User talk:Schwindtd/Archive 1

Citation style
Hi Schwindtd -- Thanks for your recent contributions to Hugo Chavez -- I know it's sort of a battleground right now, and you've been doing pretty good about keeping a cool head. But will you please take a look at Citation templates and WP:CITE, so that you can learn how to properly format citations for your additions? Basically, right now, you are adding just a bare link in "ref" tags. If you can format the citations as demonstrated in the guidelines there (they basically just want you to add info about the author, publisher, title of the article/book, etc), it makes them more maintainable and readable. Otherwise, thanks again for contributing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks for the info. Haven't really gotten around to reading all of the rules. Sorry. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the cites that I had put up. Thanks. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem -- nobody understands all of the Wikipedia policies. Thanks for reading through that. Appreciate your work! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hayes and citations
Hello, I saw you nominated Rutherford B. Hayes for GA. Nice work so far! I have a few suggestions, if you don't mind: similar to what was suggested by the user above, there are a fair amount of bare external link refs used in this article, and I would suggest working on it before a reviewer stops by. Citation templates help, if you're not sure what goes where. Also keep in mind that we don't use "ibid" or "op. cit." on Wikipedia, per reasons outlined at WP:IBID. Additionally, you may want to look into shorthand citations (WP:CITESHORT) for the print sources; that way you can cite one book more than once without having to relist all of the bibliographic information. Remember to list everything clearly and correctly, italicizing the names of the books (The Doom of Reconstruction: The Liberal Republicans in the Civil War Era, for example). I would also suggest replacing less reliable sources such as the Answers.com link and Python.net with more reputable ones. Hope this helps, and best of luck, María ( habla con migo ) 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I just withdrew my nomination because of such concerns. In fact I completely agree with your assessment of the citations. I just did a one over correction for some of the bare links, but it is a lot of work to go through all those cites. I am using MLA style for the references and I was thinking just of using that format. I will remove the Ibids and replace the older less reliable sources. I plan on renominating once the cites are fixed and some minor changes have been run through. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no reason to apologize! I didn't mean to discourage you.  In fact, feel free to keep your nom active while working on it; the turn-around time for a review at GAC (especially for long-ish articles) typically runs more than a month, so there's no rush.  I've gone through and fixed some of the citations already present, just so you can see what I mean as to proper Wiki formatting: despite what MLA says, bare URLs are a no-no, and there's no reason to denote "Web" or "Print" as it should be fairly obvious what each full citation denotes.  Basically, you can't really use MLA for web-sources, as it doesn't really work with what we require.  Also, do you mean this site for "Miller Center of Public Affairs", or something else?  Best to link to it if you got it off the web.  Let me know if you have any questions, María ( habla  con migo ) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll make the changes. It's just I don't understand how to use the citation templates. I looked on WP:CITE to figure it out. I even looked on youtube to see if there were tutorials! I copy and paste the template but the little subsections with author=, url= don't show up. I think I can change the cites to look like yours without using the templates, but ...--Schwindtd (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, it takes some getting used to. I don't typically use citation templates because it's easier for me now that I know where everything goes and how it should look, but when I was starting out they were a great help.  My first article, Knut (polar bear), uses citation templates exclusively.  The easiest thing to do is go to other articles and see how they handle their citations; for example, Knut's typically look like this (the first one is for an online news article -- cite news -- and the second is for a website -- cite web):
 * When formatted as such, this is how they appear in the reflist:
 * Burke, Jason (13 May 2007). "Knut's a millionaire bear, while he's cuddly". London: The Observer. Retrieved 10 August 2007.
 * "Vanity Fair May 2007 Table of Contents". Vanity Fair. 1 May 2007. Retrieved 10 August 2007.
 * They seem confusing at first, but just play around with it and see how you like it; some editors hate using the templates, but others rely on them pretty heavily. No one way is correct, as long as the information is presented consistently and correctly.  Hope this helps, María ( habla  con migo ) 19:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Vanity Fair May 2007 Table of Contents". Vanity Fair. 1 May 2007. Retrieved 10 August 2007.
 * They seem confusing at first, but just play around with it and see how you like it; some editors hate using the templates, but others rely on them pretty heavily. No one way is correct, as long as the information is presented consistently and correctly.  Hope this helps, María ( habla  con migo ) 19:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Socialism?
Thanks for that, I was still putting off getting round to that. Much appreciated. ValenShephard (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I was glad to do it. Just a quick question, though. Is the third reference a different Einstein paper also entitled "Why Socialism' or is it just a reprint from 1989?
 * Looks like reprint. I used that source because most other places (outside of the primarcy source of monthly review itself) where Why Socialism? is printed are in blogs and personal websites. ValenShephard (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Villa del Cine
While on the subject, would you be willing to sort out the messy refernces at this article? I know its something you know how to do well. Thanks for looking ValenShephard (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Villa del Cine
 * It would be my highest honor, sir! Your words of kindness are much appreciated! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks buddy. ValenShephard (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the work. You are a little eccentric but some would call it genius, haha. Keep it up. ValenShephard (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you are refering to my edit summary! I thought it was funny. See, wikipedia can be fun! Eccentricity keeps me sane! --Schwindtd (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don't think any wikipedia editor is totally normal. We all have some personal neuroses, haha. ValenShephard (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you're wrong about that. We are NORMAL. It's everybody else that isn't! --Schwindtd (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I keep telling myself, but the voices...just...won't... stop! : DD ValenShephard (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, perhaps you were right. But if you were right, then you knew you weren't normal. But if you weren't normal you wouldn't know that, because the voices mean you're insane! Catch-22, anyone? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of insane, there is a disruptive editor on the Chavez article right now. Have a quick look at History, I wouldnt mind another opinion,. ValenShephard (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. Its Grundle up to his old tricks. I remember him from an old ArbCom case on Obama last year. He's a slippery eel, that one is. I think Prolog blocked him, though. This also means the other editor that added that content might be Grundle, too. Keep eyes peeled. I know a list of Grundle sockpuppets. I don't know where. You can search him, though, and find out. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just had a look at this whole sockpuppet thing, never heard of it before. It seems pretty stupid and easy to discover.ValenShephard (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, User: I think I'll dye my hair blue is definitely one of his sockpuppets. It is very stupid. You can have legit ones, though. For unsecure computers, e.t.c. For old grundle the problem is we got a list of his sockpuppets, even known IP's so he is pretty easy to find. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean unsecure computers? ValenShephard (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ... sock puppets can be for privacy reasons, preventing hacking of accounts, e.t.c. Just look at some other users pages. Eventually you'll find one that has a legit sockpuppet (you have to post that you have one and explain why). I know of one user, but I forgot his name. Oh well. That's the rationale really. I don't really see any point in it. I think it could just get annoying. I can barely handle one account, let alone three or more! If you want to look up rules see WP:Sock puppetry for more info. (It lists legit reasons.) --Schwindtd (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my cites again. The page is actually becoming something, thanks to your efforts also. ValenShephard (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * you're welcome. But ... is Jump Cut an online magazine, journal, or what? I just can't figure it out. Thanks for the help! --Schwindtd (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its an online analysis written by "Mercedes Vázquez teaches Hispanic Film and Spanish at the School of Modern Languages and Cultures of the University of Hong Kong, where she is also studying for her Ph.D. in the Comparative Literature Department." So she is notable, she is an academic. ValenShephard (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just wondering for citation reasons. So I guess its a journal?--Schwindtd (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess. It looks like a place where qualified professionals make analysis and write articles on cinema. I have seen it give as a source in other websites, so it has some authority. ValenShephard (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will wave my cite wand and change it for an online journal. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You could also call it a "Film Review" thats how it refers to itself ValenShephard (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I checked. It's definitely an online journal. Citing it is not that different though. Thanks to Schwindt Style of Citation.--Schwindtd (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Schwindtd, I would like to join this task-force. Sign me up! I'll be more active September since my online activity in August is limited. Thanks  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом &#124;  Spare your time?  02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Im pretty busy today, but I will get it up soon. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
04:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown American Presidents Task Force?
You were wondering "if you would like to join me in starting this task force." Actually, I'm only editing certain presidents' articles incidentally, as I research an unrelated (i.e., outside Wikipedia) project. But thanks for the invitation. - dcljr (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. If you change your mind just let me know. So far only one person has responded in the affirmative. Thanks for your time and consideration! --Schwindtd (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a break?
Where are you off to? You told me not to get frustrated, but it doesn't seem you are following your own advice, matey! ValenShephard (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I am a bit discouraged, but I need to take a break anyways. I have to work on College Apps and homework now. While I enjoy working with y'all, college is more important. I will be back, but not for a little while. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens. Who knows if I will be up for all this 'work' when I go to university next month... ValenShephard (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Good to see you back here so soon, buddy. How are things? (And by the way, look who can edit again : D) ValenShephard (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome back! Things are much better now. School work has actually slackened off significantly (or maybe I have grown more efficient- oh well). I am very pleased to see you editing again. But more importantly I hope to see you learn and grow from the experience. Cheers, --Schwindtd (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)