User talk:Athelwulf/Archive 1

• Archive 1: 2006–2008
• Archive 2: 2009–2013

Welcome!

Hello, Athelwulf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ...although you probably won't need the links provided. Cheers.Lectonar 10:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: K. Falls

My advice is, if you've got something to add to the article, just slap it up there once you're happy with it. If you're doing something wrong, like mess up formatting or spelling or just phrase something strangely, someone'll edit it for you once it's up. That's the beauty of Wikipeda, after all. :)

Not to say you shouldn't give everything a good look-over beforehand, of course, but don't sweat it too much. As long as you're not violating someone's copyright, the information is verifiable, and the subject is reasonably notable, you should be fine. --Sparky Lurkdragon 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question at HelpDesk

Hi - I saw your question and had another suggestion for you. In case you're not watching that page, here's where it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_does_one_find_out_the_date_their_account_was_made.3F

Have fun! Tvoz 08:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Help on the article: SciForums --Logic20 11:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WPORE

Welcome to the project! If you'd like to write a short intro about your Oregon-related interests, the general area you live (strictly optional), etc. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Introductions, feel free. I've just started that subpage and would like input on the format, but for now you can just follow the format a couple of us used. You can check out the project talk page to get a feel for what's been going on in the project lately. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that…the Government‎ sub-project has been somewhat dormant lately, but I'm glad to see that we're getting some new blood! Let's get those pages spruced up in '08, yes? Welcome! -Pete (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oregon GA COTW

Howdy to WikiProject Oregon members, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. As you may have already noticed, our flagship article Oregon is up for the third time as we make a push to get WP:GA status before going for WP:FA. Since this will take some time to get where it needs to be, this will be the COTW for more than just a week. Also, so we hopefully don’t trip over ourselves, try to coordinate on the article’s talk page. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here.

On another note, just a general good job/pat on the back to the project for a great 2007, the first full year of the project. We had 83 DYKs about Oregon, improved one article to FA, and went from around 4 GAs to 17 GAs. Plus numerous new articles, improvements to existing, the introduction of the COTW, and the introduction of article assessment at the project. Again, great job and here’s to a new year. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowy COTW from WPOR

Hello again from WP:ORE. Please note the Collaboration of the Week is running two hours late, no morning kindergarten, and routers are on snow routes. Thank you to those who helped improve Oregon, we are inching towards GA quality. This week we have another High importance Stub in our official state insect (who knew?) with the Oregon Swallowtail, and then a new article I came across, Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. Help if you can get out of the snow. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Good day! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Peterson says it time for Oregon COTW

Wake up! Wake up to a happy day! Says Tom Peterson. Greetings to the gang at WP:ORE, its time for another round of Collaboration of the Week. Last week was a very successful endeavor with great improvement to Oregon Swallowtail and Deuce Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. OK, so there’s no “e” but it makes me laugh. The Biglow production was so successful we got our first DYK out of it. So, let’s try for a second with the tallest building in the state, the Wells Fargo Center. Then by request we have the former governor (among other things) Neil Goldschmidt. Again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, visit here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Clown COTW

Greetings once again to members of the best encyclopedia online about Oregon (aka WP:ORE)! Last week we improved Neil Goldschmidt to close to GA level, and moved the Wells Fargo Center from Stub to Start for the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’re clowning around with some bozo from Oregon, Pinto Colvig, and then in an attempt to garner another DYK, the rather stubby Cooper Spur. As always, any contribution is appreciated, and to opt out of these messages visit here.

As we have quite a few new members over the last six months, I’ll make another pitch for our various subprojects. Listed here, you will find a variety of groups focused on specific areas of Oregon from transportation to culture. Not only can you sign up and coordinate work there, but each often has useful sources and templates related to that topic. No pressure, just an introduction to those new to the project. Adios. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Our weekly COTW message from WPOR

Welcome to another wonderful world of WP:ORE COTW. Thanks again to those who lent a hand improving Pinto Colvig and Cooper Spur ski area this past week or so. This week we return to the High importance Stubs, with the mighty Seal of Oregon and former governor and legal superstar Sylvester Pennoyer. To opt out of these messages, or suggest an article, swing by here. Or to stop receiving any WPORE messages just remove your name from the list of members at WP:ORE. Auf Wiedersehen. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Color-coding the referendum templates

The colors you used were to dark to read the text (at least in IE). I don’t know if the Manual of Style says anything about color-coding, but I don’t think it does. I guess with such a simple template, with just two rows, there really is no need to add any visual aids. This was the argument for the removal of the images, and I would assume it would be applied to background colors. So my advice is to keep the templates the way they are now. – Zntrip 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know what happened either. It looks fine on Firefox, but on IE there are some black rows. I’m sure there is a way to fix it, but I don’t know much about templates. Something similar happened to me earlier this year with some other election tables. Check out the bottom of this page and the current version. I didn’t realize that in Firefox the colors in the template took up that much space. As for my choice of browser, I use both Firefox and IE; I use IE out of habit, since I am more familiar with it. Maybe I could get some Microsoft flavored gum or patches to kick the habit. – Zntrip 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Government info accessibility

Hi, I'm very happy to see you getting involved in the government accessibility bill, and especially your work on nicifying the Oregon Constitution on WikiSource. Please take a look at my comments on the talk page over there. (if you're like me, you rarely think to look for discussion items over there!)

Hopefully we can work together to whip that into shape in the next week or so? -Pete (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no trouble at all. I have lots of free time for the next few weeks, as far as I foresee, so yeah, helping to clean up the Constitution is certainly doable. Thanks for directing me to that talk page. You're right, I wouldn't have thought to look.

Alaska

Yeah I have no idea where that info came from anymore, but I do specifcally remember it being a pain in the ass to find because of the way Alaska keeps election records. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Mr. Vitale (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning citations of the Oregon Sec. of State

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)

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)

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)