User talk:Peteforsyth

archive 1 here --> /archiveJan07

archive 2 here --> /archiveJune07

archive 3 here --> /archiveAug07

Couple barnstars…gotta get these into the proper home!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, David Shankbone, bestow upon you, Sir Pete Forsyth, the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for your diligent work in defending you-know-what article against you-know-who, and for being an all around cool Wikipedian. David Shankbone 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		The Wiki Wiffle Bat is an award given to those who have shown exceptional skill in the area(s) of logic, rationality, dispute resolution/mediation particularly in the face of flames and general animosity. These people keep swinging in the face of long odds and distant goals! Thanks for your work in mediation type activities with Dante's. Aboutmovies 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC) & Katr67[reply]

		The COTW award from WPOR.
		Thanks for leading the way in last week's Collaboration of the Week! Great job leading the way with Hooley, the article looks a whole lot better. Aboutmovies 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude.
		You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at WikiProject Oregon! Thank you especially for your work on Barlow Road. It really needed fresh eyes to organize it. —EncMstr

Oregon System

I came across this, you might find it useful. Aboutmovies 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative Initiative

Hello! I came across your userpage and the Oregon Legislative Initiative, to get Oregon state produced works released into the PD or licensed under CC. I would have to think this would also apply to institutionally-produced materials at each of the OUS institutions. Or does each institution (for example, the University of Oregon or UO Libraries) retain copyright on their products? This could potentially open up another stream of PD materials that might be available. akendall _(talk) 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to help - particularly where copyright held by the state universities is concerned - sign me up! akendall _(talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in, and the offer for copyeditin' still stands. Keep me in the loop via e-mail or whatever. Katr67 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I feel strongly that the work paid for by the people belongs to the people. Let me know how I can help on any aspect of the Oregon Open Content Initiative Duff 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright item

Something of interest for laws/copyrights I found at Wikipedia:Public domain: Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level and the public record of any court case are in the public domain. [2] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign.[5]

So I guess were a free to add laws to Wiki. Aboutmovies 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks for sharing that with me. It seems like common sense, but I've always had trouble justifying it in discussions that pop up. This will be vey useful! -Pete 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US chapters

Have you been following this thread? Have you and your buddies thought about organizing an OR or PNW chapter? Seems to be right up you alley ;) 76.105.183.50 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is! Local Wikimedia chapters…sounds like an excellent idea. Thanks to the tip…wish I knew who to thank! -Pete 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just your local friendly admin who prefers to avoid social and political entanglements on en. You should sign up for Wikien-l, Foundation-l and wikipedia-l if you haven't already. Use a gmail account, since it automatically collapses the treads, otherwise the lists are unreadable. (About one out of twenty posts are worth reading)

O-vanish irony

~~On your User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish page, two of your links listed after "See my comments here..." are now dead. Of course, they link to Oregonian articles. Heh.~~ Never mind, I was clicking the links that you intentionally listed as dead.

I was wondering if you had written to anyone at the Oregonian to complain about the problem, and suggest a solution a la the NYTimes archives. Since you can access older articles using their paid archives and see a free preview, I don't understand why they can't make newer articles available that way. Perhaps a friendly letter pointing out how it makes Oregon look pretty rinky-dink might get some action. I'd be happy to co-sign such an article, or participate in a letter-writing campaign to get this fixed. --Sprkee 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not spoken directly to Michael Arrieta-Walden, who I believe is the right target for such a letter/call. Kari Chisholm of BlueOregon has, though (see this comment.) I agree that a letter signed by several people would be a good idea. Can you work up a draft? I could probably get Kari to sign on, and maybe a few other high-profile sorts. I'd say the main points to hit are:

rinky-dinkness (love that term!) Definitely focus on the embarassing image it gives the Oregonian, and how far it goes toward advancing the notion that they don't "get" new media.
compare to other local sources (the Tribune, WW, and Merc all do just fine by their readers) and national sources (as you say, the NYT and many others do fine by their readers and have a viable strategy to draw revenue for old stories)
economic development
public safety (these two are Kari's angle)
the general interest of providing for the dissemination of good information (tie in with Oregonian's editorial mission?)
list a few real-world scenarios of where it causes a problem (Wikipedia, blog posts, Kari's public safety example…)

Glad to know you're interested in this, I think we should make something happen!

-Pete 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, me? You wrote it already above!

I'll try to take a crack at it at some point soon and email it to you when I do. I did discover a backdoor workaround of sorts: If you use their old archive search at http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/ you do get a list of articles with a brief summary. It seems to work even for recent articles. It's much better than their ballyhooed new! improved! search that seems mostly to search local businesses and the contents of the OregonLive blogs. --Sprkee 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Measure 42 paragraph

Sorry about not getting a response on the Bill Sizemore talk page very quickly. I was packing up to go to college, so I didn't have much in the way of spare time. The paragraph is good enough (though still uses some POV word choice IMHO), so I'm not going to raise any more protest; I support reverting. - Pingveno ( talk | contrib ) 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWednesday time again

Hi Pete --

Sorry for the late notice, but we're having another WikiWednesday get-together tomorrow, 5 September, & I was wondering if you were available. The general idea is to invite a bunch of people from the local wiki and open source community to the new AboutUs space around 6:30ish and then have a social event that's also a work party. For a work party we thought, let's all come with an idea or two on something we can build/write/contribute to WikiHow and spend an hour or two barnraising there.

Time: 6:30p

Location: The Aboutus.com offices,
107 SE Washington, Ste 520
Portland OR 97214

In case you arrive and the door is locked, you can call Tak Kendrick (503-863-6954) a call, and either he'll come down to open the door -- or send someone down to do it.

Hope to see you there. -- llywrch 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sohappy v. Smith

I bet this is related to the Boldt Decision (U.S. v. Washington), which I learned about when I was studying the Nisqually River. Katr67 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case

Pete, I went in and moved the case to Sohappy v. Smith, which is what the Oregon case was combined with, and thus its official name. I also removed the Supreme court part since it was only decided at the federal district court level. Though according to one article you cited it is still being litigated so maybe one day it will go to the Supreme Court. If you have no objection I'm going to make the U.S. v Oregon a disam page since there are two SCOTUS cases with the almost excat same name plus this case. Aboutmovies 03:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR COTW

First off, great job to all WikiProject Oregon folks for last week’s List of Oregon State Parks work. We pounded out six new state park articles: Sarah Helmick, Bald Peak, Bob Straub, Sumpter Valley Gold Dredge, Tumalo, and Peter Skene Ogden. Plus numerous other edits to improve the existing articles. As a reward, we are introducing the COTW award {{WPOR COTW award}}, and this time it goes to User:Woodstein52 for starting three of the articles.

On to this week. We are back to the usual two Top importance Stubs: Sunstone and Oregon, My Oregon. Both are stub pluses, so it shouldn’t take much to upgrade them both. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from User:Daryl-Hunter

Hi. I noticed you put one of the pictures from User:Daryl-Hunter up for deletion. You might want to look at some of the other pictures he has posted as well - they are similar in nature with low resolution, and some are tagged with copyright notices. Have a good day. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Claimsikins

Thanks for warning him, but next time, try substing templates. Like this:

Instead of {{uw-vandalism1}}, try {{Subst:uw-vandalism1}}.

Happy editing! Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 05:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've suggested a rename of the Gray Sails the Columbia River article here. VanTucky ^Talk 02:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Columbia River

Hey Pete...which comes first? Portland or Vancouver? Hummmmm????? WikiDon 03:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Don, I don't know. All I know is that they're both downstream of Tri-Cities. Did I make a mistake? How about you fix it? -Pete 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Morley (Oregon Politician)

A tag has been placed on Richard Morley (Oregon Politician), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR Collaboration: 09172007

All righty WPOR ladies and gentleman, great job last week with our state song and gemstone. I have bumped them up to Start class. I haven’t looked at the contributions, so the COTW award will be later. This week’s articles are Darlene Hooley, by special request, and another Top stub, our very own state rock, the Thunderegg. Yes, apparently we have a state rock and state gemstone. No word on whether there is a state stone too. Hooley basically needs some sources to make it to the next level. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. In the words of Beaver Joe, whoop! Aboutmovies 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwednesdays

Hey, in responding to the Wikipedia Signpost's reader survey question about stories they failed to cover I gave them a heads up about the PDX meetup and the movement in general. Hopefully they'll dig it and write a story. Cheers, VanTucky ^Talk 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Archive your talk already, it's getting absurd ;)

Anna wilding

I am a bit offended and frankly miffed that you have accused me of nominating an article because of "difficult" editors, after 20,000 edits, if I nominated every article that had those, I'd be nominating over half of the articles I edit. I came across the article on AN/I - investigated the sources presented, removed sources that were not WP:RS and determined that it should be AFD'd. No the conduct of people on that article has not been great but that is never the reasoning I use for nominating. --Fredrick day 17:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was probably too hasty on that one, and certainly didn't mean to impugn your character or anything like that. I hope my amended !vote clarifies things… -Pete 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall WPOR COTW

Welcome to autmun and the weekly COTW news. Great job to those who helped out with last week’s articles: Darlene Hooley & Thunderegg. Both made great improvements. This week, something a little different. With fall upon us, the photo ops are going to be harder to get, so we have a photo request fulfillment drive. Take a look at the requested pictures for Oregon category or the graphics subproject for what’s needed. Then go take a picture, or search online for a free picture to upload (US gov sites are great and there are links available from the above links). If you fill a request, be sure to remove the request template from the article’s talk page. Our other item is another red link removal drive, this time on the flagship Oregon article. Like the state parks red link drive, try to coordinate on the talk page. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(w)Hooley's yo mamma

(moved up)

Richard Morley

Hi - in response to your request, I've restored the article on Richard Morley and moved it into your userspace. It's now at User:Peteforsyth/Richard Morley. You can work on it there, and the whole page history should be moved along with it, so you can look at old revisions (if any). When you're done with it, if you want it deleted, just tag it with {{db-userreq}} and an admin will come along and delete it for you. Hope that helps - let me know if you have any questions. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Merkley

Hey Pete, can you check Merkley's article and make sure it's not too much like a page in the Voters' Pamphlet? Thanks! Katr67 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bump to make sure you saw this. Katr67 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it -- I'll get to it soon! Sorry, I've been a bit too crazed to take on anything more than little minimal edits recently. Thanks for the heads-up, though! -Pete 20:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Steve Novick. Ah, election season! Katr67 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Marmots

Hey, is Marmot Dam anywhere near the actual locale of Marmot? I'd like to mention it in the article if so. (I don't suppose you took any pics of the place while you were in the area?) Katr67 04:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the dam is right near the bustling metropolis of Marmot. To tell the truth, if I had been able to identify Marmot -- maybe it was the section of road where there were two or three ranches/driveways all within a mile or so of one another? -- I might have been able to find the damn dam, which I wasn't. Didn't take any photos there, there's nothing remotely as interesting as a post office. I guess I saw a pretty nice stone wall at one point… -Pete 20:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW

I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!

As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR CoTW: Don Schollander & Conde McCullough

Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSC

Yes, it's OK. :) Katr67 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOregon COTW

Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Nuther cute wikitrick

Hi Peter - I went to Valentinian's page to check out the "colored page background" you described in your section on wikitricks, and found yet ANOTHER interesting one! illustrated here. (Doesn't stand out so well if you try to edit the whole page, though - well, win some lose some-- Hugs, Martha 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Goldschmidt

Pete, I've reverted the anon IP's edits again. I'm not happy with the attitude they are giving in terms of reverting without dicussing the changes and assuming consensus. If you have time, please help me keep an eye on this one. Davidpdx 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you guys didn't handle the Neil Goldschmidt situation very well. I made edits in good faith, and I was ganged up on and attacked. I hope you get a chance to review the Wikipedia pillars again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.129.39 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you...

...worked your magic trick on the Oregonian refs in the Portland Aerial Tram article so they don't go dead? VanTucky ^Talk 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week

Howdy doody ya’ll WPOR poke, time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on Portland Police Bureau and improving the references at Oregon. This week we are back to Stubs with Eastern Oregon and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-Gil

'Tweren't me, it was that Aboutmovies, he scooped both of us! If you would like to save his Catholic newspaper image, that one's still left. I was going to contact someone who's worked on the article it illustrates, but really there's no one. Sad... Katr67 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia River

I would perform a GA review on the article except that I made a number of edits to the article in the past (though nearly all of them pre-date the beginning of your excellent contributions). I didn't regard my changes as controversial, but reasonable people may disagree. Of course I'll accede to the community consensus. Myasuda 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM ala COTW

Ladies and Gentlemen its time for another episode of Collaboration of the Week. Last week’s show starring Fort Vancouver National Historic Site & Eastern Oregon received high ratings. This week’s show star two more stubs, Johnny Kitzmiller & John Wesley Davis. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Don’t delay, act today! Aboutmovies 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the troll

I think we have an honest-to-goodness troll. Don't feed. That is all. Katr67 10:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New COTW

Hello again from WikiProject Oregon. A round of applause for the project in October when we added three GAs, one FA, plus 10 DYKs! Next, thanks to all those who participated in last week’s Collaboration of the Week, John Wesley Davis & Johnny Kitzmiller. This week we have the Cayuse War, and in honor of the home opener, the Portland Trail Blazers. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Vitter RFC

Could you please leave your comments at a Davit Vitter RFC? The issue is mostly about process -- is Wikipedia an encyclopdia? Does it have rules? etc. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, ASOH's response to the suggested rewrite was, "I have decided to remove myself for a couple days from this in order to let others take a look and chime in." Hence the RFC. Thanks! Liking all the nice foggy weather? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input -- I always appreciate a "saner" voice participating providing some perspective. Working with you on the Wilson article gave me that confidence that you would help corral the editors (including me, natch) into a more even-handed approach. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia River

Glad to be of assistance and sorry it did not pass. I will keep it on my watchlist for vandals and the like, but perhaps a better way to get my feedback on improvements would be to ask periodically (i.e. section A is done - any comments?). I imagine you already know about this [1] but if you do not, it should be helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link looks very promising, thanks! -Pete 04:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cayuse War

Thanks for updating the section to reflect the provisional government status and for the links to the peace commissioners! I wasn't thinking...(at least that's my story). Awotter 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to contribute, but I think the particular things you are noting were actually done by User:Aboutmovies. Happy editing! -Pete 21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you're joking

"Disrupting" the RfA? I hardly think so. I've already stated that I'm withdrawing from the discussin. Your accusatory (and false) note will be removed shortly from my talkpage. K. Scott Bailey 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have a major problem with Bishonen characterizing the 75th support vote, and my comment on it as a "personal attack." How is it not then a "personal attack" to accuse VT of incivility, if it is when we say the same about some of the opposers? As I said, I'm finished on the page, but it feels unfair to label what we wrote there as a "personal attack", when there are similar accusations--and MUCH worse--about the candidate. K. Scott Bailey 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't followed every tendril of the discussion. I hope it works out for you. -Pete 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR's newest COTW

Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitter rfc redux

Please, you have nothing to be sorry for. The method I used on the Vitter page by breaking down the problems into sections was learned from you on the Wilson page. I appreciated your calming voice and in no way expected you to slog through that lengthy "debate". I'm loving the 50 mph winds, myself. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geolinks coordinates

Hey Pete, as you may have seen, nothing is going to change with the Geolinks thing. Do you understand what is going on there well enough to try to set up one of those nifty straw polls that you do? I realize there was already a very well-intentioned straw poll, but I think it just ended up confusing matters more. And in case it's not clear, I have no firm opinion one way or the other except that something has to be done about the empty headers. I guess we need to find an admin who is willing to make the agreed upon changes, because even if we get everyone's opinion, it will do us no good since we can't edit the template once we're done. If you're not up for it, maybe you can think of someone who would be? I've never filed an RFC, but maybe we could do that here? Katr67 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice, thanks for the heads-up. I made an attempt to summarize the situation [there], let me know what you think -- did I get the issue about right? I've never filed an RfC either, but I'm encouraged by User:Therefore's successful RfC recently…maybe we should expand our WikiResumes? It does seem that something a little more broad-based than authoritative admin action would probably be best. (Though I suspect that Geoff could be corralled back in, and could be a helpful voice in the process.) -Pete 07:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll take a look. Can you check my contribs for the post I've made just before this one? I have to ride off into the sunset...well, go to work...and I'm completely confused now. Could you clarify on that page if necessary? Katr67 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

questions/comments from Pete's mom

Hey, know anything about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd? Sounds like it might be a good thing for me? -Martha 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I've spent some time trying to get my Linka page to Google's attention (not sure if I've succeeded, time will tell), and also looking a bit at Columbia River and Barlow Road, learning how to see what changes were made when. Feel like I'm getting the hang of it just a bit! --Martha 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note. I've installed wikEd, seems promising. It sure makes it easier for me to start trying a mark-up - then I can observe what code it put in. Also highlighting the code (which can be turned on/off) helps differentiate between code and your text. Need to try it to see how it handles formatted text, but probably tomorrow (don't want to stay up till 4:00 again ;>) -- Martha 06:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new topic

I moved the stuff I've been playing with about Glossary to a new sub-page, Glossary work - pulled relevant stuff off my "Playpen" and "Code samples" pages. Then I got real bold and imported some introductory stuff for this glossary that I'd started formatting several years ago, and made myself some comments on it. You might like to have a look. --Martha 02:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

Doesn't Barlow Road belong on your user page?

-- Martha (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well come to think of it, I guess it is creeping up to that level! I'll add it right away. (Feel free to do so yourself, if you change something there and I disagree, Ill just change it back.) Thanks for checking it out -- cool story, huh? --- Pete (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it! but - maybe you meant to format it differently from the others, but I don't think so, so I'm gonna "fix" it - feel free to change back, as you said! --- -- Martha (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AEI Legal Center Conflict

Hi Pete. My withdrawal had nothing to do with you. David reported me to AN/I, armed with age-old conflicts from my edit history. It worked - I decided to drop out unilaterally to avoid having to defend edits from two years ago. No article is worth having to put up with stuff like that. Thank you for your attempts to mediate. :-) ATren (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon COTW version 11.20

Welcome to the jungle folks. Thanks to those who helped out with Katie Harman and Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) last week. This week, we have two high priority stubs, one of the two major hospitals in Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, and Oregon Department of Education. Enjoy your turkeys, or for some enjoy your tofurkeys. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:GA

I responded to the bioterror article issue on my talk, but if you're looking to do some GA reviewing...Hillsboro, Oregon is up for review, as is this complete mess. Cheers, VanTucky ^Talk 03:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but unfortunately no. I have to take my mother home from the hospital (eye surgery, hence not being able to drive herself). Hope it goes well, perhaps I'll make a donation regardless. VanTucky ^Talk 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregonian

Pete, which Seattle paper is bigger? For additional notes on the topic see the talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied over there -- short story, I initially thought this was a mere oversight, and I defer to your considered opinion. -Pete (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, its been an ongoing issue on the article. People see the Sunday paper listing for Seattle and often do not realize it is a combined circulation. Hopefully one paper will buy out the other and end the on-going drama between the Times and PI over the JOA. I went in and changed it back, but kept the other edit you made. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPORE Civil War COTW

Hello again to WikiProject Oregon members, time for this week’s Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out improving Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center and Oregon Department of Education last week. This week, in honor of the annual Civil War, we have the University of Oregon Ducks and the Oregon State University Beavers. Or if you attended some other school, feel free to improve your alma mater’s article. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, and end-of-sentence punctuation

Maps: check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_map, I think it has all I needed to know on it!
Punctuation:I put a comment that's really for you (but also for EncMstr) on his talk page.
Really zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz -Martha (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Morning oregonian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Morning oregonian.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platypic

There is a better image here: http://blog.oregonlive.com/johncanzano/ if you wanted to snag it. A pic would be great. I didn't know that qualified as fair use, but hey, go fer it. --Esprqii (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute trophy. I belong to the UO Alumni Association, can I just say that it's OK with me if you use the picture? :) Katr67 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katr's permission is all we need, I'm pretty sure :) I have no doubt it would qualify as fair use in the "real world," but the world of wikiwarfare is another one entirely, so I figured to just cross my fingers and roll the dice (which is more or less what I'll be doing by rooting for Oregon this weekend, incidentally.) -Pete (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad I could help you guys out. I felt so sorry for you not having a real trophy (which I'd like to see after 5 years, BTW). --Esprqii (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good article, by the way -- didn't know about all that, and enjoyed reading it. -Pete (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a cool story, too bad the athletic directors are such stick-in-the-muds. If they have a presentation ceremony, maybe some wikipedian can snap a pic that won't get deleted. --Esprqii (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA for WPORE COTW

Greetings boys and girls from the fine folks at The Wettest Place on Earth! A thank you to those who helped last week make some good improvements on the U of O and ~~OSU~~ OS articles. For this week, the next stub on the list is Fortune 1000 company Lithia Motors, Inc. way down south in Dixie, which only needs a little added to make it to Start. The other is a bit more of a challenge, but Linus Pauling I believe is our only Nobel Prize winning Oregonian, and a former FA. So hopefully we can get it back to FA, check the talk page’s article history template for comments. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

off wiki ideas

Hey Pete, how's it going? I looked at the database website and it does inspire several ideas. One is a solution for my failed attempt to enter all the USGS data for Oregon in a single article, User:EncMstr/List of Oregon GNIS features. Wikipedia seemed to dislike the size (it just hung after pressing "save page"). Only 2200 or so of the 27,239 entries seemed to fit, 442 kiB of about 5 MiB.

Yep, I'm aware of Wiki Wednesdays, and would attend if I could. The location is reasonably convenient, but finding a free evening is the challenge, especially a Wednesday. Things might change late spring though. —EncMstr 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linfield Review

Hi Peteforsyth. Thanks for removing my clearly biased point of view from the page. I need help with that sometimes. Keep up the good work.--DerRichter (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its cool. We need that though (people checking the pov of articles, I mean).--DerRichter (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended consequences

Greetings. I am aware of the context issue, and it certainly isn't cut and dry. I have been accounting for context in that I have been avoiding quotations, and mentions of at least one piece of literature with that title. I think it is an important philosophical concept, and I think many other philosophical concepts will get the same type of reception. After all, in the area of philosophy we are very much clarifying things that people think they know as obvious as day (the law of noncontradiction comes to mind.) However, there still is much to clarified. I invite you to revert any (or present me with a list and I will) that you feel lack context. I would be interested to see where you think a link is and is not necessary. Please consider that many people are of the mind that these type of concepts are inherently unimportant. I cannot disagree more with that sentiment. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Mom again -

Hey, I guess these things should be more-or-less chronological, rather than me making a "Mom" section and keeping my stuff in there!

Anyway, doesn't your User page need a sentence about the Wiki Wednesdays? I'd put one in myself - except that I'm shy of doing that on YOUR OWN PAGE - and besides, I don't think I could state it clearly! -- Martha (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon COTW #25 (or so)

Hello again from the COTW of WikiProject Oregon. We thank ye who went forth through the rain and mud and helped out with last week’s articles Lithia Motors and Linus Pauling. Hopefully Linus can return to FA status early next year. This week we have the request of Oregon Ballot Measure 5 (1990) and High importance article Portland Rose Festival. Whatever work you can contribute would be greatly appreciated by our master. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here.^{[citation needed]} Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klamath Mountains

Rather than retyping everything, would you mind if moved everything over to the Geography Project talk page? It would help to keep everything in one place. Thanks. wbfergus^Talk 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. I'll track down the discussion wherever it settles, but it will probably be later this afternoon…gotta get back to work! -Pete (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. The discussion is over on the Geogrpahy Project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Your participation would be most welcome, and perhaps I may have offered enough explanation. Thanks. wbfergus^Talk 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on my RfA - I have Columbia River on my watchlist and have noticed all the work you have been doing on it. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS here's my thank you picture for my RfA - it is a bit silly, but thought you might like it Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays from WP:ORE

Hello again from the Collaboration of the Week for WikiProject Oregon. This week are two more stubs, the Oregon Garden and former Congressman Robert B. Duncan. Both are close to moving up to Start class, so only a little work is needed. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboats of the Columbia River

Thanks for your comments and help. I'm still struggling with this topic, most of the sources are not comprehensive, and they're a mix of railroad, steamboat and canal. So I'm trying to get something short and useful, with side articles about the canals and portage railways, with possible spin off articles for steamboats in other areas of Pacific Northwest. I'm also working on Shipwrecks of the Inland Columbia River and Steamboats of the Arrow Lakes, British Columbia. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Oregon Pages

Hey, I just simply used the records available on www.goducks.com. You can find them by going to the football team, the schedule page, and selecting the right year. Aplaceicallhome (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia River navbox

Hey Pete, I just wanted to say that's a good-looking navbox. I love that image. I hadn't really looked at it closely before--that is some rickety platform craziness going on there. Yikes! Katr67 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! I kinda enjoyed making it. It occurred to me that leaving that photo out of the article was a major oversight, so I thought the navbox would be a good spot for it. Thanks for taking a look! By the way, not ignoring your last message, just busy busy busy… -Pete (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Katr67 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nathan Teal

The boat J.N. Teal may well have been named after this fellow, although he had a father "Colonel Teal" maybe of the same initials. This per Timmen, page 67. The whole issue of steamboat naming is a topic in itself, for example there was a boat on the Willamette called the Shoo Fly, and another boat called Don't Bother Me. This is actually true! There was also Wonder, and, of course, No Wonder, and the rather ingloriously named Mud Hen. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday COTW

Greetings to all the WikiProject Oregon crew. Happy holidays to those who celebrate holidays. Thanks to those who helped out with last week’s articles Oregon Garden and Robert B. Duncan. Due to the holidays and people likely to be spending less time on Wikipedia, the new Collaboration of the Week will run for two weeks (OK actually I’ll be out of the country, but same difference). The first item will be a general Reference Improvement Drive. So find an article, source an tagged sentence or bring all the citations up to WP:CITE standards. The other item is a Tagging Drive, looking for those random articles about Oregon that do not yet have a {{WikiProject Oregon}} tag on the talk page. In the past I’ve found the Category:People from Oregon and its sub cats fertile ground for the lost Oregon souls. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunir Shah

Thanks Pete, for the indication of the location of the new Sunir Shah deletion debate. I've posted a request on User talk:Ezeu for the debate to be opened back up. There is something profoundly undemocratic about this procedure whereby the administrator closes the debate within 5 days without even making sure the article's author participates in it. Do you know if EngineerScotty is around at all? By the way, I lived in Eugene, Oregon from 1977 to 1983. Cheers - Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good luck on all that. I agree it can be frustrating…not so sure I'd go so far as saying profoundly undemocratic. When I propose an article deletion, I always try to notify the original author…but I'm sure I've forgotten once or twice, it's easy to do when there are so many hit-and-run editors who never return. I'd be inclined to think it was mere oversight, and that you'll probably get a reasonable response if you ask for a deletion review, or if you submit a new article with more of a claim of notability, or better sourcing. Just a hunch. And sorry, I don't know a thing about Scotty…though, it looks like he hasn't made any edits since the 14th. You might try sending him an email. Anyway, cheers back to a former Oregonian! -Pete (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'08 Legislative Session

Hey Pete, if you want to get that stuff about copyright into the '08 session, you had better do it soon (maybe you already have?). I guess each chamber is only going to work on a set number of bills for this truncated session, and because it's an election year, politicians will be looking for the bills that make for the best political theater, I'd imagine. Katr67 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, did I say '08? I meant '09. Don't want to squeeze it into special session, for exactly the reasons you stated. Thanks for noticing though! -Pete (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just checkin' :) Katr67 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome and info on my talk page. I'm just beginning to wade into this world and any guidance is much appreciated. I see you volunteer for the Bus Project -- way to go! :-) I have friends who are involved but I haven't had much time to do it myself (2 small kids at home). Sharicn (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Baird Biography

Thank you for showing me how I incorrectly deleted a section of Congressman Brian Baird's biography. I was annoyed at the partisan bickering that has been going on in his biography since someone removed the "protected" status from it a few months ago. Democrats and Republicans have been editing it back and forth when it should be opinion free. The section in question has been repeatedly edited depending on their political leanings and right now shows incomplete and partisan information. I will try to edit it for balance tonight, but I will have a hard time keeping my own bias out of it (which is why I deleted it). If you could check it I would appreciate it. Also, because of mild vandalism in the history, and even his portrait, it would be great to have the page with a protected status again without political smears.

Re: William Overton

Wow, you found more information about him than I thought existed. I had always heard him described as a "Mountain Man" who drifted into the area, started the wheels turning that led to the founding of Portland, then drifted away, never to be heard of again. Because of his shadowy nature, I thought of him as I was reading the articles in Category: Mysterious people.

As for WikiWednesday in January, didn't we decide to move that back a week? I've bene meaning to email the list to confirm this. -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hunchensus" -- I believe you did coin a new word. Too bad Wikipedia has a rule against "neologisms", otherwise you could write an article about it. ;) -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Wikipedia

What is he spirit of wikipedia? All I see is a bunch of special interest group who think they own articles preventing any form of progress taking place this site is so unreliable no university will touch it with a barge pole and the media derides it as a way of anonymous users slandering people and getting away with it. This site is run like a Mafia by preventing opinions it doesn't like especially single user and minority opinions. ALl users of the editing of wikipedia need lining uip and shooting as they have no life and all administrators should be first in line. Get real and Get lie do real work and be open minded. Spirit of Wikipedia = Closed of Mafia worse than North Korea and Hitler combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somali123 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. Let me know if you ever want to have a calm discussion about it, but I'm not too motivated to respond to your concerns as stated. Too much drama. Take care, Pete (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check out photos of a spectacular place!

Halong Bay, Vietnam -- Martha (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another steamboat source

Thanks for the link, I'm always looking for new stuff, this is a big area and not much written in Wikipedia. Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State copyright

If in doubt - google. Good stuff BTW, worthy of being in the Wikipedia project namespace somewhere. Megapixie (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo improvements welcome

Hi there. I saw that you like to improve poor quality photos. I have posted two pictures of the Eugene Pioneer Cemetery. Feel free to work on them if you are so inclined. --Randy Fletcher (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks

Thanks for the most awesomest barnstar! You knew I couldn't resist editing it, didn't you? Here's to great things in '08! Katr67 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Copyright stuff--I talked to my favorite Oregon government insider today and got some good info. I'll e-mail you about it tomorrow when my brain isn't tired... Katr67 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool!! Can't wait. -Pete (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Big Thank You

Pete, thanks for the award. I will wear it with pride around my neck. Great job to you too with all your work on government and politicians. Maybe we can get articles for every current legislator this year? Thanks again. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, good sir! On legislators, might be best to hold off at least until the primary, it being an election year…plenty of them could easily vanish into obscurity (though, I wouldn't object to articles on them anyway!) I've been thinking that a Columbia River portal might be a fun project, esp. with all the great work Mtsmallwood has been doing on steamboats etc. And of course, getting CR up go GA status. Government of Oregon and History of Oregon are always nagging at me, too. By the way, I've been reading more and more of the pioineer bio's you've worked on, it's a great collection. -Pete (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Year COTW from WP:ORE

Happy New Year to all the Oregon WikiProject People. A big round of applause for everyone last year, we got a lot done. A thank you to everyone who helped with the last Collaboration of the Week, I saw a large number of articles in the unassessed section and our total number of articles is over 5000 (we were around 4000 in June when the assessment program finished the initial run) so I know at one person was busy tagging. This week we are back to a High importance Stub article the one and only max security prison, first prison, and only one with a death row in the state, the Oregon State Penitentiary. Then, by request we have one of the most prolific ballot measure sponsors in Mr. Bill Sizemore. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I wasnt trying to be incendiary, just explain why I made the edit. Sorry.

IStateTheObvious (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article from 1896

Thanks for the info, gonna need to put something better together on this little topic, this will help, maybe I'll have to take a trip out there. Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonneville Dam

Do you have any insight into the conversation taking place on the talk page? Like I told the anon, I don't think either state (government) has anything to do with the dam, what do you think? Katr67 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSC

On your last edit on the caption, did you by chance mean to change a different caption? The link goes to a sketch of the OC cap. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops- guess you changed the link? Yes, it was a different image. Actually, the same one as the photo above. It's too late for wiki, I'm throwing in a Bonanza DVD and passing out. Right...now....... -Pete (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN suggestion

Thank you for the ping; I’ve responded to the discussion. To fully articulate my opinion, as my comments seem to have been misinterpreted: I didn’t make an assertion about complexity. The comments to which I assume you’re referring regard whether the process is confusing. Although perhaps subtle, there is an important difference. I do agree that the process is unnecessarily tedious and would benefit greatly from a more straightforward template “system”. I like what you’ve proposed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Hi. I've just supported your proposal as I don't have a problem with streamlining that particular part of the process. I do agree the overall process is complex, but there are disadvantages to automating the whole system and I don't feel the complexity is a major reason for the lack of reviewers. Epbr123 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i'm writing right now, please be patient

hi, well, i'm not good at this at all, i'm in the middle of writing my response on wikiproject oregon right now. i was doing so before when someone called katr67 messaged me and i rarely get those, so while reading it i jumbled my pages and lost everything i was writing about both what i was editing simultaneously and the story of how i got there. now i'm playing catchup for the rest of the evening, so i respectfully request that i be given a bit longer to try to prove that i'm not a vandal or attempting to foul up either the material or the process that's going on here. thanks for your patience. Hubertfarnsworth (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert, I totally and completely recognize that you're not a vandal, and that your intentions are good. Sorry about your losing your work that can be frustrating. I'd suggest maybe composing stuff in a word processor, and then copy/pasting into the "edit" window when you're ready to submit; that's often a good way to approach wiki editing until you get familiar with all the little ways it works. (Of course that doesn't bring back your lost text, but it might save you from a similar headache in the future.)

I will be as patient as I can, but please understand that the articles you've chosen to start with are of very broad interest. For instance, take a look at this page to see how many people viewed History of Oregon in December. It's important that we keep things reasonably clean for those readers, even as we go through transitions.

Happy editing, and I continue to look forward to your contributions… -Pete (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting redundant templates

I hear you, but there was significant discussion a month ago, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Template:Navbox. If you will notice, there were no new comments there after November 26, 2007 - that is, until now when a user started creating all sorts of weird new, non-consensus templates. The perfect place for these sorts of discussions actually is the Templates for Deletion location, that is exactly what it is designed for. These templates nominated for deletion are all either redundant, old and not used, not used anywhere in any article mainspace, or all of the above. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, respectfully, I disagree, and I feel that WP:TfD is the perfect place to discuss this (you'll see I responded in more detail over there). You are correct that consensus can change and definitely the discussion predated the new template - but again, see my expanded rationale at the WP:TfD page. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- History of Oregon does look interesting, but I think I'll wait a bit and give others a chance to work on it. I'm actually in the midst of work on some other articles and portals. But I took a look recently at Portal:Oregon, which could potentially get to WP:FPORT status methinks, but it could use a bit of work... Cirt (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Advice Feedback

Thank you for you the advice. Mrtriviamaniacman (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Mrtriviamaniacman[reply]