Another Believer (talk | contribs) OneClickArchiver archived PNCA Art+Feminism Wikipedia Editathon, Saturday, March 9 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Archive 29 |
|||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::::{{u|Deb}}, I don't know what "prevaricatory" means, but I also don't know what good sharing a list of paywalled sourcing from the library archives will accomplish. If multiple editors think restoring a page in the draft space is reasonable, I'm not sure where the problem lies. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
::::{{u|Deb}}, I don't know what "prevaricatory" means, but I also don't know what good sharing a list of paywalled sourcing from the library archives will accomplish. If multiple editors think restoring a page in the draft space is reasonable, I'm not sure where the problem lies. ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::"Prevaricatory" comes from "prevaricate", which means "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie" ([https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prevaricate source]). So {{u|Deb}} is accusing {{U|Another Believer}} of lying, which is a defamatory personal attack unless it is backed up with evidence. All of that aside, restoring a deleted page into Draft space is a reasonable request that I have seen granted without question many times; I don't know why Deb is engaging in this back and forth instead of simply restoring the page into Draft space. If the page were copyvio or defamatory, I would understand, but I have seen no claims to that effect. I will assume in good faith that Deb has a reason, but aside from agreeing to delete the page on the grounds that "there was no claim of notability and there was a clear advertising intent", I have seen no claim that restoring the deleted content into Draft space will do harm of any sort. There is clearly something I do not understand here, but it doesn't look right to me. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
:::::"Prevaricatory" comes from "prevaricate", which means "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie" ([https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prevaricate source]). So {{u|Deb}} is accusing {{U|Another Believer}} of lying, which is a defamatory personal attack unless it is backed up with evidence. All of that aside, restoring a deleted page into Draft space is a reasonable request that I have seen granted without question many times; I don't know why Deb is engaging in this back and forth instead of simply restoring the page into Draft space. If the page were copyvio or defamatory, I would understand, but I have seen no claims to that effect. I will assume in good faith that Deb has a reason, but aside from agreeing to delete the page on the grounds that "there was no claim of notability and there was a clear advertising intent", I have seen no claim that restoring the deleted content into Draft space will do harm of any sort. There is clearly something I do not understand here, but it doesn't look right to me. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Well, maybe I've used the wrong word then. The definition I'm familiar with is "Digressing and being indirect or evasive". I ''don't'' mean that[[User:Another Believer]] is lying. I mean that his responses to my questions are essentially avoiding the issue and playing for time. In view of the general concerns about his contributions that I've seen from others, I think I've been pretty reasonable in asking these questions. After all, what is the big hurry? [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 15:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:56, 11 March 2019
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Theodore Roosevelt Memorial (Portland, Oregon)
What?!? How did I not know about this?
Yes, I've used a lot of material from a single source, but the article is a work in progress as this subject has piqued my curiosity. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I like "Maybe its style did not fit its time." I think the opposite might be true: fascist style was the new hotness in 1939, but by 1942, it had <sarcasm>lost a bit of favor in the US for some reason...</sarcasm> – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Illustration
Does anyone know if we can add an image to the article under fair use, since the artwork is lost? I'm assuming I can't just take a picture from one of the Oregonian sources and upload here, since I don't know who took the photographs and when? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Aboutmovies: Here's an interesting one for you. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, use the historical upload category (assuming, though its been more than a year since I've done it). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will see if I can figure it out. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Eh, I still don't know how to do this when I don't know the photographer's name or original publication date. I'll let someone else give this a try, if possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)- @Peteforsyth: Are you familiar with uploading historical images under fair use? There are 2 sources below with illustrations, but I'm not sure who took the photographs or when. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, use the historical upload category (assuming, though its been more than a year since I've done it). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources:
- https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/life-and-culture/erry-2018/11/1782ea3ea29557/29-onlyinportland-people-and-p.html
- https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/01/82affb0c708567/what-happened-to-portlands-fas.html
---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Missvain: Bit of a random request here, but would you happen to be familiar with uploading images of lost sculptures as historical photographs under fair use, and mind giving this a shot? No worries if unsure or uninterested, just figured you might be ale to help. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd start by searching the Oregonian archives through the Multnomah County Library website (or another library), and see if you can narrow down the publication date and possibly the provenance of the photos. You could also search copyright renewals, though if I recall correctly the O has been pretty diligent about them. Happy to discuss further if that isn't clear enough. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth: Very helpful, thank you, but I've searched the archives and can only find one article with an image, dated November 9, 1941. Unfortunately, I can't confirm this is the same image used in the recent Oregonian articles linked above. The image does not have a particularly helpful caption or credit any photographer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
List of tallest buildings in Portland
Just an FYI, an editor has proposed some major changes to List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, if no one objects in the very near future. Sharing here in case any editors want to take a quick look: Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Portland,_Oregon#Outdated/incorrect_info.
Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
R.I.P.
Burnside Brewing Company. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Danielle Outlaw
Danielle Outlaw is currently a work in progress as part of an ongoing class assignment. I've upgraded the article from stub- to start-class, but haven't reviewed the most recent edits in detail. Care to help keep an eye on the page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Homelessness in Oregon
I forked Homelessness in Oregon out of Homelessness in the United States by state back in December 2017. Just today, User:Graywalls merged the content back into Homelessness in the United States by state, which I reverted. I believe there's enough coverage of homelessness in Oregon to justify a standalone article. Heck, IMO, there's enough coverage of homeless in Portland alone to justify Homelessness in Portland, Oregon, but let's not get too crazy.
In short, Graywalls and I went back and forth a bit, and decided to simply post here for more editor feedback. Do project members think content about homelessness in Oregon should live at Homelessness in Oregon or Homelessness in the United States by state? Comments on either talk page are appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've also shared a collection of sources at Talk:Homelessness_in_Oregon#Sources. Some of them are specific to Central Oregon, Corvallis, Eugene, Portland, etc. Lots to potential content to add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Dante's at AfD
---Another Believer (Talk) 03:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Benjamin Gifford, Art Work of Portland, Mt. Hood and the Columbia River
This 1912 book was passed down to me- from my great great great grandfather Allen, who worked on BOTG, which is approximately where Gifford lived. Anyhow, it's a giant leatherbound book with very heavy pages- 8lbs, 11x14". Copyright date is 1912- which is great, everything is PD! There's a lot of "pretty nature pictures" and of Mt. Hood, but to me what's interesting are pictures of things that likely have Wikipedia pages- here's what I noted: Ezra Meeker, Council Crest (road), cornell (road); World Forestry Center (which is good, it's a better picture than the presumed-PD version Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) rescued); BOTG showing a "bridge ramp" before the bridge was built; USS Boston (1884); bull run; washignton street with the downtown buildings; larch mtn; dalles rock; pulpit rock; some other rock at The Dalles. The back half (or last third?) is full of flowery text from Eva Emery Dye.
Hard to find much on it, it doesn't seem to exist at MultCo library or LOC, though it's at OHS and there's a copy for sale on amazon.
Further, maybe I'll research create a page for Mr. Gifford (bio page, wiki commons cat, OSU bio, OSU pic archive). Love old gems like this. tedder (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, and some sample pages. tedder (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great find Tedder. (BOTG?) Worth noting that I've since found better pics of the World Forestry Center that are definitely public domain, but it sounds like this book might have even higher quality reproductions than those. From your samples, it looks like these might be actual photographic reproductions, rather than halftones? I hope so! Looking forward to seeing some high quality scans. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
World Famous Kenton Club at AfD
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Elephants Delicatessen
An editor requested speedy deletion of the Elephants Delicatessen article. I've asked for the page to be restored and moved into the draft space for further improvement, but the deleting editor is asking me to jump through hoops just for the restoration:
Is another admin willing to please restore the page and move into draft space, if needed? Also, do other editors have thoughts on notability? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's strange that the editor in question would not restore the article to Draft space. You might have to go to WP:DRV. What a pain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Right? I'm scrambling this morning because an editor has either merged, nominated for deletion, or speedy deleted several articles, which now I'm working to rescue. I didn't think asking for restoration of a page into draft space was controversial... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Deb: Making you aware of this discussion. Do you mind please restoring the page? Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies for taking over this talk page, but every additional prevaricatory comment from User:Another Believer is making me more sure that I shouldn't go along with his request. If there are sources showing notability, it should not be difficult to list some of them as requested. Deb (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, I don't know what "prevaricatory" means, but I also don't know what good sharing a list of paywalled sourcing from the library archives will accomplish. If multiple editors think restoring a page in the draft space is reasonable, I'm not sure where the problem lies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Prevaricatory" comes from "prevaricate", which means "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie" (source). So Deb is accusing Another Believer of lying, which is a defamatory personal attack unless it is backed up with evidence. All of that aside, restoring a deleted page into Draft space is a reasonable request that I have seen granted without question many times; I don't know why Deb is engaging in this back and forth instead of simply restoring the page into Draft space. If the page were copyvio or defamatory, I would understand, but I have seen no claims to that effect. I will assume in good faith that Deb has a reason, but aside from agreeing to delete the page on the grounds that "there was no claim of notability and there was a clear advertising intent", I have seen no claim that restoring the deleted content into Draft space will do harm of any sort. There is clearly something I do not understand here, but it doesn't look right to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, maybe I've used the wrong word then. The definition I'm familiar with is "Digressing and being indirect or evasive". I don't mean thatUser:Another Believer is lying. I mean that his responses to my questions are essentially avoiding the issue and playing for time. In view of the general concerns about his contributions that I've seen from others, I think I've been pretty reasonable in asking these questions. After all, what is the big hurry? Deb (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Prevaricatory" comes from "prevaricate", which means "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie" (source). So Deb is accusing Another Believer of lying, which is a defamatory personal attack unless it is backed up with evidence. All of that aside, restoring a deleted page into Draft space is a reasonable request that I have seen granted without question many times; I don't know why Deb is engaging in this back and forth instead of simply restoring the page into Draft space. If the page were copyvio or defamatory, I would understand, but I have seen no claims to that effect. I will assume in good faith that Deb has a reason, but aside from agreeing to delete the page on the grounds that "there was no claim of notability and there was a clear advertising intent", I have seen no claim that restoring the deleted content into Draft space will do harm of any sort. There is clearly something I do not understand here, but it doesn't look right to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deb, I don't know what "prevaricatory" means, but I also don't know what good sharing a list of paywalled sourcing from the library archives will accomplish. If multiple editors think restoring a page in the draft space is reasonable, I'm not sure where the problem lies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies for taking over this talk page, but every additional prevaricatory comment from User:Another Believer is making me more sure that I shouldn't go along with his request. If there are sources showing notability, it should not be difficult to list some of them as requested. Deb (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)