User talk:Robbiegiles/Archive 4 (2007)

Back to Current Talk Page

2007 Archives

WikiProject Idaho

There is a new Wikiproject for Idaho. Hopefully the project will coordinate the creation and editing of articles related to the US State Idaho, its cities, sites, history, etc. It aims primarily to expand Wikipedia's resources on Idaho and present the state in a fair and accurate manner. Check it out. You can leave a message on the WPIDAHO talk page or here. --Robbie Giles 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Idaho

Thanks for the note re Wikiproject for Idaho. As you might gather from my page, my interests lie rather far afield from the Gem State. However, I do know something about Boise and would be willing to lend a hand if such were desired.

Still snowy in Москва? Sca 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nez Perce

Thanks for the work you are doing to improve this article. It first came to my attention a few years ago when one of my students presented incorrect information in her paper, citing Wikipedia as a source. I've done frequent anonymous edits since, and then created my account last week. It didn't take long to see who is putting in real time and energy to make the Nez Perce article one of quality: you!--JStripes 17:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks. I work at Washington State University and have access to many wonderful sources of information. This is a little something I do to get out of cleaning house. I would love to see teachers encourage students to edit WP when they have done a paper on a subject. It could be a great extra credit project, as well as extra writing practice. Many of the editors are very helpful to those of us starting out. --Robbie Giles 17:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a WSU triple-alum (BA, MA, Ph.D.), and taught there until 1999. --JStripes 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nez Percé

You're welcome. And thank you for helping me to correct an oversight from my earlier days as an editor. I had only been on WP for about six months at that point, and had not yet developed the habit of citing sources as vigorously as I do now. I've inserted the source into the article. Thanks again! Nightscream 06:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dam good!

Thanks! I got myself interested in fleshing out the various tributaries of the Columbia River, including things like dams and reservoirs. The Snake River page seemed a bit lacking for such a major river, so I put some effort into improving it, and in the process ended up learning about the various dams on the river, which ultimately led to making articles. As for pages on reservoirs, I've asked myself the same question several times, for the Snake dams as well as others, and I can't decide on a general answer. I guess if a reservoir is notable it could use a page. Some of the Snake River dams have very small reservoirs, but others are large. I'm just not sure... oop gotta go, more later. Pfly 08:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, nice photo additions, btw! Pfly 08:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your help at the Mountain Meadows massacre page

Thanks for your help in formatting the footnote to the newspaper reference. And - if it would please you to contribute to the Momemorials section (especially by condensing some bits of information out of quotes I've dumped there), that'd be great too! --Justmeherenow 02:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What am I missing here?

Why are you consolidating the footnotes of each reference?

Some of the references are over 1000 pages. Should I have to read the entire document to find one passage cited in the article?

^ a b c d e f g h Bagley, Will (2002). Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-3426-7. Retrieved on 2007-06-07.

a Chapter & page #

b Chapter and page #

c Chapter and page #, etc..Tinosa 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to help in formatting footnotes by one of the authors who put in many of the footnotes. I am using the Wikipedia:Citing sources article as a basis. I am also using the refname= for subsequent references to the same material. Yes, unfortunately it loses the specific page numbers. If you feel this is hurting the article, I can certainly stop. We can revert back to an edit prior to when I started. No information is being changed. Generally when writing a sourced paper, the information from the sources is incorporated into the text of the article. It is not necessary to quote it in the footnotes. An encyclopedia article is intended to present information and verifiable sources. Should the reader care to, they can easily verify the information contained in this article from the footnotes. I'm done (stick a fork in me) tonight anyway. I'll check tomorrow evening to see if there is opposition before I attempt any more. --Robbie Giles 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re a photograph of the MMM survivor, is an old photo in the public domain? (Brian Patrick or somebody else connected with the documentary Burrying the Past might have edited the MM article to add the link to their site a while back. And maybe I could contact him if some kind of permission is needed to use it. :^) --Justmeherenow 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your amazing expertise over at the MMM article has been extremely helpful (especially since maybe you're better situated than some of us to act as a bridge between the perhaps more openly apologetic or dissidently critical camps?)

Even though I don't really know that much about fashioning proposed feature articles, it'd be my pleasure to try to help.....if you'll assist me and I guess Ogden to produce one? (Of course, you'd said you wanted to find some fresh blood look things over. Is there a template for that or do we just informally network?) In any case, when I'm in a productive mood I'll at least try to make a clumbsy stab at trying to reassemble stuff and to basically respond to your excellent recommendations check list for polishing the article up. Whatever you decide, though, I very much appreciate the phenomenal help you've been able to provide to-date! --Justmeherenow 17:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'd read in blogger commentary that there's supposed to be some kind of "on-line digitation project" by asst. prof. of history Doug Seefeldt providing "all the public records" of the MMM on the University of Nebraska Lincoln's website? In late May, the blogger "David" explained that

Seefeldt is a non-Mormon historian that wrote his dissertation on memory in the West, with one of his case studies being MM in memory. He is turning his dissertation into a book and will focus on the controversies over the different monuments that have been erected at MM over the years. He is spearheading [...the Net archive I mentioned, which includes...] newspapers, government documents, early pamphlets/exposes, and even popular fiction. Doug said that the archive is up and running on the UNL site, and will be added to over the next year. I just checked to see if I could find it, but couldn’t. Seefeldt also said that he was co-editing a book of essays on MM with Will Bagley, but wasn’t sure when it would be in print.

In any case, Robbie, even if there's expansion a bit here or there in the meantime - I think the MMM article would benefit from your help to polish? --Justmeherenow 13:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Snake River Farms

Hi. Thanks for your note re: the Snake River Farms article. I thought about the fact that the article might appear to be spam when I created it. I think you realize that for me personally, it wasn't spam. I wouldn't have created the article, however as I was researching kobe beef here in the Wikipedia I found several references to Snake River Farms (including a "red link" to it from one of the articles) and decided that it was noteworthy enough to receive an article - even if the article ended up being little more than a stub. ... I'm curious how the article appeared on your radar? --AStanhope 01:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those new article links - they are cool. I will add Maine and Massachusetts to my Watchlist. I think expanding the scope of the article is a good idea, and I may very well do it. I also may not. As you well know, every active editor here is their own cog in their respective wheel in the great Wikipedia machine. I've been pleased with being a stub-starter and leaving the real work to other editors who are smarter and harder working than I am. Sadly, this means that some stubs with potential have been swept away in great deletionist purges by editors with nothing better to do. This makes me bitter, but isn't enough of an affront to the preservation of knowledge for me to do more than perhaps sigh and wipe away a tiny tear. People like me learn to accept that the universe doesn't always function the way we might hope it would. Sweet, sweet alcohol, dulls the pain. --AStanhope 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A&M Wikiproject

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Texas A&M. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! Addbot (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oldag07 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny :)

Ok, disagreements on discographies aside, "Unfortunately nobody died and left me in charge" from User talk:Robbiegiles/Archive 3 Image Woes was hysterical :) Thanks for lightening my day! :) --Durin 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) PS: I'm not dead yet! Although, I'm not in charge either...hmm :)

Idaho biographies

(Please note this was originally posted to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. I copied it here for my reference.)--Robbie Giles 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Idaho State Historical Society is currently working with us to add articles on notable Idaho residents. These are based on papers in their collection, and will probably not be biographies of living people. See Margaret Cobb Ailshie as an example. Do you want us to add the WikiProject Biography template to these talk pages? If not, how can we notify you of new articles?

I am excited about this collaboration with WikiProject Idaho. They plan on adding some photographs, but the details need to be worked out on that, so the photos meet the Free image criteria. Do you know of any other collaborations with repositories (libraries, museums, historical societies) on Wikipedia? If we can contact them, we won't need to re-invent the wheel. --Robbie Giles 13:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting the input of the historical society! Regarding the tagging of the articles, it probably is a good idea. Whether they're living or not, they qualify as people, and we might have specific work groups which deal with articles of that kind, should there be any need to have additional work on them. Regarding your second point regarding photos, I have a feeling you might want to contact Wikimedia Commons, as they deal exclusively with pictures, and probably know more such details than I do. John Carter 13:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only collaboration I can think of that is similar to this was the creation of the Russian History WikiProject by Marshall Poe. More information is here. RHB - Talk 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith!

Assume good faith, my friend. Assume good faith! I would expect better of a fellow Idahoan. Please see my response on the Mountain Meadows massacre talk. WBardwin 01:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, our comments just overlapped. It is nice to see another Idahoan here. Your initial response seemed hypersensitive (given the benign nature of my suggestion) and with the article's history of conflict, I guess with good reason. But, please, assume that I'm trying to help! I'm not a perfect editor, by any means, but I do try and contribute. Again, congratulations on how the article is shaping up. WBardwin 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MMM Talk

Thank you for your kind words! --TrustTruth 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

This Edit Summary is hillarious --Blue Tie 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Montana Synod ELCA

I saw that you created the Montana ELCA article, I really appreciated seeing it. If it interests you or might be relevant to the article, Montana has elected a new Bishop, below is some information.

[1]

[2]

Moscow Idaho Churches

I created the Moscow, Idaho Churches article after the issue with the St Auggies article, and now that one has been tagged as well. I want a second opinion on it. Should the addresses just be taken out? I think that the page could have tidbits of information that otherwise would not be worthy of a page. --Brian Seel 19:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ibglogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ibglogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me you might have taken offense

At my rant a few days ago. No offense was intended. --Blue Tie 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic work! (at MMM)

I think what you've done so far with the MMM article is fantastic! Esp. concerning the emigrants. (I ordered Novak's book but it's not gonna get to me till 'aught-eight. Hey, Robbie, I noticed that her academic department's e-mail and phone number is posted in her bio online. Like you, she's in Idaho. Ya got the chutzpah to have her recommend emigrant sources you don't have? lol) Hey--somewhere in the 'ninety S^t Geo. Spectrum article is a touching discussion (taken from the remarks of one of the Arkansan eulogizers) about his relation (I think it was?) who was one of the girls wounded in the atrocity and how she'd lived her life back in Arkansas. (I should look through my stuff and find it, maybe, or see if its posted in a descendants site on line. :^) --GERANIUM Justmeherenow 21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi. I noticed that you are currently using User:Robbiegiles/Sandbox to house and edit a copy of the article Mountain Meadows massacre. In my opinion, it would be much better if you made any contributions to the article itself. This would have a number of advantages:

1. Preservation of exactly who made the improvement and when it was made, as required by the GFDL.
2. Ability of other editors to edit the article Mountain Meadows massacre without having to worry about their edits being reverted when content from the sandbox is copied in.
3. Removal of the message at the top of the article Mountain Meadows massacre which discourages users from editing the article.

For now, I've moved the message at the top of the article to the talk page. I would hope that you would make all your edits to the real article instead of just a sandbox. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"In use" Template

I noted your difficulties in editing the "large" MMM article while edits are ongoing. The template below sometimes keeps more casual editors from interrupting your work. It might help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help -- I'll have a block of time late next week. Best.......WBardwin 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

{ {inuse} }

Peer review

I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mountain Meadows massacre/archive1. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ak-synod-elca-logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ak-synod-elca-logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 17:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your contributions for the destruction of the Mountain Meadows massacre article

Thanks to your (archaic harvard reference format) facts have been replaced by opinions. Just out of curiosity! Somewhere above you stated that you were ask to come aboard (the Mountain meadows article). Who ask you? 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Tinosa

(I don't know enough one way or the other about Harv-vs-nonHarv reference formatting so can't comment there) but in general I admit I've wondered before if some of Tinosa's comments are straight or satire?--but I think finally I've come down on the side of straight! Lol...yep, a big problem with Wikipedia is folks' up and editing without being asked or assigned! (Or even showing proper credentials.) But the beauty of it is that when there's a problem with folks-ignorant-of-The-Facts' clumbsy reportage, there's a button to reedit items specifically or even revert wholesale. --GERANIUM Justmeherenow 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While it's my hope your break from editing the MMM article isn't related to any others' ((um, seemingly "Asperger's related"?? lol...)) cantankerousness, Robbie, I'd again like to thank you for your important contributions there to-date. Justmeherenow 12:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil?

How was I uncivil? Can you actually find something uncivil in my questions? --Blue Tie 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I agree with what you said on my page. I think you are doing good work. I have been reluctant to contribute to the article because I do not want to get into an edit war or other bad things. So I have stuck to offering suggestions. I may not be around for a while. --Blue Tie 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week and the Mountain Meadows massacre

I have proposed a change to the MMM introduction which deletes the mention of the weekday of the killings. I know you have been involved in this discussion previously, and invite you to join the discussion here. Thanks in advance --Robbie Giles 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was involved. It was like a huge deal/battle/edit war/blow out over??? I really did try to fleash out the relevance and actually hoped there was some religious or whatever significance to mentioning the day of the week in the LEAD sentence, but none was forthcoming from the folks who argued for inclusion. The matter simmered down but I see its back. I haven't looked at the edit history but I can guess who added it back. I have no idea what this persons agenda or reason for adding it for the life of me. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ps, I just checked the edit history I nailed it on who added "Friday" back into the article. This editor has approx 200 edits on Wiki of which 60+ are at the MMM?? hmmmm :)--Tom 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Duke53 has added "Friday" back into the lead sentence of this article without what as best I can tell is consensus. I'm not going to revert it for now since I have gone through this a couple of times now. I will work on the talk page. Cheers! --Tom 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Idaho municipalities

I just created an article on Holbrook, Idaho, observing that it seemed to be somewhat of a substantial place, according to the map, and placed it in Category:Unincorporated communities in Idaho. Since that turned out to be nonexistent, I searched Category:Settlements in Idaho, which revealed Category:Towns in Idaho and Category:Villages in Idaho. Based on my reading of Idaho Statutes Title 50, I understand all Idaho municipalities to be cities; is this correct? If so, what's the difference between towns and villages, and what would be in the way of merging them into a standard unincorporated communities category?
Thanks for your help! Nyttend 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I am under ungodly stress. I like to come here to numb out a bit. --Blue Tie 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sorrels-way-out-in-idaho.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sorrels-way-out-in-idaho.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 05:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Spread the word!! MarkDonna 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"I love Wikipedia" logo, by User:MarkDonna.

Idaho

Thanks for the note. I got off on the wrong foot with one of the members of WP:IDAHO for some reason, so I'm trying not to offend her, since she seems to think I shouldn't edit articles about Idaho. I think it should be OK if the subject of an article overlaps with something in Oregon. In that regard, I just linked a bunch of articles to Idaho Power Company (they call themselves Idaho Power, but I believe legally they go by the full name), a company with interests in Oregon, because of the Snake River and related power-generation stuff. They're definitely notable enough to have an article, so if you or someone in the Idaho project has time to whip up at least a stub, that would be most excellent. If you don't get around to it, it's on my ever-growing to-do list, but I thought I'd give y'all first crack at it. Thanks and keep up the good work, neighbor! Katr67 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing

Hi, what's the basis for claiming that Image:Lewisia rediviva pursch.jpg is under a Creative Commons license? [3] says that commercial use must be negotiated, which is contrary to CC, and anyway you can't claim CC without the copyright owner saying "CC" explicitly. Stan (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, no need to worry about it - I noticed it because I'm in the middle of preparing a new batch of photo uploads for commons, including some good L. rediviva shots, so we can just change it over then. (And I know what you mean about old uploads - one of the bonuses of moving to commons is that it's a chance to fix up images uploaded back when we were still figuring it all out!) Stan 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)