Noroton
On Wikibreak
I'm off to fix the world, which I expect will take one to three weeks. While I'm gone, please don't wreck the place. I'll be back for brief moments to tweak the 'pedia in a few things I just can't trust you other 2 million editors with, but otherwise you're on your own. Try to handle it responsibly, will ya?
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Newbie user
Hmm, I could see how that could veer off course into personal attack territory, and I understand your concerns - But on the other hand I feel some sternness may be needed when it seems like the new user is either not understanding that he has to follow these comments or is willfully disregarding them. I'll look at that and see what to do. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder how dropping the "You know" would work. AFAIK it doesn't get into personal attack or incivility territory but it still shows urgency... - It reads like this: "When you get messages from others on your talk page, please pay attention to them." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I switched to please respond - And I like that even better when I think about it :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:PostcardWinchesterINBigFourRailroadDepotCirca1919.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PostcardWinchesterINBigFourRailroadDepotCirca1919.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Reformatting tables in museum lists
I see you have reformatted several state table listings. I understand that you may find it easier to edit, but I find the other system easier, particularly for long lists. Please do not change other state list formats unless you add a major number of museums to the lists. Thanks. Jllm06 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope to eventually work on all the museum lists that need attention. I'm wondering if your monitor may be smaller than mine, so that the listings I use may be too wrapped on your screen. I can work with your system, but for very long lists, like in New York and even CT, I have to scroll down so far that it's extremely time consuming. I'll try to leave extra spaces if that helps. I don't want to make things harder, but I do want to help make as complete a list of museums for each state as possible. Jllm06 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
ED
You bought something yourself- that's very dedicated!
|
The Citation Barnstar | |
| As it's slightly less boring than some of the relevant barnstars, awarded for parting with your own monies to find out more about an alleged source of notability for an article. Merkin's mum 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
I like your style, but I still think you're way off base on your interpretation of notability guideilnes. Still, I don't think I'm accomplishing much in that discussion, so I'm just going to let it go. No hard feelings, happy editing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oregon regions
This is following the museum association map. The tourism map may differ slightly...
- Coast -- All of Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Coos, Curry counties. Portions of Douglas and Lane counties (Anything west of Scottsburg on Hwy 38 and Mapleton on Hwy 126, including those cities).
- Southern -- All of Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Lake counties. Most of Douglas County (except as noted in Coast).
- Willamette Valley -- All of Yamhill, Polk, Linn, Marion, Benton counties. Most of Lane County (except as noted in Coast).
- Eastern -- All of Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Union, Grant, Wheeler, Malheur, Harney counties.
- Central -- All of Crook, Deschutes, Sherman counties. Most of Wasco County except cities along I-84.
- Mount Hood/The Gorge -- All of Hood River County. Cities in Wasco County along I-84. Eastern portions of Multnomah and Clackamas counties. It looks like the line they draw puts the cities of Sandy and Estacada to the west (in the Portland Metro) region. Everything on Hwy 26 east of that would be in this region, as well as everything on I-84 east of Crown Point State Park, including Multnomah Falls, Bonneville, etc.
- Portland Metro -- All of Columbia and Washington counties. Portions of Multnomah and Clackamas counties west of the line described above.
Best. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Noroton, for all your hard work on List of museums in Oregon. Please don't overdo it and wear yourself out! Seriously though, the summary for Antique Powerland might be a bit long. I'm mostly worried that you worked too long writing that; not that a thorough summary isn't appreciated. How complete do you think the list is, in terms of the number of entries? —EncMstr (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- No one is even slightly interested in deleting the article. It's likely to attract further work though, perhaps even by myself. I'm certainly in no hurry: I'll wait until long after you're done. —EncMstr (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and Question
Thank you for directing me to WP:REDLINK. I have been working on the project "Red Link Recovery, Possibly Unwanted", and the items look as if they do not need teir own page. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery/Possibly_unwanted). Is this correct? I'd appreciate any advice on the topic. Thanks!
Thanks!
Thank you very much for the barnstar! I feel I have done far too little on Naked short selling, I have worked mostly on Patrick M. Byrne. I also think Overstock.com is not a very good article, and I hope I will have time to work more on that in the future. Thanks again! Regards, Huldra (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is WP:OWNed by a small but extremely dedicated group of Obama campaign volunteers, who rely on the fact that on any given day, WP:3RR allows them more reverts than the three or four people interested in WP:NPOV who happen to be interested in that article that day. If everyone who is not an Obama campaign volunteer would show up on the same day, a consensus against them would be clearly established. If you would like to discuss this further, e-mail me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Barack Obama
Let's see how the edits I put in go over first. 68.63.169.49 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Whoops. That was from me.. Floorsheim (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What's going to change in "several days"? I started getting "Afrocentric"(cited) as a description of Obama's church reverted out six months ago. Andyvphil (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Afro-centric: how can I augur some sense of this term? Would it apply if Trinity had preached as part of The Gospel a sort of communal sense of redeption? Partially involving resentment against anti-African American social contraints? Or even a somewhat formalized liberation theology? Well, whatever this is, exactly. (I'll admit it to you guys, I support Barack; vote Democrat in 2008!) :^) — Justmeherenow ( ) 12:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But...back to contributing to Wikipedia: Jeez! where'd Floorsheim go? — Justmeherenow ( ) 12:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment (times 2)
I respectfully request you to humor me (if possible) with
- INPUT re a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles, both here and here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 08:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Input from Pump
Sorry for misplacing my thoughts on the pump page. I added some of my thoughts on the Obama talk page. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Bill Ayers
Today I noticed you put your notification of the Barack Obama article in Bill Ayers, but not Bill Ayers election controversy - which is where all this information belongs, and where Wikipedians working on this information would actually see it. Flatterworld (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Re your comments on my Talk page: Plenty of perfectly sincere people believe in libel in various articles, but I am not one of them. If you would check the history of the above article, you would see I believe in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I work on Wikipedia, NOT Conservapedia or anything else along those lines. Consensus is one thing, negotiating to agree that 2 +2 = 9 is absurd. Flatterworld (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
re: Delay on Barack Obama proposal
Sorry for being out of commission for so long. Am in the middle of moving. Should have given a heads up, my bad. Next time, just go ahead without me. On the bright side, I think we've managed to sway Lulu and scjessey off some of their exclusionist leanings. Will be on again Sunday. --Floorsheim (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Noroton
For your kind words on my Talk page. This completely defeats any argument by Scjessey along the lines of "this article is different from all the rest like John McCain or Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush, because we're using summary style." This demolished his entire "summary style" argument very thoroughly. He uses the "summary style" argument to banish negative material to satellite articles that no one ever reads. But the "summary style" doesn't seem to apply when talking from the Obama campaign's list of talking points, regarding his political positions and his few years in the Senate. That sounds like Obama's campaign manager talking. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- First, I'd like to narrow down the choice to 4, 5 or some combination thereof, as a compromise that is acceptable (even if not terribly attractive) to both sides. Then the next step would be to iron out the details of the compromise. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Waiting....
As per your request I'm waiting on the Bill Ayers-related articles. I think you're going way overboard on BLP and criticism stuff, but I respect your insight and thoughtfulness as an editor. So I'll wait at least until morning. I also started a discussion on the Bill Ayers article. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
latest quest for consensus
I'm the second highest contributor to the article, Noroton - I know it's one of the most prominent. I'll take a look, but please note that I didn't vote or !vote - I expressed an opinion. We don't vote or tally votes about these things - that's not how to achieve consensus - and frankly I'm not too happy with the way these discussions have developed on the talk page so I'm attempting to avoid it. However, I'll take another look and see if I am moved to express another opinion. Tvoz/talk 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure that's really the best way to achieve consensus, by wearing people down - but I'll take a look later on tonight. By the way, we've had plenty of controversy on this page over the last year or more, and in the past we've reached real consensus on numerous things. Right now there are some POV pushers who may not let that happen which is a shame. We'll see. I remind you - this is not an article about a political candidate, it's supposed to be a biography of a notable individual - his whole life and career, not just a few hot items that some people want to use as cudgels against his candidacy. Tvoz/talk 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It is O.K. if you want to contact us for subsequent votes, but instructing us how to change our votes is a form of WP:CANVASSing, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I agree with TonytheTiger that posts on user talk pages regarding this issue have not been in keeping with the spirit of WP:CANVASS and WP:CONSENSUS. Noroton, I believe you personally have approached this in good faith, but some of the other editors involved (with whom you have communicated) have been aggressively cross-posting, edit warring, etc. Those actions have called into question whether this process is motivated by a desire to have an informed and reasoned discussion about improving the article or whether it's about rounding up enough "votes" to "overturn" consensus among editors actively working on the article. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like collusion. On the whole, I don't think your requests for comment have been particularly egregious, but I would ask you to keep WP:CANVASS in mind going forward, so that your actions are not lumped in with the actions of others that have damaged the process.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)