Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Notes to Self[edit]

  • {cite web |url= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |last3= |first3= |title= |via= |format= |publisher= |location= |date= |access-date= }}

20180126 - There is no page for Battle Rock Park Port Orford Oregon. SOURCE SOURCE 2. Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20180126 - LINK to park infoOregon Capitol Mall State Capitol State Park (Oregon) needs its own page to the history of when we started calling it that and all that is encompassed within it (3 parks total). The redirect for State Capitol State Park will then need to give choice between the MALL as a state park and the CAPITOL as a government and a structure. Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Cap Wilderness[edit]

Aneroid Lake[edit]

Tenderfoot Mine[edit]

Legion Mountian[edit]

Stanley Jewitt[edit]

Man dies of mysterious wounds in the mountains. Jewitt, who "directs in this disrict the federal government's drive against wild animals that kill" brings story to light- https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn97071042/1932-09-22/ed-1/seq-3/#words=Pete%27s+Point

Lookingglass Formation[edit]

Weston Normal School[edit]

Crane Prarie Reservoir Osprey Management Area[edit]

Please pardon my butting in on this section, Battle Rock caught my attention. I've found many older sources discussing it, some of them illustrated with pictures now in the public domain, thought I'd point this out in case you decide to work on an article. Here's a link to a Wikisource search that will pull them up. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hot topics[edit]

25 edits Estuary of St. Lawrence
5 edits Weghnan Lake
5 edits List of lakes of Texas
5 edits Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes
5 edits Cistern
4 edits Shagan (lake)
3 edits Green Lake (Raoul Island)
3 edits Greenville Club Lake
3 edits Lake Albert (Africa)
3 edits Lake Amvrakia

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. Last updated 28 April 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

63 edits 1940 Oregon State Beavers football team
57 edits Bo Nix
37 edits 1951 Oregon State Beavers football team
30 edits PDX671
27 edits City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
21 edits D.E. May
20 edits Rachel's Ginger Beer
18 edits Dan Fouts
17 edits D. B. Cooper
14 edits Gresham cat hostage taking incident

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 28 April 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Welcome[edit]

Darryl.P.Pike, good luck, and have fun. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user participates in
WikiProject Oregon.



WikiProject Oregon[edit]

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.

Hello! I noticed you've edited articles related to Oregon, so I figured I'd send an invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon, a group of editors who collaborate to create and improve related content. If you're interested, feel free to add your name to the list of members and add the page to your watchlist.

Either way, happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of February 16, 2021. Of the 18573 articles in this project 4782 or 26% are marked for cleanup, with 7326 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of February 23, 2021. Of the 18589 articles in this project 4764 or 26% are marked for cleanup, with 7302 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of March     02, 2021. Of the 18605 articles in this project 4744 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7259 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of March     09, 2021. Of the 18616 articles in this project 4750 or 26% are marked for cleanup, with 7259 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of March     16, 2021. Of the 18628 articles in this project 4746 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7257 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of March     23, 2021. Of the 18637 articles in this project 4718 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7231 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of October 26, 2021. Of the 18965 articles in this project 4821 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7372 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of November 02, 2021. Of the 18967 articles in this project 4805 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7338 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of November 09, 2021. Of the 18970 articles in this project 4784 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7260 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of November 16, 2021. Of the 18976 articles in this project 4724 or 25% are marked for cleanup, with 7137 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of November 23, 2021. Of the 18978 articles in this project 4536 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6876 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of November 30, 2021. Of the 18979 articles in this project 4565 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6891 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of December 07, 2021. Of the 18985 articles in this project 4555 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6891 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of December 14, 2021. Of the 18992 articles in this project 4556 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6891 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of December 21, 2021. Of the 18998 articles in this project 4598 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6956 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of December 28, 2021. Of the 19014 articles in this project 4611 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6979 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of January 04, 2022. Of the 19027 articles in this project 4630 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 7013 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of January 11, 2022. Of the 19043 articles in this project 4529 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6860 issues in total.
Cleanup listing for WikiProject Oregon as of January 18, 2022. Of the 19067 articles in this project 4542 or 24% are marked for cleanup, with 6881 issues in total.

Oregon edits[edit]

Thanks for your work. I noticed you have been trying to access The Oregonian archives, but can't behind the paywall. If you live in Multnomah County, get a library card, as their online databases you can access remotely include the entire Oregonian archives (pre 1987, plus in a separate database 1987 on). Aboutmovies (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aboutmovies: Picking away at that Clean-up list has taught me so much about this site, the mark-up, and how things are (and not always as they should be) done. My real goal with this newspaper thing is to link a "preview" or a very specific "results" page of the correct (issue-page-article) prior to the paywall hitting the reader's face upon clicking the reference. I have managed to accomplish this with most archives. The only exception so far has been The Oregonian. Here is what I use at this time for searches relating to content in that newspaper.
    • THIS gives a text version of an article that is a linkable preview prior to paywall for 1987-present and so far works out fine.
    • A DUPLICATE portal to the same search as above I believe. Haven't tested it thoroughly.
    • A NEW ONE I found recently and have not used at all yet but intend to.
    • My Favorite newspaper resource on the internet, hands down. I have poked around many newspaper archives looking for things and our own UofO sets the bar of how an archive should work. Unfortunately it only contains issues to the 1920's depending on which incarnation of the paper you are looking for.
    • BUT THIS for issues prior to 1987 gives a search result page that is not linkable. If I set the search to a full specific title and date the results will contain ONLY the issue I am looking for, but isn't linkable. I tried to find a way to link with the search criteria predefined within the url as &variables to force a results page to generate, was alas, without success.
A pre-paywall url to Oregonian sources for a reader to see for themselves as real and obtainable between 1922 and 1987 is proving harshly difficult. Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Useful links for citations

Big list of free archives. Notes that Google News search tool has been broken and only a crippled version of searching functions since 2013.

Deletion log - Best. Entry. Ever.[edit]

  • 00:36, 7 April 2018 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Jordan Reddout (Expired PROD, concern was: This is an article someone published about me. Beyond my personal desire for this article to be deleted, I am not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article.) (thank)

---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block 17[edit]

@Another Believer: - I wanted to apologize for not knowing to remove the {Coord missing|Oregon} from each of those articles I made the edits to. Thank you for fixing them all and sorry to cause you more work than you already do. I will know to look for such things on future edits.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl.P.Pike, No worries at all! I was glad to see coordinates being added, so thanks for doing this work! Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you ![edit]

Citation Barnstar
I give you the citation barnstar for the sources you found to ameliorate Western Larch, and the orderly removal of the 8 {{fact}} tags in the article! Mottezen (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aneroid Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deposition. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverted Content Removal - Gold[edit]

I looked back at that diff, and it looked like all he did was add the image. I must've thought he added that paragraph when that looks to not be the case. In any event, the content is sourced now, and since that source is clearly not copypasted from the prose that satisfies any issues I may have had; thanks for looking into that. Wizardman 21:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aneroid Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Rose.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Website vs Work vs Publisher[edit]

What are your thoughts here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Fellers&diff=1069608574&oldid=1069590525 --2603:7000:2143:8500:D04C:ABC3:17D4:C4F9 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names[edit]

As you may or may not know, we do not put in refs in lists of names. Because, of course, the person being appropriate for the list is quite self evident.

As you did here. Really - I've never seen anyone do this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fellers_(surname)&diff=next&oldid=1069589765

It's doubly odd that you are cherry picking one person. And - if you believed that to be the case (though of course you would have been incorrect), you didn't delete the entire lists.

If you don't agree, perhaps we should go to an admin board. But I'm reverting you. If you continue to revert, we should go to a board and have the admins address this.

And "does not improve the article" is certainly not a reason for you to delete a name from a list on which it fits the category. That would be like removing them from the cat. If the shoe fits, wear it. A very unusual rationale, and not one based in wp policy or rules. Perhaps you were unaware. I'm letting you know here, as you've made that a basis for deletion elsewhere.

I assume you are making wholly good faith edits, haven't had the experience to know these things, and are not cherry-picking (leaving all the other unsourced names .. typically ALL of them .. for a reason that is simply a lack of understanding. Though it's odd - you did edit the very refs in the main article that support the very details you object to, so they can't come as that much of a surprise to you. Then, again, perhaps it's late ...

Again, if you are unhappy with what I have to say or disagree, I think we should have the admins look at our edits, and chastise whomever is wrong. Edit wars are unseemly.

--2603:7000:2143:8500:D04C:ABC3:17D4:C4F9 (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: @Orygun: @Jonesey95: @Grand'mere Eugene: @Valfontis:
I do not know if this is the right way to ask for assistance so please excuse the intrusion into your lives. All of these names I know as "familiar" from the WP:OREGON and each of you absolutely know what you are doing at Wikipedia. I ask that someone with the experience to do so get involved with this situation or point me to where such assistance might be attained.
I reverted a series of edits last night by the above IP editor (or whatever they are referred to as) over several articles. They had added a notable person to the articles. The line was:
I reviewed the linked article and I find it to be nothing more than a public smear of a person no more notable than I am who had been arrested and accused of a sex crime. I looked into the edit history of the article and this same user had made several recent changes to the article adding most of what the article contains currently. It seemed to me they even deliberately removed any content from that article BESIDES the misconduct that was added. I felt it was more vandalism than anything else. I reverted the edits and started reading into how and where to nominate the main article for deletion. I discovered it probably needs to be and for deeper reasons.
This has happened to me before. I was digging into something that was beyond my skill set and it was getting more difficult. I had already reverted the edits and knew I should leave a message on the user's talk page to explain my actions, but found I was not entirely sure what to say from what I had discovered about the whole thing. I was tired and decided to sleep on it and start fresh. Look around to ask for some guidance about it all.
The user has now reverted me, restoring the "notable people" and left the above message here asking for an admin's involvement. They should get what they are asking for. I am in no way able, trained, or willing to engage in what is already negative behavior with an editor who also seems to know exactly what they are doing at Wikipedia and intends to mask what it IS they are doing at Wikipedia. Please invite anyone to the conversation that can give assistance and direction the whole thing needs. It broadens into a much deeper subject when you get to the article's creator and the reasons for his banning/sanctions, who himself had reverted this type of content off the first time it was added.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Darryl. These things can be difficult and stressful. I'll keep an eye on the page, and if needed I can page protect it. I'll also come back when I have a bit more time and read your message, and the article history, a little more closely. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, don't WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP applyhere? Especially Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. There's also WP:NPOV, as the added material overwhelms the rest of the details of his life... The subject of the article has not been convicted, and must be "presumed innocent until proven guilty". I think REVDEL is appropriate for the biography and also for the multiple "list of" edits. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot BLPCRIME. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that revdel for the article is appropriate, the edits stated some damaging and inaccurate things. I'll address that now, and if you have specific suggestions for list edits that need revdel, please feel free to point them out. (And, I am horribly behind on an earlier revdel request. I'm sorry. Will look this evening if not sooner.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With upmost respect I can offer, thank you to you both. For seeing what I saw, saying what I lacked in words, and doing what I do not (yet) know how to do.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a notability expert, but it appears that Rich Fellers could be notable for winning a medal at the Pan American Games. Being in the news for one thing is not enough for notability. Unless the article is deleted at AFD, I think it is reasonable to have Rich Fellers listed on the "Fellers" page as "Rich Fellers, American equestrian" or something else neutral. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm curious about an editor who knows their way around Wikipedia who is editing logged out. I ended up here after seeing the revdels in the Deletion log. If they persist in posting BLP-violating content on every possibly-related article, a block might be in order. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Darryl.P.Pike raising the questions, and thanks to Peteforsyth for the quick REVDEL work on Rich Fellers. Checking "What links here" I found one more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Gage_(equestrian)#See_also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2143:8500:8052:f755:8bd8:55f5

  • and compare to the IP user for the Rich Feller article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2143:8500:6DFD:3A53:16AB:EB49

I did a little sleuthing of my own so I will share what makes me go... Hmmm..
The first EDIT by the IP user above in the history was a revert of a revert on an unrelated article. He used the words "all over the project" in the edit description. [Leonardo Conti] is part of 4 WikiProjects. The edit history of the Conti page shows edits a recent IP user with a VERY similar IP address and a edit history of about 9 hours long and the list appears to include both equestrian and German related articles. Several of the articles in this one "shift" of editing have some interesting edit histories by IP edits. Some self-reverting multiple times with yet again VERY similar IPs. So what are the odds that I find the same second IP address editor Grand'mere Eugene found on a different article searching a different way.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz Grand'mere Eugene The IP user 2603:7000:2143:8500:B8E9:47BF:23A3:5A4B (this time) responded on the Feller talk page. I looked at the edit history of that user. One entry has a lengthy description about "repairing damage" of another editor. I felt a connection to it and followed it.
Stephen Kovacs has an interesting edit history. The article was created by 2603:7000:2143:8500:4586:DD0D:4456:DEB6 subsequently edited by 2603:7000:2143:8500:E019:ABE8:F88B:3A74 and 2603:7000:2143:8500:FC2C:14BA:23DE:940B, 2603:7000:2143:8500:2837:424B:DCAB:61C4, and then submitted for review by 2603:7000:2143:8500:F992:48F2:6C05:2099. All of these are the same editor as above. Then I noticed THIS EDIT in which the editor states his computer changes his IP address.
I have a feeling this person has hundreds and hundreds - if not thousands - of individual edit histories with an automated rolling IP address and what appears to be years of experience at Wikipedia. Even the reviewer commented on his skills in creating the article. It seems very strange that someone with such skills would edit from an ever changing IP causing a convoluted edit history. Again, something far far beyond my skills to do anything with or about, but I though the info worth adding.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

I salute your courage, decency, and tenacity. Good work. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... revisited[edit]

Liz: Do the IPs that Darryl.P.Pike has listed above look like WP:Sockpuppetry to you? I ask because that policy statements says,

Sockpuppetry takes various forms:

  • Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address

It's not clear to me that there is a user account, but the edits made by these IP addresses make me suspicious of the obvious skill level not usually seen from IPs. It's been problematic for those of us who are cleaning up the inappropriate edits related to Rich Fellers and multiple "List of" articles. I don't have the skillset or tools to track it down. Do you have time to look at this mess? Thanks for considering this odd situation. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: - It seemed that this method was appropriate the first time I used it, so please excuse the interruption if I caused one. I found you by searching out the subject of sockpuppets and reading up on them and who handles them. I picked to ask you for assistance.
The history of the issue can easily be read starting with the section above "List of Names". There is a user who admits to using a rolling IP address (today it is 174.197.67.166 and is making edits in what appears to be at least SOMEWHAT good faith, but does not fully grasp the responsibilities of an editor, especially involving a BLP. Grand'mere Eugene and Peteforsyth had spent a good deal of effort defending and improving this one article from the IP user who obviously has a great deal of experience with Wikipedia and quite a tenure as well. As I noted before, if this is true this person has potentially thousands of individual edit histories. Not only am I not sure if this is even WRONG as much as it seems to be, but I am not so sure there is a lot that could be done about it if it was. I thought it best to ask someone of experience, thus the ping to you.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Darryl.P.Pike, there are a couple different things to address here. First, an anonymous user moving between IPs is not, itself, sockpuppetry or disruptive - the changes in address are generally outside of the user's control. Unfortunately, this does make it hard to reliably communicate with them and view their contribution history, but that's the price of allowing anonymous edits. Now, the policy you cited specifically mentions "logging out" - as long as this IP editor does not have an account that they're intentionally logging out of (to hide their identity), there's no problem here. Sometimes we can semi-protect a page (preventing editing by anonymous and new users) if we're really having problems with an uncommunicative anonymous editor. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image credits[edit]

Hello, please do not add these, as you did at Bully Creek Reservoir, per this guideline. Graham87 09:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darryl.P.Pike