User talk:Oldag07/Archive3

{{[[Template::Attempting wikibreak|:Attempting wikibreak]]}}

Archive 1 April—August 2007 Archive 2 August 2007—April 2008

Beginning

OldAg07 is getting a life. . . peaceOldag07 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hope it is OK to leave a message on your nice clean page. Thanks for your update on the Glossary article. I'm glad to see that it improved through the process and I agree with you that it will probably pass if renominated shortly down the road. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak and I hope to see you back in the not-too-distant future. Best, Johntex\^talk 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

City Year

Hi Oldag07,

My name is George and I work at City Year Headquarters in Boston, MA. First of all, I would like to thank you for all of the time and effort that you have put into the development of this City Year Wikipedia page. You are certainly knowledgeable on City Year history and culture, and it is great that you are trying to get the word out by positive and fact-based means. In trying to ensure that information about our organization is updated, we wanted to get involved with sites like Wikipedia in order to play a role in the messaging that goes out to people interested in City Year. We understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone has the right to contribute to, and as such, have been exercising our right to contribute while trying to update the page with information that isn't entirely biased. As I am new to the wiki world, I did not realize that I was not logged in, and was actually the user with the outside IP address making edits to the page. It is actually very comforting to know that there are people, like yourself, looking out for people plagiarizing City Year's material. I do update the wiki page under the scope of a City Year staff member though, and am therefore authorized to use words from our materials. As Copyright owners, we are in the process of taking the appropriate steps with the Wikimedia foundation to ensure that the our right to post our copyrighted work is guaranteed. Please refer to the section on "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia" under Wikipedia:Copyright problems. In splitting this project between a few different staff members, I post the content, and someone else posts the references. We ask that you bear with us and leave the content up until it can be sourced, which I promise will be a reasonable amount of time, as we don't want a page that doesn't credit City Year's copyrights. If you have any questions at all or would like to voice concerns, please message me. Once again we would like to thank you for the care and consideration that you have put into updating the City Year Wikipedia page.

Sincerely,

Gbarch (talk)

Note to self

Add to texas page

• Texas Urban Triangle
• List of Texas state prisons
• http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity/release.php?StateID=TX
• http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&id=80824
• List of smoking bans in the United States

FYI

[1] — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Texas

Hi Oldag, nice to hear from you again! I'll definitely take a look at Texas, but it might be a few days. I've got a list of articles I promised to look at for others and I've had a hard time finding the time to get to them. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Texas further reading

Hi I noticed that you deleted a large section of the article "to save space". Wikipedia does not have any space restrictions, and material should not be deleted "to save space". However, the article is horrendously long (over 100,000 bytes), and long ago should have been split up into subarticles. You can even create a "Texas bibliography" article as a subarticle. The goal should be to keep the main article about 30,000 to 40,000 bytes (Edit byte count) by splitting off sections that are large into their own subarticle. The United States article, for example, when you include all of its subarticles is over 2 Megabytes, and while it also needs to have the main article trimmed to less than 40 kB, that trimming will not decrease the size of the article nor the amount of information available about the subject, it will just make it more accessible. Most people who go to an article are just looking for one factoid, for example, in the Texas article, I might be only interested in knowing whether the capital has always been in Austin. How long should it take me to find out? Should I need, on dial-up, to wait for a 100 kB article to load just so I can click on the right subarticle to drill down to what I am looking for? I notice that you have a History of Texas subarticle, but you have five unneeded subsections to History in the main article. Move them all to the subarticle, and organize the History of Texas into the five subsections that are in the main Texas article, and aren't even in the History of Texas article. Anyway I hope that you will use this advice in a positive frame. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

oldag

Thanks for the advice Oldag07 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NP. If United States wasn't semiprotected I would trim it down to 30-40 kB myself - by moving stuff into the subarticles. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with geometry guy. you have made lots of great contributions to wikipedia, and i think you would greatly enjoy the benefits of an account. as for quality, my goal in the long run is to get the Texas article to featured article status. Thanks for the help! Oldag07 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no interest in registering an account. I wish to commend you on your work on the Texas article, and hope that you are speedily able to get it to FA status. I will trust that you have gone over the checklist to see what needs to be done? No answer required. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Texas

Oh, yeah, I was questioning that in my head. You seem like a good contributer and I was wondering why you did that. I don't know if I should let that go or not. May I notify someone about this? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, me and some others agree that your edit was in good faith. Better safe than sorry. Thanks for telling me your edit was in good faith. Cheers. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Just be careful next time. It may help to read the name of the page your editing. Cheers. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome (almost) home

Hi, it's nice to hear from you! It's always a good feeling to come back to Texas, and I hope you feel the same when you get settled in again. Unfortunately, you picked the wrong season to come back - it is HOT. Some of my friends have participated in the Americorps program too, and they all had similar things to say about it. I've ordered a few books about Texas A&M; if I can ever finish up the project I started on the battles of the Texas Revolution then I'll be able to do a bit more work on Aggie-related topics. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Colonisation Criticism

Hello there. I removed the section you added (from a Variety blog) as it seemed pretty misguided - the entire article was written based on the press release, the author even states "Of course, the game hasn't come out yet. So this post is based entirely on that marketing blurb and the description on the website.", which I think is reason enough not to include it. Fin©™ 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Intellipedia

I know of it and am not active in the project. Where do you have access to it? I have access on base. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a cast difference between intellipedia and wikipedia: everyone knows exactly who you are in Intelipedia and which organization you represent. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lordoliver †

Thanks for the Welcome, but I'm not at A&M (Yet). My brother starts in 9 days though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoliver (talk • contribs) 16:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Frivolous edits with AWB

Please refrain from making frivolous edits with AWB as you did recently for Grass Fight‎ (diff) and Battle of Concepción (diff). Edits such as these – removing a single blank line – do nothing to improve the reader's experience, yet do clog the watchlists of editors and place extra strain on servers for no net benefit. Further, the rules of use for AWB explicitly state:

Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial.

(Emphasis as in the original.) From a very cursory glance at your contributions, I found at least four other edits that are also counter to this rule. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

I've completed the GA Review for Texas. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all! Thanks for your work on the article. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Aggie Terms

I wasn't the one that added it back, but I think putting it back gives it some frame of reference for the size of the bonfire. I wouldn't add anything else to it though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I guess the AFD process made me a little paranoid. oh well Oldag07 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Figured I'd nominate it. It's ready to go. Anything pointed out can easily be fixed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Chalk one more up for the WikiProject!!! It's now a featured list!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a box on your user page. Feel free to revert if you see fit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually tried the bot, but it didn't seem to work. Oh well. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

FTC nom

I saw that, but realize the topic there had an article that was no longer GA-class, the primary point of contention. I mean, just about every single topic could include lots more than just those featured articles, but that is what a Wikiproject is for, IMHO. We have thousands in there, but this is a focus on a specific component, the University itself. We'll see what happens. If we never try we'll never know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur, but "obvious gap" can have many meanings. The way I interpret it, the University article alone covers most of the subject. Sure, we could include those articles, but the campus and traditions subjects are already covered. If you want to go deep into the subject, we could always include hundreds of other articles within the Texas A&M genre, but I think the intent is as you already stated on my page. My point is that, without a clear standard to which all articles can apply, there is little hope of ANY subject making FT status. In any case, I think we have much to gain and little to lose. We'll see where it goes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Xenos (graphics chip)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Xenos (graphics chip), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

created this page as a temporary thing before moving the current Xenos page to it. Now that the main page is ready to move, this page needs to be removed before the old page is moved to this page

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 {{dated prod}} 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. Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

Nice to meet you Oldag07. My graduation year might be a bit misleading as 07 was the year I received my MS from A&M. However, my association with Aggieland goes back years before. My wife's an Aggie (BS '96, MS '96) and our first date was the t.u. game in 2001. Thanks for the kind words. I am honored to serve my country in the profession of arms. I'm pretty tied up working on improving West Point's article right now, but I hope to contribute to the A&M wikiproject more in the future. It seams my switching of the street signs photos at Camp Taji has been a big hit. Thanks again had happy to be working with you. Ahodges7 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization

This was discussed months/years ago with Civ IV, and a while ago with Civ IV: Col. If you want to change the name, you'd better convince everyone at Civ IV to change its name to Sid Meier's Civilization IV, because it isn't going to fly. It shouldn't even be Sid Meier's Colonization, either, because there's no other Colonization game. The only reason you use the maker's name in a title is to differentiate it - see SimGolf and Sid Meier's SimGolf. JAF1970 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

fr:Texas

Hi Oldag07 !

I red your message on the French's discussion page of "Texas". I can try to translate in english the part that is interesting to you, but you'll have to edit it for grammar style and so on. If I understood well, you would like the section "fr:Texas#Époque précolombienne" translated ?

You can answer on my french or english discussion page. Best regards. Giovanni-P (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oldag07,

Please find hereunder the 1st part of the translation. Let me know if you can do something with that. In this case, I'll translate some more.

OK then, I'll go on. Giovanni-P (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oldag07 ! It's done, I hope it may help improve the article. Best regards. Giovanni-P (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-European era

Scholars, estimate that the humans have lived in the Texas for approximately 11,200 years. The Paleoamericans lived in Texas in the Pleistocene era (between 9200 – 6000 B.C.) may have links to Clovis and Folsom cultures; these nomadic people hunted mammoths and bison latifrons using atlatls. They extracted flint in the region of Alibates Flint of North Texas.

Despite the extinction of giant mammals along with climate change during the archaic period, Texas experienced population growth, beginning at the 3rd millennium BC. Many pictograms drawn on the walls of the caves or on rocks are visible in the State, including at Hueco Tanks and Seminole Canyon.

Native american tribes began to settle Texas in the early centuries of Common Era, farming and building the first burial mounds. This phase of history is due to the influence the Mound Builders civilizations that lived in the Mississippi basin.. The Caddo nation was formed between 500 and 800 while the Trans-Pecos populations were influenced by Mogollon culture.

From the eighth century, the bow and arrow appeared in the region, manufacture of pottery developed and Native Americans increasingly depended on buffaloes for survival. Obsidian objects found in various Texan sites attest of trade with present days Mexico and Rocky Mountains.

Before Europeans arrival, Some of the Native American tribes that settled Texas were the: Alabama, Apache, Aranama, Atakapa, Caddo, Comanche, Coahuiltecan, Cherokee, Choctaw, Coushatta, Hasinai, Jumano, Karankawa, Kickapoo, Kiowa and Wichita.

A&M

I'm not so sure the conservatism angle belongs here. As long as it is straight analysis, I don't see a problem, but I can see this easily getting into a "No we aren't!" "Yes we are! kind of argument. It may further pronounce a bias in the media to point out conservative schools, but not liberal ones. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiPortal

Regarding your announcement on the A&M WikiProject, I have a suggestion. Once the portal is ready, if not already, add a link for it to the A&M WikiProject banner. Here's an example: {{WikiProject Texas Tech University}} →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I did your suggestion, as well as added {{portal|Texas A&M University|Academicplaza.JPG|65}} the old fashioned tedious way. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. That dramatically increased the number of links to the Portal. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Non-article Texas A&M pages

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Non-article Texas A&M pages, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Non-article Texas A&M pages has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Non-article Texas A&M pages, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)