User talk:DGAAustin

DGAAustin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DGAAustin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi DGAAustin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ParticipantObserver (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate–Lewis House context

Wow, you sure have a lot of detailed info about the house and the people. And nice old photos. But if you're editting on behalf of the house or the society or the city or such, it would be best to disclose your relationship on your user page. See WP:COI for some guidelines and advice.

Also, I did a bunch of editing for minor style issues there; see MOS:CAPS, MOS:DASH, etc. Keep in mind that headings are always in sentence case, not title case. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Hello Dicklyon,

Is this a method that allows me to respond to you ?

Before I proceed, I ask the following: Did you receive this message via this procedure ?

Now I think I sign with four tildes . . .

DGAAustin (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC) or DGAAustin[reply]

- - - - -

Where can I read about the function and purpose of **this** section: Editing User talk:DGAAustin (section) ?

Where can I read about the function and purpose of **this** section: Southgate–Lewis House context ?

Where is **this** section: Southgate–Lewis House context ?

DGAAustin (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Yes, this is how editors "talk" with each other. Typically we use the colon to indent replies; then two colons, etc. See my talk page for example. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Hello User:Dicklyon,

I am going to *try* to enter the following onto my User Page.

However I thought I would put it here as well, given that you specifically asked me to disclose my relationship to the Southgate-Lewis House.

I think I will try to communicate this to User:Qwirkle as well.

It would be great if you could possibly review all that User:Qwirkle has deleted, to see if you agree with User:Qwirkle – for posterity.

You have all my best wishes,

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Hello,

I am DGAAustin.

I am Duane G. Albrecht and I live in Austin Texas.

I am a professor emeritus at The University of Texas at Austin.

I was born, raised, and educated in Berkeley, California. I spent my first 30 years in Berkeley and my next 40 years in Austin, Texas. My Ph.D. was obtained at The University of California at Berkeley.

I have contributed one and only one thing to Wikipedia: The Southgate-Lewis House entry.

I have tried to communicate all that I know about the Southgate-Lewis House – as accurately as possible. (I actually have a few more things to say.) I am the professor that found the condemned house that was scheduled for demolition, organized the historic preservation, lived there for some long time, and presented the Southgate-Lewis house (as a gift – free and clear) to the W.H. Passon Historical Society. All of these facts are well documented.

I read the Wikipedia entry for the Southgate-Lewis house in May. Given my age, I felt obligated to put on the record what I know about the Southgate-Lewis House. (The last few days have made me question the wisdom of this “feeling.”)

I hope that all interested parties will refer to the entry in May, prior to my contribution.

I have no financial ties with the house. I went to one or two W.H. Passon Historical Society meetings in the 1980s. I have not been to a single meeting since then. I certainly knew Ada Simond, when I was restoring the house and living in the house.

I presume it is perfectly clear that the house is no longer mine. Further there is absolutely no way the house could ever be mine again.

I am obviously not qualified to prepare a Wikipedia entry. The User:Qwirkle, who is apparently an expert Wikipedia Editor, (as well as an expert in the matters related to this topic) has removed about half of what I wrote. I trust that User:Qwirkle is confident that everything she or he has done has improved the quality and the accuracy of this entry for the Southgate-Lewis house. Posterity depends upon User:Qwirkle’s competence.

I am disturbed that User:Qwirkle has questioned the factual accuracy of what I think I know about The Southgate-Lewis House. User:Qwirkle may well be correct. I certainly do not feel competent enough within the framework of Wikipedia to engage in an academic discourse with a professional editor such as User:Qwirkle. If we could discuss the issues, I may well agree with User:Qwirkle. On the other hand, I might be able to convince User:Qwirkle that what I have described is factually accurate. For now I will simply defer to what I presume is a knowledgeable and competent Editor.

I presume it is obvious that I could present what I think would be a cogent argument for each of the topics that User:Qwirkle has deleted.

One of the banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.”

It is undoubtedly true that I am talking about “the subject in a subjective manner.” However, I earnestly felt as though I was imparting “real information.” I most definitely do not feel as though I am trying to “promote” something.

I suppose one could call me an “Historic Preservationist” and in that sense I most certainly do want to promote the “Preservation” of this City, State, and National historic landmark. I want to promote the Preservation of all such historic landmarks. It seemed to me that describing all that I knew about the Southgate-Lewis House would help preserve the Southgate-Lewis House.

And, of course, as one might well presume, I have a dear fondness for this particular historic house, given my history with the house – several decades ago (circa 1980). I truly hope the house will be preserved.

Once again: The house is no longer mine. Further there is absolutely no way the house could ever be mine again.

One of the other banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.”

I will simply accept this to be true. I ever so hope that someone can “fix” this problem. I doubt that I have the appropriate skills for this task.

One of the other banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.”

I have declared my connection to the Southgate-Lewis House. Again, it is not my house and it will never be my house again. I have had no connection to the house for decades. I hope that it will be preserved for posterity.

The fourth banner at the top of the Southgate-Lewis entry reads as follows:

“This article's factual accuracy is disputed."

I truly believe that all I have said is factually accurate. I think we would simply have to discuss each item individually. I really do not know how to address this matter. Again: I truly believe that all I have said is factually accurate.

If a knowledgeable Editor would like to provide me with well informed advice on how to proceed, I would be a grateful recipient.

{Multiple issues}} with 4 maintenance template(s): Peacock, Accuracy,
Tone,

It is my sincere hope that, with the assistance of knowledgeable Wikipedia Editors, we can resolve the problems described in the “4 maintenance templates” so that this Wikipedia article will live up to the high standards of Wikipedia. It is my earnest hope that this entry concerning the Southgate-Lewis House will soon be excellent – a paragon of excellence.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Hello Again Dicklyon,

When I go to User:Qwirkle's page . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwirkle

It says that "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia."

Well, we certainly know this is not the case, given that User:Qwirkle deleted about half of what I wrote for the Southgate-Lewis House.

Thank you for you attention to this article and the matters associated with this article.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Albrecht, thanks for letting us know; I should have recognized your initials. User:Qwirkle has the same trouble a lot of editors have: he just can't quit Wikipedia. And he can indeed be a pain when he gets on one of his high horses. But basically his point here is right, that whether your info and personal recollections are correct or not, Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. If he removed some facts that you have sources for, put those back with citations (the sources don't have to be findable online, but need to be real published sources). Thanks for all the work you have done in fixing and extending the article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the disputed accuracy point, I believe Qwirkle pointed out some place (maybe on the talk page, or in one of his edit summaries that you can read in the article's History) that he disagreed with some of the style claims (stick style, Gothic, or whichever). Maybe there's more. If it's not clear what's disputed, ask on the talk page. Or remove the corresponding tag at the top of the article, and in your editor summary say you can't find what's disputed (so whoever wants to put that back would be more explicit in letting you know). In general, to become an effective Wikipedia editor, even if only for this one article, you might need to work on how to better communicate and collaborate with other editors, especially including those who are undoing what you're trying to do. Hopefully things will converge. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Hello User:Dicklyon,

Your advice (wise counsel) is very much appreciated.

I am grateful.

Thank you,

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Hello again User:Dicklyon,

I would like to address both you and User:Qwirkle simultaneously -- and all of Wikipedia -- in a new section, but I really do not know how to accomplish such a communication.

I wonder if you might be able to find the time to look at a photograph of a house – in light of the opinion of User:Qwirkle, concerning the categorization of style.

This photograph shows a very simple Stick Style house. It is not a "fancy" version of a Stick Style House. However, it was designed by none other "than acclaimed American architect Frank Furness".

Allow me to quote from the article:

" The house shown here is an especially fine example of Victorian Stick architecture. Designed by architect Frank Furness, the house has "stickwork," or decorative half-timbering, on the exterior walls. Other features include prominent brackets, rafters, and braces. These details are not necessary structurally. They are decorations ... "

(If I knew how to include a photograph of the house here I would do so.)

Here is the Link:

https://www.thoughtco.com/house-style-guide-american-home-4065233

You will have to scroll down quite a ways. It is photograph number 17. It is the simple little two story yellow house. They use it as their **prototypical example** of "Stick Style".

" an especially fine example of Victorian Stick architecture "

More fancy versions of Stick Style (which I presume User:Qwirkle has in mind when he thinks of this style) can be found. Here is one such link:

https://www.oldhouseonline.com/house-tours/a-study-of-stick-style/

Thank you,

Duane

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - -

Ping

You don't generally need to ping users to a discussion that they're engaged in. But if you do want to, see Template:Reply_to#Usage for what it takes to make it wok. Your attempt at this edit failed, as each paragraph with a ping was missing a signature. You can ping multiple users at once in a paragraph with one signature, but this attempt did nothing. It's too bad the interface is so obscure and doesn't give you a clue as to whether it worked or not, but there it is. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand what you have said here. I will work on trying to understand what you have said tomorrow morning.

Does this mean you have not seen the discussion about Jackie Craven and the Yellow House? If I go to Talk I see it all.

And yes, this editor is very very very primitive. It reminds me of the editing I was doing circa 1975 with Unix in Berkeley. Why it needs to be so primitive is a mystery.

Surely you can see the reply to my query from Jackie Craven, which has demonstrated User:Qwirkle was correct about ThoughtCo supplanting photographs.

DGAAustin (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw it. But I didn't get that ping. You don't need to keep pinging, but if you do, do it in a new paragraph with a new signature (four tildes). You don't need to keep up the salutations and other pleasantries you would use in a letter, either. Just indent with one more colon than what you're replying to, say what you want to say, and finish with the sig. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the page that you asked me to look at. It is entitled: "Template Documentation". (I must learn what "Template" means within the context of Wikipedia; I thought "Template" referred to those things at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry that warn the reader about all of the problems with the entry. Obviously there is much to learn.) All of the information within this section entitled "Template Documentation" is unbelievably complex. I think I am a "hopeless case".

I never used the "@" symbol to "ping". I thought I was doing the right thing by introducing the following string of characters: "bracket", "bracket", "ping", "vertical slash", "username", "bracket", "bracket". I presume this ultimately gets translated as "ampersand", "username". I take it from what you say above that if I do this I must also separate that string of characters with "<" "p" ">" to make sure it is its own paragraph and then I must follow that with "~" "~" "~" "~" and then I start a new "<" "p" ">". Holy Cow. I really do not know what to do. You guys do all of this without a thought.

This is an entirely new way of communicating and it is very complicated. When I was young I learned COBOL. Then I learned Assembly Language. Then I learned BASIC. Then FORTRAN. And so and so forth. It is hard to believe (in 2021) I have to learn a new programming language to do the simplest form of Text Editing.

I can certainly stop "pinging" you. And I will do so.

I will keep trying to learn all of the details of this novel programming language.

Pleasantly grateful for your patience,

Hopeless Novice DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A template is a block of "code" or "pattern" that gets invoked by the double braces. They have many forms and can be unbelievably complicated. Yes, they're used for the "commentary" on the problem states of an article; and for many other things. For any template you can look at its code and documentation, usually, e.g. by following a link to Template:ping or typing Template:ping into the search box. Template: is just another namespace, like Talk:, User:, User talk:, Wikipedia:, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I pose the *rhetorical* question to you:

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had go through this type of programming language to communicate via email.

Or better yet ...

Imagine the "youngsters" having to use this low level computer programming language to send their text messages !

"bracket", "bracket", "ping", "vertical slash", "username", "bracket", "bracket" ... Two Word Text Message.

Compare "Talking" in Wiki with the simplicity of communicating via Text Message.

No Reply Needed.

Duane

DGAAustin (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the mechanics and conventions of WP are odd, especially as the Talk uses the same wiki markup as the articles, but with very different conventions. This is quite a barrier to new editors getting to be productive. Life's tough. Attempts to fix it with things like "visual editor" have been a flop, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio issue on photos of Southgate-Lewis House

DGAAustin, I have very much enjoyed discussion you've led at Talk:Southgate-Lewis House. It probably helps that specific photos be shown in the discussion, but we must still abide by copyright restrictions on photos. I commented about the photo on page 6 of the NRHP document but did not feel I could post it, because I know from experience that photos included in NRHP nomination documents are almost always NOT in the public domain, and one simply can't post them. This has commonly been misunderstood. A (perhaps outdated) summary about this, which I composed or contributed to, is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Resources#Images.

The image at right you composed by joining two photos, taking the top one from http://urbanaillinois.us/residents/historic-urbana/top100/archstyle/stick and the bottom one from https://catalog.archives.gov/id/40970346 or a different location. It is helpful for discussion purposes to show the two photos together, but neither of them is available under public domain or similar license AFAIK, and then it is a violation of copyright laws to post them into Commons as you have done. You indicated there that the composition is a creation of yours, but this cannot be done; the photos are not yours to combine.

Could you comment quickly here? I think you need to agree that the photo is not acceptable and should be deleted. Others might be quicker to open a copyvio-type discussion/proceeding at Commons to move towards deletion, but i'd rather take a moment to seek better understanding first.

Please understand I ascribe no ill intention to you; i am just thinking you don't know how some of this stuff works. --Doncram (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doncram

Agreed.

Thank you for the kind words and more importantly thank you for the knowledge concerning copyright restrictions.

I have immediately tried to delete the image. As you might know, I have many full color images of the Southgate-Lewis House circa this very same time period and I certainly do not need a black and white photograph.

To the point you were making about the brackets using the NRHP black and white photograph...

Shown herein is a photograph of the Southgate-Lewis House that provides a very good view of the brackets. It is a view looking up, just before entering the front porch – in full color.

The copyright restriction matters are complex, to say the least. Under the assumption that everything have you said is correct, I have immediately gone to the DGAAustin Wiki Commons in order to *delete* the image you have identified (i.e., a black and white NRHP photograph which you clearly state "are almost always not in the public domain"). Unfortunately, I could not find a "Delete Button".

I began exploring how I can delete this image. This may take a while. If you can provide me with a simple method (a simple recipe, abc), I will delete the image immediately.

Thank You.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I think your suggestion of enriching the Wikipedia "Stick Style" article (based upon the wealth of knowledge that several experts demonstrated – e.g., User:Qwirkle) is an excellent suggestion and I was composing some thoughts to express...

then I found your message...

and responded immediately.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I probably do not need to do this "ping" business, but here you have one just in case.

DGAAustin (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:

I forgot, I am told: "each paragraph with a ping [needs] a signature." (from Dicklyon)

try again.

DGAAustin (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:DGAAustin (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I have yet to figure out how to delete the NRHP black and white photograph.

However, I saw that I could *replace* the photograph with a new photograph. So I think I have accomplished that goal. You should probably check to be certain.

Just in case I was not successful, I uploaded the revised version as a new image.

Shown herein is the revised comparison. The color photograph is a photograph that I took circa 1980.

Perhaps you could post this in the Talk:Southgate-Lewis House – assuming the black and white photo will be deleted (due to the Copyright issues).

And now I suppose it might be appropriate to "ping" you, but I am not certain.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:DGAAustin (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if this has solved the problem that you have identified.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Now I am a pest.

The Urbana "Red House" (now yellow) in question is at 104 North Central Avenue, Urbana, Il. 61801. It was designated as an Urbana Historic Landmark in 2010.

Obviously, I can get a Google screen grab (and have done so). However, I do not know whether this would be acceptable for use in this context.

The house is posted on Zillow, Caldwell Banker, Realtor, Movoto, Homesnap, and more. Might the photographs posted across these many home-sale sites be available for use in this context?

There is a YouTube video that illustrates photographs of this house. Might a screen grab of the photographs posted on YouTube be available for use in this context? Yikes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiwbu6QG6KM

The next time I am in Champaign-Urbana I will take a photograph.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Says Yes.

This from Google regarding "Street View" (et cetera): "Generally speaking, as long as you’re following our Terms of Service and you’re attributing properly, you can use our maps and imagery. In fact, we love seeing creative applications of Google Maps, Google Earth and Street View."

https://www.google.com/intl/en-GB_ALL/permissions/geoguidelines/

I could potentially work on an image using Google Street View.

DGAAustin (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Google's Blessings ...

Images of the Halberstadt House in Urbana, taken from Google Street View, are paired with comparable images of the Southgate-Lewis House. (The Halberstadt House is now painted yellow and not red.)

DGAAustin (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you can't use Google Maps or Street View images here either. They say "These guidelines are for non-commercial use, except for the limited use cases described below. If you want to use Google Maps, Google Earth or Street View for other commercial purposes – meaning “for sale or revenue-generating purposes” – please contact the Google Cloud Customer Team." But Wikipedia and Commons only accept images that do not have a non-commercial restriction, so that others can take and use them in creations that they sell for money. And there's no delete button because in general you are not allowed to take back your contributions or revoke your license. Someone who knows how will post a "Proposed deletion" or "copyvio" or some such tag, and after a short review, they'll get deleted. Not your problem. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again Dicklyon. Thank you for answering both of those questions. No Google Images. No Delete Button ("No Rewind Button"). Copyright restrictions are logical and sensible. Conjointly, Copyright Laws are complicated and elaborate, with extensive ramifications.DGAAustin (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dicklyon – It seems as though I was able to effectively delete (de facto delete) the "off-limits" National Register of Historic Places Black and White photograph of the Southgate-Lewis House (flagged by User:Doncram as a copyright violation) by replacing the Black and White Photograph with one of my own full color images of the Southgate-Lewis House (same perspective, during the same time period – circa 1980). The National Register of Historic Places Black and White photograph is completely gone. No one will have to post a "Proposed deletion" or "copyvio". It is already de facto deleted.DGAAustin (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good approach, since old versions are still published and publicly accessible at Wikimedia Commons. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Understood.

Thank you once again for your wise and knowledgeable counsel.

Grateful.

DGAAustin (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, after a long time... Please allow me to clarify, that NRHP nomination photos are almost always not public domain or similar: the only significant exception is when the photos are take by a U.S. government employee (or by a private photographer under contract to a U.S. agency which therefore "owned" the copyright), which was sometimes the case early in the NRHP program when many nominations were written by National Park Service employees. Also there are some old, great photos taken as part of the U.S. Historic American Buildings Survey program which are sometimes included in NRHP nominations. A few further rare exceptions are when a photographer (who by default owns copyright on a photo) or an owner who purchased the photo has given explicit permission to put the photo into the public domain or to release it by one of a few licenses allowable by Commons which might require attribution but do not restrict anyone from using the photo for commercial purposes. The great majority of NRHP photos are taken by private or local government or state government employees and are not automatically in the public domain.

What Dicklyon said, that the old versions include copyrighted images, is probably true. So it would be cleaner if it were completely deleted then restarted under a different name. But I am not having a cow about that, nor is anyone else here as far as I can tell, and honestly i think we can just let this one go now. As a matter of fact, many or perhaps most authors/photographers probably thought they were putting the photos into the public domain, and they don't care about copyrights; it is not as if there is any commercial interest which needs to be respected here. Thanks DGAAustin for your great cooperation here. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]