User talk:Mikesolo

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

-Poli (talk &bull; contribs) 14:44, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Metrification for metrification's sake
Regarding your edits to Heavy cruiser, while I assume these were made in good faith, I draw your attention to the fact that swapping imperial with metric for no other reason than its own will be considered by some as vandalism. It is particularly unconstructive on this article as warship displacements and gun calibres are usually referred to in English-speaking countries in long tons and inches. Also, the Washington Naval Treaty, which is particularly pertinent to the article in question refers to 10,000 long tons and not millions of kilogrammes. Emoscopes Talk 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the concern, I would draw your attention to several points. Firstly, the article does not specify long tons versus short tons at any point, which leads to further confusion from an already confusing system of measure.  Secondly, the Wiki article on long tons states plainly, "it has been replaced by the metric tonne.", which was the primary reason for the edit.  While I can appreciate the long ton's significance historically in regards to the Washington Naval Treaty, that is not a reason to put the imperial units at the forefront of the article; a simple historical note would suffice.  Thirdly, the references to metric in the reverted change are not consistent, and finally, I also corrected various pieces of inconsistent spelling in the article as well (i.e. calibre and caliber being used right after each other). I do not appreciate the revert, as I feel the current copy of the article is now even more difficult to follow and still requires clean-up.  By the by, the word is "metrication", not "metrification". Mikesolo 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you reverted this, I think it is safe to believe that you have read the note contained therein. I continue to believe that your contributions are not helpful.


 * You typically fail to provide an edit summary, and when you do, it does not describe the changes made. If your edit has to do with SI units, then say so in the edit summary. Please do not leave it blank or refer to your change as 'minor cleanup' as you did in your edit to Giant Squid.


 * Per WP:UNITS your edit which may strive for consistency of unit usage, which I applaud, made an error of precision. In a sentence which refers to a 'depth of 900m (nearly 3000 ft)', unless you know otherwise, the text should stand. Editing to '2953 ft' introduces a level of precision not known. In this  edit, you do not err in precision, but you introduce an incorrect conversion. Ten thousand miles is similar to sixteen thousand kilometres, not one million. In this  edit, you introduced non-factual information as the micrometer shown is not calibrated in SI units. In this edit  you changed units in an article about a US rail system. Per WP:UNITS, articles about US-topics use imperial measurements. In this  edit, you also changed units in an article about a US location, also introducing precision not apparent in the previous edit. (by changing 1300 feet to 396 metres).


 * Even though you edit rarely, it is clear that you edit with an agenda which is not based on the manual of style. Your edits do not seem to improve readability, and they introduce factual errors. I consider this style to be editing with a WP:POV although I am willing to be told I am wrong about that.


 * I would like to ask you a final time. Please use your skills in a positive fashion. Use your interest in SI units to improve articles, following accepted Wikipedia standards. I have posted here in order to avoid any outside dispute resolution process. I believe this will be sufficient.


 * Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia. You are clearly smart enough to make a difference here. Please make it a positive one. MKoltnow 04:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you have decided to follow my edits around Wikipedia, I want to point out something to you in regards to item #3 above, the Vegeta Saga. The previous entry of 10,000 miles is INCORRECT to begin with.  The original Japanese script for the show puts the distance at "1 million kilos" exactly.  I can provide the script or screenshots to prove this point.


 * In the first draft of the English dub, they changed it to 10,000 miles. However, the new releases use "1 million kilometres" as the official translation.  Therefore, it is NOT an error.  You are making assumptions that are not accurate.


 * Furthermore, in regards to the Giant Squid article, I believe that since the events in question took place in Japan, and that the units were reported in metres, metres should be the primary unit of measure on the page, regardless of WP:UNITS. And frankly, I would argue that WP:UNITS should be corrected to prevent use of an outdated system.


 * You are correct about level of precision per WP:UNITS, thank you for bringing that to my attention.Mikesolo


 * With regard to your edit to Vegeta Saga, I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you could put something on an article's talk page or in your edit summary that explains why your change is correct, then people might not draw the wrong conclusion about it. You will have less trouble defending your edits if you use edit summaries to explain them. Whether the manual of style addresses units in the best way possible is a matter for discussion there, but it is the current standard.


 * What concerns me is your last statement about WP:UNITS. You seem to be admitting freely that you indeed do edit with a WP:POV; that is, to "prevent use of an outdated system". Unless you can get the manual of style changed to read the way you want it to, please do not use Wikipedia to further your anti-imperial units agenda.


 * I think that I have been WP:CIVIL and measured in my discussion here, and I again hope that your level of expertise will result in positive contributions. MKoltnow 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I use minor edits since usually I just edit things that stare out at me as glaring omissions, such as that mistranslation that aired in the US. If I were going to make a full summary of why the change is accurate, I'd wind up rewriting 3/4 of the page for grammar and accuracy, and I simply haven't the time to do so.


 * I have never stated that I edit with a POV, but I obviously have my opinions, as you have yours. I feel that the enforcement of dual-units on Wikipedia is hurting the overall readability and making this more confusing.  We have literally hundreds of articles that either do not provide conversions, or use both metric & customary units flippantly with no rhyme or reason.  People blatantly violate the WP:UNITS about which unit goes first, but correcting those errors is looked upon as vandalism.


 * Furthermore, the WP:UNITS rules in regards to which unit of measure is to be used is even more confusing; It states, "For US-related articles, the main units are US units; for example, 10 miles (16 km)." However, not all English-speaking editors are from the US, so any generic entries, such as entries about products, construction materials, etc., often go back & forth between units as their articles are edited by people from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  The edit I made to aluminium foil is a perfect example of this, the article is clearly written from a non-American perspective, since it uses the five-syllable spelling and says, "Known as Aluminum Foil in North America".  Yet, the main image using inches in the caption.  I understand that the image shows an American micrometer, but I still argue that millimetres should be the primary unit on that page.  Others will disagree.


 * I find the whole mess confusing and ridiculous, frankly. This is an English-language wikipedia, and that encompasses a broad number of countries.  I do not think we should cater to the fact that the US has not finished it's metric conversion.


 * Yes, you have been civil, aside from the edit where you stated that I would be banned. It made me upset, which is why I removed it from the talk.  I fully plan on petitioning the project to encourage full metrication.

Ashley Todd
FYI, you may be interested to see that Ashley Todd was speedily deleted using CSD:G10 as the justification: "exists primarily to disparage its subject." I happen to disagree with this decision as the article was neutral and nothing on the AfD page implied it as an "attack" page, and content that this is out of process. I encourage you to chime in if you have an opinion either way at User_talk:Orderinchaos. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Puppy cuteness.jpg


The file File:Puppy cuteness.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:Poodle puppies."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)