User talk:Sswonk/Archives/2011

Gabrielle Giffords
To solve the issue at Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords, I checked the maps of the City of Tucson and the Casas Adobes CDP.

The supermarket is in the Casas Adobes CDP. The supermarket is not in the Tucson city limits.

So we say Casas Adobes CDP, near Tucson. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whisper, I have replied at the talk page, let it be please. Sswonk (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on talk page with my solution. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Let me get some sources that say "near Tucson." I have a feeling that local papers will likely do this. Let me go search and explore :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding some. Posting them on the talk page... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At least one is from an Arizona paper. Lemme see if I can find more Arizona sources (Phoenix+Tucson) that say "near Tucson." WhisperToMe (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, but I really meant "broader support" from other editors/sysops rather than asking you to find sources. Sswonk (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I think I found a smoking gun, though. An Arizona Republic article says "Giffords holds town-hall meeting at Safeway, 7110 N. Oracle Road, just outside Tucson city limits in northwestern Pima County." - So that really should do it. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is...7110 N. Oracle Phone: (520) 575-0949


 * This location is important and should be in the infobox. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

agree
I fully agree with you that the Tucson title is bad. Well written commentary that you posted. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP
I have edited your comments at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner to comply with out policy on biographies of living people. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP explicitly does apply to talk pages. (BLP) Feel free to comment at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP, content v. splitting
Thank you for your response at the merge discussion. I would rather not get into a highly public debate over my own perception of these linked guidelines, but still feel the need to defend. Before I did finally go back and check what those guidelines recommend today, I had read them a few times many months ago and took from them that forking is generally bad because it uses two articles to represent divergent views on the same subject, and splitting is benign and encouraged: we split content such as History of Massachusetts from Massachusetts because it is a divergent topic and there is a large amount to be covered that may be of less interest to someone looking for a general treatment of a subject. That is common encyclopedic practice.

After just now reading both afresh, I still have my opinion intact, that is that the article about a violent assailant only known for one event, in the first few days or weeks following that event, is entirely tied to that event. Reliable sources writing about the event and assailant are both focusing on the moments of the tragedy and what transpired surrounding those moments. The content is viewed as separated by those who wish to (and do) quickly move to write a biography of the assailant in the first few days; I view it as intrinsic, the reliable sources (almost always journalists) are still writing about the event and its aftermath. Splitting may be inevitable in the months ahead, however I take the view that BLP1E should be revised to address this issue.

I didn't/do not mean that a separate article is a POV fork, but is still a type of content fork, and that a minimum of one week of gathering the best information from highly reliable sources should pass before the assailant is treated in a biography. A move to split with arguments showing that what would move out of the main event article does not represent a (AGF) content fork would need to be supported by discussion, rather that the situation at hand where an article is quickly and prematurely created which then forces reasonable editors who disagree with that move to have to state their case for a merge. A minimum one week moratorium on splitting to gather the best biographical material and avoid potential forking from a discussion of the motives and aftermath surrounding the actual event is what I am suggesting. I appreciate your taking time to read this, I don't really have the motivation to pursue my idea at BLP but would support it. Sswonk (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bad splits can and do occur, and I respect your opinion that this is such a split (and that policy should be changed to delay/prevent it). The problem, it appears, is that you're classifying a bad split (such as one in which an element not warranting a separate article receives one) as a "content fork."  That isn't how Wikipedia uses the term.
 * For example, it would be a bad idea to split a Red M&M's article from the M&M's article. But that wouldn't constitute a content fork, despite the fact that red M&M's are a subset of M&M's.  The creation of a second article about M&M's as a whole (the same subject) would be a content fork.  (And the creation of a Red M&M's article intended to convey a more positive or negative presentation of red M&M's would constitute a POV fork.)  —David Levy 16:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding at editor's talk. Sswonk (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC: United States cities
Thank you. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Making 'MA cities towns.svg' more easily manipulable
Hi there. I notice you're the author of. Looking at the SVG source code in that file, it isn't clear how to programmatically determine which municipality-representing polygons map to which municipal names. Do you know if there is a way in Quantum GIS to do that? If that sort of SVG map were available, that would open up a lot of possibilities for easily generating granular visualizations of statewide data, for example Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election Results by Municipality, 2010.svg (which I colored manually). If that isn't possible in Quantum GIS, do you know how that shape-to-name linking could be done in a more efficient way than manually annotating each polygon with the city/town name? Thanks, Emw (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The SVG export feature of QGIS works but is not really configurable, as you may know. I ended up manually labeling the map you mentioned. However, there may be a feature of QGIS that would be helpful. I used the datalayer from http://www.mass.gov/mgis/townssurvey.htm. Using the "Legend type: Unique value" choice with Classification field "TOWN" under the Layer Properties, Symbology pane, then "Save style..." will output an XML file (.qml extension). That file groups the town name and other attributes of a symbol with the color used for each town such as &lt;fillcolor red="212" blue="4" green="200"/&gt; which is decimal RBG. That can then be compared to the polygon groups in the SVG which are hex RGB, so fill="#d4c804" would match, allowing addition of id and name attributes in the svg element. Manipulating the .qml style file and then importing into QGIS is possible, or maybe if you know XSL transformations well you could easily move back and forth between the SVG and .qml files, that would take some effort for me to accomplish. Sswonk (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hingham Bay
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I stuffed up big time
Yep, you are so right about my post in the Pro-life discussion. I think it's right now. Thanks for the tipoff. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Stroke City
Good close Fmph (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Outline collaboration
Here's the latest addition to the religion section of Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia has rich coverage on this subject. Very interesting, especially from sociological and historical perspectives.


 * Outline of Sikhism

This is a call to all members of the Outline WikiProject and outline aficionados to help refine this outline. It needs annotations, missing topics added, and the entries in the general concepts section placed in more specific sections.

Come join in on the fun and get acquainted with members of the Outline WikiProject!

The Transhumanist 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I had no idea this religion was so extensive or that it had so many followers. Hope to see you on the outline.

Follow up on SVG/mapping question
I thought I would follow up on my earlier question about making 'MA cities towns.svg' more easily manipulable, and let you know that such a map is available at File:Massachusetts_municipal_population_flows.svg. (If you want to see the animation you'll need to click on the image in that page, and use Chrome, Opera or Firefox 4.) Each municipal outline -- an SVG path element -- now has a corresponding id attribute filled in with the town or city name, which makes it much easier to hook in programmatically and fill in interesting data. I briefly tried the solution you suggested, but ended up assigning the id attributes and values via Inkscape.

Do you know if QGIS has a feature to determine the area of a given municipality, given its boundaries as defined in .qml (or, better yet, in .svg)? That would allow for making animations that show population density flows, which could be more demographically insightful than animations showing simply population count flows. Thanks, Emw (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered my own question. Apparently it's possible to calculate the area of a closed path with a new feature in Inkscape 0.48.  Now it's just a matter of finding the value needed to accurately scale cm^2 in the SVG path to mi^2 on the map. Emw (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Newburgh city seal
Not a problem; that's an ideal image for PNG replacement. Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Newburgh NY seal.png
Thanks for uploading File:Newburgh NY seal.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Counties of Ireland
Hi, would you mind not changing the intro in the counties of Ireland. This was agreed in a recent discussion in WikiProject Ireland. If you and others, object to this, the a new discussion has started on WikiProject Ireland. Pending the outcome of that discussion, the current consensus for the intro should be left as is. Snappy (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, there were several discussions over the course of several months. The one I see which resulted in the removal of "traditional counties" in a basically unilateral way was this one. Subsequent discussions over the past 10 months haven't properly addressed that move, to add ROI to each of the twenty-six as was done. The county articles were stable to the point of having read the same way or nearly the same way for at least a half dozen years and in some cases since 2001. I don't pretend to believe that everyone will always agree, but the country is called Ireland, constitutionally and among nearly all journalists and diplomats in the world save those writing from a UK point of view or through an official UK "description" of the country. Why would it be considered wise to use the terminology of a former colonial power rather than the self-definitive name of the country chosen by the formerly ruled people, especially when that name is explicitly stated as the official English name and this is an English encyclopedia? Consensus is being used in this case as a term, to support a fallacy of logic. It is not the sunshine and rainbows best case of agreed usage that some editors color it to be. I stand by my edits, those which stood before and in opposition to the imposition of UK POV over articles about its former occupied territories. Sswonk (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sswonk, I suggest you become more acquainted with Irish politics before pitching-in on the Republic of Ireland debate. I'm suggesting this after reading your comments here and on the Wikiproject Ireland talkpage. Republic of Ireland is not a British term—it was introduced in 1948 by an act of the Oireachtas. Also, you seem to think that Irish republicans prefer to call the 26-county state Ireland. In fact, it's the opposite. ~Asarlaí 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Intend to as always. I can't know as much as you, probably. Remember: American. I am getting ec'd to death over there but I did make a minor reply. I don't understand your last sentence with the piped link, which I will take a look at, and if you have five or ten minutes to explain with several sentences I would be grateful. I think that people living in Ireland prefer and constitutionally have enacted the term Ireland over Republic of Ireland, basically, as the name for the state. Sswonk (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope this does not cause an edit conflict. I have read partitionism and concluded that I need to read it again, very contorted. I don't care if you or Sarah or RA or Mabuska dismiss my knowledge, I am not intending to come across as or be respected as an expert on the politics. I barely understand it here in Massachusetts. That is why I keep disclaiming, stating I am American, and writing that I hate the tortured logic and unsatisfactory prose. And, there is a bias on this site, no question. It is not pro-Ireland, no question. What does that leave us? Well, I have all these years seen a bunch of wars going on in the world, seems like. Caused by Ireland? Nope. Sswonk (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you asked for an explanation, I'll try my best. Sarah and some of her followers would argue that calling the 26-county state Republic of Ireland is a pro-British POV/United Kingdom POV/anti-Ireland POV. You yourself also seemed to support this outlook. However, I pointed-out that the official description Republic of Ireland was introduced by the Oireachtas (the parliament of the 26-county state). It wasn't introduced by the United Kingdom or by British politicians.
 * Now, in one of your comments on Wikiproject Ireland, you implied that Sinn Féin (Irish republicans) would support your outlook. I pointed-out that republicans, in fact, would be against calling the state Ireland. Why? Because (in their minds) it reinforces partition...it implies that Northern Ireland isn't part of Ireland and that people in Northern Ireland are less Irish than those in the Republic.
 * As for me, I've nothing against Wikipedia calling the 26 counties Ireland. However, when we need to disambiguate between the 26 counties and the island, or the 26 counties and Northern Ireland, we should use the official description Republic of Ireland.
 * I hope that clears things up, but if you have any more questions I'll do my best to answer them for you. ~Asarlaí 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does clear up my question about the sentence. I now see what you meant, that is, republicans as defined by Sinn Féin would withhold calling the twenty-six 'Ireland', preferring not to because their firm commitment is to unification of the thirty-two as Ireland. The island, and the state, defined by the historic extent of the Irish language, are equivalent. I was aware that my statement, I assume you are pointing to "I am not pushing Sinn Féin for profit", was absurd on a few levels. It is hard to get across meaning sometimes, as I am sure you are aware. In other words, I meant to say "whatever conspiracy or weird idea anyone may have, I am just trying to make a point about language through my own personal opinion, I have absolutely no political agenda." In fact, before anyone else commented, I read what I wrote and could hear the laughter across the ocean, because I was sure one or two people were saying, "you can say that again", meaning Sinn Féin will pay you to stop writing if you keep claiming you're a supporter. No doubt, this is why I gladly accepted your criticism. What I try to convey is that I wish to help simplify the language and align it with what I see is common sense, that is all. Thanks very much, and I certainly will ask questions of you if I need, and feel free to make additional comments, I encourage that. I am planning to read some county articles and see if I can help Mabuska with his request that I work toward an alternate lead for consideration later on Monday. I am glad the current one is up for a revamp. Sarah is Sarah, she has more than anyone here made me laugh, and that's it, I don't know about any followers as you wrote. She's an effective and intelligent writer, have no idea about the politics. I am mostly anti-imperialist, as was for example Mark Twain. Thanks again. Sswonk (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When you remark that there is bias and that its not pro-Ireland, you don't fully realise that there is bias that's not anti-Ireland as well. Its not all part of some pro-British conspiracy. Mabuska (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sswonk, I'm glad I could help.
 * @Mabuska, I couldn't agree more. Sarah has it in her mind that we're trying to "diminish sovereign Ireland" by calling it by its official description. We're not. We're just trying to avoid confusion by using it as a disambiguator when needed. ~Asarlaí 13:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally, ! @A, good work. @M: You are making the leap from bias to conspiracy, not me. Bias is sub- or un- conscious preference, innate. Whatever convoluted efforts occur to preserve the biased results, while claiming neutrality and wasting human energy that would be better spent not denying the existence of bias, are a misguided waste. Actual conspiracy, that is coordinated collusion and interpersonal communication, is very minor or even non-existent. Sock and meat puppets do exist, but again are of no practical significance compared to the decades- and centuries-old conditions that exist. This is the systemic bias which I am witness to on this project and it certainly has little to do with Wikipedia itself, it is built in to the foundations of governments and religions and finally societies, and is only manifested here to a more visible degree due to the constant arguments over language. The result has often been anti-Irish, inside and out of Wikipedia. I will not disagree, and in fact restate for you, "it's not all part of some pro-British conspiracy". Almost always, conspiracy isn't necessary, the bias takes care of things on its own. If a conspiracy did become necessary, then it would be similar to what is seen today for example in white supremacy movements, that is not very effective and easily rebutted. Bias is much more powerful and much less simple to dissect or discuss. I will not be able to post here for several hours, however I will be reading the fine efforts you and others have made today as I see a lot more green boxes and text at the project, which I will think about thoroughly. See you later. Sswonk (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ireland placebox
As the deletion proposal has passd, I think we should decide what to do next, rather than just replacing it right-away. I think the layout proposed by Stepheng3 (see here for examples) is our best choice. I'v startd a discussion here. ~Asarlaí 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags with rags
Hi Sswonk - you may not be aware but some bot is placing this  excrescence on some sovereign-Ireland related articles.

Could you use your special abilities to create a variant of the Hiberno-English tag that features the Irish Tricolour? I need it for placement on sovereign-Ireland related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly look into that. Generally the whole idea of this rag tagging as I've seen it is used to keep Americans from, for example, changing "Radiohead are an English alternative rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire" to "Radiohead is an English alternative rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire", changing "colour" to "color" etc. That linked article is says it is a spoken dialect. However, having no Union Flag on there for those articles or Tricolor for Ireland would probably invite less argument. Give me a few minutes to present a sample here. Sswonk (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above has the phrase "different or absent from American English", which in the BrE version links to American and British English differences. I changed it since I would think you do not want to link to that article, and as far as I know there is no similar article for differences between Hiberno-English and AmE. We are calling your dialect HiE in the "id" part. Sswonk (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can solve the "spoken dialect" issue. Just read any of the stubs and starts on GAA clubs or villages and townlands and you'll clearly see there'd be a whole style of writing English that you won't find on the equivalent British articles. I'll take your tag out of the dug-out, run it up the flag-pole and see how it goes! Sarah777 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ther shouldn't be flags on any of these templates. We should wait for the result of this discussion before doing anything. ~Asarlaí 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the flag is removed from the BE template I'll remove my template. But I won't hold my breath that you'll get agreement. Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? What is the problem? Also, Hiberno English as far as the written word is concerned is virtually identical the British English, so there's no need for a HE template. Everyone in Ireland writes British English - fact - so use that template on applicable articles. WizOfOz (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish Wiz. Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bad Guys
I think they may have shot me.....Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos for taking the stand you did on the 'Racism' tag Sswonk. The message seems to have gotten through. RashersTierney (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Templating here has been noted, certainly I am not aware of the practice of removing active content of a relevant nature. I will read the AN/I posting however in any case I can't see a reason to obliterate those discussions. Sswonk (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the Sarah777 discussion as resolved - specifically resolved as indef blocked. Therefore there seemed to be no reason to maintain either a user or talk page. I wasn't aware that the matter, though marked as resolved, wasn't.  Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rklawton, I don't know the specific timeline of how the current state of the discussions progressed. I could look but it is getting late. I simply see no point to obliterating these pages. There were messages on Sarah's talk page which she had not responded to. The practice of blanking the pages was not familiar to me. Frankly, I have never had reason to be involved in any sort of blocking or controversy other than what surrounded my friend. I get along with her. I can take, to a very high degree, her criticisms and retorts without getting impatient or losing interest in reading what she has to say. It's too bad she won't control what she needs to in her writing to get along with others; it is quite possible that you have gotten what you have wanted and that would be "rid of her". I know from having looked into her past battles ("battleground" was used in the block summary) and noticed that you were a thorn in her side at one point. Personally, I don't believe in revenge or vendetta as is practiced by many people in all walks of life. I found that your action was a "pointy" one; if I am wrong about that, then I won't consider it a cowardly act. Maybe "cheap shot" is a better phrase. Let's get beyond this, I am not a hard person to find common ground with. Sswonk (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent contributions
Contain personal attacks, calling Rklawton a "coward", "spineless" and accusing him of "vandalism". Consider this a formal warning - keep it up and the opportunity to make such comments will be taken away from you. Ironholds (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, as it was tantamount to page blanking and not something I feel is even remotely warranted. The act, not the person, was labeled spineless. I will refrain from further statements of this nature, your formal warning has been noted. Sswonk (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A little AGF wouldn't go amiss.
Sarah777 is perfectly entitled to remove my comments from her userpage. An edit summary of "rem rubbish" - well, it's not exactly helpful. You later characterised my genuine question as one or more of "nonsensical, off-topic" or "useless". Also, not helpful. If I can expand on the point I was trying to make - judging by her recent comments on her page, Sarah seems to be sorry for getting blocked, rather than being sorry for the actions that got her blocked. Sarah had said "...there is no way I could restrain myself from pointing out that the decisions reached in this area are almost 100% to do with editor nationality." Sarah knows this to be not the case. See WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names - there are plenty of Irish editors there who gave 'F' as their first preference, or if not first preference, then a high transfer. Elsewhere on her talk page, Sarah complains "And as saying that the Sun rises in the East is deemed "offensive" by Arbcom then it appears that in order to survive on Wiki I must cease saying it and pretend that East is really West." It also seems that in relation to some issues, Sarah believes that all the rest of us must submit to her Room 101 technique and accept her position, even though the evidence to the contrary is there in black and white. All this in an unblock discussion, necessitated because of nationalistic comments - it doesn't bode well. I'd ask you, therefore, to strike your interpretation of my comments on her talk page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again Bastun. I will try to elaborate over there, I didn't actually write what I wanted. I was trying to get the three, Sarah, Harry and John, to where we are now. Your comment fell under "off-topic" in that list in my question to her and by some association, John. To rephrase the question, "given restrictions on you (Sarah), do you think others should be required to avoid your page as well." Again, I will repeat this there and apologies, there was no bad faith assumed. I know you can be an irritant to her so I was seeking her opinion on what she felt should be done, given we were trying to make it easier for her to edit without conflict going forward. Sswonk (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification - appreciated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Louth Co Co.png
Thank you for uploading File:Louth Co Co.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All set. Sswonk (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Coolafancy
Hi Sswonk,

Thanks for your note explaining your changes. I fully understand now you have explained them. I am fairly new to creating, editing, authoring articles on Wikipedia. At the moment, as you said I am primarily concerned with articles local to me, but this may change as tiem goes on.

I appreciate your offer of assistance, and may well take you up on this in the future.

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsilona (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Template Infobox place Ireland
You input is welcome here. Rgds, Snappy (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Quebec (eom)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 05:31, June 24, 2011

Flagicon
What is your justification for using the Irish flagicon on infoboxes? Hohenloh + 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a justification, and did not consider it either way, pro or con. The Infobox place Ireland is being deleted. I based all of my changes to Ireland infoboxes so far (a couple of hundred I think) on the sandbox example that Dr. Blofeld had provided during the deletion discussion. It wasn't really a conscious choice on my part to use icons. I am now no longer including flag icons and haven't been since Saturday. I don't want to remove the flag icons in all boxes I have done so far as a chore; I would rather concentrate on continuing to update the remaining articles. So, if you see any others trust that I am in agreement with the removal. Sswonk (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ta, will do. Hohenloh + 01:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such policy as MOS:FLAG. There is currently a debate about it and it is absolutely no consensus that they not no be used. However for politically sensitive area like Ireland and Kosovo probably a good idea not to feature a flag. Good job so far, any chance you could use the bot to ad difnoboxes to those without them once the TFD switch has been done? I intended to do it manually but would take ages... I can help out with coordinates♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * True, that is not a policy but a Manual of Style guideline, and after consideration I found that the flags were unnecessarily bright and colorful baubles. I stopped adding them to Ireland infoboxes but not for the reasons you cite, in fact there is no political reason at all. It has to do with aesthetics. I found it convenient to point to that MOS note as one reason to avoid flags. On another note: I have been a professional typesetter since 1981. With my thirty years of experience I can tell you that my addition of Pad top italic gives the languages at the title of the infobox a significantly improved appearance over the default style offered by the settlement template. Please consider that when editing. Sincere thanks for offering to help, and for the note. Sswonk (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox conversions
You are doing a great job converting the Irish Place infobox. However, a bot has come along and converted about 900 of them. Unfortunately, the bot made many many errors, since it was not supervised. I have been doing my best to check them all for obvious errors (see this list), but since you were doing such a great job, I thought I would see if you were interested in checking them as well. Thanks again for your hard work! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have left a message about this on your talk page. Sswonk (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we are generally in agreement. I will have a bot work on the other issues once it is finished fixing the coordinate errors.  I am glad you mentioned the excessive blank fields.  I feel the same way, and my bot had already started removing some of them.  Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  06:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Danger - alert page unnoticed - Danger
The Outline of relationships was nominated for deletion.

It was then overhauled and the nomination was withdrawn.

Before → After.

Only a couple members from the Outlines WikiProject showed up at the AfD.

Do you have WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts watchlisted?

If not, please watchlist it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 08:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Canterbury Tail  talk  05:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement, which is definitely the single, final one I will be making at that page, has been revised in response to your post here. Sswonk (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:FoxboroughSeal.png
Thanks for uploading File:FoxboroughSeal.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks again for the help with my user page, most appreciated. Upsilona (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2011 (GMT)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested...
in my latest article. I have not spared any of the brutal details, which are all backed by reliable sources. 2000 Tandragee killings. It's a very sad and horrific story.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You thought right, and as expected it's well written and engaging. The road taken with heavy drinking and a loose "so fucking what, it's got fuck all to do with me"... I read it and then got thinking about rule by psychopathic absolutist mob/gang law. This recalled Cosa Nostra, the rabid Schutzstaffel, Tonton Macoute, Taliban, MS-13, and on and on. Does writing about this type of thing bring you in contact with the mentality, are you able to grasp and describe it effectively, recognize the origins and pathologies the more you read? How does it make you feel, do you think you become more of a nihilist? I certainly think you are doing a good job writing.
 * I as you can tell don't have anything going and have withdrawn, though I do check here, and on my more recent contributions. Outside wiki I still explore a lot of sixties west coast music and culture; where you were at the time and I have never been. Still really listening to the Bay Area and exploring. I'll link a rediscovery of another song from that era, you know by a Canadian who wrote it—as far as I can narrow down when she was twenty four—and I thought of it as it relates to the pleasant surprise of you leaving the above note on my page. It should or could be one of your favorites, surely you will recognize the tune she wrote if not her version. I say it relates, in the way it explores the opposite of psychopathic absolutism: ambiguity, and in that respect her view is in a slyly vexing way easy to grasp, understandable and compelling. Anyway, Jeanne, try the song, click the link before my signature, not forgetting to click the play button once you get there. Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I prefer the Judy Collins version. Joni Mitchell never did anything for me to be perfectly honest. I wouldn't say I become a hihilist when I'm writing. In fact, during the last article on those teenagers' murders, I became very upset-in fact, I had to stop and lie down as the sheer bestiality of the attack overwhelmed me. Stephen Brown was violent by nature. No matter where he had lived under whatever political/social system he would most likely have killed someone. The fact that he was permitted to join a paramilitary organisation, given his unstable behaviour, basically gave him a licence to kill whomever took his fancy. In this case two innocent guys, one who happened to say the wrong thing about Brown's hero whilst drunk, and the other (McIlwaine) who was just an innocent bystander yet bore the brunt of Brown's sociopathic violence. I get the feeling McIlwaine's stance as a "decent, respectable boy" vexed Brown.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the versions, you probably know I very much appreciate your being perfectly honest, and honesty in general. I like both, and prefer Joni because of the venue: singing and accompanying herself on the guitar, of which she is also a master. But I really want to point out that she wrote the song, the writing and talking about you is more of what I was actually thinking of when I wrote that. Which leads to the questions, which you answered. I think maybe another word, not nihilist, maybe "resigned" or "philosophical"? I don't know. I do know that when I read these accounts, and about other barbaric, sinister, unthinkable-until-that-moment of reading, and other descriptions—those type of acts—I worry about what other people who read or write about it are thinking as well. And, again, I really think you do a great job. I get a strong sense that you are rational and giving as unbiased an account as you can, and hold the right temperament for the job. It is very, very interesting Jeanne. It is important; people these days are getting immersed in their gadgets and entertainments and forgetting that real human monsters like that are extant. A lot of value is wasted trying to blot it all out, like I read here about cognitive dissonance, illustrated by the Fox and the Grapes. I thought when I first read 2000 Tandragee killings, someone might view it as "unencyclopedic" to include the anatomical details as you did. That is a difference, and it might get edited out. Not by me. I was appreciative when taking the story as a whole, it was a necessary element to understand the nature of what occurs. Not to offer advice, but to prepare for possible challenge, this text appears in the edit window in small print: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Who knows what will happen?, but I was glad you notified me and I got the full intent of your prose as it was fresh. Always feel free to contact me, via email if you feel a need for confidentiality or to avoid the consequences of that small print. Sswonk (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The graphic details are essential as the article needs to explain why the RUC, Gerry Adams etc were shocked by the crime's barbarity. Especially as the RUC (especially in County Armagh) by tthat time had over 30 years of handling grisly shootings, punishment beatings, seeing the splattered, unrecognisable remains of what were once human beings who had the misfortune to be caught in the full force of a bomb explosion. Those guys were used to blood and guts but the sheer ferocity of the murders left some of the officers at the crimescene traumatised hence the details. Also remember that Wikipedia is not censured. I admit that writing about those killings upset me. Everyime I go into the local butcher's now I flinch when I see the knives. Last night I heard on the news that a man here in Italy ripped his own eyes out at church during mass. I was very perturbed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

'Battle of the Books'
Link to a short essay I thought might interest you following your recent post at Sarah's TP. Enjoy! RashersTierney (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I will read up on the dealings of Colmcille and perhaps comment later. Sswonk (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, sir, outstanding selection. I hope you like the following selection, it has some connected meaning to the essay in the words. Music and lyrics. Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for a moment I was 15 again. Had every piece of vinyl I could lay hands on associated with 'the Boss' before most of my little circle of peers heard of him. Then came Slane and all the razzmatazz, and a quiet section of 'the river', hitherto only for surreptitious skinny-dipping with the latest soul-mate suddenly had certified life-guards, deckchairs and car-park attendants, and it just wasn't ever the same again. RashersTierney (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help fill in annotations at Portal:Contents/Outlines
Please go to Portal:Contents/Outlines' and fill in as many missing annotations as you can, even if it's only one or two. Every little bit helps!

The annotating of the entries on Portal:Contents/Outlines is nearing completion.

Annotated entries look like this:


 * Basketball – team sport in which two teams of five players try to score points by throwing or "shooting" a ball through the top of a basketball hoop while following a set of rules.
 * Canoeing and kayaking – two closely related forms of watercraft paddling, involving manually propelling and navigating specialized boats called canoes and kayaks using a blade that is joined to a shaft, known as a paddle, in the water.
 * Cricket – bat-and-ball team sport, the most popular form played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game.
 * Martial arts – extensive systems of codified practices and traditions of combat, practiced for a variety of reasons, including self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, as well as mental and spiritual development.

Entries needing annotations look like this:


 * Industry – 
 * Construction –
 * Architecture –
 * Machines –
 * Industrial machinery –
 * Robotics –
 * Mining –

Even if all you can do is one or two, the support will be greatly felt. Many hands make light work.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey
I decided not to answer the survey. It was too time-consuming and I prefer to reply to questions regarding Wikipedia under the auspices of Wikipedia itself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
Howdy. Why don't ya just open an RM at Republic of Ireland, seeing as you're focusing in on the country article. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, not in the offing but something to think about. I left a note at IECOLL. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

IECOLL
Yep. -- Evertype·✆ 11:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concentrate on RMing to Ireland (country), since we've already got Georgia (country). -- GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole island could be considered a country. Only Ireland (state) is unambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 18:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the island can't be considered a country -- not since 1922. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It can, because the word country is polyvalent, in a way that state in this context cannot be. -- Evertype·✆ 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record I agree with Evertype, it was my second preference in 2009. Now I vacillate between two or three. I think (state) is most likely to persuade the most people and probably is the most accurate. An all-Ireland article is getting hit from all sides and this being a wiki with low limits on participation, rather than a publication with a small and sophisticated editorial board, it won't fly. I went with GoodDay on (republic) to see how that would go. No good, but really I was more surprised at how the "status quo" vote went so poorly. Evertype is quite correct on (country), it sounds OK until you take into account the ambiguities discussed and the article he linked. Sswonk (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole project stinks because of the bad faith of so many. I don't even bother editing articles on Ireland any longer, because of this shite. -- Evertype·✆ 11:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal warning about your comment at user talk:Sarah777
Sswonk, I find your comment at user talk:Sarah777 very close to seriously inappropriate behaviour. It gives the distinct impression of trying to put words in another user's mouth. It is clearly against the spirit of canvassing, and it smacks of trying to 'stir up trouble' (for possible want of a better phrase) by way of tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor, possibly in the hope of getting her involved in a large and potentially uncivil discussion where consensus is not currently matching your views. Please consider this a formal warning. Sarah is to be commended for her actions in voluntarily consulting with her mentor and then taking his advice, particularly on a subject she is know to have strong views about. Having explicitly declined to contribute to the discussion, as is the right of every contributor to this project, you should not be hounding her. Crossposted to user talk:Sswonk and user talk:Sarah777. Additionally noted on the discussion page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider this a formal warning: you are being a WP:DICK. My request to an adult person did not in any way "suggest tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor". I asked her to confirm, on her page via a single sentence response, what is a blatant truth, that she opposes the title. I can only thank you for your fantastic summation that what I asked is "in the hope of getting her involved in a large and potentially uncivil discussion", since it illustrates very well why I consider this website a cesspool. For someone of your caliber to become an administrator after only six months of work in 2005, and proceed to consider that license hold the views you do and lord over people who disagree with you is a severe insult to the intelligence of the populations of wiki editors and readers alike. I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors. No one should have to put up with this, I certainly won't. cc: Thryduulf talk, Sarah77 talk. Sswonk (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see anything "seriously inappropriate" in those comments, nor do I find any canvassing there. I believe Sswonk's characterization of Sarah777's view is accurate, and I see him simply asking her to confirm it, in response to a query by Dmcq. I think Thryduulf's "formal warning" is inappropriate, and I think he owes Sswonk an apology. -- Evertype·✆ 14:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I might have considered an apology had I read your comments (Evertype) before Sswonk's, the personal attacks he has responded with are completely inappropriate and unjustified in all situations. Were they not directed against me, I would be not unlikely be considering a civility block. As they are directed against me, I shall obviously not be doing so (my judgement regarding what I perceive as attacks against me is hardly going to be unbiased), so WP:WQA is my next stop. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:WQA. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Following advice there, I have copied the discussion to WP:AN/I. I do not know whether discussion will also continue at WP:WQA or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel compelled to say to you, Thryduulf, that you should let this drop rather than escalating it. It's not making you look very good. -- Evertype·✆ 16:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought the initial intervention was OTT. Can we drop it now please? RashersTierney (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wellesley MA seal.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Wellesley MA seal.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)