Jump to content

User talk:Sswonk/Archives/2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Project

Thanks for the alerts there on the project. I've managed to do a lot of editing around those roads tonight, as there is time to be had here. I created an article for Soldiers Field Road as well. I was wondering if you could create a sign seen here for Wikipedia. I plan on putting it to the right side of the Cape Cod Road Transportation template, since Boston has one. As you can see, I have no originality or graphics skills. I do have lots of free time, so if you want something done in exchange, I would be willing to do it. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: the sign, that may not work because it could be a copyright violation and templates don't constitute fair use. The road signs are not, because they are generic in shape and font (the state seal copyright has expired). Some research needs to be done on the copyright status of the license plate device used in the sign at that link. I did a quick map for Soldiers Field, easier than most because I already had one for Storrow. See WP:MPTF#Needed for articles you could get going (move SFR to done or in progress), but they should have at least one reference, anything about the road you can find in the Globe or Herald should do. Sswonk (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the map. I guess the copyright would apply, but I'm unsure of how far a state license plate would go on the copyright. I also moved Soldiers Field up as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that image looks great. Thanks for the hard work there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Boston

Hi! I noticed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Framingham,_Massachusetts&diff=337519133&oldid=337513482

To my knowledge Framingham is within the U.S. Government-defined Boston metro area, so it should fall within the project boundaries. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sswonk

Sswonk, city projects routinely cover the suburbs. All those places are defined by the U.S. government as being within the Boston area. The WikiProject I participate in, Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston, covers Houston, Galveston, and many other places. As a result it pulls in more people and it is coherent. By only covering the Boston city limits (population: 620,535), it's very limiting and not coherent with the surrounding area.

However because the Boston MSA covers territory in two states, the state WikiProject banners should also be left there. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Whisper, the scope of the project reads as follows: This WikiProject aims to provide a centralized location for the discussion of standards for work on articles relating to the City of Boston in Wikipedia. This covers but is not limited to its history, culture, sports and other topics. I stress for you the words "City of Boston". It may be unclear, but in the vernacular here in Mass that implies only that city and not others. The identities of the cities of Cambridge, Everett, Newton, Quincy, Revere and Somerville, all of which border Boston, are not as might be called "suburbs" elsewhere. Those cities, and all other cities and towns within Massachusetts, carry a strong local sense of independence and identity. Let's not argue about this. The Boston and Massachusetts projects have differing scopes. Due to the very large amount of topics covered by the Boston project, the scope is limited for a reason to simply the city itself. The municipalities in the area surrounding Boston have always fallen under the scope of the Massachusetts project, not the Boston project. I have reverted well-intentioned placement of the "Boston" banner as you made here in the past without having to argue that point. The members of both projects have long maintained that status for the banners: Boston and Massachusetts for the Boston talk page, Massachusetts for all other municipalities. There are many members of both projects who work on these pages regularly. Thanks for contributing, however on this particular minor point I feel you should defer to the consensus we have established over the last few years. Sswonk (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change states that consensus can change. The page explains: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."
Looking at previous discussions, I found:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boston/Archive_2#What_is_the_scope_of_this_page.3F - In response to a question one member says that the project doesn't cover the suburbs, but he wouldn't object if the scope was expanded
I searched "scope" and "suburb" on the WikiProject talk pages, and this is all I found. If there are any discussions I am not aware of, please let me know.
You said: "The identities of the cities of Cambridge, Everett, Newton, Quincy, Revere and Somerville, all of which border Boston, are not as might be called "suburbs" elsewhere." - I understand that identities of suburbs and bedroom cities in the Northeast tend to be more historically established than those in the south and west. Having said that, the U.S. government considers a group of cities to be a part of the Boston metropolitan area and therefore in the economic and cultural sphere of Boston. The Boston MSA is defined by a group of cities surrounding Boston. Reliable sources typically refer to these cities as suburbs of or under the influence of Boston.
"The members of both projects have long maintained that status for the banners: Boston and Massachusetts for the Boston talk page, Massachusetts for all other municipalities." In that case I will argue for a new status - Boston covering all cities within the Boston MSA boundaries, with each city having either a Massachusetts tag or a New Hampshire tag, depending on which state the city is in. It is like how things are done with the Philadelphia (PA-NJ-DE) and Chicago (IL-IN) projects.
"however on this particular minor point I feel you should defer to the consensus we have established over the last few years." This is not a minor point. The project would greatly benefit from an increase in scope, and it would help attract new contributors. I think the Los Angeles WikiProject (now a task force) went inactive because the members did not make the scope of the project large enough, and eventually people weren't as active in contributing.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
My gut and also well considered preference is to keep Boston about Boston only. Your feelings revolve around having the project itself become about "Greater Boston", but I can tell you up front that the definitions and feelings about the geographical space of that concept range widely. I don't see a reason to change based on "attract(ing) new contributors". There is already a link to the Mass portal on the Boston page. My position would be to promote the "Massachusetts" project more aggressively on the Boston project page, rather than expand the scope of Boston. The cities are more strongly self-identified than I think you have understood from what I wrote. I could easily say to you that I think Chicago and Philly do it the wrong way, it's just an opinion. I can see more editors or potential editors becoming offended by suggestion, for example, that "Nashua, New Hampshire is under the scope of WP:Boston" than I can see editors or potential ones being pleased by it. It is a minor point, ultimately, see [1], [2] and [3] which show that, as an example, the talk page of Canton, Massachusetts has been viewed 5 times in the past 10 weeks. That's pretty minor. I don't buy into the project banners having nearly as big a drawing power as apparently you do. My request and preference is that we stop discussing this here and you seek a way to promote the improvement of articles about cities and towns nearby to Boston as part of the Massachusetts project, which would help the smaller towns away from the city as well. Sswonk (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case I'll continue the discussion at the WikiProject Boston talk page later today. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

 Done – Just voted, thank you for the notification. Sswonk (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

John Adams

Hey, I was wondering, if you don't mind (or if you're not too busy) if you could assist me in improving the article, preferably to an FA (or GA), with a couple months? This will be my first time taking a project like this, as I generally tend to take on graphic and aesthetic tasks on here. I'd appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks. --Connormah (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, I can help with improving the article, but with limited time due to recent real life obligations. I asked [4] an editor to do a peer review but from the look of things he was much too busy. That, I feel, would be a good first step. I do some writing, but primarily I am on the graphics/technical/article gnoming sides of things. I would also be able to find some books locally that might not be available at other libraries, as I live in Adams' birthplace. If you don't mind, since you appear to be taking the lead on this I would suggest you go to WP:REVIEW and read up on how to get someone to give the article a thorough once-over, and then find someone to do that. I really think that is needed, and that the reviewer should have a strong background in biography of important historic figures. The article could probably be lifted to GA without too much work, but a reviewer might find many more issues than I can see. Sswonk (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll list it there ASAP. Connormah (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have started the PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/John Adams/archive2. Could you assist me in this process if I am not able to address such comments within a reasonable time frame? Thanks, Connormah (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Great. I added it to my watchlist, I'll do what I can. Sswonk (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the referencing issue, it really is a very good article. Tony (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suffering from hubris, I took a look at fixing this today per Tony at Talk:John Adams#Referencing. Not as easy as I thought it might be. I am going to try using Wikiblame in an attempt to figure out which editor(s) added the long unreferenced passages and ask if we can get some help there. Sswonk (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ABF

Careful before you ABF eh.

I'm a little scientifically/mathematically inclined from time to time, and sometimes find issues where others don't. It's probably a bad idea to shoot the messenger.

I hope you're willing to apologise.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at draft discussion. Sswonk (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that almost every time you (generic you) think someone is assuming bad faith, it's always you yourself who is doing the assuming? ;-)
My own humble+sincere apologies. And thank you for your post. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Sswonk,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sswonk, I hope you don't mind that I looked here, but Matt mentioned at the other page that he was going to be communicating with you and with me about this issue. I see here that you seem to have changed your "Vote 2" !vote from "90%" to "80%". Am I correct about that? For obvious reasons, I'm very interested in that. Could you please elaborate on why? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't really go by changed results in this data set (as I explained in the message). Sswonk has expressed support for 90%, 85%, 83.3%, 5:1, and now 80% - there does seem to be a pattern! (unless he made an error above). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I was asking Sswonk, so please don't try to speak for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
How was that comment speaking for him? You certainly need to know that I cannot accept a changed vote within the framework of the poll, unless it qualifies as a genuine mistake due to the question being misunderstood - ie if the question was understood properly the vote would have been different. You don't have to apologise for looking at people's talk pages btw - it is the approprtate thing to do when you are involved in the same debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For The Record: I !voted 90% at the finalization poll. Then, after results were argued over I stated that I would gladly support either 85 or 80, in order to actually finalize the draft. So, this is not the first time I have stated support for 80. 83.3 and 5:1 are the same thing, gotten from my idea of using very simple ratios instead of percentages. To be honest, I would support 70 if I thought that would fly at RFC. The 90 vote was not as well considered by me as it should have been. I changed my vote here because I qualify as a "(case) where the question was genuinely misunderstood" as stated by Matt above. Of the three choices, 80, 90 or none, given here at Matt's latest inquiry, even though I was not exactly sure on Sunday what "None" meant, I support 80. None is not recommended, and in all seriousness, if someone is brought up for community de-adminship and only 20 percent of voters can be found who oppose that, why in the world would that person be considered an asset to Wikipedia as an admin? Anyone who has a passed CDA against should resign for the good of the project, in my opinion. With the safeguards in place against nuisance CDAs, a vote of passage (65+) is a strong community message to an unwanted sysop. So, I might even have voted "None" except I noticed some people took it to mean 100% while others took it to mean any passing level, hence the "misunderstood" question. Make sense? Sswonk (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes very good sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can only accept the new vote (for this data set) if the misunderstanding of what "none" meant would have changed the vote at the time you voted. What would you have voted at that time? You said you might have voted "none" had you know what it meant - this is problematic as your new vote is 80%. Although you were unclear on the day on what "none" actually meant, it seems to me that on the day you would have voted for either 90% or "none", but (like some others no-doubt in various ways) have changed you mind on further consideration. So it's a tough one for me as you can imagine. Can you accept me keeping 90% for the sake of this data set? You change to 80% has certainly been noted in terms of post poll discussion. What do you think?

PS - who did you think saw it as meaning "any passing level"? (ie rather than 100%)? This will be really useful to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote several days ago that it would be foolish to assume we can know what people were thinking when they voted. However, my opinion is the that the following editors voted "None" assuming it did NOT mean 100% only: Vassyana, Cube lurker, Tavix, Nihonjo, Kilbad, Eluchil404, Ohconfucius, Nsk92 and Cla68. There are a huge number of edits among these editors. I think after reading their comments, it is clear that 100% was not their intention, but rather it was that beyond the number determined by the result of VOTE 1, consensus will determine whether further discussion or simple automatic desysop by bureaucrats could occur. Thus, I feel a vote of "None" should not be called a vote of "100%" or be weighed on the higher side of 80 or 90. But, isn't that going to be clear once you read their responses to this latest inquiry? I misunderstood what "None" meant in the original vote, and if it had meant what these experienced editors thought it meant I may have chosen it after thinking about it. The question was—and since you still haven't answered my question on your talk page about the new question—is unclear to me. Please change my vote to 80%. Sswonk (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me your opinion on those names, it's very helpful to contrast our interpretations.
I'm still unclear as to what your intent was at the time, so I'll re-phrase it like this: Do you think you would you have voted for 80% instead of 90% on the day of the poll had you understood;
"none" means that there should be no reachable percentage point where the Crats can decide to make the decision to auto-desysop based on the community vote (and not spend any time making judgements as the 'community has spoken')
(I've clarified this in reply to you on my talk now).
I am trying to make sense of a specific data set, and can't go beyond that for obvious reasons. I accept you want 80% now, but if this is seen as a re-poll all the data will be corrupted. I'm trying ascertain what people wanted at the time, per the question that was given. Unfortunately, any changed vote has to still relate to the original intent (regardless of seeing ambiguity that isn't related to the intent, if you see what I mean). Matt Lewis (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure at this point what my intent or state of mind at the time of the vote was; I do remember that I barely thought about it and voted quickly once I read the discussion and votes above mine. I thought, based on some of those votes, "None" represented "no auto-desysop" to some i.e. 100% but as I say, I wasn't quite sure and decided of the three choices I would choose the "middle-of-the-road", i.e. if 80<90<None, then middle=90. However, if I had interpreted "None" to mean "any above (pass pct.)", then I may have voted 80 based on None<80<90, middle=80. My point is, I don't think I would have voted nearly as quickly and would have possibly even questioned the question itself if I had come along after all the editors I list above and seen their different view of what "None" meant, i.e. not 100% but rather "any level/no minimum/use consensus".
I will apply a trick of grammar teachers and replace the main statement with your parenthetical: "none" means that there should be no reachable percentage point where the Crats can not spend any time making judgements as the 'community has spoken'. Put that way, it makes little sense. Firstly, any percentage point is "reachable". That word is meaningless. Secondly, something is awry in the use of "can not spend any time": I can mentally place a comma before "as the community has spoken" and it makes more sense. Then, discounting "reachable" it translates loosely in my mind to: "none" means that no threshold which obviates deliberative judgment, because votes above that threshold indicates 'the community has already decided', should be set. Take that one step further, it boils down to "there will be no auto-sysop level", i.e. auto-desysop is not available through community vote percentage count, bureaucrats must deliberate over consensus regardless of how high over passage the percentage is.
Of course, common sense and familiarity with normal deliberative process will tell you that, as it is called on Wikipedia "SNOW", some level of voting by respected editors will eventually be seen as reading Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. I think that is the message given by those voters who saw "None" as a possibly, perhaps inevitably, lower number than the two numerical options. If the original question had simply been ordered "no second threshold, 80% or 90%", it is possible I would have chosen 80% as the "middle-of-the-road", or even "no second threshold". I've written more than once in the past that I think an admin who has a CDA passed against should resign immediately, which is sort of a mirror of what happens many times when RfA candidates withdraw seeing that they won't likely reach 75% support. That really is how I feel, so if you want to discount my current revised vote of 80%, you shouldn't. I was not sure what the "None" level would mean if it were to be adopted, independent of what it represented to you as the author of the question. You should take that into account; I am not changing my fundamental belief that a passed CDA should in most cases end the service of the sysop, unless there is some gross failure of the measures designed to keep the process fair and not "gamable". Knowing what I know now, reading those comments by the editors listed and seeing the results of a month of debate over this single poll question, 80% is the best number available to reflect my view.
Matt, since it is only a rule-of-thumb, why not just end this and see what happens at the RFC? I think you are too worried about this and frankly appear to be letting pride get the better of you. No one is going to parade in your town wearing "80" shirts next week just because you let those five percent go. Sswonk (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ssownk, you are simply being over-critical when 'deconstructing' various single sentences! Whole paragraphs, repetition and re-phrasing has been used to make this matter clear!! I feel slightly nauseous with all this right now.
I've said many times myself why it would be disasterous to fail to put a properly consensus-strong CDA to the public vote. We cannot just ignore the large number of people who voted 90% and "none"-meaning-100% - it is simply more people than who voted for 80%. They had some excellent reasons, and will all have a vote at the RfA - why upset them? "Rule of thumb" or no, we HAVE to meet consensus. You could easily apply the "what does it matter?" argument to yourself and Tryptofish (especially) too.
I wish you carried on supporting 85% when I suggested it, as all this current drama may never have happened. You whole '5:1 ratio' idea just spun this all out, and is still up there, on the now almost-unreadable CDA draft page. To go all the way down to 80% now is a simply a change of stance by you: I can't see how you can say it is anything other than that. Fair enough in one sense - but Jesus.
I'm gutted that I have to put my findings through you and Tryptofish right now, as I have no faith in either to be fair with me at this point, nor do I see there as being a realistic chance that the essential Canvassing section will be properly addressed, before Jusdafax throws all his toys over the room "at some point today" and polls a pre-revision version of CDA. This all could be a disaster. I feel like I've been patronised the past couple of days too, when really nobody central to CDA is planning to listen to me (or is actually listening to me) at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Larger message at this point: don't feel gutted, treated unfairly or set upon by drama. You asked everyone who voted if they misunderstood the question, I responded that I in fact had doubts and would like to re-vote. In spite of your coloring my request to be reported as voting 80 as being a new event ("To go all the way down to 80% now is a simply a change of stance by you: I can't see how you can say it is anything other than that."), the history shows I stated as much 24 days ago [5]. It could be a disaster but it could not. Those names I listed above who voted "None" with an intent not equal to 100% include sysops and at least one crat: Nihojone, who wrote "None as I think having a minimum threshold is enough. Beyond that, I think a determination of consensus is best." I think either 80 or 85 will be treated as an arbitrary rule in the same way, the value is of only a very minor significance, if any at all. Second message: January 4. January 15. January 31. Deadlines or not, all are long gone and I have said much the same thing since this question arose: "Let's not get bogged down here." I wish you didn't see anger or a put-down in these typed words and that you wouldn't feel attacked, my friend, it is not anything against you or your work. That's about all I can say on it, do what you want with my response, I won't be convinced to rescind it. Sswonk (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Join the WP:USRDCUP 2010!

We're going to go ahead and try this again! The contest will begin April 1. It is a contest to encourage editors to improve teh quality of WP:USRD articles and participate in USRD. Precautions will be taken to make sure that people do not "game the system" and bring article quality down. Please sign up ASAP! Announcements regarding the contest will be made at WP:USRDCUP, Twitter, and/or IRC. --Rschen7754 06:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Motorway map, Ireland

Hi Sswonk, I think you created all those excellent maps for the various Irish motorway pages. I was wondering if you could do a more comprehensive one for the Motorways in the Republic of Ireland page to replace the outdated main map currently occupying the top-right of that article. Seighean (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, as you may have noticed in my note above I am not really active on Wikipedia. However, I do already have the materials and software to help with such a map. I would need details on what you mean by "more comprehensive". Check File:Major roads in Ireland.png, that is the current basic version, comment about what you would add to that. I would probably want to mark county borders and names and enlarge the city names some. Let me know what you would like to see. Sswonk (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB replacing underscores in image names

I started a new discussion about AWB removed underscores in image names, in case you want to watch it. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Sswonk, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Sswonk. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Saskatchewan has gone live

For Seinfeld fans: answer to the question "What Canadian province has a capital whose name rhymes with a female body part?". Excellent bedtime reading. I'm signing off to listen to some music now. Thank you for the heads up. Sswonk (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:U2. 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. watch your edit summaries Merbabu (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sswonk, such vitriol is really not necessary. Your views on the topic would be welcomed, if they were a bit more civil. The Interior(Talk) 17:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sswonk/Archives/2010&oldid=1140052200"