Talk:Texoma

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Need to keep Search Texoma for copyright protection. Also Dmoz.org website is down and is running a duplicate until fixed. So should we remove this until the listings are updated and corrected?

Hi. I do not understand this copyright protection issue you're speaking of. The Search Texoma link appears to not meet the external links guideline. (Neither did those other links). How does copyright fit into all this?

I also don't understand the problem with Dmoz -- it worked just fine a minute ago when I checked it. Even if dmoz.org is off line, we don't have to have any links at all if none are available that meet the external links guideline. Take a look at:

"Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
"Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) which is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page."

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These guidelines are written with the understanding of Dmoz.or working properly. I am an editor for Dmoz.org and I know how inaccurate the listing are. Look at alexa.com way back machine for searchtexoma.com. The about texoma page from 2005. The content was taken from searchtexoma.com and placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texoma except for the small content I added the other day. I had a link pointing to searchtexoma.com and a spam abuser took it down and replaced it with his website. So I went back in and changed it back and now you are deleting it. Please look at the proper guidelines for external links from which the content was originated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.127.234 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes -- copyright violations are big deal! Thanks for catching this. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a dmoz editor. So what? This is Wikipedia, and the guidelines of Wikipedia are what should be followed here. Whether dmoz is working or not has no bearing on whether a link is appropriate in a Wikipedia article. And what does copyright have to do with it? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total rewrite

I rewrote the entire problem to eliminate any copyright concerns. I trimmed the links back to just the dmoz.org entry; we don't need a searchtexoma link at this point. Besides, searchtexoma fails to meet the external links guideline (WP:EL).

Thanks for catching the problem, 24.116.127.234!

--A. B. ^(talk) 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is you have a total lack of information on Texoma. You did not include cities and listed some that are not part of the area. I have been living in the area for more than 29 years and would like to discuss a total rewrite. It looks like you copied this information off the web. I want to know how the dmoz. listing are helpful I know the editor has made changes that are not in effect since dmoz.org is down and they are running a duplicate until they get it fixed. There are 12 links broken out of 15. So if you need information such as weather, news, business, maps and related content searchtexoma.com is needed for external links. Searchtexoma.com still has copywrite information so an external links needs to be in place and it fits en.wikipedia guidelines

What should be linked to en.wikipedia

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

I'm not sure what you mean by "It looks like you copied this information off the web." Are you saying that I stole it? That's a very serious charge. I did not steal this material, but if you really think so, you should take your concern to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

You were critical of the towns and cities I included in my rewrite. Here's what I did:

I included all the cities in the original list which apparently previously suited you before my rewrite. I included all the counties along the Red Rver border. Then I added in any county seats that were not on the orginal list. The area I worked from corresponds to that shown on the map of Texoma-related phone book listings. All of this was found in existing Wikipedia articles and is not a copyright violation.

I also added substantially more material than was there previously; the article is about twice as big.

I'm confused by what your comment earlier today that 12 out of 15 links on the linked dmoz page were broken. Here's what I found just now:

There are 12 links (not 15 as you cited)
10 (not 3 as you cited) link as promised (the arts and H.O.P.E. links don't work as promised)
Several are ad-driven portals or search sites that perform similar functions to searchtexoma

I see no reason to add the searchtexoma link given the above information. No other editor has spoken up asking for it on this talk page.

Wikipedia is not resonsible for the proper functioning of dmoz. Wikipedia also has no obligation to any web site owner or editor to incorporate any particular link in its material.

You cite your knowledge of the area as being superior to mine -- I think your insight would be very helpful and I encourage you to add substantive material citing reputable sources. Your editing history shows you've made 9 edits to this article to date:

5 adding the searchtexoma link [1],[2],[3],[4],[5]
1 fixing a typo [6]
3 removing, restoring, then removing a searchtexoma competitor [7], [8], [9]
Along the way, adding the towns of Howe, Texas, Tom Bean, Texas and Texoma (no state specified) to the list.

Perhaps you could fix the Texoma town link as well as write articles for those two redlinked items. They've already been identified elsewhere as needing articles. I've left links to some initial sources you can use.

As for the searchtexoma link, let's get a second opinion. I'll leave a note at WikiProject Spam. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read this and taken the link off. But I am open to persuasion if anyone else joins in the argument and suggests putting it back. It doesn't look to me like it contains enough new info to qualify for listing --BozMo talk 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this three times am still at a loss. searchtexoma.com is a pay for inclusion directory for $195.00 yr, doesn't belong here for all the reasons stated above. Second is this copyright stuff. I can't imagine what on that site could possibly construde as copyright protectable, especialy since its stated clearly;

SearchTexoma.com uses information that is provided by our customers or gathered via our web site to communicate business directory orders, advertising and general company information.

feel free to search the U.S. Copyright Office's Copyright Records. --Hu12 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please updat your own page. Are you away or here? I know you are here but your page says your away. Please remove copyright content and I will be happy to remove the link and just make the edits on Dmoz.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.127.234 (talk • contribs)

There is no stolen material on this page. Why do you keep saying this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

Discussions of towns and counties

Does anyone else agree that Quanah, Texas is not part or considered part of Texoma? It is more than 250 miles away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.127.234 (talk • contribs)

See the article for Quanah, Texas; it's a city in Hardeman County, Texas about 10 miles south of the Red River and the Oklahoma state line. If you don't believe me, check out the satellite images; there are links at the bottom of the article. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Texoma from the list of towns and cities. The post office has no record of a town by that name. There are towns named Texhoma in both Texas and Oklahome (Texhoma, Texas and Texhoma, Oklahoma); perhaps that's what 24.116.127.234 (talk • contribs) was referring to. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put in About Texoma for copyright protection. Can be deleted. Searchtexoma.com is a better link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.181.77 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 December 2006.

please stop your nonsense Hu12 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged copyright infringement

A currently blocked user, 24.116.127.234, has alleged this article contains copyrighted material. This person's claims, and my response to them (as the person who contributed 95+% of the rewritten article), can be found on the user's talk page. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my comments there are deleted, here is the original edit from the page history. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article

This needs to be cleaned up. We have cities and counties listed that are not even or claim to be part of Texoma. We are giving false information to our readers. We not only have broken links, cities and counties but this lacks content that could be helpful to Texoma. —the preceding comment is by 24.116.127.234 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 December 2006: Please sign your posts!.

Comments:

"cities and counties listed that are not even or claim to be part of Texoma" -- you've been saying this for days and I'll repeat my earlier question: which cities and counties are these that are not in Texoma? Are you still referring to Quanah, Texas? I left some links to satellite images and maps on your talk page a few days ago -- they showed Quanah a few miles away from the Red River.
The only non-working links I see are to the two articles that we need written: Eisenhower State Park (Texas) and Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge. How soon can you write up short articles for these? You can use the links I left by each article as background.
"this lacks content that could be helpful to Texoma" -- do you think you can get this fixed this week?

Thanks for your help in taking on this new content we need. With your help, this could even be a "Wikipedia Featured Article"!

--A. B. ^(talk) 02:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info on featured articles -- there's some great stuff here:

Definitely worth shooting for! --A. B. ^(talk) 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]