktre.com] and has well-documented on-topic book writing plans of her own.  This is clearly stated on her own websites and on other websites, lots of bloggy stuff too, where her campaign to stalk the use of the word arborsculpture and promote the use of the word of Pooktre is readily evident if sought.  I understand why she would prefer to coin her own word. It has become the focus of some mirth among the larger circle of artists, tree people, and designers.  Though I acknowledge that there are some live plant crafters who now claim to have been made to feel branded by the word, any one of those artists, if notable, would be considered an involved editor and an acknowledged expert in the field, and almost certainly not permitted to exert the level of manipulation of both language and content that this one editor has enjoyed.  Fortunately, there is plenty of source material from reliable sources which were not considered, as you were coming to your awareness of the topic.


 * As a 25 year veteran of the tree industry and a former resident of the Santa Cruz County area, during the Tree Circus dissolution, I was quite familiar with the term arborsculpture and what it describes and with Alex Erlandson's work, though until I read the article I had not heard of Richard Reames or known of his books. Tree shaping is a new one on me, and not an acceptable compromise as the title of this craft, particularly given the profound influence that one editor has had on the attempted dissolution of the widespread acceptance of the terminology.


 * Here's why: First, the craft goes well beyond trees (which are one class of woody plant, generally including those woody plants that exceed 6 meters and have single or few trunks), to include shrubs and vines which are also sculpted into useful and ornamental things, so in that sense, your compromise choice is awkward and doesn't accurately or adequately encompass the scope of the practice.  A similar debate emerged and was resolved at arboriculture, which is a very closely related field of practice (the planting and care of woody plants, especially trees) that also has experienced some controversy (though not nearly so narrowly and not over what to call it).  There, it's the big-tree workers who wish to consider arboriculture their domain and to relegate those who perform arboriculture on other smaller woody plants do the domain of mere gardeners.


 * Second, the work doesn't always involve 'shaping' per se, as in David Ladd's inclusions-based work in which he is not doing any shaping, but instead is deliberately stimulating the formation of reaction wood. His plants are shaping themselves.


 * Third, the content of an article titled Tree shaping would have to include not just mention of, but full discussions (this is the angle I am now working from), of equal, if not far heavier weight on the topics pleaching, pruning, arboriculture, topiary, bonsai, this plant craft we are describing, and also the myriad other ways that people shape trees and that trees shape themselves, while somehow simultaneously excluding these activities as applied to shrubs and vines. Similarly, arborsculpture is one particular form of living sculpture.


 * I'm an avid pruner; a retired tree worker who made a good living for many years pruning and caring for backyard fruit and ornamental trees, shrubs, and vines. I'm not an arborsculptor, though I have twisted up quite a few arbors and carved out a few bears with a chainsaw.  I certainly do shape trees, by pruning them for deadwood and high vitality, and I do this daily.  You'd have to include my work with trees under a general title of tree shaping, but I submit that tree shaping is more of a category than an individual craft.  I now own a small nursery and vegetable farm and when there's a surplus I'm a market gardener.  I'm still an arborist.  I'm also a lover of good words and few are as delicious as arborsculpture is in describing the nature of this craft, which sometimes reaches the level of an art.  It's why the word has caught on so profoundly among the broader field of those who know and love wood and the plants that make it.  Even if Reames wanted his work or his name to be solely associated with the word, which he doesn't particularly seem to, it would be irrelevant at this point, as the word has achieved general usage.   I don't mind and I hereby submit Livewood sculpting, Tree sculpting, Plant shaping, Plant art, Plant craft, Xylem influence, and perhaps best of all arborisculpture (more properly constructed perhaps), as seven other options which are more neutral than and possibly both more comprehensive and more specific than tree shaping; but only if we are determined to deny the common usage of the prevalent word.


 * The idea of that is itching at me though, as are the broader implications of the determined elimination of very specific and descriptive words from the lexicon and their substitution with more ambiguous terms instead. There's an inherent muddying there that I will resist and resist again, as necessary and as my faculties and time permit.  The initial title switching was a disruptive act, in my opinion, and it has continued to reverberate disruption.


 * Arborsculpture is the word most commonly used to describe the craft, including Erlandson's work, in scholarly publications and reliable sources that discuss it. Not just a few and certainly not just in Reames' books anymore.  SilkTork, with few exceptions, only those who've been influenced directly or indirectly by Becky Northey call this thing tree shaping.  I'm not at all satisfied with that, particularly now that I've read the whole history, long and short.


 * The way I know it, arborsculpture is one practical application of arboriculture, as are topiary, bonsai, and espalier, each with a different goal. Its focus is training live xylem to form reaction wood and thereby create objects, using a variety of tools and evolving practices including grafting and pleaching to shape and form these objects. Arborsculpture relies on grafting, pleaching, and arboriculture to usefully wield certain woody plant characteristics over time.  It is also paradoxically the antithesis of arboriculture, in that its focus is not directly the welfare of individual plants, but more the successful coaxing of them to form live wood in the shape of whatever objects humans find most useful or attractive.  Arborsculpture is accomplished by human physical manipulation of live wood, sometimes gentle, other times not.  Humans, in their symbiotic engagement with wood-producing plants, have evolved the capacity to imagine and encourage these useful behaviors and responses in them, and trees have evolved the capacity to behave and respond accordingly, in much the same way as they have accommodated wasps with their galls.


 * I find it fascinating that of the four times you used the word arborsculpture in your response, it was spelled correctly only once. Blackash tends to butcher the spelling, notably in citations, and it has caught my attention more than once.  Maybe it's inadvertent, and if so, mea culpa, but SilkTork, is that purposeful?  I welcome Quiddity's ongoing involvement and his openness to the presentation of well-reasoned arguments and significant evidence to the contrary, and I also welcome yours, should it emerge.  Blackash is wrong (though well-practiced at what she is doing) and has ruined any possible neutrality that Tree shaping might have enjoyed in my mind.


 * That said, I want to make this clear: I don't have any skin in it either way.  I only want a better and more definitive article, one that is truly based on a preponderance of reliable secondary sources.  I don't prefer the word arborsculpture, instead I know the word and the scope of the work.  There's a difference which may strike you as subtle, or not, but know that I have no emotional or financial investment at stake whatsoever in what this topic is called; just a fully absorbed interest in everything having to do with plants, especially woody plants, and an equally profound interest in human language and the ways it is used.

Cheers. Duff (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Significant controversy?
Is this a significant controversy? if so, it belongs in the lead section, with explanation of the controversy in the alternative names section. either way, s/b cited, or removed if extraneous.

Griseum added this sentence you are referring to and then pointed to Talk:Tree shaping I add citation needed. At this time it can't be cited and properly should be removed. Blackash  have a chat  00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please refresh my memory on the statement/sentence in question?Duff (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

ref ?
FYI- Science Daily takes press releases. Identified by the word "release" is in the Science Daily url. Are releases good sources? Original article is here.[] Slowart (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the original link. Not sure...What's the appropriate policy? That's part of what I was wondering.  I will open that question on the talk page for discussion.  I did not add the source.  There are a bunch of new sources suddenly, with ref names that tend toward the obtuse.  I am scratching my head for a better place to start; as article edits I make are being reverted very quickly, which is a little frustrating.  Thought I'd start at the top & peruse all of these sources, straighten out the ref formatting mess, try to understand what's what, like that.  For source #1, I expanded its refname=  to improve clarity (it was just SD somethingsomething, and I had already run across it broken before), so I changed its template title to reflect cite info offered on the page, moved the full ref to first instance of it's use, tried to read the reference carefully and assess its application to the various places it's used in the article, and applied it, in particular, to instances of the use of the various alternate names, as suggested by Colonel Warden.  Duff (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Manufactured evidence of COI
Duff I have posted on Administrators notice board about your edits. Blackash  have a chat  16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the notification. I'll go check out your post there.  Please note that I have edited the heading level of your post here on my talk page, making it a sub-heading of User talk:Duff and keeping it with your several other comments here, instead of a new topic, as it is part of that ongoing area of discussion and concern.    By the titling of your post here, it seems related to the work I have done on Tree shaping, the purpose of which has been to clean up the References section and to both challenge and help establish the reliability of sources you and other involved editors have presented.  I look forward to the discussion and its resolution.  Cheers. Duff (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded on the administrators board and cc'd that response also on the talk page, where you also copied your complaint. Since I'm pretty sure that'll be 3 notifications on your watchlist, I'll spare myself taking the time to cc it there too.  Be well, Blackash.  And quit callin' me he.  Even my gender is neutral.  ; ) Duff (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Duff, no he or she, that may be hard to do. I'll try. Blackash   have a chat  14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work under tough pressure
Your work on the page is just awesome. After watching (and taking a few shots) on this battlefield for the last 3 years or so, I have to say, you are brave. Be sure to catch the user comments and talk page posts left by the last []editor to cross keyboards with blackash. I have some ideas for improving the article that aligned with yours. I have discovered that mediators like Quid have in the past simply arrived made, compromises and then vanish, looks like Quid is sticking around long enough for the compromised parts of the article to be fixed yea! for Quid. The prescription (look at one citation at a time) you suggested, is the solution. Scholarly academic citation of course should trump blogs, press releases and circular references.Slowart (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Duff (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Onward through the fog, ref #1 is a press release by the American fund raising arm of Tel Aviv University, primary, secondary or tertiary ? I don't that matters so much as the AFTAU, is promotional in nature, is not cited in any paper. As long as the page title is Tree Shaping, then the lead should say also known as arborsculpture. The current "alternate names" instead of arborsculpture is unsupported. ref #2 is a patent I looking for some info on citing patent. (but not found yet) Off hand the string of alternate names is standard procedure in all patents, anyone can file a patent, you have to try to cover all the bases or your screwed. This patent was not even carefully proof read "also known as preaching". If arborsculpture is used at Davis, Cornell, amoung the pro arborist and landscapers and master gardeners then it should be in the lead. The word arborsculpture has been unfairly targeted by one unrelenting unscrupulous editor, and I have a huge amount of respect for your efforts.Slowart (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Duff (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborisculpture
Yep, also the preferred spelling among garden writers when polled. Want to coin a word? Mirth, I love it ! Applause!Slowart (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No way. Look what happened when you did. ;) Duff (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Architectural
you asked Q: Are architectural projects ever designed for intentional harvest or always living art? As far as I know, they are all intended to remain living. Slowart (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another thought on this too: The boats.  Your buddy's and this one []. Also those willow rod fences, etc.  Hmmm.  Where am I going with this...The splitting in the section on Styles is bugging me.  Pretty soon I'll advocate for calling the whole article Basketry. Duff (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Architectural" use of trees is probably not a "Style" or a subset, Rudolph Doernach called the use of plants and trees for houses, biotecture.
 * Now we have Living art -verses- Intentional harvest, these are not "styles" this is an approach to the art. You can design a chair for harvest, by planting 4 legs or design your chair for staying alive and only planting one leg. Or even change your mind at any time or if anything dies and eventually they all die, then you save it if it's worth it, even if it's a one leg chair. Slowart (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snortle. One-leg chair.  Average lifespan of Prunus cerasifera?  20 years, a very short century. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the info is better titled: "Design Options"- Inclusions, functionality, symbols and letters, for harvest, for longevity, for architecture.Slowart (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. Lemmesee here.  Further consolidation in order. Duff (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Water marks
I've removed the water marks, links to the files and. Blackash  have a chat  04:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Two questions (and I'm cc'g this to the existing discussion on this @ Talk:Tree shaping so we can continue this there.:
 * 1. Can you please explain why the new person tree photo is 4x the KB that it originally was: 671KB vs 164KB on the watermarked photo?  That seems odd for a photo of the same size: 733x550.  An image of the same or very similar KB size would be much appreciated.
 * 2. On the mirror, can you please submit a photo that is of just one image of the mirror, even if it's just cropping this photo in half?  This looks most like a catalog image.  You have more flattering images of this piece, by the way, and it is a beauty. Also, This image increased in KB size too, but not nearly by the same order of magnitude. 68KB-->100KB
 * Thanks much, Duff (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It Takes a Rim Village - Oregon COTW
Greetings WikiProject Oregon member, time for the next edition of the Collaboration of the Week. Thanks to those who assisted in improving a few articles over the last month. For May Day edition of the COTW (in Wikipedia time its May already), we have by request Rim Village Historic District and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (AKA OMSI). Rim Village just needs some refinement to get to GA, while OMSI needs a lot of work in general. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios (on May 5th that is). Aboutmovies (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pleaching
Good call. Pleaching is simply the technique. I hope you approve the revision.--Wetman (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was mistaken when I worked on the lead a few years back, when I add the part about approach grafting. Slowart (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some refs for Pleaching I put them on the Pleaching talk page Blackash   have a chat  04:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do...I don't see them there. Duff (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some references and some thoughts. I've also found a book that maybe useful but I have to ask my library to get it for me. I let you know once I get it. Blackash   have a chat  11:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok great. More well-referenced information is better.  Standing by.  Feel free to leave it at the talk page for Pleaching as I do get changes there on my watchlist and both duplication and refactoring are reduced that way.  Duff (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The proper nouns
I think it'll be understandable when you read the comment on talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide Aregakn (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that you have asked questions on several pages about genocide. You have stepped into a mine field. The question of capitalisation of the word genocide, has profound implications for an article. This is debated long and hard in the archives of the talk page of the Greek genocide. If the term is a proper noun then it becomes a name and should be in bold in the first line of the article. This is fine if the genocide is not disputed (But even with one like the Srebrenica massacre where the genocide is not disputed it is telling that the majority of cited sources that are used to show that the term Srebrenica Genocide is used actually describe it as the Srebrenica genocide), but for those were there is significant disagreement it does make it difficult to write a balanced introduction. If another word like Holocaust or Holodomor is used then it can be a common label even if the two sides of the debate can not agree on exactly what happened or if any crimes were committed.
 * No kidding on the mine field. I may have underappreciated the concentration of mines, but will try to stay attentive and be careful where I step.  Duff (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the rhetoric trick is called, but if one party to the debate can label an event in a certain way then they are half way to winning the debate before they start. See for example Terrorism and Denialism. The same thing is true for the use of the words massacre and genocide. -- PBS (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point here. Duff (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Those who passionately believe that the Turkish massacres, deportations and persecutions of the Armenians were a genocide insist that the term is capitalised Armenian Genocide because they see it as a proper noun just as we write "Holocaust" and not "holocaust" for the Nazi genocide of the Jews. You will find some of the editors who are convinced that the massacres and deportations of Armenians that occurred in Turkey during World War I like to do as much as possible to mirror articles about the Holocaust for example Aregakn's arguments for wanting to move the article denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial is that "It will accord to other similar articles and will give more content in the title. ... Look into Holocaust Denial then Aregakn (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)". One of the arguments for not combining the denial and recognition of the Armenian Genocide is (to paraphrase) "But there is a Holocaust Denial article so NPOV demands we have a denial article on the Armenian Genocide ...."


 * From as purely neutral and non-passionate a standpoint as I can muster, and without spending the rest of the year reading what must be voluminous archives of discussion on point re: holocaust/Holocaust and also allowing Holocaust/Holocaust Denial (why is Denial capitalized?) as a non integrated POV fork permitted to stand in one instance but not others....Ahh, help me out here, because even any fool like me should know there's a really dangerous minefield here, but just as an example: ...Why should not Holocaust Denial be deleted, redirected and integrated into the article on the Holocaust? Does it not violate NPOV, or is it in some cases considered the best way to get to NPOV, or what?  Bear in mind, I've not read either article, nor the discussions...so please tell me this about them...How many pages of archives there?Duff (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for an article on Holocaust Denial is because it has in its own right become an area of study. As the evidence is overwhelming that a genocide took place, a legitimate academic question is why do a small number of otherwise apparently well educated people reject the generally accepted fact that a genocide took place? The trouble is that this legitimate area of study has been hijacked as a prescriptive and polemic club to be used in any dispute where one side wants to score points whether or not they are justified in doing so. You might find this article interesting:


 * So one format "Xxx Genocide" or "Xxx genocide" for all does not work, and does not need to work as some genocides are more established than others and it becomes a point of fine judgement and yards of talk page discussion on whether to change the names or not. I hope that helps. -- PBS (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's understandable, and thank you. It also sounds still like an area where some clarification in policies and/or guidelines would be helpful. I am uncomfortable on some level, with the phrase, "Some genocides are more established than others...," but that is ok.  I can live with the discomfort for this discussion.  Duff (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Established" does not of course mean that very nasty things did not happen BUT genocide is a very specific legal term which is not used in all context. For more on this see the comment by Rosalyn Higgins in Bosnian Genocide and the comments by Jonassohn and Björnson in Genocide about academic definitions, and the first three paragraph in the section History Wars . -- PBS (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Two links to a policy and a guideline on this issue: WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD --PBS (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another: WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) (a guideline) and a more specific one WP:Article titles (a policy). This one too, which is an article on nouns: Proper noun, in particular the section about Proper noun (which these words, murder, massacre, genocide are for some articles and aren't for others), and the one below it a couple of clicks at Proper noun (which these words may well be also), which is perhaps one place of several where I'd like to see a specific topic subheading, like the others there, that deals with this directly. Duff (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed you wrote on the Talk:Burundi genocide "Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Burundi Genocide, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter." This not a matter for the MOS, the MOS does not cover the naming of article (it covers content) this is a matter for WP:Article titles -- PBS (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I left a very similar message at all the talk pages listed in my original question above.  The MoS does cover this, albeit rather obliquely, at MOS and also MOS, but there is notably no mention of the specific point at MOS, which is just about where I'd like to see another sub-heading something like Events that clarifies the best practice in these articles and others.


 * It seems to come down to proper nouns and how they are defined and so identified, but the policies and guidelines are not entirely clear on the point. What is the criteria for determining that, say, Rwandan Genocide, is a proper noun, and thus, an exception to other stated policies on non-proper-noun titles?  I am not certain that any instances of capitalization in this area can be correctly called proper nouns, and so am leaning back the other way now a little, but I remain willing to be further educated on that topic too.Duff (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from". I think you are looking at the wrong guidelines on article title capitalisation. See the WP:Article titles policy and Naming conventions (capitalization). The MOS (which is a guideline) covers content it does not cover article titles which has its own policy. This has long been the case although sometimes editors mistakenly edit the MOS to trespass into the Polices domain (eg with the use of dashes instead of hyphens). -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW the same debate was had in the WikiProject Military history project about battles is it Battle of Waterloo or battle of Waterloo? The conclusion we can to was in other articles to capitalise it if it is famous and not if it is not eg Battle of Waterloo but battle of Issy. In this case it is only the first letter so it does not matter much as the link works for both, but again this is something that reliable sources can be used for to give an indication. -- PBS (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture
If there is any “wiki-legal” way to re-open the proposal to change the title of the article about arborsculpture to “Arborsculpture” that is exactly what we should so. THIS is the verifiable, written evidence I would have introduced had the debate not closed so quickly. --Griseum (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arboriculture
I have been researching Tree shaping and I haven't come across any references where anyone is writing about the fact that tree shaping is interchangeable or synonymous with arborsculpture. So I have asked for a third opinion. Blackash  have a chat  09:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you so much for so diligently trying to help to find citations for that...and likewise for pursuing dispute resolution avenues so swiftly! So, what's your hurry Blackash?  Are we having some sort of a dispute here on this other page too?  Do you not think the citation needed tag that I substituted for your deletion of the material I added, addresses your concern for the moment, the concern that led you to revert that added material in the first place? It seems like you are COI stalking again (still?), pretty blatantly, and you may rest assured that I welcome as many eyes as possible to the scene of your (thankfully narrow) scope of activities. Duff (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree that "tree shaping" is another term for arboriculture as that is (as the article lead states) the "cultivation, management, and study" of woody plants. Rather, "tree shaping" is a practice within the field of arboriculture. Presented “tree shaping” as if it's a synonym for arboriculture seems pointy as well as inaccurate. Let's not let our exasperating association with odiously unethical people lead us compromise our own standards of editing. That being said, the term “tree shaping” can absolutely be used as a section heading within articles such as Arboriculture and Arborist. --Griseum (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what both of you are saying, and you may be right. However I submit that while it may be an inaccurate usage, the term is in common usage by common people to describe the general practice of arboriculture.  I will also seek reliable citations, and if none are located in a reasonable amount of time, I will go along with placing it as a subheading and describing it accurately instead.  It's not a BLP, so there's no crisis.  I read WP:POINT, and Griseum, while I think I understand your point, I note the following on that page: "...just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only circumstance under which someone should be warned about this guideline."  I edit in good faith, consistently.  Do you sincerely see that piece of editing as an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point?  I don't see it, but I am prepared to become more enlightened on that. I would put forth that the immediate reversion of my added information, versus adding a citation needed tag, was a far clearer example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but I may be wrong.   Duff (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm clipping your comment to the talk page at Arboriculture, as it establishes consensus on several levels, in several directions, not all aligned with my POV, but that's exactly the point! ;) Duff (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend my message to be seen as a “warning” – think of it as “food for thought” instead. I don't think your edit disrupts Wikipedia, so WP:POINT probably doesn't apply. But the edit rings so wrong for me that it did strike me as a at least a wee bit “pointy” even if I thoroughly, thoroughly, thoroughly emphasize with what I imaged your motives to be. Anyway...do you agree that “arboriculture” can include the planting, fertilization, and harvesting of trees? Do you really think that planting, fertilization, or harvesting could, should, or would be called “shaping?” I am concerned that this edit could work to our disadvantage as we move forward and try to gather support for our shared goal of improving the arborsculpture article (and that, really, is how we should refer to it!) --Griseum (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I took it that way, as food. And, okay, maybe weeeeee. I've agreed to move it off the mainspace until refs can be found, and it may well be appropriate to have it as a section heading. Yes, of course I do agree with those inclusions (I helped write that article, and that's how Blackash crossed my path, wordstalking arborsculpture out of its See also, in favor of Tree shaping.)...though removal, rather than harvesting, as 'harvesting' is more at a different goal: lumberculture timber forestry, which just is not arboriculture. And no, I do not think that those inclusions 'should' be called shaping, but nonetheless they and all the other practices that arborists perform certainly are, referred to broadly by none-too-bright practitioners and consumers as tree shaping, so yes...they could and would.  But look, I'm the one who fought to get tree surgeon off of there, so that tells you something maybe, too.  Hey.  Are you going to stick around and help me with the RfC/U? Hmmmmm? We need to bring this part to a successful close. Duff (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I edited arboriculture to reflect that 'part of' aspect, with which I agree.

Reviewer Right Granted
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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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 Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't 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 userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful  One  12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool! Thanks! Duff (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Espalier
Pronunciation templates are IPA and respell. No bots (afaik). Copy the IPA from espalier. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Quiddity, that is very cool. Thanks for snagging that.  Should parenthesis be added or just raw with slashes, like that: Espalier?
 * Not sure. I've tweaked it slightly, but that might not be right.
 * The 3rd alternative is USdict, but I'm not sure how to find the correct pronunciation for that (or the respell) system. Good luck ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit notice
Hi Duff - I was editing sub sections and did not see that the copyedit notice had been placed on Strip club. I will leave the article alone now. Thanks for taking a look. - Wallanon (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, no worries. Your edits appear to have held.  Proceeding forward and will complete as swiftly as possible.  Please stand by.  Interesting topic to copy edit and very little work to be done so far.  Thanks!    d u f f   09:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya Wallanon - I am taking a break from the copyediting for a bit today, to attend to some real-life pruning, of trees and such. I'm going to leave the notice on, to discourage editing in general until the copy-edit is complete, but since I see that you are the primary editor at this time, please go ahead and add/subtract as you see fit.  I will gladly work around that upon my return.  This is a very long (albeit very interesting) article, and I'm honored to have the task of honing it a little.  Be well.    d u f f   15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Duff - I just saw that you have completed your review. It definitely needed a fresh perspective and you went above and beyond. Thanks again for taking the time to copyedit what is becoming a really long article. - Wallanon (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You betcha! You are quite welcome and thank you too, for all the unbelievably well-cited work you have invested into that fascinating topic.  d u f f   19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Curto Park
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rowdy! Thanks much.

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Advertising Standards Authority (South Africa)
A tag has been placed on Advertising Standards Authority (South Africa) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Treeplanting
In case you don't have it watchlisted, I've replied to your thoughts on the reorganizing of the treeplanting/tree planting article. Minnecologies (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Announcement
Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Duff/RfC/U draft
User:Duff/RfC/U draft, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Duff/RfC/U draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Duff/RfC/U draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hey Mid  (contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Duff/RfC/U draft
User talk:Duff/RfC/U draft, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Duff/RfC/U draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Duff/RfC/U draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hey Mid  (contribs) 23:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile, completely turned off by the matter that led me to proceed as far as I had with the RfC/U. After reading the policy references provided & the discussion (none) concerning the proposed deletion of even that effort, the reason for this MfD nomination of my User talk:Duff/RfC/U draft from my userspace remains unclear to me.  It ended in a speedy keep, I see...though no notice of that outcome was forwarded here to my page, for some other reason which also remains unclear to me.

Nobody has time for this sort of thing, least me. Please don't delete it. I may yet stomach that process. It took me a while to grok it, it still needs to be done, & creating a path for me to have to redo it from the beginning will only cause me to back away from editing at all. d u f f  08:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey Questions
Hi Duff, I am a PhD student from the Carnegie Mellon University. I am interested in the Wikipedia community, especially the individual behavior of anti-vandalism and the group 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 the following questions if possible? Thanks for your help!

Part 1

Q1. On average how often do you revert vandalism?

A. More than 10 times a week

B. 5-10 times a week

C. 1-5 times a week

D. less than once a week (please skip Q2& Q3 if you choose this)

Q2. Do you use any tools for anti-vandalism? How did you learn to use those tools?

Q3. How do you revert vandals but not good-faith editors ? How did you learn to identify those two kinds of editors?

Part 2

Q4. How much do you learn from participating in WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week?

A. A lot

B. A little bit

C. Not at all (please skip Q5 if you choose this)

Q5. What did you learn from participating in WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week? Please provide examples if possible.

Q6. Do you have any negative experience of WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week?

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) 18:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Tree shaping
There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash  have a chat  00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And another one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Duff, I am proposing to take this to arbitration. It seems there is no other way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you and please continue to keep me posted. I do pop in from time to time.  d u f f   07:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration accepted, RFC Slowart (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Daniel Vee Lewis (musician)


A tag has been placed on Daniel Vee Lewis (musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, I have contested this proposal to speedy delete.  d u f f   13:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WPORE COTW 2.0 - the picture edition
Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People from Echo Park, California
Category:People from Echo Park, California, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RSN edit
Hi Duff, your edit to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard inadvertently removed quite a lot of other people's comments. I added them back, along with your comment, but beware of such glitches.... First Light (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi First Light, Thanks for putting it right. I looked over there & it's not clear to me what exactly happened to cause that, though I'd like to be-wary indeed.  There was nothing in the preview to indicate those deletions.  I also see comments there now, that were not there when I posted my edit, and which are apparently timestamped before mine.  Have you got a clue?   d u f f   23:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm as clueless as you are — it was probably some extreme hiccup by the Wikipedia server or software. User beware, I guess.... First Light (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * =D Ok, well thanks again for catching that & fixing it. If it's any help at all or worth tracking down, I see that your comment, timestamped 2:09 pm, Today (UTC−7), is the one that was not visible when I posted my comment that apparently blanked random areas.  Have a good day!    d u f f   23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Duff, for copyediting By Your Side (The Black Crowes album). I appreciate your taking the time to scrutinize my work. One thing I'm going to revert, though, is your insertion of the dreaded noun plus -ing construction. :)  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks for the link, too. I like much better the way you rebuilt that sentence . Good luck!   d u f f   03:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
 * 2) User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
 * 3) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
 * 4) User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
 * 5) The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
 * 6) Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the db-author or db-self template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request
You asked at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Did you find your answer at the library? Can you let us know if its still outstanding? LeadSongDog come howl!  04:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a message there. Cheers. sonia ♫  02:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree Shaping -> Arborsculpture RFM 2
A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Duff, it would be good if you could state your opinion at the RfM so that we can settle this matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GAQS
Just to say, there was a reply about a month ago to your post on the Resource Request page (regarding the Clark Humphrey book) here. Just incase you didn't know! HrZ (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, just seen they notified you already ^^ HrZ (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack
Duff, FYI, I edited one of your copy/pasted posts at Talk:Tree shaping, since it included a personal attack towards another editor. I realize this wasn't a new attack, since you were pasting in something that had been said in 2010, but still, it was inappropriate. Please try to ensure that future comments stick strictly to the topic at hand, and not to speculation about the motivations of other editors, thanks. --Elonka 15:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

unused rfcu draft
It doesnt look like you're intending to use User:Duff/RfC/U draft. It is labelled as as "work in progress" and categorised as a draft. Do you intend to do something with it, or can it be deleted, or at least marked as historical? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I marked it historical, as suggested. Thanks.   d u f f   10:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Howie Klein, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Babes in Toyland and The Replacements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Alpha & Omega Recording (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Exodus and San Rafael


 * Portulaca oleracea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to DOPA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants Collaboration of the month
I'm attempting to revive the Plant article COTM, and since you're a member of WikiProject Plants, you're being notified about this hopeful revival. Please feel free to propose articles for collaboration, and thanks for your consideration! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
— Northamerica1000(talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frank Curto


The article Frank Curto has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable horticulturist

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM
From: Northamerica1000(talk) 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit-thon: Saturday, February 9, 2013
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Portland "Wiknic" 2013!
Hope you are able to attend! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Takes PDX 2013!
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon in Vancouver, WA
''You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of WikiProjectOregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)''

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods
This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:
 * PDX Pods
 * Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! ''You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)''

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)
 You are invited!


 * Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU
 You are invited!


 * Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
 * Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
 * This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Art+Feminism events in Oregon
You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up: About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.
 * Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
 * Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism @ Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (March 18, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival
Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon @ PNCA Library (April 29, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Meetup Invitation
You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.


 * Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
 * Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
 * Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
 * Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!
 * (This message was sent to WikiProject members via Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27
You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA
On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)
On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)
On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (April 13, University of Oregon)
On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Duff! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  22:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19
Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8
To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9
The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Oregon Jewish Museum, Thursday, March 7
The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You're Invited! Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia
On, Friday, February 25, 2022, Oregon State University will be hosting an online editathon focused on Black history of the Pacific Northwest. You can learn more here and/or register here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Portland Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon: March 12, 2022
You are invited! An Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon will be held in Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2022. Learn more here!

Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet—and it’s created by people who volunteer their time to write and edit pages. Learn how to edit Wikipedia and be a part of shaping our understanding of our world. In this workshop, volunteer Wikipedia editors will be on hand to train participants on how to get started editing pages and offer ideas for which pages you can pitch in to help improve. Show up at any point during the four hours to get started!

Also: Free burritos!! We will be providing vegan, vegetarian, and meat burritos from food cart Loncheria Las Mayos. Alder Commons has a large, fenced playground. Children are welcome! Some computers will be available to borrow, but if you have a laptop, please bring it to use. We will also be leading an online training for new editors at 11am-12pm PST. Please feel free to join that training if you are not able to show up IRL.

This event is part of the international month of events organized by Art+Feminism, which is building a community of activists committed to closing information gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

International Women’s Day Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon, Sunday, March 10
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.