User talk:SJ Morg

Trolleybuses in North Korea

Could you please send a scan of the pages of the Trolleybus Magazine 246 artiel? I would like to see how it presents these cities.

It would be a reliable source, although it is odd that it labels it Kowon instead of Sudong (as the administrative divisions split in 1990), a system which can be confirmed through multiple sources.

The original list had some oddities with 'Kimkol' and 'Markyn', which seem to be translation errors from Russian. Kimkol is probably Kumgol-dong in the Komdok mine region, in Tanchon, visible on satellite until the 2012 floods destroyed the system, but I can't understand what Markyn is. Yengwan and Kamdok are probably also from a Russian translation.

My doubts on Haeju are that the 2004 satellite image shows no traces of a line at all. Plausible turning loops are identified (east–west), but it's odd the trolleybus disappeared in 6 years, or even 2 years from 2002 to 2004 (although such did happen in Onsong County – 2 trolleybuses photographed in 1998; none in 2004 satellite image. But at least a line was visible). Generally, trolleybus systems are mothballed in North Korea, and not completely removed, as would be the case, apparently for Haeju. Huichon stood many years without a visible trolleybus, but it has been completely revived. So has Nampo, albeit still using the original Chollima 74 trolleybuses it started with.

Is this a trolleybus overhead? I believe that it is, but cybernk.net is inconsistent and it doesn't always say if a city had a trolleybus (Huichon did, and was in multiple photographs on that website, but was not mentioned on the website). Furthermore, that photo was taken in Yonsan County, which has a silver mine, and in the 1980s there was a Rodong Sinmun article called 'A large trolleybus runs in the silver mine', and there are only 3 known silver mines, the others which are Sangnong (mine opened later than article date) and Hyesan (which is doubtful). I've been through all the Rodong Sinmun article titles that mention a trolleybus or a tram, and haven't found anything else substantial.

Another county taken out of the list was Kapsan; it's also mentioned in another source, but the description of the line as a 3.9 km long means there is no plausible terminus.

A claim that I've seen once by a person who talked to the trolleybus factory was that 'in the Arduous March period (1992-7), 7 trolleybus systems opened, and even another tram line, which never started operation and was dismantled.' Unfortunately, they were not so willing to elaborate further.

I've also contacted another person who has been to North Korea multiple times; I asked about Yonsan, and they gave a dubious response that didn't say yes or no, but did say there are still 4 more trolleybus systems to be found (since then, Sinpyong, Sinhung have been found)

I'm really surprised that not a single photo exists of the streets of Tokchon. Along with some other people, I suspect there is a line in the city, but there's no solid proof. Gorden 2211 (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Gorden 2211: I'm sorry, but I do not have time to work on this currently. It's likely to be at least several weeks before I can reply, if at all. However, I will answer one question you asked, "Is this trolleybus overhead?" (with link to a photo): Yes, that definitely looks like trolleybus overhead wires to me. SJ Morg (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  After having obtained the three issues from another Wikipedia editor, I am not convinced. The authors should be praised for their in-depth research into a very poorly researched topic, but I feel that it isn't very reliable: the authors have on multiple occasions, in the magazine, stated that something might have existed. Then, a few pages later, the authors will say it closed, as if they were absolutely certain it existed in the first place. Their data on the supposed delivery of trolleybuses to Haeju is not clear and that particular batch of 10 "Chongnyonjonwi" trolleybuses ie. the Chollima-971 are only ever shown to have been presented in Pyongyang, not Haeju. Their map has a plausible eastern terminus but no western terminus. It would have be nice if it existed, but I doubt it did; I won't add it into the list because it is far too dubious.

  I had tried to put a request on WP:RX for old Rodong Sinmun articles; it seems nobody can easily access it. Gorden 2211 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Division Transit Project

Any plans to take photos of the Division Transit Project, construction and/or opening? Was wondering in case I should take on the task myself. --truflip99 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A year in now, I still have not taken any photos of the construction, unfortunately (it has been on my to-do list for months, but not a high priority). And I probably won't be taking any photos anytime soon, because unless there's a specific event (such as an opening, new type of vehicle arriving or entering service, or snow), I rarely take transit photos around the Portland area between about October and April. I encourage you to take some yourself, before the window for DTP construction photos closes. If I do end up taking some, I'll try to upload promptly, if (by then) there are still some types of views that are not represented by photos uploaded by you or others. – SJ Morg (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Harrison Tower Apartments article

I see you reverted some changes to the "Harrison Tower Apartments" article - not mine - but the article is somewhat defective.

Based on your comment on the article regarding notability for having once been the tallest building in Portland, I am going to assume the article is about the west tower (located at 255 SW Harrison) of the three-tower complex formerly known as the Portland Center Apartments.

1. The title of the article/building as given is incorrect. The 4th reference describes their previous name as the "Portland Center Apartments", linked with their construction in 1965. The article then documents the renaming of the "255" tower as "Harrison West", and the "111" tower as "Harrison East".

2. Using the title of "Harrison Tower Apartments" is additionally misleading as that is the current name of the south tower (222 SW Harrison), which is an apartment building - see reference #1.

3. "The tower was built as an apartment building, and remained so for many years after its 1965 completion, but was converted into condominiums between 2005 and 2008..."

This is well-supported by references 2, 3, 4

4. "and renamed from the Portland Center Apartments to the Harrison Condominiums"

Not supported; reference #4 gives the rename as "Harrison West". 2 and 3 also offer "Harrison West Condominium Tower" and "Harrison West Condominiums" respectively, however in both cases the "West" is included in the name to differentiate from the east tower at 111 SW Harrison.

5. "However, following a subsequent sale of the complex, the owners continued leasing the units as apartments"

Marked as reference #6, however reference #6 is about the south tower at 222 SW Harrison, not the west tower at 255 SW Harrison

6. "Eventually, the name was changed to reflect this usage, becoming the Harrison Tower Apartments"

Unreferenced, however since reference #6 refers to the sale of the 222/south tower to a corporate entity who has since been renting the units out as apartments, that south tower at 222 /is/ named Harrison Tower.

7. This also by the way makes the "General Information" block incorrect as it references the 222 address which is the south tower, and moots the need of references 1 and 6, which are both exclusively about the 222/south tower.

TLDR; article mixes up information about two different towers that were originally built as part of the same three-tower complex. 104.153.201.166 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Your revert in Bethany – why?

Hi, I was very surprized to see your revert: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1129444307, and your explanation is even more surprizing. Can you please show the map which tells you something different (perhaps it's too obsolete?), and in case your map indeed shows Bethany is located not to the North of Oak Hills, then why did you undo the edit instead of correcting it in accordance with your understanding of correct location? 188.66.34.235 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

P.S. Excuse me, but since you're apparently back to editing, are you going to address this or not? 188.66.34.202 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC) The response to this was not simple, and I didn't have time to write it earlier. I based my edit on what Portland-area residents refer to as Bethany. I was surprised to find that the CDP maps at the Census Bureau website differ greatly from local usage (including by the newsmedia) for Bethany and Oak Hills. The CDP maps show the Oak Hills CDP as extending west of the Oak Hills neighborhood, to 174th Avenue. This is very unfortunate, because 'no one' in the Portland area (except maybe statisticians) uses the name "Oak Hills" to refer to anything other than the neighborhood with that name – the boundary of which is shown here (the Historic District boundary is the same as the boundaries of the neighborhood, which existed long before the historic district was created, and not all homes within the HD boundary are part of the district, but all are in the Oak Hills neighborhood). The unincorporated area directly west of Oak Hills is commonly considered to be part of Bethany (with U.S. Highway 26 commonly considered to be the southern edge of the "Bethany" area), and that is why the explanation I left in the edit summary was "there are also parts [of Bethany] situated west of Oak Hills" (not only north, as your edit had stated). So, the unincorporated Bethany area lies both north and west of Oak Hills, but I now see that this is not the case for the Bethany CDP. The reason I say this is unfortunate is that the two articles are titled (per WP naming conventions) simply "Bethany, Oregon" and "Oak Hills, Oregon", not "Bethany CDP, Oregon" and "Oak Hills CDP, Oregon", and therefore many Wikipedia readers will infer that they are describing the two communities that are commonly (but informally, since not incorporated) known as Bethany and Oak Hills, whereas in fact they are describing the CDPs. Until now, I had figured the CDP boundaries essentially accurately reflected the geography of the local usage of the two names, but I see that unfortunately they do not. And since Bethany (as commonly known locally) is an unincorporated area comprising several neighborhoods, with no official boundary, it's not practical to find and cite several sources to support that assertion. We can only use the CDP definition, since that is the only official boundary for Bethany. (Oak Hills, meanwhile, does have an official boundary, which encompasses a much smaller area than the CDP, but per Wikipedia conventions the article refers to the CDP, not only to the Oak Hills neighborhood.) I do have at least one book on the history of Bethany (ISBN 978-0-9762823-7-2) that supports my assertion, but I don't think that's enough, and I suppose this article is referring mainly to the CDP, the only formal entity named Bethany; it's just unfortunate that there is a significant discrepancy between local usage and Census boundary. In any case, this means that I now find that your edit was technically correct. The reason I reverted, rather than revised, your edit, is that the Oak Hills neighborhood is a small area, much smaller than either Cedar Mill or Bethany (which each comprise many neighborhoods) and therefore it made sense to me that the article should refer to Bethany's position relative to the large, approx. 150-year-old Cedar Mill area (as it already did), but not relative to the very small Oak Hills neighborhood. (I considered explaining this reasoning in the edit summary but decided it would make it too long.) For that reason, I still feel that referring to Bethany's position relative to Oak Hills is not warranted, particularly given the major discrepancy between the local meaning of "Oak Hills" and the Census Bureau's definition of the CDP (an area roughly double the size of Oak Hills proper!). However, you would not be incorrect if you were to reinstate your edit, but if so I would urge you to say the "Oak Hills CDP", since Portland-area residents commonly consider the area west of Oak Hills (neighborhood), i.e. west of NW Bethany Blvd., to part of Bethany and most would very surprised to find that the Census Bureau considers it to be part of Oak Hills (CDP). SJ Morg (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Okay, I have a few comments. As for your proposal to use "Oak Hills CDP", I don't think it is justified in this case (as opposed to, say, in the part of Oak Hills article detailing difference between official and historical boundaries or a map in said article showing boundary of the neighborhood where it would be inapproppriate not to do so). Besides, Wikipedia articles are not scientific or historical references; the readership is mostly common people who may want to read about their neighborhood and some could only be confused with "Oak Hills CDP" rather than benefit from it ("is CDP's definition of Oak Hills different from what my smartphone shows me?"). More importantly, the difference between official and historical boundaries does not affect relative location of Bethany and Oak Hills at all. It clearly doesn't make it northwest to justify correction, much less removal as you did, as the area west of NW Bethany Blvd. is way too small. On a more general note, I would strongly suggest that you read and respect WP:RV, WP:ROWN and WP:CRV as this revert is clearly beyond what's agreed upon by the community, and your revert rate must be the highest I've ever seen, there are days when you literally do nothing but revert (10.12.2022, 27.11.2022, 23.11.2022, 22.11.2022, didn't look further back). One more page I'd recommend is WP:OWN, as I'm under impression that you may have developed a bit of ownership for pages you contributed to (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). As for my edit, it's a result of helping clear a small confusion related to this area, so of course I'm putting it back and, time permitting, will try to provide a full list of adjacent neighborhoods for Bethany, Oak Hills, Cedar Mill, and maybe a few more 'hoods, since practical value of enlisting adjacent neighborhoods which have proper names, however big or small they may be, is quite obvious to me. 188.66.34.198 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC) In my 14 years editing here, you are the first person ever to accuse me of reverting too much. As you noted, you did not look back far at all, and I can tell you that reverts make up a miniscule percentage of my editing, over time. When a given WP contributor happens to have very little time for WP editing during a given week or month, it's common to simply check one's watchlist (I check mine a few times a day even when I have almost no time for editing, to watch for vandalism at least) to remove vandalism or make small cleanup edits or revert edits he/she considers not helpful or productive, and not do much other editing during that period due to temporary lack of time. Looking at my edits during a brief period gave you a very inaccurate impression. I reverted a single edit of yours, affecting just one sentence, and yet now you are urging me to read WP policies and guidelines – which I most likely am far more familiar with than you are (and which I support and adhere to). If you are going to criticize other editors, you really should create an account and not do so anonymously. – SJ Morg (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC) I didn't expect to write anything else here, but the fact that you allow yourself sentences like ... and yet now you are urging me to read WP policies and guidelines – which I most likely am far more familiar with than you are (and which I support and adhere to).  shows that if you are indeed well familiar with rules, then apparently you have no respect not only to those dealing with reverting and content removal I have mentioned, but also to WP:CIV. Please read again my messages carefully. Do you see me saying things like "with such knowledge of Portland area, you shouldn't revert others' edits without consulting an expert or a map first and/or asking the contributor in a polite manner to explain the edit" (which would have been deserved at least) or launching any other personal attacks on you? If you don't, then why are doing it? Do you realize that completely undeserved reverts and personal attacks that you for some reason allow yourself with ease are embarassing and painful to read and that it takes effort and discipline to be polite with an offender? And that even if they were deserved or justified, revenging in the same manner is contrary to rules long established by the community? As for your disagreement with my observations regarding your revert rate, I checked a little further back and here is what I see: 22.10.2022, 12.10.2022, 31.08.2022, 14.08.2022, 02.08.2022, 26.07.2022 are more days when you do nothing but revert, so apparently it's no exception at all as you claim, but quite a usual thing. Besides, even a brief look at your record has shown there are other incorrect reverts and rollbacks (reverted in turn by their contributors, which you didn't dispute). What it means is that your revert of my edit is clearly not a one-off event, it did happen before and involved others. And as for your remark regarding anonymity (another undeserved personal jab at me), I have two things to say: first, I don't see you disclosing your real name, photo, or place of work, sir, which makes you not only a fully anonymous editor, but more anonymous than IP editors, since unlike you, we disclose our IP addresses to entire world. Second, from now on, please refrain from making various derogatory assumptions and statements with respect to IP editors, as you don't have a slightest idea about a contributor. Some of us can have longer editing experience (mine is ca. 20 years, and I mention it only because you invoked the argument, as if it grants you rights to disrespect rules), better knowledge, and may be not merely older, but of senior age. Not to mention having the ability to discuss things in a civil manner without personal attacks of any sort. 188.66.35.220 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Wow. This is way over the top. I did not "attack" anyone verbally, merely (civilly) criticized, which is perfectly acceptable and within policy - including criticizing an editor for editing anonymously (nothing wrong with such criticism). I am not the person being uncivil here. BTW, your IP address does not identify you to the public; yours is a dynamic IP address, and all four of your edits here have had different IP addresses, making it impossible for WP's software to group them together on a "user contributions" page, the way logged-in users' contributions are. Also, there's nothing wrong with reverting; it can be very beneficial, such as to remove vandalism (as I mentioned), and many respected editors do a lot of reverting. Your continued emphasis on that (false) argument suggests a lack of experience with WP editing. And I don't know even know how to do a rollback, so I am really beginning to question your motives with this discussion. This has become a waste of my time. SJ Morg (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you respect at least talk page rules?

Excuse me, but since you not only didn't include my last message https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132782573 in the archive and archived it before I even responded, but also removed the WP:ANI notice I left simply because I had to – are you actually aware or not that you do require editor's permission in order to remove a talk page message and you just can't do it at will (except for harmful/prohibited content) – as you can't revert or remove anything you (don't) like, presume and state you are more familiar with rules than another editor, or essentially accuse another editor of lying about you as you did in the course of my encounter with you?

As I said, lack of knowledge is one thing, but lack of respect to rules is something else – hence the question. 188.66.32.25 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, per WP:REMOVED, there's no rule prohibiting users from removing content from their own talk page. There is no merit to any of your wild claims and baseless criticism of me, as you have now been told by multiple other editors on the Noticeboard. Your continuing behavior – including threats to expose what you falsely allege to be policy violations by me – constitutes harassment, and I don't intend to even read, let alone archive, any more posts from you on my talk page (and there is no policy requiring me to do so, as I said). In 14 years here, I have archived all past posts to my talk page, including the relatively few that were critical of my editing; your defamatory accusations and aggressive harassment have forced me to make an exception in this case. SJ Morg (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Touché Restaurant & Bar

Hello! Touché Restaurant & Bar has been nominated for deletion. I'm not asking you to weigh in at AfD, but I am curious if you might have any interest in helping with the section about the building's historical significance. No worries if you're uninterested or have other priorities. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but no. I don't mind your asking, and it was a reasonable question given my interest in historic buildings in Portland, but in this case I have not done any research on (or saved any articles about) this building, and I currently have almost no time for Wikipedia editing (and, as you surmised, I have other subjects that are higher priority for me). – SJ Morg (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all! Happy editing as you have time :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi again! I saw you reverted a couple of my recent image relocations. No worries at all. I've just noticed with the new skin that sometimes the left-aligned images sandwich the text or create white spaces. But, obviously, depends on a user's device, browser, settings, etc, and I want what's best for most viewers. No need to apologize for reverting, I just wanted to explain why I was updating so many pages. These things get sorted out over time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real challenge not knowing whether what one sees on his/her screen (re layout) might be vastly different from what some other users are seeing. Thanks very much for your comment. I appreciate it. SJ Morg (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)