User talk:Sswonk/Archives/2009

A contest you may be interested in

Hello, Sswonk. There is a new contest for U.S. and Canada roads that you may be interested in. To sign up or for more information, please visit User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup. The contest begins Saturday at 00:00 UTC. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP WikiCup Status

This is just to let you know that you have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP WikiCup. However, Scott5114 is planning another contest to open within the next few weeks. Also, there is always next year :) Good luck. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Central Artery Revisions

What does that have to do with me? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can allow the page name to remain the same as it is before. In the case of popularity of names, Central Artery is allowed because it is more known than the official name. Since the state refers to the tunnels by another name, we could always put a disambiguator on the top of the page that indicates that. In the end, I really don't think that it matters what the name of the page is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

City vs town in Mass.

I recall your changes to {{Massachusetts}} expanding the number of cities to 53. An editor is insisting that Braintree should be called a town. Your comments on this matter are welcome at Talk:Braintree, Massachusetts. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

libellous vs libelous

Libellous is valid UK spelling. There is no reason to change pages to US spelling.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, though not relevant to US or UK articles, the Canadian usage is at least pronounced "libelious", though its Canadian spelling I'm uncertain of - "libellious" perhaps, I'll ask a lawyer or two I know.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

re: disruptive user

With regards to Revan ltrl... perhap you might be helpful to look over these pages as I believe there are some similarities between perma-banned Dragong4/Zephead999/Zabrak/etc and this other editor. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

commas

The non-comma, non-period forms are common on highway signs in Washington, and regularly used in BC as well.Skookum1 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quincy

Hey, I think I may have changed my mind re: the Quincy seal and flag from our earlier discussion, but I wanted to see what you think. I know that the Quincy seal is wicked cool and artistic, but check out [1] and [2]. They both seem to be well-done and detailed. I'd love if the same thing could be done for Quincy after all. Thoughts? --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, with the basis being my original reasons given on your talk page. I asked you to read the history of the seal, which nicely complements the image that we are using. But, to explain further I would like to point out that as it states on my user page in a Userbox, I am a graphic arts professional, and have been working in graphic arts for many years. I don't know how much you know about graphic arts, but based on the two examples you are providing I think it may be worth explaining the differences between the Boston SVG seal artwork and the Quincy seal. The Boston seal is what is known as line art. As the linked article states, line art is usually printed in a single color. In the Boston flag image, there are two colors, blue and gold and in the Boston seal itself there is only black. The Quincy seal on the other hand is a continuous tone image. It is currently in PNG format which contains a reduced palette of 256 colors from the actual thousands of colors in the painted image. It is not a solid color image, and if it were reproduced as one it would require thousands of curve nodes to simulate even a rudimentary reproduction of the subtleties of light and brush stroke found in the original. That would actually negate the efficiencies gained by saving artwork in vector format, like SVG, because it would be a larger file and would require significant processor work for the browser to draw on the screen.

In my opinion, the current file, which the city has presented in its documents as a color reproduction of a hand painted scene, is a very nice image. To be sure, there are less than perfect edges between objects, caused by low resolution, and problems with the PNG color palette that create some posterization. While having it rendered in vector would smooth out some of the edges, it would worsen the posterization and create a simplified, cartoon version of a very nice painted scene. The only place the file is being used is on the Quincy main page, as is logical in that it only represents the city, nothing else. It serves its purpose very well and would be rendered much less interesting if drawn as a generalized logo. I appreciate that you asked me the question, it's good to know that you understand I have concerns about preserving the integrity of the city's seal. Please get back to me if you have any other questions. Sswonk (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You know what, that's a very good explanation. Sorry for bothering you with this again! I think it helps very much that you're in graphic arts and can explain all the differences between the Boston bits and the Quincy ones. That's very helpful!!! I've worked a little with art but no formal training and not recently, much to my regret. Hey, I was wondering if you'd know -- is this legitimate? --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is from the state website circa 2002, here is the Wayback machine archived version. Wait a minute or two for all the flags to load, the site is slow. But, as you can see the image is cropped badly. If you are looking for a flag for the infobox, I could just create one like the following code to simulate that image:

110px

Let me know and I will post it and you can add it to the infobox. Sswonk (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome, actually. Could you do any work making the seal we have look more like the flag seal, though? That is, the lines down by the year, the circles around the seal border, more yellow and less gold, &c.? I wish I were talented enough to do it myself! Haha, and I just noticed the Metrowest edits in the Mass. template; it made me chuckle ;-) --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It may take all night because I have been considering doing it in SVG, but only for the flag, still using the painting image for the main seal image. I'll point you to a link when I finish the flag SVG so you can comment if needed before posting. Sswonk (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, no, the seal is the best version possible and is from official documents from the city, see the seal page on the website. The flag is the way it is again because flags use large sections of colored cloth to simulate the painting. I don't know how many times I need to explain this, but flags and embroidered patches, etc. are stylized and less complex because to recreate the official, painted seal with only a few colors requires that. They are by nature inferior versions of the real image, and it would be wrong to do that for the seal image in the infobox. Sswonk (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I understand, although I wasn't talking about the seal itself. I was actually talking about the flag, which uses the actual seal in your example. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm totally with you now on not making the seal an SVG, so I'm not entirely sure the source of your frustration, but I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. You do realise that you've not explained the flag bit before, though, right? I was just saying that your idea of putting the seal inside a while rectangle with a yellow/gold border is good but that I'd like it to look more like the flag, real-world limitations and all. Speaking of which, I'm not entirely convinced the lines and the circles are necessarily the result of those limitations. I'd love for this to still be collaborative and for neither of us to take umbrage at misunderstandings. Please don't be angry. :-( BTW I think the flag would be just dandy as an SVG if that's what you think is best. --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, at first I thought you meant exactly what you just said, "make the simulated flag seal look more like the flag than the actual seal" (paraphrasing), then I posted my first post and somehow thought I read it wrong, who knows. We're on the same page now. I am doing something else at the moment but am going to try to get the flag out, colors, braiding and lettering with bars accurate to the one in the photo, some time tonight if not tomorrow. I was not really angry, just got a little confused. I should have made that clear. Good work on the page today, by the way. Sswonk (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for that confusion. Glad we're still on the same page. Just let me know if you need anything from me; alway happy to be of assistance. And thanks! --King of the Arverni (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I swear the border still looks more yellow to me in the photo than in your SVG, but it looks ready to be posted at Quincy, Massachusetts regardless. I would've done it myself but I wasn't sure if I could because the license said that it could only be distributed by the author. Really, well done. :-) --King of the Arverni (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries about the license tag at all. The license only applies to uses outside of Wikipedia and Commons, since it is directly available by clicking the image here. What that means is that if someone takes that image and uses it somewhere else, like printing a commercial map, they would need to credit me and include the license (see [3]). This applies to any image you find on Wikipedia or Commons with that license, as long as you are just linking to it here you are fine. Regarding the colors, I have been doing this so long I don't think about explaining things, so forgive me for not doing so. Essentially, as I mention in the image description, it is a representation of a referenced image in a different format (SVG vs. JPEG), so it isn't exactly the same. I did it the way I did to show the casual observer that the flag has a yellow seal edge and a gold border around the flag. It is impossible to show metallic colors on computer screens, which is also a problem in printing. In fact, special inks with metals infused into the ink itself must be used for the effect to be seen on a printed piece. You can always tell if a special ink has been used in magazines because the standard four color process method will fail to reproduce the shine of a metallic ink. Images always look different on different media, monitors, LCD panels, time of day, viewing angle, you name it. At any rate, the use of that hex color is intended to simulate the appearance of the gold cloth border - best I can do. Thanks for the comments, the image is ready to use. Sswonk (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: re: SVG tag added to fair use city logo File:Quincy_seal.png

I believe according to the image use policy, the image should not be converted to SVG as it is too complex of an image. It probably should be a JPG but PNG should suffice. Sorry I took so long; didn't have much time for Wikipedia last wek or so. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You might try User:Quadell. He knows a lot about images. -Nv8200p talk 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

MBTA table

Hi, Sswonk! I wanted to let you know that the MBTA table you added to Quincy, Massachusetts seems to not be working properly. I think you and I use the same browser (or at least we both use Macs), so I'm not sure if that's it or what. I might be mistaken and it just looks real nasty -- it runs into the pictures, doesn't seem to display anything, and feels especially odd stuck in the middle of that section with a general link to the MBTA site, so it doesn't appear to be much of an improvement IMHO. Was there something in particular that you felt was inadequate about the previous arrangement? I thought it served those who were looking for general transportation information well, though I'm certainly willing to lend a hand if there's a need for something else. Then again, for all I know you could've been just having some fun (like I was with the geographic location template, haha). Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I spoke too soon for the display issue, but it still looks painfully large out of place to me. Is it necessary? I really think it's overkill but if you disagree on that point then is there at least somewhere else we can put it? --King of the Arverni (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hola! I forgot to notify you, but I left a message for you last night on my talk page. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quincy 'hoods

Hey, do you know much about Atlantic, Massachusetts Fields, Norfolk Downs, et cetera? I've found some info. that I'm incorporating into that history I mentioned on my talk page last night, but I didn't know if you might have any more sources or information, as well. The biggest markers left that I know of for those three places are the Atlantic school (which I don't know much about), the old Massachusetts Fields school that are apartments now, and the Park and Downs Union Congregational Church on Rawson Road, where Norfolk Downs met Wollaston Park. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much. I am going to put a few links after this response, give me a few minutes. Sswonk (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

http://thomascranelibrary.org/htm/housex.htm is part of the main library photos collection (http://thomascranelibrary.org/htm/quincy.htm). Click on an address and it shows a grouping of photos including the address clicked. Then, click the "Additional Information" link where you can get pretty detailed descriptions of the houses and sometimes neighborhoods. The only problem is, sometimes you have to check the geography because it doesn't make sense. For example, I couldn't use http://thomascranelibrary.org/htm/305.htm as a source for the Quincy Point page because the geography is turned 90 degrees clockwise. Look at the map [4] to see what I mean

http://thomascranelibrary.org/shipbuildingheritage/warrenparker/parkerfiles/parkerindex.html You might find some info there, if nothing else it has photos for reference.

[5] the Pattee book and the related titles found on the bottom left of the Google link at the beginning of this sentence may have some info, but usually earlier history. I'm going offline for a while, but try those. Sswonk (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've seen those and used some of them as sources before. I also have the William Pepe postcard history series, which has some more great old photos and has proven especially useful. I'll need to get on the ball with that history file I have saved. TTYL. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

List of marinas

I noticed you have edited WP:Lists recently and you have a couple more years of experience than I do, so I am seeking your help/opinion on something I just noticed at List of marinas. Prevostcar (talk · contribs) contributed one 2h42m edit spree to the list adding external links beginning with

http://marinas.com/browse/marina/

for over 50 subsections of the list. I believe this violates WP:Lists and also WP:EL, but can't find an explicit prohibition, like "Do not add external links to lists articles". I am pretty certain these links need to be taken out of the list, but would appreciate your input and also any more explicitly prohibitive guidelines I can point to on this user's talk page explaining why these edits were not helpful. Since this is the only day the user has edited, it may also be a case of spamming. It also may have been done in good faith. I am surprised no one bothered to revert these edits but it's possible they were simply overlooked. Sswonk (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help...

Lists are a type of article, and they must comply with article guidelines unless the list guidelines provide an exception. The guideline on external links applies to lists. Read the first sentence.

The situation you described is also a perfect example of link spam. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising websites.

Nuke the spam, warn the spammer, and if the user ignores the warning and continues being a problem, report the spammer to WP:ANI and/or propose the site be blacklisted.

Good luck.

The Transhumanist 16:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Speaking of lists, I've been coordinating WP:WPOOK, and I have been staring at it and at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and its member pages for what seems like forever.

I need to see through the eyes of someone outside this box.

Please browse the outline system - outlines, outline-related pages (the project, guideline, etc.), and the links to and from them - and tell me anything you think is interesting, annoying, or important.

I look forward to your replies on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the save

That was stupid of me. --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Day

Happy Independence Day!--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag

The tag goes on the article page the talk page needs a section explaining the dispute. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

"New Quincy Center"

What are your thoughts? Are you pretty excited, and think it's the best think to happen to the city in years? Do you think it's a terrible plan, or do any negative consequences come to mind? I would've emailed you through Wikipedia, since this really isn't encyclopedia-related, but it didn't look as though you have that feature enabled. Anyhow, I'm anxious to find out what you think about it all. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of anything negative, and the quirkiness of current traffic patterns is definitely a deterrent to shopping in Quincy Center. Closing Hancock Street and making it a square seems very logical. The developer has a portfolio on the new website which looks encouraging, I have a friend who lives in Bethesda so I will ask him about how things went there the next time I speak with him. This sort of thing always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, for example the New Rochelle project was a rescue mission for a previous failed project that was probably trumpeted in its time as this one is. There is also the Fore River Shipyard Project, which was supposed to be a mirror version of Marina Bay on the other side of town in Quincy Point, with ambitious plans and architectural renderings. It went from this to this pretty quietly over a few months; things are still on hold - we were introduced to RTKL Associates, who redeveloped Baltimore Inner Harbor - but now it is more along the lines of a marina and wind turbines. I have a feeling this has a better chance, but I was tempted to add the Fore River plans to the Quincy Point article and decided against it, I would wait a while on this project as well. Sswonk (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Tanks to you...

Tanks #1: Thanks for letting me know about the bad Sami link on this page User:Dinkytown/Sami

Tanks #2: For citing the dispute with the citation to WP:LAYOUT. I had been looking for some type of layout description. Lets see where this goes. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About Antietam

But it doesn't make sense! The Union nearly doubled the Confederates at Antietam. Surely they're casualties had to have been higher than the Union's. And, in the article, it says that Antietam was the bloodiest-single day battle in the History of the U.S, that more men killed on this day than on any other day in the U.S. I'd expect the tally to go higher than just 3,654 troops killed--Valkyrie Red 09:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've been surprised by the results of events before, big upsets in sport etc., and I hope reading the Battle of Antietam article and maybe continuing to study some of the referenced materials will help explain to you what the facts are. The amount of troops on either side can't guarantee the same ratio in an outcome measured by casualty counts, and casualty counts don't tell the entire story either. For a recent extreme example of how the ratio of combatants to casualties can be skewed I refer you to the Gulf War, where Coalition forces outnumbered Iraqi forces by a ratio of about 9 to 5 but Iraqi casualties outnumbered Coalition casualties by ratios estimated from 100 to nearly 200 to 1. I don't know why you would expect deaths to be higher. Again, reading closely and studying other sources better able to explain the results you are questioning than I am is recommended. The battle itself has been closely studied for over 145 years, and these figures when given in histories are all very similar, with the exception of the first site you linked on the article talk page, which may have been a typo or purposefully exaggerated for all we know. Sswonk (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts road template

Will he have the chance to fix it? - Denimadept (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, of course, and I'll help him. I'm not proposing deletion, just asking him to stop tonight so I can discuss it with him. Sswonk (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad. It seems like an interesting idea. I'm not a road geek, but I can appreciate a good idea. - Denimadept (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see User:Polaron is involved. Still, that template seems to have come together just today. - Denimadept (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=NCStateNo1Fan, so did the user. But, I guess you can learn wikisyntax, template creation and large scale edits in a few hours. Could have been working as an IP before. I am having Comcast modem problems on and off, have been for a few days, so I may have trouble editing for a while. I would have responded sooner, but it looped off again 15 minutes ago. Sswonk (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the {{welcome}} note to his Talk page, so he won't think everyone's ganging up on him. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One extra comment - I don't think it was actually necessary to remove the templates from all the articles before having the talk-page discussion. From a newcomer's perspective it could look a bit agressive, plus you're likely to get more input if the template is still visible in the articles. Just my two cents. Antony-22 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, I should have tried to contact the user at first. I don't know how common it is for someone to create an account, develop a template and make dozens of page edits in under two hours, and a blocked user from the past has recently surfaced as an IP, reference Tony in my contribs to see the full story. Sswonk (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Curly quotes 2

Hi. In the infobox thread, you mention 'the "curly quotes" debates at MOS'. I was wondering if you could give me an ultra-brief summary (10 words or less oversimplification-style-thing. i can decode/grok), or link me to a recent thread pointer about that issue. For context, this is purely because I posted this thread about removing them, MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Quotation marks, and I'm wondering if I can goad things in a useful direction, or if I should ignore it for now. Ta. (reply here :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation:_Quotation_marks:_.E2.80.9Cregular.E2.80.9D_vs._.22straight.22, which includes a good summary of links to old debates. Pro-life v. Pro-choice is the theme, the debates were drama infused before, why throw gasoline to put out a fire? Sswonk (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Boston Roads

Hi. I've stopped adding Boston Road Templates for now. I just happen to see many articles with Providence templates, but thinking Boston is a much larger city with no template. I will hold since I feel I may not be qualified with info about Boston. --NCStateNo1Fan (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The template was prematurely posted but that doesn't mean you aren't qualified, just that you would have been better off making a test template and asking for help with it. A lot of navbox templates get deleted because they are a duplication of effort or because they are created by someone who doesn't realize that editors who work on the articles the new templates are posted to have discussed the issue and decided not to use them because the scope would be too small or too broad. That is my concern, but I don't think your template should be deleted, just reduced in scope a bit. Please join the discussion at Template talk:Boston Road Transportation, we are going over how we think it should be structured. Sswonk (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sears/Willis

Hmm.... you're right about the voting (or should we more properly say discussion) as to anyone who isn't aware of what happened, that would be highly confusing. It would of course be best if we could just convince people to just say Sears or Willis, rather than Support or Oppose, but I'll have to think on that. As regards the controversialness of my move, I think it was the right thing to do in terms of process. If general consensus finds that I took the wrong course of action, I will move it back to Willis. Whatever the name should be, it clear that there is a controversy surrounding it. The original move was undertaken without discussion and should not have become the status quo by virtue of standing for a few days; Wikipedia is not meant to work via fait accompli. Cool3 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thank you for the consideration. I have also pointed out that nearly every project outside the English Wikipedia has accepted Willis Tower as the proper title, so this move will have implications elsewhere if it persists. Sswonk (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that interwiki links have been broken, then they shouldn't be. Redirects still work for those arriving via an interwiki link. As for the point that nearly all other projects (other than the small ones which are probably just behind the times) have renamed their articles, I'd tend to think that is an extremely strong one to be made in the discussion. Cool3 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about interwiki links, I mean that the other projects will see this move back and it will stir questions and controversy there, possibly cause wasted moves back—it is going to be Willis Tower when this is resolved—and in general put the US in the position of appearing to be selfishly resisting world consensus as with the SI, of course I am grossly exaggerating but I am sure you get the point. I do of course realize Brits, Kiwis, Aussies, Canadians exist here as well but again, I think you will know what I mean. Sswonk (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The one user who generated a lot of this brouhah, Empire_NJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was an editor for a grand total of about 2 1/2 days, from the 21st to the 23rd - essentially a single-purpose account - although he might just be taking a long weekend. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a sock or an unannounced alternate login as well were some of my more sinister thoughts. I left a note on his page at the 23 hour point of non-debate just in case he's confused. Sswonk (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no harm applying AGF. Hence my qualifying comment that he might be on a long weekend. :) It's also possible he gave up since he's unlikely to win the debate, especially as the usage of "Willis Tower" grows daily. (I suspect "Big Willie" is going to catch on.) One of the more absurd references in that article is, or was, something about a petition resisting the name change. Like they have any say in the matter. If those petitioners want to pool their pennies and re-purchase the naming rights, they are free to do so. Otherwise, they are spitting in the wind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Big Willie in the works? Thus joining The Gherkin on the phallic skyline... Sswonk (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! I also tried to do it for Big Willy, but guess where that redirects. Probably needs to become a disambiguation page now. Meanwhile... "Big Willie" must not be considered overtly phallic, since the broadcasters on WGN-TV actually called it that the other night. I think you're getting into a fine distinction between "Big Willie" and "the Big Willie". But "The Gherkin"? Obviously, they would never get away with calling it "Big Willie" in England, where the double-meaning of that term is much stronger - but I have to tell you, that's the most phallic-looking man-made structure I've ever seen. "Big Gherkin"? More like "Big Vibrator". Holy Moly! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, [6] (scroll down) – one of the references from The Gherkin suggested it be called "The Lewinsky". Sswonk (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cute. I should point out that the terms "gherkin" and its synonym "pickle" are also phallic euphemisms. Speaking of which, the Nebraska State Capitol building in Lincoln, Nebraska is referred to by [some] locals as "the penis of the plains". No euphemisms there, no sirree. It's near one end of the state, and its naturally-occurring counterpart, Chimney Rock National Historic Site is near the other end. Nebraska is so flat that from the top of one you could probably see to the other, if it weren't for the curvature of the earth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the obvious phallic symbolic symbolism of these tall buildings, I propose that instead of being measured in feet (and certainly not meters), these buildings' heights should be expressed in a new unit of measure I would call the "John Holmes". I could elaborate at some length, but I have work to do today, and I've already taken enough of your invaluable time. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote a Nebraskan, "Funny, funny stuff." I should point out that I knew that about gherkin and also willie, a related one being wanker which was rhymed by Jagger and Richards when they published some of their earliest songs crediting "Nanker Phelge".(in the middle somewhere) But I digress, good talking to you, I think when it's over, Empire gave up. Sswonk (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it the "denimadept" tower and get it over with. - Denimadept (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not bloody likely! It's Sears! Sears! (previous comment from 2005, somehow got lost in cyberspace and is just now being added to the database) Sswonk (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, sure sure. You just wait! I'll buy it and make y'all go through this again!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahah (evil laughter) I'll do the same thing with the Triborough Bridge, which is going through an identical sequence right now! - Denimadept (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastern

Hey there! Thanks for your input about "Eastern". I originally just added everything from the u/c dab pages and kept ENC because I've known a few people refer to it as "Eastern". But after seeing the search for eastern and college, I had to agree in the end, too. Great job with the Quincy, Massachusetts article in recent days, BTW. Sorry for not being around more; I've been focusing a lot more on various UNI articles lately. --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any input to offer at User talk:Clarityfiend#DAB, as well? --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll watch the conversation, no concerns right now. It is a little difficult to understand what you are asking there, but give it a few minutes to see how he responds. Sswonk (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I'm just looking to find out more about why the wikipedia search works the way it does. I suppose I could've asked at the talk page for the dab guidelines, I thought he might be a best person for me to ask since he's the first person I've met who's a member of the dab project. --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He might not know the answer, but it's worth a try. Sswonk (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the two things I'm always interested in are a) learning and b) improving. --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly an answer, but a useful tool nonetheless, may be the Wikepedia "All pages with prefix" page.[7] Sswonk (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) By the way, that particular method of using a search results list is beside the point, which is that the guideline states in part: "where there is no significant risk of confusion", the key word being significant. Since the only people using "Eastern" as shorthand at ENC are either talking among themselves or with people who understand the shortened, casual reference (I would hope), there isn't much risk if any that a disambiguation link is needed. That standard applies very broadly, people often refer to locations, things, historical figures etc. casually in that way when what is meant is understood by the other parties in the conversation. Sswonk (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, as well. I don't refer to it as such, but it would make sense that those who do have enough familiarity with the "Nazarene" bit to simply say "Eastern". --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

COI

Thank you for your recent warning, however it was redundant to this one. I am quite aware of the potential COI situation, and have restricted most of my edits to the IRM article to things like correcting the obviously incorrect # of a locomotive, updating the status of various pieces of equipment, or changing the tense of wording about a past event from future to past. However I did let my emotions get the better of me when our reporting marks (..and yes, they are official, but do not show in the railinc database due to our lack of interchange cars) were removed from the article, with an edit summary ("Eh/") that indicated, to my point of view, either extreme disdain or apathy. While it probably wasn't intended as such, I perceived this as an attack. NE2's further actions only added to my opinion. His removal of {{fact}} templates, and accompanying comments, without discussion or fixing the problems is a major example, as is this.

It is obvious to me, from these events, and previous observations of NE2's editing habits, that NE2 has a perception of extreme ownership over any and every edit he ever makes, and takes ANY disagreement with his allegedly (but unsubstantiated) "expert" opinion as a personal affront. WuhWuzDat 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha (meaning, "I get it" not "Caught you redhanded"). Too bad there isn't an official page or file that says "These are the only combinations of letters that can be called reporting marks." Personally, I would stay away from the article altogether and make statements at the talk page instead. If you win support for your views that way and the edits are made by others, a close reading of WP:COI would support that completely. You're pushing the envelope a bit the other way, I think, especially now after these conflicts with NE2. Sswonk (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As an interested (but not COI) party, what would you think of this ref (including linked list of marks), which includes IRYM as a mark for IRM on this subpage?? Admittedly, it's not from the ARR (the one and only godlike source of this info, per NE2's perception of the situation), but AAR publishes VERY little info, in a manner accessible to non members. WuhWuzDat 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's a first impression: it's from a hobbyist club, you could have made that entry for all I know. I'm AGF that you didn't have anything to do with it. I know nothing other than what I have read in the past few days about reporting marks. It seems to me that it is something like an ITU prefix or an ISO 3166-1, a pretty strictly controlled system of abbreviation. Is that the case? Unfortunately, as you stated the controlling body is not like ITU or ISO in its freedom of access, which should probably not be so but maybe they have a reason. Do you know why they don't publish a list? Also, in the link you provided, there is the statement: "The uniform ALPHA code is assigned by the AAR to all organizations that may be involved in handling rail equipment." Is IRYM even that? Is it an alpha code, or just a common abbreviation? The other statement on that page that is a red flag is the intro: "This file contains AAR assigned reporting marks that have been compiled from several sources. A limited number of common railroad abbreviations are also included. The list includes all active AAR reporting marks as of the mid-2008 plus many historical marks which are no longer in use." In spite of that, the lists are headlined "Railroad Reporting Marks" and the distinction of reporting marks vs. abbreviations is not made among the individual entries, i.e. there could be a marker like an asterisk next to entries which are not actual reporting marks. NE2 is being very strict with the interpretation, you seem to be approaching it much more liberally. If someone stated in an infobox that Puerto Rico's ITU prefix was "PR", that would be totally false. If the statement was "Puerto Rico doesn't have an ITU prefix, but they use the US ones, blah blah..." then really that's a misuse of the ITU field on an infobox entry – leave it out if it doesn't exist. I have to step away for a while, but I look forward to some answers here, I am getting curious about this. Sswonk (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009

Phase two of outline integration (de-orphanizing outlines by adding links leading to them into article see also sections) is nearly complete. The better that outlines are integrated into the encyclopedia, the more use they will be to readers.

Due to greater exposure through outline integration, and with most of the OOK team on school summer vacation, development activity on outlines has increased a lot...

New members

Be sure to welcome our newest members to the team:

• Tiamut
• Mandsford

News: Outline of Palestine survives AfD

The outline was nominated for deletion for being too general in scope. The consensus was overwhelmingly for keeping it.

The most memorable comment was posted by Mandsford: I like the poetic name, anyway. [Outline of Palestine]. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too.

Special thanks to Tiamut for greatly improving the outline, and helping to save it from AfD.

To keep track of outline AfDs and other outline-related discussions, see WP:OOKDISC.

Who's active on Wikipedia this summer?

Courtesy of Rich Farmbrough, here's a list of editors by their edit counts over the previous month (8th June to 8th July).

It would be nice to get the most prolific Wikipedians involved with WP:WPOOK. If you can, find a good reason to contact one or more of them, and invite them to work on a relevant outline - or all 500!

Who's been up to what?

• Buaidh, Highfields, and Gimme danger have been working on the government sections of the country outlines. Being that there are about 240 of these, with critical information being filled in on each, this is by far the hardest and most important chore of this WikiProject right now.
• Penubag is working on a redesign of the top OOK page.
• Tiamut has done an incredible job developing the Outline of Palestine.
• And kudos also go to Eu.stefan for his work on Outline of Buddhism.

Thank you.

Here's what else has been going on...

New outlines

Recently created outlines include:

• Outline of England - TT
• Outline of Scotland - TT
• Outline of Buddhism - Eu.stefan
• Outline of ancient Greece - TT

Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format and added to the OOK:

• Outline of the Vietnam War - was "List of Vietnam War-related topics" - TT
• Outline of combinatorics - was "List of combinatorics topics" - converted by Minnecologies
• Outline of category theory - was "List of category theory topics" converted by Minnecologies
• Outline of scientific method - was "List of scientific method topics" - TT
• Outline of ancient Rome - was "List of topics related to ancient Rome" - TT

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following articles have been recently merged into OOK pages:

• List of finance topics into Outline of finance - TT
• List of England-related topics into Outline of England - TT

Outlines that have been tagged

Tags are requests to fix a problem or improve an article in a particular way. Unless we want the tags to sit there for an extended period of time cluttering up the outlines (we don't), it is up to us to fulfill those requests or attend to underlying misassumptions (if any).

• Outline of literature - tagged as Original research
• Outline of ancient Greece - tagged as under construction
• Outline of mathematics - tagged as in need of attention from an expert
• Outline of arithmetic - tagged as not citing any references or sources.
• Outline of immunology - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of organic chemistry - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of psychology - tagged as in need of attention from an expert on the subject
• Outline of family and consumer science - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of energy storage - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of nuclear technology - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of ergonomics - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of construction - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of machines - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of free software - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of design - tagged as containing original research or unverified claims, and needing references or sources
• Outline of automobiles - tagged as an orphan

I can't stress enough the importance of watching

With so many outlines (now over 500), and a growing number of support pages (guidelines, wikiproject pages, etc.), I can no longer keep up. I need your help watching over it all.

If you'd like to omnisciently view everything "from above", see this page:

• WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

• WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
• WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
• WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.

What's next?

There are a lot of contradictions in guidelines related to outlines. I'll be turning my attention to fixing those.

The number of "Outline of" articles is rapidly catching up to portals, and will probably pass them by the end of the summer!

Keep up the excellent work.

The Transhumanist 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity and OCD / Rock music

An implicit edit ban exists at the Quiddity talk page, so I am here. Re: joining WP:WPOOK: I've been in the fifth column, second entry for a while. The category of projects at Category:WikiProject Music genres is how I would organize it, thus making the title Outline of rock music. If that is a project you want to throw my way, I would take it on as my first OOK assignment. Sswonk (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! The Transhumanist 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just to clarify, I was only grumpily chastising TT for making 7 edits in a row to his comment at my talkpage. No edit ban! If anything, I was just trying to implicitly remind him to use the "preview" function :) I re-edit comments sometimes too, and/or hit "save" too hastily, hence I noticed. That's all. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I eschew emoticons and end sentences without screamers (!) because that's my style, but just to be sure you understand, I was only trying to keep a possible thread that addressed TT directly off of your page. I tried to be humorous but knew you weren't really banning us. All in the past; I changed The Jades per your recommendation, thank you – Sswonk (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise guy

I am a Knicks fan but have routed for the Celtics the last couple of years, good basketball is good basketball and I'm not sure if what the Knicks have been doing this century even classifies as basketball. Go Yankees! J04n(talk page) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about Isiah "Midas" Thomas, some great athletes are bad sports people. I had fun earlier this month with two edits I found, [8] and [9] that linked to an article called "18-1" that redirected to 2007 New England Patriots season. The article had been around since 10/08, and had been attempted twice before,[10] believe it or not. I am watching the title now so if it ever gets recreated I'll have it deleted quickly. Sswonk (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We're working on something special...

...to award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: History merge

No problem,  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks man. Since I started editing on Wikipedia I have made only fair and honest contributions made towards these subjects on ships and shipyards over the last couple of years. MBK004 "shut me down" as Middim13/M454454M stating that I have not cited sources and that I am "POV" pushing. Whatever, my contributions are valid/true and correct... as is yours at Fore River Shipyard.

Throughout my editing I have strived to be accurate and correct regardless of "whom that might offend" as the truth is often offensive to "those who are" in our "politically corrected" country. Rarely do I edit anymore because of the "sockpuppet" law - but "they" really can't argue with any of my contributions over the years, as they are factual, correct and valid.

Thanks for your understanding of [why it is] I have done these edits for a better/more useful understanding of U. S. Shipbuilding history and corporate history such as Electric Boat/General Dynamics. By the way I was born on 09 January which is the same day as many famous "Rock Musicians" including Jimmy Page who I have always admired. Thanks again for your contributions and understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.172.53 (talk • contribs) 17:36, August 3, 2009

(added section header and {{unsigned}} to above) Sswonk (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RG Traynor

Dear Sswonk, Did you get a chance to see that Mr.Traynor "censored" the section on Fore River Ship and Engine Company's first development of naval submarines for Electric Boat? He states that that information (about Busch and Spear) is "scarcely notable" nor is it really "pertinent" to this shipyard's history while building Electric Boat submarines from this point onward until about 1924. I must disagree with his (seemingly) biased point of view - as this information is notable and it is also honest, accurate and correctItalic text - even though the Electric Boat Company has once stated that Frank Taylor Cable assembled these first five Imperial Japanese Naval Submarines for their company as it was relocated to this Quincy site in 1904. Another point that is simply not true - and "they" know it!

They... [EB] have also mistakenly claimed that Lawrence Y. Spear built the Adder Class/Plunger Class submarines which is also very misleading and known to be false... as this company is known to be "steeped in scandals" since its inception as Electric Boat. See: The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics to have a better/more useful understanding of this very "elusive" company that is still building our submarines today. Mr. Spear was CEO of Electric Boat just prior to the launching of the USS Nautilus SS-571 in 1954, two years after the company changed their name to General Dynamics in the spring of 1952.

Could you please consider reverting his attempt to edit what is know known to be true about these events? Italic text

Thank you very much for you consideration... as I am no longer in a position to make these changes myself, even though the vast majority of my contributions made to shipbuilding history (on Wikipedia) have been confirmed and validated as accurate, true and correct... maybe not "politically correct" but indeed true - however offensive that might be to those "who thought" they knew what it was they were "wanting us to believe"... distorting what is true. The truth is not "always going to be" PC or what "they wish" we were allowed to know here in America.

I am a man of integrity who cares about what is known to be true in this regard... so that is why many of my contributions have been "accepted" in this shared project of information (at Wikipedia) as being valid, true and correct... although there are those who would "simply rather forget" these events - as it goes against everything" they have been leading the American people to believe "about them". i.e... Media Bias and censorship for all the wrong reasons. This is not in America's best interest! To see my contributions look at my former login "handle" which was Middim13/M454454M.

P. S. [Todays Navy Secretary, Raymond Edwin Mabus Jr. is now considering nameing a warship/submarine after the man who developed America's first submarines Arthur L. Busch, afterall, "they" named warships after [several] arrogant and dishonest individuals such as Cable and Spear who attempted to take credit and distort this story of Electric Boat for their own self-serving aggenda's - which did a major disservice to Naval History and what is known to be true here in America. Thanks for considering reverting this information that Mr.Traynor feels as if it is not "worthy" to document these early events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.29.67.53 (talk • contribs) 19:14, August 4, 200

I know little about any of this history, please discuss these issues on the article talk page. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

=Thanks again=

Thank you for you advise and suggestions regarding early submarine history beginning at Fore River Shipyard during the Fall of 1904. This is when a man by the name of Lawrence York Spear took over company operations while replacing John P. Holland and Arthur L. Busch in the most assiduous fashion before them. Lt. Spear was reticent over certain crucial events that led to the success of "his company". He took the place of John P. Holland and Arthur L. Busch. The design and performance of submarines began to change at this point (circa 1906) to make them more suited for above surface operation... thus making them slower and less hydrodynamic for surface warfare. His contributions were certainly overstated as he "worked" his way all the way to the top of the company as CEO during WWII and Chairman soon thereafter. This information is offensive to certain groups of individuals for certain reasons that "they" prefer that (this) history forgets the real version of this company's heritage... and just who did what/where/when/how/why etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.29.67.53 (talk • contribs) 23:05, August 4, 2009

Template:Boston Road Transportation

Sswonk, please note that saying "this has been discussed" does not keep an article (or template) from being changed. Nothing on Wikipedia is in stone, and consensus can change. All editors reserve the right to be bold in making changes.

As for the discussion, I read it thoroughly and found nothing that shows there is a consensus that it should be limited to the streets that were already included. In fact, I found only one editor, yourself, who seemed to say that it should be limited, and along with that, I am one editor opposing that. 1-on-1 is not enough to say there is consensus one way or another. Given this, I do not believe you should quickly revert to remove them, but rather discuss and wait for several others to say if they should be included, or whether individual streets from these additions should be included or not.

Many of these streets are orphaned and/or are stubs. This does not mean they should be deleted, and I do not live to delete. Placing them in this navbox is probably the best way to let others know they exist and eventually improve them. Sebwite (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Here is a discussion I started regarding this: Template talk:Boston Road Transportation#New additions on 8/4. Sebwite (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken Coords

Hi. In order to clean up Category:Coord template needing repair, would you mind if I changed the instances of {{coord}} in User:Sswonk/Fenway/16t? Some parameters need to be separated by underscores rather than pipes, e.g. "{{coord|41.6597|N|70.6189|W |display=inline |type:isle|scale:10000}}" should be "{{coord|...|type:isle_scale:10000}}".
—WWoods (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a dormant project, so if you want to me to clear that page completely I can do that (to retrieve from history later if needed) or otherwise you can fix the pipes, whatever suits your purposes. Let me know. Sswonk (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.

By the way, inline is the default for display, so you don't really need to specify it. On the other hand, adding |name=whatever is good in lists; otherwise the locations are all given the page name. You could also add |format=dms, if you wanted coord to convert decimal degrees to degrees, minutes, & seconds.

—WWoods (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for brightening my day

I'm not stalking you, I swear, although should probably take your talk page off my watch list. I wanted to thanks you for this recent addition to your user page. I cried laughing while reading it. I hope that your day has been this fun. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad for that. I considered doing as Lara had done, which is simply linking without tagging as "humor", which I still may do. I didn't know what to expect and it took reading through to find out why she linked it. Sswonk (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Strike-out Votes

I think you may be pushing a "no comments" requirement over the limit by not allowing a vote to show as a strike out. It isn't a comment about anything on the ballot, which is what the voting is about. Perhaps you might reconsider your action, or seek more opinions on the matter. It is a judgement call, I would agree. If you can't see your way to reverting your move, one option might be to move the whole "ballot" that has been striken, in the strike-out form, down to the "Comments" section. // BL \\ (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and comment left on voting talk page. Sswonk (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent step to take, I think. I have already had my say here, though I do take your point about the nature of the commentary that should not be on the ballot page. Your most fervent responses will likely come in 5 or 6 hours, when "the other side of the pond" wakes to a new day. // BL \\ (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sswonk. You have new messages at BigDunc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDunc 13:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Canton viaduct in Russia

I briefly looked at online sources re. Moscow-SPB railroad and so far all the sources are in confusion. Russian Rail's own magazine scroll to Россия и Уистлеры identifies Whistler's Canton viaduct with wooden Howe truss system and says that the longest-serving of his bridges was replaced after thirty years' service; other sources say that either "most" of "all" bridges were wooden Howe type. Indeed Russian term "American bridge" applies to Howe truss or its local derivatives. No mention of masonry Canton-style arches. I'll see if there's something more reliable. I'm quite positive that anything built on the mainline in 1840s has been demolished back in 19th century. NVO (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NVO, that is very helpful. I am passing this information on to the editors of the Canton Viaduct page. Sswonk (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• NVO - Thank you for that information. The Russian bridge model here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Saint_Petersburg_Railway is on display at the Museum of the Railroad in St. Petersburg and it's design is similar the the Canton Viaduct's. Would you be able to contact someone at the museum and ask the name of that bridge model?

Thanks, Ed --Canton Viaduct (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kids for cash scandal

On August 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kids for cash scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Virginity status?

Hey, I'm currently conducting a survey of Wikipedians and I was wondering if you were indeed still a virgin. Feel free to respond to me appropriately on my talk page or under this. We thank you very much in advance for your time.

Sincerely, Final Philosopher (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

salem taxi 978 741 2235 ein as a dba to scds llc tagged by the state

salem taxi is a real company it is not spam .as a matter of fact it is state tagged as well as with the city it has 7 years of service and has over 30 drivers 6 dispatchers and if you look it up it the salem paper the ceo of the corp that runs salem taxi is noted in the paper demamnding the town make drug testing the taxi drivers a requirement so i would request that you dont tag a hard earned company as spam thank you == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salemtaxi (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

An administrator blocked your account due to its name, but I will answer any questions you post here under a different name if you have them. "Spam" doesn't imply that the company doesn't exist, it means that the entries made were considered promotional to the company and not appropriate for the subject matter of the article, which is the city of Salem. Even the drug testing program you mention is probably not notable as a historical or current event entry: Wikipedia is not a news outlet. As was stated in the information I placed on your talk page, if you feel the topic you wish to include in the article deserves mention, please explain why on the article talk page, Talk:Salem, Massachusetts before attempting to add it again. Sswonk (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI:FPC

Hi. Thought you might be interested in this FPC. Cheers, mikaul^talk 23:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Very interesting, I would have commented but the process appears suspended. I have posted a question to Jimbo Wales about this entire issue. Sswonk (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, circumstances have conspired to make me miss your reply here and hence the discussion you linked to. I'm still not clear where (if anywhere) it will continue although I'm pleased to note you've made some progress with the Adams image. Drop me a note, if you wouldn't mind, so I can chime in on future discussions. Cheers, mikaul^talk 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's happening again :\

Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Reporting marks --NE2 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sswonk, looks like some people think that positions on this issue will have changed. (rolls eyes) - Denimadept (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I said what I feel at the discussion, it might be a good idea to let it go at that for the time being until Wetman et al. chime in. There really is nothing more to say, and WP:NPA looms. Wikimedia has to get rid of this idiotic chat mechanism, it only serves to raise tensions. It looks like we're all Larry, Curly and Moe in an office working on a single Word document prior to deadline, this is 2009. Sswonk (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Preservation of historical images

Hi, just touching base on plans for that discussion page. I've responded to your last on my talkpage, just finished copying over the original discussion, formatting the page, etc. I've rejigged your original post and thought you might want to look at this subpage before I post it all up – basically make sure its the way you want it vis your original comment, make any edits you like, maybe copy & paste it over the project page if/when you're happy with it. Cheers, mikaul^talk 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good, I will copy it to the discussion. After copying your edits, I am also going to upload the reference JQA image from LOC and place it on the discussion page adjacent to the other two. I don't know how or if participants were notified but at this stage I would suggest you notify HoP members especially those involved in the original discussion. It may be worthwhile to notify Jimbo's TPWs from that discussion also although I don't know if that's necessary or PC.Sswonk (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a note to the bottom of the original HoP discussion, which is hopefully still watched by original contributors. Should serve as a nod to all interested. Not sure about notifying any wider than that just yet, let's gauge initial reaction first. Incidentally I was wondering if your explanatory note should maybe go with your example, otherwise it's likely to get shunted around the page... --mikaul^talk 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How goes it?

Outline of rock music

The Transhumanist 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dormant for six weeks, essentially there is a stalemate over the scope of the outline, a fundamental and important difference of opinion over the definition of "rock". The only way to understand is to read the discussion in full. You could release it into the wild to see what happens, or attempt to solicit contributors at the WP:ROCK talk page, or contact the other participants in the discussion; quite honestly, I don't feel strongly enough about the issues involved to want to push them, and also was concerned about challenges I began seeing to other OOK pages. Please point me to any news on that front. Sswonk (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

email

Hey, there's no email link on your page. I have something to send you that might interest you; you'll find a link in the toolbox on my page. Cheers, mikaul^talk 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: FYI I-80 in NJ

Thank you for that notice. I see that the link at the top is better. I will have to remember that for the future. Thanks again. Mlaurenti (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on where to get help for this template?

Noticed your good work on Template:Infobox Historical Event‎. I have been having a heck of a time understanding process of creating/getting help with Template:Infobox Law Enforcement Action. Any thoughts on best place to get help? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking me, or WP:VPT. What do you need help with? Sswonk (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get back to you with questions after I review the help page again. Sometimes just asking for help is enough to rev your mind into gear so you understand the instructions! :-)

Template:Infobox Historical Event

Thank you, Sswonk. I know nothing about infoboxes or how to fix them, but I've been wrestling with this one quite a bit. There are two issues: first, I'd like to be able to control the image size, and that's now fixed, thanks to Thumperward and now you. :) The second issue is that I'd also like to be able to control the width, as it's currently a bit wide, which makes long leads look even longer. If you know how to fix that, that would be great. Thumperward also adjusted this, as it was even wider before, but I'm still not sure how to adjust it on the article page itself, and I'd like it to be a bit thinner. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Defining rock music

Hello there, just to let you know I'm *very aware that* we take different views of how "rock" and "rock music" might be defined outside of the tribal world of fandom. I'm not tossing about any accusations of covert racism, and nor is G I think, but rock has long since become a worldwide musical language and it's never been a phenomenon that was closely defined in textbooks. Most people outside of the US who have thought about it just don't define rock, soul, r'n'b or jazz as rigidly separate genres linked one by one to a particular race or an ethnic group (of course people know most of them originated in Black America but the use of "jazz" or "rock" as a shorthand doesn't have to mean you think there is a solid definition in style terms, or one that's linked to a particular race or social class). Genres are recognized of course, but not as rigidly clean-cut and separate in their history as they seem to appear to some Americans - and used to appear to some boogie/hard rock fans around here.. Hybridization is all over the place. If somebody wanted to write a history of a genre defined by rock'n'roll/blues/country influences, crunchy or jangling guitars, riffs, clearly defined rhythm section, few or no samplings and something like a traditional song structure, then okay - but it should be called something else than rock music per se.

Incidentally, that's part of the reason I think that we haven't seen any big "rock revolt" within the blues/guitar rock landscape since grunge. Rock is so multiform now that the symbolic value of "grabbing the crown" and defining a new generation by becoming the new Dylan or the new Kurt Cobain has become depleted.

Besides, and turning back to definitionism, it's not useful to say North Americans would have a prerogative on defining what rock is and is not "because it started here". Bands like Purple and Zeppelin gathered influences far outside of rock/blues/hillbilly/r'n'b as those terms were understood in 1970. Arabian music, English folk, classical music (Bach influenced Deep Purple way beyonmd the fact that Jon Lord plays the organ) all went into the mix. U2 owe an incalculable debt to the production, songwriting and style of Bowie's Low, which broke most rules of what rock/pop was supposed to be about in the mid-seventies, and many of whose influences didn't come from blues-based rock at all. I don't think anyone in the U.S. would deny that U2 are a rock band or that they have also been deeply shaped by their exploration of American music, but there's also all those influences on them that wouldn't find a place in how some Americans define rock. It proves the point I think - we shouldn't have an article structure, a "rock music style portal" or whatever that's based essentially on how a U.S. consensus would define the genre. /Strausszek (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mycket trevlig skrift. Jag önskar JAG kunde gör så pass med en språk annan än min inföding Engelsk , utom JAG er bara köpa duktig ha tillit till mycket inadekvat online översättning redskapen, as you can plainly see. I think that little trick illustrates my concern. You and G are both on the money, very learned and thoughtful. But the outline form probably will do little to convince people to see Low as a vitally important record. It is simply a list, and I think G in particular has steered us into a great conversation that unfortunately doesn't do much to help writing that list. Some day I won't feel like I'm in that some Americans class. What can I say, it must be difficult to translate the experience of having lived here among Muddy Waters and Lowell George and Jim Morrison and Ricky Lee Jones without coming across to a European as mostly like Ted Nugent. Why that is boggles my mind. Luckily, your last point here is in agreement with my view. It is the one you wrote at the outline discussion that troubles me. Why do you think I or many American editors would paint Isaac Hayes, James Brown, Chaka Khan or Amy Winehouse as aliens? Where did anyone say that? I am really not understanding how the list or outline does any such thing. I don't want anyone to believe that there is a spectrum, and Hayes is red and Nugent is blue so they can't both be **Rock**. I am just saying to be practical about making a list of articles there is a point at which soul and rock are different collections of work. Does that make sense? Sswonk (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool that I didn't get an angry response here. It can get very touchy when you find, like, your national outlines and stereotypes described by strangers. -Hey, I didn't know when I jumped into the fray that the objective of it was mostly an ordered list of artists and bands; I came to that page through some redirects, ultimately from the discussion page for Rock Music; that article is not in a very good shape and I thought somebody had resolved to set up a key that would make some general outline of rock (style, history, meaning) and then provide a hierarchical list of articles that matter in this sphere. Not just acts, but concepts and so on. So my concern was mostly about the way that list, and the introductory paragraphs, would define rock music.

James Brown? I brought him up because the discussion between you and G centered a bit on soul and funk music and whether they belong within rock or stand as strictly separate "trees" (post 1962 at least). JB caught on with nearly every wild-boy singer from 1960 on, I don't think it's disrespectful to Mick Jagger to say he grabbed all he could use from the Godfather, so he'd have to be part of rock.

It's not about race as such, but the genre list happens to bring up mostly subgenres that are over 90% peopled by whites I reckon, even outside the USA - you don't find too many blacks in metal/hard rock bands in the USA or in Sweden or Britain. At least not bands that have any kind of fame. There must be black kids who dig Ritchie Blackmore or Steve Vai, but they don't seem to take it into forming metal bands, Instead, funk or hiphop. Or jazz. But it seems to me the overwhelmingly caucasian character of the list (not finished of course) mirrors something about how rock is defined by mostly North Americans, the separation of formats and lists across some radio stations, fanzines and mags etc.

Btw, when it comes to feeling your country and its music got misrepresnted on WP, take a look at my comment here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swedish_popular_music. Now *that* article is trash, 95% of us vikings here would agree, and I found it by following the "Swedish rock" link from the outline page, which is a hoot because there's barely a single rock act in the first half of the article, it judiciously misses out on the living arteries of rock, ounk rock, hard rock/ metal and folk rock around here.

No, I haven't studied English at any advanced level - beyond secondary, that is - have worked as a translator English-Swedish-French though. You don't learn it like this in schools. All foreign tv and movies are subtitled here, bar small children's tv and like that, so that's one reason many people here are half or fully bilingual English/Swedish. There's a degree of cultural bilingualism too, a (deep or shallow) familiarity with US social codes, US media, US music - not as in indigenous people, but there's nothing like that closeness between let's say Sweden and Germany or Poland. It used to be the joke that Sweden was the 51st US state, though deep down people know for sure that there's lots of differences..I remember someone commenting on the radio ten years ago "It's a measure of how conversant we are with US soicial mores when a new tv show (Popular) on teen primetime spends its first threee episodes following the outcome of a bogged-down cheerleader selection" -most teams don't have schoolgirl cheerleaders in the US style here, so if people hadn't been familiar with it through tv, the channel would have thought twice about buying the series..

Outline Update - expanding the Outline of Knowledge - 2009-10-05

Time for some catching up...

Special award and thanks to Buaidh

Congratulations and kudos to Buaidh, the first recipient of the Wikipedia World Developer Award, and the first inductee into the Outline of Knowledge WikiProject's Hall of Fame.

The award was announced about 2 months agos on the WikiProject's talk page, and on Wikipedia's Community Bulletin Board.

Buaidh created the historical outlines for all of the U.S. States, the U.S. capital, and most of the U.S. insular areas. He has also worked indefatigably day after day, improving all of the outlines of the U.S. States, and the outlines of all of the countries of the world!

Who's been up to what?

• Buaidh, working hard on the country outlines.
• Highfields, MacMed, and I worked on the see also sections of the subject articles corresponding to the outlines (adding or updating the links to the relevant outlines and indexes).

Wiki-Zombies

Discussions can sure be frustrating - try getting a proposal through on a guideline's talk page sometime. Most of the time, it seems like the opposition is mindlessly following each other, like...

Zombies. (You've got to see this).

Outline of Knowledge

Yes, it's a proper noun. It's only proper, since we also have an article called Outline of knowledge which is about knowledge generically.

OOK expansion!

After a couple month vacation, I'm ready to slam the gas pedal to the floor. Are you?

Things are speeding up!

Take a look...

New to the OOK

The following outlines have been added to the OOK within the past couple of months or so. Some of them were renames, some of them brand new, and some of them recently discovered after sitting in article space for awhile as orphans.

• Outline of knowledge - yes, your eyes do not deceive you!
• Outline of birds
• Outline of regression analysis
• Outline of water - Highfields
• Outline of string theory
• Outline of quantum theory
• Outline of evidence law in the United States
• Outline of libertarianism
• Outline of radio
• Outline of painting history
• Outline of hydrology
• Outline of rights
• Outline of tort law
• Outline of parapsychology

Here's some more pages that have been renamed to outlines even more recently, but that need to be converted to OOK format:

• Outline of project management
• Outline of production
• Outline of counseling
• Outline of sustainable agriculture
• Outline of pseudoscience
• Outline of human-computer interaction
• Outline of video gaming
• Outline of neuroscience
• Outline of Boolean algebra
• Outline of Green politics
• Outline of vaccines
• Outline of noise
• Outline of mathematical logic
• Outline of circles
• Outline of linear algebra
• Outline of number theory
• Outline of organic gardening and farming
• Outline of futurology
• Outline of group theory
• Outline of clinical research
• Outline of electrical engineering
• Outline of rail transport
• Outline of curves
• Outline of genetic genealogy
• Outline of environmental studies
• Outline of geometric topology
• Outline of U.S. chemical weapons
• Outline of puzzles
• Outline of industrial archaeology
• Outline of graph theory
• Outline of numeral systems
• Outline of set theory
• Outline of partitions
• Outline of U.S. biological weapons
• Outline of real analysis
• Outline of fishing
• Outline of abstract algebra
• Outline of eggs
• Outline of dynamical systems and differential equations
• Outline of ancient Egypt
• Outline of computer vision
• Outline of network theory
• Outline of differential geometry
• Outline of obstetrics
• Outline of complex analysis
• Outline of triangles
• Outline of Lie groups
• Outline of numerical computational geometry
• Outline of functional analysis
• Outline of general topology
• Outline of computability and complexity
• Outline of order theory
• Outline of commutative algebra
• Outline of algebraic topology
• Outline of topology
• Outline of polynomials
• Outline of combinatorial computational geometry
• Outline of recreational number theory

Lists to merge into outlines

The following pairs of pages are content forks and need to be merged:

• List of probability topics --> Outline of probability
• List of software engineering topics --> Outline of software engineering
• List of nanotechnology topics --> Outline of nanotechnology
• List of calculus topics --> Outline of calculus
• List of geometry topics --> Outline of geometry
• List of community topics --> Outline of community
• List of futurology topics --> Outline of futurology
• List of American Civil War topics --> Outline of the American Civil War
• List of computer programming topics --> Outline of computer programming
• List of entertainment industry topics --> Outline of entertainment
• List of health sciences topics --> Outline of health science

Not sure what to rename these to

• List of noncommutative topics in mathematics
• List of MCAT topics (another ook!)

Rough outlines, renamed/moved to draft space

• List of information technology management topics --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of information technology management
• List of human resource management topics --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of human resource management
• List of suggested topics for computer networking research --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of computer networking

Lists that can be structured into decent outlines

• List of exponential topics
• List of computer graphics and descriptive geometry topics
• List of multivariable calculus topics
• List of factorial and binomial topics
• List of permutation topics
• List of algorithm general topics
• List of stochastic processes topics

Only a few hundred more to go.  :)

The Transhumanist 04:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For Humongous Cartographic Concoctions

		The Special Barnstar
		For your great work on mapping Irish roads Sarah777 (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing for support

Since you've previously tried to deal with this, I thought I'd let you know that it's still going on: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Reporting marks. One of them still thinks IRYM is a reporting mark, while both are now saying it's an FRA "railroad code" and putting such in the article, which is true, but doesn't seem to have any relevance.

Oh, and be aware of people herding goats across the bike path. --NE2 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, BOTH of us think IRYM is a reporting mark (I happen to KNOW it is, or was), but I have been holding off on adding this until I can get a proper reference, which may have to be a scan of an old waybill. WuhWuzDat 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Wuz, but this has gone on way to long and taken up a lot of space over what appears to be a point of pride on both your and Nathan Edgars II's (a pseudonym) part. I don't think repeating my "oval country sticker" point is going to help. If you can't get a clear viable source, it seems to me you should leave it out, case closed. Now a slightly embarrassing removal of rollback rights has occurred over this dispute, is it really worth it? Sswonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, It is. WuhWuzDat 13:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Employee" is a dirty word!

I would thank you to STOP using the term "Employee", even when prefixed with the term "volunteer", in reference to my association with the Illinois Railway Museum, as you did here. It is considered to be a derogatory term, in local context. The proper term is simply "volunteer". WuhWuzDat 16:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how being called an employee can be considered derogatory, and I think you are offering this information and request to serve as a red herring to deflect attention from your careless accusation [11] against me, using the word "meatpuppet". So from [12], I guess the Executive Director, cashier et al. are employees but don't like the word? They wish they were up there in stature with the volunteers? Seems odd. The point of course is that you work there, and have for over twenty years. You're using equivocation over this term to deflect attention from your long-term service, which by the way is admirable. Regardless, people reading the discussion likely don't understand the distinction and COI is really about whether you place the goals and desires of the organization you work for ahead of the pillars of Wikipedia. Sswonk (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify things further, while the cashiers may be employees, our internal governance (including our board of directors, executive director, president, and department curators) are ALL volunteers. This museum organization was BUILT by volunteers. Calling someone who volunteers his time and effort over a period of months, years, or decades an "employee" is truly offensive in this context. WuhWuzDat 16:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP in Quincy

First off, I'm confused: why do you say that I'm committing a 3RR violation?

On the merits of the article itself: "we" is the standard that the editors of the NRHP Wikiproject have always followed. I'm not using a royal we; it's simply that the project follows this pattern. Lists are always formatted such that the "Landmark name" column is the name provided by the NRIS, regardless of the name(s) used by other sources, and regardless of whether that name has gone out of current use. It's not an issue of trying to force a name on an article (you don't see me trying to move the article itself); rather, it's simply an issue of keeping articles about the NRHP about the NRHP, rather than making them depend entirely on other sources. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded via your talk to doncram. I didn't mean royal "we", I meant "we" as in Wikipedia vs. whoever came up with the protocol, i.e. the project. You're all set – thanks – Sswonk (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TACV

Ah, I wasn't aware of those companies. Let's list the HQs first and TACV last. Does that sound good? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC) However Wikipedia:Spam has not a whole to do with it; the page describes external link spamming and articles created solely to promote something. It does have a section called Wikipedia:Spam#Be_careful_when_giving_examples. That page states "Examples should be sourced with independent, reliable sources" - And I had a source in a magazine regarding TACV. Anyway, I'll source the other companies you described. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the edit summary [13], agreed, I did say AGF and borderline, just making sure it wasn't. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, I haven't found any sources regarding State Street... Instead I mentioned that the Patriot Ledger newspaper had its HQ in Quincy. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you for the extra source! It really helped build the section! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

SanSan

Okay I may agree with you but, I have not been editing wikipedia for acouple of months, try 2 years. I created a wikiproject and am one of the few top contributers to the Inland Empire Metropolitan Area and Southern California, if you dont know please dont talk and judge. But I agree with the SanSan thing after reading the talk page (could not find the talk page at fist so reverted you). House1090 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For supporting WP:NPOV when it was neither fashionable or profitable I award you.....

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Keep it up! Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fredericksburg Response

If that be the case, then please to provide a source for this paragraph before talking to me about resourcing mine:

The casualties sustained by each army showed clearly how disastrous the Union army's tactics were, and Burnside was relieved of command a month later, following the humiliating failure of his "Mud March." The Union army suffered 12,653 casualties (1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing).[2] Two Union generals were mortally wounded: Brig. Gens. George D. Bayard and Conrad F. Jackson. The Confederate army lost 5,377 (608 killed, 4,116 wounded, 653 captured/missing),[3] most of them in the early fighting on Jackson's front. Confederate Brig. Generals Maxcy Gregg and T. R. R. Cobb were both mortally wounded

Capeesh?Red Wiki 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Security hole?

I tried the suggestion you left at WP:HELP and got an automated response that security@mediawiki.org generated an e-mail to tim@mediawiki.org and that failed. I waited a few days and did not get any other response. Any other ideas, or should I just poke around at mediawiki? Ma^t_chups 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for an alternative address and will get back to you in a few minutes. Sswonk (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Image map

Use the other app if that's better. The one I linked to was just a random free think I came across when replying to your post. There's no way to avoid the huge list of points but you could put the map onto a subpage - or in the template namespace - and transclude it. That way they won't be in anyone's way when they go to edit the page. I think you will need to have the whole of a county clickable for it to work.

I agree with much of your reasoning for getting rid of the list (though I side with it just being plain ugly as a better reason). I still feel it needs to be there in one respect or another if you want to make sure people will click through - mabye bang it in a Template:Hidden in the caption - although that might be awkward. On the other hand, it's not vital information. The map itself serves to show the reader all they need. It's good that it's clickable but it's not then end of the world if they don't and there is a Counties of Ireland article if people really want to know all about it.

I think the colours are fine. Until such time as there is a MOS on colours, there will different colours being used here there and everywhere so it doesn't matter.

RE: "Sarah" and "popularity" ... hmmmmm, I'm going to have to mull that one over for a bit ;-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going for the polygons and template space option, that would be very tidy. But, I am having trouble understanding the need for a hidden template, sounds like a duplication of the alphabetical list further down and the navbox at the bottom. I'll opt for trying it without first and see what transpires. Sarah, well she could have quite a list of modifiers applied, couldn't she? I'll bet her ears are itching again... Sswonk (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah - I think the modifier you used captures it just purrrrrrrrfect :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Boston Road Transportation

My eye is drawn to your partly-bolded statement that "state highways within or interchanging with 93, 95 and 128 are included". Doesn't this include 16 and 60? --NE2 02:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not bolded, but the first word of that sentence is the key: "Major - as defined by Mass EOT in the GIS files available on the state website - state highways within or interchanging with 93, 95 and 128 are included"; major was the original thought but then later the other numbered state routes that actually enter Boston were also included. The specific referenced list of "major" routes is from http://www.mass.gov/mgis/eotroads.htm, the shape file called "EOTMAJROADS_RTE_MAJOR". I can get the list, but if you see the map image at Massachusetts Route 3, for example, those roads are all of the routes from that shape file. Sswonk (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense - the parkways include several that form part of Routes 16 and 60. (By the way, Memorial Drive and Storrow Drive are parkways.) Why does the template have different standards for different types of roads? --NE2 03:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially because many of the parkways are outside of the city but the system was interconnected by design. I understand, it really is an unusual distinction, but Boston's roads are unique in part because of the way they were built. Check out this great map from a book about Charles Eliot, written by his son. The map shows his choices for parkways in the 1890s, and that is mainly how it is today. I am trying to get together a major expansion of some of the parkway articles, most of which are NRHP stubs at the present. If there was some way to include 16 and 60, but not all of the spokes of 128 that don't come near Boston itself, I think we can discuss getting that done. Sswonk (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DCR parkways

To be honest, when I saw the message I thought you were someone who was going to be like why did you move that!?!? lol. Arborway and Jamaicaway cannot be moved using the button because those pages already exist, so I already put in the request for an administrator to perform it. I was just about to edit the Emerald Necklace template when I saw your message. I don't know who decided that "The" was part of the name, but the articles said it was the most correct for some reason, no doubt original research since everything official says otherwise. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your opinion on how to word it when the road is talked about? I mean no doubt the name is just like "Jaimaica Way" except combined into one word, so would "the Jaimaicaway was..." or "Jamaicaway was..." be better? It would be a no brainer if it was like Main Street or something since "the Main Street..." sounds weird, but in this case I'm not so sure given local usage. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this, it made me smile. --John (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fenway

I wanted to possibly get a dyk for expanding Fenway, but it needs more information and I couldn't find much more than what I have already added. Having seen your work on Furnace Brook, could you add to Fenway in the same way? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, once Jim and I tie up the final version of FBP. We are almost done, just going over it. I don't know if I can get to it this weekend. In the mean time, try http://books.google.com/books?ei=RtBQSv6PNoGEzQTYv-XyAg&client=firefox-a&q=fenway+parkway+%22metropolitan+park+commission%22&btnG=Search+Books for books similar to the ones cited in FBP, maybe those will help you fill it out. Sswonk (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston

I recently started a stub article at Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston which seeks to cover the entire system of parks under the DCR Division of Urban Parks and Recreation as defined at http://www.mass.gov/dcr/metroboston.htm. This is a very well defined and limited list with a unique history. The DCR summary puts it well:

This system was the first regional organization of public open space in the United States and is internationally recognized as a model for multi-jurisdictional park systems designed to encourage public appreciation of open space. As a whole, the Metropolitan Park System is currently eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.[14]

I have asked several editors to comment on the possibility of creating a subproject with a goal of improving existing articles, creating needed articles and coordinating overlapping concerns of other projects such as WP:MASS, WP:USRD and WP:NRHP which have an interest in many of the topics covered by the articles. I also created the navbox at {{Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston}} which is as comprehensive as I can determine at this time. Please add your questions and comments below this note. Sswonk (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

pic labelled "Charles River Esplanade

Hey, glad u r coordinating this. In the current Metropolitan Park System of Greater Boston article there is a pic labelled "Charles River Esplanade" which shows the water more than the walkway/esplanade, while I always thot the esplanade was the land / the walkway. I think i might have played/organized ultimate frisbee there once. Looks good though, keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds great to me although I don't have too much knowledge about the park system. I'm looking forward to see the subproject develop. Swampyank (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking in, for any others that would like to help with this project I have started a task force, use the shortcut WT:MPTF to add your thoughts. Thanks again, leave me a note here if you still have questions or comments for me only. Sswonk (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the invite for this new collaboration. I don't know a great deal about this gentlman but there's always room to research more and to contribute through researching this topic. In terms of the photo of the esplanade. Check on Wikicommons. I keep finding all kinds of stuff on there. Start with the Massachusetts category and work your way down. You can find some really impressive stuff that people have put on there which currently doesn't link to any articles. Like just today while creating a link from Logan Airport to it's matching Wikicommons category I came across a photo of the Hatshell. There's also one category of the Esplanade CaribDigita (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Furnace Brook Parkway

Hello! Your submission of Furnace Brook Parkway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read your message and will check the matter shortly. One thing I should say before looking into this (I've not seen this nom before) - CW and Ucucha are among the best DYK reviewers; try to listen to their criticism even if it appears incorrect. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't even started reading your article :-) You've got a scientist, Ucucha, on your back :-) Seriously, the requirement for the hook which we put on the main page are stringent, because many people take it as a solid fact and bomb us with questions then. Strictly speaking, the same should apply to the article too (it is an encyclopedia, after all, not an essay), but in reality, there is space for speculations and their explanation in the article. Surely, there are areas where we never know the truth and have to guess, but wherever we can find a source, we better go for it. Another thing, one can always carefully describe speculation in the article, but it is very difficult to do so in a 200-char hook. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reevaluated the nomination and provided feedback after you updated the [2] inline cite. I understand that the vetting process of promoting a hook can sometimes be flusterating. Your explaination of the name conventions of roads was something I was unfamiliar with IMO is sound, as AGF is one of the core standards of Wikipedia just as no orginal research is. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a well written article and nominating it at DYK. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate very much your detailed comments. I became defensive at the mention of original research as I have made it my goal this year to pursue all avenues of avoiding OR and strengthen citations where I can. I have also made adjustments to the linked article, John Winthrop, Jr. Iron Furnace Site, with those goals at least partly satisfied there. Sswonk (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Maps, etc

So my next article is going to be Park Drive and I am already about as far as I think I can take it, so could you possibly create a map for it please? It's weird, I feel like every source neglects it. It was built at the same time as the Fenway, but not really considered one of the parkways in the same sense that the Riverway, Jamaicaway, and Arborway are as far as I can tell. It was originally named Audubon Road, but I can't narrow down when the name change occurred as well as when the parking lane was created besides a ten year time frame. Was it originally a two way road with each side separated by a median? (and then one way turned into the parking lane?) I don't know and can't find any info on it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Park Drive Boston.png. This took under a half-hour only because it is simply the same map as Fenway with the color and stroke weight of the streets swapped, any other roads will likely take much longer as the map will need to be created from scratch. Sswonk (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it be possible to connect the ends on the right since the split is in the right of way of Park Drive and also extend the end on the left to Mountford Street? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, the MassGIS database actually had an error in one of the layers (Major streets), another layer (Boston streets) has the correct end for Park Drive. While checking that, I also checked Fenway, the end of Westland is not part of Fenway. Sswonk (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks. It doesn't seem to have updated though. I even purged the page a few times. It's weird because my cropped version of the Riverway photo I took still hasn't shown up right almost a week later. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Depending on browser, you may need to clear your cache, and possibly purge and then clear cache again. Happens all the time, the change was visible on my browser (Firefox 3.5) after reloading holding the shift key. I did that with the Riverway image, it is now OK. Sswonk (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't fix the Park Drive map. I cleared my cache for that and sent to a friend to check. Park Drive ends at Mountfort Street right near at the Mass Pike, not its intersection with Beacon Street. Also can you connect the lines on the eastern end since there is a connection there considered part of Park Drive. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Done on the west end, in making the previous change in which I used the (Boston streets) layer, that portion was below a higher layer used for highlighting Route 2, which caused me not to see it. That wouldn't have happened if I had made the map from a new GIS base instead of altering the Fenway vector file as I did. The fact that the far west portion of Park Drive beyond Beacon is part of Massachusetts Route 2 needs to be mentioned in the article. Regarding the two roadways at the east end of Park Drive, they are separated by a small stretch of Peterborough Street, so that stays the same. The closest possible zoom level on Google Maps satellite view shows that they label it correctly at that zoom. I purged the file at Commons, it should be fine but clear your cache if it doesn't update properly for you. Sswonk (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Furnace Brook Parkway

On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Furnace Brook Parkway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You've this one coming to you ...

		The Geography Barnstar
		For your tireless work on Quincy-based articles generally, and particularly for your excellent new DYK on Furnace Brook Parkway.  RGTraynor  11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, RG. You deserve much credit for advising me on things in my early days here. I am slowly plowing through the entire system of parks, check WT:MPTF for a navbox of this nascent effort. Thanks again – Sswonk (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Southwest Corridor Park

On December 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southwest Corridor Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your closure

I agree with your point, but don't you see the irony in you closing the motion to close? Thanks for making me smile :o) Merry Christmas. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've just noticed that you're not a bureaucrat^[15]; you're not even an admin^[16]. So wasn't it a bit naughty of you to start archiving discussions? Can I archive anything that I don't like the look of? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your premature archiving. To continue in the vein of your somewhat stretched metaphor, yes — the citizens of Pixley damn well do get a say when the citizens of Hooterville are trying to rewrite the rules that affect Pixley. If the advocates of this proposal wish to cling to the notion that their policy development process is an open, community-driven one, then at some point they actually have to let the community offer its opinions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes up for a statewide vote, Pixley will likely win the day. Let Hooterville be Hooterville. I have also responded on Dr Dec's talk. Peace. Sswonk (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would resonate better if Hooterville hadn't invited statewide participation, and then kept erasing Pixley's comments. If they want to take their discussion private, they can. But if they want to keep a discussion in a public space, then it has to be a public discussion. A 'request for comments' that doesn't actually like getting comments is pointless. A policy discussion that excludes anyone who asks questions is just a pep rally. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see your points but like mine as well. I don't know what erasing comments is about, what happened that invites that description? I have been uninvolved and surely missed quite a bit. Sswonk (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to review the history of the proposal a bit more thoroughly before you close a discussion next time, eh? Several editors posted comments criticising the proposed process, discussing potential pitfalls, and asking a number of questions about its specific aims. These posts were shuffled off to a 'complaints section' of the talk page, archived, and summarized by one of the project proponents as a two-point Q&A that eliminated all of the questions that didn't have a snide one-liner response. Please don't jump in to close discussions in the future where you haven't at least read and understood the discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As I state at the top of this page, I welcome your criticism. I closed it because I saw it as moot, and still do. I read enough to see that it was. Can you tone down the suggestions of willful ignorance and impetuousness, if that's what they are? I'm only trying to do what's right; I saw a motion to close that said "(this) ought to be closed as a scary bureaucracy", after already having seen months of work by others. All I am saying is, let it play out. Right now, it is 11 vs. 11, and this is a manifestation of what I saw coming, a no-consensus mess, accompanied by back-and-forth sniping, that won't do anything to help us work on improving citations, uploading images and all the other fun stuff we could be doing. Let the others reach their conclusions and make an RFC, if they so wish. That, in my opinion expressed by boldly archiving, would be a wise move. If you disagree, fine. This is all I really have to say. Sswonk (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No consensus isn't necessarily a mess. It means that the draft RfC stays open. The good thing is that scores more editors have been alerted to the page. Potentially, a lot more could come from this as the draft RfC is shaped by the external influences. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roxbury Heritage State Park

On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roxbury Heritage State Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)