So, what changes can we make or disclaimers can we provide to put these interviews on Leslie's page? I think they are relevant, and there is some context we can present them in to keep the integrity of wikipedia.
--GranReserva7 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian from Houston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors from the Houston area, to help with Wikipedia assignments at Texas Southern University. Classes at TSU will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester, and the role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
Thanks for uploading File:Sstx seal.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, but you might want to review copyright categorization of its replacement, at File:St.StephensEpiscopalSchoolSeal.jpg, which seems incorrectly tagged as "public domain". (I no longer participate in copyright discussions, which rarely reflect understanding of IP law.) —Danorton (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Website reference in infobox
Don't get that, the template documentation tells you to add | then text. Since when have we been promoting raw links, we have templates warning against it. Also if its depreciated why does it work and display propely formatted.BletheringScot23:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will start an RFC re this at the weekend when i get time. I cant see any reason why this should be an exception to the rule, given we shouldn't be using raw links, when the parameter works fine and the documentation tells you how to. Ive replied there as well.BletheringScot00:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry, I'm not discussing any more over there as not tolerating the childish behaviour. If ok ill ask you here, whats your opinion on it as personally i think its a bad precedent as raw links are raw links and its highly contradictory, also it looks pretty awful especially for long raw links. I don't see harm in reaffirming consensus either way, what harm does that cause to the wikipedia. Thanks for the links if i go ahead, which i think i will, i will link to them and also notify both of you.BletheringScot00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a different meaning of "deprecated" than do I or does that documentation. (See #3 at wiktionary:deprecated#Adjective.) But, again, this is a style policy for Infoboxes, which specifies the use of the subtemplate {{URL}} and not the policy for the {{URL}} subtemplate itself. —Danorton (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really answer my initial question. Infobox raw links and article raw links are no different and i feel consensus needs firmed up one way or another, do we want raw links or do we wan't formatted ones. I understand the word however if its depreciated then it should be removed as an option and from the documentation, simple as that. No point depreciating something that still works and we are shown clearly how to do. Doesn't help that the theatre infobox documentation was only updated after all this started being discussed today.BletheringScot00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a RFC asking (a should full URL's be displayed in info-boxes and (b should parameter 2 be removed out of template URL meaning that it cant display the link as text. The latter was something already under discussion Here. Personally i feel that we shouldn't display raw URL'S but to be honest I'm happy whatever the consensus, but the latter in my opinion should definitely be removed if we should display full URL's. Anyway thats you both notified, as far as I'm concerned thats the end and the community can decide whats best. Goodnight.BletheringScot18:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danorton! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Austin! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Yes, I was stumped too. I came across it in the article on Shoreacres. I grew up in La Porte and never heard of such a thing. However, it is shown clearly on several maps, including official Texas highway maps and US census maps (such as the one on the Shoreacres article). Apparently, Chambers County has jurisdiction over Trinity Bay (upper Galveston Bay) such that if, for example, one were caught out in a boat committing a crime, it would be up to the Chambers County sheriff and courts to charge and convict you.
La Porte apparently claims no part of the bay within its city limits, but Shoreacres does (probably because of the yacht club) as does Texas City. The southern part of the bay is all in Galveston County, however. But if you look at the map, part of Texas City's claimed city limits extends into the upper part (Trinity Bay), which is jurisdictionally within Chambers County.
I took at look at the Chambers County website and wasn't able to confirm this absolutely, but was satisfied that between the official Texas state highway maps and the federal maps, they must be right. I might note also that I did this little bit of research only after I had edited the Shoreacres page (and its map image on Commons) rather incredulously, and duly had to undo my edits. I edited the Texas City article to make it consistent with Shoreacres and another article, whose name I forget right now, gotta run. Cheers! Laura1822 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Laura1822, will you please cite the references? I don't understand your reference to "the article on Shoreacres." If by "federal maps" you mean the U.S. Census maps, those are not authoritative and specifically qualify themselves as authoritative for census purposes only, and do not necessarily represent political boundaries. —Danorton (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Shoreacres, Texas, of course. The third city was Seabrook, Texas. If you look at Category:Cities in Chambers County, Texas you'll see these three Harris County cities in the list-- I didn't do that, and almost undid it, before looking into it. I do agree that a better source is needed; I assumed at first that the feds had simply gotten it wrong on their census maps (and the citation in the Shoreacres article states "Ohio" so requires further checking). As I stated above, an official Texas State Highway map was my other source (I also checked a commercial map and asked a 20-year resident, but didn't think any of them were appropriate to cite, though they all agreed). A definitive answer could probably be had from phoning the county and/or cities, but it might be hard to find another published source citeable here, if something firm can't be dug up on the Chambers County or various city websites. But in the absence of a published source stating something contrary, I don't see how anyone could justify removing the information. Therefore I left it intact (or removed my initial edits) and attempted to clarify and harmonize the (preposterous-sounding) information across the three city articles. Hope this helps. Laura1822 (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am refusing to take on the responsibility of removing the work and citations of previous editors without justification. You have challenged me as if I had made the whole thing up, or perhaps you think I should have made a different judgment about the work of previous editors and their citations. Instead I merely encountered this information somewhat randomly, judged it absurd, started to remove it, questioned my initial judgment, researched it minimally, restored the information, and then did what I could to harmonize the related articles and clarify the problem for future readers and editors. Oh, yes, and responded cheerfully explaining my actions and motivations when asked about it.
If this is insufficient, then take responsibility yourself for researching it in-depth (and producing what you consider sufficient citations), or for removing the information without a published source supporting the removal. Please note that this includes not only the Texas City article, but the other two city articles, templates and categories for Chambers County (and its own article), map descriptions on Commons, Talk page notifications, and possibly other items. I will copy our exchange to the relevant talk pages, and then I'm done. Have a nice day. Laura1822 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
February 2014
You recently reverted an edit I made on Rembert Weakland. Fine, it was meant for somebody who actually knows Wiki code to catch and correct. Your reasoning is funny though; I was merely pointing out that a previous edit lacked citation or relevance - the grounds on which you removed my edit. have another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.205.209.59 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
Thanks for uploading File:SpartanHelmet.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 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).
Thanks. The logo was removed from the article without any comment, so I restored it and removed the warning box from the image article .—Danorton (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
