User talk:RCEberwein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RCEberwein.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, RCEberwein, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–Sango123 (e) 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Western Somali Liberation Front

My understanding is that it fought against the Derg regime in the Ogaden war, and thats why I put it there.

Bit of a cynical Cold War dance, Somalia was red before Ethiopia, but when they turned Communist, the Russian backed them against their longstanding ethnic foes in Somalia. The USA began to support the Communist govt of Somalia (!) against the Russian back Ethiopians.--Dudeman5685 03:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Organized Labour

Hi RCEberwein, I saw your name at the project and just wanted to say hello - and welcome. I actually noticed your {{unsigned|...}} addition on my talk page last week, so the name looked familiar. :) Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Robert. There is certainly a considerable amount of work sitting around waiting to be done - but I hope you don't let it bother you too much. We'll get there eventually (at least that's what I keep telling myself.) It sounds like you have some excellent experience that will be a real benefit to the project, and Wikipedia in general. I'll be glad to help you if I can; but I'm afraid I'm a little short in the sage advice department. :)
Categories. Until recently Category:Trade unions of the United States was Category:United States labor unions. It was moved in an overall move that saw the entire Category:Trade unions by country get standardized into the 'Trade unions of X format. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Trade unions by country for some background detail) Of course it should be Category:Labor unions of the United States, but no one has got around to pushing that detail through yet. The other inconsistencies that you noted (labor union/trade union) do need addressing as well. The labor/labour spelling issue also has a long history here, but I'd advise taking your time before jumping into that one. Country specific articles are generally correct (i.e. US labor UK labour), but a number of the main articles are in one or the other spelling for no other reason than that was the original article spelling. (and good luck finding consensus to change them now!)
Category:Presidents of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters? That's another odd thing. I don't think it's terribly useful, but there are editors who argue that all lists should be categories - as they are more accessible, and they remain more stable and accurate, whereas lists tend to degrade over time. So I don't have much of an answer for you on that.
But I’ll stop droning on here. By all means, jump in wherever you feel you would like to. If I can help just let me know and I'll be glad to try. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moves

I have moved RCEberwein/Toolset to User:RCEberwein/Toolset. I suggest that the category tracker summary belongs on your user page not here. -- RHaworth 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping right in

Don’t apologize for work that “is not article building”. I’m sure your experience with structure will be a great help here. (If the cluttered way things tend to lurch forward doesn’t drive you batty. :)

About the redirects - I’m afraid my experience (with, well everything encyclopedic really) is predicated only on my practical work here, so I’m not in a position to offer technical advice. That said, I can give a good guess as to why Rich created the Internatinal Labour Organization redirect. I would assume (as you noted) that it was an intentional creation. Either he thought it was an aid to help with common mis-spellings, or like me, he was in a hurry and made the typing mistake himself – and when faced with the standard “You can create this article” page, he just went ahead and made the redirect. (Something I’ve done myself more than once.) I personally wouldn’t remove the redirect, it’s not hurting anything and you're likely to face disagreement at the WP:RFD page. Really, it’s basically invisible unless you search through the legitimate ILO “what links here” page, and I think you'll find mis-spelling redirects on a lot of pages...

The SyndicalisM redirect is a standard tactic that is used rather than deleting an article (which can involve more politics, feelings and time). Any relevant material is added to the correct page and the redirect is created. Of course it’s unlikely to have legacy links – but it’s one of the quirks here. I'd guess discussion would revolve around the fact that there is little harm being done with the redirect as is.

I don't know what to say about the idea of all the redirects eventually being an issue. That may be a topic that has been explored previously, but I'm not too conversant in the history of redirects.--Bookandcoffee 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Trying to resolve a "category clutter" problem in the category: Bibliography

Diablo, coming to you since you closed the debate on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from San Francisco Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 3 What I wanted to do was stop these pages from being "categorized" (by inserting ":" after the wiki tagging "[[") and just be linked instead. The problem seems two-fold: Is it permissable for regular editors to change an archived discussion for this kind of purpose? If so, where is the category code to be found ? (I test edited, to see the structure, and could not find it in either page!) I suspect this has something to with the way the articles are stored? BTW, why was it permissable for someone to paste in a whole article into a disscusion? (I'm assuming that's how the "Catgory:Bibliography" got there.) Thanks for checking --RCEberwein | Talk 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • D, Thanks for fixing the 1st one (awsomely fast!) , but the 2nd one also needs to be addressed :)
I know Admins are overtaxed by work (I've read quite a few admin talk pages!) but can I also prevail upon you to help me better understand things by answering the questions above also? As a relative newbie I'm trying to do a good job here and need to know what I can/cannot and should/should not do (even though I've probably read more of the documentation than most--several, many times!--I'm not always sure).
And, of course, I'm grateful for your just solving the problem itself. --RCEberwein | Talk 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I presumed the first one is linked to the second. Happened that that was not the case. Also fixed. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken links on transcluded WikiProject Org Lab pages

Hey RCEberwein,

I can shed a little light on the transcluded red-links.

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summary is red because the {{Article summary}} is included in the Infobox section on the page, but the summary it would lead to hasn’t been created.
  • Template:-importance is an artifact from the {{ LabourProject}} tag. It shows up on articles that are rated NA. I’m going to dig into it a little, to make sure it’s not out of place, but I think the tag is working properly and the template is the equivalent of an uncalled routine.

Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children's non-fiction authors

Howdy! Yes, I think you're right on both counts - renaming and removing the toc (for now). Thanks for asking, and feel free to make the move. Cheers! Her Pegship 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Your move didn't require an admin, it just needed the double redirects fixing. I couldn't move the talk page but since the neither the old nor new had any history apart from the poll I don't think that's an issue. :) Happy editing, FiggyBee 05:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fulton Ferry

You probably know more about it than me; you can Wikipedia:be bold and remove the tag, but please also redirect Fulton Landing, Brooklyn to Fulton Ferry, Brooklyn. [1] is one page that talks about Fulton Landing being the same as Fulton Ferry. --NE2 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cat clutter

Thanks for the heads up! please fix!! Gotta run!!! Ling.Nut (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)