User talk:Tim1965/TalkArchives15

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Malone
Tim, thank you for the article on Michael Malone. I had the honor of meeting him during my undergrad years at MSU in the 80s. He was heading up grad studies (etc) while I was there and so I never had him for a professor, he was a guest speaker in numerous classes and lectures, involved in some of the academic things I also was involved with, and a real asset to the state. It was a tragedy to lose him before his time. Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I just asked MSU today for a photo of him to get into WikiCommons under a CC-SA-BY 3.0 license.  I am keeping my fingers crossed!  I so want an image of him in that article. - Tim1965 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tietz
Fun to see your work on the MSU Presidents. Don't suppose you can find a RS that Tietz dated Dorothy Bradley for a while? Was mucho topic of gossip at the time... Montanabw (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, I can! I had no idea this was a big deal.  (It's what I get for leaving state and going to PLU.) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Montana
I've done work on the media section. The sections under demographics all have cite needed tags. I have had much trouble finding good cites. Any ideas? Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look this week. I'm at the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington today and tomorrow. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!
Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Resource for historical images of Montana State University
FYI: There is a digital collection of historical photographs of MSU at MSU Library Digital Historical Photos and more are added each semester. McMormor (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that. It's an excellent resource. The copyright status of a lot of the images renders them useless for WikiCommons, however. One or two might be used for fair-use, but I prefer to upload things to Commons. I've learned that the keys are a) the image has to have been published, and b) the author has to be known. The publication status of most of the images on the MSU Library Digital Historical Photos site isn't established. WikiCommons assumes, therefore, that they are being published for the first time now -- which means they are under copyright by MSU for at least 70 years. Then there's the work-for-hire status of the images, which is often unknown. The rule of thumb Commons uses in such cases is 70/120: If the author is identified by name, copyright is assume to have lapsed 70 years after the image was taken. If unidentified, 120 years must elapse. I hate copyright law. History is taken out of the hands of people who should be learning it, and restricted to the few. Argh! - Tim1965 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone ought to ask MSU to clarify the status of these images so they can be more fully utiized.  Montanabw (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They might not know the status themselves. For an image taken in, say, 1934: Was it a work-for hire? If it was, MSU owns the image and can release it under an appropriate license. But MSU might not have those records. This leaves the image in limbo. To be safe, MSU would need to license the image appropriately, but it and any other user would still have to apply the known/unknown rule and the 70/120 rule. This was a lot easier under the Copyright Protection Act of 1910. But no, Congress had to enact a new copyright act in 1976 that extended copyright to 70 years from 28 years, covered unpublished works... And then they passed the damn "Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act" in 1998 that extended copyright again to 95 from 70 years!!! (If my hair were any longer, I would be pulling it out.) Oh, I'm just so... OH!  GRR!  OH! - Tim1965 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Were you the person who helped me on the Albert, Alfred and Chris Schlechten article? MSU I think owns those now, and I bet there are at least a signficiant number of other images they could work with and release.  Montanabw (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not me, no. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway, I got an image from there in with a Fair Use rationale. For a critical historic image, I think that can work.   Montanabw (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Fair Use is pretty easy to get, if there is a real rationale for it. A person just has to really stick to the rules. But, dang it all, I want to add to Commons! I wish someone in the world knew someone highly placed at MSU and could go to them and advocate for a complete donor-dump of images. Other libraries around the world are doing this. Why can't Montana State University? - Tim1965 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, try User:Mike Cline. He lives in Bozeman and has been a WP Ambassador at MSU, I think. If there's anyone with boots on the ground, he's your guy.  (I'm not, I don't live in Bozeman nor have connections at MSU any more)  Montanabw (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * GASP! No connections any more? What will the Alumni Association say?!? - Tim1965 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL, they still send me fundraising appeals. But so does UM.  I went to both schools and I now ignore both of them, though technically my adjunct job is under the UM banner....  Montanabw (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Murder Bay
The article is created. What do you think? Thanks for the links, I missed a couple of those. McKay (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great start! There might be even more information (including cites) in those other articles, notably the Pennsylvania Avenue article.  - Tim1965 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Haunting (1963 film)
Hi, I've made some additions and nommed for GA. Thanks for your work on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WOW! That's some excellent work you did!  I hope it gets through...  A pre-GA review of Ben-Hur tore the article apart, and I still don't know why. I can try to help with things, if you need to. My sense is that I found pretty much all that there has been written about the film, with a few exceptions. But it's been quite a while since I worked on it. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see. Ben Hur is one of my favourite films of all time.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's one of mine, too, which is why I spent my Christmas vacation (literally) working on it. That article had gone from a tiny, under-cited, inaccurate one to something comprehensive and completely cited. The writing style needed improvement, images were needed, and some reorganization needed. It might even have been too comprehensive. But there were commenters claiming "it wasn't even C-class" and some editors removing whole cited sections (or trying to) without discussion. There was no recognition of the work done, just rude comments (for the most part). I stopped trying to work on it, and just gave up. I think the Ben-Hur article suffered a lot afterward. (And now people wonder why editors aren't contributing much any more.) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, is it going to be a good Halloween, or what? The Haunting is out on Blu-ray, and so is The Uninvited, Hammer's Dracula: Prince of Darkness, most of the Universal classic horror films (Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man), and a bunch of Vincent Price films (House of Wax, The Pit and the Pendulum, Masque of the Red Death, The Haunted Palace, Fall of the House of Usher, The Abominable Dr. Phibes and Witchfinder General). I'm going to be poor, but I will be terrified. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look into the Ben Hur article history. If anything unjust has been done I'll undo it. Yeah, if I had to put a candidate for greatest film of all time it would probably be out of Ben Hur, Lords of the Rings as a trilogy (which is a complete masterpiece), and The Kid (1921 film). What about you? I'm still gradually increasing my viewing of films, so there might be many films I'm yet to see which are better. I'm currently watching every Academy Award winner and have now reached A Man for All Seasons. Yup, love the Hammer horror and Vincent Price's films, I adore his voice! I was thinking of working on King Kong (1933 film) but I think I'll work on Bringing Up Baby next. Would you be interested? It's a brilliant comedy, one of the best IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So what films do you consider the greatest of all time?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh gosh... Citizen Kane. Sunset Boulevard.  Ben-Hur. To Kill A Mockingbird.  Rear Window. Casablanca. Lawrence of Arabia. Doctor Zhivago. The Wizard of Oz. Singin' in the Rain. It's A Wonderful Life. Network. Treasure of the Sierra Madre. High Noon.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. The Bridge on the River Kwai. The African Queen. Star Wars. North By Northwest. The Silence of the Lambs. Tootsie. Annie Hall. All Quiet on the Western Front. The Maltese Falcon. The Best Years of Our Lives. It Happened One Night. Miracle on 34th Street. Jaws. The Man Who Knew Too Much. Amadeus. Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Fellowship of the Ring. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The Machurian Candidate. Patton. Alien. The Apartment.  I know, that's way too many to think that they are all great.  But that's what I think!  I think  Citizen Kane is probably the best, because it came so early in film (just 1941) and innovated so many things we take utterly for granted today. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly Citizen Kane and The Best Years of Our Lives didn't do anything for me and I don't get why they're rated so highly but agree with you on most of the others being fantastic films. High Noon though I thought was a little overrated and wasn't a spectacular western, I thought Broken Arrow, even Shenandoah were superior films and I rate Leone's Dollars westerns very highly. I preferred We seem to generally have a similar perception of films except for those. Double Indemnity and Vertigo also great films. Admittedly I didn't like The Best Years of Our Lives, I found it boring, even though I think most of the director's films including Ben Hur are brilliant (Roman Holiday is one of my favourites too), I felt that It's a Wonderful Life was a more worthy Best Picture candidate.♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

City Lights now a GA, fingers crossed on The Haunting!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You guys have a fun project going here. I'm a ' Kane fan and enjoyed a lot of Hitchcock.  I think Charlton Hesston is generally overrated (still cringe to see the "pigtail" glued to his crew cut in The Ten Commandments) but Ben Hur at the top of the list.  (Though a soft spot for Planet of the Apes as classic sci-fi even if not quite worthy of the "great" labels...) Do not forget the original Bogie and Bacall, To Have and Have Not. (One of Hemingway's weaker novels but made a delightful film, and am I correct that William Faulkner wrote the screenplay?)  To the modern list add The Unforgiven and the newer version of True Grit to the list of westerns that will stand the test of time, but do not forget the great  oldies like Giant.  I personally loved Hepburn in The Lion in Winter (as well as a young Anthony Hopkins, often not remembered for his role there...), but then I loved Hepburn in damn near anything. Sorry to butt in, just had to join in the passing conversation... (Montanabw)

I'm a big Eastwood fan but I consider both Million Dollar Baby and Changeling to be superior to Unforgiven. I thought Eastwood's best American western was Josey Wales, although I tend to watch High Plains Drifter more. Unforgiven still a very good film though of course! Psycho was Hitchcock's best film in my opinion, although of course Vertigo, Man Who Knew Too Much, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Rebecca etc also great films. I got an early Hitchcock movie The Mountain Eagle up to GA recently too. Worst Hitchcock movie I've seen is Jamaica Inn, really awful, completely fails to create the atmosphere of such a place and Charles Laughton was completely inappropriate casting. Tim I'm going to watch Eskimo on the weekend, might be able to get it to GA status. The Haunting was promoted to GA earlier.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ARRRRRRR! ('Tis International Talk Like a Pirate Day) Matey, that be th' easiest GA this pirate's ever walked the plank on! Ye've got me thanks and a portion of me pirate treasure fer helpin' out wi' that barnacle-bitten article. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Montanabw, or did you mean The Unforgiven (1960 film)?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the Clint Eastwood one. Unforgiven.  Very dark, more real than the Spaghetti westerns or the hero in a cowboy hat flicks.    Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that Eastwood's High Plains Drifter was his darkest western.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree there, but I think Unforgiven had more elements of a deeper metaphorical understanding of the west and its place in the human psyche. "We all got it coming" is a magnificent line. ;-)    Montanabw (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider Shawshank in with your above list? It's currently the best film I've ever seen I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 05:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * in DC? A place so insane it makes wiki look normal? DC, AKA the mushroom factory (ie, shovel in a big pile of shit and watch stuff grow)? NO WAY.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't harsh on my town! D.C. is a great city. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Only certain regions of Capitol Hill are true mushroom factories (which region depends on your political affiliation and the level of darkness contained therein).  The rest of the place (other than K Street) is pretty fun.    Montanabw (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't find Congress to be broken. Every political system has problems. But Congress and our democracy are working pretty well. If there's deadlock, I'm all for it: It means that Side A is sticking to its guns, and Side B is sticking to its guns. It means deep issues of principle are at stake, and compromise is not possible. Sometimes, people are just stubborn, but I hardly think that's what's going on in Congress in the past 25 years. I see fundamental and opposing views about the future of the country at stake — not just in Congress, but among the American people. Congress only reflects what the people want. Every single study shows that members of Congress are easily ousted by voters, despite corporate money and the influence of a few billionaires. A representative who wins with 90 percent of the vote today, loses tomorrow. "Unsafe at any margin" is the rule. And if a person likes Side A and is upset that Side B's representative keeps winning, don't blame "big business" or "gerrymandering" or whatnot. Blame the voters who love Side B and keep electing that person. The system is not perfect, and there are problems. But fundamental problems? This Ph.D. in political science is not yet convinced. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You give me some hope. However, the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision does not.  If paid advertising has no impact on people's thinking, then a lot of commercial vendors are wasting their money selling us Wal-Mart and flavored water! It there was a level playing field, I'd largely agree with you but there is not.  Nonetheless, I do agree that citizen responsibility does need to be considered -- I think of Rousseau's "people get the government they deserve" (which I think referenced Russia, which is even more interesting).  (This BA PolS and JD is far more cynical about human nature... ;-) lol  )   Montanabw (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Citizens United led to massive spending by conservatives (almost exclusively), and yet little of the fundamental dynamic changed. One might argue that this spending propped up a Republican Party which otherwise would have collapsed, but we have no way of knowing. The truth is, as Saul Alinsky and others have pointed out for a half-century, feet on the ground beat money every time. A strong campaign (educating the public about a candidate's values and goals, inoculating the public about the tricks and lies the opponent will tell, testing support and getting supporters to go public with support, and getting out the vote) wins every time. My sense is that, since the collapse of the Christian Coalition a decade ago, the GOP has little in the way of ground troops. Not even the Tea Baggers have a strong ground operation beyond their own limited numbers. And within 10 years, the over-saturation of media, the lack of media attention given by the latter half of Gen Y (those born after 1995) and by Millennials (those born after 2005), and the inability to reach late-Gen Yers/Millennials except via friends, colleagues, co-workers, and word-of-mouth (gosh, social networks!...and I don't mean Facebroke) is likely to cause an even further collapse in the GOP support structure unless the party radically changes. I'm very cynical about human nature, but I don't believe political advertising has as much of an effect as people believe. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't find Congress to be broken." HUH? It's far worse than that. We have the sequester which is getting civil servants furloughed, fed contractors laid off, and AGAIN are about to face a gov shutdown in less than two weeks. Don't get me started on Obama and ObamaCare. If your job and the jobs of those you know are affected by this, I'm sure your view would change. I do agree boots on the ground beats money and that if the GOP doesn't change really quick, it's doomed. The GOP as we know it is too old, too white, and too male.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, PSky and I agree again on some things! I think the " One might argue that this spending propped up a Republican Party which otherwise would have collapsed" may be true, as is my variant on the too old/white/male, which is the GOP is too hostile to the young, nonwhite and/or female, as well as their ongoing obsession with "ggg"  (God, Guns, Gays).  But Tim, I think you mean by GenY and Millennials, coming of age after 1995/2000, not born (though the teens and tweens of today are kind of interesting people) (grin).   Montanabw (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the sequester means "broken". It means that the GOP is sticking to its principles and trying to defund Obamacare and trying to significantly shrink the size of government. And it means that the Dems are sticking to their principles and resisting both. Why does this mean "broken"? Sometimes, deadlock is perfectly OK. I'm sure no Democratic Party supporter wants to wake up in the morning and discover that the Democrats have suddenly caved in and allowed both the defunding of healthcare reform or that massive and permanent government spending cuts are now acceptable. Conversely, no Republican wants to wake up one day to discover that his/her party has caved in, either. Deadlock is OK. It means that representatives were elected pledging to do things, and rely on certain values, and they are doing that rather than. This is what voters want them to do. If we don't like it, we have to elect more Democrats/Republicans and a Democratic/Republican President to ensure that "our" policies get enacted. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant what I said: Late-Gen Yers are already of voting age, and my comment was aimed at 10 years from now when the first Millennials (those born in 2005) will come of voting age. Every study shows that voting turnout is low among 18-to-30 year olds, but begins significantly ramping upward after age 30. Late-Gen Yers are just now beginning to vote; interestingly, their turnout in the presidential election of 2012 was far, far higher than history would have predicted. If this trend holds true for the next two presidential elections, Millennials will also be turning out at rates much higher than historically. (Not sure yet if they will, but...) Late-Gen Yers already gave Obama a big part of the edge he needed to win in 2012. There's no evidence (yet) that their allegiance to the Demcoratic Party is going to slacken, nor that they will fail to turn out in higher-than-average rates in the future (at least in presidential elections). The same social forces are acting on Millennials, and there's no evidence sociologically, economically, or in politican science to indicate that they will be any different than Late-Gen Yers. One has to seriously consider that 2008 and the Great Recession created a "realigning election" much as 1932 did for the Democrats or 1860 did for the GOP. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh, technically, the "millennials" are Generation_Y - my kiddo among them at age 30 (one of the earliest, though she kind of likes to identify as a late Gen Xer). Otherwise, I do agree with you. Montanabw (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There's so much confusion as to how to count generations. There's no standard definition, and terminology is whatever anyone wants to think up. I contend that a generation lasts 20 years, as most people don't start marrying and having kids until they are at least 20 years old (e.g., they do not "generate" the next generation until then). Most women in the U.S. stop bearing children around age 40 (most earlier), so there's the end of the generation. Under my reasoning, if we assume that the Baby Boom begins when troops start coming home in 1945, that means the boom is over in 1964. Gen X begins with me (my birthday is Jan. 23 — 1-2-3) in 1965, and ends in 1984.  Gen Y runs from 1984 to 2004, and Millennials would begin to be born in 2005. (I can't call someone born in 1984 a "Millennial", as that makes no sense to me.) In some ways, such rigid definitions of "generation" are silly. I learned computer programming in the sixth grade, and was in college in 1984 when the Mac Plus came out and began revolutionizing the computer industry.  But someone born in 1975 is far more like someone born in 1985 in terms of their acceptance of technology; however, they're probably more politically (and perhaps socially) conservative than someone born in 1985, because they came of age under Reagan. Anyway, so much of this talk about "generations" is media-driven, and the media loves to pick up on whatever cutsie term of pop sociology Malcolm Gladwell or some other non-academic is pushing this week. There's precious little clear-headed thinking out there.  It's far more important, I think, to talk about someone who came of age during the Great Recession (a fairly formative experience, socially and politically) or when Modern Family was on the air and how that will affect their future behavior.  Rather than fit the birth-date to the event, it's events that shape and force us to look backward. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would mostly agree with you there, though I have more often seen 25 years to signify a human generation, at least biologically if not culturally... what drives me nuts are the people who are obsessed with round numbers, I unquestionably am a boomer, if a late boomer (born during the Kennedy administration to older parents, my dad turned 90 last week), and the people who claim the boomers were born 1940-1960 just drive me nuts, as it was a POSTWAR baby boom, duh...and the demographics are quite clear on the matter! ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Brookwood
Hey Tim. A blast from the past here... A piece that you started back in 2006 on Brookwood Labor College remains completely unsourced more than half a decade later. Obviously, WP sourcing standards have morphed over the years; I'm fully confident everything is "right" in it as well... Still, it's time for us to get that up to contemporary sourcing standards, methinks. (1) Do you have any inclination to do this work? (2) If not, what book or books were you working from on it? Best regards and keep up the good work! —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow! Well, it looks like someone turned what I called "references" into "Further Reading" and really expanded it. I can take a look at it soon. I've got one article in the hopper that's close to finishing, and then I'll take a look. It's been expanded so much, though, I'm not sure I can do everything. But we'll see. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, that would have been me. I like to split things up as "Footnotes" and "Further Reading" to make the difference between cited sources and other sources out there in the world crystal clear, "References" being ambiguous. Sorry if that messes you up a bit, hopefully you can decode from the history. best regards, —Tim1961. /// Carrite (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be OK. I'll see what I can do. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Oy vey... My fingers and wrists are sore! - Tim1965 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You. WILL. Love. This!
JFK was in Montana 50 years ago this week:
 * http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20130921/NEWS01/309210019
 * http://www.greatfallstribune.com/videonetwork/2676491506001?odyssey=mod|tvideo2|article

I believe (according to my mom) that I was present at this speech, (and probably in the crowd shot of the second video too, mom says she followed the entourage all over town) though I was only a toddler in a stroller, so can't claim any independent recollection. You'll love the still photos of Great Falls they add to illustrate the speech clip; the speech at about 8-9 minutes in are particularly fun! Montanabw (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!! I included a teensy mention of this in the GFHS article, and desperately need more images to beef that thing up. This will help add to that mention! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I should mention: I was at American University in grad school in 1993 when the school celebrated the 30th anniversary of Kennedy's test-ban treaty speech, which occurred at AU's commencement.  The School of Public Affairs (where I was a grad student) sponsored the event, and I got to help out.  We had Ted Sorenson and Ted Kennedy speak. Kennedy had to be helped to the podium. At first, we all thought he was seriously ill. Later, we realized he was drunk! He apparently had real emotional difficulty handling commemorative events for his dead brother. But Kennedy's speech was a whiz-banger, and he wowed the crowd, even tipsy. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent change to Tomb of Unknown Soldier
Hi, I recently discovered that my mom's photos are posted on various websites in reference to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. She is the girl in Sailor and Girl at the Tomb...taken in 1943 by John Collier. I was very happy to see one of these beautiful photos on Wikipedia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The photo represents the emotional impact of the site. It looks like you might have replaced it with another photo. Could you revert it back to the original image??? I would really appreciate it. Thank you, Margaretmccloskey (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Meetup
Dear Fellow Wikipedian in Washington, DC:

I do not know if you know this but on meetup.com there is a group focused on sponsoring meetups for edit-o-thons of Wikipedia called Wikimedia DC. Wikimedia DC is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. The meetup group is free to join and Wikimedia DC membership is as simple as filling out a form. I hope to see you at the next meet up. My best regards, Geraldshields11 Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You are going to love this one!
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/keyboard-virtuoso-piano-pat-rocks-the-sip-n-dip-lounge Article idea? Montanabw (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This just can't be. There is no Sip 'n Dip article?????????????? - Tim1965 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. Search, see what you can find, but I don't think so. I found some cc-licensed images on Flickr and will try to upload them if you want to start the article.  I can help with it a bit if you ping me about it.    Montanabw (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, not even an article for O'Haire Motor Inn or any of the variations on Sip 'N Dip. Well. That needs to be fixed. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for you: File:Sip n Dip mermaid1.jpg and File:Last call at the Sip'n'Dip.jpg (found on Flickr, yay!)   Montanabw (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Natan
I wanted to check with you about this page. I've been trying to get it in line with the current understanding of the case, which has moved on massively since Professor Joseph Slade wrote his article.

I'm also in touch with Natan's descendants, including two of his granddaughters. They were particularly shocked by the little sidebar which said "Ethnicity: Romanian; Jewish." Apart from anything else, it is questionable whether Romanian is an ethnicity -- it's a nationality, and one Natan abandoned when he was made a French citizen after the war -- and even "Jewish" could be questioned as an ethnicity. It's a religious persuasion taking in people of many different races.

But even more significantly than that, "Ethnicity" is not a commonly-used heading in Wikipedia entries. If I look up George Clooney, I find a very full entry with lots of information, but no special mention of his ehtnicity. It feels in questionable taste to draw special attention to Natan's background in this manner. The article itself makes clear that he was Jewish and Eastern European and these were the reasons he was deported and ultimately killed. The whole article has had to undergo revision not just for facts but for good taste: it was unseemly to me that the article previously claimed that Natan was "released from prison in 1941." He didn't really enjoy his "freedom", did he?

So mainly in the interests of taste I'd love to delete this unnecessary drawing attention to race as if it should define the man. Can we agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donpayasos (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant if Natan's descendants think its is upsetting. He was not merely Semitic, but Jewish—a term which refers to both a person's ethnicity but also can refer to a person's religion. Romanian is clearly an ethnicity as well as a nationality. (Just ask any Romanian living in an enclave within Hungary, Serbia, Ukraine, or Bulgaria.) "Ethnicity" could be replaced with "Nationality" (both are used by the Template:Infobox person template)—which is an agreed-upon, consensus document. Whether you or I or the Natans or anyone else finds it "creepy" to include ethnicity (or nationality) in the Infobox person template is irrelevant:  The parameter exists in the infobox, and is widely accepted by the WikiProject Biography WikiProject.


 * As for the "released in 1941"—that's what the citation said, and unlike some editors I'm not going to engage in original research even though I think I know better. What happened to Natan is both monstrous and controversial, and I don't think it serves Natan as a person to start injecting "truth" that is not verified by unbiased, published sources. I personally have not read what happened to him after 1941, other than he died in prison. No sources, as far as I could find at the time I wrote the first edition of that article, discussed how he ended up in a concentration camp nor for what reason. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)