User talk:Carrite/Archive2

Socialist Party USA related
Do you have any information about this organization; Union for Democratic Socialism, seeing that i've been working on SPUSA-related articles, i'm unable to find any information about this group.. Can you help with this? --TIAYN (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First: Thanks for finding that info (reply to the above comment)
 * Second: See the WP Socialism Assessment table to learn how rate articles (follow this link).
 * Third: Being that the WikiProject Socialism was just recently established, it is still missing alot of articles. Many articles are still not tagged with the Socialist WP banner.
 * Something else? --TIAYN (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is not acceptable, its not neutral and will never becoming complete. --TIAYN (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing that only less than 10 books were used to reference the article, you didn't need to split it. You could have just removed it... But this isn't of any importance to the article, so i won't do anything about it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You really must stop the editing you are doing in the membership on the DSA-page... While i must say you are a great contributor to this encyclopedia, but your edits on the page is bordering on WP:POV. --TIAYN (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be nice and civil, and instead you accuse me of being a sock puppet. Fine, anyhow while i may be breaching the 3-revert rule, you are breaching WP:POV, WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. You know, just because i don't support your POV-edits, doesn't mean i am a sock puppet. --TIAYN (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That might as well be true, seeing that i really don't know anything about this subject, but if you don't have a source which actually says that it cannot be included to Wikipedia. While the claim of 10,000 members might be false, there is no other references stating otherwise. Instead of arguing about this, it would be better to actually use your time to actually find a reference which actually agrees with your calculations, instead of edit warring with me. --TIAYN (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds like a good idea. --TIAYN (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Continue your edits on the DSA-page, i won't revert them or remove them... --TIAYN (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the point of listing their national convention, they are not notable enough to get an article, and, if i undestand right, that list is going to become "hugh". --TIAYN (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to have people disagreeing with your edits, there is no reason for you to actually edit Wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then instead of listing the national convetion, say that each convention elect leading officials for the organizations, and include the information of that in the history section. Dam, i have nothing against you including the convention, i just have something against making it into a list. Second, we can't pick and choose what sources are reliable or not, thats called one-sided, Wikipedia is to write articles which sees from all perspectives, not just one, as you are trying to do. --TIAYN (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is so darn important for you to have a list of their national conventions, create an article for it, or even better, make a section in the DSA article entitled "National convention" were you can add the list. Oh, and i do many other things than just assess articles. --TIAYN (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That last one was actually quite funny :D, i know, its a bad moment for laughter. --TIAYN (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.... On another note, great work on the International Socialist Review (1900) article! :P --TIAYN (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This may just be the right userbox for you, 'user incl. --TIAYN (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed them from the Socialist Party-articles, but when regards to the mother party's complex history, the state affiliates don't share all the same problems. An example being that the states of Wisconsin, California, Illinois, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. were founding memberse of the SPUSA. Source used: Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (page 9). --TIAYN (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't really get why should have two maps, seeing that you don't mention the geographical location of the headquarters of SPO and so on.. buts its not important. But back to our former discussion, wouldn't it be wiser to create one main article, such as the Socialist Party of Wisconsin and then create a sub-page entitled History of the Socialist Party of Wisconsin. This is the most normal for articles about party history. Doesn't this sound better? --TIAYN (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is a difference between the ISR-magazines, seeing they have no connection what so ever, and seeing that the Socialist Party of Wisconsin (SPA) is the same as the Socialist Party of Wisconsin (SPUSA) it might just confuse readers even more. It's easier just to have one main article were you inform the readers of the SPA split an so on, and then have an article about the state party's history...
 * Oh and goodluck on that Finnish communist newspaper: :P --TIAYN (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Smith-vern-r-1933.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Smith-vern-r-1933.jpg. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought you would like this
I scanned and uploaded this statement from the socialist party on the Soviet Polish war, and thought you would appreciated it.

http://www.archive.org/details/SocialistPartyOnPoland

Its a good illustration of the conflict that sometimes exist between socialism and the nationalism of oppressed peoples. After all, the Poles had been under the heel of Russia for a hundred years, and they regarded the disputed area as a natural part of their country, even if the inhabitants didn't. Sorta like the contemporary problem with the Irish republic and ulster. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've known about the Nearing page for awhile. I'll get to when I'm feeling particularly masochistic. One thing I've noticed about your book linking, you often link to the Google books version. The problem with that is that Google books after 1865 can't be seen in countries other that the US, because of unclear copyright laws. I'd prefer you line to the archive.org or hathitrust versions which do not have that kind of censorship. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Class Struggle (magazine)
Thanks for this article; could you please reference it? Regards, Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AFL-label.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AFL-label.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Victor L. Berger
ISBNs are not advertising. You can learn more about their use in WP here. Please do not remove any more ISBNs from other articles. 64.252.6.127 (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironic that an anonymous poster happy to sign themselves "64.252.6.127" on a talk page would have an unnatural affection for ISBN bookseller numbers.... Carrite (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On List of political parties in the United States
I undid a lot of your edits on this page. Please see the talk page for that article, as I forgot to provide an edit summary. Sorry if I come off as arrogant. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

wrong dab on John Work (Canadian)
Even if it were appropriate (and it's not), "national" dabs should include the individual's profession, in this case "fur trader". But as there was only one fur trader named John Work, John Work (fur trader) is all that's needed; but I tried to change it to that, the redirect was already in the way, don't know why or who created it. Work wasn't Canadian, he was British, and had not contact with Canada, which only meant Quebec/Ontario in his day; British Columbia did not join Canada until ten years after his death. I've posted notice of this at WP:Canada and hopefully some admin will change it to the proper dab, just notifying you of your mistake, and its inappropriateness. Changes of this kind should be discussed first, anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

International Socialist Review
Talk for International Socialist Review happens on its talk page, not by email to you. Wikpedia uses consensus, and emailing you is not a consensus technique. --Duncan (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a barnstar for snottiness? Carrite (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles
I'm afraid I've got a concern about your new articles which may significantly impact on your survival here at Wikipedia; you could be facing blocks. Basically, they're all bloody awesome, and I've asked someone to give you autoreviewer status. Keep up the good work, and swing by WP:DYK occasionally. Oh, and sorry for the brief mind-fuck :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly a guardian angel, but I'll keep an eye out :P. If you need help with any sourcing, give me a poke; I've got access to a load of historical, political and social science-ey journal depositories. Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you have no idea. Scrolling across my nearest bookshelf from left to right; three contract law books, a tort law book, a trusts book, a history of the Bloody Assizes, a history of the second Long Parliament, a first edition judicial archive from the 1860s, a legal history book from 1895... so on, you get the idea. One day I'll have to move it all and then the fun will start. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An article you might be intrested in
Eteenpäin. --Soman (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Great work, --Soman (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Santeri in Astoria cite?
Hi- can you add a cite for Santeri Nuorteva living in Astoria, Oregon? In other words, add a cite to Astoria, Oregon? Thanks, tedder (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help
as English is not my native language, and I do not have a big experinece of particp[ation in English wiki, as well as I am from the country that has expensive inetrnet connection (so I could allow my slef to visit wiki only few times a week) may you help me to organize Talk:Deletion Wars ? (Idot (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Yiddish
Sorry, I don't speak Yiddish. I suggest that you contact the Bund working group. Some members speak Yiddish, they are likely to be sympathetic to your project, and they may wll have other useful information or resources. RolandR (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Left wing conference
Thank you for your comments on my work re:Fraina. I was wondering, do you happen to have a complete list of the attendees of the National Left wing Conference of June 1919 lying around the apartment? I'm gathering material together for a major reworking of the Left Wing Section of the socialist Party page. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Draper says that there is a list of all 79 delegates in the "Larkin Trial" p. 81-82" http://books.google.com/books?id=Bfxu61smg2EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Draper+roots&hl=en&ei=jUD5S6LGFMaAlAf0r4mCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Larkin%20trial&f=false

It seems to be the kind of archival source that you've been able to locate in the past. Do you know where I could possibly find the records of the trial? --Dudeman5685 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Personal vendetta"
Please stop accusing other editors of carrying out personal vendettas, as you've done at several AfDs, including this one. It's inappropriate and incivil, and it will result in a block if you continue. If you feel that someone is targeting you, please see Dispute resolution. Shimeru (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletionists.............. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AADD
Please see WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "mission of the encyclopedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge to everyone on the planet... " no Wikipedia aims to include topics that are defined by WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IDGAS. (Why can't deletionists talk general policy without linking to chapter and verse, as if anyone is going to click to read those Talmudic insights?) Carrite (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has established guidelines, it clearly is a collection of notable not esoteric topics. there may be other online encyclopaedias that deal with esoteric topics. Consistently voting keep on the basis of something being esoteric and ignoring notability guidelines is not going to get you far. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the same amount of effort was expended at the front gate helping to flag off the garbage as it comes in, rather than challenging scholarly-but-esoteric articles, we would all be a lot better off for it. Tilting at the same windmills again and again, at the cost of a vast expenditure of energy from multiple parties in each case, strikes me as counterproductive. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * hi I'm not interested in off wiki conversation. on the same token, people like you that want to keep a lot of articles need to know the best way to keep articles in AfD is to find actual evidence of third party coverage. too often I see keep voters not provide any evidence of coverage in weakly sources articles. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability doctrine is a creation by deletionists for deletionists. What were broad guidelines to winnow out the obviously unworthy has become a sort of pseudo-religion or "gotcha" game, in my estimation. The big picture of WHAT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE is lost in the morass of often contradictory standards, rulles, and guidelines. The fewer acronyms and links spouted and the more reasoned discussion about whether a topic is actually WORTHY of inclusion, the better. I'm convinced that both the deletionist and the inclusionist camps want the best thing for Wikipedia. And I'm fairly sure that there is probably 90% similarity in perspective on this or that piece of crap flooding throught the Special Pages>New Pages gate every day. But when serious work starts getting challenged on "notability" grounds alone, the worlds collide. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Category
Okay I'll visit the deletion page.
 * I've created the category, ||Category:Independent Labour Party (US) politicians||. As you may notice, (US) is included in the name. Its there because their is another category under very same name, see ||Category:Independent Labour Party politicians||, for the British party of the same name which is more notable than Its American counter part. --TIAYN (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats okay, I'll delete it. No harm done, the category for the UK party is as said above politicians instead of members. --TIAYN (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One hitter (smoking)
Thanks for your crucial tie-breaking vote (2-1 for Keep). Thought you might like to see an image of the | person beautiful who is the hero of our delusional deletionist campaigning against one-hitters.

By the way thanks for your work, by looking you up I found out that Jarvis Tyner is McCoy's brother, and looked further to find that McCoy is left-handed (like me).Tokerdesigner (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gitlow
Dear Carrite

If you're going over to the Hoover Institution, perhaps, you might also want to take a stroll over to the Ben Gitlow archives. You notice the last three pamphlets on his list were the ones published by the evangelical Christian Crusade Ministries. It would be interesting to have one of these online to get a feel of Gitlows final political evolution (there is almost no biographical material available on his last years). Unfortunately the only 2 libraries worldcat says has a copy of them (Columbia & East Carolina) won't part with them (or even a photocopy) through inter-library loan. The only bookseller I can find is Bolerium which is selling the The Negro Question: Communist Civil War Policy. for $35, which is outrageous for a 12p. pamphlet, no matter how rare (I tried to hagle it down, but no luck).

If you have the time, it may be worthwhile to take a digital camera and see if they have a copy of one of these pamphlets at Hoover. Its pretty easy to make a digital facsimile of a rare book taking digital photos of each page, (I've done it before) and they are all pretty short. Just a suggestion.

Sincerely, --Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Johnson-Oakley-C.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Johnson-Oakley-C.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Sugar
I saw your note at Ford Hunger March, which I wrote. I look forward to seeing your article on Maurice Sugar. I have his book on the march if you want me to check any of those facts. Let me know when it's up. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen
In this AFD you state...


 * Your fear is one of inadequate BLP sourcing — which may well be a valid complaint — but you cite notability doctrine as the cure for this problem..... Which doesn't logically follow. If the fear is about sourcing on a BLP, the argument is one of sourcing, not notability ("WP:N")

Since the AFD is closed, I'll reply here. I view "the notability doctrine" as a "necessary evil" and like a majority of our policies and guidelines as an ignorable rule. If there were a strong consensus for retaining a "low risk" article even though the subject was not technically "notable", I would support that (but only if the subject was verifiable, that one's non negotiable) but never for an article on a living person. So yes, my arguments was one of "notability". For BLPs I want to see something more then just the fact that the subject exists. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you assistance
I am too late to save my work User:RHaworth has already done the dirty work and deleted everything I have written. I feel like saying something very rude on his user page but I will desist. Historyboy2010 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dennis E. Batt
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Chuckle
Your "borderline compelling" comment on Articles for deletion/Malcolm Yarnell made me chuckle. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)