So glad to hear from you, and that you are doing better. I note that you will be mostly conducting your own research, and I very much understand the pull, but any contributory tidbit from your direction will undoubtedly be most welcome. Take care! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@78.26: Thanks, I appreciate it. I think with a little work Jesse H. Jones will be ready for promotion. Ironic that Jesse Jones does not appear on the scene until three to six years after the scope of my project ends.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it does! And you are very generous for inviting me to participate. I've done a very little GA work before, but FAC is new territory for me. I know they get very picky about source formatting, but I think you've got that entirely under control already. I do have a couple of questions which I hope helps improve the article even more.

First, what was the main purpose of Williams' New York/Washington D.C. journey in 1835? Had he gone there specifically for his Freemasonry initiation, or was he there for business purposes and participated in the Freemasonry rituals on the side? The sources may not say, but for me this is a hole in the narrative. I know very, very little about Freemasonry, but isn't that an awfully quick ascension through the ranks? If so, was it because he had accomplished much for Freemasonry already in Texas, or did he possibly buy his way up?

Also, you mention on my talk page and the peer review that Williams gets very little respect from Texas historians and locals (although he has a statue at the Hall of State, as mentioned in the article). I think a paragraph should be added to the "Death and legacy" section which addresses this, at the least we should include Cartwright's note regarding the resentment held by Gavelston folk. Why? I think this would help the "comprehensive" part of the article. From a historical standpoint the article covers Williams very well, but if possible there should be more material on his legacy, i.e. would the Texas revolution have succeeded without his involvement (pro/con), more about why he was disliked because of the land grants and his association with the Monclova government.

Can we give more context the the motivations of those seeking to dissolve Williams' bank?

Did Williams suffer (or prosper) financially regarding his bank following the post-1857 climate?

I hope that's helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

78.26, Thank you for saving me from needless embarrassment. As much as I can tell, the freemasonry section is the synthesis of PGNormand, and I have deleted the whole section. I will see what I can do to verify some of Williams' activity in the masons based on the thin sources I have. At this point, there is no reason to trust these statements cited to offline sources given that the statements to online sources were not supported.

I will answer these other questions later.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be too hard on yourself. I found the main source of these claims at [1], even though it has been removed from the site. Wayback is a wonderful tool... It supports some of the claims, but I was going to suggest that the freemasonry part be incorporated into the biography section, if possible. Is this a usable source? It does give context as to why they led his funeral proceedings. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I copied all of the code before deletion, so we don't need to use rollback, I can easily restore parts of it if warranted. I agree that freemasonry can be incorporated without its own section. This can all be fixed, but the article will look different.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you complete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel May Williams/archive1? The FA bot removed the nomination from the talk page, because if didn't find anything. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I did not complete the nomination. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a preference "gadget" called "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange." That might help avoid things like WP:UT in this edit.

By the way, thanks for taking the bullTexas Longhorn by the horns and getting these WikiProjects into some sort of order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Oldsanfelipe2! You created a thread called Poorly sourced BLP article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might want to check Talk:Eugene C. Barker, I think your placement of the DYN notice went wrong. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Eugene C. Barker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alas, I have no expertise in the area you mentioned, so I'm of no help to you. Suerte. Amuseclio (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)AmuseclioReply[reply]

I saw this mentioned in Eugene C. Barker. I'm hoping the topic is notable enough to meet WP:N but a quick Google search came up with only a few results that would qualify as independent, significant coverage of the archives themselves (here are two: [2], [3]). If you know of enough reliable, independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage, send them my way, this would be an interesting topic to include in Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try these:

• Malcolm D. McLean, "The Bexar Archives," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 50:4 (April 1947), pp. 493–496. [4]
• William J. Battle, "A Note on the Barker Texas History Center," The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 59:4 (April 1956), pp. 498–501.[5] Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidwr: This may be a question to pose to some librarians, but you may want to consider adding the Bexar Archives to the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. There is no article for the Barker Texas History Center and I think I will add that material to the Dolph Briscoe Center. The Bexar Archives are a part of the Barker Center, and both are housed in Sid Richardson Hall at the University of Texas at Austin. There is always the option of spinning these off into new articles if the content warrants. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the iffy notability, including the topic in a "parent" article makes a lot more sense for now and possibly for all time. Go for it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking at your DYK nomination of Eugene C. Barker and noticed you put the template ((Use dmy dates)) at the top. It seems you have also added that to other articles you created. Per Wikipedia:DATEOVERVIEW, "Strong national ties to a topic - articles on US topics use MDY, except articles on modern US military topics use DMY in line with modern military usage". You might want to consider changing the template to MDY in the American articles where you've inserted it. — Maile (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maile66, I was unfamiliar with MOS:DATETIES, but the policy is clear. Yes, I will start cleaning those up. On a completely unrelated matter, do you still have an interest in the Texas projects? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So-so re Texas articles. The Texas projects themselves are mostly inactive, and were so before I ever came on board. I've gotten less active than when I was creating Texas articles left and right, and have mostly been active on Hawaii articles the last few years. See this. There are a couple of other active Texas editors out there I know of - both of them librarians, the last I heard - one is @Michael Barera:, and the other is @Megalibrarygirl: who is most active on WikiProject Women in Red. Did you have anything specific in mind? If you need help on something, let me know. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen your work and Texas articles and it is really good. I am a competent editor, though, as you can see, I still make MOS errors. Sometimes, however, I cannot see the flaws in my own writing, so I look for ways of getting feedback. In other cases, there are some old articles needing deep repair, and I think these sometimes require direct collaboration. I am an autodidact in history. I do a decent amount of reading, but I would benefit from other editors who are knowledgeable about Texas history just in case I am not considering all of the most important sources. @Megalibrarygirl: was generous in sharing some sources to help me improve the Lucy G. Acosta article a few years ago, and the new Nettie Lee Benson article is right in her wheelhouse. I plan to reach out to her once I have taken the article as far as I can. Thanks for the other name, I will leave a polite note for @Michael Barera:.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm available if you need assistance. None of us pop out of the box a perfect editor. Everything gets better with practice. My very first article Cherry Springs Dance Hall was immediately nominated for deletion, because I used no sources and didn't know we were supposed to. My next attempts at contributions, not article creating, met with a flurry of deletions for the same reasons - I was not clear on sourcing. A lot of what you see as my subsequent Texas work, was my trying to learn the ropes, one article at a time. My learning curves were usually not on articles I created, but ones I tried to improve. We humans learn a lot from pain. Audie Murphy (and related articles) was a battle royal between the numerous editors who stepped in to help, and the one lone (now blocked) editor who didn't believe Murphy deserved his medals. And I learned a great deal by taking Texas articles I had not created, through DYK, GA, FA or FLC review processes. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maile66 Thank you for the offer. Sometimes I think articles just need a fresh set of eyes. Though I wrote almost all of the content in the Samuel May Williams article, @78.26:, who started the article, has been a very discerning reader and critic. Without their editing, the article would not be as good as it is. But their interest is music, and I will reach out to them should I edit in that area again. In the same vein, Texas biography is clearly a strong area for you, so if you have time to spare, I would appreciate it if you could critique some articles. The two GANs are Jesse H. Jones and James A. Baker (born 1857). I have requested assessments on both, and a peer review on the first, but none were forthcoming. I believe they are legitimate GANs, but it would be great if you have any suggestions for improvements. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm always happy to help and I work on Texas as often as I'm in the mood. I like learning about Texas history, though most of my knowledge is centered around Western Texas, Southern New Mexico and Northern Mexico. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, Yes, I have been thinking of you lately because I just created Nettie Lee Benson, and I am learning about her and the Benson Latin American Collection named for her. It appears that I am being pulled into the librarian vortex, at least temporarily. Please also see the discussion above with @Davidwr:. The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History has room for improvement. I am also waiting on the arrival of a book, after which I will create an article about Llerena Friend, from the WIR TSHA list. I can imagine that your knowledge on these subjects would be helpful. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must say I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into those two biographies. I'll try to have a look when time permits. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jesse H. Jones you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. for documentation purposes, please put your comments or questions directly on the GA template. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Jesse H. Jones you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jesse H. Jones for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Nettie Lee Benson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did a little editing on the referencing section. There are all kinds of variations on how you can do that, so ignore this if you already knew it. As you go forward with other articles, it's helpful to reviewers if you list books - and/or anything where you cite page numbers - to have the main work in a separate section. And there are variations on what you can name that section, and variations on what you name the corresponding citations sections. When using only select chapters in a book, it's helpful to show that chapter where you list the main work. Somebody taught me how when I was working on Hazel Jane Raines. Since I very rarely use sources that are only a given chapter in a book, I use the Raines article for my go-to refresher.

ISBN numbers are a must if you are citing books. If you right-click on the formatted ISBN number, it will take you to a Wikipedia page where you can find that book in any number of outside sites. The WorldCat site listed is one I go to first for information on a given publication or author. The OCLC number listed there is helpful, but not required, when formatting a citation.

A toolbar is not required to do citations, but it can certainly simplify your editing. Again, if you already know this, just ignore. But, otherwise, you can enable the toolbar at your user Preferences/Gadgets - click "RefToolbar" and save. Among other things in the edit screen, it has a dropdown "Templates" selection. Click on any one of those selections, and look for a little magnifying glass icon next to "URL". In the Books template, there will be an additional magnifying glass icon next to "ISBN". In the Journal template, the icon is next to URL, DOI and PMID. If you input an url or number in those spaces and click on the little magnifying glass, it auto fills the entire template for you. At the top of the toolbar on the left-hand side is something that looks like a little whisk broom. After inputting book info in a template, click on that icon, and it automatically formats the ISBN dashes for you.

So, that's my help thing today. Use what you wish ... or not. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maile66: Recently you have invested a significant amount of time reading, critiquing, and editing articles I have worked on. I accept this gift with gratitude. You have conveyed information that should make me a better Wikipedian. As a result, I have decided to abandon the practice of writing articles offline. I started this habit as a means of occupying myself when I did not have internet access. Eventually I composed all new article creations this way only because I had grown comfortable doing it. In retrospect, traveling within this rut has not served me well as an editor. First, I am not a good enough coder to pull it off; second, this was a make-work process as I had to replace all of the curly quotes with straight ones after I pasted my offline draft into the fresh Wikipedia file. I have enabled a citation tool in my preferences and I will compose new articles in draft space, as with the Ernest Winkler article at User:Oldsanfelipe2/sandbox. Obviously the inclusion of ISBN in the citation requires that an ISBN is assigned to that book. Many books lack an ISBN. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 10 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eugene C. Barker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eugene C. Barker was involved in the "biggest bear fight" in Texas history with Governor James E. Ferguson, but Barker kept his job and Ferguson was later impeached? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eugene C. Barker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe2: Thank you for bringing the part on the black earth belt to my attention, it seems part of the problem was the link to Central Black Earth Region which was incorrect. For some reason it only refers to the regions in Russia, not in the former USSR. Both here and here indicate a large region spanning from ukraine to parts of siberia. This image here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chernozem_distribution.JPG on Chernozem. That was a problem on my part. Flalf^Talk 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Flalf: I added the link, so if it's misleading, that's my fault. I think part of the issue is reconciling Soviet terminology with post-Soviet terminology. Ukraine is no longer a part of the agricultural policy coming out of Moscow, but it was during the Soviet era. Whoever wrote the article on the Central Black Earth Region made it into an article pertaining to Russia rather than as a transnational area. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oldsanfelipe: I assumed that the central black earth area is a modern region, central as in only the Russian part? Maybe a I assumed incorrectly. This could be a good time to make a new article. Flalf^Talk 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nettie Lee Benson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a course in Spanish North American history that Nettie Lee Benson took at the University of Texas inspired her lifelong interest in teaching and building libraries for Latin American studies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nettie Lee Benson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Texas personalities

Thank you for quality articles about the people in the history of Texas in the 19th century, such as Joseph Jay Pastoriza, Samuel May Williams, Charles Morgan (businessman), Jesse H. Jones, Eugene C. Barker and Nettie Lee Benson, based on academic sources, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2360 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I never imagined that I would ever be recognized in such a way on Wikipedia. I will do my best to live up to this honor. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice job getting Nettie Lee Benson to the main page. Very interesting read. MX (✉ • ✎) 00:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 19 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Llerena Friend, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Llerena Friend, the first director of the Barker Center for Texas History, lived in 24 different homes during her youth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Llerena Friend. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jesse H. Jones, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to biographer Steven Fenberg, Jesse H. Jones was the second most powerful person in America during the Great Depression and World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jesse H. Jones. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Oldsanfelipe! If you have Telegram and are interested, I have a group for Texas Wikimedians. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clark Atlanta University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James A. Baker (born 1857) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article James A. Baker (born 1857) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:James A. Baker (born 1857) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article James A. Baker (born 1857) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James A. Baker (born 1857) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am delighted to see that the bio of Nettie Lee Benson is now on Wikipedia. I spent time around 2016 drafting her bio, and an administrator rejected it because she lacked notability! Unbelievable, but true! That Wikipedian subsequently closed his/her account. Congrats on posting your article. If User:MX hadn't already awarded you a barnstar, I would have given you one. :-) Amuseclio (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)AmuseclioReply[reply]

@Amuseclio: Thanks for the kind words. Two articles from the late-1990s (available on JSTOR) are sufficient to establish notability. The Crawford and Ragsdale article is harder to find, but offered much more information about Benson's life and career.

I'm please that you enjoyed reading the article. I write many bios, but I cannot think of one that I enjoyed reading about and writing about more than Nettie Lee Benson. The depth and breadth of her work with the Latin American Collection is amazing. I hope to work on some more articles about librarians and archival libraries. Thanks again, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of James A. Baker (born 1857) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James A. Baker (born 1857), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James A. Baker helped to reveal the murder conspiracy against wealthy businessman William Marsh Rice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James A. Baker (born 1857). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for collaborating with me on finding proper citations for the Houston article, and thanks for helping with the double verification process. I highly appreciate it! TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be busy these days, but once I am free I'll find some sources. A quick search: This is from the Official Journal of the Federation (Mexico) about the 1988 expropriation of the then-ejido; if I understood correctly this is about the intention of creating residencies in the location; this is about then-Governor Sócrates Rizzo's intention to create residencies in the location; a book about the history of Topo Chico, 1990 INEGI census. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)TReply[reply]

@Tbhotch: Thanks. I will take a look at these readings. best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• a 1926 article from Nuevo León's Official Journal. It is about the foundation of the congregation of Topo Chico.
• A constitutional controversy concerning General Escobedo, NL.
• An article about a possible evictment in San Pedro, in 2013.
  • the same, but now in 2019.
• a 2001 expropriation
• ejidatarios demanding the return of their land in 2002
• a map, hot spots and zip code of one the current colonia San Bernabé.
• an article about the 1920s history, by XHTYL-FM.
• article that says about the relocation of families in Topo Chico due to the effects of Hurricane Alex
• a book about poor neighborhoods in northearn Mexico
  • the same but if you don't have access to the previous link here is visible]
• 1970s history
• 1970s history
• 1900 history
• current political subdivision of Topo Chico

© Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 22:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tbhotch: I have a few questions arising from two of the readings above. Is an ejido a jurisdiction established by the federal government? Does the word colonia translate better into American English as "neighborhood" or "subdivision?" Does a colonia have recognition as a government entity in Mexico? Vale, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the ejido[6] (it's wordpress but gives you an idea of what an ejido is). For colonia, I prefer to leave it as "colonia", because it can be translated as neighborhood, subdivision, district, barrio, etc. You can clarify it like "a colonia, a type of Mexican neighborhood". I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell if it is an entity by itself, but the way I see the divisions are like: Benito Juárez Municipality, Quintana Roo, the entity legally recognized by the government of Quintana Roo -> Cancún, one of the towns and cities legally recognized by Benito Juárez Government -> the colonias in Cancún, legally recognized by Benito Juárez Government, because the towns and cities within a municipality are not autonomous. © Tbhotch^™ 18:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am guessing that you mean towns and cities within a municipio are not autonomous. (Municipality means something different in American English.) Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A municipio is more like a County (United States) in that sense. © Tbhotch^™ 21:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your recent improvement. I've posted requests for help at WikiProject Amusement Parks (as well as the Six Flags task force), WikiProject Houston, and WikiProject Texas, so I'm hoping the article may see a bit of activity in the near future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I would not have noticed the issues with this article but for your request. Thanks for taking to lead on this. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oldsanfelipe2, No prob! I'm sure I've ruffled someone's feathers, removing all that text, but I'm not sorry about it. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks (again) for reviewing some of the sources posted on the talk page. This is tremendously helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a complaint but I would like to add my 2 cents worth.

I haven't been to Sam Houston Park in several years (too old and decrepit), nor did I write the article. But, as I remember it, all the structures at the park save one were homes. St. John Church was only one that would qualify as a building. If my memory is correct I think it more appropriate to say homes. -- Wiki name (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim Evans,

I think you answered your own question. Since a section title is supposed to capture all of the main content with the section, "building" is most appropriate. As you noted, St John Church is one of the buildings noted in the section. So "homes" fails as a category for this aggregation of buildings. On the same note, absent the church, I would have changed the section title to "houses" as a replacement for "homes." The first has a straight-foward denotation, and the second is freighted with sentimentality. The park also uses "house" in the title of the buildings, not "home." Therefore, both "building" and "house" are better word choices for the section title than "home." If we wrote an article about Jim Evans with a section on your notable eight sons and one daughter, we wouldn't title the section "Notable sons," we would title the section "Notable children." Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Happy Pi Day!

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Oldsanfelipe2! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Infobox help requested, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mary Austin Holley

added a link pointing to Henry Austin

Stephen F. Austin

added a link pointing to Henry Austin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Oldsanfelipe2! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:53, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Thanks to everyone who organized this drives. Perhaps it is possible to herd cats!. I am also in awe of the many Wikipedians who are providing sources for many difficult articles.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Oldsanfelipe2! I've recently started a draft article on Clint Peoples, a Texas Ranger active during much of the mid-20th century: Draft: Clint Peoples.

I'm not very familiar with the history of Texas law enforcement, and I've only been able to find one tenuous online source, and one major book source. I wanted to invite from you, any advice you may have on the article itself, or other potential sources.

Thank you! Agentdoge (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Agentdoge!

Thanks for reaching out. Those are all good questions. My user page includes some tips for online sources relevant to Southern and Texas history: User:Oldsanfelipe2#History_online_sources. The Handbook of Texas Online, Portal to Texas History, and East Texas Historical Journal all provide free access. So do Houston Review and its descendent periodical, Houston History Magazine. You will also see a handful of other journals on my user page which are subscriptions, but most of these most journals share older volumes (>6 years old) on JSTOR, which offers some options for free access:

* I don't recall the eligibility requirements, but Wikipedia offers free access to many databases [[7]]

* JSTOR offers limited free access with registration: [[8]]

* Check with your local public library. They may offer free online access through your local library account.

* Any research library, such as those at major universities, may offer onsite access to the general public to JSTOR and their journal subscriptions

One last note. I took a look at your draft, and I would advise against using blog content as a WP:Reliable Source (RS). The RS guidelines are complex and subtle, and are intended to be flexible enough to allow for the panoply of editing contexts. Please familiarize yourself with the RS guidelines. This is perhaps the most important part of being a Wikipedia editor. Now I am reminding myself to re-read the guidelines!!! The learning process is never ending. And many other experienced editors will have varying interpretations of the guidelines, and seeing the varying responses are helpful in developing your own intuitions and judgements about them.

Law enforcement history is not a good subject for me. I know some 20th-c history of Texas, but my wheelhouse is 19th-c Texas and Houston in particular. Despite this, I could help you to find some sources. Please continue to contact me if I can help with any more questions.

Best regards,

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AD 64, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Via Lata.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]