User talk:Little Mountain 5/Archive 15

I could use 2nd opinons on Ferugliotheriidae and Family of Gediminas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes to both. Ucucha did nearly all of the work on Ferugliotheriidae (although Anythingyouwant made quite a few edits, they were mainly copyedits and most were reverted shortly after), and Renata3 did the majority of the work on Family of Gediminas. LittleMountain5 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Caspian expeditions of the Rus'.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a very borderline case but ultimately I think I'd have to say no. Although Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) worked quite a bit on the article, Beit Or (talk · contribs) did the vast majority of the content creation. What do you think? LittleMountain5 05:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but it is very close. The main issue is that in the small GA to FA period the only significant edit was one proofreading edit. If he had a few more significant edits after it became a GA, I would give it to him/her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and right at the beginning as well. Beit Or added in excess of twelve thousand bytes of information to the article, while Ghirlandajo added about three thousand. Close, but no cigar. LittleMountain5 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, another tough one. It looks like Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) did almost all of the actual content creation, and most of the later hundreds and hundreds of edits were more or less copyediting. However, the page changed quite substantially due to those copyedits, and I see zero participation in the second and third FACs. Overall, I'd probably say no (barely) because I don't think Ottava helped out enough in those final FA pushes. LittleMountain5 23:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we give any special consideration for a banned user?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is a good idea. We should judge all the articles by the same standards no matter who wrote them. LittleMountain5 02:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on the following email, I am going to credit this as a FOUR: "I did do the minor changes on the simple website. :) Please note that. :) They just weren't carried over to en.wiki under my name because I am banned, so my co-nom did the changes. I was involved in all three FACs via Simple Wiki."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Um... unless I'm missing something, Ottava Rima made a lot of edits to the associated articles on Simple Wiki during the first FAC, a few during the second, and none during the third.[1] I guess I'm still just not seeing it. It's your call. LittleMountain5 22:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what simple wiki is. I went on WP:AGF, but since it was borderline, any extra contribution sort of pushes it over the edge. If she contributed to the 2nd FAC, I think that sort of suffices. It is a close call, but no harm.

FYI: Simple Wiki. (It's basically Wikipedia written in Basic English.) LittleMountain5 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have finished clearing out Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles. The last one was a borderline case for Tropical Storm Vamei, where the GAC contribution is someone borderline, but again, I think his contributions were significant to that stage (based largely on these edits) although it is again questionable. We ended at 1 in 10.6 FAs. It will be interesting to see which direction this number goes in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's incredible, great job! I would have never guessed there were that many eligible articles out there. (And Tropical Storm Vamei looks fine.) Cheers, LittleMountain5 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I need some help at Talk:The Lucy poems.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied. LittleMountain5 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think we should retag it, or should we wait for him to reply.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and retagged it yesterday because it appears that Ceoil retired shortly after the discussion. LittleMountain5 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) had a lot of editorial activity between 10/7/10 and 10/31/10 for the DYK to GA phase and the primary editor was minimally involved. Thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's close, but I think I'd give it to him (Buggie111 (talk · contribs)). He did most of the content creation, nominated the article at DYK, GAN, and FAC, and did a significant amount of the work required during the GAN and FAC. Although he didn't work on it much between the DYK and the GAN, not much more content was added during that period; most of the edits were proofreading. LittleMountain5 15:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I just learned about this from your edit of The Cairo article. Cool! What will WP think of next? PRRfan (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the convert template is pretty neat. I've found that it can do nearly anything I can think of—so far, at least. :) Cheers, LittleMountain5 16:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, right back at ya! LittleMountain5 22:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if you hadn't spotted it, that Big Butte Creek has been suggested by another editor for selection as Today's Featured Article. As you nominated this article for FA status, you might have something to say for or against the idea. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't. Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oregon on the main page for the win! Congrats! Valfontis (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a done deal yet, but thanks! LittleMountain5 23:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

...Never mind. I just saw that it's scheduled for... now! :D LittleMountain5 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on making TFA with this. Finetooth (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that there is (or was) a Big Butte, Oregon aka Bigbutte. It had to move around a lot. I'm adding it to my lengthly to-do list for inclusion in the creek article one of these days. (P.S. Grade school snickering aside, serious question--is the term "butte" that uncommon that people don't know how to pronounce it, or are they pulling our legs?) Valfontis (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Where? I've never heard of it before. As for the pronunciation, I honestly don't know if they're pulling our legs or not... it certainly seems straightforward to me. Maybe I should add a link to butte somewhere in the article for reference. Thanks, LittleMountain5 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is (one location of) Big Butte, NW of Butte Falls. It was just a p.o., not really a "place" I guess. It's not labeled on the topo map, so if I write anything about it, I may add it to the creek article and redirect it. And more important, it's nice to see you took my hint to use those great photos from the S.O.S. for Buncom and Butte Falls! Valfontis (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. It's surprising that it was established nearly thirty years before the Butte Falls post office, and equally surprising that it closed to Brownsboro when it was much, much closer to Butte Falls... And thanks for mentioning the S.O.S. website, it's amazingly comprehensive! I think I might have stumbled upon it before, but didn't realize the images were free to use. Cheers, LittleMountain5 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Free_Oregon_images and can write a simple bot + parser to upload all the images. Could you send them an email making sure its okay to scrape their website for the ~3000 images and upload them? Also, could you ask them to forward some sort of declaration saying that we can reuse their images to permissions-commonswikimedia.org for OTRS?Smallman12q (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Psst -- I believe this will be published tomorrow, or within a few days. I think you guys might enjoy the second-to-last item :) -Pete (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Smallman -- while an OTRS email couldn't hurt, is it really necessary? It seems to me that the license notice under "image use" on this page meets all criteria for inclusion on Commons. Perhaps seeking the perspective of some other regular Commons folks would be a good idea, but do you think bugging the Archives folks for yet another email is necessary? -Pete (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice! But hey Pete, what is the "Oregon Historical County Records'"? The photos are part of the "Oregon Historical County Records Guide", but the licensing is per the Oregon State Archives. I think I get what you are trying to say, but the wording is awkward. Valfontis (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Twas late at night. Fixing now. Thanks for pointing that out! -Pete (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be better with an OTRS email. I'll still file a bot request on commons this weekend if an OTRS ticket can't be obtained.Smallman12q (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an OTRS ticket is necessary in this case... The Archives already changed their conditions to fit our needs with the knowledge that we would use the images. I also don't want to come across as an annoyance by making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. I'm just glad that they took the time to consider us in the first place. Thoughts? (Thanks for the mention BTW, Pete!) LittleMountain5 00:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the license has been changed on the site so that it's compatible with Commons, we don't need an OTRS email. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've filed a bot request at Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 2. Though the images are under an acceptable license, I don't believe the image descriptions are. Should we get permission for the descriptions? Reposted from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Free_Oregon_imagesSmallman12q (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks! LittleMountain5 01:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated an article at WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I approved it, great work! LittleMountain5 00:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I really like this. I've nom'd it for WP:TFAR for Oct 8. PumpkinSky talk 00:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! LittleMountain5 02:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you beef up the blurb there? Someone says it needs work. We may also need to move it to the first day of winter or something. PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. LittleMountain5 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

For sfn samples, see Franz Kafka and Harry S. Truman PumpkinSky talk 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are great, thank you! I'll try to transition over to that during the next few days. LittleMountain5 00:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming as requested, please check the blurb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I added a couple of sentences at the end so the date relevancy is visible. LittleMountain5 14:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's on the main page now as TFA. Congrats! PumpkinSky talk 02:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi- saw it on the Main Page just now. Great article. Congratulations! Jsayre64 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Very cool! Great article... well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Great job, way to be! Valfontis (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! LittleMountain5 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

	Oregon rivers
	Thank you for quality articles on Oregon's rivers, such as Little Butte Creek, looking at the related history and people, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 July 2008)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :-D LittleMountain5 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. The name of the creek seems to have excited a lot of 12-year-olds. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, wow. "Butte" seems to have that effect on kids...[2] LittleMountain5 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the articles is at Category:Possible Wikipedia four award articles is mine. You should do this round of promotions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. LittleMountain5 17:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you kindly added annotations pointing out landmarks for my photo File:Maiden Peak panorama.jpg, I wanted to ask your opinion about whether this new version I made should take the former's place in the Maiden Peak article. See the new version's description page for an explanation of the differences between the two. I've also copied your annotations on to the new file as well. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetically, I definitely like the new one more; it's straighter, better blended, and shows more of the landscape and less of the sky. I just wish you didn't have to crop Diamond Peak out. But yes, I do think the new version would look better in the article. Good job! LittleMountain5 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. Diamond Peak was left out because I was restitching the pano with the program AutoStitch to see if it would come out better than the last time, and it dumped two of the original photos. There was probably too much space between the some of the shots. Hopefully I'll get better at this! Jsayre64 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the new one better, too. In my experience, Autostitch likes lots of overlap and no gaps. You can even do more than one row of single images, one on top of the next, and Autostitch will put them all together. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, overlap is key. I'm no panorama expert, but the few 360-degree panoramas that I've taken each required 15+ images to stitch well. LittleMountain5 22:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

List of longest streams of Idaho looks like an FL candidate to me. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll probably nominate it after I get rid of all the red links and make a map. (Which might take a while...) LittleMountain5 07:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you might be willing to look for the length of Elkhorn Creek (Marion County, Oregon) with the USGS National Map; please see here. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem,  Done. If you need any more stream lengths or want to learn how to calculate them yourself, feel free to ask! LittleMountain5 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it actually possible to access NHD data on a Mac? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, unfortunately. I use ArcGIS Explorer Desktop, which seems to be Windows-only. There may be other options out there, but I haven't heard of any. :-/ LittleMountain5 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)