User talk:Assawyer

O	This user is currently online and will respond to messages.

/Archive1 June 2005 - March 2006

This user is a member of WikiProject New Hampshire, which seeks to expand information about the state. Please feel free to join us.

Craig Benson Pic

Is this picture able to go on Wikipedia?[1](if it is, I call uploading it!) Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anon edits

An anon who has done some odd but not necessarily wrong edits on a number of state pages has put in a ton of stuff on the NH page, down in the trivia section. I think at least some of it is duplication and/or stuff you had removed, but I got a bit lost. It's worth checking. - DavidWBrooks 01:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Bakker Qassim & Camp Tango

I don't know if you left it on your watchlist, but I asked about Camp Tango on Talk:Abu Bakker Qassim. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his excellency

No, no, no, my friend! "His excellency" is a courtesy title used in personal correspondence (as I noted on the talk page when some anon kept shoving it in) ... it's not the governor's official title. - DavidWBrooks 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ill be darned - in the constitution! It still is used so rarely that it looks idiotic in the article and, I would submit, should not be placed where you did. Perhaps a note under trivia, but nothing more ... - DavidWBrooks 10:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Constitution is much more important than your feelings about "how it looks," but that's just my opinion. --Assawyer 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UDV case

could you weigh in on the conversation here? i have no strong feelings either way . . . --Heah? 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

I have recently begun reviving the Supreme Court case project since the founder is inactive. You're welcome to drop on by and help us out if you are still interested. There's also a discussion going at the project's talk page. Enjoy your Memorial Day! --Kchase02 (T) 06:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court cases

Please don't post articles that are in such an unfinished state as Garcetti v. Ceballos, which doesn't even have a single complete sentence; start a user subpage if you want to play with a rough draft first. Postdlf 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Postdlf. I did that per a msg RidG left on my talk page. I should have used a maintenance tag. Kchase02 (T) 03:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already substantially into a draft for that case, btw, so unless you're willing to put the time into it, start with another decision. Postdlf 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epping, New Hampshire

I seen that you had a chance to contribute to the new infobox with the parameters that you requested. You may want to further comment at Template_talk:Infobox_City#Optional_City_council_section_added. There was/is a disagreement for the need. I think it looks fine at Epping, NH. It may not look nice and pretty for all cities, but my point was that it was/is completely optional.

Some of us have proposed to standardize most of the city templates into one standardized template. We managed to merge the Template:Infobox U.S. City into Template:Infobox city. The template Template:Infobox Town NH will probably get folded in as well. Harpchad is the main person working on this. Epping, NH would make the perfect example of why to switch to the standard. When the time comes, I am sure that your help would be appreciated.—MJCdetroit 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if people do not want separate fields for city council/board members. Are you happy with how the Epping example looks using the leader_title and leader_name fields with a series of <br>'s? —MJCdetroit 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for putting the rest of the justices into the SCOTUSCase3 template. It saved me a lot of time :). --MZMcBride 01:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, glad to help.--Assawyer 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court case PCA

I suspect you may have missed it, but we did quite a bit of work already on Clinton v. City of New York. I'm sure there's more to do, but we'll probably be working on our next collaboration soon enough. Hope you'll join us then.

Re:Switch to SCOTUSCase3

On some cases, I open them up and look at them, but usually only if something looks wrong in the old template. Right now, I've mostly been converting and counting heads to make sure that the correct number of people are listed somewhere in the "Case opinions" section. The fact-check idea sounds good. --MZMcBride 21:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you'd look at United States v. Booker. It seems two cases were combined, and I'm not sure how to proceed. It may require new parameters in the template, but perhaps not. Respond with any comments you have, please. --MZMcBride 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NHroute28BYP.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:NHroute28BYP.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Rory096 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUSCase

Do you need help? --MZMcBride 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, little errors can cause huge issues, I've screwed up these things before. I'm going to revert your edits and then add Litigants2, etc. --MZMcBride 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! It turned into one big cluster. --Assawyer 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related: From the TFD, I indend to close it, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Replacing Template:SCOTUSRecentCase with Template:SCOTUSCase3 (actually bypassing the redirect and replacing with Template:SCOTUSCase ) screwed things up, so I can't process it with my bot (orhpan it and delete or redirect it). Check this: [2] and drop me a note about what should I do. Can you orphan it manually? -- Drini 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox template question

Hey, any reason why Template:SCOTUS-case can't have the common need version of the new SCOTUS infobox template?--Kchase02 T 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it that way so all of the fields would be accessable. I have no problem if it is condensed. A hidden note could be added which explains how editors can get additional fields. If you want to change it go ahead, otherwise I'll take care of it. --Assawyer 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm having trouble with the ref citations from that template though. They seem to be deprecated, as you can see at UDV. The links work bottom-up but not top-down. I'm converting the template to cite.php unless you know a better way of doing it.

Wikimania in Cambridge next month

Are you going? - DavidWBrooks 12:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It depends on my work schedule. Looks interesting though. --Assawyer 01:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call or e-mail me either way, if you want - I want to talk to a couple NH wikipedians as part of an advance on the meeting. (dbrooks@nashuatelegraph.com, 603-594-5831) - DavidWBrooks 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

supreme court

The article seems fine to me; I did a couple of punctuation tweaks, but that's about it. Let me know if you're going to wikimania, by the way - I'll be writing an advance article and need a NH voice! - DavidWBrooks 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town NH

Hi, Assawyer,

I asked about which Infobox to be using for all the towns in NH and didn't get any response. Since most of the previous discussions I read seemed to indicate a merging of the various Infobox City templates, I thought it best to go with the generic one.

Just because I'm curious, what are your objections to using Infobox City?

If I have to, I don't mind going back and redoing with Town NH, but I would think using a template consistent with other towns, cities, and states would be preferable.

Thanks! --SatyrTN

I must have missed your previous inquiry. The main problem with the Infobox City is that in being universial, the editors of the Template do not allow for the various differences among the municipalities in the country/world. Particularly, because New England town/city governments are quite different from the rest of the country the Infobox City does not allow for these variations among towns and cities. Also, the editors have been resistant to making the appropriate changes. Shortly, I will be switching Template:Infobox Town NH/test to Template:Infobox Town NH. If you would like to help out with this that would be great. Let me know if my explination is lacking. --Assawyer 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the towns I've inserted Infoboxes into have had Boards of Selectmen. Since there's usually more than one member, I simply add them with <br>s in between and that seems to work. If that's the sticking point, and since there's a work-around, can we simply use the standard? -- SatyrTN 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not the only reason. Not all towns have a board of selectmen form of government, some have SB2 and town council. The Infobox City just isn't set up for New England towns. Mass also has their own for this reason. Until Infobox City is trully universal, it doesn't make sense to switch over.--Assawyer 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is SB2? And is a town council usually presided over by a chair, so the same system could be used as I've done with the Board of Selectmen? Also, see: this discussion. -- SatyrTN 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved with Project Massachusetts, I'd also like to emphasize that Infobox City just doesn't work with New England towns. Towns in New England have unique governments, which vary from state to state, but which share the same dissimilarities with the rest of the world. I don't think that there's anything wrong with having several different templates. --AaronS 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting SCOTUS templates

Someone has asked that you clarify your vote here. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Map!

Hey - I love the map you've put on the New Durham page! Do you have blank ones for the different counties? I'd love to use those instead of the simple state map I have. Thanks! -- SatyrTN 21:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done maps for Rockingham and Strafford Counties. I plan on doing all the towns and cities by county. I am using Adobe Illustrator to make PNG images from Created from Boundary/Border Outline Files (SVG files) that I got from the Libre Map Project. If you have a particular county you would like me to do next I'll bust some out for you.--Assawyer 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]