Talk:Club Portland/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Image
Resolved@Graywalls: Hello! If there's a problem with the image, can you please nominate for deletion at Wikimedia Commons instead of just removing here? The image will be removed automatically if deemed problematic at Wikimedia Commons, but just removing the illustration here is not solving the problem. Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see that as an excuse to reinstate infringing contents uploaded by someone else. Go ahead and do so. You've been editing long enough and know better than that. Graywalls (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, If one looks at the file at Commons, no problem is evident. Just removing the image here will just make people think the image at Commons has not yet been added to the article. If you believe there's a problem with the file, you should make this known, not just edit the infobox here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then, go ahead and do it or I can do it when I feel like it. I believe in good faith that there is infringement. I do see that you have received quite a fee notices of usage outside of fair usage in the recent past. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I don't know what you're talking about re: past fair usage violations. That's not a fair statement, but whatever. If you decide not to tag the image for deletion at Wikimedia Commons, then someone else is just going to add the image back to the infobox... Again, you're not making a potential problem known. I've tagged this article as unillustrated, so expect someone to add the image back in the near future. I'm not going to keep going back and forth about it with you here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: The flickr photo by Nelson Minar (which was uploaded to Commons and used in this article) was taken in 2006; the identical photo on WW's flickr account was uploaded in 2007. It is quite possible that Willamette Week is the one infringing copyright for failing to attribute the source of their photograph. As the Commons file properly attributes Minar, I don't think it is a copyright violation to use the image in this article and have therefore restored it. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to nominate File:Club Bathbohouse.jpg for deletion on Commons. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Lord Bolingbroke, Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then, go ahead and do it or I can do it when I feel like it. I believe in good faith that there is infringement. I do see that you have received quite a fee notices of usage outside of fair usage in the recent past. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Marking this as resolved per this comment at WikiProject Oregon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
drug activity
There's not enough discussion about that part of the life which I'm seeing in sources I can find today. Graywalls (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Recent addition
How do editors feel about this recent addition? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Lord Bolingbroke: Pinging you as a past page contributor, if you're curious to review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Article text?
I'm pretty sure this article used to have more text, but I'm not seeing the reporting at this time, and I can't find a previous version of the page using Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. Can anyone else see text here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The "[not in citation given]" tag seems appropriate, but I've removed the word "supposedly" from the article text. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
sentence tagged as verification failed by Another Believer
@Another Believer: I see that you tagged something as verification failed in this change you made. I can't attest to the accuracy of the claim since the article isn't web accessible. I'm not sure not being able to access is a reason to tag "failed verification". I'm asking you since you're the one who inserted the link in the first place. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion I started above. I remember being able to view text here before, but I'm unable to do so now. I've asked if others are able to access text at this site. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've changed the tag back to "failed verification" from "dead link". There's a difference. The URL is not dead, but the article text has been removed, which makes verification the problem, not the URL. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see this wasn't the first time opening year was challenged, but had beenquashed out. Is there a reason for this? Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's clearly some confusion over the founding date. Instead of worrying about what happened in this article's past, let's focus on finding appropriate sourcing for improving the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see this wasn't the first time opening year was challenged, but had beenquashed out. Is there a reason for this? Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've changed the tag back to "failed verification" from "dead link". There's a difference. The URL is not dead, but the article text has been removed, which makes verification the problem, not the URL. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Lawson
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are we describing Lawson as "a longtime Cascade AIDS Project donor and supporter". Is there a connection between CAP and Club Portland? This seems like unnecessary detail, unless I'm misunderstanding the relevance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The emphasis is that of the source, not me. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- But why do you think this detail is necessary for a Wikipedia article about Club Portland? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I've removed mention of Cascade AIDS Project because I'm still not understanding why this is a necessary detail. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- The newspaper most likely felt it was bewildering that a CAP supporter held such a cavalier attitude about needles being everywhere for other people to deal with. I'm all for including it, because it expresses the voice of the source. I'll figure out a way to make it flow into prose naturally. Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)