User talk:Tim1965/TalkArchives4

United Teachers of New Orleans
Hey, thanks for bringing UTNO to Wikipedia! I do have a question, though: What is your reference for the "anarchy committee" in 1969? Also, I updated the membership numbers for the union- we are reorganizing. Croselund (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are reorganizing. Yonna Carroll has been doing a good job down there. (Does Leonard Lee find any good beer to drink down there? He's an afficionado of premium brew.) More power to you! The cite for the "anarchy committee" was Robert Braun's book. I've added the cite to the paragraph (the committee cite is on page 15). - Tim1965 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Leonard was a beer drinker. Yonna is in Oregon and Leonard has been running the project for a year.  Thanks for the rewrite; I'm impressed with your ability to assemble information that few people outside this office are aware of. Croselund (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Actually, I knew next to nothing about UTNO until I started doing the research. It doesn't take much except for looking in the Index to Newspapers at my local library to find newspaper stories, and checking out the few books written about AFT (most of which stop in 1970 or so) and looking up "New Orleans" or "United Teachers of New Orleans" in the index. It's very basic research. Most of the post-Katrina history was pulled right out of the AFT's own report on charter schools in New Orleans, and additional information came from labor list-servs like Portside, LabourStart and others. This is not rocket science. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bisbee deportation
Hey, good job on the expansion of this article, I'd been thinking about doing it myself, and you beat me to it. Well done! Murderbike (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's such a good story, and it had sat for nearly a year without improvement.  I wish I could find images to go with it, though... - Tim1965 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick google image search turned up several, and it's safe to assume they're all PD, since it was 1917. Were you just being picky, or not find any you liked? Murderbike (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with nearly all the images I can find is that they are in the possession of someone else. For example, all those on the University of Arizona Web site? The actual image may be PD, but not that scan -- which is owned by UA. And since I can't show that I went to UA and scanned the image (or that they gave me permission to scan the PD image which they control), I'm stuck. I did a search on Wikipedia, Wiki Commons, and Library of Congress and came up with nothing. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it seems like as long as there's no watermark, photos would at least be available under some sort of "historical significance" non-free license. Murderbike (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate using non-free images; there are so few PD labor images out there, I really want to find PD ones so they can be used over and over. I'm going to keep searching for a PD image, but if I can't find one in a couple of days then I'll upload one of the good ones from UA and use the non-free historical image license. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I love history, and this sort of incident is jaw-dropping. (And fun to research!) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AVN (magazine)
Thank you for your very flattering assessment of the AVN (magazine) article, giving it a B rating. However, I felt you overrated it so I went back and added more things to try and deserve it. Enjoy. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For an article about pornography, it's pretty good (no matter what the origin of those sources). Because of legal repression and social opporbrium (how's that for high-sounding words early on a Saturday morning?), it is exceedingly difficult to find good sources on topics related to adult film, photography, and writing. Worse, much of AVN's history as a company is oral in nature, with backdoor dealings, sex traded for awards, photos bartered for ad space, etc.  Not only is it not written down, it's never going to be because it's so shady. (And AVN is relatively clean as a company! I have stories to tell you about Falcon Studios and Unzipped magazine and other gay porn-side companies which would make you wonder how any of these morons make money.) So yeah, I thought it was a B.  A weak B, but a B. Not a GA, not by a long shot (yet!). And it'll get better over time. I really appreciate the work you did on that article, too. You write well. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Evanson, is that you? Vinh1313 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, silly. Who else uses Tim1965 for his LJ account? (You never made the connection? Bad boy!)  Go ahead, email me. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Yablonski
Nice work fixing up the Joseph Yablonski article. As I was living in Kentucky at the time, and supporting the reform movement in the UMWA, the Black Lung Association, and the Miners for Democracy, it's great to see this part of the history summarized, referenced, and documented. Dwalls (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words for the article. When I first read about the murder of Jock Yablonski, I could hardly believe it.  The more I dug into it, the more I realized what a turning point for the UMWA it was.  (And I come from Montana, and had no idea who Tony Boyle was, either.)  I also wrote the article on Chip and Kenneth Yablonski, improved the article on Tony Boyle, and wrote the (rather lengthy) article on Arnold Miller.  Personally, I find the death of the Yablonskis to be as scary and evil as that of the Clutters in Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. And it was a story which deserved to be told. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FLOC
It is my opinion that you censored a fact that I recently added to the Wikipedia page on the Farm Labor Organizing Committee. The fact concerned a statement made by Mexican officials regarding the death of Santiago Rafael Cruz, and was documented with a reference to the newspaper article that it appeared in. If you would like to do so, please contact me on my talk page, but I don't think removong it is justified.

Additionally, you added a statement that is false. In the Mt. Olive Pickle Boycott section, you wrote "More than 1,000 growers agreed to form the North Carolina Growers Association to act as the employers' collective bargaining agent." According to the NCGA's website, "Since 1989 NCGA has grown from 40 members to more than a 1,000."

The NCGA existed for 15 years before it became a collective bargaining agent.

Another statement, that "In 2006, FLOC won a second major court case on behalf of its members and other workers. A federal district court judge ruled that growers belonging to the North Carolina Growers Association had to pay guest workers' visa and transportation fees." is misleading. The court case that this is referencing was a lawsuit filed by a class of employees against the NCGA. FLOC did not bring the lawsuit, or represent the employees, it merely benefitted from the fact that the settlement required the NCGA to acknowledge FLOC as the worker's bargaining agent.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphy00700712 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK James Duncan
Tim, 1. Impressed with all your DYKs. Well done 2. I just looked at this article and the assessment. B in my opinion is generous. Moreover its bad practise to assess your own articles. Are you a member of Scotland etc etc. Someone needs to remove the Bs I think ...there are no pictures, no infobox, no objective view. No hard feelings I hope Victuallers (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding from reading the Assessment guidelines was that anyone could rate an article, even if they'd heavily contributed to it. Although project members "primarily" assess articles, there wasn't anything which said it was restricted to them. The assessment critieria for a Class B article are that the article contains several of the following:
 * a particularly useful picture or graphic
 * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
 * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
 * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 * Class B articles usually have gaps, missing elements or references, need editing for language usage or clarity or balance of content, or contain other problems (copyright, NPOV, original research, etc.). I think "James Duncan" meets three of those four criteria. If there are NPOV issues, I would be surprised (to be honest).


 * There's nothing in the guidelines about infoboxes (which some projects use and others do not), and the "picture" rule is something difficult to meet under WP's license requirements and with articles about older subjects who aren't popes or presidents. I don't take it personally.  But I think your concept of a Class B article is higher than that of the Assessment guidelines.  I assume that if a project had different assessment guidelines than WP's Assessment guidelines, then someone from the project would re-rate the article and put a comment on the Talk page as to why. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised about infoboxes. However finding a picture is not a significant issue it justs takes time. Flickr is a good source and fan clubs etc. I'm not sure you can ignore a rule though just cos its difficult. I agree my concept of a B is (much) higher. It would be useful to have an objective opinion. I did look for a policy and got this. As the say its only "bad form". As it is it is difficult to now get an objective opinion as new assessors are likely to be swung by your self awarded B. For a start or a stub then I do self assess. The project that I am well associated with is schools. We allow only agreed people to assess and they cannot do it for a B without reporting. I don't know what other projects would think of you assessing their articles. However, you re right. Its not against policy as far as I can see, (but I am a registered assessor for Biographies.) Victuallers (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the assessment guidelines say "If the article lacks a picture, it must be Start Class." Obtaining an image or graphic is extremely difficult, if the image is to meet Wikipedia's licensure requirements.  That's why images are not a requirement for Class B articles (and not even for GA Class articles). And I'm not saying I will ignore guidelines because they're difficult.  I'm saying no guideline requires an image for an article to be B Class.  (Besides, I can't find a picture of James Duncan Wikipedia can use.  A search for a public domain image has already turned up zilch and none of the others I can find falls under a Wikipedia license that currently exists.)
 * I, too, read that the WP:Assessment article you cited. But it's a historical archive, and no longer represents consensus on Wikipedia. I'm a member of WikiProject Labor, WikiProject LGBT Studies, WikiProject District of Columbia, and WikiProject Pornography—and none of those have assessors, and none of those restrict assessment to project members. In fact, some of the projects to which I belong actively encourage members to self-assess their articles. Why?  Because there are so few project members, and so many articles to assess.  Wikipedia encourages people to be bold, and I don't see where anyone is so shy or so influenced that they'll not change an assessment if they feel it's wrong.  On the contrary: Putting down one assessment and leaving the others blank is going to get uniform assessment anyhow. The problem is with project bots: If an existing project rates the article as Start (for example), most project bots will also automatically assess the article as Start class.  (One assessment, it seems, fits all after all.) Rating an article in "Importance" is something else, I agree.  What's important to one project may not be to another. - Tim1965 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And how interesting that the independent reviewer for James Duncan just said it "definitely" is B Class. This isn't a personal thing, but I would go back and re-read Wikipedia's Assessment guidelines again. I know it's easy to forget guidelines (I have to look them up repeatedly), or for a person's memory to do a little sleight-of-hand so that a person thinks the guidelines say one thing when they say another. It's also easy for each person to get caught in an echo-chamber: An editor or contributor can see so many awful articles, and fight so hard and so long to make them decent.  That can cause shifts in perception, so that a person starts to see bad articles all over the place.  I know I have to beware of that shift, and I suspect others (whatever battles they are fighting) can fall prey to it as well. You and I both mean well, we just need to stick to the guidelines as our touchstone. - Tim1965 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleased that its agreed without us doing 3RRs! As I say I only knew it was discouraged and switching the references on certainly helped. So back to 1. Impressed with all your DYKs. Well done Victuallers (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Birth certificates
You asked about the Birth Certificate: Scottish birth, marriage and death certs are available from http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk - it costs a bit but is useful for family history and just general curiosity. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks so much!!!!!!!! It looks like a terrific source for information! I love it! (With as many exclamation points as I can give it!) - Tim1965 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

50 Did you know medal

 * Thank you. You make me blush. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy belated birthday :)
Happy birthday! (Sorry I'm a bit late!) - 71.81.66.15 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Labor Related Article
Noticed you edit the labor portal. Can you provide some mediation with the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning article. Another editor refuses to recognize the 3D jobs are high paying and are not necessarily occupied by immigrant untouchables working for low wages. Any reference on the page to organized labors role in representing 3D workers has been deleted and replaced with a discussion on low wage international labor issues. The page has been hijacked for an agenda that is not labor related.Granite07 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User Pornography
A tag has been placed on Template:User Pornography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Working America
I'm the program director of Working America -- great page on our organization, but there are a couple of tweaks we'd like to talk to you about. Please e-mail me at your earliest convenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandapoly (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An email address would be even better (as none of the Working America staff emails are on the Web site). - Tim1965 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim is the best
I don't know about you but I think Tim is the best :) Jorrit787 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Good article, BTW. I would have liked to lead with it but you didn't have a picture. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

John Jacobs Editing
It is true that I am the definition of a newbie in the Wiki. However, there is a problem with the citations in the Jacobs article. The section on the Columbia Strike cites the worst of the bibliography, popularized books mis-quoting second-hand sources, for several of its facts as it recounts the events of the strike and Jacobs' role in it. Even if the article is about JJ, you shouldn't print falsehoods about the strike. I am a primary source. I was there. My name is cited in several of the histories. I witnessed the events that were wrongly described, and Jacobs' role in them, which is also incorrectly recounted at points. I am correcting the history as a witness. Are you telling me that is less valuable than his citation of junk just because the junk is published? "Serve the People" - Little Red Book by Mao Tse Tung, Chapter 17. This was a slogan of the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army, learned at the time of the Cultural Revolution by the the US New Left. Once again the article uses a junk source. The point actually has some historical value, since it points to JJ's influences and who he was refuting at this point (not the old left but the Moaist Progressive Labor Party and RYM) If you care about accuracy you should correct these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhur (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I care a lot about accuracy. But I also have to stick to Wikipedia's rules. Anyone can create an account on Wikipedia and say they are Tom Hayden or Mark Rudd or Todd Gitlin and say "I was there" and say an article is wrong. Wikipedia can only rely on what's been published, and so I'm doing that. If you have more accurate sources, point them out and we'll get the better information included. Unpublished eyewitness history, though, is no history at all. It's just lost. (And I agree that a lot of the pop-culture books out there on SDS and Weatherman are poor history; Ron Jacobs' book is full of errors, and he almost never cites sources.) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note
Hi, and thanks for adding the initial WPBiography template to the Ben Gold article. I just wanted to let you know that for whatever reason, WPBio uses the parameter of "priority" instead of "importance." "Importance" kicks it to. But we DO appreciate your starting it! Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben Gold
Wow, you really expanded this page. At the rate we're going, Ben Gold will be more famous in death than in life. One thing is for sure, he will not be forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've still got more to go on his presidency. The article is too long, and I will need to break at least the 1926 strike out into its own article.  I may take much of the union-related stuff and put it in the IFLWU article, too. I only got started on Ben Gold because I am expanding the William Green article, and the Gold piece was so stubby.  "Oh, I could expand the Gold article so easily.  It'll just take a half day or so, and a little research..."  Famous last words!  But he is fascinating... - Tim1965 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know
Hi Tim, you removed the hook I added to Portal:Organized Labour/Did You Know?/114 saying it hadn't appeared on the main page. Actually, according to the DYK archives, it did.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I looked on the article Talk page, and there was no DYK code there. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the DYK. You are doing yeoman's work in finding these older DYKs which hadn't made it onto Portal. Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Allretamer.png}
Thank you for uploading Image:Allretamer.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Apala.png}
Thank you for uploading Image:Apala.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bac logo.png}
Thank you for uploading Image:Bac logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bctd logo2.png}
Thank you for uploading Image:Bctd logo2.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)