Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Garland Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radical left (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialism in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Alternative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Little (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Kurt Gustav Wilckens, Djr13!

Wikipedia editor Nixie9 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Could be much longer, the refs are out there as well as the spanish WP page. I added one youtube link, and there are 2 more.

To reply, leave a comment on Nixie9's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ralph Chaplin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Socialist Review (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to impress even me and I already more or less knew about my pictures (for which you just made a category at Commons). I have a very old computer and am one step up, or perhaps sideways from having just dial up internet and have found Commons difficult to up load to over the years so don't do it much. I also was not very good at categories over there, I tried to start a "Sculpture in the United States" one once, also "Architectural sculpture" since those, as you may have noticed, are two loves of mine. Now imagine my surprise to come to your page and discover that you are involved in the Organized Labour (as the brits would say) Project. I am not quite sure how those pictures are catalogued at commons but if you go to the IWW article here I have several pictures in that article - one of which I found in Commons by searching for IWW but you probably did not find it because someone else's name was attached to it. I also have a few at the Ludlow massacre article (it is called something else) that work for a Labour project. A picture from there - maybe now replaced - was used in Howard Zinn's "History of American Empire" and I am very proud of that but have no one to brag about it to, so you get to hear about it. I think I have something on the Joe Hill page too. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you followed by this blathering outpour. Thanks for organizing my pictures (want to come over and organize the library I work in?) Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're impressed by something that to me is just a simple housekeeping type of thing. :) I've lived with dialup-grade internet well into the 2000's so I know well how you feel about that. Commons is pretty easy to upload to, has a pretty simple upload wizard these days allowing you to even upload multiple at once, though the tough part can be knowing which categories to assign it to, often for me requiring guessing and digging through categories to see the lay of the land before submitting. I only recently started using the bulk categorization tools which really helped put together the "Carptrash files from wikipedia" category, some 300 images. There's one image I categorized but another editor reverted (them suggesting the category might imply authorship rather than just upload): File:Arrow heads.jpg. I did mistakenly miss categorizing the red card photo but apparently this is because two years back I had "simplified" the file's description without the word "wikipedia", a search term I relied on to find these. Indeed I did miss a Ludlow Monument image you uploaded: File:LudlowMassacreMonument.jpg. Did I miss any others? Photos (and article text) on Wikipedia et al certainly do have a tendency to percolate far and wide! Sometimes this makes it hard to find information that didn't, well, originate here. As far as organizing a library, between helping out at infoshops and putting old texts up on Wikisource, I think I have my hands full! No problem at all about the long reply, as you can see I'm more than happy to reciprocate. djr13 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing a couple issues I ran into to miss those couple images, I did another run-through and found another dozen or so that I added in. You probably noticed that I reverted one you added to the category, wasn't sure if this was mistaken...I interpreted the category as being just for uploads that had been transferred over from here, as opposed to a more general, "files by" category. But hell, the category has your username in it, don't interpret the reversion as attempting to step on your toes. :-) djr13 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel more as if I am standing on your shoulders than you treading on my toes, so do not worry. There are 4 pictures at the bottom of Ludlow Monument that are marked to be moved to commons, don't think that they have been. I had maybe a hundred or two images, mostly sculpture, removed as being copyright violation that I have since come to realize were NOT, but at time I was not a savvy about that stuff as I am now. The fight that I had about File:IndianIM.jpg was epic. Then after I won the fight someone replaced one of my pictures with one perhaps marginally better, but that's how wikipedia works. The Arrowheads picture is the cover of a book that was produced by the US Government, so is copyright free. I certainly intended to include that information somewhere. I had a picture of Utah Phillips that I found on some Czech website that I still wonder what that article was about. I do occasionally use pictures taken with my camera such as File:MichaelKin-Chicago1986.jpg - which includes me on the left. I do some category stuff on wikipedia, and am always in awe of editors such as yourself and others who seem to really get it, while I just flounder about. Still, as a self-proclaimed lie long learner figuring out how to upload and categorize stuff on Commons miight not be a bad next step. PS I am constantly amazed by my wife's simple housekeeping types of things, so . . . . . .............. Carptrash (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the sourced statement that the BLE was the first union in the USA in 1863. There clearly were no unions in the US 100 years earlier, since the US did not exist 100 years earlier. Trade unions were illegal in most countries until the 1870s. Do you know of any US unions that predate this one? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also National Labor Union. Remember the context of the American Civil War (1861-1865), which spurred development of organized labor. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously when I say a century earlier in the US I can not mean precisely 100 years. I mean as early as the century prior, 1794, which predates the BLE by 69 years, and even before steam locomotion was put to serious industrial use. The union which formed in 1794 was the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers, which like other unions of the time were regarded as conspiracies against commercial interests. And even this was not the first union in the nascent United States, and certainly not in America. Unions, as opposed to guilds, arose in direct relation to the rise of wage labor over apprenticeship, a long and slow dynamic in the increase in the number of laborers to each master and the transfer of ownership of tools and control of production to these masters. The American Civil War certainly spurred this development, but it was nothing new.

(Besides, if any claim were to be made of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers being the first of anything, I would hope a much better source could be found for this than an ambiguous passing comment in a 2013 speech by Hoffa[1] with a broken link.[2]) djr13 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not ambiguous. Hoffa says "As America’s earliest labor union...". I would say he knows something about the subject. There were earlier organizations, but the BLE seems to have been the first recognized union in the USA in the modern form. I will tweak the article to show this as a quote from Hoffa. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good way to mention the quote, thanks. Note that I had removed the claim on Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers itself as well. djr13 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you are well and enjoying this splendid spring sunshine! Just to let you know that I left you a note at commons... Best, --Nabak (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I will revert any edits I made with it. Jackninja5 (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! Also excuse me if this is the improper place to respond to you - obviously I'm new to Wikipedia (on the editing end at least) and still learning how to use it. Looking at the history tab on the NYC CLC article, I don't believe I ever edited the membership numbers for that organization. Nonetheless your citation template is much appreciated! Up until now what I've been doing is going to the SEIU article and just copy-pasting that citation (and modifying the file number, LM-2/3/4, etc). I'll be sure to use that template for next time, though!

Looking forward to editing with you in the future(: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Au166 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love the OLMS citation template! - Tim1965 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wonder, aren't POTUS pronounced as a normal word? e.g. an acronym? (Im not a native english speaker....) Christian75 (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I might be going at it wrong, but my interpretation was that initialisms are if they are composed of the initial letter of each word, and acronyms if they are from longer or different sources of components than only initial letters. I hadn't considered pronunciation, maybe I was too focused on text? :) Not sure which is more appropriate. Let me know if you figure it out, I may have several of my own edits to modify. djr13 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I added several dozen line charts to Wikipedia covering union membership and finances (based on available online government reports). However, the process of gathering the data (awful database) and reformatting it (clunky template) was so exhausting I gave up for a year. I'm now looking to update and to continue the effort.

Part of the problem is that I have to do a lot of manual processing of data in order to prepare it for the old template, so I have a directory full of spreadsheets on my computer, making all these graphs basically depend on me to maintain them.

TL;DR: I was using an old crusty graph template, Template:Line chart, and there is a new, improved wiki function to produce graphs via JSON data: mw:Extension:Graph. I'll need to completely rewrite them, and anything that could get me started is appreciated.

This is a big project and I bit off more than I could chew. Halp please. djr13 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Djr13! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made to Template:Inflation today have caused a number of red error messages to appear in articles—see, for example, 1970 Bhola cyclone, Steve McQueen, Birmingham High School, and Star Wars. I unfortunately know so little about templates that (at least before finishing my morning cup of coffee) I can't spot what the problem is or tell whether it's the template or the articles that need fixing. Could you takes a look? Deor (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing and communicating about this, I've been working on it the past day. It's a very complicated template, and I probably should have used a sandbox! From the articles you linked, it looks like they're using an identification code for an inflation index that the template doesn't have, and this can either be fixed by changing every article's use of the template to make sure it uses the definitive identification code, or the template simply will need to interpret/alias/redirect to an appropriate one if any. But...I have no idea why the previous version worked, there appears to be no such aliases even before my changes. Sorry for the mess. djr13 (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind, I realized the problem. Redirects exist for the main template but didn't for a dependency, Template:Inflation-year. Most of these errors should go away now, but I'm sure there are others that I have intentionally/unintentionally exposed. djr13 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Singh has asked me for advice about updating {{inflation/IN/dataset}}. I gave as good an answer as I could but I'm not sure that I got all the details right. Looking at the template history, it seems like you've got a better idea than I about its workings. I suggested he might ask you for help if need be. Yeah, this it revenge for your reverting me ... but seriously though he wants to bring it up to 2016 and I tried to do the same in 2014 but got reverted. Your summary seemed to indicate I should have updated {{inflation-fn}}. I had a go at that. I just wonder whether I've got it right this time and we're good to go and up date further. Jimp 14:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, honestly I've forgotten precisely why I reverted you, and my edit summary wasn't very clear, sorry about that. Also as a minor point, in hindsight I should not have added the #default thing, there should not be a default for these, specifying a valid year is mandatory as otherwise the template returns false data.

As far as how to update the template, be sure to read the documentation of Template:Inflation and particularly the Developer documentation section. Basically, the two templates you need to edit going forward are Template:Inflation/IN/dataset and Template:Inflation-year. When updating it, it's important to look back at previous years, not just the current year, and make sure that your latest data is actually following the same numbers. It's possible that your source recalculates past inflation averages given new data, or perhaps they change the "base year" upon which the index data is measured from, or maybe you're using a different source with different data, or maybe this different source calculates a different model of inflation entirely.

Regarding your change to Template:Inflation-fn: if you can, make sure it's in a proper citation format rather than just a link, as that citation will be visible on any article which bothers to cite the source for the inflation data. Though most don't, and most misuse the inflation template to begin with. djr13 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you performed some significant work on Glossary of Wobbly terms back in November 2012 (diff). The article was recently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Wobbly terms, which closed as no consensus. I have begun work to improve the sourcing of the article. Just a note in case you're interested in this matter, or interested in pitching-in to improve the article more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I did notice the deletion nomination, after it was first "closed", and an editor said that they would merge the list into the general article about the organization, but then they seemed to only merge a short summary. They are right though that most or all of this list belongs on Wiktionary, which would be quite a project. djr13 (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Djr13. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Djr13. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Djr13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Djr13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for earlier joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's userspace without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Guild of Italian American Actors logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]