Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Meelar 23:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. The images you've contributed are excellent, but I must ask: where are they from? If they're your own, that's great. But if they're not, you must have the owner's permission to use them here.

So, if you could please edit the image description pages at Image:Tigers-Eye.jpg and Image:Star-Saphire.jpg and include their attributions, it would be much appreciated. If not, they may be listed for deletion as possible copyright violations. Thanks, -- Hadal 03:15, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is not 'incorrect' to treat the Essex and Ticonderoga classes as one unit. It is a certain point of view that is widely held. For example, to quote hazegray.org on the subject: "During 1943 an AA improvement program was undertaken, resulting in the "long hull" group. These ships had a slightly shorter flight deck, a slightly longer bow and other changes to allow a larger AA battery. Ships involved in this upgrade were those which were at an early stage of construction, so they could be altered without delaying completion. During WWII and in postwar upgrade programs the "long hull" and "short hull" ships were considered to be interchangeable. There is some evidence that the "long hull" ships were officially known as the Ticonderoga class, but these ships are far more commonly known simply as the "long hull" Essex class, and this list continues that convention." I would point out that the SCB alterations made changes to the class just as fundamental as the long hull and short hull variants. I deliberately used the MediaWiki message to refer to them as one unit.

If you were going to alter the message, it would have been far better to split it into long hull and short hull groups. David Newton 00:46, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections on the Duran Duran article -- hadn't realized things had gotten out of alignment, timeline-wise. I added a bunch of information (including poor Sterling Campbell!) today, if you'd like to have another look. I appreciate the help!  :) -- Catherine 20:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just read your comment on the deletion of finger fucking. We're actually having a discussion as to what to rename the page to (if anything) on Talk:Finger fucking. I'd ask that you drop by and offer any input. Thanks, Meelar 20:17, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology. Hyacinth 23:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I got stumped on the next segment in line. Some trouble with seeing where the original was (originally?) trying to go. So I went to give my horse a bath. P0M 23:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking at another one of the articles that has received attention lately, I noticed one problem that keeps coming up over and over again. The U.S. legal system is happy as long as external genitalia are complementary, regardless of the chromosomal sex of the individuals. It's quite strikingly irrational. Let's say an XY individual has male genitalia but is attracted strongly to males. Regardless of whether that individual self-labels as a man or a woman (regardless of the individual's gender identity), the courts say "he" cannot get married to a man, and (before the recent Supreme Court decision) says he breaks CAN (crime against nature) laws if "he" does so. However, if "he" becomes a transexual then everything is cool with the courts. On the other hand, if an individual is XY but something strange happened in the womb and that individual's body was not masculinized, society will regard that individual as a woman. For "her" to have sex with a guy is perfectly all right as far as the law is concerned. If that individual happens to have a masculine gender identity and gender role, then "she" is likely to be charged with transvestism, ridiculed, etc. And if "she" has sex with women then she is regarded as a lesbian. Of course, if the individual get a sex change operation to harmonize his genitalia with his chromosomal sex and his masculine gender identity and gender role, then society will be o.k. with it.

In short, the difference between one's sexual identity and one's gender identity and gender role can produce some really interesting social and legal paradoxes. P0M 00:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely why I have been pushing for and structuring articles that treat sex and gender as disconnected and use the proper contextual term in articles which are most appropriate within the context of said article. This is why I have already gotten into near edit wars over using "gender" when that is often what is being discussed though people often and insistently use the term "sex". The Texas case were two women, one genetically and anatomically, the other male genetically, female anatomically and female by law in another state were allowed to marry. Because Texas would not recognize the legal change of sex under the law of another state, despite sex-reassignment surgery and so forth. The women were women by gender, women by law outside of texas, women anatomically, and mixed genetically. This is why I am fighting hard to spell out, clarify and structure articles about sexuality not only in NPOV fashion, but taking the divergent issues of sex and gender into account and using the term contextually and in proper context. Of course this is an uphill battle when people who regard anything that is not heteronormative as being a 'horror show' is an uphill battle, in particular when some of the sysops have made clear they oppose the "homosexual agenda". But hopefully the discovery that the earth does indeed revolve around around the sun, will catch up here. (wry smile) Lestatdelc 00:43, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Just writing to ask why you changed List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people in the manner you did and why you changed it back? I'm confused. Hyacinth 01:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Was reverting some of 80.255's edits which were making the references to "lesbigay" meaningless because said user was insisting on changing it to homosexuals and bisexuals, which did not track to the discussion about how the term "lesbigay" was coined, etc. Said user also changed a header wording to mean homosexuals and gay males, which is not at all accurate to what the list covered, lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Hope that answers what was changed back by me and why. Lestatdelc 04:44, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense now, thanks. Wasn't sure if you had decided to change the terminology and then changed you're mind. Hyacinth 04:48, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No prob, I was tempted to make them consistent to what we have been haggling over, but the context of the term "lesbigay" and that the rest of the intro to that list does a fair job of explaining the inherent limitations of using terms for sexual identity in particular for historical people who pre-date the development of such terms and so fort. To tired at the moment, but there are some rather dubious assertions in the introductory paragraphs in the human sexuality article that need address, but that will need to wait till I have more time to make edits. Lestatdelc 04:58, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Done Lestatdelc 06:35, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've spent the last few days working on a new ship table template to enable us to centralise the editing of things like weapons outfits for a particular class of ships in one template (so with the Fletchers or Gearings or other big classes you only have to edit in one place to alter a mistake rather than in dozens or hundreds). Please have a look at the WikiProject Ships page's talk section and see what you think. I haven't written the instructions for using it yet, and I want to see whether there are any table cells people would like me to include that aren't present yet. There are two example tables, one with all the optional cells present, and the other with some excluded. David Newton 14:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there

Please don't make copy & paste moves as you did with Table Mountain today; it destroys the edit history of the pages involved. I have tried to follow Wikipedia norms in this regard, and have created Table Mountain (disambiguation), also mentioned in the main article, in which alternate uses of the name can be listed. As far as I know, Table Mountain around the world probably commonly refers to the one in Cape Town, since it is a very popular tourist destination, but I'm open for discussion.

Thanks, Dewet 08:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I second that. There are now two copies of the page, which could create a merging nightmare if people start editing both pages separately. Also, if the consensus is that we need a disambiguation, moving the original page is going to be problematic, as the current Table Mountain (South Africa) page needs to be deleted before a proper Wikipedia move can take place. Have a look at Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page for the correct way to move pages.

Thanks Kieran 00:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

File:HJuniform.jpg This is a Hitler Youth uniform. Clearly Ratzinger is wearing some other uniform in that photo. Adam 03:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may have removed it in the process of working on the text, i'm doing my best to keep up. I think accurate text takes precedence over an optional photo. Your comments are completely inappropriate. I haven't called anything a lie. You should apologize.--Samuel J. Howard 04:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Apology excepted. I definitely think that picture should be in there. (Although I wonder if it is a flak uniform not a HJ uniform. (could in fact be both, he was an auxialliary to the flak as a helper so he may have worn HJ uniform when w/the flak))--Samuel J. Howard 04:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a "Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 23:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

no problem actually i was the one who put the "george bush doesnt care abot black ppl" thing on in the first place. and after searchin for a few minutes i realized i was the first person on the internet to put it up. Yay for me. Jobe6 03:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Oregon page as living in or being associated with Oregon. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Oregon for instructions. Rmky87 15:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but please note that all I wondered about was its {{notability}}; I did not add {{prod}} nor did I send to AFD, and I have not participated in the current AFD discssuion. I think your concernsa are better addressed to Dcandeto (talk · contribs · count), who both prodded and AFD'd the article. Hbdragon88 07:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 13.8.137.11 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still blocked, please post only one unblock request and make sure you copy the block notice exactly. --Yamla 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: Am i correct in that you are concerned about the truthful history of Iran? I am too. I dont have an angle on anything but would like the truth. could we correspond? thank you Mike Hooten mlhootenATgmail

• Simpson is one of only four presently commissioned ships in the US Navy known to have sunk an enemy vessel with her shipboard weaponry (as opposed to aircraft). The others are USS Carter Hall (LSD-50), USS Porter (DDG-78), and the USS Constitution

This assertion has been removed repeatedly from the article because there's no source. If you can find a good source then it'd be great to add it back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I hope we can source this sometime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Non-heterosexuals, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a familiar name from the blogosphere. I can see that you've been active here for some time -- I'm surprised our paths haven't crossed before. Hope you'll consider joining our project. We have a regular "Collaboration of the Week" program that can be pretty fun and productive, currently we're working on Wayne Morse and adding articles for all members of the Oregon House of Representatives. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. You received this invitation because of your history editing Oregon articles or discussion of Oregon topics. The Oregon WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may read about existing members and introduce themselves here.

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) 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it matters if its CNBC or MSNBC since both are part of NBC Universal therefore NBC News.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. My point was that neither belongs in the article itself (it was Skomorokh who put it back in) and I simply removed it while using the earlier CNBC report in the citation as a footnote to cover attribution issues, when I was cleaning up the references and footnotes. Lestatdelc (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit-warring on Template:Obama cabinet and have already reverted four times in less than 24 hours. The three-revert rule prohibits reverting more than three times on a single page in 24 hours. Any future violations may lead to a block. Since this is a low-traffic template, I've simply protected it for the duration of the dispute, which I hope will be brief. I will attempt to mediate (as time allows) on the talk page.--chaser - t 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't taking notice of what time I made the first revert and as a consequence was ignorant of my violating the three-revert rule. Mea culpa. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I've put a long comment on the talk page and would appreciate your thoughts on it. I'd like to unprotect soon if we can get consensus.--chaser - t 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: WP:LEADCITE says we shouldn't generally have citations in leads.--chaser - t 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You might want to note that "rv" just means "revert". The abbreviation for "reverting vandalism" is "rvv". :) Anyway, I disagree with this edit, but I'll take it to talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I misread the rv abbreviation. Thanks for clarifying. Lestatdelc (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I prodded this article, which you made some additions to. I think it's problably more confusing to readers to have a mostly incomplete list, than to have none at all. Thought I'd check what you think. (template version below...) -Pete (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elections in Oregon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is clearly an important topic, but until it approaches some kind of comprehensiveness, it should probably be a draft outside main article space. Like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Government/Elections in Oregon.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pete (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on that page and reverting all the racist (and other) crap that people keep putting up there. It's a tireless and depressing task - thanks for doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obietom (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ArneDuncan-bw.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you like. I just happened to be looking at the workings of Template:Ribbon devices and noticed that it supported File:Oakleaf-gold.svg. It may be wise to overwrite the current image, perhaps? We wouldn't need two different versions of a device that isn't even used. bahamut0013♠♣ 12:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ArneDuncan-bw.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind retracting or softening this edit slightly? Although it is literally true, it isn't really necessary and it isn't terribly uncommon (both innocent and guilty persons accused of sockpupptery profess innocence at least at first). This isn't a demand or a warning--I don't want to wave a policy or guideline in your face. But I do think that it behooves us to be professional and civil even in the face of disruption. If you have a question or comment about this don't hesitate to respond here or on my talk page. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The edit warring was bad enough but to see said person outed as a sock-puppet (and hence a liar) really stuck in my craw. Will retract for the sake of WP comity. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on BlueOregon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. OliverTwisted (Talk) 07:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted under WP:CSD #A7 because it fails to comply the basic guideline. The message that notified you about the speedy deletion contains links with which you might find helpful. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to administer whichever actions you feel appropriate. I have traced the links of your contribs and, as you have notified me, it appears you have already posted a deletion review. In the post, it reads: "BlueOregon is an often cited political news blog, used in numerous articles on Oregon politics and elected officials." If you have sources to back up this claim, then you better add them up the next time you recreate the article, I suggest, for it to pass the speedy deletion criteria. I reread the content of the article a couple of times and it hardly suggest any importance. That is why it was deleted. --Efe (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good links. But please, if you intend to recreate the article today, add at least one line why its significant (regardless of initial length of the article), backing them up with reliable sources. With that, I am sure it will pass the criteria. Thank you and happy editing, Lestatdelc. --Efe (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I was doing that with the first line about it being the premier political blog in Oregon. Though I am not sure how I can go about finding citable sources for that in a single citation. Lestatdelc (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive start, Lestatdelc! --Efe (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to chime in here for a second. I believe the point was being made that using the verbage, BlueOregon is the premier political blog in Oregon is rather impossible to find an objective reference for, and should most likely be avoided all together. Structuring the introduction in that way is begging for maintenance tags, and possibly an WP:AFD. I can't advocate against the use of this sentence more strongly. However, I agree with Efe (talk) that the 2nd article is a radical improvement over the first. I love to see rescued articles! Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) 09:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 on 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) 08:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Initiated constitutional amendment, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiated_constitutional_amendment. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot hit the Initiated constitutional amendment article which is a page based on content from ballotpedia.org (which is under the GNU Free Documentation License) so is free to be used win WIkipedia under the terms of the GNU license. Removing the tag. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Initiated state statute, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiated_state_statute. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot hit the Initiated state statute article which is a page based on content from ballotpedia.org (which is under the GNU Free Documentation License) so is free to be used win WIkipedia under the terms of the GNU license. Removing the tag. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thanks for creating articles for the rest of Oregon's 2008 ballot measures! Pete (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Barnstars

You're welcome, well-deserved!

A pipe dream perhaps, but one that I've shared for a long time. We've hit some pretty major milestones recently: the full history of ballot measures (largely due to EncMstr's efforts) and complete coverage of current Oregon State Senate members (stubs for all, full articles for many), largely attributable to Esprqii and Aboutmovies. Also been working on the Oregon Constitution with Athelwulf, both here and on Wikisource. We're making big strides, and your recent efforts are a great addition.

Going forward, I'm pretty focused on getting a wiki-friendly bill through the legislature: [1]] (please help out there too if you're interested, or at least add your name in support) and, related to that, I'm planning to email all current legislators and request that they submit photos. (That email will go out Jan. 5).

Anyway, very glad to see you getting this stuff taken care of, and looking forward to seeing what we can get accomplished in '09. -Pete (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to envision many of the same things about the true potential of hypertext and open transparent publication of a truly accessible narrative about our government and politics. To be quite honest, I am shocked to learn of an actual legal impediment to ordinary citizens in doing things like re-publishing Oregon laws, etc. I have signed up as a supporter, though I am not sure how best I can help at this point, and don't want to overcommit in any case, but would like to help when and how I can. Lestatdelc (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you're taking content which is available under the GFDL, please ensure that you note the exact page from which you took it, and link to it. Cheers! – Toon^(talk) 14:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, you've done some great work on the ballot measure articles. I very much like the infobox approach. I often had the same idea myself but wasn't sure how to approach it.

I noticed in the footnotes citing the source of the data that you credit Sec. Bradbury as the author (for example, on Measure 65). I don't think this is technically correct. I don't think he actually wrote any of it himself, but rather it was a collaborative publication by the government agency he heads. So instead of crediting the Secretary of State (the person) as the author, in the past I have credited the Secretary of State (the agency) as the publisher. What do you think about this? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 23:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the props. Regarding naming Bill Bradbury as authorship in the citations. I thought about that when when making the citation tags. I considering putting "staff" or "Secretary of State's office" but opted instead to cite Bill Bradbury. While you are correct that he personally may not have written any of the text directly, it is all done under his office's name at the time. My thinking was, having it clear who the Secretary of State was who was in charge when a measure, or candidate is placed on the ballot is more relevant. SInce the name of the publisher is already covering that it is form the Secretary of State's office, having who the Secretary of State is made more sense to me and was more informative. Particularly on some measure articles as they get expanded down the road, when there was minor controversy over ballot titling, petitions being rejected for being place on the ballot (the petition to revoke domestic partnerships for gay couples being invalidated because of sampling of signature validation is one example that comes to mind. Lestatdelc (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including who the secretary of state happens to be would be interesting information. There's a certain sense in the idea of including more information rather than less, and usually I prefer that. So I think I understand where you're coming from. But I'm not yet sold in this case.

You seem to say that whoever is the sec. of state during a given election is relevant, as if whoever happens to be in charge necessarily has any bearing on a ballot measure or a candidate for public office getting on the ballot, if I understand you correctly. But I believe this is usually not the case. Is it truly relevant, for example, that Phil Keisling was in charge when the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act was placed on the ballot? And referring to the example you named, is it truly relevant that Bill Bradbury was in charge when the petition to end domestic partnerships was rejected? I would say no, it's not usually relevant. Sometimes it is, or sometimes lots of notable people think it is, but in both cases such information would be in the prose of the article with proper citations anyway.

So, while I generally support the idea of including more information rather than less, I feel this information is unnecessary in this particular case. But I'll try to find out what seems to be the norm on Wikipedia; maybe it's customary after all to cite the sec. of state as the "author" of certified election results. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]