User talk:Tim1965/TalkArchives7

Speedy deletion nomination of The Journal of Collective Negotiations
A tag has been placed on The Journal of Collective Negotiations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nom for adminship?
Tim, as I mentioned in a comment on your blog, I'd like to nominate you for adminship. Before I do, though, I just want to confirm that you're interested and that you'll accept the nomination. Should I go ahead? - Jredmond (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to do my "fiduciary duty" and make sure that I'm clear on what adminship means. Frankly, I'm coming up with a number of pages. Got a recommendation on which one is most succinct (other than WP:Admin)?  :) I don't want to be somone who accepts a responsibility, and then doesn't do anything with it (e.g., no time or sloth). - Tim1965 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Admin is good as an overview. I'd also suggest New admin school for a detailed discussion of the different admin tools, what they do, and when they should and shouldn't be used, and What adminship is not for a discussion of, um, what adminship isn't.
 * In a nutshell, though, adminship means that the editing community thinks that you're trustworthy and can handle some extra tools without abusing them. Based on your editing history, you'll probably do the most with the ability to edit protected pages and the ability to change page protections, though you'll also have all the other tools available if you need them.
 * And don't worry about how often you'll use the tools. Admin tools are like driver's licenses: as long as you obey the rules, then you won't have them taken away for lack of use. - Jredmond (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'm in. Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Thanks for creating quality articles, you're now an autoreviewer. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ping
Hi, was just hoping you'd weigh in again at Talk:McClellan Committee -- can you take a look? -Pete (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the issue is. I don't see any discussion there. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Locke v. Karass
Hey there. I've removed the tag from Locke v. Karass; I thought I'd sourced the whole article and it's not clear to me what I'm missing. If you could indicate specific spots where it seemed unclear I'd much appreciate it. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll respond here rather than on the article's Talk page, if that's OK with you.

1) I'm not going to go into the need for expansion of this article. It's a fine Start-class piece (I'd argue), but could easily by a "B-class" or even "Good Article" with work. Some easy Wikilinking should also be done (for example, to "labor union"). 2) In the lead - "...a recent case...": The word "recent" should be removed. What if this article is read in two years? Or 10 years? 3) In the lead - Both sentences need to have citations. Wikipedia's citation guidelines and its verifiability guidelines note that "each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable..." Facts which are or might be challenged need citation. For example, Supreme Court agency fee jurisprudence often refuses to find a constitutional basis for these decisions, relying instead on statutory constructions.  The lead asserts that the Constitution was the basis for the reasoning in Locke; that should be cited.  The lead also states that Locke built on Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association. That could be challenged; perhaps the Court's decision relied more heavily on Teachers v. Hudson or Abood v. Detroit Board of Education or Beck v. Commuications Workers of America?  That claim should be cited.  (The challenge might even say that Ellis v Railway Clerks is what is built upon, since that is cited in addition to Lehnert in the "Opinion of the Court" section.) 4) Background section - "Maine State Employees Association is the exclusive bargaining agent..." needs citation. (Unlike federal labor law, which forces representational exclusivity, some state public employee collective bargaining laws do not.) 5) Background section - "Non-member employees challenged the inclusion of national litigation costs in arbitration but the inclusion was deemed lawful." Deemed lawful by who?? I would add a cite here. 6) Background section - "The District Court found the fee lawful, and the Court of Appeals upheld the district on appeal." Aside from the fact that we don't know which appellate court this was (it's in the SC's decision), I would provide citations to both rulings (easily found in the SC's decision, again). 7) Opinion of the Court section - Both sentences in the first paragraph need citation. 8) Opinion of the Court section - "The central question was whether the national litigation fee caused a First Amendment problem." See above; the Court purposefully does not often reach the First Amendment issue. If this was the central issue, that would be astonishing -- and need citation. 9) Opinion of the Court section - "Prior rulings by the court permitted a so-called..." These rulings should be cited. 10) Opinion of the Court section - "Previous rulings, including Ellis and Lehnert, had not resolved this question." That's opinion. It may be the opinion of legal scholars, or lower courts, but it has to be cited.
 * I strongly encourage you to expand this article. You've already done a great job, and there is a lot of political and legal controversy around this issue.  - Tim1965 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Dear Tim,

I am not the one who vandalized the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer article. If you have an issue with the changes that were made, I have no problem with you fixing them. I do, however, have a problem with being accused of vandalism and kindly ask that you refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. SigKauffman (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Adel Mountains Volcanic Field
Hi Tim, saw your DYK nomination for this article and had a question about part of the hook and the same bit in the article - "The field formed when deformations and pressures created by the Great Falls Tectonic Zone(GFTZ) created a thrust fault which led to the formation of overlapping rock formations known as "horses.""

I couldn't find this in either of the two sources. From what I can work out, the ADVF is localised over the GFTZ apparently because that remains a weak zone in the crust. It is however unrelated to the thrusting which mainly happens later. Is there another source that links the igneous activity to the thrusting? I won't raise this as a query on DYK, easier if we sort it out here. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the article on "horses," you'll see the term "thrust-bounded imbricates". In the first paragraph of the Sheriff-Gunderson article/cite, you'll see reference to thrust imbricates. I have an additional citation which I can add to support the imbricate thrusts, if you like. I tried to avoid jargon in the DYK nom; plus, "horses" is a neater, cooler hook. (The problem is the "Horse (geology)" article, I think. It's stubby and does not clearly elaborate what a thrust imbricate is.) Imbricates are created by thrust faults, hence the reference to thrust faults in the hook. The "Cliffs High and Steep" citation supports the "deformation and pressures" created by the GFTZ (although that is supported elsewhere in the article, too). - Tim1965 (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No dispute over there being thrusting and imbrication ( you're right about the horse article - I've been trying to improve it but there's a long way to go yet ), just over whether there is any genetic link between the thrusting and the volcanism that created the ADVF as the sentence implies.


 * "It left a zone of weakness that resulted in the Adel Mountain Volcanics" is the quote and I take that to mean weakness in the sense of an easy place to intrude through the crust rather than anything related to later thrusting, I see no mention of "deformation and pressures" created by the GFTZ, which has remained mainly inactive since the Proterozoic. The relative timing is clear, most of the volcanism predates most of the thrusting. Mikenorton (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are weakness and deformation not the same thing? - Tim1965 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, deformation may cause weakening and a weakened zone may be more likely to deform, but they're not the same thing. If you've no objection, I'll take another look at that section in the article and try a rewording that keeps the imbrication but matches better with the sources. There is a clear overlap in age, so some of the volcanics are imbricated and some of the imbricates are intruded. Mikenorton (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right that pressure needs to come out. (I'm no geologist!)  I added the extra cite to the "horses" claim, with a link (see p. 784, "Discussion and Conclusions").  The two sources both say thrust imbricates, so that's why I worded the article and text the way I did.  (Given where the Sheriff-Gunderson and Jolly-Sheriff cites come from, there's no way I would ever challenge them as biased or inaccurate.  This isn't some magazine or newspaper citation, where a journalist is likely to get it wrong.) As for "weakness" v. "deformation," you're more expert in this than I, so if you feel "weakness" is more appropriate by all means change the text. I don't think that involves the proposed hook, though. Thanks for your help!! - Tim1965 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done some thinking about the hook, as I don't think that the current one is supportable. The AMVF is not formed by thrusting (apart from the subducting plate of course), although it is affected by it. It is possible that the Laramide Orogeny reactivated faults within the underlying GFTZ causing space for the magma to rise, but that is my OR, you won't find a cite for it I'm afraid. A similar process have been suggested for some of the granite batholiths in the general area but not for the AMVF. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well enough - just ask questions if there is anything that's mystifying you.


 * Can I suggest as an alternative the following?


 * ...that some of the thrust horses in the Adel Mountains Volcanic Field fold some of the intrusions while others are cut by them?


 * it's actually fairly unusual to have intrusions active during thrusting so this might be of interest, but hey I'm just a geologist. Mikenorton (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol - well, I'm not a geologist, but I did come to the same conclusion as Mike, that the article does not support the hook. Incidentally, it's better if you guys have this discussion over at the DYK nominations page so others know that the nomination has been reviewed. Oh, and I like the new hook - quite technical but heavily wikilinked so those interested can dive in. -Kieran (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm totally fine with that alteration to the DYK. I'll make the change. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Breaker boy
Very good article. Have you considered working on it for Good Article or Featured Article status? Dincher (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the compliment on the article! I may go for Good Article status.  I don't think it would take much to reach that (mostly clean-up and style editing, I'm guessing).  But, whew, I just finished that super-major expansion!  I need a rest... - Tim1965 (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rest well. Dincher (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I self-nominated the article for GA. Fingers crossed! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck, I am sure you'll make it. Dincher (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

JLC and LAWCHA
Tim, the AFL-CIO currently lists the the JLC as an Allied Group on their website. I didn't add LAWCHA to the AFL-CIO template but it is also listed there. I have concerns about the quality of the content on the federation website but I'll list those on the template discussion page so others can participate in that conversation.RevelationDirect (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Allied" does not mean affiliate. Neither organization is controlled by the AFL-CIO.  Their boards are not interlocking (perhaps one person from the AFL-CIO sits on the JLC board, and none sit on the LAWCHA board), and they do not receive funding from the AFL-CIO.  (JLC wishes someone would fund them!  They're practically moribund, except for the National Labor Seder held every year.) JLC and LAWCHA are as utterly independent as Interfaith Justice. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Haunted Island
Hello! Your submission of Haunted Island at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

thx4thx
Thanks Tim, I am looking for someone who will look after my one nomination for the day as I cannot process my own work. If you have time then all help appreciated but deleting or moving my hook in particular would assist me in moving forward the process? Victuallers (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will absolutely help with the queues! When do you think everyone should help form those up? Oct. 30? (We have so many possible DYKs, we could perhaps do four, even five queues.) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chris Massoglia
Hello! Your submission of Chris Massoglia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud (film)
Hello! Your submission of The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

red link should be a blue link
Requests for adminship/Tim1965 (hint hint)  APK  because, he says, it's true  22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

thx4thx re Halloween
Well it would have looked a lot sadder without your articles, I think 1 in 4 or thereabouts was yours. Cheers! 10:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could help out! This was my first time submitting articles for a special occasion on DYK.  It was terrific fun, let me research articles I might not otherwise have done, and I got to make mashed pumpkin too! I wish there was some way in which contributors on Wikipedia could talk about their experiences writing articles -- not only to talk about the thrill of writing, but also as a way of exchanging info on research sources, ways to approach writing an article outside one's "oeuvre" (so to speak), and more. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Halloween 2009
By my count, 7 articles expanded/created by you has gone up. You've beaten me by 1 :P ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell Gate
It's actually quite easy — the Geographic Names Information System has over two million places nationwide in its database. Its search page is at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. By the way, if you want to link to any of its results, read the FAQ that's in the top right corner of any individual page.  You can also use gnis; see its documentation for details.  Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eroto-comatose lucidity

 * Nice work on this page, I actually came across it independently, coincendence. I added the page to the Thelema footer template. Another topic, have you done work on the Haymarket plot in the Illinois cemetary? An interesting piece of land within the cemetary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleister Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've not worked on the Haymarket page. Others have, though.  I didn't even know there was a plot within the cemetery! What's so unique about it? - Tim1965 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Artificial induction of immunity
You've added a statement that additional citations are required. You have not indicated any element of the article which this applies to. WOPuld you care to indicate the first thing you regard as requiring a reference, please? The discussion page of teh article would bea useful place for that. Midgley (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done so for the lead paragraph. I hope this helps!  I wanted to be exceptionally thorough, as I see that several people would like this article to reach Good Article status. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

11th Street Bridges
In 11th Street Bridges, I made a clarification to the end of the first paragraph of the history you wrote (nice job!), diff. Please check that it is correct, that the "destruction" and "five decades" refer to 1814. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction, check this diff instead. You are referring to 1846, right? I misread it when I came back to it this morning. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to 1846. I finished that article late at night (for me), and so it might have unclear sentences and references still.  Thanks!!!! - Tim1965 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Hello! Your submission of Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Balloon boy
I saw your GA nomination about Breaker Boy and mistakenly thought for 0.5 milliseconds that it was Balloon Boy. I saw it when I nominated Nokian Tyres for GA, which used to be a stub a few weeks ago until I rescued it. GA reviews take a while, I see. Are you willing to objectively review Nokian Tyres and I will do so for Breaker Boy? Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Federal Triangle
Hello! Your submission of Federal Triangle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Map
Don't know if you can use it at all, but I just uploaded.  MBisanz  talk 05:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WOW! Awesome!  Thanks! - Tim1965 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (the exclaimer)

International Typographical Union - Bert Powers
Hi

I noticed your double-entendres on APK's talk page ☺, which led me to your user page, and there I noticed that you had created the article on the ITU, which I'm familiar with. Then I looked around for content on Bert Powers, famous as the ITU president (from 1961 to 1990) that took local 6 on strike against the NYC newspapers during the 114 day strike in 1962-1963. And found essentially none. Since I found more than sufficient sources for a stand alone article on him, I created a place holding stub on him at Bert Powers. I intend to flesh out the article, add cats, and so forth. Since you have added an incredible amount of labor related content and articles to WP, I would be honored if you would check it out and offer any additions or comments you care to. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)