User talk:Richard Myers/Archive 1

Columbine Mine Massacre
I see you've copied material from http://www.rebelgraphics.org/columbinestory.html into the Columbine Mine Massacre article. The name of the article's author and your name are the same, so I assume you are the same person, and therefore are granting Wikipedia the copyright to release this information under the GFDL copyright. If this is so, could you please explicity say so on the article's Talk page? If you don't the stuff you added will have to be deleted as a copyright violation. RickK 20:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Columbine Mine Massacre talk page updated.
 * Columbine Mine Massacre talk page updated.


 * Richard Myers

Welcome Fellow Worker
Welcome to Wikipedia, fellow worker.

I just noticed an edit (Labor history) that you made a few days ago, and came across your personal page and saw you are a Wobbly. I am not an official red-card-carrying Wobbly, although I have gone to the local meetings, am on the local mailing list and work with them from time to time on labor solidarity. I'm actually headed out right now to my shift at a local infoshop/bookstore where three of the four people in the collective running it are Wobblies.

Anyhow, Wikipedia can use you since I feel there's a cabal of anti-union, right-wing people running the show here at Wikipedia to some extent. Many of them are admins, some of them are just regular users. Having some experience, I would give you the advice of starting out slow and learning the ropes before getting into fights with them. Take the high road and follow the rules even when they don't. Make the best efforts to come to an agreement as Wikietiquette suggests even when you know they have no desire to. You'll get to see which admins are biased (and which users), along with which of the handful of admins are on your side (and which users). Anyhow, avoid fights before learning the ropes and the rules and the various techniques and tactics people use, and present a cooperative, positive attitude even when they're being negative, antagonistic and breaking the rules. Once we have a group of like-minded people, we'll be more able to deal with this here. Avoid handing them ammunition.

Ultimately, I think the solution is who owns and controls the servers. Currently it's Jimbo Wales, who makes money from porn sites and who has stated over and over how he is an Ayn Rand fan. He usually avoids overt favoritism, except perhaps when it comes to Israel, which he supports. There are wikis limited to certain topics like Disinfopedia which I feel are friendlier, although their scope is limited. I was happy to see Recyclopedia pop up, but it seems to be up and down. Ultimately I hope to see a wiki spring up that is run by volunteers and donors who share a progressive point of view. It's too bad I no longer have a free colocated box or I'd just put one up myself. -- Paso del Ebro 17:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The above isnt really a fair characterization, but thats OK - the independent Wiki governance plan is well underway. I have some similar concerns, but if you (PdE) complain about a social order influencing material on Wikipedia - then you really dont understand how an open encyclopedia really works. Asking JW to enforce a POV more inline with yours is just as elitist as the opposite. -IOH|taq 18:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RM - Nice work on Labor history and labor movement - greatlyappreciated - I started to fill in some of the related articles, and made the Mediawiki:labor sidebar for inclusion in related articles. Question: what does labor movement fall under? Social struggle? It's got to fit into a more general category - the sidebar on a general category should be more generalized. regards, -IOH|taq 18:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Much to think about here, hopefully i'll have more time to explore these issues later.
 * Thanks for the comments. Much to think about here, hopefully i'll have more time to explore these issues later.


 * Richard Myers

Hi, this is a new Wiki you might be interested in -

http://www.infoshop.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

It's just getting started. It's focus will be on topics like the IWW,and that sort of thing. -- J00zus 23:07, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV check
Thank you for contacting me. I used the template instead of the  because I did not necessarily believe the article to be biased. I do not have enough knowledge of the event to determine this fully on my own, so I put the notice there to give someone else the opportunity to look it over and make a decision. A few lines in particular struck me as somewhat unencyclopedic and possibly biased, such as "This morning men with guns would serve up something different," and "It was a chill November morning in Serene, Colorado, home of the Columbine mine that was nestled peacefully on a rolling Colorado hillside." Some of these lines seemed to be sympathetic toward one side. If you feel differently, please feel free to remove the POV check message from the article. Neutral point of view contains some information on POV issues.

Again, I'm not familiar with the Columbine Mine Massacre. I may just be confusing the novel-esque (I'm sure there's a better word for this) writing style with an underlying bias. There may be a page, such as Pages needing attention, that the article could be listed on to attract some other viewpoints. - MattTM 08:23, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ludlow
Very moving history, one of the best wikipedia pages out there. I assume you were also the anonymous contributor who overhauled it way back when. Italo Svevo 02:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flaming Milka
A couple of people deleted a page that i had created about Amelia Milka Sablich. The page was "Flaming Milka"

I researched this woman over a period of fifteen years. There is now a book in print about Milka, which i edited and helped to write.

There are probably a hundred newspaper articles about Milka, many of them available online through services like Ancestry.com.

What is the reason people destroy other people's work?

Flaming Milka deletion
Richard:

I nominated "Flaming Milka" for deletion (however I did not actually delete it, since I don't have that authority) because I was unable to find any collaborating information with a Google or JSTOR search. If you believe that the page should not have been deleted, then you may follow the "articles for undeletion" procedure (I'm not exactly sure how it works but I assume it its fairly straightforward. Please do not create the page again without following the procedure.) If you would like the article undeleted, it would help to make information available establishing both accuracy and notability. If both of these criteria are met, chances are the article will be restored. If the criteria for inclusion are met, I will vote to undelete the article (although the title should probably be different, as nicknames usually shouldn't be in a page name.) Please note that ancestry.com charges for access to most of its material, and is not a valid reference unless the material is otherwise made available.

As far as contacting you, there is no obligation to contact a page's creator when nominating a page for deletion; I expected that you would have found out immediately through your watchlist (assuming that, as the article's creator, you would have had a "watch" on the page.)

Please keep in mind that I have no desire to "destroy" anyone's work, only to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and please do not take a deletion of your article personally. The only instance in which I nominate an article for deletion is if it is warranted by WP standards and never because of the article's content or creator.

Best, Paul Paul 22:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion
Richard, please do not think of deletion as a penalty; it is not. It is in no way a reflection upon you, it simply means that the article did not meet certain criteria. Also, please don't think of it as "destroying" someone's work; just because certain information does not fit into Wikipedia does not mean it has been "destroyed." Paul 02:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

References in articles.
I just read your comments about sources for Flaming Milka (at least that was the guess of another reader) on the village pump. I saw the article, which seems to have been reinstated, but realised that the sources aren't given. Please could you add the sources to the article. There are various ways (see WP:CITE), for example you could consider Footnote3 footnotes with references. This very much helps with verification in future. Mozzerati 15:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject – Organized Labour
Hi Richard, I found your name by looking at who created Labour movement. I was hoping to interest you in a WikiProject I would like to start. You can find it at Proposed WikiProject – Organized Labour. I'd like to find people with experience (like yourself) who are interested in contributing, or even just providing project input. Thanks. --Bookandcoffee 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sago mine
Read your pieces at progressnow. Seems to me the previous safety violations need to be beefed up. Would you be willing to help out there. All of the gazette pieces are now archived for free at http://www.wvgazette.com/section/Series/The+Sago+Mine+Disaster

Maybe some folks at your yahoo group could help, too. Signed up but the one time I tried to post the computer at the library shut itself off and I lost everything. After I'm off deadline, I'll try again. Do you know yahoo also has a group Mine Rescue you may find of interest.

--Beth Wellington 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the POV warriors push you around
I just stumbled onto: Columbine Mine massacre, and restored most of your work. Don't let the POV warriors push you around. The guy had no right to delete the entire article. I will be closely monitoring the article from now on, and I wont allow people to do what they did to the article before. Travb (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on Coal Strike of 1902
Since you requested help, I went through the article and listed the problems I found with it on the discussion page. Hope this helps.

I can only say that, since you seem to actually know something about this issue, God help you here. Nice to see a self-identified laborite here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

American Labor Union stub
A tag has been placed on American Labor Union, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template  to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ksbrown talk 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Haywood article
Hey, just wanted to personally thank you for your work on the Bill Haywood article. I put a lot of work into it, but just couldn't get anyone else involved. I've been on a Wikipedia hiatus, so I was quite pleased to come back and see the work that has been done. Excellent job! Perhaps we should soon think about putting it up for featured status... --JerryOrr 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't cool. Stop it.
Stop vandalizing pages. It's stupid.


 * False accusation.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky#Vandalism_to_Noam_Chomsky_article


 * Richard Myers 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Panhandlers Union
Just noticed you added the IWW tag to the Panhandlers Union article, and wanted to give you a heads-up. I'm Andrew Nellis, the organizer mentioned in the article. There used to be a Wikipedia article on me, personally, but it was destroyed by an organized cabal of anti-union, right-wing goons who happen to know me personally, aided and abetted by Wikipedia admin. It was an annoyance because I know that media have used the article about me in preparing for interviews, which gave us a chance to prime them. Given that my own Wikipedia article was not only deleted but salted to prevent it ever being created again, I've had to organize our local IWW branch to keep an eye on the Panhandlers Union article to make sure it, too, isn't sabotaged. I'd be much obliged if you could add it to your watch list and look in on it occasionally in case we need a hand.

In solidarity for the OBU. SmashTheState 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I have had sufficient idealogical battles over historical articles on Wikipedia that i'm convinced we need to work together on all such matters. If anyone forms a group for such a purpose, i'll join it. Richard Myers 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like we've both had run-ins with Mr Christopher over the Starbucks article too. Mr Christopher certainly seems to have an anti-union agenda.  He reverted the details I added to the section on the Starbucks Workers Union. SmashTheState 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an anti-union agenda, it's a trying to keep the Starbucks article about Starbucks agenda while keeping the union piece a reasonable length there. There is nothing sinister or agenda driven about trying to keep the focus of the Starbucks article about Starbucks and not the starbucks union.  At the Starbucks article, you, (State Smasher), noted that the 50 store picket was a significant item and belongs there yet it appears it was so significant that no one added it where it actually belongs, on the starbucks union articlle.  Instead you push that on the Starbucks one with not even a mention of it on the union article and you want to question my agenda?  A long term solution is warranted for the Starbucks article to keep it from becoming the blog/diary of the union where everything else in the article will be dwarfed by the union activities.   I'll be making some suggestions on how we can accomplish that soon.  Mr Christopher 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination for Bill Haywood article
I'm working to get the Bill Haywood article passed as a Good Article, and I think I need some help from you. The reviewer liked the article, but asked for more inline citations. I did what I could with the sources I had available, but I think the Industrial Unionism section is probably going to need more inline citations before they pass it. Specifically, the first two paragraphs need some citations for Haywood's opinions on the AFL-CIO, the Haymarket Riot, Gompers, and the advanatages of Industrial Unionism vs Craft Unionism. I think you got that information from two of the books you've been citing.

When you have a chance, do you think you could add these inline citations? If so, I think it'll pass Good Article... then we can look into pursuing Featured status. I think that would be a big boost for Organized Labor coverage on Wikipedia. --JerryOrr 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, i can do that. It may take a day or so. Richard Myers 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --JerryOrr 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks
As you did here and here. It is unprofessional, uncivil and does not contribute anything positive. I made comments about improving the article and you attacked me personally. Please stop. Mr Christopher 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please find some other playground. Richard Myers 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. I am requesting that you refrain from attacking me.  Mr Christopher 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA carefully. If you have concerns about another editor, Resolving disputes gives guidance on how to proceed: making personal attacks on a talk page is not an acceptable way to behave. ... dave souza, talk 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket
I responded over on the article talk page. You might want to consider starting a separate article on the deaths at the reaper factory. Gwen Gale 07:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Lo Pezza DRV
Hi,

I have just closed this. Pursuant to its consensus, I will move the userfied draft of yours to the mainspace. This will cause your userpage to appear to be deleted. Don't worry -- its content and history will merely be moved to Anna Lo Pezza. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just ran into you
at that IWW name vote and thought I'd say "Hi". The "red card" (never heard it called that) in the IWW piece is mine and I added the monument pictures at the Ludlow massacre article. I live in NM and pass throught there every now and again. Carptrash 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the shout. I checked out your page a few days ago, after your comment. You might enjoy this page on my website:


 * http://www.rebelgraphics.org/ludlow.html


 * Especially check out the monument was unveiled link.


 * best wishes, Richard Myers 05:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

union categories
Hi, Richard. I've started a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour, to hopefully get input centralized instead of across the many CFDs and user talk pages. Please feel free to weigh in there. — coe l acan — 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

song book
Fair enough. I have a copy. If I get around to it, I'll scan it in soon. -- TheMightyQuill 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
You do great work here, brother. Keep it up. ANON 2 Apr. 2007

Union busting article
I just want to say great job on the Union busting article. That article has been on my to-do list for some time, and I'd never gotten around to doing it. I'm glad someone's doing it, and you've added a lot of great stuff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stratton's Independence Mine and Mill
Thanks for your contributions to Stratton's Independence Mine and Mill. I'm working in fits and starts on Colorado's registered historic places and really appreciate it when an editor that really knows a particular topic contributes their knowledge. --Oddharmonic 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming from another employer-funded anti-union website?
I saw that as well. This quote from the website caught my eye. "Bring dignity and the promise of freedom back to Workers and Employers ending the tyranny of the Unions by protecting Business growth and Employee rights." I'm not the most neutral voice, but I would say it isn't a coincidence that Business growth is listed before Employee rights. :)

BTW, you're making an amazing contribution to WP with all your work. Praise can be a bit thin and far-between on this site - so I thought I'd add my voice to the barnstar you have farther up the page here. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Molly Maguires
I have placed the inuse template on the article for a specific reason, as I am sorting out the referencing which is a lengthy process. Please do not edit the article while this is ongoing, thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 18:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, i need a break from editing the article anyway. I'll check for the template when i return. best wishes, Richard Myers 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had to temporarily remove the edit you just made, but I'm working on putting it back now. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All fixed. What I've done is merge the duplicate references together, as it saves the references section getting too long. Don't worry if you're adding new references from the same books, I'll be happy to merge them afterwards if necessary. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wheeeee! I see you two have had fun! (especially Richard). Be bold indeed. I've got the page on my watch list in case a storm of disruptive edits start, but, given the talk page consensus, I'm confident these can be quashed. What's there should stand, for general review and comment by other editors, and not be pulled down and denied review, because some editors think it is telling the "revisionist" story (whatever that is). It's better. Not perfect, but a basis for improvement.


 * Critical comment: running long and wordy in places. particulary the history passages leading up to the executions. Some of it feels more like a labor history of the region and I lose track of the Mollies (I start nodding off). I think it can be terser there. Perhaps some of this material can support the history section of the Coal Region, which the Molly article can reference. Rhodes: I would prefer citing Rhodes, rather than blockquoting him. He characterizes the accepted view that rooted in the late 19th century, which is part of the "gentrified view" story. That historical view can and should be paraphrased, rather than quoting one author at length, and Rhodes, McCabe (1877) and some contemporary newspaper editorials can serve as a reference base for such paraphrasing. I could undertake such, but it would be a few weeks from now. Richard seems to be moving faster than that.
 * One inconsistency: maybe others. The aftermath notes that the Mollies were forced to disband after thirty years (1847 - 1877) but the lead paragraph suggests a much more limited time span. I think this stems from the media spash that the hangings created in the summer of 1877; two or three years is about right for the attention span the media of the era gave to the group. In the article, the distinction is not clear. Hope you feel good about this, Richard; it represents a lot of effort. Thank you. — Gosgood 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks. I feel good about the article, but am not yet satisfied. I'm hoping to find time to order more sources, to double-check the history that i've put up. There are at least a few single-sourced points that ought to be verified further. And, i expect there are available sources which are even more focused on the specific history.


 * Also, the trials and executions sections are not yet finished, i have more complete information to add.


 * The noted inconsistency is between text from the previous article, and new material. I think we don't know which is more accurate, and i believe we could probably find authoritative sources from one extreme to the other. But this represents some of the uncertainty even between historians.


 * In any case, i do like an article that cites specific information, rather than the generalities of the Rhodes insert. I would not mind seeing more additions that support the Rhodes' point of view, if they add to the details of the historical tale, and not just to the broad, sweeping allegations. best wishes, Richard Myers 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ott-Out IWW
The Ottawa-Outaouais IWW GMB is putting together a website and we need material. You sprang instantly to my mind. Do you happen to have any relevant material which we could put on the site? If so, I can put you in contact with our web development person and perhaps our archivist. SmashTheState 16:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What sort of material? Richard Myers 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Background on the IWW, militant labour struggle in general, and anything which will make the site a little less awful than all the other IWW GMB websites we've been looking at. We could pull material from the main IWW.org site, but we'd rather have some unique material.  We're engaged in active organizing here, and it would be nice if we had a site we could point prospective job shops to which featured pro-union material emphasizing the dramatic and effective history of radical unionism. SmashTheState 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm currently quite focused upon other areas, particularly the Western Federation of Miners' struggle in Colorado, the Molly Maguires, and more general topics such as union busting, labor spies, and early federation efforts. I anticipate that i'll begin focusing on the IWW in a few months. Most of my writing will appear on Wikipedia, but of course what i write here is certainly available for other uses. best wishes, Richard Myers 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Union dues
Is there a mechanism for deleting pages that do not come up to any acceptable standard? Having a well researched article that you don't agree with is one thing - but rubbish is something else. - Dave Smith


 * There is a policy page at Deletion policy. However, the Union dues page could easily be improved rather than deleted, in my view. best wishes, Richard Myers 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IWW
I laughed when I read your edit summary. I looked at the page about an hour ago, and I'll confess that I thought "No, I bet someone else will have something to say about that." Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 09:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Left and war
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Left and war, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Left and war. Thank you. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Centralia Massacre
Phi Alpha Theta buff 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC) .... Mr. Myers, I was able to get scanned images of 1919 & 1920 era source documentation and am starting to make updates and add references to the Centralia Massacre article. Enjoy!! Sincerely, Phi Alpha Theta buff

Panhandlers' Union
The union article is under attack, and we could use your assistance. This is, we believe, part of an organized campaign which began as a result of the introduction of our Copwatch program. Posters appeared on the streets here which featured me with a gun pointed in my mouth, my Internet account was hacked, my blog vandalized, my email deleted, and now, less than a week later, someone who clearly has an axe to grind has nominated the Ottawa Panhandlers Union article for deletion. The usual wolfpack has formed and it's clear they don't much care how many media references we produce, nothing will convince them the union is notable. Any insight you can contribute to the discussion would be appreciated. Maybe you could let some folks at the Labour portal know about this too? SmashTheState 01:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

First Convention of the Industrial Workers of the World
AFL-CIO and IWW member at once? Not always the happiest of friends. In any case, you cited the Brissenden book The I.W.W. which... I know there was a printing of the second edition in 1920 which I have seen but your date was 1919 so... could you add publisher information (city, publisher, edition info, etc.) on either the page or my userpage. gren グレン 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Union busting
Hi Richard, I made some style changes to your this article, which I think you've worked very hard on. I hope they're an improvement. I removed those tags - I think there may have been something about the quote farm thing though. Maybe I could suggest integrating some of the opinions of the former union buster and Dr Logan could be integrated more into the text? Otherwise it looks like an endorsement, when they aren't talking about specific events or cases. But great work!  Wik idea  20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Coeur d'Alene miners' dispute -- stub?
I used a computer program to rate the article for WikiProject Idaho. It gave it a "Stub" rating because other projects had given it a stub rating. I will go back and rate the article by hand. Sorry for the inconvenience! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Query about the possible return of a sock puppet
Matching accounts and IP's is done at WP:Requests for Checkuser, but that's used when there is a possible violation. (You'd want to start with WP:Suspected sock puppets anyway, since that page judges by behavior.) People are generally allowed to have that kind of information kept private unless there's reason to believe rules are being broken. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per what is posted at that talk page, 64.81.85.165 is definitely user:Rgcroc. Based upon the edit summaries at The Burke Group, I think User:jbowersox probably is a sock. I don't think, however, that this person is related to the sock report I'd filed a while back, which appeared to be people from the company. The info I'd given you before became outdated right after I sent it; SSP and RFCU are now merged into WP:Sockpuppet investigations. I'm not sure if a RFCU would be granted in this instance, but if not, the behavioral evidence alone is pretty clear. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. It would probably be a good idea then to file the sock report as "Oppo212 (2nd)", since that was the master I used in the first case, and list the IP and two user names as suspected socks. I'm not sure about checkuser, especially seeing as the IP from the old case isn't the same ISP as the new one (though sockpuppet operators often switch ISPs). Bottom line, whether or not they're the same person as the first group, they're almost certainly related to each other, which is disruptive by itself. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jbowersox is denying the connection, but I'm not convinced. I noticed these diffs: rgcroc removed a chunk of content with their last edit to Burke Group, Jbowersox started editing right after; the rgcroc text was reinstated, and Jbowersox reverted. The edit summary summary on that last diff sure looks like someone from the company as well. Additionally, both exhibit the same unique behavior, adding formatted links to articles to the external links section:   I'm looking at Oppo212's contributions, and the writing style sure looks the same. In fact, looking through Burke Group, I may have found another sock,, who edited before rgcroc and has made one recent edit. I'll leave it up to you, since you raised the issue, but I think a report at WP:SPI is definitely warranted. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Union Busting
I created this page from your material from the Union Busting article. Because this had been your baby for so long, I just thought that you'd like to know.

I did this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is enough there to make a good article. But also, the current union busting article is too long, and there seems to be a push to include more international stuff on there too. For that reason, I believe that the "history of" section of the Union Busting article should be and will be much shorter in the near future.

Anyway, I will try and make the new article nice, and I assume you'd like to make your grandchild better.LedRush (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thank you. Richard Myers (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Burke Group socks
I just filed a report about the accounts we'd talked about; the report is here: Sockpuppet investigations/Oppo212. Some new users have been trying to clean it up, and I figured it would help to ensure this user didn't interfere. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, they've already been blocked. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes he is; I already filed a sock report for the first, which is blocked already: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppo212. appears to be another, but that account has only posted to the talk as yet, so I'll wait until they start mangling the article before I send it to SPI. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, not much that can be done about an IP. It could be blocked, but it's probably a dynamic IP, so they could reset their gateway and get another one. I wouldn't want to request semi-protection because we had a good-faith IP user there, plus THF is going to block any attempt to stop Burke from editing the article, as he's been doing with the socks. (As I posted at the talk, he's almost certainly working for them, but he's covering his tracks too well to nail him on it.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

--kelapstick (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

November 1987 Proclamation
Do you mean November 1897? Porturology (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, that's what i get for editing while tired. Thanks! Richard Myers (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Idaho labor history edits
No complaints, but please don't post unreferenced information; just wait until you can post the references and the information. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Concerning Message from the UK
I can't really say I'm surprised. I see a new user magically popping up there, repeating the same comments. What they're saying is too new to tell, but I suspect with some more messages they'll start to look an awful lot like Oppo212 again. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just visited your website. Very nice. Let me restructure the uneducated comment. It pertains only to UK issues for which you and your friend above are editing and does not represent the Gestalt. Please note you pushed first, I merely pushed back because, to this non editor observer, you were hostile. --Carrick44 (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not hostile. You're just another sock puppet of the same old puppet master. End of story.


 * Please don't edit my talk page again. Richard Myers (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent discussions at WikiProject Mining
Hi, there are some discussions you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining about: Cheers, --kelapstick (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)--kelapstick (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions for multiple mines with the same name
 * Using "Categorty:Metal mine in Country" in community/company articles
 * Capitalizing the word "mine" in article titles

Some terrible news
Hi Richard,

Apologies if you already know this, but Zango is no more. Just thought you'd like to know :-) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Move Proposal for Ludlow Massacre
This is a bit after the fact, but I wanted to say that I found your comments here in response to my proposal to move Ludlow Massacre hurtful and unhelpful. The reason I've done work on the article (and will continue to, as soon as I have more time) is that I think more people ought to know about what happened there. But you'll notice that the article has attracted controversy before. For this reason, I think it's important to frame editorial discussions in a neutral, respectful tone. That way, the article is more likely to be improved rather than mired in disputes. In my opinion, this will ultimately serve the memory of the victims better than name-calling on the talk page. At any rate, I'm glad you feel strongly about this issue and look forward to collaborating with you on this article in the future. --Ori.livneh (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)