User talk:Oldag07/Archive4

New page
Oldag07 has decided to make a strong effort to curb his internet addiction. He is giving up Wikipedia in a manner many give up something for Lent. Thanks again for your support. Oldag07 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I felt obligated to finish the Singing Cadets article, so I took a break from my break. maybe i can now rest until i make it to College Station.  i don't know. . . . Oldag07 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OLDAG07 thinks he is back . .. things seem to be getting better for me.Oldag07 (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

TAMU template
Looks like you're taking a break. However, if you see this message, I would appreciate a response. In relation to, did you see this? →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

TAMU-stub
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Waacstats (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma GAR
University of Oklahoma has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

article split
greetings: you suggested the War on Drugs section 'Criticism be split into its own article almost 6 months ago. please weigh in on the article split, so the tag can be removed. badmachine (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PR
You are most welcome. Good luck with restoring the article to its former glory. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

UT Dallas
Thanks for your help on the UT Dallas page. Always good to have more contributors on campus, it seems like there aren't nearly enough. What are you going to be working on here? Would love to talk more, you can find my email in the directory on the UT Dallas website if you're interested. Steven Rosson. Steven (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: SCII faq
Added to points to the faq, otherwise I think it looks good. Brilliant idea by the way, it never occurred to me to add something of this nature the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral opinion request
Hi,

I was seeking a neutral opinion on a history matter and noticed you have been a significant contributor to History of Texas in the past. If you happen to be so-inclined I wondered if I might trouble you for some unbiased (but presumably informed) commentary.

I have recently expanded the article Galveston Bay Area. The expansion and the article itself have been the subject of significant controversy ever since which is still being sorted out. One particular topic that has garnered some question is the history section. Some editors have felt that
 * The section should be abbreviated dramatically and most content moved to other articles or simply stricken, or
 * There is not enough unique about the Bay Area history to merit a history section at all.

I, of course, disagree. I was just looking for another opinion to weigh in, hopefully somebody who has an interest in history. In other words, am I making something out of nothing or is this section informative and relevant to understanding the topic independent of History of Texas, History of Houston, and other articles?

Also, if you have other thoughts on the article as a whole feel free to weigh in the whole thing.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC
 * First off Mcorazao, I am honored that you have asked me to look at the Galveston Bay Area. I posted my comments on the page. I think you should ask Karanacs, for an opinion on the issue.  She knows Texas history better than I do, and has a better understanding of the finer details of wikipedia policy, than I do.  Tell her Oldag07 sent you.  Great work Mcorazao.  Oldag07 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oldag07, thanks!!!
 * Could I trouble you for some clarification?
 * I built this page by patterning on a composite of other metro area pages.
 * I do want to add some more sources but looking at, say, Los Angeles Area as an example the article seems to have a similar density of citations. Are there particularly sections you are concerned about citing?
 * Comparing this to Los Angeles Area, San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex it looks like they cover area attractions much more than what I have put in the article. I am not clear what criteria you're suggesting for moving information to WikiTravel.
 * Thanks, again.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Galveston_Bay_Area#Sources_.26_OR
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC) (Using )


 * Thanks for your help.
 * I mentioned to Karanacs that I probably bring pain on myself by picking topics that are less recognized. I tend to find it interesting to identify a topic that most people, even experts, are less familiar with and help try to educate. Personally I think that one of the great things about Wikipedia is that topics that have been slighted in the mainstream because of politics, public perception, or whatever, can be given their due exposure. Unfortunately, though, such topics tend to attract criticism simply because people feel inherently suspicious about them (Something about this must be POV or else I would have heard more about it). I'd be ok with that except that it makes these topics radioactive; its hard for them to ever gain A or GA status since no matter how good the sourcing is nobody wants to be associated with it. And it makes extra work trying to fend off vague criticisms. Ah well ...
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: I took the Ike text that you moved into the history section and just collapsed it into a couple of sentences. My thinking is that either
 * It is a substantial current event that deserves its own section (which the consensus appears to be it is not), or
 * It is a notable event in history that deserves one or two sentences.
 * Hope that's ok.
 * BTW, I don't know if you have followed the latest tagging war. If you have any advice for me on how I should be handling this differently, I'd appreciate any suggestions (not that I expect it, of course). I get the sense that somehow certain folks feel that I am denigrating the city of Houston and are trying to look for excuses to find fault. I don't know how to address that issue ...
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The most controversial page that I have worked on was List of Texas Aggie Terms. See the article history section of the talk page. The first FL nomination for the page was a huge "rag fest".  the second group of nominators, didn't even care, they liked it. Honestly, since your page did survive a AFD leave it for a month or more (preferably more) and than come back to it. As they say "let the dust settle".  The criticism will eventually blow over when the naysayers move on to pick on some other target.
 * Another hot potato page that I work on is Xenos Christian Fellowship. Honestly, when the dust settled, that both sides felt that the page should have a POV-check permanently tagged to it. If you read the talk page there you will find that there are no authoritative sources that criticize the church, but if anyone were to read the blogosphere, there is plenty of it. It certainly will preclude the page from getting a GA ranking or above, but some pages simply aren't meant to be that way. I am certainly not saying that the Galveston Bay Area page should be this way, but i am saying don't take the tags too personally. Keep up the good work. Oldag07 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya, maybe leaving it for a while isn't the worst thing. But I hate leaving it with a bunch of tags sitting at the top of it (i.e. hate to leave a mess). My major concern, though, is that the naysayers are not just arbitrary editors from around Wikipedia. They are core contributors to Houston-related articles. If I want to get this thing past a C rating then I have to find a way to get them past their objections. Time may help but I don't think it will solve the issue.
 * Oh well ...
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to interject, that the few times I have gone through and attempted to improve the article by adding/changing/removing text I felt was not necessary, excessive or not supported by a specific source, my edits have been reverted and I have then been chided for my actions (for example: "PLEASE be careful about deleting text taken from FA-rated articles" ) etc..etc. In anycase, when your changes are repeatedly reverted and/or argued over by one editor, you begin to lose interest in trying to improve the article; But I think we're all guilty of being passionate about certain articles (myself included) from time to time -- human nature.  Life goes on :-)  Also, the very nature of Wikipedia -- being entirely text based -- can often create situations where editors mis-interpret the actions/words of other editors (I have been guilty of this too), so we have to keep a open mind about all things... Cheers! :-)  --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am flattered that I have become a sort of mediator in this situation. It might be a good idea for all interested parties to take a break from the page for a little while. It is amazing how pages that I have cared about, have changed without me taking an active role in them. Oldag07 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Texas A&M will be featured on the main page of Wikipedia on 30 September! Thanks for all your hard work!

I would appreciate your assistance with keeping the article clean from vandalism. If you choose to help with that endeavor, you should know a few things.

I've had experience on with three articles I was involved in featured on the main page, so I'd like to pass along some "lessons learned". First, this article will be the most visible article on Wikipedia for 24 hours starting at about 7 PM on the night of the 29th. It will attract vandals; given that it is football season, it will likely attract some of those comments as well. If they are simple vandalism, just revert it, paste a notice on their user/IP talk page, and leave it alone. If it continues and it is clearly vandalism from the same source, I stongly advise you to not re-engage with them. Simply report it (see below) and an administrator will fix it. Understand and be knowledgeable about WP:3RR (the only block I have ever received was for a violation of this), so don't get caught in this trap. Second, admins will likely not protect the article during its stead on the main page as it is supposed to be a prime example of what Wikipedia has to offer (both good and bad). Third, encourage engagement by people on the talk page to discuss issues with the article.

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for repeated re-adding of material Administrator intervention against vandalism for repeated vandalism Administrators'_noticeboard for general problems. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for incidents.

Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — talk 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire for TFA
I was reading through the Aggie Bonfire talk page archives to see if there would be anyone in there interested putting Aggie Bonfire up for request as a featured article on the 10-year anniversary. If you are interested, I'm trying to build a bit of a coalition before the time for nominations opens up: User:BQZip01/TFA request; add your signature if interested. — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject
Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
I'm curious why you are making edits like this? The redirect on the previous page was not broken. In fact, there is a guideline that recommends not doing this here.--Rockfang (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that. I know they were debating on whether that was or was not policy a few years ago. It certainly was the opposite.  I just needed something to do.  Best of luck. Oldag07 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Oldag07, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Oldag07/Sandbox2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gehry list
Too quick for me! All looks good; Jaydec (talk)  18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)