User talk:David Schaich/Archives/Archive2007

Charles Powell (actor)

Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. -- ReyBrujo 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questia

Questia has two levels--one is completely free (no registration)--and is therefore not NOT forbidden by Wiki rules, the other is a pay site. The Free Questia allows several powerful features: 1) complete information on a book; 2) table of contents; 3) first page of every chapter; 4) Boolean searches in the Questia Library; 5) listings of Questia research guides to specific topics (like the American Revolution). Users doing research need this information and can get it nowhere else. This is far more free information than available anywhere else. Questia claims the largest online library (although Google may now be larger). Questia is very valuable for users. In terms of Wiki rules Questia: "provides relevant information unavailable elsewhere" and is therefore allowed by wp:el. That is Questia links to their free services do NOT violate WP:EL I have no link whatsoever to Questia and there is no question of spamming for their pay site. I am trying to provide users with valuable information they need (especially if they are trying to assemble a bibliography or getting a book through a library). Rjensen 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like questia so much, I encourage you to set up your ISBN links to take you to it. Others may prefer Google or Amazon, and can get to them the same way. This is the power of the ISBN links -- they let people get to where they want to go, without limiting the options available to others.

Your distinction between "levels" of questia is disingenuous. It is a commercial site that requires registration to use but gives out some content as a teaser, like a pornography site with a "free tour".

Moreover, the information is rarely relevant -- certainly not in the Seymour Martin Lipset article that brought your preferences to my attention, where the linked books contain no information at all on the topic of the article.

I understand you may not have any financial connection to questia, and may think of it as just a neat site, but that does not make the links any less spammy or any more acceptable. I have little tolerance for spam, especially when a superior alternative is readily available. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the ISBN is an important part of book citations. It's one thing if you are devoted to adding links to questia, spammy as they may be, but I would strongly appreciate it if you did not remove the ISBNs at the same time. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will not remove ISBNs -- I have added many of them myself. There are no "superior alternatives" for most users--only a small fraction of whom have access to the big libraries linked to isbns. (I once had that access--10 years ago--but not since then) No other source has excerpts from the contents of the books, esp table of contents and first page of every chapter; many Questia books are pre-isbn. Rjensen 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure there is no confusion on this point, those "big libraries linked to isbns" include Amazon, Google books, and Questia itself. I'm sure even fewer users have registered at Questia, and the vast majority will feel only annoyance after being referred to a site requiring not only registration but steep fees as well. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, Questia offers a FREE service with NO registration and that is valuable to users and that is why I link it. Google, by the way, requires registration. People who need to borrow books interlibrary loan need to know which books out of many to ask for and Questia is a big help for them. Rjensen 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questia is a $100/year commercial site that requires registration to use but gives out some content as a teaser, like a pornography site with a "free tour". I didn't realize Google requires registration -- fortunately, I've long replaced the occasional links to Google books that I stumble across with ISBN links, which can be directed anywhere people want. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questia is two levels, Free, and a $20 a month site that is cheaper than buying a book. It gives out a vast amount of free material: like free searches and free 10-20 pages of text for every one of its 65,000 scholarly books. That helps people decide whether to get the book by purchase or library. The ISBN links are not useful for pre 1970 books, which dominate the bibliographies in most of the history articles I work on. And the ISBN links have no historical content, unlike Questia. Rjensen 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your distinction between "levels" of Questia is disingenuous at best. It is a commercial site that requires registration to use but gives out some content as a teaser, like a pornography site with a "free tour". By the way, $20/month is $240/year. The ISBN links can have just as much "historical content" as those to Questia, since you should be able to set up your preferences so that the ISBN links take you to Questia. This is one of their greatest strengths. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questia does NOT require registration to use. It is NOT true that ISBN links have research value. If people want a book they can buy it or get it interlibrary loan (which requires you to be a taxpayer or tuition payer). The bottom line is that removing the Questia links hurts the users. There is no good in doing it. Rjensen 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questia is a commercial site that requires registration to use but gives out some content as a teaser, like a pornography site with a "free tour". I get the feeling I've said this before, though you haven't seemed to notice it. As ISBN links can go to Questia, they have just as much research value as those pointing directly to Questia -- indeed, more. The bottom line is that the Questia links are spam, for which I have a relatively low tolerance. If you want to promote the site, as obviously you do, buy a Google link for it or purchase gift accounts for your friends. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questia does not require registration and it gives more useful information free than (almost) any other site (Google probably gives as much, but from different sources.) Google does require registration. ISBN refers to only one edition and if a book appears in many editions there will be have to be many ISBN's. In any case ISBN does not lead to information on the content of a book like Questia and Google do. Rjensen 13:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false, but more importantly, something I've rebutted so many times I'm just sick of it. Just read what I've written above. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year

I confirm that I just voted for the Commons Picture of the Year under my ip address, 128.197.40.32. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Wording of Columbine Mine Massacre

Regarding Columbine Mine massacre

At first glance the wording seems better:

The first Columbine Massacre, now known as the Columbine Mine massacre, occurred in 1927 when striking coal miners in Colorado were attacked with machine guns.

However, it loses a special, and particularly important meaning that i had wanted to preserve:

The first Columbine Massacre, called that immediately after it happened, but on Wikipedia now referred to as the Columbine Mine massacre, occurred in 1927 when striking coal miners in Colorado were attacked with machine guns.

In short, everyone i know has referred to the 1927 Columbine Massacre as the "Columbine Massacre", and continues to do so. However, since there has been the significant Columbine High School Massacre in recent years, it seemed appropriate to differentiate on Wikipedia, for technical reasons as well as to avoid confusion for students.

Outside of Wikipedia, no one that i know of has changed the wording to Columbine Mine Massacre. Indeed, after seventy-some years of historical reference, that would be difficult to accomplish-- the books have already been published.

The most appropriate and accurate solution would be to change the name of Columbine Mine Massacre back to Columbine Massacre, and use disambiguation. But that also seems unnecessary, and a bit drastic, if the clarification can be made otherwise. After all, SOMETHING different in the name is required just for the technical linking, so why not leave the existing difference as it is.

Your comments invited, i won't revert, or change the wording otherwise, until you've had a chance to weigh in. I'd be happy if someone could point out a more elegant solution.

Richard Myers 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was just WP:SELF, a guideline that articles on Wikipedia should not mention Wikipedia unless they are about Wikipedia itself. Since it isn't actually "known" as the Columbine Mine massacre outside Wikipedia, it might be better to write, The first Columbine Massacre, sometimes called the Columbine Mine massacre to distinguish it from the Columbine High School massacre, occurred in 1927... or something along those lines. That would be a more accurate description that wouldn't involve a self-reference.

Alternately, we could just sweep the issue under the rug and say, The first Columbine Massacre occurred in 1927... That's probably the most elegant approach, and I don't see any major problem with it, especially if a note were left on the article's talk page summarizing what you mention above.

By the way, thanks for your work on the Bill Haywood article -- your expertise is appreciated. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I selected the first of the two choices you've suggested here, thanks! Richard Myers 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Haywood

This copied from:

Talk:Bill_Haywood#To-do_list

I have added an industrial unionism section to the (slightly renamed) "Haywood's labor philosophy" section. Because this touches upon socialism, and upon the IWW, the article now has a couple of repetitive themes. I think it isn't too bad, perhaps even necessary to cover all the given territory, but some feedback on this question would be helpful. Richard Myers 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party?

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit to the foundation of the Green Party [1] from 1984 to 1996. But the Green Party (United States) seems to say that the party was founded in 1984.--Jersey Devil 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important point I took from Green Party (United States) was, "In the aftermath of the 1996 election, representatives from thirteen state Green Parties joined to form the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP)." The ASGP later changed its name to GPUS in 2000-2001. There were Green organizations that existed prior to the founding of the ASGP, notably the Green Committees of Correspondence (starting in 1984) and the Greens/Green Party USA (starting in 1991), but 1996 saw the formation of the political party now known as the Green Party of the United States. It's sort of a confusing history, but I feel that's the best date. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D-Beat

Hi, my comment on your recent edit [2] on article D-beat.

By removing self-reference you have changed entirely the meaning of the sentence. Moreover the sentence was true before and is false now. Here's why:

That self-reference is bad, but it was put there on purpose to prevent really evil thing: weak musicians were constantly trying to "fix" a good tab because "well it just seems better that way". It happend many times before - check history of the page. However all of the people that actually listen to two sample tracks say alternative 2 is the only proper D-beat. Strange, isn't it? Classical example of Incompetent And Not Aware Of It. So actually there is consensus, but article needs also improper tab to stop the unintended vandalism.

Because my english is so poor (ale twoj polski jest pewnie jeszcze gorszy), I kindly ask YOU to re-edit and put my thoughts in readable manner :)) OK?

--Kubanczyk 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at rephrasing it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Kubanczyk 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.111.128.3 reported to Administrators' noticeboard for edit warring

Reported 82.111.128.3 (talk · contribs) to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to yet another revert in Misandry without comment or attempt to fix problems with his edits. Talk page notices are past the final warning stage. A comment on WP:AN/I about his edits in Socialist Party USA might be helpful. / edgarde 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of cents. The main item of interest to me is the possible connection with the "SP USA spammer", though that remains speculative. In general, though, I'm afraid I just don't have any good ideas for how to improve the situation. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're seeing a different side of this editor than I have, so your couple of cents helps plenty. / edgarde 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third party (sic) debate

I answered you in Talk:Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election third party candidates

Hoping you will have time to reply there or to me at korkyday @ yahoo.com Korky Day 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YPSL

What is your basis for removing my edits? My information comes from their own website. Long2024 01:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their Web site has been down for the past week or more. More generally, your complaint that they list an incorrect Tennessee contact on their Web site doesn't belong in the encyclopedia article about them. I suggest you take it up with the organization itself; that way the problem might actually be fixed (should their Web site ever come back online). -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it up with them hasn't worked for over three years. The issue isn't that they're listing an incorrect contact; it's that they are claiming as a representative of their organization someone who has publicly and repeatedly announced a desire to end all affiliation with them. The current glowing description of their membership policies violates the neutrality policy, given that there is information which indicates the vindictiveness or incompetence of the leadership with regards to dealing with former members. Their main website may be down, but some version of it is available at http://67.18.15.34/~ypsl/fusion/viewpage.php?page_id=3 , and the most recent articles were posted this morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Long2024 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for passing me that link. I checked things out, but didn't find any discussion of the TN contact. How have you tried getting in touch with them? I strongly recommend you just post a note on the forums pointing out the problem and asking them to fix it. I know when somebody asked for contact corrections there a while ago, things were fixed in short order -- see here and here. In fact, I can do so myself.

This issue is totally unrelated to their membership policies, however. Obviously your membership ended long ago, they just have an error on their Web site, and have been slow to fix it. Incompetent, perhaps, but obviously not vindictive -- why would they want to refer people to somebody who doesn't support the organization (especially when there are all those folks up in Chattanooga)?

In any event, Wikipedia is the wrong place to grind your ax. Good luck getting things sorted out; I'll do what I can to help. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clearly on the website: Tennessee (Knoxville) Patrick Long 3810 Buffat Mill Rd Knoxville, TN 37914 okiishakaisha@aol.com For my most public renunciation of this role, go to http://www.wsbs.com/home.php and from somewhere on there you can get transcripts of old shows. Let's Talk!, sometime last March, maybe early April.

They'd do it because most YPSLs realize that affiliation with a socialist organization is a good way to be denied a job, so if you betray the organization by joining the mainstream, they have a way to get back at you. It relates to the membership policy in that it directly contradicts the democratic and accessible claims made in the article. If those claims are relevant to the article and don't violate neutrality, the same is true of information contradicting them. Long2024 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing it's on the Web site. Have you tried contacting the Web site administrator? I doubt he listens to AM radio in Western Mass. As I showed above, they have fixed other errors on their Web site local contact information after being informed of them. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed them at least three times in the past year, plus several more over the few preceding years. Long2024 05:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took care of it and got you off the local contact list. I guess the trick is to figure out the best way to get in touch with the site administrator. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of Florida

The Socialist Party USA no longer list Florida as an affiliate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comraderedoctober (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be the Chair pro tem Atlee Yarrow for the Socialist Party of Florida as listed on the State of Florida Division of Election website and am Chair of the SPF JAX (Jacksonville Local). I posted the letter from the Socialist Party USA noting that it has removed all its claims to Florida by revoking the state charter. Furthermore the State of Florida does not recognize the Socialist Party USA as an affiliate and pending research conducted by the state leads to this. I have asked under public information that copies of all documents be sent as continued proof of this claim which I'll make public when the paperwork arrives. I also happen to be the original author of the page Socialist Party of Florida and posted the watch listing due to my claims that the Socialist Party does not have nor ever did have any Rights to the Socialist Party of Florida.

The State of Florida is open ballot and does not require a political party to have a national level affiliate. At any one time there are 23-29 different PTY, parties and the majority do not or never had an affiliate. Florida law chapters 97-106 make this clear after reading what a PTY is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comraderedoctober (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The link you provide currently says (replacing lines with hyphens) "FLORIDA -- State Affiliate -- Socialist Party of Florida". That's a funny way not to list Florida as an affiliate. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sure what was meant by this; however, I am citing the main contention that this information remain on Wikipedia under | Florida State Law, Title IX, 103.091 Political parties, (3) "The state executive committee of each political party shall file with the Department of State the names and addresses of its chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer, and members and shall file a copy of its constitution, bylaws, and rules and regulations with the Department of State. Each county executive committee shall file with the state executive committee and with the supervisor of elections the names and addresses of its officers and members." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comraderedoctober (talk • contribs) 06:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who complained about your posting their address on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of parties from List of socialist parties

I really don't think it's inappropriate to keep those two parties on that list, and am puzzled as to why you reverted their addition. That article is sort of a grand disambiguation page, and people may look there who wouldn't even think of looking for whatever dab pages you refer to in your edit note. If you don't mind, I am going to put them back, unless you can explain any reasons why it would be bad to do so. Duplicate listings like this, like redirects and dab pages, are a useful form of cross-referencing a complex topic. --Orange Mike 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to note is that the page in question (Socialist Party, not List of socialist parties, which doesn't exist) is exactly a disambiguation page (as it says at the bottom), not a list of socialist parties -- it is for organizations named "Socialist Party", not for all parties which have a socialist program or ideology. Similarly, there are disambiguation pages for Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Labour Party (and others), which already include the parties you added. One or both can also be found in some actual lists, including List of Trotskyist internationals, List of Communist Parties, and List of political parties in the United States. Although there is a List of social democratic parties and a List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, there is no straight-up List of socialist parties; if you were to start such an article, I wouldn't object.

For verification that Socialist Party has consistently included only parties named "Socialist Party", and that I have no personal grudge against the groups you added, I'll include here a few diffs from the page's history: diff; diff; diff; diff; diff; diff; diff; diff. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thanks for clearing that up. (And I certainly didn't mean to imply any bias was at work.) Alas, I don't have time to do the kind of major editing project you suggest. Solidarity forever! --Orange Mike 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (possibly the sole surviving member of the old Tennessee Valley Local of the SPUSA)[reply]

Great. I hope my response wasn't too aggressive. I was just trying to settle things definitively. The SP connection is neat, though the Tennessee Valley Local came and went before my time. Solidarity, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You weren't. (The Tenn.Val. Local story is a sad one; we were infiltrated, red-baited and disintegrated in 1975-76.) --Orange Mike 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Lisa Weltman

A tag has been placed on Lisa Weltman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GreenJoe 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Cochran

Thanks for your additions. I didn't realize that he'd published several books. --Duncan 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious issue"

Don't worry. Editing a Ghirla article with policies and guidelines in mind usually generate wholly new contentious issues previous unknown to all participants . I wish he'd at least avoid diverting the debates. Circeus 00:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my spelling errors in Scott Boman article

--Libertyguy 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Diane

Thanks for the help formatting the refs, comrade. --Orange Mike 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the additional information; I'm glad you were able to expand the article a bit. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Dr. Roderick T. Kaufmann

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dr. Roderick T. Kaufmann, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dr. Roderick T. Kaufmann is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dr. Roderick T. Kaufmann, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free; I only moved the page to comply with WP:NCP. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point

this but like others who have dabbled in these articles, I've not had the time to make them a regular tasking. That's no longer true, as in this return from a wikibreak, I'm focusing my time almost exclusively on the series articles improvements sans other wikiproject distractions[3]. Worse perhaps, the long delay between the 2nd and 3rd main thread articles demotivated people even as the cite everything craze ramped up. To me, web forum discussions are not citable, or should not be, but that doesn't mean they don't occasionally reveal important information—particularly when they're posts by the author to answer a given question. Lastly, only recently has the 'posted messages' histories become available via reconstruction at 1632.org, and so far as I know, 1632 Tech Manual isn't searchable. I may be wrong at that—my search the web skills are pretty basic, elementary really.

In any event, I figure to take a knife to the article next time I get a big block of wikitime to spend. I should have renamed it when I first encountered it 2-3 years back, and frankly, I'm amazed so few have left it so unchanged since then. As I can be blamed for the 'tone' (not uncommon back then when I did a big rewrite), it is clearly something I should and do take responsibility for. Thanks // FrankB 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: 1632 Tech Manual

Please don't remove {{1632-sectstub}}s when fixing my spelling! (You can probably make a career out of that alone! <G> At least when I do edits in IE7, like that one.) We don't have a stub template, and this is used to track things needing further To-Do attention! Thanks! // FrankB 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sect-stubs are useful in "References" sections (I believe this is the only one I have removed) since most expansions to that section will actually be made by adding references to other sections. There won't be much editing of the section itself, making sect-stub templates there seem sort of purposeless. (The spelling mistakes were just bonuses I noticed while fixing the external link in the ref -- they need to start with "http" to be recognized.) -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the above, apologies... I'd already had one in the section above, so NBD. I just had to fight to get that from WP:WSS. FrankB 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Assiti Shards effect

'Good catch' on the website updated schedules... he's scheduled one of the others for his share of the writing too. 1776/1781 must have hit a research needs versus time available wall, its way overdue from what he told me in an March-April 2006 email.

I'm thinking I need to cut out that "phenom" section into a separate article. I really need "a formula" for introducing the series concept+growth+shared universe+collaborations for all articles involved. It seems like every page is a variation on the same top two screens. Advice?
Also thinking I should probably move the article again, but to just Assiti shards. [I assumed when moving it, we'd need to recreate a series article, eventually but I wasn't happy with that title when I first saw it.] Also, he's been sitting on both the manuscripts from collaborators we updated tonight for at least a year, as he did with 1634: The Bavarian Crisis from very early 2005. 1634: The Ram Rebellion was ready and delayed for a while too, and I'm not talking "in production delays" either. If he doesn't get around to writing his share of the second one (By any other name), it won't be the first time!

Cheers! // FrankB 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile and etc.

re: this on my talk Your edit summary here made me smile -- I added that line you mention after the bot left a message on Talk:1634: The Bavarian Crisis. I'm glad you think it says it all, though I imagine the additional details you provided can't hurt. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh!... or OIC, hadn't checked the history, and had wondered why there was no BOT tag therein! Why the licensing {{Book cover}} and a back link to the article isn't excluded by the BOT's software is beyond me... Thanks for the wiki-smiley! // FrankB 12:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

With the opening of the floodgates for anonymous creation of new articles, good editors are needed to wield the Mop and Bucket. Would you accept a nomination if it were offered? (Hey, how much time can grad school and Party office consume?) --Orange Mike 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the offer, but I think I'll pass, at least for the moment. I haven't found myself doing that much for which admin tools would be especially useful, and I would like to retain the ability to vanish completely for irregular intervals (even if I never seem to take advantage of it).

If you want to know how much time grad school and other stuff can consume: I was tempted last night to set a new personal record of four all-nighters in a single week, but ended up heading home around 4 am (to return at 8 am) after hurriedly setting up a bunch of simulations to run in my absence. In my rush to leave, I accidentally ended up running the same simulation 100,000 times instead of the 100,000 different simulations I intended, wasting all those CPU cycles. Still, it wasn't all bad, as one (or two) of those all-nighters culminated in meeting Howard Zinn. (I'm the one with the beard and the dazed look of someone with a slight sleep deficit.) -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LOL

Jes beat me to 'em. Familiarize yourself with {{16inst}} and so on "related". Also, some help "psuedo cat" (linkshere) tagging with {{1632 place referenced}} and {{1632 person referenced}} when link checking would be helpful. // FrankB 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Nothing Day

Hi David - here's wishing you a very happy Buy Nothing Day. Hope you haven't bought anything! Love, Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It went perfectly. Thanks, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Liberty Union Party

I have nominated Liberty Union Party, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Union Party. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]