User talk:Swarm/Archive 2

Sources for When Corporations Rule The World
The Nader & Abzug quotes are excerpted from the many blurbs found inside the book which can be viewed on Amazon.com. I didn't write any of this article, was not and am not thrilled to see blurbs cited, they vary in value, so up to you if you want to reinsert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I see now. I merged the "praise" and "criticism" sections and renamed it "reception", but to be honest, this probably wasn't a good move on my part. "Praise" and "criticism" sections are fundamentally biased, I don't think merging the two sections makes them "cancel out" to become unbiased and neutral. With the two blurbs (that made up the "praise" section removed, however, it leaves nothing short of the "criticism" section under the guise of "reception". No, I would rather see both the "praise" and "criticism" sections, which are inherently biased, removed completely. However, I'm not sure of the value of this information. I'm going to remove the rest of it per WP:NPOV, but I won't argue if anyone reinserts any of it because they feel it's valuable. Swarm Talk 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's more than fair. Regards Cronos1 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note on proper procedure, I've moved my note to the users talk page, and I'll be sure to use WP:ANI should anything similar happen again! Davémon (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Regards, Swarm Talk 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User/Admin Sarah
Sarah is the best Wikipedian there is! Do you know her? I'm sure you're super cool, too, but I hope you can forgive me if I remain biased in her favor. She is #1, but the #2 slot is still open.

You have a cool Wiki handle, too, Swarm! Yeah! Don't you love Wikipedia, Swarm? Wikipedia is the shizznickle. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Er...yeah! I totally agree with you! Thanks for the inspiring words! Swarm Talk 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:WP:TROUT
Perhaps you would like to take a look at Premier Shawn's talk page? I don't know about you, but I thought that his nom statement and answer to question 1 was ridiculous and laughable. Bejinhan Talk   06:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that I would respond that way to the RfA if I did not check out the candidate's background? The candidate his a disruptive user, with a vandalism and socking history. I don't know about you, but I certainly would not support such a candidate. I knew what I was doing and frankly, I don't think I should have been trout-ed. So can you please remove that trout message? Bejinhan  Talk   09:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know if trouting me without checking out why I did something can be considered good-faith.
 * I posted the Rfa link in IRC and there was a small "discussion" about the user there. That was how I knew it. Thanks for tlping it. And no, I wouldn't know that it was sarcasm unless I hear your tone of voice... which I certainly can't. :p Bejinhan  Talk   10:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, no hard feelings. :) Bejinhan  Talk   10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Descriptive & segmented article titles
I would be grateful if you could comment at Administrators' noticeboard. I believe that what has occured is not civil, and does not require the intervention of any administrator. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as WikiGryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! &bull; Ling.Nut 02:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users
I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.

Administrators' noticeboard

Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk &#124; contribs) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hello. I do not speak English and I speak to you with googel translator. I am inter-braces in the project and wonder what it is like. how do I use the project? When I make a change to the pages, how do I do?. I like these projects, and how do I use the account so I can be anonoym.

Much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.207.160 (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I to you writing
For you on my page of using, I have to you writing. --83.109.207.160 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as WikiGryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! &bull; Ling.Nut 02:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

adoption
sure you can adopt me yougo1000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yougo1000 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I Will Wait
I Sent User:Bree Parker A Message On The Users Talk Page Saying I Will Not Adopt That User Until I Make 500 Edits (I Will Count). --S1312 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You Can Adopt User:Bree Parker Until I Make 500 Edits --S1312 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks for your reasonableness. Swarm Talk 05:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Elle Pikul
Hello Swarm. I am just letting you know that I deleted Elle Pikul, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Yes you can adopt me! Thank you very much. Aaddaamm94 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Swarm. Thanks for the adoption! Snoopydaniels (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. Thanks for adopting me. I am sure I can benefit a lot from your help. Thanks for sharing your skills. Looking forward to working with you. TedEyeMD (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi there, I have no problem with this, but you may want to see User talk:X!. Only at RfA could drama be created out of nothing... Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see this. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Oops, I should have put this down here instead of a little higher up. Thanks for adopting me Swarm (see adoption just above)

TedEyeMD (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering
If I have questions shall I write them on your talk page or e-mail? I do not want to make your page look untidy. Aaddaamm94 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Thanks also for defending the minority opinion - as I tried to point out there, he did in fact have a valid reason to oppose. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I?
I was wondering how do I actually get a Contents box to actually appear. It would be handy to get one on my talk page. I have looked through the code and I cant see anything that makes it blindingly obvious what it is. Maybe I sound silly because it might just appear automatically and I'm just missing something so obvious. Aaddaamm94 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It will just appear automatically after a certain number of sections are created. There's only three on your talk page right now, so there's not much to navigate. When it's around five sections or something it will automatically be displayed. Swarm Talk 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm
Thanks for the nod, Might you email me rajaspencer@yahoo.com with some direction and or links to read? Thanks, SpencerCubaking (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Poll
Unfortunately, "oppose the poll and other responses" gives undue credibility to a section that has no bearing on the final decision during closing. Ronk01  talk  04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Than it should just say "other responses" or "other comments". Anything other than "support" or "oppose" should fall into one section. The heading doesn't need to nor should it say "oppose poll", as that's already implied by "other comments". I agree that the heading should not appear to "give weight" to oppose poll responses, but it should be further shortened, not expanded. Swarm Talk 04:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:No TOC
Hi. The deletion discussion was here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your unarchive
Hello, the contents you unarchived from the talk page of adopt-a-user have already been resolved and are no longer relevant, thus they should remain in the archive. Another user has already undone your actions, but please be more careful next time. The general idea is that on maintenance talk pages, incidents should be archived when they have been resolved. This is done to create a cleaner page that users can understand - in this case new users. If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page. Netalarm talk 04:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a reason Talk pages, either WP, Article, or Talk pages are archived, and they should not be reverted, without an Consensus of the users who maintain the page or project, This is normally how things are done here on WP. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The contents I unarchived from the talk page are the most recent discussions on the page, so they are relevant and may be of interest to other users.
 * There is nothing anywhere that says pages should be completely archived, with nothing whatsoever left on the page. Archiving is used to shorten a page by hiding old, inactive discussions, not to strip a talk page bare.
 * Resolved issues should be marked with template:resolved, not necessarily archived.
 * The first section that was unarchived wasn't a resolved issue, but a note that probably would be of interest to new users.
 * The second section was resolved.
 * The third section was not a resolved issue, but a recently ongoing discussion.
 * The fourth section was a comment that only you (netalarm) commented on, and certainly could have stayed open for more comments.
 * The fifth section was also resolved.
 * (This being said, I find it interesting that you mention issues that have been resolved at all.)
 * Issues such as archiving and unarchiving are simple maintenance matters that do not need to rely on consensus. We're not a bureaucracy, we don't need to follow process for the sake of process.
 * It's likely that a user will be more encouraged to leave a note on a talk page if they won't be the only ones on it.
 * I hope you understand my justification. Five sections is a clean talk page. No sections is an empty one. Reverting my unarchive is counterproductive at best. Sw &spades; rm Talk 04:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, Netalarm, while we're on the topic, are you an adopter? If not, as an experienced editor the program could certainly use your help; there's a backlog of 19 users! The above issue aside completely, I thought I'd ask you to consider. Sw &spades; rm Talk 04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't adopt users, but I'm currently matching adopters with adoptees here. Since both sides don't step forward, I've decided to help them get paired up and begin. Regarding the archive issue, I have rearchived them, as all of the issues are either stale or have been resolved elsewhere. There is simply no value in keeping them on an active talk page. Netalarm talk 05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some points are valid, but consensus or atleast a discussion is needed, as a note.
 * Just about all maintenance space are archived, and the archive pages are listed, which is not hiding any discussions.
 * Notes on a talk page, does not have to be resolved to be archived.
 * The third section is a resolved issue, a comment saying it is a good idea, does resolve it..
 * One comment is fine for just about all maintenance pages, therefore, does not need to be open for comments for everyone else, when it is more then a week old, when most pages are archived after 72h.
 * Yes, archiving and unarchiving are simple matters, but on highly visable projects and pages, it is highly suggested you get a consensus and not revert edits because you feel like it. Leaving a note on the talk page about the process, getting opinions, is the way to go.
 * The adopt-a-user program is not the same as a page like say AN/I that needs to be marked as resolved, since many users are commenting on something, or asking for an opinion.
 * So, I don't agree with your justification, or your opinions on what a talk page should and shouldn't be, which is why I reverted it in the first place. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 05:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is presumably the discussion that you feel needs to happen. However, to be completely honest, I don't care that much. Occasionally I run into instances where people resist such trivial things and it leaves me baffled as to why the argument's going on. For example, I once saw someone argue, very fiercely, against the inclusion of a world leader's signature because they claimed it distracted from the article. I felt their argument was absurd, but since they wouldn't budge, I just moved on with my life. I still think my point of view is correct, naturally, but it's not worth fighting over. I'm going to yield to netalarm's judgement (in originally archiving the posts). Manual archiving is completely unnecessary nowadays anyway, which is the funny thing-- this should be a non-issue! I'll go ahead and set up automated archiving for the page when I get around to it, and forsake those five sections to their archived fate for now.  Sw &spades; rm Talk 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am open to any discussion, I agree manual archiving is not needed now-a-days with ClueBot, Miszha, and HBV. All of them can be used to archive a page automatically, including only ones with a certain templates marking them as done. Although, with certain pages like the one in question, it is my view that it is easier to archive it manually. I agree, an argument is not needed, is may be unwarrented, but I reply to just about everything. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 05:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't say we're arguing about this issue at all. I merely view this as a discussion on how to best improve a user's experience at adopt-a-user. Trivial, so let's just get it over with and do more useful things. Regarding the automatic archiving, that won't be necessary since it's a low volume talk page. Netalarm talk 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's five pages of archives. It may be a slower talk page, but it's hardly low volume. Sw &spades; rm Talk 05:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You may take note
-redacted by swarm-


 * I assumed you reverted it because it was a duplicate message to netalarm's, not because you mistakenly templated me. You still performed the act of templating me. In any sense, the template I left you is supposed to be a lighthearted, ironic jest, as it itself states. Your sarcastic, hostile message serves no purpose than to try and instigate an argument. I can tolerate being templated with humor. I can tolerate incorrectly citing policies. However, I won't tolerate incivility, in any sense, and however subtle, on my talk page. Therefore I've removed your comment. Sw &spades; rm Talk 04:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may choose to do as you wish, but I was not hostile in anyway. My comment is what it is, because you were wrong. Accusing me of being uncivil, and hostile, will not be tolerated as it is an attack towards me. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 05:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Thanks for not paying attention", I believe your comment said? That's sarcasm. Was the intent of the sarcasm humor or spite? It was certainly spite, not humor. Therefore, I perceived your comment as uncivil. That wasn't an attack. Calling someone on incivility is not a personal attack. Saying it is an attack is a very-tried tactic that has always failed. "Will not be tolerated"? What are you going to do? Vandalize my page? Edit war with me? I'm being completely serious, what does that mean? Take this to WQA? Because I perceived your message as uncivil, I'm attacking you and you won't tolerate it? Sw &spades; rm Talk 05:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the writer of my comments, and I do know the meaning behind them, with that said it was meant as humor, not spite. I have no reason to spite you, or any other editor on WP. With this said, I would never do anything as uncivil as vandalizing your page, edit warring, or anything of that nature. -- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 05:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IQinn (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, if you revert me one more time, you're the one who would be in violation of 3RR. I, on the other hand, haven't reverted anyone, so I don't see how I'm edit warring. I only added the picture again because you keep removing it. That template doesn't even apply to me, but it does apply to you. How ironic. Sw &spades; rm Talk 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the articles history page one can see that this is not correct. IQinn (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you want to break down the talk history?
 * 23:09, October 1, 2010 Swarm (talk | contribs) (189,686 bytes) (this collage is adequate...
 * 00:18, October 2, 2010 Iqinn (talk | contribs) (189,673 bytes) (Undid revision 388212743 by Swarm... (revert 1)
 * 09:04, October 2, 2010 Thundermaker (talk | contribs) (189,689 bytes) (replace stub image... (another editor adds a completely different picture
 * 01:34, October 3, 2010 Swarm (talk | contribs) (189,772 bytes) (this collage has been used for a long time... (I replaced Thundermaker's image with the better quality collage)
 * 01:51, October 3, 2010 Iqinn (talk | contribs) (189,775 bytes) (as per community discussion... (revert 2)
 * 12:47, October 3, 2010 Swarm (talk | contribs) (189,772 bytes) (One editor thinks this collage is "bad"... (call it revert 1 on my part if you wish)


 * I undid your edit once because you're the only one pushing an issue no one else has a problem with. You're being ridiculous, warning me for edit warring. Sw &spades; rm Talk 18:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's wrong again. Just look at the older history and the talk page discussions. I am off-line soon so i am leaving it like that. Regards. IQinn (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just one correction. You replaced Thundermaker's who added the image that was created after the talk page discussion with the same collage that you reverted back before and after that edit. So there are already 3 reverts here from your site in this short history. I do think that it was absolutely justified to remind you on the 3RR rules to stop you. Regards. IQinn (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't even know what the 3 revert rule is. It means you can't have more than 3 reverts in 24 hours on a single page. There was no consensus for the other collage, it was just a suggested alternative. I only made 3 edits. October 1 did not revert anyone, I changed one image to another because consensus clearly was that any image was better than the stub image. October 3, I changed one collage to another (I didn't revert anyone's edit though. Then I undid your revision of my edit for a very clearly explained reason. That's not 3 reverts, much less 3 reverts in one day. That's one revert. You seem to think we need to show casualties for a collage to be neutral, and that the standing collage was biased. No one agrees with you, yet you try to claim that there's a consensus in favor of all of your actions. The older history is irrelevant, and I've contributed to the talk page discussion. Unless you can back up your claim with hard evidence don't try and vaguely say "look at the older page history" or "look at the talk page discussions". Sw &spades; rm Talk 19:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Be assured that i know how edit warring looks like i think we could go on for hours to discuss if you just have crossed the border of 3R in 24h. It does not matter the topic was already under discussion on the talk page and your constant re-adding of the old collage that had been replaced by a neutral image during the discussion of the topic on the talk page was not helpful. If you read the talk page discussion you also will find other editor who are not happy with your collage. From the template: "Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." I still think the reminder was justified. IQinn (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when it comes down to WP:DNTTR, even if I was in danger of violating 3rr, I wouldn't need a templated warning. Let's leave the discussion on the article's talk page and not worry about warning each other for edit warring. I trust I don't need to worry about you and you don't need to worry about me when it comes to 3RR. I made one revision. That's nothing to shit your pants over. Sw &spades; rm Talk 20:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You did more that one revision but you are right. Back to the content issue. IQinn (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for the War in Afghanistan collage
Thanks for creating that image--I tried, but I'm just not an image editor. Publicus 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, Publicus, it's very much appreciated. Sw &spades; rm Talk 18:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Hey, could you unmark this discussion? I still have some things to say. Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problem. Swarm Talk 03:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's still marked as resolved? Endofskull (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is resolved. The problemm was Heavydata's rudeness, which they said they'd stop. I've unarchived it, so you're free to leave more comments, but someone saying that they will stop and considering the issue to be resolved is the absolute best a WQA discussion can possibly achieve. You can still comment. Swarm Talk 00:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. But it's not resolved, because ironically, Heavydata made an attack page right after he said he'd stop. So I'll go ahead and add some comments. Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really feel it's not resolved, you're completely free to take down the template. I have no problem with it. Swarm Talk 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the user page award! Can't remember the last time I got one of those (probably a few years ago). I very much appreciate it, a lot of work went into the user page, which is why I always reconsider every time I'm going to design a new one. By the way, I just saw that collage you made. It looks pretty awesome. If you hadn't received a barnstar for it, I probably would have given you one myself. Thanks again, Feed  back  ☎ 03:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Call back
You have new message here. IQinn (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC) one more. IQinn (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've learned my lesson!
I won't be doing anything like that again.

Peace

86.174.109.194 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was lying, hehe
And I'm off to show Eagles again, lulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.109.194 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Please make your point at Files_for_deletion. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and leave room and time for discussion.


 * The discussion has move on to Files_for_deletion to ensure a wider community input. It seems to me that you have mass nominated these image without carefully evaluating them and that all comes shortly after we had a contend dispute on another article. I am open to review for the things i do and so should you. Please provide detailed arguments why you have nominated these images in the discussion Files_for_deletion. Thank you.
 * The date change for deletion is fine to ensure a constructive civil debate that you in my opinion tries to avoid what your actions show. Please engage in civil conversations and provide your arguments at Files_for_deletion so consensus can be achieved. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to edit a page about a family member...
Where so much of the information is incorrect it is insane. A simple google search will lead you to see how many children this individual has and every time I try to change it, I am sent here. The things that you have allowed on this page are ridiculous lies and you don't even allow me to edit something that is true and verifiable. You are a sham and a pathetic excuse for a website. If this matter is not corrected ASAP I will contact an attorney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFShea (talk • contribs) 04:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in (I looked at JF Shea's recent edits). JF, instructions have been placed on your talk page. -- Anthony (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re : Adoption
Hi There, Thanx For Your Offer For Adoption, I Am Very ,Much Interested Do keep in touch with me and Happy EditingClintong (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Warm Regards Clinton

mobile :

Website http://twitter.com/Clinton_G http://clintongonsalvez.tumblr.com/ http://in.linkedin.com/in/clintong facebook.com/ClintonGonsalvez


 * Alright, and if there's anything you need help with, let me know. Swarm Talk 20:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WQA
Thanks for the info. I looked to see if it was included in the blue boxes at the top, but I didn't see it. It seems the filing party is the only one addressed. I'd like to suggest info section titled something like. What to do when you are the subject of a WQA. Honestly, if I knew it would fall silently like a tree in a forest, I would have just made a quick comment and stepped away. It all seems so silly now (of course, on my part I was very adult). The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's actually a good idea to add such a section. I might add something along those lines.  Swarm   X 01:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 gubernatorial map
Good job on the map, but I think a couple of things need changing: CT should show as a Democrat gain, FL should show as a Republican hold (Crist was elected as a Republican at the last election), and I think the Independent gain in RI should be picked out in a more prominent color, like green, because the black is hard to spot from the dark blue.--109.152.253.45 (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I've made the CT correction and changed RI to green, but I've kept FL the same. The Republicans did hold the seat at the last election, but lost it when Crist left the party. So technically, they did gain (or regain) it. Thanks again, though.  Swarm   X 21:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh @ adopt-a-user
I've replied to your post there. Uh oh.... 45 backlogged... I'll work on something to cut that down (message adoptee to look for their own too, change request process to make them look first, remove inactive, etc.) Netalarm talk 04:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)