User talk:David Schaich/Archives/Archive2008

Social Democrats

Stop your personal attacks and opinions on social democrats unless you know what is personally what is going on behind closed doors. Comraderedoctober (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you're talking about. Thanks, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You should not make comments or edits in places you have no business being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.161.188 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the header reads "Social Democrats" does it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.161.188 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still waiting for you to let me know what you're talking about. Specific diffs would be a great help. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Stealing your "this user should be working on real stuff" box

Sorry, I'm not very creative, but a good idea is a good idea! Soli, T L Miles (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania

AfD nomination of Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania

An article that you have been involved in editing, Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania. Thank you. T L Miles (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--S TX 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference tags

Could you change back the reference changes? It makes it exceptionally awkward when trying to find citations when you cite it like that. The Manual of Style frowns upon changing reference type without discussion as well and I don't want to undo the other changes as well.KV(Talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What trouble are you having finding citations? All the links are still there, just formatted more compactly instead of rewriting the same citation twenty times, which looks (and is) ridiculous. The only change I made to the reference type itself was to change "http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/biography.php" to "Biography at stewartalexandercares.com". Still, if you let me know what difficulty you're having, I'll change things back if it can't be resolved another way. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does reduce the amount of code on the page, it also makes it hard to keep track of the number of citations and creates issues when someone else tries to cite the same thing and has to look up the tag name, or on a different date. It's a wikipedia-only citation style as I see it, unprofessional in appearance, and makes it harder for future editors. The standard academic citation style would be as was on there originally, and it's much more editor friendly. KV(Talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles KV(Talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were Wikipedia-specific, there would be no better place to use it. Of course it is not; in my academic field, it is completely standard to use the same citation to cite the same citation; to do otherwise would be regarded as utterly bizarre (and actually difficult to implement with the standard LaTeX software). Future authors can do whatever they like, either using this tag or adding a new one, as they see fit. Reusing the same tag also makes it clear how many different sources are being cited, as well as how many times each is cited, immediately giving more information about the number of citations. Finally, you link to Citation styles without comment, which brings up another advantage of this approach -- now one only has to change a single citation to move between styles, instead of twenty identical ones, a much more editor-friendly situation.

In every aspect, the current system seems unambiguously superior. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to mess with your layout

Not enough time to mess with that, so I'll just point you to User:King Vegita/spusa and User:King Vegita/moorealexander08.KV(Talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Just as a heads-up, using the SP logo in the first may ruffle some feathers -- see this diff for more information. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem there, it's copyleft. I doublechecked with Greg. You could do the same about YPSL. KV(Talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua G. Evans

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joshua G. Evans, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Joshua G. Evans. --NellieBly (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Party of America

There is no "formerly" in "SDPPA," Social Democratic Party of Pennsylvania as it is a real party registered with an EIN with its respective state.

The SDoA is only noted as a single red dot on the SI map in the Johnstown, PA area.

Why is a known member of another political party attempting to create information without having a single fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.34.219 (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about this diff? Three points: (1) I did not write "formerly", that was added by Jutland100 (talk · contribs) in this diff; (2) the relevant map displays three dots in North America, corresponding to three organizations, none of which are the Social Democratic Party of America; (3) since very few people are members of the SDPA, the vast majority of its article will be written by members of other political parties. If you have a problem with any of the content of that article, please feel free to raise the issue on its talk page. David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've assumed too much about a party that is not yours to write about. The simple fact of writing "SDPA" shows that there is a missed step in reading their website from the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.45.99 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 April 2008

"SDPA" seems a reasonable acronym for the Social Democratic Party of America, at least for use on my talk page (as above, Jutland100 (talk · contribs) first added it to the article). If there's any problem using it in the article, it would be good to explain on its talk page.

Social Democrats refer to themselves as automous persons which is the reason for SDoA, Social Democrats of America. It is part of the division of internal powers which are up for a direct vote next week.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.171.120.134 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 April 2008

If you feel the article should be moved, please discuss it here. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the acronym, do you have any other specific concerns? -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are openly a member of another political party and should not consider ever writing about the workings any other party as it is a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.171.120.134 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 April 2008

I am indeed a member of a different political party. As such I have no interest in the SDPA, and risk no conflict of interest by improving its Wikipedia article. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jim Lawrence (politician)

I have nominated Jim Lawrence (politician), 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/Jim Lawrence (politician). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 11:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help please...

I saw you added material to the article about Barbara Olshansky. Someone {{prod}}ded it last fall.

I noticed it was missing, asked for it to be userified, and have added some details.

I think the guy who prodded it should have left you a note, as a courtesy. I am sorry they didn't.

So, if you are around, would you look at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Review/Barbara Olshansky?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I really did was some formatting and categorization -- I'm happy to do more of that. I think the article looks in good shape, especially compared to the prodded version. The only thing that jumped out at me is that there isn't really any biographical information (date of birth, education, etc.), which might be worth Googling. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of democratic socialist parties and organizations

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of democratic socialist parties and organizations. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cgingold (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ross

Hi David, I deleted the reference to Grace attending Our Lady of Lourdes Academy in Miami because it's not true. She's a friend of mine and she lived in New York City until she went to Harvard. Do you have a reason for including that there? By the way, I'm new to wikipedia editing and so am not sure how to have this conversation online. I'll look back here for your response. Schoolsail (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schoolsail, thanks for correcting it, then! The only reason I didn't go along with your edit the first time was that you didn't leave an edit summary, so I didn't know why you were removing the reference. It turns out you were acting for just the right reason, but Wikipedia is not immune to editors who might have some connection with OLLA and dislike Grace Ross, or vice-versa, or just made a mistake. Since Grace was listed as a notable alum in the Our Lady of Lourdes Academy article, I undid your edit pending more information, which you have kindly provided. (I'll remove Grace from the OLLA article as well.) Thanks again for following up, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Parties (United States)

Please read my comments (see discussion for the article.) The "Largest third party (U.S.)" is a section appropriate for the "Third parties (U.S.)" article, rather than the "List of political parties" article, which includes the so-called two major parties and where the Democrat party is recognized as the largest party based on voter registration (see discusion.) It seems the "Third parties (U.S.)" article should likewise recognize the largest third party in the U.S. based on voter registration.

Prior to your edits, the "Third parites (U.S.)" article listed third parties by ideology, showing the ideological spectrum of third parties -- something not shown in the "List of political parties" article, where parties are listed alphabetically, only.

Unfortunately, if we leave the article as you have, we will have lost information that is appropriate to this article and not found on the page you referenced, in its stead: showing the spectrum of third parties in the U.S. and recognizing the largest third party in the U.S. based on voter registration.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the list of political parties article, you will see that parties are sorted by size and activity before being listed alphabetically. The current format of the lists was adopted some time ago through discussion on the article's talk page. In that discussion, I supported somewhat different schemes but didn't have strong objections to the eventual consensus. Please feel free to propose ideological sorting on the list of political parties talk page if you feel it is important information to highlight. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit what I've already posted regarding the measure of party size on the discussion page of the article in question. The replacement article you reference does not measure party registration (the measure used to determine the Democrat Party is largest in size.) Nor do I see that it shows the spectrum of political ideology. These are pertinent facts. I don't think it is arguable that they are not appropriate for inclusion in the article in question.Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party (disambiguation)

Hi David. I created Socialist Party (disambiguation) so that readers can quickly navigate to the Socialist Party article that interests them. Please feel free to revise as you see fit. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008

Thanks I appreciate your efforts; I think I might have fudged some numbers, so if you want to look over them again, it might be wise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi!I've got a problem!Yesterday I've modified this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Scotland .But I forgot to connect and so my IP address was visible.Then I modified once more and my user name was visible.This is the question:is it possible to add to my contributions the editing of my IP address?Thank you! Itanesco (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it may be possible, but it is not simple, so if it's just this one edit or a relatively small number of edits, I would recommend just letting it slide. If you do decide to go ahead and try to associate the IP contribution(s) with your username, I believe you would need to submit a CheckUser request. You can learn about CheckUser here, where you can also find a list of users with CheckUser permissions who will be able to help you. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]