User talk:David Schaich/Archives/Archive2009

It’s all about knowing the policy!

Hello, take a look at this “debate” over a page I started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Right-wing_political_support_for_the_1973_Chilean_coup. Regards, Moshe-paz (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the latter, but I see it's already been resolved. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technicolor (physics)

I just noticed that you posted comments at Talk:Technicolor (physics)/GA1. That GA review, however, was closed a long time ago; the article failed the GA criteria. You should post new comments at the article's main talkpage (Talk:Technicolor (physics)), not the GA subpage. Please move your comments to the main talkpage when you have a moment. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually what I tried to do, but the section-edit link on the talk page took me to the GA review page. The boilerplate at the top of the GA review section ("The edit link for this section can be used to add comments") makes this sound like the proper thing to do. I'll move my comments to the talk page proper, though the source will look a little odd as a result, since reference will be made to text transcluded from elsewhere. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. Once you've moved your comments I can either de-transclude the GA review (it's already linked from the {failed GA} template) or mark it off with {{archive top}}{{archive bottom}}. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully everything is now properly taken care of. I de-transcluded the review and rephrased my comments so that they would make more sense in isolation. Sorry for the confusion; I haven't had anything to do with good article review before. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links on Socialist Party USA

Our practice is quite clear: only one link to the subject's own websites, etc.; usually to their main home page. Additional links to branchs, products, blogs, etc. are clearly not in accordance with WP:EL. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with WP:EL, and confident that it places no restriction that "only one" link can be included. The four links formerly in the article are all to different official SP sites, each of which presents significant, relevant, and complementary information. All should be retained. It's no coincidence that these were the only links to survive the Great SP Linkfarm Purge of October 2008 that you and I carried out (the site for The Socialist was added a couple of weeks later), and the only links that were retained for the following nine months. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:ELNO as implying that the additional links should be avoided, especially links to blogs and wikis. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...neither of which are relevant here. While the electronic edition of The Socialist magazine does make use of blogging software, it clearly isn't a personal blog, but rather the online manifestation of the periodical with which it shares an editor, editorial board, and much of its content. I can't find any criterion in the WP:ELNO list that any of these links violate, and it doesn't sound like you are contesting my arguments that these links are all unique, relevant, complementary and significant enough to be included.

For the sake of completeness, I'll add that I read the "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" prelude to WP:ELNO as allowing exceptions to the subsequent rules (for instance allowing personal web pages to be linked in articles about said person), not limiting every article to a single official link. I don't think this is relevant to the SP article -- since none of the links seem to violate any of those rules -- but I wonder if this phrase could be the origin of the "only one official link" narrative. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party USA

I've worked with the Socialist Party USA related articles for a week know, most notably the Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 Seeing that you are a heavy editor on the page (noticed when i looked at the talk page) and self-proclaimed member, i'm wondering if you have any information for the article i'm going to create, Walt Brown presidential campaign, 2004. If you can be of any help, please reply to my comment. --TIAYN (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]