User:Austex/Archive 3

User:Austex/Archive 3

(archived 24 August 2010)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Username

(Above items archived in Archive 1)

Nineteen Nightmares

NOTE: All material re 19N is archived in Archive 2

For the normal Talk Page Archive during that period go to Archive 1

Info Box if needed:

Note: Information on Nineteen Nightmare's specific quotes, his accusations, and their refutation are located HERE

A/NI Posting

NOte: AN/I involving Nineteen Nightmares=== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

19N Blocked

NOTE: The text below was copied verbatim from Nineteen Nightmare's talk page and placed here by Austex, It was NOT placed here by Sarah, author of the block. It is placed here as a reference only as an indicator of the end of the 19N issue.

03:47, 12 July 2010 Sarah (talk | contribs) 12 July 2010 Sarah (talk | contribs) blocked Nineteen Nightmares (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)

"Nighteen Nightmares, I have blocked your account. I regret having to do this but I came upon your comment here where you make it perfectly clear that you have no intention of leaving the other users alone and this seems to be the only way to put an end to this disruption. I would very much like to unblock you but I will only do so with an agreement to leave the other users alone. This on-going disruption needs to stop immediately and since you've refused to consent to the interaction ban on ANI, this seems the only way forward. You state on Salvio's mentorship page: "I don't intend to shut up when they are breaking Wikipedia policy and seem to have no regard for the site or its rules", well you're breaking the rules, too, by making these personal attacks and uncivil comments and acting like you're the WikiPolice. It needs to stop either by you agreeing to move on and leave them alone or by us taking the choice out of your hands and deciding for you. Please take some time to think about this. Should you decide to agree to leave them alone, you can be unblocked straight away. Sarah 03:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)"

Examples of Poking

(both relate to 19NN and were moved to Archive 2 on July 25, 2010)

Discussion moved from Sarah's page to here

In order to take the burden off Sarah's page I have copied over the last two entries of a discussion CIO issues regarding editing the Austin, Texas page. For those of you who want to extend the discussion here, that's great. If not you are always welcome to continue to edit her page. For myself, I intend to move my postings here instead.

Discussion re References

Because of the book ("Austin" - which is a history book) I have already chosen not edit the article's history pages as I have outlined below to avoid even the appearance of a COI. However I believe that editing the rest of the Austin, Texas article presents no particular COI just because I live in Austin. I imagine (but cannot prove) that 90% or more of the article is written by Austinites....just as it is abundantly clear from the discussion pages that Georgetown residents have clearly made Georgetown edits (in fact many of the edits wre made by the Williamson County, Texas history museum staff, and the same is true with much of the Round Rock, Texas written by city staff and the local historical society) and also with theTravis County, Texas pages, etc. These groups have far more of a COI than I do.Austex • Talk 15:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And..... since you have interjected yourself.....What you fail to see is that I am not interjecting myself or my commercial interests into the articles (as was previously claimed by a certain editor who is now banned indef). If I am, please show me where. Frankly, I also I do not see any commerical gain I could possibly have by using citations and how that would directly promote my book.

First, before you get overly concerned, you should take a minute to check out the actual book HERE. It is always better than to communicate constuctively than to make implied threats as above re "if I ignore your advice."

What implied threat is in that comment - I think you should take a moment to re-read what I said - "if you choose to ignore the conflict of interest advice on the matter" - in other words the advice on the conflict of interest page - that being don't edit pages you have a COI in. As for you assertion that you don't see why quoting your own book is not a COI then I really can't help you. Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree that quoting from the book is a COI as you said above: But I haven't quoted from the book. Your language says that I "don't see why quoting your own book is not a COI" I agree it would be. But that is not the issue. Instead what we are talking about is reference citations. And while I feel that is perhaps a gray area, nevertheless I placed the notice on the [[Austintalk page (section 17)) (also shown below)that I will not myself use the book for references AND will not edit any of the history section or any area covered by the book (approx 1890 - 1940). As for the existing refrences, Sarah said to go ahead leave them in. But instead I plan to replace them with other references (when I get home from vacation) AND/OR I will let other independent editors review them, vet them HERE (section 16), and use them if they like, or not. I beleive doing so precisely complies with the guidelines of

Note: Re the current edits I have added to the talk page and included the COI edit template as well:

I do possibly expect (per notice given below) to potentially do other edits to the overall article that is not within that time perood. As an Austinite, I have no conflict writing about Austin in general with thoroughly referenced citations -- for example writing about local government, the economy, climate, music or sports.....(but not Austin history).

Interestingly, from my observations on Wikipedia it appears that a large number of articles are routinely edited by editors close enough to to the article to know the subject (whether it is math issues or cities...) Having written a book doesn't disqualify anyone from editing on the overall subject (especially if no references come from the book). Thank God my name isn't William Webster. Would I then be disqualified from ALL subjects? Austex • Talk 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Results of other editor comments

Copied from Austin, Texas Discussion Page:

Dear Austin Texas Editors: I have a definite COI conflict of interest re eight edits I made to the Austin article. I am the Author of a 2009 history book on Austin (called "Austin") by Arcadia Publishing, covering Austin history from the 1980's to the 1940's. As such I have a conflict in I myself using my own book as a citation. To avoid the conflict the references need to be examined by other editors/editor who would then independently decide whether to leave them in or not. With time I can replace them all with other references myself if needed but I thought I'd pursue this path instead. Having others independently decide is a common way to avoid a [COI] situation like this. The edits in question are currently numbered as edits 25, 30, 32 and 34 - 39 (shown below). If you want to use them it is probably best to copy the original edit in the article text, remove it, and add it back under your User name so that it is clear that I am not citing mself. Thanks. I'd be glad to answer any questions at User talk:Austex Austex • Talk 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 31. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 30. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 84. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 30. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 107. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 111. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9
• ^ Martin, Don (2009). Austin, p. 112. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago, IL, ISBN 978-0-7385-7067-9

Austex • Talk 20:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If no one has respoonded yea or nay on these references within a month I will leave them in. However anyone may still object to them later if they wish and delete one or all of them. If so I'd appreciate a note on my talk page just leting me know. Thanks. Austex • Talk 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The additions pass the smell test for me. However, I would like another opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

please keep the references. It's a pleasure to have a genuine expertron board at Wikipedia. I do not see any conflicts of interestr at all. Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Look kosher to me. smjwalsh (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine; I suggest the next person who agrees removes the edit request; I don't think it is at all necessary; this talk-page discussion is all the evidence anyone will ever need, that due process has been followed. Chzz  ►  11:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine with me as well. Thanks for asking beforehand. ThemFromSpace 05:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! (removed edit request) Austex • Talk 03:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice re COI Intent on Austin, Texas from Austex

(Below is a message I posted on the Austin, Texas talk page July 14, 2010.)

NOTICE OF INTENT RE POTENTIAL COI ISSUES: I'm User:Austex an Austin editor on Wikipedia. Last year I wrote a book on Austin history by Arcadia Publishing telling the history of Austin from the 1890's to about 1940 using historic collectible postcards. The book reference and reviews are HERE. Another editor has suggested that I potentially have a conflict of interest WP:COI in editing any or all sections of theAustin, Texas article having written a book the on Austin history. That seems to go a bit overboard for me. I certainly understand the obvious Conflict of Interest from using the book to edit the history section and especially from 1980-1940. But I just don't see a conflict in editing other sections outside of the "History Section" -- such as sports, climate, government, climate, etc -- as many editors on Wikipedia do edit on the subjects and cities they know and are familiar with, or have researched.

However, as of July 14, 2010, in the spirit of WP:CIV civility and showing good faith WP:AFD and for avoiding a WP:COI issue through self-disclosure, I am offering the following statement: I hereby give formal notice that I will not edit Austin, Texas history information between 1890 and 1940 (the time period of the book) and will only make edits in unaffiliated sections or general topics in the article. Furthermore I will strictly follow the COI guidelines involving my editing and will only make edits that are strictly nuetral in nature and for which I have no personal interest or POV. I have read the COI guidelines and will abide by them fully. Austex • Talk 01:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If any editor has concerns please leave a message at my talk page here or send an email from my main page email userbox. (updated) Austex • Talk 01:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Austin and COI

Just wanted to comment on how impressed I am with your professionalism regarding your possible conflict of interest. Thank you, and as another editor said at Talk:Austin, Texas, it's great to have an expert around. I'll be sure to check out your book next time I walk into a local bookstore; I'm a postcard person myself. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well...to be truthful I could not be deemed an expert by any stretch of the imagination! I have a ton to learn and am mostly learning through mistakes (usually a hard but valuable lesson). And I've learned to disclose conflicts of interest and to avoid them. Thanks very much for you kind words, however. They mean a lot to me. Best wishes in your editing.... Austex • Talk 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to copy a portion of my comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Williamson County

Thank you for the courtesy notification about your changes. I have no problems with anything you've mentioned, or changes made. My initial intention was to get some history in the county, and the timeline was probably overkill. My interests have moved to areas not related to county histories. However, thought I would mention that I like what you have done on the Williamson County talk page. If only there were somebody for every county in Texas to solicit input. Good luck. And, again, thanks for the courtesy. Maile66 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll continue to help fill it out over time. I'm very fond of Williamson County and Georgetown. Austex • Talk 22:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably already had this information, but below are some links I used as reference points on Williamson County. Maile66 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas-Williamson Co

Handbook of Texas-Mayeye Indians

Handbook of Texas-San Xavier Missions

Handbook of Texas-Daniel James Moody Jr

TX Historical Marker-Slave Burial Ground, Round Rock

TX Historical Marker-Kenney's Fort

Jessie Daniel Ames historical sketch

Yojuane Indian Tribe

Tawakoni Indian Tribe

How kind of you to share. Thank You. Austex • Talk 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Response filed July 20 at the discussionAustex • Talk 03:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Email from copyright holder Peter Verdiccio (of SEC Plannning, LLP) sent July 26, 2010 to OTRS licensing the image under a CCA-SA-Ver3.0 license for both File:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg and also File:Sun City Texas pool.jpg Austex • Talk 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Image was listed as licensed by OTRS per email on August 7, 2010. Austex • Talk 03:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor's Conflict of Interest on Chainsaw Massacre Article

The following notice has been posted July 23, 2010 on the talk page for Round Rock, Texas The item is located HERE(Third section down).. For some reason the Round Rock Discussion page has no index) Austex • Talk 17:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

As a former partner in "La Frontera" I have a WP:COI conflict of interest re adding the "La Frontera" name to this movie paragraph below. If any editor(s)are so inclined, and think it is relevant to the article, they may add the name on the article page roughly in the position shown below. Most articles re the movie list this location, and there are event tours to the site using the development name. If you wisdh to do so please add it in normal black text, of course, rather than copying this paragraph:

• The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (original version) was primarily filmed in Round Rock in 1974, in a house on Quick Hill Road where the La Frontera development now sits. Contrary to popular belief the movie is not based on a true story. Tours are still conducted by TCM groupies at the sites from the movie including the Round Rock site. Tobe Hooper, Director. 1974. [Movie FAQ's]

Georgetown, Texas

Hi Austex, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Don't worry about being "not very good at this yet." Wikipedia is a learning process because there is so many different policies and guidelines, it can take a long time to get the hang of everything. I've been editing for over two years, and still learn something new everyday. There are lots of good editors here who are always prepared to help, it doesn't matter how many questions or advice I seek from them, they always get back to me. Most of my edits are just touching up articles to comply with wikipedia policy, like the edit that mentioned in your note. As per your request for help, anything I can do for you, don't be afraid to ask.

One thing about your edits in this article that I wanted to mention is the external links. I see where you added a large number to the article, but you should probably read the policy on external links (WP:EL). Wikipedia isn't a directory of links for every site a user can find that has something to do with the subject. There are certain sites to include, but many that shouldn't be included. Also, external links are supposed to go in an "External links" section, not the text of the article. There are also times when including a reference is more appropiate than an external link, which is something reading the policy will give you a better understanding of. And by the way, good work on the articles. Cmr08 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a read. It has been confusing to me about when a refernece is needed or not. I try to look for good references versus mediocre ones, but I've let a few slip in here and there. I am so used to seeing bot notices that say this article or that needs more references that sometimes I overdue in the in-line ones. Look forward to reading up on it. I did see that it looked unusally long! 99% of the references that I, myself, do are in-line references. Appreciate the tip re WP:EL.. Austex • Talk 23:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done a TON of editing on this page, adding detail, images, and re-organization. (see history log) I'll look into the external references and delete some. I just looked and it is awful. But none were my adds. Thanks. Austex • Talk

When I said you added external links, I wasn't refering to the links that are in the "External links" section, I was refering to the external links in the text of the article. According to the article history, it was you who added a large number of links in the "Sites of interest" section a couple of days ago. Just because it's not titled "External links" doesn't change the fact that there external links. Is it posible that you are confusing references and external links, because the links you added to that section were not references, they were external links, which shouldn't be added to the text to begin with. I hope I'm not confusing you here, but references and external links are not the same. You should probably read up on references in the help section, it might be easier to understand because when reading this back, I'm even confusing myself. Cmr08 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, your'e right. I was confused! I thought you only meant those listed at the end of the article as "external links." I do use a lot of the other kind of external links (i.e., references or citations). Will read up on it all tonight. And thanks for the...uh...explanation. <wink> Austex • Talk 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One other thing I just noticed. Adding sections and leaving messages that the info is to be provided is not really the best way to edit an article. Even though your intent is to come back and do the work, it still doesn't look good in the article to leave comments in the text. I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but it's proably very easy, is to create a subpage on your user page for work in progress, and then when you finish it, you can move the new section into the article. Just go to the Editing Wikipedia section on the help page, then goto creating pages. It will explain how to create a subpage there. Cmr08 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I do have a subpage just ready to use. But I was trying to also encourage others to join in and add material. In some cases I put hidden text (that you see only when you are in edit mode) or other times I've tried adding it to the discussion page re what is needed next. These are really notes to others and not a reminder to me, but I see how that loooks bad in an article. Better to leave it without and have the article look right, and added when ready. I'll figure something out and be consistent with it -- something other than adding to the visible article text. Feel free todelete any of these you see, and I'll look for them too. Austex • Talk 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure would like someone to make the stupid minor edit above in which I have a WP:COI. I am VERY careful about not making edits in which I have a COI, even if only a minor one like above. I got in trouble for making edits once before and learned a lesson. So now I am posting notice and leaving it for others to make instead of me. Austex • Talk 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Austex, I just cleaned up the external links in this aricle. As you know now, external links are not listed in the text of the article, they go in an "External links" section. Several of the external links you added to the "Sites of interest" section are already included in the correct section at the bottom of the article. Also, wikipedia policy is not to include a number of external links to the same website, as wikipedia is not a directory of links. Instead of adding links to multiple pages of the visit Georgetown site, it is more appropiate to just include a link to the homepage of the site, which is already inlcuded in the "External links" section. Cmr08 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand and appreciate it. I have been meaning to go back to the Georgetown site and clean that up as there were definitely items that could be consolidayted. By the way, from my reading it says that sometimes external links are allowed in the article itself or even as in-line references. WP:EL says "Some acceptable external links (within the article) include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Cearly the one I made on the Round Rock page re the Chainsaw House for example, did not meet this critiera. But sometimes external links are allowed in an article especially if they are not important enought to the overall article to list in the External Links seection at the end. Austex • Talk 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you should go back and re-read the actual policy that you're citing to me here. You're just misunderstanding what the policy is talking about. When it mentiones adding them to the article, it's not talking about the text, it's refering to an "External links" section. I also have no idea how you copied the policy word-for-word because the words "(within the article)" are not part of the actual text at WP:EL, so I have no idea how they ended up in this message you left for me. The main idea of the policy is that external links shouldn't be added to the text. Cmr08 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The (within the article) was a parenthetical inserted by me. Let me propose a plan: I think I will just stay away from using external links at all for now UNLESS they are in the External Links Section at the end of each article. I appreciate you trying to teach me but I a bit dense I guess. I'm slowly getting there. I'll keep reading and working on it. I do appreciate your patience. And for sure, please feel free to edit out any that I have inappropriately inserted. So many rules......but you learn as you go. Austex • Talk 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

PS -- I will probably blank this section in a few days as it has run so long, assuming that's OK with you as well.Austex • Talk 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's a learning experience indeed. I've been editing for over two years and still learn something new everday. The policies can be so confusing at times, that I often have to reach out to more experienced editors for advice. As for deleting discussions from talk pages, I believe that archiving is the preferred process, but also that editors can remove discussion from their talk page if they want to. Since it's your talk page, do whatever you feel is best. Cmr08 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With your help I think I am now pretty much up to speed on the external links issue. Basically: 1) don't cite a link to just a website in the article. Only reference actual "citations" to refernecde sourcxes (such as books, articles, journls, news etc that have their own text but are not just a website for exaple.) If the website the link is good enough, it can go down below in external links. That sound about right? Also thanks for your help on section titles not being all Caps (I have it down now) and various other cleanups. I'm slowly getting better on these two issues. Sometimes you learn more by your mistakes. Austex • Talk 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External Links versus Cites and References

I've been reading up on this quite a bit and now have a much better understanding:

• External Links WP:EL are really in-line links that link to another web site or a data base to provide readers with additonal reading material. They should be kept to a minimum and two should never be used if one will suffice. "Websites that have been used as sources in the creation of a page should not then be cited in the article as a reference." Very few external links are necessary, if at all. However -- and this is important -- External Links are not the same as Citations and References which are encouraged and which add to Wikipedia credibility and the writer's and article's credibility. Examples of External Links also include the terms "Further Reading" and "External Links" at the bottom of the page.

• Citations (a/k/a Refences) WP:CITE and WP:REF are very different from External Links. Citations are strongly encouraged and usually are used to identify one of the following:

• the creator of the work (including sources of quotes, books, etc)
• the piece of work itself or its location (book, article, quote, etc)
• The publisher of the work (newspaper, journal, book, etc)

The term "Reference" means the format in which you make or document the citation. In-line footnote referencing is by far the most common method of cititing sources on Wikipedia. Once made, the referenced citation shows up in the Reference list at the bottom of the page in a numbered list under the {{reflist}} section.

Both WP:CIT and WP:REF go into far greater detail as to the format of referneces. They can range from simple to complex but ideally one should remain consistent in their use. (Parenthetically - That's why I have a list of citations on my User page so I can copy and fill in the blanks each time in a consistent manner).

There is also a Wikipedia citation generator HERE where you fill in the blanks and it will produce perfect citations.

When and Why to cite sources: (abbreviated from WP:CIT

• Ensures article can be checked by a reader or editor.
• Shows it is not an original work of the editor.
• Avoids claims of plagerism or copying material.
• Helps users find additional souces of information.
• Verifies authenticity of the article text.
• Improves credibility of Wikipedia.

I hope this information is of help to all of us in having a better understanding of External Links (generally discouraged) versus Citations/Reference (which are strongly encouraged). Austex • Talk 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Austex, this is pretty much what I was getting at. It probably would of been a lot easier to understand if I had just said to put the link inside reference tags, but I had to go and explain it the hard way, to the point where I even had myself confused. When you break it down, it's pretty straight forward. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused you. Cmr08 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all! It was a much needed learning experience for me. Austex • Talk 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages

Austex, I have removed two fair use images from your user page. Fair use images cannot be used outside of the article space. The other images on your user page that are under free licenses are, of course, fine. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I perhaps Understand(I think)re McConico, but the book cover was just today revised by another editor to download a lesser quaklit image to comply with Wikipedia requirements. See today's change at: [[File:Austin book cover scan.jpg]] I am personally the copyright holder on the book and cover art. These are archived on my page so I can remember the file names. I'd appreciate a reference of where it says these cannot be on a talk page, just so I'll understand better, and secondly I'd appreciate a courtesy heads up before removal instead of afterwards. Now I have to go search for the filenames. Austex • Talk 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to, you can link to fair use images on your user page, you're just not allowed to actually display them. You can link to them by adding a colon at the start but after the brackets, like this: thumb|center|300px|McConico.jpg. Perhaps that will be suitable for your needs? --Deskana (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Austex • Talk 00:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not working for me. See User page where I tried it both ways and in copying your template I guess I am making some kind of error. What amI doing wrong? Austex • Talk 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's partially my fault for copying the wrong code, it should have been like this: File:McConico.jpg --Deskana (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha! That works and now I also understand. Thanks. Quite frankly I amy want to make them all links..... Appreciate the explanation and help. Austex • Talk 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

PS - can you point me to the relevant Fair Use explanation relating to not using certain kinds of images in non-article space? I am still trying to understand copyrights. Thanks. --PS, where's Sarah these days. Haven't seen or heard from her in weeks! Austex • Talk

Wikipedia:USER#Images. But you should bear in mind that there is not always a relevant policy description for everything, as policies are not prescriptive, they're descriptive; policies describe our practices. --Deskana (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Will read up on it. Meanwhile I have had emails already sent today to the listed .org address for BOTH images granting free licnenses under CCA-SA-Ver3.0 . For one image (the book cover) I am the copyright holder and sent backup material re the copyright proving that up. The other is copyrighted by Community Impact Newspaper and the publisher of the paper himself kindly sent an email licensing it under CCA as well today. So hpefully both will soon be corrected by the OTRS as free images. I don't know how long that takes, however. I bet they stay busy! Austex • Talk 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the image again as it is fair use. Once again, please do not put fair use images on your user page. --Deskana (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you know far more than me but just today the status on the image was changed. See notice at File:McConico.jpg Also the license has been submitted by the owner as a CCA-SA-3.0 and is currently pending at OTRS. Not sure how long that takes... Austex • Talk 22:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:McConico.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:McConico.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree! <It is not an image illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. This is a photo of a deceased person, the first ever black Councilmember of the City of Round Rock. It is historical in nature and cannot be replaced with other media or through a written decription alone. I will submit same to OTRS. Austex • Talk 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright release email licensing the image under CCA-SA-Ver 3.0 from copyright holder Community Impact Newspaper (John Garrett, Publisher) sent to OTRS 'permissions-ed@wikimedia.org' on July 26,2010. Austex • Talk 01:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Round Rock, Texas

Technical question: For some reason the Round Rock Discussion page HERE has no index box. Any thoughts on how to create one or why it is missing?

Cmr8 - any thoughts about how to get an index on the RR discussion page? Page located HERE.

section in question is HERE:

• The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (original version) was primarily filmed in Round Rock in 1974, in a house on Quick Hill Road where the La frontera commercial development now sits. Contrary to popular belief the movie is not based on a true story.....

I'll take a look at this when I get a chance, probably later tonight. By the way, WP:ELNO is just a subsection of WP:EL. It's all part of the policy on external links. I just used that link so you wouldn't have to scan the whole policy to find it. Cmr08 (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When I replied to your question (at bottom), I didn't notice that you had also left a message in Round Rock section until a few minutes ago. The edit concerning the 1990s vs. 1990's isn't much of a big deal. The summary I left could have been in a better tone, but to be honest, I didn't even realize what article I was in, or who had done it. If I had caught the article name, I never would have left that message. Upon looking back, I now see you didn't just go and revert my edit, it looks like you were adding more info, but like I said, no big deal.

I also wanted to mention that school edit. The only reason I removed Fall was because it wasn't listed in source, but just to let you know, wikipedia prefers "not to use season names to denote a time of year. Use a date or month instead, or use a globally applicable term such as: in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September." I don't think you had anything to do with those edits, but I thought I should show you the policy for future reference. WP:MONTH. Cmr08 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Austin book cover scan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Austin book cover scan.jpg. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A licensing email under CCA-SA-Ver3.0 was sent today to permissions-ed@wikimedia.org along with authenticaion of the copyright holder. Additonally, some editor replaced the book cover image with a lower quality version to make it now useable. See talk page on File:Mcconico.jpg Because of a conflict of interest I cannot add the image to an article emyself (since I am the author and copyright holder).Austex • Talk 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Austex, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Austex. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre House Possible COI

Used {requestedit} template'

A REQUEST EDIT item was posted HERE Re: Because of a relationship relating to La Frontera I have a WP:COI conflict of interest re adding the "La Frontera" name to this movie paragraph below. If any editor(s)are so inclined, and think it [1]is relevant to the article, they may add the name on the article page roughly in the position shown below. Most articles re the movie list this location, and there are event tours to the site using the development name. If you wisdh to do so please add it in normal black text, of course, rather than copying this paragraph: Austex • Talk 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (original version) was primarily filmed in Round Rock in 1974, in a house on Quick Hill Road where the La frontera commercial development now sits. Contrary to popular belief the movie is not based on a true story.....

Partly done: I'm adding a select part of the change now. Thank you for your contribution. --ANowlin: talk 22:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Even on these little items I always use {requestedit} when in doubt, but it's hard to get anyone to take a look. I appreciate it. Austex • Talk 00:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I force captions to left justify?

{{helpme}} For example the Round Rock, Texas page I am working on, all the captions are centered. I want to left-justify instead. What do I need to code to make that happen? Thanks mucho, from Texas Austex • Talk 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you specify what you mean exactly? I cannot see any centered captions in Round Rock, Texas. Regards SoWhy 19:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned. They have changed. Hmmm. All except for the top photo that is normally the "skyline photo" in the city info box. It is still centered.Austex • Talk 02:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Re. Talk:Round_Rock,_Texas#Conflict_of_Interest_re_Adding_Language

Please note, I am taking a break from Wikipedia. However, I thought it only fair to answer your question.

I did not complete the original request based upon the core policy of verifiability - that is, the reader of the article should be able to check the facts, by looking at appropriate reliable sources.

Particularly important to note, in this case, is the policy on synthesis and original research.

If a newspaper published the specific facts, then I encourage you to supply it as a reference and add another {{Request edit}} on the talk page, so that hopefully another editor can process it.

I wish you the very best of luck,  Chzz  ►  18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have several legit newspaper articles (it has been covered a LOT over the years) and I have inserted one of them and resubmitted. The ref I originally used was inappropriate, so thanks for pointing it out. Austex • Talk 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Austin Torros

Hi Austex, I think you may have forgot to include the url with the references you added to the Austin Toros article. Since you have a retrieval date listed, I just figured you clicked save without noticing this. Cmr08 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: I have it, forgot to add it, and will add it later today Thanks. Austex • Talk 18:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Austex • Talk 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review question

Hi, Austex, I'm not much help answering the question you asked on my talk page in regards to the Round Rock article. I have no clue about submiting article or peer review, in fact, I didn't even know these things existed. Your best bet is to ask a help me question on your talk page, or even better would be to approach an experienced editor by way of their talk page. I wish I could be more helpful.

As for the Round Rock article, I must say you've done a great job. I'm glad I was able to help out. Looking forward to your next project, and willing to help out again. By the way, thanks for the barnstar, I've never recieved one of them before. Enjoy your vacation, lol. Cmr08 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding contributions to the Round Rock article

My congratulations and admiration too. The article looks great. I'm sorry I was not able to be of much help. Things are busy around here and I had the best of intentions. Maybe we'll meet on some other central Texas article.Iluvrr (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I am going to copy over to here your contributions to this page: Iluvrr (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes made:

• Approximately 264 article edits from July 3rd to August 3rd.
• He says: "(I also made about a million or more typos too, but hopefully have corrected them all)."
• The article is more than three to four times as long as it was when Austex started, and many, many new sections have been added and written entirely by Austex:
• Prehistoric Round Rock
• Cotton
• Cisholm Trail statues
• Old Settlers Association
• Economic Impact of Interstate 35
• Life as a bedroom communty
• City government
• County government
• State and national representation
• Commercial and retail
• Health care
• Toll Roads
• Public education
• Higher education
• All but one of the Notables (Jihad Jane)
• All but one of the Movies (The Rookie)
• Austex also uploaded 14 of the 16 images

• For such work I am awarding him the resilient Barnstar Iluvrr (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

How does one submit for an upgraded quality rating?

I and others have worked tirelessly to upgrade the Round Rock, Texas article. 14 new sections have been added in depth with good citations and well researched facts. It has been fact checked by the Director of the Round Rock Library as an added step. And I personally made 264 edits over the last month alone (see aheader above this one). Question is - how does one apply for a review to upgrade the quality rating? It currently rates a "Start" rating. But the article is now three to four times longer than is was originally. There has been a lot of cross-checking, so I think it is ready for a review. Thanks. Appreciate any advice. Austex • Talk 22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You can request a peer review as one possible method. My76Strat 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The very first thing you should be aware of is that article quality assessment are very often confused for badges of honor, but in actuality they are a behind the scenes assessment to monitor quality and prioritize work, have no official standing, and no one but behind the scenes personnel will ever see them (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ for more). By contrast, if you want the article to receive some official assessment standing and recognition, there are two processes: Good articles and featured articles. A few things about these: First the nominations pages of these are, respectively, here and here. If an article achieves good article ("GA") status it is then assessed as GA class, and likewise for featured article ("FA") status, it is rated FA-class, but that is the tail wagging the dog; the recognition comes from being picked as a GA or FA, not from the accompanying assessment. Articles that are rated in this way are marked in the article with symbols showing there statuses in the upper left hand corner. For examples, see George Balabushka (a GA) and Masako Katsura (an FA) and this is shameless of me since I wrote both—but that's just it, we want recognition for our work which is why I chose those examples, but the assessment rating is fairly meaningless for that purpose. I will go take a look at the article now and see if I can tweak it a bit and get back to you on what I think of its readiness for GA. For FA, it needs to go through the peer review process first, even if incredible already. I will change the assessment level myself if I think it is off (for whatever that's worth). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very helpful information. Let me know what you think re going after a GA rating. Austex • Talk 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee....you must really like pool/billards. Austex • Talk 22:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you say fanatic? I think you should go to peer review before trying for GA, and maybe ask for a copyedit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors before that, and you should probably do a few things before any of that. First, the lead has some good information but it doesn't follow the form of a lead section as we recommend. The lead should introduce the topic of course, but also summarize the content of the article, not provide other content that's not in the body. Much of the existing lead should go into appropriate places in the article and then be modified to be an overview of the article content (I have always found this a very hard task). Second, the references need to be overhauled. All should use citation templates, and they need full attribution. Web links, for example, should have a title, a date and author if available, as well as a publisher and an accessdate. Right now there are many mixes of bare attribution with full attribution, mixes of date styles and so on. I see these two things as the biggest obstacles right now to a GA, other than needing a copyedit. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we have a road-map. Thanks for your thorough and candid review. That really does help. Not sure I have the stamina for it, but we'll see... Austex • Talk 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright

You forgot to add a copyright tag to File:Georgetown San Gabrial Village.jpg that you uploaded recently. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. will do. It is a photo I took. Austex • Talk 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I solve the issue through the edit of the page? I'mnot exactly sure how to do it retroactively. Maybe I should just re-upload it with the correct license. Austex • Talk 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Georgetown San Gabrial Village.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Georgetown San Gabrial Village.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an image I made myself June 2008, Donald G. Martin. License under CCA-SS-3.0 How do I go back retroactively and add the license information to the image? Thanks Austex • Talk 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You may edit the page like any other page. Simply go to the file in question, File:Georgetown San Gabrial Village.jpg, and click the "edit this page" tab on the top of the screen. This edits the image description page, and does not change the image itself. You may wish to read Wikipedia:File copyright tags to find the appropriate tag for the image. --Deskana (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, CCA-SS-3.0? Do you perhaps mean CC-BY-SA 3.0? CCA-SS-3.0 doesn't seem to be a real license. --Deskana (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was supposed to read: CCA-SA-3.0 which is how I license all my images. I'll edit that. I don't see where you can put that information when edting the image file in retrospect. So I put it where I could.... People seem awfully quick to remove images when licensing is clearly being attempted, or a permission license is being sent to OTRS by email.Austex • Talk 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Deskana - it appears to be correct (CCA-SA-3.0) in two of the three uses. I corrected the one incorrect license where I apparently transposed "AS" for "SA." The image now appers to be licensed, but it suggests moving it to Wikimedia Commons which I am not sure how to do. Austex • Talk 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I re-uploaded it with the correct CCS-SA-3.0 license as originally intended. That seems to have take care of the problem. Let me know if it hasn't please. Austex • Talk 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've spent the better part of an hour and a half and cannot figure out my TUSC password, etc to move the darn file. It'll have to stay here or someone else will have to move it. Austex • Talk 02:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3