Talk:Keep Austin Weird

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The People went to Italy before making this brand. They were a poor family and then got rich from doing the Keep Austin Wierd company

comment[edit]

I am a student at UT and my professor asked us to do an assignment in which we post something about the "Keep Austin Weird" phrase and sign it with our initials. While this may seem like an unusual assignment, my professor's husband coined the "Keep Austin Weird" phrase and her original intent was to have him review the postings and tell her which ones he thought were valuable and interesting. I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting or editing our posts, at least for a week, because that is the time frame we have to do the assignment. I understand that you are trying to keep this page as accurate as possible, and I know that she can still review our posts through the "History" page, but if you could please let us post our opinions that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Yes, well, no. This is not the place to post "opinions". We also don't sign articles. Since the purpose of Professor Palevka was to show you how easy it is to insert nonsense into the Wikipedia, perhaps it is she who will be getting the education. We don't really like people to insert nonsense into WIkipedia—we already have our full quota, thank you—and we don't really like "experiments" which encourage people to do so. We also don't encourage people to write articles about themselves, feeling that's not likely to produce an objective article. If you want to add verifiable facts to this article, feel free to do so, and include your citation as an external link or reference. - Nunh-huh 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other parodies provided me with some lol. Please don't delete them.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.86.254 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas Assignment[edit]

Since the additions for this assignment are likely to be deleted by editors (see What Wikipedia Is Not), I have moved the edits to this page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of "what Wikipedia is not" is: Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. We don't host homework. If the teacher is using our bandwidth to host her assignment and grade it, she'd have to look at the history of the article anyway, so there's no need to place them here as well. We don't want to encourage this sort of thing. There's no reason she should have less work than she's created for Wikipedia editors. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pages "targetted" in this way should be protected (perhaps with a template message on the page saying why and asking students to refer back to their teachers). Andy Mabbett 11:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Weirdos[edit]

Anyone else feel that this section really doesn't belong? I mean its a list whose membership criterea are not overly clear for starters... --Pboyd04 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition, some of the names here appear to be vanity or joke entries. Without clear criteria, however, we are hard pressed to weed out the list. SteveHopson 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, I think the section entry criteria should largely be based on verifiability, as Wikipedia should be. If you can't find good, verifiable information on an individual (e.g.- an article in the Statesman or Daily Texan about them), then they should be taken from the list. I have a feeling this should shorten the section a good deal. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously read the first paragraph and tell me how the "weirdos" fit in. Yeah I know we have some weird people here but they don't fit into the keep austin weird campaign. The campaign is about supporting local businesses and some of the weird stuff we do here like SPAM Jam, sorry thats all that leaps to mind. So I think were agreed that we need verifiability and criteria if we keep the list of weirdos. But can anyone make a good argument for keeping the list on this page (I'm not trying to argue its merit just that it doesn't fit here). --Pboyd04 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see your point. I think the reason it was here is because when people see "Keep Austin Weird" bumper stickers, etc., they're typically thinking less about the official small business aspect of it and more about the fact that Austin is, quite frankly, weird. I think if we're going to keep the section, we would have to find a verifiable source that discussed the unofficial aspect of the campaign that Austinites have adopted. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like everyone agrees the section needs to go until it is supported by some references and/or specific criteria is given. I'll take it out. Johntex\talk 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor put the section back today so I removed it again. To anon, please discuss here why you think the information should be included rather than just adding it back. Johntex\talk 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same editor who's been vandalizing Texas Rangers (baseball) on and off for the last year by inserting bogus content (User:EdRooney, although now he just edits anonymously). Just something to keep in mind. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are all verifiable people that are "keeping Austin weird." Only yuppy scum would object to their inclusion while they go about making Austin a suburban sprawling metropolis ala Houston. The Austin Chronicle has also written repeatedly about many of these "weirdos." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.148.17.207 (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Verifiable by who or by what? You have provided no source, so the list of names is just your opinion. I have reverted back to the last sourced version of the article. You cannot continue to put them in without good sources. If you continue to imply your fellow editors are "scum" - you will be blocked from editting. Johntex\talk 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Austin Weird' is what you make of it. Most people aren't aware of its association with the Austin Independent Business Alliance. There is a strong case for replacing references to weirdness in Austin. For example, Leslie Cochran is something of an Austin icon. Many people would consider vagrant cross-dressers to be pretty high on the weird scale. In addition, local businesses (And AIBA members) like BookPeople sell his dress-up magnet. The 'Keep Austin Weird' website itself is largely dedicated to examples of Austin weirdness. The current Wikipedia article seems pretty bare without those references, especially since it is now dedicated to linking parodies and other off-topic articles.Deatonjr 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, excentrics, then? Weirdos is a bit strong, and i'm afraid that it fails to honor the WP:BLP rules. This is indeed a delicate section, so edit with care, keep it toned down. BTW, it's mostly yuppies who wear the KAW stickers and such, if you ask me. (oops, WP:OR) --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, regarding the "Austin is, quite frankly, weird." up above, i wonder about that, i mean, surely every city has her characters (think of the expression "village idiot"), i remember plenty in NYC, Berkeley specializes in that. OK, perhaps in places like Dallas and Houston they don't pay attention to them and consequently don't maintain them an identity. So is Austin unique in that respect? --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Reference[edit]

The second reference (http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/editorial/1156533923223160.xml?oregonian?edc&coll=7) is a blank page with the Oregon live logo. Tnkngn22 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Austin Weirdos[edit]

Someone, perhaps a yuppy, keeps removing our beloved "weirdos" from this article. Please help me fight this scurge. We need more sources to PROVE that Leslie and Jennifer Gale and the rest are part of the whole Keep Austin Weird movement. EdRooney (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start for sources would be the "Keep Austin Weird" webpage. See http://www.keepaustinweird.com/current.html . That webpage has a list of "weird" Austin places and people, including Leslie Cochran and others. There may even be articles in a paper like the Austin Chronicle that try to explain what is meant by "keeping it weird", or whatever. Otherwise, your opinionated and / or unsourced biographical thumbnails will be removed. Deatonjr (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go through the section and sources:
  • Chuck Thomas. Reference backs up the statement that he rides his bike on the tollway. Nowhere does it refer to him as one that "Keeps Austin Weird"
  • Gene Burd. Broken reference
  • Leslie Cochran. Reference backs up election numbers. Doesn't comment on his "Austin Weirdo" status
  • Jennifer Gale. Reference backs up election numbers. Doesn't comment on her "Austin Weirdo" status
  • "Crazy Carl" Hickerson. No reference
  • Shaun Stensol, AKA "Radiation Ranger". No reference
  • Bob Makowski. No reference
  • Ray Blanchette. No reference
  • Steve Mason. No reference
  • Jeff Davis. No reference
  • Robert Allen. No reference
  • Ralph the Reprobate. No reference
I'm removing this entire section again based on the biographies of living persons policy. Please do not restore it until it can be properly sourced. I'm not sure what your yuppy comment has to do with anything, but please assume good faith and keep your comments to the content, not on the contributor. --Onorem♠Dil 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Jeff Davis is well alive and kicking on PACT! Call in now! --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) This is not an advertisement: the pvious contributor to the "weirdos" section had written that Jeff Davis's whereabout are currently unknown. (and i personally don't care for his TV show) --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were correct to remove as talk pages are not chat, they are to address improving the article. BY encouraging folks to go watch TV right now you don't seem to be constructively adding to the improvements. Perhaps next time include a link to a reliable source about the person instead. Benjiboi 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i suspect you've not seen the show, perhaps you're not in Austin (where i assume is the only place it can be seen; IIRC, the call-in phone number is local, w/out the area code). I thought that anyone who's seen it would get the grin. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, even if the "weirdness" of our local characters can be "certified", it still doesn't warrant them being listed in this article: remember that "KAW" is a business slogan. Do we know anything about those personalities' opinions of KAW? Do they endorse it? I think that, should they be enumerated at all, it'd be in the Austin, Texas article, not here. Yes i know it's not as much fun. --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onorem reverts[edit]

Dude, there is even a source listed from the Austin Chronicle and someone even linked the Leslie page to it. I don't understand what is in dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OddibeKerfeld (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken it down in the section above. Please address the issues there, and please don't reinsert your original research on who's a notable weirdo until then. --Onorem♠Dil 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a source listed "Austin Chronicle July 17 1997". It was the only source given with some of the names. I personally am too far from Austin to access this source. However, even if the source is impeccable, it is eleven years old. Eleven years is a significant portion of a lifetime. Labelling a person as weird on the basis of an old source would violate the BLP policy, IMO. Maybe they have changed. What we are dealing with is poorly sourced contentious material. The policy says delete it.
The other issue is the dubious connection of the list of alleged characters to the rest of the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep Austin Weird[edit]

What's defamatory about the edits I made to Keep Austin Weird? I linked to the pages of Leslie Cochran and Jennifer Gale. Each has extensive references. I didn't make up anything about them. I don't understand you. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, you are the only one who has used the word "defamatory" in this discussion. There is discussion above about the problems people have with your edits. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, some editor named Phil Knight posted on my chat page and said my addition of Leslie Cochran and Jennifer Gale to the Keep Austin Weird page was "defamatory" and I would be banned if I posted it again. I'll post his comments below. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OddibeKerfeld: "This discussion" means the discussion on this page. No doubt the word defamatory is used elsewhere in Wikipedia but you were the first to use it on this page.
I do not know if you read the earlier discussion on this page. If not, you should. In a section called Austin weirdos, editor Pboyd04 raised the question whether a list of eccentric people of Austin belongs in this article at all. Various people in that discussion did not think it belonged.
The slogan "Keep Austin Weird" suggests to me a lighthearted campaign to raise the profile of Austin as an interesting city. That does not necessarily include publicising local eccentrics. Does the Keep Austin Weird campaign actually publish information about local eccentrics of Austin? I'm asking because I have never been there and I don't know. But the issue should be discussed. Putting people's names into the article without justifying why is just going to lead to further reverts. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the "defamatory" post. What's defamatory about what I wrote? Everything on Leslie Cochran and Jennifer Gale's pages are well documented.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sources[edit]

Hopefully this will settle it. I didn't realize that the sources already cited on one wiki page had to be posted again. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's defamatory about the edits I made to Keep Austin Weird? I linked to the pages of Leslie Cochran and Jennifer Gale. Each has extensive referrences. I didn't make up anything about them. I don't understand you. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either include the content with a decent reference, or drop the subject. Your (sic) getting to the stage where you could be blocked as a disruptive editor. Please stop wasting other editors time with this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add the references for Jennifer Gale and Leslie Cochran and add it back in. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Eccentrics Section Removed[edit]

I removed the section for the following reasons:

  • No clearly shown specific connection between this section and the K.A.W. Campaign. This issue was raised as far back as July 2006. ("Anyone else feel that this section really doesn't belong?")
  • Two points of fact in the section are not supported by the references. One is flat out contradicted.
  • The section is not adequate to tell the story of either of these people. Just putting them in as examples of eccentricity is extremely POV.

I removed the section because IMO it is a violation of BLP policy. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to older version (17 June 2013) to restore references[edit]

For some reason an editor removed the urls from 11 references and the entire external links section in this edit. It is not appropriate to remove the urls from references even if they are dead links (in that case tag them) most dead links can be fixed but even if they cant they are a part of the reference. I restored back to the previous version. My apologies to the editors in between. I will do some work on this article this week and redo the intervening edits. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keep Austin Weird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keep_Austin_Weird&oldid=1203232605"