User talk:Tim1965

Labor articles

Wow Tim, you are really contributing a lot of labor-related content! It's great to see some serious work being done to expand Wikipedia's coverage of labor history. I do have one request, though: could you provide inline citation in your articles? You are providing References sections, which is very important, but if we wanted to pursue getting any of those articles to featured status, they will require inline citation (they won't even consider them without it).

The inline citation syntax can be rather complex; Cite.php (using <ref> tags) is the most flexible option. However, even if you could just provide Harvard-style notation, I would be more than willing to go through the articles and convert them to <ref> tags.

Again, your additions are much appreciated and well-referenced... if we can just get that inline citation, we could look at getting featured status for some of them! --JerryOrr 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try. I've done that for the Ed Boyce article, because I used quotations. The John Sweeney article is going to get unwieldy, though, since there are so many in-line cites to make. It'll lead to a huge Notes section, and then a huge References section which repeats much of what was in the Notes. I've been reading the Manual of Style on this, and the issue's not really addressed. Tim1965 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, there isn't much definitive guidance on how to build Notes and References sections. However, in cases where there are a large amount of single-use references, I've seen editors put the complete reference in the Notes section (by means of the ref tag), and only put the multi-use references in the References section (and use Notes to refer to them). For example, it may look like this:

Here is a sentence using a source I'll only cite once. And here's another source I'll only use once.

But here's a source I plan to use many times. Here's another single-use source. But wait, now I'm going to use that Fellow source again. And I'll use him again, but on a different page this time.

• • • Check out the article on Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, just revamped. I tried to follow standard referencing (hey, that Ph.D. is coming in handy for something after all!). One thing I'm not clear on: When you do multiple references to the same work, you use the <ref name=smith-135>Smith, p. 135</ref> tag. Why? I found that using a regular refernce tag like this -- <ref>Smith, p. 135</ref> -- works the same. Is there a reason for using the former format?

References

• Fellow, Clever (1980). A Great Book, Philadelphia. ISBN 2-00-000000-0.

So using this method, you won't have needless duplication of references; the ones you use once only show up in Notes, and the ones you use multiple times have a short Harvard-style notation in the Notes section and a full citation in the References section.

Another thing I'd like to mention: in the Ed Boyce article, you've only provided notes for the quotes. That's good, but going back to the "featured article" issue, they'll want you to cite all of the content, not just the quotes. Obviously, you aren't expected to cite each and every sentence, but they'll want general segments of information cited. There's a lot of gray area when it comes to citation, and I'm by no means an expert, but I'm trying to pass on what I've figured out. Hope it helps... --JerryOrr 19:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Education Minnesota

Hi Tim. I hope I didn't muck things up for you there. I noticed you had added EM to the List of trade unions so I thought I would add the infobox - if I don't do things right when I think about them I stand a pretty good chance of forgetting and never doing them :) Nice work on expanding the article. Cheers. Chris --Bookandcoffee 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not a problem! That's what the back-button is for; backing up two pages let me find my added text, and I was able to dump it right back in. YAY! Tim1965 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article nomination on DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article National Labor Board, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Kimchi.sg 04:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous article. Italo Svevo 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree! This article is awesome. Other than the red link problem, I'd say it's almost featured article material; at the very least, a good article. ♠ SG →Talk 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks for the very kind compliments! As for red links, they are always a problem in labor articles, I think. There are so few articles addressing labor! Almost none of the major figures, unions, or events in the U.S. labor movement even have stub articles about them. Almost no public domain sources exist which I could use. I'm trying very hard to collect books and articles about the U.S. labor movement to write stuff, but it's tough slogging: Aside from the sheer expense, few libraries own the books or journals needed, the information is scattered across many texts, and in some cases the only information available is in original-source documents to which I do not have access (either because of distance or access issues). *sigh* I'm pushing ahead as fast as I can, though, and recruiting as many people as I can to write more labor articles. Tim1965 14:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gordon Merrick, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Strike cat

Hi Tim. I see you put up the List of strikes on the project page. Good idea. I tacked up the Category:Labor disputes in the category section... does it make sense to put strike categories under that? I see there is already a Category:Miners' labor disputes, but I think it might be worth spliting them out by country. What do you think?

Maybe:

• Category:Labor disputes
  • Category:Strikes by country
    • Category:Strikes in Canada
    • Category:Strikes in South Africa
    • Category:Strikes in the United States
    • and so on... --Bookandcoffee 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How'd I miss this category? Arrgh! I completely agree that they need to be split out by country. I think there may be enough articles to even do a U.K. category. I'm just learning the rules on how to create and sort Categories, but I think that Category:Miners' labor disputes should really be a Sub-Category of Category:Labor disputes. What's your opinion? Tim1965 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it already is. I suppose that rather than Category:Strikes by country the wording should be Category:Labour disputes by country to keep things more general (although then we run into that damn labor/labour thing again...:) nonetheless, if you agree I think we can just go ahead and get the ball rolling. BTW, categories are a little different than stubs - I think we're on pretty safe ground if we create the labour disputes by countries cat and then add the sub-cats as needed without worrying about a 30 article threshold or anything. (one more wrinkle - WP:NCCAT keeps track of category naming conventions, but I think it should be Labour disputes in Canada, not Labour disputes of Canada... (yeah, we have to worry about things like that! :)) I'll leave a note at the naming conventions project page and hopefully it travels through without too much controversy. But you never know. --Bookandcoffee 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)--Bookandcoffee 16:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• So I went ahead and started Category:Labor disputes by country. Of course the first thing I did was accidentally create Category:Labour disputes in the United States instead of using the US spelling! I fixed that, and started putting the articles into their countries. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 23:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of photographers known for portraying males erotically

As you had made contributions to this page in the past, I thought you might be interested in participating in this AfD. You input and/or suggestions regarding a Category title if it should go that direction would be appreciated. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment department

Hi Tim. I've been working with this new assessment thing - and I just wanted to leave you a note about the quality scale. I've marked Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (and a couple others) as "B-Class" - but I didn't want you to think that was because I thought they were sub-standard. My reading of the scale being used means that this is the highest class available until the article has gone through the Good article nomination process. (Which, incidentally, is something that should be done with a lot of your articles!) Cheers. Chris --Bookandcoffee 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Back!

Hi Tim. Glad to see you're back. No thanksgiving up here (we have it in October), and instead I have 6" of snow on my sidewalk this morning - very unusual for Vancouver. I hope you like the assessment thing, it seems to have taken off over at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects. In the last few weeks I've actually scaled back the amount of time I let myself work here (you know - life, and all that), so I'll be a little more intermittent around here, but I’ll see you around I’m sure.

Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what it's like. It's partly why I took my own (lenthy) break. I was committing way too much time. Geez, and they say Net porn is addictive. No way! For someone who likes research, writing Wiki articles is like intellectual meth! I don't see how Italo Svevo writes so damn much. I'm glad of it, but it amazes me nonetheless. Tim1965 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Brody, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thankyou for your contributions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On December 5, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Fasanella, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks again Tim. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the labor historian articles

Thanks for your excellent work writing new articles on various labor historians. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time, and I'm glad you're working on it! 71.77.12.236 04:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I chanced onto the category, and thought it such a great idea that I kind of put aside some other labor projects to work on it. There are more coming, too. Tim1965 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 11 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Gutman, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On 13 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Comprehensive campaign, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On December 19, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arnold Miller, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

thanks for the article Tim. Keep up the good work, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Selig Perlman, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Sandra Feldman, was selected for DYK!

On January 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandra Feldman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Florida Education Association, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida Education Association, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, United Teachers of New Orleans, was selected for DYK!

On January 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United Teachers of New Orleans, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968

Can you provide a citation in the Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968 article — for the statement that it was the first statewide teachers strike in the nation? Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Easily. - Tim1965 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 9 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 12:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wapping Dispute

Hi Tim. You rated Wapping Dispute "low importance". Would you object to me changing it to high importance? The actions of Murdoch (methods aside) broke a strangling hold of the unions over newspaper production in the UK. I have read quite a bit about this and although I am not a conservative I have to say that the way the unions brought The Times and The Sunday Times to their knees is sickening. I'm not sure to be honest how important this issue is in the wider UK trade union movement, however its effect on the newspaper industry alone is worthy of high importance in my opinion. Mark83 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, go ahead!!! Change it! I'm no expert on U.K. labor relations, so that was just a wild guess as to "Importance." - Tim1965 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Mark83 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

George Odger

Thanks for your great work on labour-related issues. I'm interested to know why you rated George Odger as being of low importance. He was probably one of the two or three best known trade unionists of his day, and as the article shows, he was prominent in a wide variety of labour-related organisations. Warofdreams talk 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm clueless, that's why. My primary goal was to get the {{LabourProject|class=|importance=}} code onto the "Talk" page, and I neglected to change the class and importance tags within that code. Absolutely -- change it! I know nothing about British labor history ("TUC"? What's that?). - Tim1965 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alliance for Retired Americans, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coalition of Labor Union Women, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nelson Cruikshank, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK Medal!

		The DYK Medal
		It's amazing at how fast you are able to whip out high-quality DYK articles! I really appreciate all the articles you have made about organized labor and such, and I want to give you a token of appreciation for all you have done. Keep up the great work, Tim! Nishkid64 17:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconding

Here, here. (Or is that hear, hear? :) Either way, I wanted to agree with Nishkid64. Thanks for the continued excellent work Tim. Chris --Bookandcoffee 17:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

USPS article

U.S. Postal Service strike of 1970 is a nice artice but USPS didn't exist in 1970. USPO Department became USPS July 1, 1971. Article needs to be renamed. House of Scandal 06:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [1]