User talk:Bookandcoffee/Archive 5

WP:ADOPT
Hi there,

Looking through our Archives I saw that you took an interest in the Adopt-a-user program during its formation and development. Well this is just a quick message to tell you the program is well and truly lifted off, with over 200 users involved in the program, 50+ active Adopters and approx. 150 Adoptees, and always expanding. If your still interested please pop by WP:ADOPT, have a look around and ask any questions you want on our talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. Cheers Lethaniol 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion on LabourProject
Have you been following this two-person discussion on the LabourProject talk page? I feel it needs your input. I'm no expert on categories at all! And I really don't want to run afoul of the Wiki Gods on this; the direction the discussion is taking would impinge on a number of existing categories with some really active people watching over them. - Tim1965 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CSEA logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:CSEA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Scrat.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Scrat.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

union label history
Hello-

I noticed that you said some kind words about my union label scholarship. I would be happy to help if Wik folks would like. Here is a more current web article that may be useful too - 

best

Lincoln Cushing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.244.24.210 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CEPU logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:CEPU logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Added to UBC Discussion Page I added the parenthetical reference of 90 million because that was my recollection of the documents I reviewed. There were never any loans to family members the issue that brought Paddy Campbell down was when it became known that Paddy’s son was the investment advisor of one of the failed investments they used the fact that Paddy ordered checks issued to those investors without the Treasurers endorsement to place the blame on him in spite of the fact that the investments were approved by the International Executive Board. (Hammerhabit) The restructuring and the loss of the funds have no connection whatsoever so I added the other parenthetical explaining one of the reasons for the restructuring although there were many survival basis’s for shifting power from the Locals to the Councils, demonstrated now that we are the only building craft union that is growing its membership and many of the other trades are trying to restructure similarly. (Hammerhabit)

Where Byron died & Andrea Kennedy-Frost
Hi

How did Warragamba Dam come to be cited? My understanding was he was flying low over shallow Narrabean Lakes (a Sydney suburb near the coast) early in the morning, while taking the young son of the next door neighbour for a 'joy ride'. Something went wrong. The Bell Ranger helicopter hit the water. The boy got out and so did Byron. Despite being badly injured with a broken back somehow he managed to swim to shore. But as it was winter, with the temperature near freezing, he died of exposure! before help came. The boy survived.

As it happens if he'd crashed into Warragamba Dam, not only is this 60 miles inland, it's very isolated with virtually no access roads around the shoreline. The Bell would have sunk in deep water and nobody would have found anything for days or weeks.

I learned of this tragedy while in the office of the manager of Warner Bros in Paris, Wayne Duband (an Australian). Someone called him from Sydney, told him the news (and the details aforesaid) and ruined our day, to put it mildly.

If you had reservations about the post from Andrea Kennedy-Frost, forget them. I've been in contact with her. From what I personally know about Byron and Dr. George Miller's early days in Melbourne, Andrea provides details only a family member could. Like the minivan (which I have been in with George and Byron). No question she's Byron's sister and her information is valuable biographical material.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayxt (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

please do not remove Spectrolab from SPS page - it is not an advert
Please do not remove Spectrolab from the Solar Power Satellite page - it is not an advert. I posted it, and I have no connection with the Spectorlab company. It is valid information to cite that the cells are ocmmercially available. Feel free to add references and citations to other data sheets if you can find them.

thank you. Charles 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

solar cell vendors
there are very few vendors who offer the high efficiency cells, where do you get the number of "hundreds" of cell vendors? Most of the cell vendors have very low efficiency, the Spectrolab cells are the highest on the market that I have seen.. It is not an advert as I have no connection with the vendor. I guess I will have to seek arbitration.Charles 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry about Labor Project ratings
Hi, i've asked a message of User:Tim1965, he suggested you may have an answer.

Discussion so far is here:

User_talk:Tim1965

(I'll watch both of your talk pages for response, so please reply at either, as convenient...)

thanks,

best wishes, Richard Myers 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, I think your first instinct to just remove the rating is good. Looking at the history it would be my guess that the rating was slipped in as a WP:POINT. (Actually, I just removed the rating myself) Feel free to assign the new rating that you think is appropriate. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unassessed organized labour articles

 * You're quite welcome! I actually would have responded sooner, but somehow I didn't notice your note until now. It must have been after someone else added something to the page or something. Which is why I put the multi-language thank yous at the top of my userpage. :)
 * I've been in an assessing mood, so I've been bebopping around various projects and doing so. Once I got the hang of it doing them for WP:NRHP, I just couldn't stop! Working on Ancient Egypt now. They certainly had organized labour back then, didn't they? Doubt they had good union reps, though. Things have come a long way in the last few thousand years, doncha know. ;) --Ebyabe 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Honorary Invitation to Maritime Trades
This is an honourary invitation, extended simply because my experience at Organized Labour has been such a pleasure and gave me the final nudge to create the maritime trades project. Well, there is another reason: the Organized Labour project is so neatly, well, organized, that I, um, borrowed huge chunks of explanatory text and functionality. Fortunately, property is theft, so it all works out in the end. :) Cheers. Haus42 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks Haus. I'd be glad to get involved with the project - however, given that I grew up over 1000 miles from the ocean, and have been on exactly one sailboat in my life (plus the ferry from Vancouver to Victoria a bunch of times!) I'm afraid my membership will be restricted to land based activities like marine unions and labour disputes! Oh, and as for giving me the credit for the WP:UNION layout? Well, (cough), it was mostly stolen along the way as well. Thanks for your excellent job in setting up the portal, we can really use someone with your talents around here. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"In Brief"
Hi. Has this "In Brief" idea collapsed or is it still on the go? Dave Smith 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, yeah it seems to just be sitting there doesn't it. I haven't done anything with it for some time, and I'm a little reluctant to expand it. What do you think? There has been no activity in trying to actually translate anything over at WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation, (and I'm embarrassed to say that I can offer no skills in that area.) Maybe it makes more sense to just have the tag on the article page and the text more static on the internationalisation page? Or maybe it's just an idea that isn't going to fly?--Bookandcoffee 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Da false
You've recently corrected a vandalistic edit changing "ta biblia" to "da false." It might interest you to know that I've recently found a very similar vandalism (as of April 13th) in the "derivation" section of the "Bible" article. This was done possibly by the same vandal but from a different IP: 12.167.72.127. Thanks,

--Ijkopl 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Ijkopl. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling AOTD
Good thought on the scrolling AOTD! It looks much better this way. I tried the same approach on an earlier incarnation and there was some very peculiar behaviour with floating images. Let me try to be more clear: if the AOTD had an image with "thumb|float|left" or "thumb|float|right" then that image would dance around outside the confines of the scrollbox. If that sounds bizarre and improbable, then I'm describing it accurately. :) Now, a lot of the HTML on the page has changed in the meantime, and I don't see any sign of a problem at the moment.  But we should keep an eye out for strange behaviour and be ready to revert if necessary.  Cheers.   H aus  Talk   20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Edit's on Cesar Chavez page
The Wiclopedia article is not correct. Was trying to point out that Cesar was against strikebreakers--he was not against illegal immigrants (or undoccumented workers, the term I prefer to use). The Cesar Chavez page made it seem like Cesar was against undoccumented workers and thus immigration reform. This just is not true. Cesar and many farm workers were aginst people breaking the strike. Many of the farm workers who objected to the strikebreakers were also undoccumented--a fact I pointed out in the text which you deleted. Cesar and his UFW have been committed to immigration reform for more than 40 years and the wikipedia article makes it seem that Cesar was against undoccumented workers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ufw (talk • contribs).

Hi Ufw, I'm a little confused as to your additions at César Chávez - some of them seem to be more about the UFW than about the man. Is there a reason they should be on the Chávez page instead of the union page? Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Moving Pages
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that there was a button to move a page. I assure you that moving it was the right thing to do, if you look at the website, it shows the name as "Beneficial" at the top of the page. Num1dgen 01:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon article discussion, an article you recently edited
A relevant discussion is going on at Talk:Dragon. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

saint jerome
according to Brown, p (1971), "the world of late antiquity, Thames and Hudson, and cameron, A, (1993), "the latter Roman empire", Fontana press, the correct dates for Jerome are 342 to 419.

Just because I don't normally edit wiki doesn't mean the amendments should be removed immediately without checking them. Surely just as you want to uphold Wiki against vandals, you also have a duty to properly check that the edits you are removing aren't legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.176.253 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * True. It's a shame you didn't put your reference in the article... or in the edit summary... or on the talk page... But I guess that would have deprive me of my obligation to search out the true date of a 2300 year dead saint. --Bookandcoffee 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

again: "I don't normally edit wiki"... but i don't see why you had to delete my edit straight off; why not send a message asking if i had refs? a little less trigger-happy and you could still get rid of vandals without killing real edits.... anyway, i'll see if i can figure out how to add refs :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.176.253 (talk • contribs).


 * No worries. Here's a link for you WP:REF. It will give you a hand with formatting.--Bookandcoffee 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost famous
I dunno if this has come to your attention, but you got a mention in the Globe and Mail as Kevin Potvin's alibi. I recently stumbled onto the Vancouver Courier article and have been getting up to speed on this local controversy. Potvin's rejoinder is here if you're interested. He's also been protesting the anti-Potvinites POV warring on the Kevin Potvin article. cheers, bobanny 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * hmm..that's odd. the full version of the GM article is available through a google search; i guess they've got something blocking links to the full article. bobanny 05:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the link. I don't know which is funnier - the tempest in the teapot; or the fact that Shannon Rupp would write a piece about questionable journalism and be so bad at her job that she missed the fact that I wasn't the one who put in the "investigative reporting" accolades! And if you look at the diff of the editor who did add that snippit you might start to wonder about her interpretation of the word "accolades" as well. But hey what do I know... I'm just a blue collar guy who likes to tinker in this place... :)--Bookandcoffee 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm rather enjoying the ironies in all this, since it's framed in terms of how unreliable WP is compared to the normal media; check out the BS from the Vancouver Courier that I added to the trivia section there. I think proletarians are more used to being lied to in the first place, so we don't have to go through that painful disillusionment. (What? the Globe and Mail lied? But it's so reputable...etc.) bobanny 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Want new buttons?
Since you removed your "reduced time" message, I'm tempted to nominate you for adminship. If you have any interest in being subjected to that kind of abuse, please let me know and I'll be happy to see that it is heaped upon you. :) (Of course, watching the Ducks whip the Canucks could also meet that need.) Cheers.   H aus  Talk   17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the offer Haus. Give me a day or two to think about it, and I'll get back to you. Sadly, I think the Canucks will indeed suffice as a source of pain for about three more games. :) --Bookandcoffee 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem creating new page
Hi, not spoken for a little while. I'm having a problem creating a new page for a Trinidad and Tobago Union called the Communication Workers Union. There is already a UK with this name and so I created a Disambiguation page hoping to be able to find a way of pointing toward either of the two unions. However, having done that I cannot create the new page I want without being pushed back to the UK union all the time. Come and rescue me please!! - Dave Smith 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I happened to be lurking about and tweaked the Communication Workers Union (Trinidad and Tobago) link on the dab page. I think that's more or less what Dave's looking for?  Cheers.   H aus  Talk   00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed. I am prepared to be very impressed :-) - Dave Smith 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome to the Labour Portal. Documenting Australian Labour and radical history is my main goal. Alot of existing oz articles require secondary references at the moment, and there are still many union, strike and industrial disputes that need new articles, not to mention notable unionists. I'll give a hoy if I need a hand generally.--Takver 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a direct citation to add to the article on Guild, but the external link in the citation is to an authoritative historical text By Dr. Bob James I have published on my website, and under Conflict of interest I should not add the link to the article unless there has been discussion. Can you perhaps check out the discussion at Talk:Guild. Thanks.--Takver 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

War Games
Let me get this straight. Because I merely attached a link to non-Union websites you are going to delete them? I would like see you try and stop me from doing it again, ever heard of a thing called IP Masking or VPN? If you would like a war, it is what you'll get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.95.100 (talk • contribs).

SIPTU
hi Chris

Hardly anyone calls SIPTU by its (awful and unwieldy) full name. May I suggest that you move it back?

Paul Hardy (SIPTU organiser) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colour Vision (talk • contribs).

SIPTU
hi Chris

I think it falls within those guidelines: ‘is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form’ and ‘is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form’ both apply, and the only other thing which is a ‘siptu’ is a Babylonian verse form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colour Vision (talk • contribs).

Paul

thank you
I'm sure I'll have questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billiaff (talk • contribs).

Thank you...
Thank you for the quick revert of the vandalism to my user page. I do appreciate it.

--JFreeman (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago Unions
I think I have now posted up all the current trade unions in Trinidad and Tobago. Most of them are stubs (except the one on TTUTA. I really should have been doing something else this evening but got a bit carried away. - Dave Smith 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, you were busy, that's very cool. I popped the TTUTA article into the Oct 24 AOTD spot for the portal - you should think about putting a sentence together for the Did you know section on the main page.--Bookandcoffee 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did that - but a bit late I think. Dave Smith 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, how can I find out what trade union categories there are and how would I add any new ones? Dave Smith 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave. There are a couple places to look - the first is at when you're looking for... you guessed it... trade unions by country. :) You can also find a reasonably complete set of union cats over at WikiProject Organized Labour. (you may have to click on the little "show" button on the right side of the page.) Hope that helps, and I hope I didn't step on your toes by fixing up those couple cats on the new articles you started. Just saw you had added the articles to the new article list, and was having a look. Cheers. Chris--Bookandcoffee 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is still a big experiment to me so I am more than happy to have things 'fixed' :-) Dave Smith 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To add new ones like you would just click on the red cat link at the bottom of the Caribbean Airline Pilots Association article. That will take you to a new editing page for the cat. Inside that page you add the categories that your new category will be under, such as . Take a look at the editing version of Category:Caribbean Congress of Labour for a look at how it works.--Bookandcoffee 23:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see that. Does there have to be a discussion before creating a new category? - Dave Smith 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any hard rule, so I guess that would be your decision. My opinion would be that it's worth mentioning on the project page. I don't imagine anyone will object to the principle, but they might have differing ideas about the implementation. Like maybe it should be and  and Caribbean Airline Pilots Association should both be inside of it... Then again you may just get that deafening silence that either means no one knows/cares/ or is listening. :) But at least people are made aware of the change, and can have a look if they like.--Bookandcoffee 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just done a cross reference between the countries listed as being Caribbean and the . There are eleven (albeit small) countries for which there is no category and, presumably, no identified trade union yet either. Is it possible to create categories in anticipation of a future need? I've looked through your advice above and also in Help:Category and get the impression that you cannot have empty categories. - Dave Smith 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think you're right. At one point I started all the red categories that you see at WikiProject Organized Labour in anticipation of sorting articles - but there is a bot (the name escapes me right now), who trolls through and deletes empty cats on a pretty regular basis. Just off the cuff - you could think about setting up a sub-section in the WikiProject Organized Labour and put a list of red there - at least to have a starting point. I don't know if that helps, but it's an idea.--Bookandcoffee 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'll probably try and find some unions and then make the category. That seems to be what is system intends. I've kept the list I developed so I'll add it to my 'projects' list. - Dave Smith 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:APC logo.png
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:APC logo.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 24.80.117.217 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

trade unions
go ahead and change it, marra. I'm not that fussed if the consensus is to spell it incorrectly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boleslaw (talk • contribs).

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CLC logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CLC logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:APC logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:APC logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks I'm surprised I forgot. Villainone 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rational
I am confused by this latest flurry of requirements for using logos. I see that you have kindly added a statement to a logo that I put up. But all of this seems to make an assumption that logos of trade union in the Caribbean, for instance, are covered by American Imperialist laws. Our laws, whatever they might be on copy right (and I do not know from country to country) are likely to be different. - Dave Smith 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I get a bit vex about the US extending its laws extra territorially. They do it with their blockade of Cuba and keep imposing their concepts of "democracy" and "freedom" outside their borders. For your information I have used the template that has been created and you can see the results here: [CCL logo]. If you have any comments or suggestions feel free. - Dave Smith 13:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I don't blame you for your frustration Dave. In Canada it's a fairly constant conversation about our neighbor to the south who seems to forget that the rest of us are autonomous countries. I would imagine (perhaps just from ignorance) that the frustration must be even greater in the Caribbean, even without the criminal actions related to Cuba . I wish I could say that I knew what I was talking about :), but I'm reading Chomsky's Failed States right now, and I find it really thought provoking.


 * I know that the Wikipedia servers, and the information they host, are located principally in the US, so US law seems to hold sway. But like you say, what that has to do with the copyright status of international images, I don't know. I wonder if there are related treaties. Actually, now that you have me thinking about that, I think I might poke around a bit and see what's been said about it.


 * That Non-free media rationale template looks good - I didn't know there was one. I'll keep it handy and use it from now on. (Hard not to feel the crusting over of the project by legalese and procedures isn't it.) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 15:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I eased my frustrations by choosing some careful wording for the template. I feel about 10% better now ... but still 90% vex :-) - Dave Smith 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a wikibet
I was kind of surprised that the word "wikibet" exists almost nowhere in wikipedia. I'm thinking something along these lines: should the mug go north, I shall dress as a proper Canadian dinner of Molson Canadian and poutine for a week. Should it go south, then you shall speak proper American English, and stop adding unnecessary "u"'s intou perfectuly gooud wourds. There may be a good side-bet on whether Heatley and/or Pronger make it through the series alive.... Yours tongue-in-cheekily,  H aus  Talk   02:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! A week without the letter U. Ok, you're on - even if the dUcks are already up one game. Although it has to be said, that as a Western Canadian it's a bit worrisome to be putting my future in the hands of people from Ottawa; I already send them a significant portion of my income. (It'll be a shame to see that well organized user page of yours covered in gravy...) --Bookandcoffee 15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn.--Bookandcoffee 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. Labor Watch 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Organising the labour law category? Hmmm, I haven't had a look to see what that means exactly, but I'm happy to. I don't usually do things with categories pages because they baffle me a bit! What I've been meaning to do for a long time is write that labour law page properly - I've only done bits and bobs so far, with formatting and so on, and the current structure (i.e. individual and collective). It's a bit stupid come to think of it, because that's my own specialism. I'll get round it over the summer, and am even more encouraged to do so if you, and others are interested in something happening. Please message me again if I can help with anything particular.  Wik idea  23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

G'day
Thanks for the cheerio from that other large Commonwealth country. I see you recently got a new government over there; good luck and don't let 'em pull anything like WorkChoices ;-) Grant | Talk 07:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New content
Hello - I've been reviewing the Organized Labour Portal (and delighted to see it) and would like your input on how to best proceed.

I'm writing from Union Privilege (the provider of the Union Plus benefits to union families). I noticed that there are several Wikipedia entries that already mention Union Privilege/Union Plus, but there is not yet a separate entry for Union Privilege/UnionPlus.

I created an initial draft at: www.unionplus.org/description.html - tried to make it comply with all the Wikipedia rules I reviewed and also tried to make it as objective as possible.

Is it appropriate for you to review the page above and let me know what you think? Please let me know if I should follow a different process or make any other adjustments.

Thanks very much for your time.

Etrice 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Eleanor

assessment script
You were the first to point out that my assessment script unwatched articles... (and here I'd been wondering how articles I created had become unwatched!) I have now fixed this, so it will respect your watchlisted articles, and also respect the "watch all articles I edit" preference. – Outriggr § 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey excellent, thanks for adding that. (And for the script).--Bookandcoffee 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

?
Except for the first paragraph, this article is bordering on a law suit for its misinformation. It is full of malicious content, that has no basis or is taken out of context and exaggerated. This article is more suited for the tabloids. Hopefully it will be removed soon.

Except for the first paragraph you can pretty well cut everything else. The whole article is fitting for a tabloid rag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capilano (talk • contribs). 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh - sorry, no idea which article you're talking about.--Bookandcoffee 07:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

UP content
Thanks for your comments about the Union Plus/Union Privilege page. Pardon, I wasn't sure how to reply to your message to me, so starting another thread.

One question: There are several Wikipedia entries that mention either "Union Plus" or "Union Privilege", so that's one reason I used the header title "Union Plus Benefits from Union Privilege". If I don't have both those names in the header, will it still be appropriate for those Wikipedia pages that only mention "Union Privilege" to link back to a page with the header "Union Plus" or is it necessary to have 2 pages? "Union Privilege" is the name of the organization and "Union Plus" is the brand name for all of benefits offered through Union Privilege.

Thanks also for the note about the content. I updated it and have tried to simply state the facts, but feel free to let me know if anything sounds off - http://www.unionplus.org/description.html

I'll take into consideration your other comments and let you know when we post this!

Etrice 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Etrice

Orphaned non-free image (Image:OPSEU logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:OPSEU logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Podkrepa_logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Podkrepa_logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex  15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also tagged the following images as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that they do not have a rationale provided: Bigr Tex
 * Image:CMTC_logo.jpg
 * Image:CUT_logo.jpg
 * Image:BFTU_logo.jpg
 * Image:CRISOL_logo.jpg
 * Image:ACV_logo.jpg
 * Image:NHS_logo.jpg
 * Image:UGTA_logo.jpg

USDAW
I am currently in employment albeit part time as I am still in full time education and I am part of USDAW, what are the benefits to me and why are new workers forced to join, waste some of their wage and then still ask "WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?"

Krummy2 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a question for your union rep.--Bookandcoffee 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

SEIU Local 1.on
Greetings! I just went over to this "article" and I really can't believe what I found there. Incredible... I removed some crazy rant about the president of this local and as soon as I can I will go for a complete re-write. The logo looks nice on there though! Maybe you'd keep a bit of an eye on this one, you seem to be alot more active than I can be these days. Anything I can ever do to reciprocate, please feel free to ask at my page. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I trimmed (well hacked, really) all the allegations and opinons I could out of the first few sections. I'll try and get to the rest in a couple days.--Bookandcoffee 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work you've been doing on this one. Good job! Hamster Sandwich 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Union article
Thanks for your kind words about my edits to Trade union. In reading the whole article, I noticed what I consider an omission, that those of you who edit it regularly might consider correcting (I know I won't have time). There should be a brief summary of the three main statutes governing labor relations in the U.S.: the National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act (now briefly mentioned in passing), and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Obviously, the details would be left to the respective articles and to articles about unions in the U.S., but a summary here would be appropriate, along with the other country-specific information. Overall, though, I think it's in good shape. JamesMLane t c 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
May I ask how you get the banner thingys on the right hand side of the page? I'm either blind or very tired, but I can't find an article explaining how to create/ add them or whatever you do.

Thanks an' all that, --»»» M ª ««« 15:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject nursing,
I would be interested to work with you in setting up the assessment department for Wikiproject Nursing. I have already created the WPNURSE template to be tagged onto relevant talk pages, categories for different article types and an assessment page. I would be glad if you could get back to me, however I will be away on holiday for a week, returning Saturday 28th July. Thank you for your help.  J o s h  11:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up!
The caption says it all. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shut your pie hole.
It ain't defamatory material, buddy - alright? Calm it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnionPride (talk • contribs).
 * Pie can be very satisfying![[Image:FoodApplePie.jpg|thumb|right|A slice cut from an [[apple pie]]]] Hamster Sandwich 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Little Afscmenwuiwwiatse
Nope; named her Kelly Jeanette Aurora instead. She was singing "Solidarity Forever" at Milwaukee Socialist picnics and asking to join picket lines by the time she was four or five. -- Orange Mike 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very cool. :) --Bookandcoffee 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PATCO
Thank You

It would be very nice to see the original PATCO logo shown on the site. It was designed back in 1968.

Thanks

Ron

PATCO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PATCO81 (talk • contribs).

The information as currently posted on your site about PATCO and its history, current events and the Trade Mark Logo that was created back in 1968 is correct. Our web site is at www.patco81.com.

PATCO is not affiliated with any other organziation that may be using the same name, nor are they authorized to use the original PATCO trademark logos.

I own the two (2) Federal Trademarks of PATCO;

Trademark Registrations 2335414, & 3039129

PATCO Trademark attorney is; Mchale & Slavin, PA 2855 PGA Blvd Palmbeach Gardens, Florida 33410 Phone (561) 625-6575 Fax (561) 625-6572

I really appreciate the fact that you have corrected the PATCO information back the way it was, that reflects the actual history, legacy, and the banner (Logo) that we used.

If I can assist you anymore, please advise.

Sincerely

Ron Taylor President PATCO

I would like to see some higher protection made on the Professional Air Traffic Controllers page so that vandals etc, cannot make changes. Is it possible for you to provide this?

Thanks

Ron Taylor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PATCO81 (talk • contribs).

The PATCO site has again been changed and they have removed the actual 1968 Trade Mark log from the page. PATCO has no relationship with any other organization.

Can you please put the Logo back on site and can the page be more secured to stop the hacking from others. There is alot of history on our union and that banner (logo) is the flag we carried all those years.

Thanks

Ron Taylor

(Ron Taylor 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Hi Ron, I'm hesitant to change the logo back myself (it is of course possible for you to make the change) because quickly reverting back leads to the other editor reacting, and before you know it you have an edit war on your hands! I'd rather find out why there are two different sub-sets of information around the PATCO name. I can't help but notice that you seem to be skirting my question about the http://www.fpdunion.org/PATCO/patco_purpose3.htm website. Can you shine any light on that site's claims? I'm not looking to deicide who is right, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. :) If there is an updated organizational model, we can certainly find a place in the article for both that and the historical info/logo.--Bookandcoffee 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see ...the PATCO site has ben hacked again......

Ron Taylor (Ron Taylor 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Hacked would be the wrong term Ron. Clearly there are two differing opinions here. It would be nice to discuss why the information is disputed, rather than simply reverting the changes.--Bookandcoffee 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,

I will not make any changes as outline with the rules. Is it not possible to keep the logo on site and protect it from being removed along with other factual data that was on before?

Ron (Ron Taylor 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

I would like the PATCO Original Logo put back on the site and protected from removal from hackers. Can this happen?

Ron Taylor President Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization

(Ron Taylor 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Since I am the registered owner of the PATCO trade marks, why can not the logo remain. Is that not proof enough to keep the true history correct. That is the flag of PATCO from 1968 to current date.

Thank You

Ron

(Ron Taylor 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC))


 * It is possible to protect the page, but I think we're a fair ways away from that yet. Don't forget that some of us are here on a pretty regular basis! (Sad as that may be :) There is time to figure this out, and although it is frustrating when someone (User talk:76.100.218.253) continues to change things without discussion, I think we can eventually find a solution. Protecting a page is a last resort action, as it is counter to one of the main principles of Wikipedia - Anyone can edit --Bookandcoffee 19:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me anything about the different logo found at http://www.fpdunion.org/PATCO/patcofinal.gif ? I see that it is an AFL-CIO affiliate? Is that true?--Bookandcoffee 19:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The other site official name is FPD/AHPS, NUHHCE, AFSCME, affiliated with AFL-CIO. The log they use is not registered with the US Patent Office.

PATCO is not affilaited with them in any way, shape or form.

The registered Trademark logo that I use is the original Logo used by PATCO from 1968 to currebt date, and it is an important symbol to the PATCO strikers and labor history. If you google the strike era, you will find that Flag (LOGO) everywhere.

I also have other sites such as:

http://www.bulletinboards.com/Chkpswd.cfm?comcode=PATCO

www.patcounion.org

www.patco81.com

Ron (Ron Taylor 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

I did an ip track of the other person and it took me to Japan.

I have provided you with legal and factual data about PATCO. It would be nice to preserve the history that actually was..and is happening.

Thank You for your assistance on this matter.

Sincerely,

Ron (Ron Taylor 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

Please notice at the bottom of the PATCO page the documentary site link. They also link to are real PATCO site...www.patco81.com and our Logo.

http://patcodocumentary.com/

More proof to help you verify data

Thanks

Ron

(Ron Taylor 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

I do not know how to put the PATCO logo back on your site, and I don't want to be banned from the site.

Can you assist

Ron

(Ron Taylor 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

possible solution
Hey, thanks for the details Ron. Looking at the Federation of Physicians & Dentists site I see they have a number of divisions, including a "PATCO". I have a suggestion: I suggest this because (legal issues notwithstanding) both organizations exist. If we can separate the two we should be able to remove the conflict. This would allow the original PATCO article to display the proper logo and historical information, and also allow the FPD information to be present in a different article.
 * Move the current PATCO page to Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968). This would be the PATCO that you are involved with.
 * Start a new article called Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (FPD) which would detail the division of the Federation of Physicians & Dentists
 * Create a disambiguation page at Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization which would point people to both articles.

I'm going to think about this idea for today, but let me know what you think and hopefully we can sort this out tomorrow. I've also returned the logo to the article, but don't be surprised if it is replaced again today. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've created the articles and structure I suggested above. Maybe now we'll get a little peace!--Bookandcoffee 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Who?
Please note that this bio is short on fact and full of hate of people that oppose the Abuna. He really is not liked within Ethiopia by all ethnic christians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Uh, you're going to have to help me out here. Who are we talking about?--Bookandcoffee 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PATCO again
Bookandcoffee,

Regarding the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) entries …

The current layout of the PATCO topic is inaccurate and needs to be amended.

The history at the PATCO 1968 reference is accurate but Ron Taylor is by no means the sole/primary PATCO choice and the wikipedia PATCO entry should be amended to reflect a more neutral stance in today’s PATCO choice.

PATCO/FPD has been in existence since 1996. Ron Taylor was a member of PATCO/FPD. About 2003 Mr. Taylor separated himself from PATCO/FPD.

Mr. Taylor’s PATCO corporation was once affiliated with the AFL-CIO, the pre-eminent labor union. But unlike PATCO/FPD, Mr. Taylor’s corporation was soon forced out of the AFL-CIO because of a variety of AFL-CIO constitutional violations, including his corporation’s tactic of raiding another union’s (PATCO/FPD) bargaining unit.

Mr. Taylor’s ownership of the pre-1981 PATCO logo is a simple case of a copyrighted logo having expired and Mr. Taylor then re-registering the work as his own.

The US copyright office is strewn with expired copyrights. An expired copyright brought back to life by a new copyright registration does not inherently bestow any additional legitimacy upon the new copyright holder. If the McDonald’s golden arches copyright was purchased by me do I suddenly become the largest fast food chain in America?

At best, this PATCO dispute is muddy waters. At worst, Mr. Taylor’s organization is a renegade corporation unbeholden to any higher union authority within the labor union movement (IE: AFL-CIO). As a union member myself, I find Mr. Taylor’s inability to function within the legal parameters of the AFL-CIO to be disturbing and corrosive to today’s union movement and objectives (witness the confusion of having “two PATCOs”).

Mr. Taylor’s use of the PATCO logo is simply window dressing on a renegade corporation seeking legitimacy, not through proper union associations and affiliations like the AFL-CIO, but rather through appearances designed to deceive.

As a resolution, I propose the following idea:

A historical narrative of PATCO be posted at a main PATCO reference page at wikipedia. This narrative would conclude at the 1981 strike.

Linked to this story would be a link to PATCO/FPD and PATCO Inc. The respective links could then explain the history of both PATCOs.

This would afford the reader a chance to make an informed choice based on facts rather than on inference (the current layout).

Hope this helps. Let me know how I may get in touch with you, I hope this can be resolved amicably. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.218.253 (talk • contribs).
 * Ah... so things are not always exactly as they appear. I'm shocked! :) I am a little frustrated 76.100.218.253 that you waited till now to start corresponding with me on this problem, especially in the light of your continuous, and unresponsive reverting of edits on the PATCO page last week. But like you said, it would be good if we could solve this amicably. To answer your last question first - this is how you get in contact with me. We can discuss this right here.


 * The first step in this is documentation. In my opinion both the PATCO/FPD and the PATCO(1968) websites are essentially devoid of information, so what is needed is some discussion from reliable third-party sources about the current state of each union, and if possible, the (non-personal) events that lead to the schism.


 * I like your idea of leaving the pre-split info at the "original" PATCO page, but I'm not willing to get involved in a "he said" "she said" here, there has to be some references that we can work with. I'm also going to leave a message at User:PATCO81's page so he can discuss this as well.


 * And finally (and then I'll get of my soapbox), at least one, if not both editors involved in this need to understand that they have wandered a considerable distance into the gray, not so favoured, area of editing about themselves on Wikipedia. You can find additional, important information about this at Conflict of interest. (and the interesting related BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm)--Bookandcoffee 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PATCO Again Again
Bookandcoffee,

I am the original author of the latest PATCO changes to the Wikipedia PATCO entries and the author of the latest PATCO entry found at this page. I have assigned myself a sign-in name so as to maintain continuity and accountability in this discussion.

I waited until now to correspond because I was out of town between Monday and Thursday.

I understand your desire to decide this issue based on documented facts. I am in the process of attaining as many documents as possible to clearly establish the timeline and circumstances surrounding the dual PATCOs.

I think both sides of this issue can stipulate to the following:

-Prior to 1981 PATCO was the sole representative of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers.

-Following the August 3, 1981 strike, PATCO was decertified in the fall of 1981.

- July 1987 the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) was certified as the sole representatives of the nation’s federally employed air traffic controllers.

-About 1993 the FAA privatized a number of air traffic control towers.

-PATCO/FPD was established circa 1996 to represent the privatized air traffic controllers.

-Ron Taylor was an active member of PATCO/FPD from inception to some time in 2003 when he separated himself from PATCO/FPD.

-March 29, 2004 Mr. Taylor applied for (and was granted) the PATCO logo trademark.

To my mind, at issue is the question of which organization (PATCO/FPD or PATCO Inc.) is the true successor to the original PATCO union – if a true successor can truly be determined.

Like I said, I will do my utmost to find documentation to support some of the issues in contention, such as, why was Mr. Taylor forced to leave the AFL-CIO under threat of censure?

I also believe Mr. Taylor must bear a large burden of proof in this matter. After all, it is Mr. Taylor trying to assert a level of union legitimacy based soley on trademark ownership and not union credentials, affiliation or support from the labor movement. Mr. Taylor’s inability to properly remain within the AFL-CIO’s constitution, ultimately forcing him from the AFL-CIO ranks, is an open question Mr. Taylor should be compelled to settle by releasing all documents in his possession related to his AFL-CIO experience.

The PATCO of 1981, though not directly affiliated with the AFL-CIO, enjoyed full support of the AFL-CIO, as should any current claim to the PATCO name and legacy.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuckMic (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not sure I agree that the issue is which organization is the true successor to the original PATCO union. I think your "timeline" related split may a better point to focus on. If we can establish events as you outlined above, then the issue of legitimacy can be addressed at a later date (and only very carefully). Remember this is an article that aims to supply information about the union/events. Legitimacy is often going be couched in terms like "Bob Dylan claimed to be the greatest pogo stick jumper in the world." as opposed to "Bob Dylan was the greatest pogo stick jumper in the world."--Bookandcoffee 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish i knew how to just add my replies to the current conversation ... but i'm new to the wikipedia site.

I think a factual chronology would be a great place to start. As we began discussing earlier, a factual based chronology followed by links to the respective organizations sounds like a great start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuckMic (talk • contribs).

thanks
Hey thanks alot for nominating the page I created on David Yudelman, thats very nice.

How does one view newly created pages on Wikipedia, is there a handy link or search word for it? Seth J. Frantzman 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're looking to drink straight from the fire hose you can watch either the Recentchanges orNewpages feed. --Bookandcoffee 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sid Ryan
Basically, I felt it took Sid Ryan's side in the dispute quite strongly, attributing (possibly correctly, but not verifiably) vested interests to everybody who opposed him and describing the pre-Bill 208 status quo in a POV fashion - and none of it was sourced. Besides that, it was pretty obvious that User:Ross Crea intended the edit to go not in the article directly but as a comment to people working on editing the article. Immediately after reverting it, I posted a friendly note on his talk page briefly explaining WP:V, WP:NPOV, and talk pages, in the hopes that he'd take his points to the talk page instead of the mainspace. Your more direct route of simply copying his comments over to the talk page worked to, and I sort of wish I'd thought of it. As a quick aside, I don't know that it's fair to call it an "editing battle" - I think User:Ross Crea is probably a good faith editor who is trying to figure out how Wikipedia works. Hopefully from here on in we'll be able to reach consensus pretty quickly, because I suspect I'll be pretty receptive to his points once I i. fully understood what they are, and ii. see some sources. Sarcasticidealist 00:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Transport and General Workers' Union
Hi - have a quick look at the above. I've put a comment in on a fairly unacceptable entry and also put a message on the contributors page asking them to look at the talk page. Just keeping you up to date on this one ... - Dave Smith —The preceding  signed but undated.

I notice that you are not a member of the Transport and General workers union, and that you have never tried to claim services off them at a time of crisis. Why interfere? If you think the minutes as quoted are not credible, where can I email you some originals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veganline (talk • contribs).
 * As a union member myself Veganline, I can sympathize. Unions are far from perfect, and I'm all for including the warts in articles about them. However, it is difficult not to notice that your response to my edit was to point out that I am not personally involved with the TGWU. This is, to some degree, the point. Please have a look at Conflict of interest for a discussion about the difficulties of editing articles you are closely involved with. As to "Why interfere?" - I would point you to the text under the Please note: warning on every edit page in Wikipedia. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To give an idea why this is important to union members who have got the sack, this is an emotive email about another large UK union posted on the day before my entry was edited by someone on the other side of the world:


 * "As most of you will be aware of the problems I have had with UNISON, I gave them a deadline of 17 August to contact me or I would consider that they no longer wish to represent me.
 * Well with the help of London officers Branch Secretary contacted me at 8 pm.
 * The story is that he accepts that things broke down at Branch level he did allocate people to represent me in May but for some reason that did not happen.....
 * He still feels that I should be paid my wages which was raised with him and Branch in May to no avail.....
 * Branch are willing to consider the Welfare fund due to my fiancially hardship......
 * Branch are preared to put my file to the Regional Officer this time in connection with my reasons for grievance and not for CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL as before....
 * I feel I want a lawyer to consider my case.....I have already dealt with Branch time and time again and got nowhere with them and that was with his intervention..
 * I do need them to endore my welfare application
 * I do need them to present my case to Unison lawyers...
 * I do need them to correct the managment minutes of supposely redeployment....
 * However, I CANT TRUST....


 * Can anyone help or advise how I can proceed?
 * What are my options?
 * Can I give Branch the vote of no confidence and still get
 * representation?"

It doesn't go on for much longer. This isn't her usual writing style and she seems better the next day. Someone in the same thread comiserates by saying that the TGWU told her it "does not provide representation at tribunals" which to anyone who has paid them a lot of money each year and read their web site is just one of their enthusiasts little fibs. I don't understand why people from the other side of the world who aren't even members of TGWU or UNISON should impose their guesses about what is a credible source. It would take less time to do some research on the blogger who wrote about the TGWU and check that he has had 1,300 people look at his CV than to think of reason to refute it.

I'm in a predicament. After getting a prize nasty sack (bullying to mental illness because of physical illness) and being let down nastily by a union, I don't want to forget the problem. To stop me forgetting, I subscribe to a digest of comments from people going through the same thing now. This reminds me to do something, even though I seldom if ever contribute any help and there is next to nothing I can do. A quote from this digest is above.

I will take a holiday of a few days before looking at any of these pages again. The important thing is that I do what can be done, which may involve diplomacy with self-appointed experts from around the planet. There is no need to look-up the original source, but the people involved have not asked for it to be kept secret so if you want to look the source is http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/bullyonline/ Veganline 08:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left a very long and emotive message that crosses with your short one. I will have some dinner and come back to this: sorry my long response seems like a response to your short one! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veganline (talk • contribs).
 * Hey, no worries Veganline. I won't pretend to understand the difficulties you are in. As you point out, I'm on the other side of the planet. However, I think you are wise in taking a break from this, as you said, and returning in a couple days. I'm unsure how to proceed with this conversation, so I will wait for your further response. Wikipedia can be a harsh place - it sometimes seems that the editing is intentionally done with knives. But to return to the article, my main interest is in seeing that there are credible sources attached to strong allegations such as those you have made, and I look forward to working with you to find a solution to this issue. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll leave it a few more days, maybe do some research on how Wikipedia works. Since you mention it, things are looking-up :) Veganline 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WCL DYK Nom
Thanks for the nom, B&C. The hook looks great. Cheers! -- Scartol  14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PATCO Movement
Bookandcoffee, has their been any movement on this issue? StuckMic 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there has been no response from the other editor involved, but to be honest I've left this in your court. In your last note you said "I am in the process of attaining as many documents as possible", and "Like I said, I will do my utmost to find documentation to support some of the issues in contention". So I think the movement has to come largely from your direction. I will add that I'm only trying to help here by being a neutral voice. This is Wikipedia still, and you are free to edit as you see fit. Hopefully we can evolve all three of these articles to a reasonably accurate state. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 17:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your neutral position on the issue. But until such time this issue is even remotely resolved, shouldn't the wikipedia pages also remain neutral? As the pages read right now, a reader will look up PATCO and instantly assume Mr. Taylor's PATCO is the same PATCO from pre-1981. I thought we has agreed the wikipedia pages would show a history of PATCO ending at 1981 followed by two links: one to PATCO (AFSCME) and one to Mr. Taylor's PATCO. This would allow the reader to judge for themselves which PATCO is which.

The history of PATCO right up to the strike is not disputed. The history of the PATCOs post-1981 is what we're trying to resolve.

Though i am doing what i can to backwards engineer the PATCO history, Mr. Taylor can resolve his claim to the PATCO title by simply releasing information already in his possession regarding his prior affiliation with PATCO (AFSCME) and the AFL-CIO. I am simply a current air traffic controller trying to insure the history of air traffic control is not revised by the unfounded claims of Mr. Taylor.

At this juncture, i would ask wikipedia to format the PATCO section as i described above - one history of PATCO ending at the strike, with a link to both PATCOs to follow. The details of each PATCO can then be hashed out over time. StuckMic 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My apoligies if there has been any misunderstanding here StuckMic. When I read the previous section you mention, I don't see any agreement. I see you stating what you believe both parties could stipulate to. That's not the same thing. I don't disagree with you, and it seems reasonable to me - but I'm not interested in being the agent for your changes. but you don't need me to make the changes. This is Wikipedia, and you are free to edit as you see fit. The only role I have taken in this affair is to try and reduce the "back and forth" that was going nowhere.


 * My suggestion for how you should proceed from here is to consider what changes you would like to make, and then outline them on the talk page for Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968), so that other editors have a chance to engage in discussing your planned changes. Then, if you can find some agreement (or if there is no response) make the changes. Of course, you don't have to do it that way, but that's my best advice for turning these three pages into the informative, factual articles we would all like to see! Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 09:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PATCO Correction
I'm curious to find out if the PATCO page is going to be amended to reflect previous conversations concerning this issue. As it reads now, these pages erroneously lead one to conclude the PATCO of today, lead by Mr. Taylor, is the same PATCO pre-1981. This is not factual and the wikipedia pages should be corrected to reflect this misleading error. StuckMic 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your note further up the page.--Bookandcoffee 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't we need a third article (plus the dab page) about the present-day organization led by Taylor, the one which is not an AFSCME affiliate? That bypasses the controversy about whether the current Taylor-led group is the "true heir" to the old PATCO or not. -- Orange Mike 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it looks like:

is the timeline.--Bookandcoffee 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)
 * Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (AFSCME)
 * Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003)


 * The AFSCME affiliate may predate 2003; in fact, I'd wager it does. -- Orange Mike 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had them in the wrong order didn't I. Switched now. I'm pretty unsure how to proceed though. Do we just end the (1968) article with something like "PATCO has reformed, and is now divided into two unions, the PATCO (AFSCME) and the PATCO (2003)." and then let things evolve from there?--Bookandcoffee 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say something more like, "In addition to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, two organizations now claim the name and part or all of the jurisdiction of the original PATCO: Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (AFSCME) and Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (2003)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 20:12, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey that sounds good. If no one else does, I'll try to rework things in this direction tomorrow morning.--Bookandcoffee 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But you'll have to create the 2003 article first; and don't forget the dab page entry. -- Orange Mike 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a start.--Bookandcoffee 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Free Association of German Trade Unions
Since noone appears to be responding at WP:ARS, I'll just give my take on the situation here. I think templates like organized labour portal - a lot of portals seem to have similar templates - are just a cheap way of advertising a portal - in violation of a Wikipedia policy that I agree with completely (WP:ASR) at that. They don't annoy me to the point that I try to get them abolished, but I was just tired of seeing it on an article I've been putting a lot of time into. My experience trying to get these removed from FA candidates tells me that most Wikipedians would agree with you on this issue anyway. Although I strongly disagree with you on this issue, I'd like to point out that I value your work on Wikipedia and hope you were not offended by my removal of the template.--Carabinieri 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No - don't worry about offending me! I'm happy to just disagree about this - it's not a big deal. I certainly won't put the tag back on the FVdG article. I can see your point about the portals, as they do, in a sense, become an extension of the wikiproject. BTW, the feeling is mutual - I'm always impressed by the work you do. Cheers, Chris --Bookandcoffee 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

More PATCO
The PATCO site looks very nice. The founding date of PATCO with our trademark logo was back in 1996 and we disaffiliated with the other union and became independent in 2003.

Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by PATCO81 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
Hi there, I just made an edit describing the response of the parties that the RMT are in dispute with over their latest strike. While I feel the edit belongs in the article, I'm not sure whether the article as it now stands makes the situation seem too one-sided. As a regular contributor to the article I was wondering what your thoughts on how to cover the issue were? In addition I'm aware that as it's a short article, my edit, without further edits, may make the whole article too recentist. Any suggestions on what should be covered in a good union article?

Thanks in advance BeL1EveR 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi BeL1EveR. Well I'm a fair distance away from the strike itself - so I won't claim detailed knowledge. But my first read of your addition leaves me with two questions. First, your choice of wording "...was initiated after guarantees from Mayor..." seems odd. Perhaps "...was initiated despite guarantees from Mayor..."


 * Secondly, and more importantly, you have chosen to quote both Livingstone and Transport for London, and yet have not included any information regarding the position of the union. This does seem quite unbalanced to me, especially as their sound bites are as easily accessible as the other parties.


 * The article does start to become recentist, but I would imagine that is mostly unavoidable while the strike is on. Maybe when the issue dies down in a couple months there will be a the time to consolidate the information.--Bookandcoffee 00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I altered the wording as suggested, and have added what the RMT is quoted to have said. For some reason (possibly me not looking hard enough, possibly because it's not there) I couldn't find the RMT's stance on their own site, but the quote on your source seems consistent with others that I found, so I've added it. BeL1EveR —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeL1EveR (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for re-visiting the article. I'm sure the article will evolve somewhat in the next days. I see there is a plan to strike next week as well. BTW, here's a RMT page with an informal statement. --Bookandcoffee 02:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal talk:Organized Labour
Hi - I put a suggestion about developing RSS feeds up on the talk page and no one has yet picked up on this ... so this is a nudge for you to take a look. :-) - Dave Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriniSocialist (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why this been autosigned when I did sign it? - Dave Smith 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The same thing happened in a conversation above, with BeL1EveR. Must be something wonky with the SineBot. - Oh, I just looked in the history, and maybe it's just dating your signatures, as you didn't leave a time stamp when you signed... just guessing though.--Bookandcoffee 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brief history of PATCO
A brief history of PATCO

In 1996, PATCO Co-Founder and National Coordinator, Brother Jack Maher, affiliated with the dental union as an independent autonomous organization. Brother Maher’s history goes back to the early 1960’s as an original founder of PATCO and remains highly respected throughout the labor community. He was the creator and owner of the PATCO Registered Trademark logo, and he gave Ron Taylr the rights to use it. Ron Taylor was appointed the National Coordinator (CEO) of PATCO by Brother Maher in 1999. In addition, Brother Maher appointed the first non-elected officers of PATCO to serve for a short term. It should be noted that all web sites that existed during this time period still exist today and all were created and operated by Ron Taylor without assistance from any other organizations or individuals.

PATCO held its first Convention in August 2001, in Las Vegas, and it was at this convention that new officers were elected. Ron Taylor was elected President of the Union along with his lifetime appointed position as National Coordinator (CEO) of PATCO. Other officers were elected according to geographical territories.

In late 2003 PATCO pulled away from the Dental union because of a major difference of opinion between the PATCO Co- Founder Jack Maher, and the Dental Union. Jack Maher sold Ron Taylor the PATCO Trademark in early 2004.

On January 1, 2004, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) was re-formed as an independent labor union. It was during this time period that PATCO officially disaffiliated with the Dental Union. Due to the limited funds of the organization, PATCO was forced to rebuild its financial base. Only through the loyalty of its members and the interest of other organizations believing in our efforts and philosophy, did we once again begin to thrive and flourish. The decision to continue to “Organize” became a reality due to the controllers in the contract towers numerous requests seeking representation and advice concerning the problems that they were experiencing.

PATCO is now an Independent Labor Union certified by the NLRB, and Jack Maher, the original Co Founder of PATCO from the early 60's is member of the Union, along with Jim Hays the first President of PATCO from 1968.

PATCO is registered with the Department of Labor under the name...Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO).

In March 2007, PATCO held its second secret ballot election and the following non-salaried Officers were elected to serve a three (3) year term.

Ron Taylor………President John Dwyer……. Executive Vice President Gary Lashbrook... Southern VP John Rowland…...Central VP James Woodyard..Western VP Terry Paddack… ...Eastern VP Carol Taylor……..Secretary/Treasurer

PATCO is registered with the Department of Labor (DOL), Certified by the NLRB, and Ron Taylor is registered in the State of Florida as the Union Business Agent. Our Corporation is listed as a “ Non Profit 501 C (4)” in the State of Florida.

The PATCO Trademarks, Logos are registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PATCO81 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

History page PATCO Jack Maher & Mike Rock
It was initially founded in 1968 By Jack Maher, Mike Rock with the assistance of attorney and pilot F. Lee Bailey, and succeeded in being recognized as a collective bargaining agent in 1969,

Ron Taylor 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger
I do not feel that the FPD. AFSCME union should be moved with PATCO. PATCO disafilliated with them years ago and as you can see from the history I submitted earlier, Jack Maher the First Co Founder of our Union is a member of our union. This is true history going back to 1968. In additions the PATCO Logo reflects the history from the past and future. That should carry some weight as to PATCO 1968 to current date.

Thanks for you consideration Ron Taylor 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is just the nature of Wikipedia. There are always differing ideas about how things should proceed. Give it some time, and we'll see how things unfold. You are also an editor here (no less than me), so feel free to participate in the discussion at Talk:Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968). Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Teamsters Canada
Dear Sir,

My name is Stéphane Lacroix and I work for the Communications department at Teamsters Canada. I was surprised to find that the text I posted on Wikipedia about Teamsters Canada was removed shortly after I put it online.

At first, I did not understand what had happened because I did not have a clear understanding of how the community of contributors works. After further reading, I realize that I made some errors in the way I posted the subject. Please accept my apologies.

I was wondering whether you could help me publish an acceptable backgrounder on our organization. As I mentioned, I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia and I would need to be coached a bit to avoid making the same mistakes a second time.

I hope my attempt to post my text did not ruffle any feathers at WikiProject Organized Labour.

Sincerely,

Stéphane Lacroix Teamsters Canada

slacroix@teamsters-canada.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.81.82 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Stéphane, welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry, you'll have to work harder than that to ruffle feathers around here!


 * I am the one who removed your post from the Teamsters Canada article. I cut it out simply because it was a copy from your website, and Wikipedia cannot accept copyright material. No big deal.


 * I'd be glad to help you with the article, and can point out a few essential things to start with. But I would also encourage you to make the same request over at the WikiProject Organized Labour page, where you'll find a number of editors who have a great deal of union related knowledge and skills.


 * Thanks for identifying that you work in the Communications department at Teamsters Canada. There is a strong culture at Wikipedia which is wary of "self-editing", and I would suggest that you review the conflict of interest guidelines at Conflict of interest.


 * As for the history itself, I have two quick points. First, the text simply has to be written in original language. In your words, as it were. Unfortunately, many trade union articles are still in their early stages, and don't have histories to compare to - but an article like Trades Union Congress or the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees can give you an idea of the layout.


 * Secondly, be prepared for change. This is an encyclopedia, not a listing service, and the history you add will be rather mercilessly edited by others. In particular, as you have a vested interest in the article, editors will expect you to back up claims and statements with verifiable third-party sources. For example, if you say (as your first posting did) "In fact, Teamsters is the union organization with the strongest membership growth in Canada." you will need to provide outside proof.


 * Other editors will also insert their own information, information which may not reflect well on the Teamsters. Documented cases of fraud, criminal activities, and such (if such things are true and verifiable) may well be added to the article entry. You may be tempted to "spin" such information, but I would also caution against that. (See WP:OWN)


 * Ok, I'll quit preaching for now. Let me know if this helps, and if you have any questions.


 * One more thing. When you leave a comment on someone's talk page, as you did here, place four tildes " ~ " after the note and it will generate both a name and a timestamp. This just helps keep the conversation ordered. Cheers, Chris --Bookandcoffee 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different... more PATCO
The PATCO that belongs to the AFL has no direct affiliation with the AFL-CIO, and they are misleading the public. Based on their own web site, their official name is FPD/AHPE affiliated with Nuhhce, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. This item should be corrected as only a very few unions have direct affiliation with the AFL-CIO. As an example, NATCA has a direct affiliation with the AFL-CIO. Lets keep the truth on the site and not allow them to spin what they are not.

In addition our union was re formed back in 1996 as I said in my brief, We disaffiliated with the above FPD union back in 2003.

Thanks

Ron Taylor 13:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this site and apologize for any mistakes I may have done in any recent post/editing. Just a rookie learning how to make changes to your somewhat complicated site.

I still believe our PATCO should be at the higher standard on your site based on the original logo that was used by PATCO during the strike. That Logo should carry significant weight in establishing that we are back, with our flag and moving forward again. I was a PATCO striker from that era and that was our flag then, as it is now. Again the PATCO trademark logo Flag.Banner is registerd in the US PATENT office,and it should be allowed to stand proud once again above the others.

The other union does not have or own that factual evidence. Anyone can call themselves a name, but credentials should be checked to verify. In addition as I have pointed out the Co founder of PATCO (Jack Maher) from the early 60's was the creator of the PATCO Logo and is a member of our union. I consider our PATCO the rising of the Phoenix.

This is history...with no spin!

My two cents

Thanks

Ron Taylor 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The other union" (PATCO/AFSCME) is part of the FPD, which is part of the NUHHCE, which is part of AFSCME, which IS affiliated with the AFL-CIO. That is not "misleading the public". -- Orange Mike 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PATCO History
When PATCO was started back in 1996 by the Co Founder Jack Maher, it was at that time independent. It affiliated with FPD for the good and welfare of the PATCO strikers to have a voice...not for organizing. We were an autonomous union that goverened itself, with elected officers and a CEO (Jack Maher). Mr Maher made Ron Taylor CEO back in 1999 and he was elected President of PATCO on August 3, 2001 by the membership at the PATCO 20th anniversary in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Organziing took place years later and I was also involved in that area. Mr Seddon was never elected to any position within PATCO. He was and still is the Director of FPD.

The PATCO that affiliated with the FPD union, left them (disaffiliated) back in 2003, and that is public record. We are the only PATCO actually listed with the Department of Labor DOL, and our file number is 543-587. (under LM 3 form)

Hope this additional information helps.

--Ron Taylor 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

--Ron Taylor 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature check
Ok ...hope this signature works. I did what you asked at the preference page.

--Ron Taylor 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers from Scartol
Thanks for your note. Since some people may have linked to User OrgLabour in order to make a link to the portal, I don't want to switch that around. But maybe I'll post a link to my alternate on the main Project page. I will definitely work on the Labor template.

I appreciate your kind feedback. -- Scartol  17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey there. If I never thanked you for the randomized labor leaders on the infobox, let me do it now. Thank you. Also, has asked that Sarah Bagley be added. Since you made the template a little more complicated than I'm comfortable with, I wonder if you'd be able to do so? Thanks in advance. –  Scartol  ·  Talk  16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, it was just a small bit compared to the excellent overhaul you did on the tag. I added Bagley, and I'll try to make some instructions on the tag page so others can negotiate the code! Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

re Labour Administration Convention, 1978
Hi, you appear to be the only contributor to the above article with one edit and the summary "started". I was minded to delete this under CSD A3, but thought I would ask if you intend to work on it again or you believe it is sufficient as a stub. LessHeard vanU 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is on my perennial To-do list, but that doesn't mean I'll get to it anytime soon! The article is one of the 185 International Labour Organization conventions, and they are all collected at Category:International Labour Organization Conventions. Many of them are in the same format as the one you were looking at. I think it would be unfortunate to delete any of them, as they are important documents.


 * To be a little more direct, I would very strongly disagree with the notion that the article can be speedily deleted for "no content". In fact, I would be unhappy... :) CSD A3 is not a relevant reason for deleting these articles. --Bookandcoffee 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if it is on some to do list I will drop a note on the talkpage for future reference. Perhaps you might go through the others and copy a "hold your horses" message to their talkpages? Hopefully that will give pause to other (more delete minded) admins than I. A paste and copy job shouldn't take you too long... Cheers. LessHeard vanU 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks LessHeard vanU. I don't think I'll take you up on the "hold your horses" idea, as it's pretty clear that these articles don't qualify for "no content" deletion, but I will try to get around to them eventually. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 06:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A "hold your horses" message for any other admin with a twitchy delete button finger... LessHeard vanU 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate the information about WP:WARN. Cheers, Wanderer57 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CEPU logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:CEPU logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SUB logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:SUB logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HMS logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:HMS logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Anarcho-Syndicalism-Rocker.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Anarcho-Syndicalism-Rocker.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Middlesex novel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Middlesex novel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CDT logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CDT logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GWU logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:GWU logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Momentum cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Momentum cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Back in October you caught someone who edited my user page, and you corrected it back to the original, thanks, Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. :) --Bookandcoffee (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WFTU logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WFTU logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WGA logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WGA logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quarantine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Quarantine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Virgin and the Gipsy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Virgin and the Gipsy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Republic paper.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Republic paper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A Complicated Kindness.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A Complicated Kindness.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ARRAY magazine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ARRAY magazine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Living to Tell the Tale.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Living to Tell the Tale.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Latin America Connexions.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Latin America Connexions.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Peoples Voice.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Peoples Voice.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just thought I'd say thank you for helping me along time ago! You probably do not remember but I've read a lot on Wikipedia thanks to your information posted on my discussion page.

Becen (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Current edit war on some labor pages
Hi,

I'm contacting you because you were nice enough to contact me when I joined the organized labor portal. I'm wondering how the community should respond to the edit war happening with CNA, SEIU and Union Busting pages right now. It looks like the main operator is user Checkmate000, and that he/she is using Wikipedia to grind a partisan, pro-SEIU, anti-CNA axe. As someone with ties to some of the controversy, I don't think I ought to be policing these articles, but I think the wikipedia labor community would be interested in this.

Let me know if you want examples.

Thanks.

Tony Clothes (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:NLRB_logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:NLRB_logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Maxime-McDuff-&-McDo film.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Maxime-McDuff-&-McDo film.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ILA_logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ILA_logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:CEP_logo.jpg
I have tagged Image:CEP_logo.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver
You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver Members List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, or wish to partake in the redesign and reevaluation of the project's mandate, please visit WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 28 2008. Thank you for your time. Mkdw talk 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) PS The WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CGT logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CGT logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UFW logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:UFW logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ACFTU logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ACFTU logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AFTRA logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:AFTRA logo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ALPA logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ALPA logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A Fine Balance.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A Fine Balance.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A Million Little Pieces.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A Million Little Pieces.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SEIU1199P logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:SEIU1199P logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AFT logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:AFT logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:BCFED.jpg
 * Image:AWUNZ logo.png
 * Image:APTUC logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CNA logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:CNA logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alberta Fed logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alberta Fed logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BASTUN logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BASTUN logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Being Dead Crace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Being Dead Crace.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CAW Local 111
An article that you have been involved in editing, CAW Local 111, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/CAW Local 111. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? GreenJoe 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)