Talk:Andrew R. Heinze

message: I feel bad because I messed up this page. 
Before I added the new citations, the "Andrew R Heinze" page looked nice and clean.  Now (because of me) the top of the page is full of flags. Until I learn what I'm doing, maybe I should just remove my citations and leave it like it was. Would that be a good idea? EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't feel bad about trying to improve the encyclopedia. I have the page on my watchlist now, so as you work on improving it, I'll do some "clean up" to try to help make sure it stays compliant with Wikipedia's policies. LHMask me a question 22:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much LHM. I will get this figured out (I think) because I'll keep trying. Onward and upward.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the spirit! LHMask me a question 01:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I messed up this page with my citations. 

message: ===Dramatists Guild of America===
I noticed that a reference using Heinze's bio on the Dramatists Guild of America official website was removed as unreliable. I'm unclear as to why that was done, as the DGoA is a professional organization, and the material being sourced to it wasn't controversial--it was used to source the fact that he is, in fact, a playwright. I'm planning on reinserting that source as a reference, but wanted to open a discussion here, in case  (who removed it), or any other editor who takes issue with it as a reliable source, wants to discuss why it should be considered unreliable. LHMask me a question 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of sourcing 

message: I noticed that a reference using Heinze's bio on the Dramatists Guild of America official website was removed as unreliable. I'm unclear as to why that was done, as the DGoA is a professional organization, and the material being sourced to it wasn't controversial--it was used to source the fact that he is, in fact, a playwright. I'm planning on reinserting that source as a reference, but wanted to open a discussion here, in case  (who removed it), or any other editor who takes issue with it as a reliable source, wants to discuss why it should be considered unreliable. LHMask me a question 01:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dramatists Guild of America

message: After looking into it, I concur with User:Drmies removal of Doollee as unreliable. It seems something like IMDB, in that there's not much (if any) editorial oversight. Heinze's brief bio blurb there even has some typos in it. If anyone disagrees with this view, I'm more than willing to reconsider. LHMask me a question 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Doollee

message: Hi LHM, I've just been studying (in the "history" section) the work you did on the various Andrew R. Heinze entries and citations. Thanks so much for taking the time to help me with this. I'm going to take each item... one by one... until I understand everything and get it straight. To begin with, I saw where you removed the "short play" list from the "Works" category. I believe the old list fell short because there was no indication that the plays had ever been produced. So... what I'm planning to do now is to put up a new list of the short plays with sources (indicating where they were produced somewhere). This seemed right to me. I'm hoping it will "fly" with you. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the new "Short Play" list, but I forgot (on the last edit I did) to put in what the purpose of the edit had been (in the heading). The source I had put in the first time (number 54) had not been clear (which I could only determine after the page had been saved), so I put in a better one. Dang. Anyway, I think it's good now. I'm burning the midnight oil. I won't feel comfortable until those terrible flags go down on that article.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new "Short Play" list with citations 

message: Was I correct to start a new section with my question, or should I have done it differently? I wasn't sure. I'll understand this pretty soon, but I'm having trouble until I learn the ropes. Thanks. So this is in regard to LHM's comment on line 18 in the "edit history." Here (below) is what the history said (under "Education"). Your comment (in regard to source #2) was: This is a primary source, but is sourcing only an uncontroversial fact. I don't understand. Should I use no source? Or a better source? If better, then what? Thanks.
Heinze grew up in New Jersey.http://forward.com/articles/4098/my-grandmother-between-life-and-death/? At age fourteen he won a scholarship to Blair Academy in Warren County, New Jersey, where he graduated in 1973.Blair Academy Bulletin, 2011, page 36. <---This is a primary source, but is sourcing only an uncontroversial fact.---> He subsequently won a Bodman Foundation scholarship to attend Amherst College, where he received his B.A. in 1977, graduating Magna Cum Laude. He attended graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley, receiving his M.A. in 1980 and his Ph.D. in 1987 in American "History.
And another question: Originally, at the end of the above paragraph, I put a source that was a CV which Heinze had posted on the university site where he taught. That seemed (to me) to have been a totally credible source (because it was posted on his university's site), but apparently it wasn't good after all. What source do editors use for showing that someone has the degrees they are claiming to have? Thanks.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re: your first answer... Okay LHM. I see! Things are starting to make sense to me now. I read the articles you recommended, and they were very informative. Now I understand about avoiding primary sources most of the time (not always) and a lot of the other things I needed to know. I'm going to reread all of it too. Just so it will sink in. As to your second answer, I think (I hope) that I cited Heinze's schools and degrees properly. My purpose was not to establish that he was "notable" (he seemed notable based on his work), but to establish that he was not a liar about his education. (So many people are liars about their educations... and that lie gets published in articles and books). I liked the idea of getting a source from the actual college or university the person graduated from. I think colleges and universities should publish an official list of their past graduates online... going back to when the school was established. That way the goofball fakers would be "outed."  By the way, if I didn't do the sources for the schools correctly, I'll just do it over again. I'm fine with doing things over. Thanks again for your help. It was most appreciated.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *:It was my pleasure to help. Many of the references (not sure if they were added by you, or by others) are still bare urls (i.e. formatted as [www.website.com/nameofarticle]), which I will try to fix when I get some time. LHMask me a question 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on those references...one by one... by one. They're better this evening than they were this morning, but I need to read more about how to improve them. Just when I think I know enough to get them right, I discover new things. Keeps it interesting though.  Thanks LHM  .EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, EDBF! LHMask me a question 04:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions for LHM 

message: *Question 1 was basically "What is a primary source and is it okay to use them?" The policy-based answer to that question can be found at WP:PRIMARY.
*Question 2 is a related question. The answer is that, as long as you're sourcing his academic credentials and basic facts about him, using a university bio should be okay. Perhaps not all editors will agree with my interpretation, but that's how I see it. Now, as not all professors and academics are WP:NOTABLE, such sources can't be used to establish an academic's notability. That is where we must have coverage of the person in WP:SECONDARY sources. I hope this helps! LHMask me a question 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re: your first answer... Okay LHM. I see! Things are starting to make sense to me now. I read the articles you recommended, and they were very informative. Now I understand about avoiding primary sources most of the time (not always) and a lot of the other things I needed to know. I'm going to reread all of it too. Just so it will sink in. As to your second answer, I think (I hope) that I cited Heinze's schools and degrees properly. My purpose was not to establish that he was "notable" (he seemed notable based on his work), but to establish that he was not a liar about his education. (So many people are liars about their educations... and that lie gets published in articles and books). I liked the idea of getting a source from the actual college or university the person graduated from. I think colleges and universities should publish an official list of their past graduates online... going back to when the school was established. That way the goofball fakers would be "outed."  By the way, if I didn't do the sources for the schools correctly, I'll just do it over again. I'm fine with doing things over. Thanks again for your help. It was most appreciated.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *:It was my pleasure to help. Many of the references (not sure if they were added by you, or by others) are still bare urls (i.e. formatted as [www.website.com/nameofarticle]), which I will try to fix when I get some time. LHMask me a question 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on those references...one by one... by one. They're better this evening than they were this morning, but I need to read more about how to improve them. Just when I think I know enough to get them right, I discover new things. Keeps it interesting though.  Thanks LHM  .EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, EDBF! LHMask me a question 04:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Replies to EDBF

message: had added these as concerns, but now I'm not seeing an issue with the "tone" of the article, and there are certainly plenty of citations now. I left the tag concerning reliability of the sources, though perhaps even that one might best be addressed by tagging which particular sources are considered unreliable, and removing the general tag from the top of the article. I also left the tag regarding duplicate refs, and will ask  for some help on that issue. LHMask me a question 16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your help on this, LHM. I'm trying to understand how to take care of the duplicate refs right now, and as soon as i understand it throughly, I'll reformat those. And as to unreliable sources, I've been going through them in an attempt to determine which ones are unreliable. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor commenting in the discussion thread below is something of an expert in formatting citations. You might want to defer to him for a bit, watch him work, and see how he does things. I really appreciate all you've done thus far to improve this article--keep it up! LHMask me a question 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say, "defer to him for a bit," does that mean I should hold off working on these (for the time being) while he's checking them out? If that's what you mean, I could just follow everything and keep watching... while I keep reading up on it at the same time.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your encouragement, LHM.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

text: *Yes, that's what I was recommending: once you see him start working on the citations, you can stop working on them for a short time. Keep close watch on what he's doing, ask him questions either here or at talk (he's very helpful), and then resume editing the article as you please when he's done, using the reliable sources to expand it as you feel necessary. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. That sounds great. Thank you to everyone (including Drmies) for helping me with this. Thanks to Astynax, in particular; I'll watch what you do, follow everything and read up on all of it during the process. (Thanks to LHM for asking Astynax to come onboard.)  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "tone" and "additional citations" tags 

message: It has been suggested elsewhere that it might be beneficial to use one of the shortened citation formats here, and that I might be willing to help. If editors have no problem with changing the citation format, I will make an attempt in the next day or two (it can always be undone if objections arise).  • Astynax talk 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *{{U|EastDimeBoxFrank]], see this edit. In my editing screen I have a button for "cite", which has a few standard templates including Template:Cite news, which is the appropriate format here. It auto-formats (and partially auto-fills)--note the date format, and the automatic italics for the publication. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Drmies, Thank you for that information. I never noticed the "cite" button before. I was just "winging it." I'm going to practice with it now. (I want to be careful, though, not to get in the way of what Astynax is going to do, so I wonder if I should wait.)  EastenFrank (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for that weird signature (above)... I was trying to get a signature that was easier to remember for people. Now I chose a better one (I think). DimeBoxFrank (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format 

message: I put this message on my user page, but I'm putting again here:
* I'm not going to do more editing on this article now (and I'll wait for Astynax). Regarding the changes I made last night: I was awake and could see that nobody was working on the citations, so I tried to clean it up for Astynax... I got rid of some dead links, reformatted some sources into a less casual form, and I got rid of some "bad" sources and replaced them with "good" ones (I think). I have a better idea now of what is a good source and what is a bad (or not-so-good) one. I didn't want Astynax to deal with any more of a nightmare than he (or she?) had to. I think it's a little better... I don't really know. Anyway, now I'm done because I don't want to get in Astynax's way.  DimeBoxFrank (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the encouragement. Very much.  DimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. And you too, Lithistman. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so glad you're back, LHM! That is very good news. And thank you for the Citation Barnstar (my first ever). I didn't get a chance to work on this again until an hour ago (I had to do a few things... like sleep). I've been reading up on the new template. I'm still trying to understand exactly how to use it. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done for now! 

message: Whoopee!! I'm delighted!!! (The use of zillions of exclamation marks is a sure sign of mental instability.) Now... I know that LHM took the last flag down because he had faith that Astynax and I will get those citations in great shape (because he said so), and I assure you, LHM, that we won't disappoint you (and we won't disappoint Drmies either). So onward and upward. And thank you, Lithistman, for having faith in me. I'll live up to your expectations. You betcha!  DimeBoxFrank (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoopee Ti Yi Yo! The flags are all gone!!! 

message: Given the improvements that  has made to this article, I feel like this promotion should be fairly uncontroversial. If anyone from either project disputes the promotion, feel free to do so in this section. LHMask me a question 03:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Lithistman, for keeping up with what I'm doing and for upping the class of this article. I just now finished reformatting the citations, but I still have some more to do in other areas. I think that maybe the "notes" section is only supposed to have the year at the end (and not the month or day) and also, it could be that I was supposed to include pages (in the notes section). If so, no problem. I'll just go back and do it. I'm too tired to do it now, but this afternoon I'm going to check everything again to see what can be improved. If you see anything at all that I should do, please let me know (or feel free to do it yourself if you want to). I don't want to turn it over to Astynax until it's as good as I can get it. I'm finished for a few hours, so you don't need to worry that we will be editing at the same time... if your want to get in there and mess around with it. I'm excited that this article moved up a class. I just yesterday read up on classes of articles. Before yesterday, I didn't even know what they were.  DimeBoxFrank (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to use the date of publication as given in the reference. Some columnists, for example, have things published several times a week, so just putting a year may make it more difficult for a reader to locate the cited material. The one thing that stands out as necessary is expanding the lead section to a couple of paragraphs to summarize the major points of the article. Once you have things organized, go for a WP:Peer review and then WP:GA.  • Astynax talk 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoted this article from Stub Class to Start Class 

message: Cas Liber... thank you so much for promoting the Andrew R. Heinze page! I just now saw it (from perusing at the Talk page history). I hadn't even realized the article had been promoted. That is fantastic.   EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you Cas Liber! 

message: I looked closely at this article, examined what the differences between C and B Class articles were, and decided to promote this article to B Class. I based that promotion on the work Frank has done on this article in the last week. If anyone has serious issues with this promotion, feel free to revert it back to C Class, with an explanation. If you would like further rationale on why I promoted it, I'm willing to do that as well. The next step for this article is to prep for a run at GA. While it would not pass in its current state, in my opinion, I think it definitely has the potential to get there. LHMask me a question 17:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for the promotion of this article, Lithistman. I'll hold my breath that no one takes the "B" away. I kept going over and over this article in the last week, and I kept finding things to improve... however, I don't think I'll find much else to improve now without some more input from someone (you, or Cas Liber, or Astynax or someone). I'm just not sure what to do next (to move it toward GA). I would love to have suggestions.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ; . (Sending out the "Bat signal" for you, EDBF! :) LHMask me a question 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Muchas muchas gracias, Lithistman. Bat signal... I like it:)   EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, I usually think of myself as  being a pretty good writer... one who doesn't make a lot of goofy mistakes (I mean mistakes like using extraneous or inessential words etc.). And yet, when doing the exercises there in "User:Tony1/How to improve your writing," it was clear to me that I didn't know as much as I thought I did (i.e. I missed a bunch of the answers in the examples). So, yes, you're right, I'm sure. I'll finish reading Tonys lessons, and then I'll go over the article with a fine tooth comb. Many thanks.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the article is shaping up nicely, one thing - if you scan down from Scholarly writings, you'll notice that there are five consecutive paras (four plus one in the next section that begin, "Heinze...". Any way this can be changed is a good thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoted this article to "B Class"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew R. Heinze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007052228/http://www.usfca.edu/artsci/jssj/program-history/ to http://www.usfca.edu/artsci/jssj/program-history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009093301/http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/karski.asp to http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/karski.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified