User talk:MJCdetroit/Archive Jan 1st, 2007 to June 1st, 2007

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

Proposal for Infobox WikiProject

I've made a proposal for an Infobox WikiProject here, but I am not entriely sure if a project is the way to go. I'm not interested in standardising infoboxes everywhere, just providing a central space for different developers to come together to help each other on any problems (such as this one) instead of us needing to use each others' talk pages. My proposal is not really a proposal for a project, but a request for ideas on the best way to create this space. All input would be appreciated.- 52 Pickup 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Works better than my talk page. I'll put my name on that! —MJCdetroit 15:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! I have placed a temporary project page at User:52 Pickup/Drafts/WP Infoboxes, where I've put a bit more about what I had in mind. Please expand upon it if you like. - 52 Pickup 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Problem

I noticed that you've changed something in {{Infobox City}}. As a result, there's a strange vertical line on the top of city pages such as Pensacola, Florida and Kuala Lumpur. Just FYI. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I did too and I think that I have just fixed it. —MJCdetroit 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Going to the page with "?action=purge" appended to the url seems to fix the problem. Good job :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities

I would appreciate your feedback on the proposals I have made for a new talk page template and restructuring of the project. Alan.ca 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Athens (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places: * Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, MJCdetroit 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cape Breton RM

Wondering why you converted CBRM from the Canadian municipalities infobox to an admittedly much better looking custom infobox? Maybe you should make the Canadian infobox look better, and we should restore the infobox to the common Canadian one... WayeMason 12:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a push a few months ago the standardize the infoboxes; the U.S. one was the first to be depredicated. The standard infobox is under constant review by many, many editors, where as the other various infoboxes tend to get neglected. The standard infobox has been edited to take on many of the functions of the Canadian one and has many more options. For this reason, it is better to have one infobox that is worked on by many than many infoboxes worked on by only a few. —MJCdetroit 12:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes

Hi there. I've finally gotten around to starting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. The project page itself is still pretty bare, but at least we now have a central discussion point for this sort of work. Please join! - 52 Pickup 13:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities Participation

A user has taken my rating of an article he maintains personally and I'd appreciate it if you could review the article and provide your own independent rating. If you could provide comments explaining this rating it would be much appreciated. The article is Colombo. Alan.ca 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit conversion in T-34

Regarding your edits to T-34: even in the U.S., gun calibre is measured in millimetres, not inches, so there seems to be no point in adding this conversion. Writing "enlarged from 1,425 millimetres (56.1 in) to 1,600 millimetres (63 in)" is inconsistent in significant figures. Using the convert template botches consistency within the article, because the adjectival "85mm gun" is written without the space, while the template indiscriminately adds a space between the figure and unit whether it is an adjective or noun (e.g., "20 mm of armour")—this is a common convention for gun calibre in books and articles about armoured vehicles, and has been accepted by consensus for a long time in this article and many others. There is no reason to include the obsolete imperial gallon conversion. Finally, maybe it's best to include unit conversions only for the first occurrence of a measurement—currently they seem to be included randomly for some occurrences of a measurement but not others.

And where it is appropriate to use the convert template, it should probably be substed, to simplify the wikitext, since there is no advantage to leaving the template there over simply typing the literal text.

Would you mind cleaning this stuff up in the article? —Michael Z. 2007-02-03 05:48 Z

I think your right about the convert template vs wiki text. I haven't really used this template very much and I was going to use this article to point out some of its short comings to the template's creator. —MJCdetroit 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to tweak the use of templates in the article. I'm a lover of structure and templates, but in practice I've found that the need for flexibility in writing usually makes them redundant in an article's body text. If the wikitext is as about simple as the template, then it is also more accessible to the average editor, and it's best to avoid using the template. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-02-04 18:08 Z

Talk Page Policy

Happened to pop into your talk page after noticing the work you have been doing on infoboxes. Just last night I set up a talk policy on my talk page thinking I invented it myself and there you have something similar on yours. Small world! Anyway, I liked the banner box you used which I have imitated on mine. Thanks for doing it. --KenWalker | Talk 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I too actually ripped the banner off and modified it from User talk:Harpchad. —MJCdetroit 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It works! Might not with users that are less addicted to this place than I am, but it works for me. Cheers. --KenWalker | Talk 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Weather

Hi Tariqabjotu,
I seen what you were trying to do over at {{Infobox Weather}} a little while ago and why you didn't use it at Jerusalem's article. I thought that I would let you know that I have been planning to revamp that Infobox in the future with changes such as making the year column optional and automatic unit conversion. When I get it done I'll let you know a place it on the Jerusalem page. —MJCdetroit 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template is in some serious need of organization, but I just do not have the time at the moment. I didn't have yearly averages available and was trying to make that column optional. However, I had trouble doing that, and since I wanted to change the font sizes, lighten the color for the high temperature, add line breaks, among other things, I decided to just make my own version of the template (the differences between the codes for the template and the Jerusalem version are quite noticeable). -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, I know what you're saying. When ever I get around it working on it again I'll let you know.—MJCdetroit 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Location Maps

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:25 (UTC)

Automatic Unit Conversion on city infoboxes

Please stop! This is not appropriate to remove English measurements in preference for metric and force someone else to clean up your mess. Removing conversions is against policy, is unfriendly and reduces the usefulness of articles. If it is worth doing, do it right. So that it is right now and in the future. Don't create more problems for others to fix. Rmhermen 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What is going on? MJC, what are you up to? Alan.ca 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A little more detail Rmhermen would be appreciated in this matter. My goal is not to completely remove English measurements at all (take a look at my user page for which system I prefer) but as a matter of being quick and the way that I have AWB setup sometimes (rarely) I have removed the English units when the "pipes" are at the end of the syntax and not the front (Example). I could only find that one example in my last 250 edits. Many, many, many, many times I have taken the English units from in front of the Metric units that are in a field designed for the metric units and placed them in the appropriate English measurement fields (example example2 Example 3). I have editted close to 2,000 articles and have 800 left to do. At the rate that I am going I will be done in about 4 days and every page will have both English and Metric units and even be able to swapped the order so English unit are first. Do you think that you can wait that long? If not then add the English measurements to the correct fields, i.e. Total_area_sq_mi = etc. Please do a little more investigating and questioning first. I would expect a little more from a fellow Michigander! Heeeerrrre's your sign!—MJCdetroit 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox City

Somehow, the changes you made to {{Infobox City}} borked up Rio de Janeiro to a point at which there were five blank lines before the article. I have undone the recent changes you made to the template to fix this. Could you try making the changes in your sandbox before making such radical changes to the template again? :)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. The extra spaces don't appear to be there now. I had to make a small copy edit to Rio in order to clear my cache. Should be ok now. THanks. —MJCdetroit 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with AWB!

Please check your AWB edits! Your edit to Drohobych mangled the page; the changing over of subdivisions wasn't right, and you ended up replacing the insides of some <ref> tags, too. See my edit for an indication of what changes I made. (Also, I've reverted this edit to Jiujiang, as it has the same sort of problems. Probably more in your history as well. grendel|khan 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I was having a lot of problems with AWB yesterday. It wouldn't let me preview anything. I seen what the problem was. I originally started out using a find and replace feature but scaped that for what I should have been using —the "Template Parameter rules" feature. You'll notice a change in the edit summaries after I switched. I will go back and double check the other edits. There was only about 20 edits. Thanks—MJCdetroit 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I seen that you did some clean up work for me. Thanks, again. The problem should be fixed now. &mdashMJCdetroit 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question...

Check out WP:SYSOP and WP:RfA. Is there anything in your edit history that would make me look like a jackass when I nominate you for an RfA? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope.—MJCdetroit 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Try to rack up some project space edits and I'll see what I can do about getting around to nominating you. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah! Your comment on his talk page. Alan.ca 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox city links

Hi - It is a good idea to make the "flag of" and "seal of" etc. links not show up red (in the 98% case) and I was pretty sure you would have been fine with me just changing it to ifexist rather than new params, but I really would like to encourage folks to start talking about changes before implementing them. Noone's commented on my suggestion that it might be time to fully protect the template. Do you have an opinion on this (might be an incentive for another run at RFA :) )? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually started to comment last night about the fully protect thing but realized that I wasn't logged in and it was really late (and 6 a.m. comes early) and I figured I'd do it today when I got a chance.—MJCdetroit 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your upcoming second RfA

Here is the plan: I'm going to have a couple of admins that I respect and that have mucho experince in RfAs do a mini-editor review on your work. If there are no objections, I'm gonna wait a bit to let the current RfA glut clear out a bit (there are like 238197402389 right now). If that doesn't work with your schedule, just let me know when will be a good time for you. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Hello. Are you aware that User:Caroig created {{Geobox Town}}, a dangerous competition to our standard (and IMO better) Infobox City? Regards. - Darwinek 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware and I think that some of his ideas should be incorporated in to the standard and we should try not to create additional competitive infoboxes. —MJCdetroit 01:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

The Working Man's Barnstar
WikiProject Miami commends you for your tireless efforts of adding the Infobox City Template to city/town/village articles related Miami-Dade County, Florida. Skillz187 17:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been one of my goals to add the city template to all of Miami-Dade County's Municipalities for WikiProject Miami, but, thus far, not many people have been helping. You should think about joining WikiProject Miami and helping me out on this task. Thanks again. Skillz187 17:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Skillz187. It's been one of my goals to visit Miami (or any place warmer than Detroit in the winter) and the other goal is not to become a 1-8-7. —MJCdetroit 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You'll have a bigger chance of becoming a 1-8-7 in Detroit! It's pretty warm right about now. I can just sit on my beach chair in my backyard in the middle of January. Skillz187 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, that's why when I go south of 8 Mile Road, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson accompany me. As for my backyard, it's ¾ snow and ¼ mud and 30°F. —MJCdetroit 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Region Midtjylland

Hi MJCdetroit

I've reverted your edit to Region Midtjylland. The box gave the impression that the population and area figures refer to a city or metropolitan district, but they refer to the entire province. Feel free to continue experimenting, but this experiment didn't work. Cheers. Valentinian T / C 09:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was experimenting with it as a result of this discussion. Thanks, —MJCdetroit 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Geobox Town

Chapter One

I'm sorry, you wrote there it was just a test so I might have waited with my revert. Well, the first Geobox in the series, for rivers, didn't have any conversion whatsoever; I added that feature after a few requests though even if it meant more coding. I'm not a big fan of those feet, miles etc. (I wouldn't go as far as claming they are inhuman, I consider them rather complicated, especially to convert between themselves) but I respect there are some people who prefer them, so there's the automated conversion, for all units in every single Geobox. I chose those superscripted versions mainly because they were shorter. I read those discussions and they didn't have a clear outcome, more people prefered the longer version but it seemed it was up to the editor. Even Google test confirmed the superindexed versions are pretty common so it's a matter of choice. In Geoboxes on rivers there are also discharges in cubic metres/feet per second which also use superscripts so if I'm ever going to change how the "imperial" units are displayed, I'm gonna do that for all, not some units. No one has complained so far for none of the Geoboxes.

As of your question about what sort of problems the dual values were causing: none for the template as such but the code was very lengthy, more difficult to maintain and as there seemed no interest I removed that support completely to make my life easier.

I never wanted to start any competition here, I simply wasn't happy with the existing Infobox City template so I created a brand-new version based on the Geobox framework I created, started using it for Czech places and offered it for testing. I see you spent a lot of time upgrading Infobox City so you prefer that template, the Geoboxes are my "baby" so I prefer them but not forcing anyone to use them, not proposing switching to them. As of e.g. Geobox Protected Area, I even haven't announced it anywhere except the Geobox main page, used it on a few places in the Czech Republic and Slovakia but it started to be used anyway, even when it was still an unpolished version. – Caroig 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chapter Two

Sorry for not reponding to your previous post on my talk page but I'm in UTC+1 and usually working on Wikipedia in the evening. – Caroig 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I knew that I wouldn't be able to get to it. I normally edit at work when I am in between experiments and at lunch, but I had a huge 68-page lab report due to General Motors, plus a mountain of paperwork for them. I got home and took a second look at geobox coor and it was much easier to implement than I thought it was going to be— a tweak here and a tweak there and it seems to work well, but if you could double check the actual diff that would be appreciated (4 eyes are always better than 2 if you know what I mean). —MJCdetroit 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It should work OK, this subtemplate is used in many other Geoboxes and so far no issues have been reported. I still keep {{Infobox City}} so I had already checked that ;-) I follow all discussions here. – Caroig 19:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

email address?

Hi - I notice you don't have an email address registered. Any particular reason? You might surmise that I deduced this by trying to send you an email. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am protective, I guess. I've had the same email for years. However it is weird because I was thinking about it just now and boom this message. —MJCdetroit 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I sent you my email.04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you get my email? —MJCdetroit 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I'll try to send you one from Wikipedia. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You should theoretically be getting an email from me. Send an email reply if you do. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Try it now. I actually checked the box this time. —MJCdetroit 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates update

Just wanted to let you know that temperature conversion templates are now available ({{C to F}} and {{F to C}}). You might want to play with those as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. I am going to need them for {{Infobox Weather}} in the near future. Thanks, —MJCdetroit 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know that I added the MoS option to the {{km to mi}}, {{mi to km}}, {{km2 to mi2}}, and {{mi2 to km2}} templates. It is now the default, so you might want to revisit the pages where these templates are used (MoS format does not make much sense in infoboxes, where abbr=yes works better). I will take care of the meters/feet conversions later this week. Please let me know if you notice any problems.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now all of my templates (except those dealing with temperature conversions) have the MoS option.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's great! Although, I am a big spell out units in text proponent my exception would be temperatures. I have other ideas for your templates (for use inside other templates) but that's for another day. Great work Hegdehog! —MJCdetroit 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Let me know when you are ready. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever get an editor review? —MJCdetroit 19:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope. But with your first RfA not having passed, it might not be a bad idea, if for no other reason than to show everyone that their concerns have been thoroughly addressed. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am in no hurry, so why not have an editor review first? —MJCdetroit 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hook me up with a link to it when you get it set up. I'll spread the word with some fair & honest folk. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editor review/MJCdetroit
Hi MJCdetroit! I've asked you a few more optional questions over at your editor review. Don't feel like you absolutely have to answer them :) Just that youngamerican asked me if I would like to nominate you, and seeing as I haven't really interacted with you much before, I would like to gauge your level of involvement via your answers. Cheers! – riana_dzasta 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with a WikiTable (Referred to you)

Referred to you by User talk:Youngamerican
I have created this table on my sandbox. No matter what I have tried in the table's coding, I cannot get the year 1883 to move to the next row for its proper placing. The year 1882 requires a rowspan of 4 in order to permit multiple names on the year. Could you take a look at the table and give me a suggestion on how to correct the problem? Thanks. Mphamilton 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like another user was able to help Mphamilton out. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. The other person was unsuccessful and made suggestion I had already considered and attempted. The problem is not solved. Mphamilton 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it looks like I missed the boat on this one. It appears that User:Kainaw may have fixed the problem. —MJCdetroit 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, what we have is a conundrum. We have figured out a way to place both James French Patton and Adam C. Snyder in the year 1882. But, we are unable to have James French Patton in both 1881 and 1882 while keeping Adam C. Snyder 1882 to 1890. Others have stated that wikitables do not permit one to do this. I hope that is not the case. Mphamilton 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There's probably a way but I couldn't figure it out, but I don't have much time today. I give it a look this weekend. —MJCdetroit 13:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW - I'm not sure if you misinterpreted Riana's question #9 or deliberately chose not to answer. I think the sense of the question is whether you view admins as primarily having a a) technical or b) political position (pick one). Obfuscatory responses are, of course, allowed. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a second look later tonight. I probably just forgot. Thanks, MJCdetroit 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Location map USA

Now ist works. Template:Location map has been fixed. --Obersachse 08:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox City}} & {{convert}}

I see that you are a frequent contributor to {{Infobox City}}. You may be interested in employing {{convert}} inside the template. I was going to go through and replace the area things, but it appears to be quite riddled with quirks and I'm not familiar with them. Anyway.. here's the simple coding for an area conversion, where xx.x is the original value: {{convert|xx.x|sqkm|sqmi|1|abbr=on}}. The fourth parameter (1) tells it to round to 1 decimal place, and |abbr=on tells it not to spell out the first unit (which is the standard per the WP:MoS), but instead abbreviate it. Also.. for the first instance (again per the WP:MoS), you can attach |lk=on to have the unit link to its corresponding article. More info and more options, (including the ability to force US spellings) is available at, of course, {{convert}}. Cheers! -- drumguy8800 C T 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I may use a convert template in the future to help shorten up the code little, but right now the code works perfect. The quirks can probably best be explained Template talk:Infobox City#Automatic Unit Conversion. The quirks not only convert the values but put them in order and can be over ridden if need be. I like your template (I was one of the first to comment on it). Your template uses scientific style of abbreviation for imperial unit, where as Infbox City uses tradional and we would like to not change the look of the infoboxes. Also, the parameter names match the abbreviation. I think that was one of the things that I suggested for your template. There are other templates out there that work very nice also, but they are single purpose, whereas {{convert}} is multipurpose— MJCdetroit 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the difference between scientific and traditional style of imperial abbreviations..? -- drumguy8800 C T 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Scientific: mi² and traditional:sq mi. We had a discussion about it at WP:MOSNUM a long time ago because somebody was changing mi² and sq mi to sq. miles and/or miles² and some people wanted to use sq km for square kilometers like encarta and encyclopedia brittanica do. Cliff's notes version is that we decided to keep square kilometers as km² (the scientific method) and to contrast imperial abbreviations with the traditional method of sq mi.—MJCdetroit 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Icons in infoboxes

Would you like to comment at Talk:Canada#Icons in infobox. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada is on my watch list and I've watching the discussion. I'll put my two cents in. —MJCdetroit 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your 2.3 cents ;) -- Jeff3000 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Paine1776

You're not the only one who sees it, but there's not much to be done other than assuming good faith. Sometimes I wonder if Thomas Paine1776 works for the city; I've never in my life seen anyone that excited about detroit or intent on promoting it. Even people who are into the city don't try to pretend that it's doing great economically, that it's not pretty bloody empty a lot of the time, that its bus system doesn't suck incredibly, etc. (And why the giant picture of the people mover? Who, exactly, uses it for commuting? What percentage of metro detroit does it serve? (Back of the envelope: 0.0125% -- that's a ten thousandth.) No point, I'm just venting. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but it would probably be more effective to vent over at Talk:Detroit than here. I also was wondering if he worked for the city's PR department too, hense all the smart-ass Kwame comments. Assuming good faith is one thing but it seems that he is assuming that everyone is editing in bad faith. Example: he assumed that because the type of government in the infobox was "Strong mayor-Council" that that was somehow was implying that Kwame can bench press 350 # and was some type of bash on the city and deleted it. When in fact that is a legitimate type of government no matter who's the mayor or how much they can brench-press. —MJCdetroit 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Lemme know whenever you decide to go for adminship, so I can support you. In fact, if you don't have a nominator, I'd serve. Lexicon (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that you would be number 3 or 4 in line. As for RfA, I am not in any big hurry, but I do have an Editor review out there if you want to check that out. Regards, —MJCdetroit 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you change every city template in Afghanistan...

You might want to see if people think this is an improvement. See Talk:Kabul#New City Infobox. --MarsRover 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

adminship

Hey. I've seen you around some template areas and was contemplating noination you for adminship. Of course I look thoguh your talk pages and it looks like several people are beating me to it. If you'd like me to nom you let me know, if you got enough people in line that's fine too.--Wizardman 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Group TfDs

Could you please wait and bundle a number of these templates into a group nomination? All those redundant to {{Infobox City}} will be deleted for the exact same reason, so it's much easier for others to comment if you group them together. If you don't mind, I have combined all of today's nominations at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 18#Template:Infobox City Tajikistan. –Pomte 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wasn't planning on doing a mass TfD (or even this many) when I came across the first ones but the more that I looked the more that I found. I'll wait a few days to post if I find more. Thanks.—MJCdetroit 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Berlin

I think I've got it sorted out - 52 Pickup 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe not. I think we need more people involved. - 52 Pickup 13:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbian city infoboxes

After all, thanks for AfD-ing those :-). As in many times in the past, Serbs have proven that foreigners have to solve their own problems that they're unable to due to the proverbial disunity...

By the way, I understood that you added automatic metric/imperial unit conversion in {{Infobox city}}, but it's unclear to me to which parameters it applies... ugh, I see you did add it to the table, but I was looking solely at the "Empty syntax" part... RTFM. I'm afraid I introduced commas on several places in Belgrade, Niš and Kragujevac. OK, I'll fix it and make it more clear in {{Infobox city}}. Duja► 12:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I seen where you introduced the commas and it's ok as long as both metric and imperial fields are filled in. Filling in both fields instead of just one, will over-ride the automatic unit conversion. This is useful for places with elevation ranges as opposed to an average (AUC can't handle ranges) or if you are quoting a source that gives both metric and imperial. Good work on those pages. I hope you understood my reasoning for standardizing those pages. —MJCdetroit 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zile

Hi, Can you copy edit the article when you have time? Thanks--Ugur Olgun 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

dot maps

See my comment. Unfortunately, the side effect is a glaring misplacement of all the dots in Category:Settlement articles requiring maintenance. But after they are fixed they should be looking fine on all screens. –Pomte 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all of them should be displaced by the same width, which seems to be in this case 35px. If the infobox is stretched or thinner though, by a wide picture or something, then the number might be slightly different. I don't know how you get the dots as exact as possible, but they look fine. –Pomte 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
They are all done now and I've told someone who is in the Alberta project to double check the placement. Thanks. —MJCdetroit 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox needed

There is discussion about deleting the Infoboxneeded template. I thought you might want to chime in. Timneu22 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

metrication

?reversion on metrication page. TS comments are legitimate and from a more authoratative source than most

The link was broken and said that you are not authorized for this page when I checked. That's why I reversed it. —MJCdetroit 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Strange it worked for (and still does) for me

try this

Yea, it works, now. It seems to take the "wait for the official report" approach. I'll re-edit the page. BTW. You should sign all your posts on talk pages with ~~~~.

Image:City of London Arms.png

Hello, MJCdetroit. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:City of London Arms.png) was found at the following location: User:MJCdetroit/Sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Alrighty then! —MJCdetroit 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rainbow Lake-logo.png

Hello MJCdetroit, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rainbow Lake-logo.png) was found at the following location: User:MJCdetroit/Sandbox4. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping

In case it slipped under the radar!  Best wishes, David (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Niagara Falls and Metric/English units

Thank you for contributing to the Niagara Falls article. Your transposition of English for metric measurements throughout the article, while thankfully thorough, likely was ill-advised (maybe wrong word). I, too, considered putting English first when I encountered the page yesterday (I am a biased American), but decided against it when I saw that earlier contributors had used more metric units (probably Canadians?). So out of deference to and respect for their earlier involvement and edits I left the metric-centric edits and changed all others to match. Afterall, the Falls straddle an international metric-English border, so who's to say which should come first? I also considered that most of the world is misguided and uses metric.

I see you're an unabashed English system chauvinist (which is fine), but you also apparently have an RfA out there(?). In light of that you might have considered leaving the metric units first out of respect to other editors and international readers. You mention that you follow SI units standards, which should lead you to favor metric on an international topic article. Again, I was initially unsure of which way to go, but I also considered that the largest of the Falls is on the Canadian side of the border. Also, the change of "with American Falls at left" to "with American Falls on the left" shows an unnecessary American bias ("at" is the preposition a Canadian would use and is perfectly fine). Again, thanks for the clean-up on the article, but the change in perspective to American was probably unneeded.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the article has been an English (metric) article for a very long time, so I am was trying to maintain a status quo. I thought that change was unnecessary. Yes, I do prefer English measurements (no big secret there), but I have many times defended the use of metric units, (most recently two days ago here). As long as the metric units are there, that is showing respect to our international readers. A similar level of "respect" is almost never given to us Americans in some of the articles on wiki that do not have to do with North America. Also, the English units spell out nicer in text (per MOS) and the metric units abbreviate nicer. However, I do live on the Canadian border and have been there many many times and while the government is mostly-officially metric, the people, at least the English speakers, are not. So placing the Imperial units first in this article would not hurt their feelings. I have done a lot of work on that article and never thought to include an infobox—good job. However, I did upload the photo with the caption, A closer view of the Horseshoe (Canadian) Falls in the early morning. Best Regards, —MJCdetroit 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S., I just double checked the references that were listed next to the measurements and the refs tended to favor the English measurements (as a whole). The first ref was an Ontario government website and that one list both Imperial and metric. Some of the others only listed the English/U.S. customary measures. I did not see any that were metric only. —MJCdetroit 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJCdetroit/Archive_Jan_1st,_2007_to_June_1st,_2007&oldid=1190239660"