User talk:TheAustinMan/Archive 1

Welcome! There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! tedder (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of T. Stacy Condo Tower
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article T. Stacy Condo Tower, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable proposed building (wikipedia is not a crystal ball).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. tedder (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of T. Stacy Condo Tower
I have nominated T. Stacy Condo Tower, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/T. Stacy Condo Tower. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. tedder (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hi there, and thanks for all your work on WikiProject Austin and Austin-related articles. Just a note that we do not wikilink full dates and years, per WP:MOSNUM. Also, articles cannot be rated "Good" (GA-class) without going through a formal good article nomination. If you have any more questions please ask. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I replied to your question at Talk:Austin improv. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And the good article, that's OK. TheAustinMan (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN
Thank you for you contributions to Austin, Texas. I saw you nominate it at GAN and pass it just today. While I appreciate that it may be a long time before articles are reviewed, nominators may not "pass" articles themselves; an outside reviewer needs to conduct the review to make sure they meet the Good Article criteria. Therefore, please wait until somebody else reviews and passes the article. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for noticing that. Well, I agree that it takes a long time to pass it. Can you review it? TheAustinMan (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TheAustinMan, the article won't pass in its current form. Fortunately since it usually takes a long time to get an article reviewed you have plenty of time to improve. The following are a few glaring things that need fixing:
 * The article has a few different banners and tags in it. As long as those issues remain the article cannot be passed.
 * The referencing is pretty mediocre. I would recommend:
 * At minimum every paragraph should have a citation.
 * The use of bare urls (external links with no other info about the web site) needs to be eliminated. Best thing to do is to utilize the template.
 * Be careful about overusing primary sources. Though sometimes these are acceptable and appropriate it is best to try to use them as little as reasonably possible.
 * Taking a look through the references the article does have, I don't see any hard references (books). It is not an absolute requirement that hard references be used but, in general, books and journals tend to be regarded as the most credible sources. News articles and formal publications are next best (and there are a significant number of those). Other kinds of web sites, even from government sources, can be ok but the more you use them the less "good" the article seems.
 * Some of the content smacks of original research. E.g. "The art that gave Austin its reputation for being weird is featured at the South Austin Museum of Popular Culture." (art alone was the source of this famous label?) Certainly statements which make bold or controversial claims should at minimum have references. Even at that make sure the references actually back up what is implied (meaning not just that "somebody" agrees with the statement but that the reference actually gives reasonable evidence that this statement is widely held by the experts to be fact).
 * There are some holes in the coverage and some odd content:
 * The history really cherry-picks its coverage. Among other things it completely skips the entire period between the 1880s and the 1970s.
 * The prose is ok but there are some areas where it is somewhat ad-hoc and a little disorganized. For example, the Theater section has very little rhyme or reason as to why each thing that is mentioned is grouped with other things. Some things are mentioned very arbitrarily (why is such a big deal made out of "Waiting for the Barbarians"? Seems like somebody added in that paragraph as advertising).
 * Hope that helps.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you have not used it before, trying doing searches in Google Books. It makes it incredibly easy to find specific pages in books that talk about whatever it is you are interested in. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN for Dell
TheAustinMan, I saw that you nominated Dell for GA. The article does not appear ready for GA and you do not appear to have been involved with it. Is there a particular reason you nominated it?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just thought that Dell would be a good article, comparing it with other GAs. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is not bad but it is still lacking in some areas. The main thing is that it is missing references in several places which, by itself, is sufficient for it not to pass. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: I went ahead and failed Dell since nobody was stepping up to clean up the issues. As a general rule it is a bad idea to nominate an article unless you are prepared to do whatever the cleanup the reviewer feels is necessary yourself. You might want to familiarize yourself with the good article criteria and the Manual of Style. Typically the thing that most articles are lacking is sufficient citations. Austin, Texas is a particularly important article that needs a lot of attention. If you want to pitch in and do some research to bring it up to GA standards that would be very valuable. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I Am Thinking About
I was just wondering if we could make an icon for B, C, Start, and Stub class articles. The icons would be like the A and GA class article icons, for example, for a B-Class article, we could put a circle with a B in it. That would make things around Wikipedia a little more fun. :-) Cheers! TheAustinMan (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had similar thoughts. At minimum I think that GA articles should have a marker of some sort on the page. Actually, IMHO, FA and GA articles should have a different look and feel from other articles (e.g. different borders, slightly different backgrounds, etc.). That would make it obvious which articles have gone through some sort of rigorous review from articles whose quality is debatable. There was a discussion on some of this not too long ago (also see this).
 * I think B, C, Start, and Stub are somewhat less important since these are somewhat less formal assessments (i.e. the process for assigning these is less formal). It wouldn't hurt to have a small marker up in the corner, though, even for these.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If we ever get to put little markers for those class articles, we could sure use these:



I stumbled upon your userpage and what do I find?
You:
 * Don't know how to copy/paste. "killed his with and then himself"
 * Don't know how to wikilink outside urls. "factropolis.com (Link does NOT work. "
 * Don't know what the address bar is. "Please type it in your web search.)"

But have a nice day.

p.s.: I did fix all the aforementioned mistakes for you.  •ː•   3ICE   •ː•   10:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Austin plane crash
Hi! I added the plane crash to the Austin WikiProject. I also added the portal to the article, and a link to the WikiProject to the portal. Hopefully it will help the project. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of T. Stacy Condo Tower


The article T. Stacy Condo Tower has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Proposed building with no chance of meeting notability (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG). Already deleted once per consensus: Articles for deletion/T. Stacy Condo Tower.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. tedder (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of T. Stacy Condo Tower
A tag has been placed on T. Stacy Condo Tower, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. tedder (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN of Frost Bank Tower
Hi TheAustinMan! I noticed that you had nominated Frost Bank Tower and added a second opinion tag beneath it on the GAN page. The second opinion tag is supposed to be used by reviewers when they want a second reviewer to look over the article, not by nominators. All tags (reviewing, on hold, second opinion) are added by the reviewers - the only thing that nominators add to the page is the nomination itself. Also, I took the liberty of moving the nomination from the Miscellaneous section to the Art and architecture section, which is where articles on buildings are usually put. Due to the current backlog reduction drive, it seems to be a fairly short wait for reviews at the moment, so you shouldn't have long to wait! Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did the GA review of this article and I'm just checking in on the review. I note from the article history that you've been doing work on the article, which is good to see.  I'd appreciate it if you took a minute at some point to update the GA review page with the work you've done.  Also if you have finished working on the suggestions I made please let me know either on my talk page or on the GA review page, as I'd like to finalize the review by the end of the month.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Frost bank tower GA Review suggestions
Thanks for your feedback on my talk page regarding the review. As the GA reviewer I usually leave major fixes to the nominating editor as you are closer to the subject and more knowledgable about the sources. At the end of the first review my hope was that you would take a few days, let the article sit or have it reviewed by someone say at the WP:Texas wikiproject or at WP:PR. Get suggestions and feedback, make the necessary changes and then renominate it. I felt at the end of the first review that you were making every attempt to fix the problems but those fixes were just creating new problems. It just seemed like we were going around in circles. I see you have renominated the article, I will undertake the review now because I promised I would, but I still see problems, which I'll list below and I'll list on the new GA review page.
 * The comment about the nose hair trimmers isn't really a controversy, it's a critique about the building's architectural design.
 * I put a template after this sentence in the same section, "The controversy is widespread across the United States."  Do you have a reference for that fact?
 * The links to Armageddononline.org and Mysteries.com appear to cite chat pages. I don't think those sites are very credible.  I could go on there and post something but it doesn't mean we can draw on it for support here.  I can't watch the Jones video at my current location as Youtube is blocked so I can't comment on the its credibility.  This section will need credible sources if it is to remain.
 * I'm not sure what is controversial about the opinion that the tower is weird and helps keep Austin weird. Again if anywhere it should be in a discussion about the architectural aspects of the building.
 * The amenities section is much better. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Armageddononline and Mysteries.com were supposed to be references for the fact that this is not one man's belief but multiple peoples' belief. I'll move it to the next sentence ("The controversy is widespread across the United States.") I'm also continuing to sweep for references for Alex's controversy but most links appear to be only copies of the old "Rumors and Controversy" section here a few years ago so of course I can't reference that. Thanks for your support. TheAustinMan (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My friend, the article is nearly there. Please see my comments on the article's review page.  Given the fact that the article relies heavily on reader opinion polls (which I stated was ok IMO, but not great), any other suspect sources will make it difficult for me to pass the article to GA.  The above sources, Armageddononline and Mysteries.com are links to chat rooms.  Posting a theory on a chat page is not a credible source.  Having multiple people say the same thing still doesn't make it credible.  If a newspaper, or a journal about architecture, wanted to run a story about possible hidden messages found in the Tower's architecture then we'd have something.  The reason those are considered more credible is that they go through a fact-finding process, there is also accountability for their writing, and they aren't inclined to publish fringe theories with minimal public support.  A chat room has no such constraints.  By the way, who's to say that "Hyperqube" (the one who posted on Armageddon) isn't the same person as "Zarathrusta" (the poster on Mysteries.com)?  Could be one and the same person for all we know.  See WP:VERIFY for thoughts on this.  Sources that rely on rumor or personal opinion are questionable, and shouldn't be used to support a controversial theory.  Please upgrade those sources to ones of higher credibility and I will be inclined to pass the article.  You can also remove the information that those two sources support if you wish.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Frost Bank Tower and Austonian
I just uploaded two images to commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austonian_Austin.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frost_Bank_Tower_Austin.jpg). Maybe you can use them. --HanFSolo (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Help
On the page 2010 Texas Longhorns football team, how do you do the recruit template without hiding the references section?
 * The top of the Recruiting section has the following:
 * Change the collapse = yes to collapse = no. But do you want to do that? The section could be large. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Change the collapse = yes to collapse = no. But do you want to do that? The section could be large. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of TheAustinMan/ATAMP ACE 1851-1900/1851
A tag has been placed on TheAustinMan/ATAMP ACE 1851-1900/1851, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fake season
Fake season such as yours are not allowed on wikipedia becuase Wikipedia is not a web-host. YE  Tropical   Cyclone  21:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that, but okay. I'll take it down. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mount Rainier infobox
You are using Infobox mountain on your main page which, currently, uses deprecated parameter names. In the near future the template is to be updated and those parameter names will not work. You can change the parameter names yourself, copy and paste the current infobox from the Mount Rainer page or I can update the names for you using WP:AWB. If you would like me to take care of it drop a note on my talk page. I don't modify user pages without permission. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TheAustinMan/2014 Atlantic hurricane season
User:TheAustinMan/2014 Atlantic hurricane season, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheAustinMan/2014 Atlantic hurricane season and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:TheAustinMan/2014 Atlantic hurricane season during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jason Rees (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)