User talk:Northwesterner1/Archive 1

Percentage of Land Area Managed by the National Forest Service
You might want to edit the map for List_of_U.S._National_Forests unless you don't believe the Upper Peninsula to be a part of Michigan or the United States. Phizzy (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting that. I'll get to it soon. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hanford
Hey there, so I went through the article and made a few changes, and added clarification tags to a few things that I think would be confusing to the lay reader. Otherwise, the article is in really good shape, and I think you could probably get it up to Featured Status pretty easily. One thing though, that may even cause a problem for GA status, is the lack of page numbers on a lot of the references where you used the "ref name" tag. A lot of editors will get real cranky about not being able to easily find the page you're citing. Otherwise, I tried to explain all my changes and "clarify" tags in the edit summaries, but feel free to ask me any questions. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi there, I've been admiring your work on Hanford. Wondering if your interest extends south o' the border, because we have a great group of history buffs here at Wikiproject Oregon, but are always looking for more. Most of our work to date has been on topics relating to Oregon pioneer history, but this has led to a bit of imbalance; we recently started History of Oregon, and are trying to expand the other sections and related articles. Hope you might be interested in joining us, now or in the future! -Pete (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another article I've been working on for some time is Columbia River. I see you recently added the Hanford photo there, which is excellent. I recently put it up for GA review, and it was well received, but there are still a number of things (mostly stats that predate my editing) that are uncited. Any help in bringing this up to GA status would be most appreciated! I'll keep an eye on the Hanford review, too. I can't conduct the review, since I've contributed too much to the article, but maybe I can help if the reviewer has concerns that take work to address. -Pete (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very cool! Yes, I don't think FA is at all out of the question, but there's definitely work to be done before it gets there. Also, User:Mtsmallwood has been really active on articles about steamboats etc. on the river system, and seems to have all kinds of knowledge and books, but I haven't yet been able to entice him/her to work on this article. Hopefully over the next few months we can create a little ad hoc FA team around this, to push it over the top. -Pete (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons
Thanks for uploading the images of Hanford. In the future please consider using Wikimedia Commons so the images can be used by other Wikimedia projects in addition to English Wikipedia. Thanks, Cacophony (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Cities
You added the Tri-Cities as one of the larger cities in Washington. This is actually a region commonly treated like a city, and believed to be a city by misconception. Please see my rationale in the Washington template talk pages. Please see the Wikipedia article: Twin City to understand what a twin city, on in this case a tri-city is and isn't. And please use the talk page before changing something that is being discussed. Thank you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, Matt Yeager agreed with you ... I didn't feel two editors disagreeing with one was enough in this case though because he's from the Tri-Cities, and I feel like he may be biased in his choice. I've also noticed that many editors have had disputes with him over his editing, and that some of the articles he's created are of things that are regionally close to him without being notable. But yes, I'd love to ask the other editors to make a vote. I do feel that we may need to add both the Tri-Cities and Federal Way if it's decided to add the Tri-Cities because Federal Way is becoming quite notable having broken out into the national media several times in the last year or so. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work
Just a quick shout-out, Northwesterner1. You've been making a great contribution to the election reporting. Truly impressive! Thanks, --Scantron2 (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delegate map
Hey could you add the postal abbrevs. to Florida and Michigan so people don't get confused on what those big grey blocks are. Thanks! HoosierStateTalk 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ✅Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) HoosierStateTalk 02:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I give up, I tried to update your delegate maps to reflect the results in Mississippi but I keep messing up. Could you update them? Thanks! HoosierStateTalk 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the reminder. Sorry, it's not easy to update unless you have my file. (I did it in Powerpoint where it's easy to input numerical values to size the boxes.) I'll try to stay on top of it when results change. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

questioning Salish Sea
Yo; it occurred to me you might be someone to get input/participation from on Salish Sea, which if you dig in its edit history you'll see I've made several very savage, seriously truthful edits to; my position is that it's a completely spurious article, an "agenda article", advancing a term's usage, even making claims that it's in use when, if at all, by a handful of academics and one First Nation (persuaded by one of the inventing academics). Whulge was merged into this, and it, too, was a pretentious article - as if the Lushootseed name for their waters might apply to everything up to Quadra Island, which anyone from one of those peoples up there would find strange, if not offensive; User:OldManRivers, who's Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw, ardently so, says his peoples don't have a single name for it, and from what I understand it's not seen as one object in Halkomelem or Straits. Whatever, I don't mean to go into it; I'd just like someone from the Washington (? - Oregon?) side to take a hand in it. The pic is great, could be used for Evergreen Triangle or Georgia-Puget Basin if those ever stand as separate articles (much more where the noxious, to me, Cascadia should redirect rather than to Pacific Northwest. Anyway, in general I hope for more collaboration on cross-border articles from WPWA and WPOR etc folks; I may seem confrontational, it's really I'm just kinda pithy at times....Skookum1 (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can't weigh in on Salish Sea. I try to stick to editing what I know about, and Salish Sea isn't one of those things. I can say that in six months of living in Vancouver, I've heard Salish Sea used frequently in the local newspapers and at the anthropology museum, whereas Georgia-Puget Basin is a term I've never heard before. Not sure what's noxious to you about Cascadia. I can't speak to the term's usage in Canada, but it's widespread in Oregon and Washington and generally considered synonymous with Pacific Northwest, although perhaps with a more restricted geographic focus.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Georgia-Puget Basin I guess might be a term heard only on this side of hte border; Puget Sound Basin might be the particular US-side variant, the way Georgia Basin or Gulf of Georgia is used standalone on our side; interestngly KVOS Bellingham refers to the San Juans as being in Puget Sound, likewise Bellingham Bay, so the actual geogrpahical defnitions are muddied by usage. I had a lookt at googles about this and yes, it's becoming current on your sidee of the border; I even found a US govt curriculum site with a unit on it - with stupid lcams that it was "commonly accepted on both sides of the border", which remains a fiction.  It is in the news on our side of the border, as User:KenWalker kindly updated me on BC news of the last week (I'm in Nova Scotia these days):

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=364263 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/03/09/bc-salish-sea-renamed.html http://www.ctvbc.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080310/bc_salish_sea_080310/20080310/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome http://www.straight.com/article-135594/bc-liberals-consider-renaming-strait-of-georgia-to-salish-sea http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080310.BCSTRAIT10/TPStory/TPNational/BritishColumbia/
 * This is a political bandwagon in BC, with heavy overtones and part of an Olympics promotion/p.r. scheme, and is a "sop" to the lack of progress on land claims; only the Chemainus First Nation has advanced it. There's another view that the name change is to try to disempower the Georgia Straight newspaper's branding (they're the only major media critic of the current government).  The rest is media pitch; I'd go for the article b eing rewritten ab out the renaming bandwagon, but  won't accept this word being presented as legitimate or widely accepted; it can have an article about the agenda and the debate around it, but it should not be presetned as accomplished fact.  I have a lengthier set of comments made to KenWalker via email last night; I'll forward it to you.  As for my comments about Cascadia as a noxious term, it's because, again, the way it's been pushed, and also that it represents as particular political/cultural agenda; in BC it's also been coopted by the neocon media/pols as the emblem of a regional economic alliance, and is therefore associated with The System's attempt to lower labour and living conditions in BC to Alberta and US levels; "Cascadia" is a political agenda in Canada, a sell-job; as a term of identification, really on ly the Lower Mainland and South Island identify with it, if at all; the Interior and upcoast have no connection with the concept; the "cappucino-sucking backpacker" association is very strong with that name; it's not an accomplished fact, though once again it's being presented as such.  Trendy neologism acquiring legitimacy through a particular political agenda.....that's why it's noxious; and I just don't like rewriting hstory/toponymy, especially when it's largely meaningless and only a dodge to avoid having to settle land claims before the 2010 Olympics....Skookum1 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have wikimail setup so here's what I wrote in response to Ken last night:
 * Thanks Ken, I'm looking for my crow pie recipe, and will credit you with sourcing these links for me when I post them in my, er, apology; I've been out of BC and away from the news, or only exposed to Maritime news unless it's a disaster or whatever. I read through them all before replying, and while the brand-reconition thing re the Straight is cute, and a happy circumstance for the Libs, the following paragraph points to what it's all about.


 * "I think that changing the name of the Strait of Georgia to the Salish Sea is a wonderful tribute to the Coast Salish peoples ... The world will soon gather in Vancouver in 2010 and such a gesture would go a long way in demonstrating that we cherish all of our First Nations peoples," Bill Jost of Maple Ridge said in an e-mail.


 * ...Olympics p.r. in other words, since there will be no real concrete change in native life here, or any hope of a realistic settlement by 2010 (you saw the Xeni Decision article in the Tyee, right?), "something had to be done" to play to the crowd, as it were, and make a symbolic show of inclusiveness and cultural recognition, to add to the nifty spectacle of Lil'wat and Skwxwu7mesh dancers at the specially-created-to-prep-the-Olympics Weetama Festival, also given much hype like this Salish Sea stuff. I asked OldManRivers about it and he'd never heard of it, thinks it's tourist thing only, the people in it are sell-outs.  I know for sure there are diehard Lil'wat who feel the other way about t that the press says they are dong; I'm not even sure the Mt Currie council/chief are onside and I highly doubt the Setons, who I know well, more or less, are gonna be pro-big-O (prepare for native blockades during the Olympics....I'd almost place money on it...also prepare for adventurous reporters heading out beyond the official Olympics zoned to see waht's behnd the Potemkin; this could all get very interesting).


 * There's a point to my digression, though, there's far more to this story than meets the eye. The public mind is easily washed, and it's honed to a fine art in this land of press monopoles; this has propaganda and hype written all over it; it's a pitch, a push; only the Chemainus First Nation has advanced this, though it's current n Puget Sound - I found some new curriculum materials about it from one of the science administrations  - and widely used in the media there now, according to User:Northwesterner.  Salish Sea is a paint job; I wish I was out there so I could check out the native newspapers and some of the other alternative stuff; I don't monitor Vancouver sites, don't have the time, so didn't know this was going on.


 * Curious in tone was the different way the Globe presented the UBCIC chief's comments, whjch had a much more negative tone in the other reports, some of which appeared to be off the same wire (word for word, but natural enough in a syndicate-run media ;-) .... btw do you think we'd be hearing as much about Lord Black if Izzy Asper didn't hate him so much?). I recognize spin articles in the Sun, advertorial, like pitches on Anyox and Bradian and Ocean Falls a while back.


 * This is all p.r. work; which is why I don't like considering newspapers "primary sources". When they're not opinion, they're sales pitches.


 * I guess it remans to be seen how many of the First Nations line up to support Chemainus on this; many will shoot/call it down or call it irrelevant, or it may become a bandwagon. From what I know of politics that they pitched it without consulting other peoples first may be an issue; it came in via an academic, I'll bet, connectedd to the academic-native intellectual pitch for it in the US.  I guess for this point of view to be able to be in wikipedia, it has to bev citable, so I'll try to keep my eye open for new coverage of it; if you happen to see anythng further pls send so I can keep track of it.


 * I don't like name change stuff. It's not about exclusiveness; it's about not falling prey to softsoap versions of history in order to make us all feel better, or at least improve the p.r. points to sell a few moree hotel rooms and meals etc. This may be a lead balloon like all the times they've pitched the Georgia Bridge (the Salish Bridge?) or the hoopla of the now-shot-down Tsawwassen Treaty and others.   Still, n my position on it, it's not establshed fact, it's a proposal that got some front-page coverage; it's a news issue, and an accomplished reality as the Wiki page and the US (not WA) government curriculum site said about it.  This happened only this month, right?  Like I said, we'll see how much mileage the bandwagon can get once the other First Nations have a say; to OldManRivers it's already just another colonialist name concocted by academics and pitched by politicians.  It does nothing for native youth or native poverty; we'll see, we'll see.....my feelings about stuff like this are strong; I come from a place that's not there any more, and what little of what there was now has a different name (South Shalalth, it was Bridge River to us...the actual St'at'imc name for our spot, and there may have been one, I don't know); in fact it's on IR but on a Hydro lease from the IR, locked in; I've avoided writn too much about he Bridge River Project because of its political overtones, as well as personal ones); I'd r ather see concrete action t han p.r.-firm-approved and meda-pitched circuses over symbolic names.  Could all be very embarrassing for them if this gets hot in the media, by native opposition or whatever, around the time of the Beijing Olympics; but I suspect the world's eyes may be on Tibet, or other events in China, during that time...we'll see, we'll see....); back to the Georgia Strait/Salish Sea thing:


 * The only one common name/word ever used for it, and shared by others, whites and non-whites - and really more of a word than a name - was "the saltchuck". It's still in use in fact, though it's partner "the hyas saltchuck" - the big saltwater, the open ocean aka the North Pacific - has mostly been forgotten.  If historical correctness is the issue, then I'd go for simply "the Saltchuck", as the name fror the whole network of straights, which s what we're talking about when someone is "out on the saltchuck" or "on the chuck" we know they mean "somewhere out there in the Straits/Gulf); guess it means the nearby Pacific too, rather than the high seas as Hyas Saltchuck does.  But I'd go for "Saltchuck Sea", has a nidce ring, no?  And historically authetnc, too.  And would make the Ukrainians happy, to boot ;-)


 * Which brings me to this, also rrom the Globe article, thrown in there as a pitch for yet another agenda; it does surface from time to tme, but it's really a pain, like people who nsist Vancouver is nteh Canadian southwest because that's what it looks like a on a map; shallow reading of history/georaphy.  This was the King George Illahee, it's part of ALL of our histories;p it shouldn't be so idly done away with; but lkkewse, cumbersome as it is, "Britsh Columbia":


 * "Before the British Columbia government considers changing the name of Strait of Georgia to Salish Sea, it should first rename the province itself," argued Ben Pires of Victoria in an e-mail. "We need a new name for the province that is inclusive of ALL its residents of multi cultures."


 * My proposal, from a few years ago, is the Skookum Illahee (and to be usedd with the defnite article); it's an imperalist name, meanto apply to the whole regon of NoCal/OregonCountry/BC/AK/YT, "the country where skookum is used/known" as well as "the big strong, reliable land/country". Instead they're gon to pitch us Cascadia North.  Just you watch..

Washington and Oregon are colonialist names too. How would you feel about renaming Washington "Salishia" or Oregon "Chinook"?Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Woody Guthrie, Roll On Columbia.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Woody Guthrie, Roll On Columbia.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Since Guthrie's songs were written and recorded under contract of the BPA, a Federal agency, shouldn't they be public domain? -Pete (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The music and lyrics should be in the public domain by virtue of being created by an employee of the federal govt in the course of the job, but I'm not sure about the recording. If it was recorded and published by the BPA, it should be in the public domain; but if someone else recorded it, they have rights to the recording. (I just grabbed a random recording off YouTube so I'm not sure where it came from.) We should be covered under fair use however. I think I just got busted by an overzealous bot for not tagging everything correctly.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Guthrie himself on another song: "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do." Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually isn't that traditional? Did Guthrie have songwriter credit on it?  What's copyrighted, anyway, is the performance.  If it's traditional there's no royalty fee for the song, but there's still a fee - or at least a license anyway, if not pd by now (which it may be) for the singer and commissions for his agent, album, publicist, and sidemen - and whoever else he may have to cut in.  What copyright regs are on recorded performances are in the US is not something I know; I barely understand photographic copyright and was a photographer....Skookum1 (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Supplementary: as far as I know sound copyright lasts a hell of a long time; Columbia still owns things it recorded back back before WWII; the songs have become public domain - some of them - but the recordngs are still owned/licensable. Can't remember what the time-back limit is, how old something has to be, to be finally PD.  In fact, it's barely 100 years since sound recording was invented and first became consumer technology and the basis of the music industry; nothing may have had much of a chance to become public domain yet....I wonder.  I'll see what I can find out in Canuckland (I rather liked Canuckistan, though I guess without "Soviet" it's not as catchy).Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbia
Hi NW, I really appreciate all your help recently. I especially like the addition of the Guthrie photo and audio clip (even if the song clip can't stay, it's a great idea.) Wanted to point out one thing -- this edit removed well researched content and two citations. I think it's particularly important to bring up an edit like that on the talk page, when removing something with citations. Trying not to be ownerish here, but I do feel that when any editor has gone to the trouble of including full citations, they deserve to be informed...at least on the article talk page...if it gets removed.

Anyway, a small detail in the context of all the great work you're doing. I am very gratified to have both you and Skookum giving this a close look before moving to FA. Now, if you know where we can find a citation for the size of the U.S. vs. Canadian drainage basins, or the length of the OR-WA border portion etc., that would really be a dream come true! (These last few [citation needed]s have been driving me nuts!) -Pete (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pete, sorry to be so brash in the edit. My intention was to expand rather than delete the content about Celilo. The 10,000 years was already in the paragraph above, so I thought it could go. And then everything else was an expansion of the existing content ("abundant salmon" --> 15 to 20 million, "convened to trade" --> details about the trading network, "mid-twentieth century --> 1957, etc.) The one thing I deleted was the clause "the Army Corps of Engineers' predictions of vibrant industry and plentiful work along the river did not come to pass," which I deleted because I felt it was out of place in the indigenous peoples section. The article by that point hasn't yet introduced the Corps or its predictions. I didn't think it would make sense there without more context. I considered moving it to the dams section, but in the end I thought it would be better just to trust the reader to head to the Celilo article for more info. I shouldn't have deleted the references, but I couldn't access them to see exactly what they referred to (the link requires a library login), and as every sentence in my re-edited version has a citation, I assumed they would be redundant. Please feel free to restore anything you feel was lost, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't want to slow you down on FA, but it sounds like you're thinking about heading there after a final copyedit and some additional references. I would suggest waiting for a bit, as the article still seems pretty choppy to me. I took a stab at the navigation section tonight, rearranging sentences for paragraph flow, but didn't get very far without doing additional research. The article is comprehensive and duly referenced but I think it's still missing the elegant narrative that characterizes a feature article ("prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard"). Because it's been written by so many editors over many years, it feels a bit pieced together, and I think we have some work to do in creating an engaging narrative about the river. Missing citations, etc., are something we can deal with during the FA review, but I think it may help to work on the general flow of the article before going up for FA. I'll help out as I can... Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to worry re: the Celilo stuff. I'll paste it in the talk page so we can mull it over. You have a good point about the chronology and the USACE not yet being introduced. Also your point about FA is well taken, that's part of why I wanted some additional eyes here before nominating -- I think I have a lot of tunnel vision from working on this article over many months. I have no desire to nominate it prematurely. Though, maybe your concerns wouldn't be a problem for GA; might be worth a renom there soon, once we get the power stuff that Pfly unearthed sorted out. -Pete (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be lurking, Northwesterner, I had you on my watchlist and meant to get back to you about the other matter; butting in here to say that for sure the BC Govt and also the federal government have those stats for the area of the Columbia Basin in Canada/BC kicking around aplenty; just have to figure out where. I'm pretty sure it's textbook stuff, though not one of those numbers you'd bother remembering.  There will also be accurate figures for the size of the drainage basins somewhere, the easiest place to do is look up the Land Districts, take the Kootenay Land District, which is everything east of the Monashee Divide and up to Valemount/the Big Bend (or was, it may have been cut up since way back when), add the Okanagan and Boundary divisions of the Yale Land District.....hmmmm plus the Similkameen, and I'm gonna have to go look at the maps to know which division of the Yale LD (LDs are the underlying framework of the legal survey system in BC, though rarely used in public other than in land dealings/citations/notices; the closest thing we have to counties is regional districts and they've got different boundaries than the LDs, though measured/marked out by LD-posed language).  I don't think only the Kootenay Land District was purely watershed, maybe also the Boundary and Okanagan divisions, once they were created; the former would be the Kettle-West Kettle-Granby-Christina Lake basins, the latter of course becoming the Okanogan River stateside. (- hmm just occurred to me I've never heard that term in other parts of BC....maybe it's BC-only, does happen sometimes - it's purely a Canadianism, I'd venture, other than used by Americans who cross and back and acquiare it - ??).  Sorry for the digression, it's late; the Kootenay Land District is the Canadian part of the basin of the Columbia itself, plus the Canadian part of the Kootenay River/ basn and its tributaries, and what's in between (which mostly means the Slocan).  Hmm.  Sorry maybe that's not as easy a number to dig up as i thought, if I go that way.  Statistics Canada is probably the way to go; probably there'll even be a searchable link or database or rivers; something like the Canadian geonames database might exist for water bodies/streams; but again, it could be as simple as a high school textbook....hope the stuff about LDs was interestng, I've been puttng off writing the article(s) for a while, among many others....the length of the Canadian section, w/wo tributaries is pretty stock material, somewhere, and in more than one place...thankfully data, unlike images and soundbytes, isn't covered by copyright.  Yet.Skookum1 (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows
Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. '''The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail.''' I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The vote has completed. The result was to uphold the previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should summarize nomination events, not aggregate state results. Thanks for your participation in the vote! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronald_Kessler
Your link produces two "1" footnotes. There is an error in your code. Check it out.

Cheers. David Traver (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! David Traver (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama speech
I'd suggest you put this into the Category space, not the mainspace. αѕєηιηє t/c 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to fix it. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

columbia
Northwesterner, thank you for your recent major assistance on the Columbia River. I am very pleased it finally got to GA, and it would have been very hard without someone like you -- with both regional familiarity and a real eye for detail and structure, plus a related GA under your belt -- stepping in. Hope you will continue and that we can get it to FA some day. I think work on such a broad topic is never done! -Pete (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Vera Katz and History
Howdy folks, its time for another installment of WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week! Last week we made some improvements to the Oregon Coast and brought The Register-Guard up to B class while garnering a DYK! Great job to those who lent a hand. This week we finish up the High priority Stubs with former mayor and Speaker of the House, Vera Katz, which is pretty much a Start class now and could easily get to B class. We also have History of Oregon by request. Help out if you can, where you can. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanford
Thanks for the nice note about the Hanford site FAC. I had it flagged and noticed when you put it up for FA, and I'm cheering it on. If you think I can be of any further help with it, just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolf Colonel
Do you know anything about Wolf Colonel? I see Dear Nora mentions former "members" and in the YACHT article it mentioned "another alumnus of Wolf Colonel", which leads me to believe that Bechtolt was also a member (I changed the wording because WC wasn't mentioned earlier in the article), but the WC article itself makes it sound like it's a one-man band. Did it used to have more members and/or are the people who play with him sidepersons or full-fledged members? Katr67 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know much... My understanding is that Jason Anderson used to perform and record under the name "Wolf Colonel," and that some members of Dear Nora were involved in the project. Whether they should be considered sidepersons or full-fledged members, I don't really know. I'm pretty sure Anderson was the heart of it. The AllMusic entry for Wolf Colonel says it started as his solo project but evolved into a band for a tour in 1999. The entry for Dear Nora helps a bit, but the sourcing is pretty sketchy. Not sure about whether Jona Bechtolt was involved with WC. I've been meaning to dig up additional sources for Dear Nora and I'll see if anything more about Wolf Colonel pops up... Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be pretty cleared up now in the JB and Dear Nora articles, although Wolf Colonel could use some work. Looks like M. Ritchey aka Marianna Ritchey was involved with both Dear Nora and Wolf Colonel. She also formed The Badger King with Jona Bechtolt. According to something I read, JB did some occasional drumming for WC, but I don't think it's significant enough to mention in the JB article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
I'm very happy to see Hanford Site promoted to FA. Congratulations on a job well-done. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too! Congrats, very good work both before and during the FA nom. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you all were extraordinarily helpful. Looking forward to watching the same thing happen for Columbia River before too long... Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it's on my watchlist as of now :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Elected Oregon
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks and entities. Thanks to those who helped out with improving Vera Katz and History of Oregon during the last Collaboration of the Week! As you may have noticed, we have changed the banners a bit, but not our dedication to everything Oregon! This week, in honor of the political process, we have: Current Oregon Senate members & Current Oregon House members. Hopefully by November we can have an article on every current member of the Oregon Legislature. So feel free to turn a red link blue or expand an existing article. Since it is an election year, there should be plenty of newspaper stories. Plus, the state archives has this site that allows you to go back and see when they started serving and district info, plus at a minimum show they were a state legislator from a WP:RS. And per WP:BIO, all state legislator's are notable so no need to worry about AFD. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate your jumping into the Sho debate, and especially your work on the article -- having your perspective from outside the city was very helpful. I may have made more of a scene than I should, I'm not sure...but I really appreciate your efforts. -Pete (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think we all made a bit of a scene, but really the arguments the delete folks were presenting seemed to willfully ignore the facts. It's hard to keep an even tone in times like that. Glad it seems to have turned out okay in the end.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion/Image placeholders
As you will see from the blue ink above, I've started the new page at Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. Would you like to give it a test run? I think I've done all the things suggested by you and Pete. See you over there. . . --Kleinzach (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can anticipate where this is going now? How do you see us calling time on the props and (more important) putting whatever is decided into effect? --Kleinzach (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (Emailing would be fine by the way . . .)
 * I think that is question for the group to decide. If we're going to do something as big as remove the image placeholders from all 50,000 articles, we're going to need a very broad consensus to do it. I would say the proposals should be open for at least a week... Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd think several weeks would be more appropriate. There are still lots and lots of people who have not heard of this discussion. It will be a lot of work to shepherd the process through several weeks, but I'm sure others will step up and help out. -Pete (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pete. Your experience and even hand here will be helpful.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One week may be too short - several may be better - but I think we will see the debate dry up anyway - even though some people seem to be attracted to it for its entertainment value.

I know Pete is concerned about the level of participation. However I believe all those involved in the placeholder campaign already know about the discussion. Also we can't expect many disinterested parties to get involved in something that is becoming more and more time-consuming to access. (Even for me this morning it's difficult to work out what has been going on.) However widely we advertise - and we have advertised widely - most people will not be interested. (In any case uninvolved parties are almost always anti-placeholders.)

When I have been in this position before - with a overwhelming majority positioned against a minority - the tactics of the minority always seem to include denial of consensus. The majority then accuses the minority of disruption etc. and the whole thing descends into wiki-lawyering. I am not sure how to avoid this situation but having a time limit and absolute clarity about process might help.

Incidentally one of the good points of the centralized discussion procedure is that there is a place for putting conclusions which I suppose offers the hope of a kind of closure. Thoughts? --Kleinzach (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not very experienced at this, and I fear I've made a procedural error already in putting up the straw poll too soon. Given the contentious nature of the debate, I think discussion about "process" should be part of the larger discussion at WP:CENT. If you put forward a proposal there about how to come to a conclusion, with a timeline of say, two to three weeks, I would support it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * None of us are experienced! That came out clearly when we were all looking at the RFC option. I strongly support your three proposals and particularly your timing in introducing them which I thought was absolutely right. (Maybe it's bit self-defeating to call them straw polls?) (I've also written at the foot of Proposal 1.)


 * I'd like to know Pete's opinion. . . It looks as if the Signpost notice is going through now. That may bring a few more people. After that we might look at a wrap-up date. How about that? --Kleinzach (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Northwesterner, thanks for the compliment above. But I'm no expert either! I've done a lot of editing, but for the most part try to steer clear of the bureaucratic side of WP, which I often find takes the fun out of it for me. I am pleased that the Signpost article looks like a "go" -- Kleinzach, thanks for your help on that. I believe (hope) that will bring in a bunch more voices. It's hard for me to believe that these images are uncontroversial -- I suspect that when they were added to 50k articles, many people noticed them, and had an opinion. I would like whatever we decide in the current process to be pretty compelling, so that nobody feels it has to be revisited any time soon. I haven't seen anything approaching a "canvassing" violation -- the WP:CANVASS page acknowledges that it's OK to seek out the opinions of people you know would be interested, or whose judgment you respect. I think the proponents should be out there soliciting participation, too, as long as nobody veers into the realm of "stacking the deck." Broadening the debate is in everybody's interest (even if it does make for a messy debate, I think you guys have done a great job at keeping it structured.)

So...I agree with what Kleinzach said. Wait for the Signpost article to go through, wait a few days to see if it draws in more participation...and then determine an end date (probably after requesting a bit of community input.)

As for the timing of the polls/proposals...I think it would be a good idea to request consent from someone like Geni before making another similar decision. I think he has a legitimate point (not quite the same as saying I agree with it...) but in the interest of a legitimate process, probably best to make sure both sides have their say in procedural matters before decisions are made. (Like I said before, I don't think what happened before was a "big deal" -- it's tough to anticipate which of the many decisions will become controversial.) -Pete (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. I'm happy with all that. One small point however - I don't think we should privilege one editor (disruptive or not) over others. If we ask before doing something, we should ask everybody. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. A few more thoughts. First, when we move away from the general discussion toward a more specific focus on the proposals (whenever that happens), it might be good to do a summary wrap-up of each individual "question" section. Something like what you did for the original procedural discussion, Kleinzach. I would be happy to help with that, and the individual "question" summaries wouldn't necessarily need to close off debate on the questions... just do a bit of wrap-up and make it easier for newcomers or latecomers (after this whole thing passes into the historical record) to digest. Second, in terms of trying to provide a definitive consensus for the record when the whole thing is done, I was wondering about whether we should come up with something like a "majority opinion" like the U.S. Supreme Court writes. We could write several paragraphs acknowledging the various points made on all sides while issuing a decision about whether or how the placeholders should be used. Everyone who agrees to it could sign their name, and those who don't could issue a "dissenting opinion." I don't know if anything like that has been done on Wikipedia, or whether it would be necessary, but it might be a bit more solid then the usual "okay, I'm closing the poll, now we can all go home" decision.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Summaries for the individual questions would be good. The page is already too long (140k) so it might also be helpful to put each of the questions in a subpage (not an archive), while keeping the proposals in a prominent position on the main page. The Centralized discussion conclusions provide some models for the format of the closing doc. These are supposed to be summaries but there's quite a lot of variation.

I'm not in favour of majority/minority opinions as I'm concerned that a minority opinion could be a licence for disruption. WP practice is difficult to interpret. My understanding is that we should be aiming for a so-called 'rough consensus' - though I can't find a good definition of this. Consensus seems more applicable to less formal situations. Consensus decision-making is interesting but not WP policy. Then there is Polling is not a substitute for discussion. . . Some of this stuff looks pretty Utopian, particularly when large numbers of people are involved. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP Self
I put a note on the centralized discussion for clarification but no one has responded to me so I thought I would ask you directly. I was wondering if you could explain to me the authority of WP self. Is it a rule, just guideline or what? How strictly is it supposed to be followed? Thanks.Broadweighbabe (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That was very helpful. Thank you so much.Broadweighbabe (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Placeholders
Thanks for providing the link, and for all your work on the Dozono article. Van Tucky 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, my pleasure -- good luck with GA. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELF:PROMOTION
Hi there NW1-- not sure how closely you follow the talk page at WP:ORE (though I saw the nice compliment at VT's RfA), but I thought you might enjoy a blog I just started -- it's about collaboration, lots of it about Wikipedia. Check it out if you have a chance: Our New Mind -Pete (talk)
 * Thanks, Pete. I've been watching it -- it's on my bloglines. Good stuff. Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool -- I can see from the stats that it's getting read a bit, but it's nice to know something about who's keeping an eye on it. Glad you like what you've seen! -Pete (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Number" vs "Amount"
I apologize if this sounds like a nitpick, but on your next update of Image:2008 Democratic Primaries, Pledged Delegates by Date.png and Image:2008 Democratic Primaries, Superdelegates by Date.png, could you change "Amount needed" to "Number needed"? Technically, since the delegates and superdelegates are countable entities, it's considered better to use "number" instead of "amount". -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. I'm probably going to wait until next week after Pennsylvania. Thanks for catching that -- I like precision in word choice. Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Juxtaposition COTW
Howdy Ho WikiProject Oregon! Time for another installment of Collaboration of the Week. The last few weeks we’ve knocked out quite a few articles of our current state legislators, and even a few former ones too. Great job to all those who helped make it happen. On a related note, we have had several DYKs from this and now have 53 DYKs so far this year (not counting multiples), less than four full months into the year. Last year we had a total of 83 DYKs for the entire year, and 7 combined for 2006 & 2005. So we are well on our way to another record year. Each time an article makes it to the main page as a DYK it will typically get an extra 1000 hits, which is usually far more than the typical 100 hits per month most minor articles receive. With that said, this week we have two requests, Portland Lumberjax and Silicon Forest. As always, to opt out, opt in, or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your perspective?
I've been offline for the weekend. Not a lot seems to have happened though I've given up trying to read the big page. Just too long, though I have subpaged another section where I wasn't blocked from doing so.

I'm disappointed that there has been no progress towards conclusion. I think the problem now is that the minority see no reason to seek any compromise and prefer increasingly spoiling tactics. (I also think they are probably right from a tactical point of view!) Anyway I would be grateful for your perspective on this. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cottage Grove, Oregon images, etc.
Nice work finding the PD images. I had no idea Dorthea Lange photographed CG. Since I'm on a bit of a tear about SP stations in Oregon right now, I was happy to see the station in the image. I'm also planning to do some research on Farm Security Administration camps in Oregon. Like everything I do, it's mostly just a plan, but if I need help with illustrations, I'll be sure to ask you! Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question 6 at image placeholder discussion
You signed up to summarise this, so I thought I should let you know that I just now added a new slant on that issue, though I see now that the discussions are being closed down. Just thought I should drop you a note about this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BarCamp
Hey there, I don't know how convenient Portland is for you, but thought this might be of interest: BarCamp Portland is this weekend. (See also and .) It's a free conference, with lots of wiki-type folk, where you determine the agenda at the beginning...anyone interested in presenting or leading a discussion signs up to do so, and it evolves as it evolves. I went last year, and it was mind-altering in its coolness. Just thought it might be up your alley. Also, thanks for your kind words recently over at RFA. And for your continued efforts and levelheadedness at the image placeholder thingy. -Pete (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Help
I just uploaded an image titled on commons. I didn't get any warning about the name being taken. I am used to the image automatically appearing under the same name on en.wikipedia. However, it appears there is already a Image:Rosie the Riveter 2.jpg on en.wikipedia. How do I get my commons file to show up on en.wikipedia so that I can use it in an article? ThanksNorthwesterner1 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way I know is to rename it on Commons. May be another option, so I'm leaving helpme up. -Pete (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll just do that. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked  "Should the addition of this box [example right] ''be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" '' (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Please don't
Let's at least invite a mediatorto take a look first, huh? We've done good work...let's try to make it count for something. I know why you're frustrated..but I think just a little more will get us over the top. Give it another shot? -Pete (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I completely understand. I've taken a few breaks myself rather than get frustrated over particular editors' uncivil comments and attempts to derail sensible discussion and progress. I appreciate all your efforts to make the encyclopedia better and hope you will check back in when you feel up to it. There is no deadline and we will find a way to make things better. Cheers! Double Blue (Talk) 17:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Just wanted to say again how impressed I am with the JC photo map. I've never seen anything like it. I didn't know something like that could be done on Wikipedia. As for my zapped map, the story had a good ending. User:Howcheng almost immediately made a replacement using a different base map. This kept the article Discovery Expedition from losing its map, which would have been sad indeed. I also want to thank you specifically for defending the use of the Steve Johnson material. I would not have known how to argue that particular case, although I thought personally that my reference to his essay was reasonable. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a creek article like Johnson Creek, so we're even! Seriously excellent work. I posted a how-to guide for the maps here. I also made a map for Fanno Creek. Now all we need is an article (hint, hint). Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The explanation is excellent, although the photo map is far beyond anything I have attempted. I may have graduated from the high-chair stage of map-making, but I'm still not much past kindergarten. It's interesting that you mentioned Fanno Creek because I've been eyeing it and its woodsy cousin, Balch Creek, for a month or so. I've been thinking I might attempt stubs or shorties for these two and see where that leads. Balch Creek is an odd one that starts out all rushy at the top and ends up in a pipe for its last mile or so, if I remember correctly. Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, I'd be happy to help out with the articles. I pitched Fanno at WikiProject_Oregon/Collaboration. Not sure the same kind of photo map would work for Balch, because it's beneath the tree canopy of Forest Park for most of its length...Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cinco de COTW
Greetings once again from the Collaboration of the Week at WikiProject Oregon. Thank you to those who helped out with the last set of articles. This week we have the lone Stub class article left in the Top importance classification, Flag of Oregon, and by request, Detroit Lake. Help where you can, if you can. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FA
Just wanted to say thanks again for your help with JC, which made FA a few minutes ago. I've started on Fanno and Balch, as I'm sure you've seen. Each will have its own peculiarities, I feel certain, and it's hard to say where they might go. Your Fanno map is super. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the FA! I've uploaded new files for the photo maps and adjusted the preview as discussed on the JC talk page. Should work well for these types of articles in the future. I will do some thinking about a route map solution for Balch... Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Region map
Unless I did my math wrong, the southeast region on this map should be - Obama 267, Clinton 155 = Obama +112. Thanks. HoosierStateTalk 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like I forgot to update for North Carolina. However, I get Obama 268, Clinton 154. I'll fix it to those numbers.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Balch Creek
Yes, it appears that I got the mouth neighborhood wrong. Good catch. I changed it just now to Northwest Industrial neighborhood. Some doubt remains in my mind about where the water goes down there. I think the whole creek may be funneled into the new Big Pipe system rather than into the river. If so, that would mean that the mouth is the confluence with the pipe, an odd and interesting fact if true. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I drew the pipeline based roughly on the green line on the interactive map at Portland Online. Clearly, not an ideal source. I did read a little bit about the Big Pipe system. It sort of sounded to me that the big pipe was being used to collected sewer and stormwater runoff from the portion of the watershed within NW Industrial, but that the creek itself was routed separately to the river. If you are able to get this cleared up, let me know, and I'll fix the map. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I've been able to find so far, you are right about the plans to separate the clean creek water from the nasty water and send the clean water directly into the Willamette. Something called the Forest Park Separation Pipe is to carry the clean water, and the Balch Consolidation Conduit (BCC) is to carry the other stuff to the Nicolai Shaft of the West Side Big Pipe. Neither of these projects has been carried out yet, so Balch Creek is still flowing into the Willamette through the old pipe. I'll try to work this into the narrative of the Balch Creek article at some point. During my hunt for an answer to the mouth question, I found a document for the BCC with a lot of geologic info and other possibly useful stuff. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzz Oregon COTW
Howdy ya’ll, time for another Collaboration of the Week from WikiProject Oregon. Last week we improved Flag of Oregon & Detroit Lake, enough I think to move them to Start class, so great job everyone! This week, we have another request in Oregon Ballot Measure 47 and a randomly selected two sentence stub that should be easy to expand enough for a DYK in Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

popular vote map
when you edit it for this week's elections, mark FL and MI. Maybe with strips. Maybe a different color with the notation "disputed" or "special circumstances". They are not white like the other states. You can do this is a very neutral manner than is not pro-Hillary or Obama. Thanks for making the map.DianeFinn (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it can be done in a neutral manner, especially given that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan and therefore received no popular votes. If you would like to seek a wider consensus on this, I would suggest discussing in at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have misunderstood your point. If you're talking about offsetting them with a neutral color (like this) to make it clear that they've already voted -- unlike the white states of MT and SD -- I could certainly do that, good idea. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The shading is fine and very NPOV. I thought that keeping MI and FL white isn't quite right (may be seen as anti-Hillary) but shading those states Hillary isn't either (may be seen as anti-Obama).  A shading or different notation makes it clear the special circumstances surrounding those two states. DianeFinn (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the idea. I will shade FL/MI grey in the next update of the popular vote and pledged delegate maps.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

unassigned superdelegates
re: Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, Thanks, by following your suggestion and writing a footnote I realized the only delegate votes not counted on the other lines are 2 vacancies. Everyone else has a state, so goes on a state line in one of the tables. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
That list was helpful. The links in the regions column, by the way, are meant to be suggestive rather than point to a region with the exact boundaries. It might be useful to have in the region articles themselves short descriptions stating that the state tourism authority designates the boundaries of, say Eastern Oregon with these counties, the museum association uses that different boundary and the state parks department uses another designation for what it calls Eastern Oregon, etc. etc. I see you create maps. One day when I get the time I'm going to learn how to do that. Again, thanks for your help. Noroton (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

QWERTY: Oregon COTW
Hello WikiProject Oregon participants, time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week we made some great improvements to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Oregon Ballot Measure 47 (1996), with a DYK for the forest. Great job everyone! This week we have another stub, George Lemuel Woods, one of only two governor stubs left, and should be an easy job getting it to Start class. Then, in honor of the long weekend, we have our second State Park Article Creation Drive. Lots of red links to turn blue, lots of opportunities for DYKs. Help if you can, even if it is only adding pictures of state parks. To opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. May the The Schwartz be with you. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fanno
Thank you. It's coming along. I have a few more things to find like the total population of the watershed (if it's recorded somewhere or can be derived) and a couple more things to do like a watershed map before I'll feel reasonably satisfied. I'm also eager to return to Balch Creek; it needs lots of things. Finetooth (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams
I'm sorry I keep bugging you everytime but your diagrams need updated again. You've really got to teach how you do all these images/maps. They're great! :) HoosierStateTalk 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the reminder, I was holding out for those late Oregon returns. I'll try to get to it later today... Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Map
Hello, I was just wondering whether New Hampshire on the election pledged delegate map should be changed from tied to Obama now that Edwards' delegates have said they'll vote for him. Just a thought.MAC475 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A good question, and I'd like to hear others' thoughts. The current practice on the delegate maps is that I include changes that occur as a result of multiple events in caucus states (IA, NV, TX) but I don't include changes that occur as a result of pledged delegates announcing an intention to switch at the national convention (MD, NH). This seems to me the clearest representation of "election results." I posted about this and related issues at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, and we had a good conversation about the other issues, but I didn't get much of a response on this particular question. Perhaps a better place to have the conversation would be at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries where there are more graphs included.Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Knowing that you're aware of the issue is good enough. I'm quite happy for you to approach it as you see fit.MAC475 (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Slough map
The slough map looks great. It was a nice surprise this morning, and I thank you. Looks like a lot of information will be available for Columbia Slough, and it will be tricky and interesting. Finetooth (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yep, looks like a fun one to write, with all the floodplains and former channels and lakes that are now gone. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

X marks the WPOR COTW spot
Guten Tag WikiProject Oregon team members! Great job last week with the Collaboration of the Week, we improved George Lemuel Woods and added eleven new state park articles. This past week we also surpassed the 6000 article mark as a project. The weather may suck, but WPORE is not. For this week we have by request Music of Oregon and Phil Knight. Both need some help, and with Knight we might be able to improve it to GA standards. Once again, to opt out of these messages, leave your name here, or click here to make a suggestion. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Music of Oregon
Heads up, you might (if you haven't already) run into an edit conflict, sorry! I'm done for now though. Thanks for helping, this article has bugged me for ages! I added some WP:OR, feel free to tag, etc. but I know Foghorn is popular internationally, not sure that makes them notable... Katr67 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I've taken to editing in a notepad file on COTW. We should call it edit-conflict-of-the-week. :) This should be a fun one. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to know, because...I lied! Yes, it's exciting to see this finally get cleaned up! Katr67 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Seems to me that Portland's punk/grunge/indie contribution to American music and its jam-band/hippie festivals are more notable than, say, the University of Oregon's music education department." You might want to have a word on the talk page, thanks! Katr67 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes, thanks for the heads up.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Now the hook sounds better. I guess I better leave my MP3 player at home when I travel, just to avoid hassle. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops!
Thanks — I thought I'd checked the box that says "move talk page" as well, but it looks like I didn't. Or maybe when you've got to delete a page with history you've got to do the talk page separately. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Vote table
Go to realclearpolitics.com and you will see that my table is correct!

greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.190.160 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We are also using RealClearPolitics.com numbers. The problem is that your table has only four rows. There is clear talk page consensus for the table structure with eight rows. I see that the numbers are slightly outdated, according to RCP. If you'd like to update them, according to RealClearPolitics using the eight-row layout, you are welcome to do so. I'm waiting for the results to come in from Puerto Rico, and then I will update the tables myself. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But you should recognize that Florida is now automaticly included in the popular vote because of the desicions of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. So there should be less than 8 rows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.190.160 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The RBC came up with a political solution about how to seat Florida's delegates -- and they didn't count all pledged delegates; they cut the allocation in half. The RBC made no ruling on the popular vote, nor should they. The ruling does nothing to affect the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the popular vote. I sympathize with your view that those votes should be added to the totals; however, there are many reasons to believe that the vote was not an accurate reflection of the popular vote. At the time of the election, it was widely regarded by the political news media as a "beauty contest," and many people did not participate, believing that their votes would not count. Should we also count Washington state's "beauty contest" primary? The table notes clearly set up the Florida/Michigan dilemma and many other dilemmas in counting the popular vote. There is no "official popular vote count," as you seem to imply. We have to trust Wikipedia readers to make judgments for themselves about what numbers to include, and that means reporting the most comprehensive set of numbers, so that readers can see the underlying facts. I believe my position is well supported by other editors of the page. If you'd like to make a reasoned case for a change, you're welcome to do it on the article's talk page. However, your repeated insertion of your own view without establishing a consensus for that position is considered edit warring. all best, Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delegate Charts
Hello, it's me again. I was just wondering what you plan to do with the things showing the delegates Obama and Clinton get from each state (one arranged by winner, the other geographically, know the ones I mean?) now that Florida and Michigan have been decided.MAC475 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I plan to update them with the RBC results. The cartogram arranged by delegates, I will probably just make boxes sized according to the half-vote solution. The cartogram arranged geographically, I will probably have to make the boxes according to the half-size solution but leave a grey striped border around them indicating the previous size of the nullified delegation. (Otherwise the layout is way too complicated to do over.) Your thoughts? I've been waiting for the PR results, probably will get to it later this evening, so feel free to chime in before then.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds fine to me. I look forward to seeing it. Thanks.MAC475 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks brilliant! Well done.MAC475 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Region Map
In your Delegates by Region Map, the Western Region shows Clinton as the leader (the numbers not the color). Thanks, HoosierState</b><sup style="font-family:Latha; color:#003366;">Talk 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks like I transposed the numbers. I will fix tonight when I update for PR. Also, I screwed up your color correction on Alaska by working from an older document, but I'll fix that too. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another oops for your talk page...
I overlooked it and cut out to much at the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 page. Thanks for the fix. --Floridianed (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your work on the article. best, Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A is for Apple at COTW
Hello again to those of the WikiProject we call Oregon. Time for another edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to Music of Oregon and Phil Knight, great job everyone. This week, by request is the Applegate Trail, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, I’m trying something a little different, with the Portland State stuff. We included the two high profile schools during Civil War week last year, so now its time for the younger sibling that gets no respect to get some attention. After all, it is the largest college in the state. Feel free to help with whatever aspects you like, though to help with some ideas I added some to the article talk page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Nana na na, hey hey hey, goouud byeeee. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, thanks for the note. I'm just glad its been productive and well received. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
I appreciate the advice, and I'm not going to do post any other similar messages on people's talk pages unless I get more advice first. The last thing I want to do is generate any more disruption. Please forgive me if the rest of this is more interesting to me than it is to you: Tony the T's message surprised me. I hadn't thought of my notes today as being a violation of WP:CANVASS. (I'm certain the earlier notes like the one I sent you are not in any way violations.) Twice now, I've reread WP:CANVASS, and it surprised me that Tony's way of reading it holds up as well as the meaning I took from it. (I always thought it only applied to contacting people not already involved in the discussion -- but now I see you don't have to read it that way.) I'm very doubtful that what I did was specifically what was contemplated by the people who have written WP:CANVASS, because of the assumptions that seem to be behind the way it is written, but it may violate the spirit of it anyway (something I've never seen before). As I think about it now, even advocating for a compromise, even a compromise that waters down (two or three times over) what I really want is still advocating for a partisan (by which I mean "my side") solution. When I got your message I was looking over the WP:CANVASS talk page and I saw a May 20 request for advice that centered on the exact same kind of situation. (It got no reply.)

You mentioned WP:CONSENSUS. Actually, as I look over that one again, I think everything I was doing was within both the spirit and letter of that policy, especially the "How consensus emerges during the editing process", and the next two sections.

I have a minor disagreement with what you wrote (or whether it's about rounding up enough "votes" to "overturn" consensus among editors actively working on the article). Well, part of that is absolutely what I'm doing, and quite openly. I don't see it as a goal of any Wikipedia policy or guideline to particularly support consensus among those who happen to be editing an article if you can overturn it with a wider consensus of other editors. I've been very open about that being my goal all along (I said so early on at a posting at AN/I when someone went there to bring up the page's edit warring). I think the previous (and now probably ongoing) consensus there was POV. Overturning that by bringing in more editors, of course, is not necessarily contrary to a desire to have an informed and reasoned discussion about improving the article, but you probably didn't mean to say it was.

What I find interesting is that the POV I see in many of the editors is in several cases based on sincere differences of opinion about how noteworthy something should be to be included, how important the public interest is in how our articles include or exclude information, and how to interpret WP:BLP. It's not a simple question of POV-pushing at all, among many of the editors. Among some of the other editors on both sides, I think there's some immaturity, which probably has a lot to do with, ah, the chronologically challenged. Ultimately, the best thing for that page would be a larger group of editors watching and participating. Sorry for the amount of verbiage, but writing this helped me think through some of it. Noroton (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be a fast reader. ;) Noroton (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * --Blechnic (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors needed to address this issue long ago. As far as I can tell half of Wikipedia is plagiarized.  I noticed your articles first yesterday, but was not overly concerned because of your edit history--I assumed it was public domain material.  However I could not find this information anywhere else.  I known I sounded irritated in my AN/I post, and I apologize to you for this, as I posted overly hasty due to the article being in DYK, and I posted without acknowledging my prior conclusions about the likely situation in the article: ie, public domain, simply needed the credit.  --Blechnic (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I understood your larger concern, and I recognized that your tone had more to do with other plagiarized articles than with these ones. I sometimes play fast and loose with public domain material because I'm a good fun-loving communist, but you are right that carefully noting the public domain status improves the article. All good. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah hah!, I knew you were a pinko, that's what sent my radar up in the first place.... --Blechnic (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI follow up
See here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ecoregions of the United States
As to the former, I had rather assumed that noting that the contributions were the product of the EPA would imply public domain status. (But thanks for actually double-checking it!) As to the split: the current page is 67 kb long, which under the guidelines is about twice as long as an article should be. It all depends on whether the page is going to stay in its current state. If we want to leave the descriptions on that page, then it should be split by header into several lists that are accessible from this main page. But if all we're doing is sorting and storing the EPA material before shoving all of it into ecoregion pages, we don't need to do that. Alba (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Balch Creek
Hi Northwesterner. I finally made a Census-based map for the Balch Creek infobox and posted it today. I think the article is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-illustrated, has no problems with licenses, is neutral and stable, and, I always hope, well-written. Since you are, I think, the only other editor who has contributed to the page, I thought I'd ask if you agree that it's ready for peer review and a run at GA. Fanno is almost ready too, but I need to do a map and fix a couple of other things first. Finetooth (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Finetooth, sorry, I saw your note on the talk page, but I haven't had a chance to respond. Absolutely, it is a very strong article and more than ready for peer review and GA. Fanno also. I have been hoping to get some time to go through them and do a thorough edit, but I've been busy offline. Thanks for all your hard work. I'll try to help out with these as you get closer to FA. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. I agree with your removal of the photo map from Balch, by the way, for the reasons you gave. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Xtra COTW
Greeting once again WikiProject Oregon Folks. Time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. First, thank you to those who helped out on the last few COTWs. This week we have the soon to open Westside Express Service, formerly the Washington County Commuter Rail, so lets see if we can get it up to WPORE standards. Then there is a Coordinates Drive to add coordinates to any articles currently missing them, to help increase readership by allowing them to be shown on Google Earth/Maps. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Celilo
So, I nominated Celilo Falls for GA, and it's been reviewed and placed on hold. The central issue (no surprise here) is the confusion of focus between the waterfall, the stretch of river also including the Dalles and the Narrows, and the village/trading post. Could you weigh in? I think it's going to take some more shuffling of content among related articles to really get this right, and I think you have the best mind for that stuff of any of us, so I hope you have the time to give it a little more thought. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pete. I saw the review. Sorry, I've been missing in action. I've been really busy elsewhere. I do hope to get to the Celilo revisions, and I'm sure we can make the necessary improvements. There are a few other things I've been meaning to do with it also. Unfortunately, it might be a few weeks before I can get to the GA comments. If it fails before then, we can always renominate. I'll try to get to it as soon as I can... Hope all else is going well... Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Qrazy sale at COTW! Act now! Total liquidation!
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week! Last week we saw some good improvements made to Westside Express Service, while we also worked on a Coordinates Drive. I don’t know how many articles had the coordinates added to, but thanks to those who helped out. This week we have two more requests: William Clark of Lewis & Clark fame and the famed Oregon Bottle Bill. Hopefully we can work both up to B class. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

B Reactor news
Hi, i enjoyed contributing a little, and watching you develop, the Hanford Site article. There's a good chance the B Reactor will be designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark and announced, with a batch of others, any day now. It's a big deal, there have not been any new NHLs announced for a long time, this will be in the news. I have started an expansion of the B Reactor article in a sandbox at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NHLsandbox2. Wonder if you would contribute and/or take the lead on developing this, for moving into mainspace as one big update to the existing B Reactor article, quickly after the announcement? I've added reference link to the big NHL nomination document for the site, which has a wealth of info. doncram (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, the B Reactor was in fact designated a NHL, but it was pretty quietly done. I only just learned it happened, at least 4 days later.  There were some AP and other news articles, some now linked from B Reactor, and i added the NHL nomination document to the article.  I thought it would be bigger news, that this would be announced with other NHL designations in a batch, but it is the only one out of a batch of 17 NHL nominations that seems to have been accepted.  It still is a big deal, in my view, but it sure has been quiet.  Cheers, doncram (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Summer Time in the COTW
Hello again to those of the WikiProject Oregon Clan. Time for another new edition of Collaboration of the Week. Last week there was some good improvements to William Clark and the legendary Oregon Bottle Bill, great job to those who helped out. This week, by request is the Owyhee Reservoir, which is short enough to easily conjure up a DYK. Then, also by request is a red link elimination drive on Oregon newspapers. Feel free to help out with either. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

EPA ecoregion text
Want to follow up your EPA communications by checking if ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/us/useco_desc.doc is US Gov PD? It is not clear if the material published by the multinational group is PD, but this thing labeled a Draft has a higher probability of being EPA work. You might also point out that the Draft label on the document might be obsolete if it has now been considered published. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I don't mind following up on this. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Zebras are not allowed to participate at COTW, but penguins may
Howdy ya’ll, its WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week time! Thanks to those who helped improve Owyhee Reservoir and start some new Oregon newspaper article, we had four new ones. This week it is time for a Stub Improvement Drive. So select a Stub, any Stub, and try to improve it to at least a Start class. If you expand it by 5X, then think about nominating it at Did You Know so it can be featured on the main page. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1 Year of the Collaboration of the Week
Hello again to those of WikiProject Oregon. It is time again for another Collaboration of the Week. The last two weeks were a Stub Improvement Drive, and thank you to those who improved any Stubs.

This week marks the one week anniversary of the COTW, so a brief highlight reel: And now on with our countdown. This week we have two requests, the Willamette Meteorite and Tom McCall. Hopefully we can get both to GA quality. Click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least 10 DYKs
 * Three articles passed GA after being listed at COTW
 * Probably around 25 articles started
 * Almost all Top importance articles are now better than Stub class

Jim N E Cricket, its another Oregon Collaboration of the Week
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it is time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week! A big thanks to those who helped out in improving Tom McCall and the Willamette Meteorite last week. This week we have a request for Mr. Greg Oden who has been back in the news as of late, so hopefully we can get him up to B class before training camp starts. Then we have a Hospital red link drive with plenty of opportunity for DYKs! As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Bu bye. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ssssh, Be Very Very Quiet, its Oregon COTW time
Howdy folks, its time for this week’s edition of Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, great job the last two weeks with Greg Oden & the Hospital red link drive. We had close to ten new hospital articles and two DYKs plus other improvements to the list itself. So thank you to those who helped out. This week, we have on a sad note Kevin Duckworth, and the Statesman Journal. Duckworth should have plenty of sources so hopefully in tribute we can get his article up to standards. With the SJ, hopefully we can get it above a stub so all three of the top three papers are no longer stubs, and maybe even a DYK and GA like we got from the Register-Guard? Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Hasta la bye bye. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008
You are invited to contibute to the deletion discussion on this page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing image placeholders
I imagine, like me, you'd like to forget all the ugliness behind the debate on placeholders but I was recently made aware of a bot request to remove all instances of the image placeholders. I have sent this message to inform you of it as well since I recall you as an active participant in the discussion and should be able to shed some light on the wisdom of the bot request. Regards, Double Blue  (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ORE COTW Version 2.2
Hello WikiProject Oregon contributors. It's time for another COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Kevin Duckworth and the Statesman Journal last week, we received another DYK for the SJ. This week, by request we have Mr. Ken Kesey and not by request Nike, Inc.. Nike is the only Start class article in the top 30 of those articles selected for the hard copy edition, and it could easily be improved to B class. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Red red links make me feel so fine...
Greetings WikiProject Oregon editors. It's time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped improve Ken Kesey and the Nike, Inc. last week. This week, by request we have the Northwest Forest Plan and then a Red Link Elimination Drive. For the red links, pick any one you want from any article, the list provided is just to help make it easier. And if you get a good article started, don’t forget to nominate it for a DYK. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Very Special COTW, act now!
Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the COTW. Thank you to those who helped eliminate some red links the last few weeks (the NWFP received little attention). This week, we have the stub High Desert Museum and then in honor of losing airline service again, McNary Field. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Sail wagon edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 29, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-29.  howcheng  {chat} 05:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

XXX<-COTW->XXX
Howdy WikiProject Oregon humans. Time for another edition of the C to the O to the T to the W. Thanks to those who help out on McNary Field and Bend’s High Desert Museum. For this week, we shall tackle Bridges on US 101 and then with the last few days of decent weather, The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. Plenty of red links on the bridge list, or improve a stub! Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi NWner1,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Rosie_the_Riveter_(Vultee) DS.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 13, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-13.  howcheng  {chat} 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Elect the Best Financed, Least Offensive Person For the Job (aka Oregon COTW)
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Harvest Time @ COTW
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Zero Down, Zero Interest at the Oregon COTW
Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Very cold, must type about the Oregon COTW to stay warm
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week HQ. Since there was no notice last time, thanks to those who helped improve Mike Riley and Mike Bellotti at the begging of the month and to those who helped create Oregon Department of Justice and Lindsay Applegate last week. Those last two were the red links with lots of links to them from other articles (DOJ was #1). For this week, in honor of Arctic Blast/Winter Storm/Damn its Freakin’ Cold Outside 2008/Storm of the Century/Is there ANYTHING else going on in the world?/We Might Actually Have a White Christmas, we have Snow Bunny. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have state senator Margaret Carter, which could easily be turned into a nice DYK entry once expanded 5X. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas/Hanukah/ Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Favor related to Columbia Slough photo map
Hi NW1. I nominated Columbia Slough yesterday at FAC. The image reviewer, User:Awadewit, has raised a question about the photo map, File:Columbia River Slough (small).jpg. She writes: "Could we link to the appropriate location at the USGS for the source? Also, could you list what sources you used to make the image, rather than just saying 'various sources'? Thanks." Would it be possible for you to add this information to the image description at the Commons? It would help make things go smoothly. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion at FAC led to a work-around. I read your map tutorial again, which answered question 1, and I compiled a list of three maps that among them have the supplemental data. I added a note explaining this to your existing image description at the Commons. Awadewit found this acceptable, and I believe the problem is solved. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Columbia Slough photo map
I just saw the photo map via a link on the Columbia Slough FAC page and wanted to congratulate you on some darn fine work. That's a beautiful piece of artistry, and extremely informative to boot! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)