User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Editing of Post Toasties from Post Cereals Page

Bkonrad, I noticed that you have moved Post Toasties from the Discontinued Cereals column back up to the Current column. The reason you gave was that it still shows on the Post website in their cereals section. As you know many websites show products that are no longer made but may still be in circulation - this happens to be one of those circumstances.

I am an unfortunate expert of Post Toasties since I have been eating this cereal almost every morning for over 30 years. On the last week of Jan 2007 after I could no longer find Toasties in stock at my local store - I sent an email to the Kraft customer service to see if there was a production problem. I received an email response from them stating that the cereal had been pulled from production but gave no effective date other than that it would no longer be available. I followed up with a call to the Kraft consumer help line (1-800-323-0768) to verify the information I had received in the email. Much to my disappointment it was correct and the customer service agent gave me further information that was not included in the email - production had actually stopped in April of 2006 (taking almost 9 months before running out at the stores).

I have gone ahead and placed it back in the discontinued section and would ask before you move it back again to the Current column - please don't take my word for it or the Post website - call the phone number and you can then hear for yourself. I have sent an email to Kraft asking when the site will reflect that the cereal is no longer available - I have not received a response yet. Two different replies from Post/Kraft stating the same thing should be enough to pass the test. --Dleigh32 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, what you need to do is provide a verifiable source. Your word that someone else said something to you is not sufficient. If there is no public announcement, it is in effect unverifiable until such time as there is such an announcement. older ≠ wiser 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

La Pointe, WI

La Pointe, WI, is not unincorporated. There is a town council, they tax, have a road department, a budget atc.

The township of La Pointe (which is a survey distinction, and contains some of the other apostle islands) is distinct from the political subdivision of the Town of La Pointe on Madeline Isaland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.88.177.98 (talk • contribs). 17:11, March 9, 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK. And the reason you're pointing this out to me is....? FWIW, the administrative authority of the Town of La Pointe extends over the entire township (apart from what might be under park jurisdiction). The community named "La Pointe" on Madeline Island is not the same as the administrative authority of the Town government (although the township offices may indeed be located in the community). And Towns in Wisconsin are a separate class of government from incorporated municipalities like villages and cities. older ≠ wiser 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

'North America (Americas)' ... again

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way, and the article has been deleted, this has reared its head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to tread on your toes. Good to know that right is correct for disambiguation pages. Sorry. ...adam... 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anishinaabemowin language Userbox

Aaniin, with great effort from User:Miskwito, we now have the oj series of Anishinaabemowin language userboxes. On the WP:IPNA/Nish page, we have a matrix of the possible categories for the oj series and the major dialect groupings. You can now add to your Userpage one of the oj userboxes that are available or you can help create a userbox for the dialect of your interest. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Babel#Ojibwe_language_userboxes for the full discussion. Miigwech. CJLippert 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Michigan Reps

No more dead links at United States Congressional Delegations from Michigan

I revised the chart at the Michigan Territory's At-large congressional district page again I don’t believe Wing was a Whig until afterwards. We seem to be changing this back and forth. I hope it is better now. Jjmillerhistorian 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Good work. older ≠ wiser 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

John S. Barry

I'm having trouble connecting infoboxes here. I've tried other examples, but I can't find one which helps. I was wondering if you could help. It looks sloppy right now. Jjmillerhistorian 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks OK to me. What's the problem? older ≠ wiser 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's mainly the connection of the boxes. If I connect them together the Lieutenant Governor from his second time in office moves up to his first time. Now the first box shows the word born at the end. Any other dual infoboxes seems to combine without a problem. Like Grover Cleveland and George Romney. Jjmillerhistorian 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- I was looking at the succession boxes at the bottom. I don't know much about infoboxes. Looking at Template:Infobox Governor, there are fields available for

| order2=
| term_start2=
| term_end2=
| predecessor2=
| successor2=

So I think think that both terms would actually be entered using the same info box. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the template helped, here are the fields for a Governor's two non consecutive terms...

| order4 = | office4 = | term_start4 = | term_end4 = | lieutenant2 = | predecessor4 = | successor4 =

It worked out just right! Jjmillerhistorian 11:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society

Thanks for the lecture, I usually try to avoid as much of that as I can. I think that is the first time I used information from that site and the political graveyard had much less info. There is usually something one source has where the other one doesn't. I will try to be more cautious next time. Jjmillerhistorian 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Franklin Township question

I reduced the Franklin Township article to links to more disambiguation pages because it is far more succint, since there are so many Franklin Townships. It seems to me that if we can't link from one disambiguation page to another, "Franklin" will have to list all the Franklin Townships, and we'll have no need for a Franklin Township page at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Moreover, the Washington Township page has linked to the "Washington Township, ___" articles with the number of townships for over two years. Nyttend 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Franklin and Franklin Township are different terms. On a small disambiguation page, it would make little difference to include "term Township" along with "term". With a common term like Franklin, it makes sense to separate Franklin Township. But it seems senseless to force a reader to unnecessarily go through two disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say: I'm sorry that I didn't tell you that I was listing that page on Requests for Comment. I should have so done, especially since I'm not trying to make this a big deal :-) I guess my idea as far as usability is that people go to a Franklin Township page and see the various state possibilities, then go to a page that lists the possibilities for the state they want. It just seems to me that it would be easier for the reader to check a short list and then go to a more specialised one, rather than looking through a long list. Nyttend 18:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal: incorporated place and census designated place into place (United States Census Bureau)

While caught up in the argument about whether we should use the term "census designated place" as the primary term to refer to unincorporated towns and villages I did a bit of research. I think what I found was interesting and useful. However I found it awkward to incorporate the information into the census designated place article, partly because the material also belongs in the incorporated place article. Also, a lot of the CDP article explains how a CDP resembles, but is not, an incorporated place where the incorporated place article is practically empty. I don't think there is enough unique material for three separate articles so I'm proposing a merger into one article named "place (United States Census Bureau)". I have already written the article that explains the terms in a logical order. I am asking for opinions, edits, etc. from other people who have written on the issue. See Talk:Place (United States Census Bureau) for more information. Rsduhamel 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed tag in place article

I need a little help. First of all, were you tagging the whole paragraph or just the last sentence? Second, what was your reasoning? Please see more at the talk page. Rsduhamel 06:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Geolinks vs. coordinates

Hello JBkonrad. Please look at the upper right corner of the city articles you recently reverted. The geolinks is overwriting the coor template on the upper right, making them both unintelligible. That is why I took out the recent additions of geolinks. If you want to add geolinks then please remove the conflicting coor template. Kablammo 12:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that and have asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Duplication of title coordinates -- it is unfortunate that these are incompatible -- since the geolinks templates use decimal coordinates -- I'd rather see dms coordinates in the title. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the coor template is more useful as it links to everything geolinks does, but it is not as visible on the page as the geolink section of the external links. (And I surely will not try to enforce my personal preference on Michigan pages.) Wikipedia has city articles which have coordinates at the upper right of the top margin, in an infobox, in text, and in external links, which surely is overkill. Kablammo 12:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disamb page

Sorry for the "clash of horns" and thanks for sorting that out. regards--Vintagekits 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Coldwater River

Have you got it in for me or something? Instead of expanding an existing article on Coldwater River, you totally deleted it and made your own. And you got the Michigan County Road article deleted. Igo4U

To your first question, no; you just happen to edit some Michigan-related articles that catch my attention. I did not totally delete Coldwater River (Michigan) -- I turned it into a disambiguation page because there are in fact three rivers with that name in Michigan. FWIW, your initial version contains numerous errors and misstatements. The river does not begin at Union City -- that is where it ends, or empties into the St. Joseph River. It does not flow southward through the county, it flows northward. As for the Michigan County Road article, I assume you're referring to County Municipal Roads and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Municipal Roads. My objections were 1) the title, "County Municipal Roads" was undefined and essentially meaningless; it was basically a list of roads in one county (which was not even clearly identified in the article) that were not even known by that numbering system anymore; second the list was purely original research--there were no sources provided and as I pointed out in the AfD, the county road commission made no mention whatsoever of the listed roads; the state department of transportation maps did not refer to the listed roads; Michiganhighways.org made no mention of the roads. So once the unverifiable original research was removed, there was nothing of the article to keep. Nothing personal against you, just the occasionally dubious articles that you sometimes contribute. older ≠ wiser 19:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you don't have it in for me (LOL). Just for the record, I was going to add the Isabella County Coldwater River, but you beat me to it, and then saw there was a 3rd one. As for the county numbered roads, I was merely trying to start the article where others could add to it. Northern Michigan counties have their own network of these roads, and it was an attempt to start a page of those (with each county having their own lists of numbered roads) that could have gone along with Michigan's state and federal highways. Don't know if that better explains it, but if it does, would you be willing to reconsider giving such an article another try? Igo4u 11:46 AM, 10 April 2007

Re the roads, if the article is nothing more than a list of roads, then no, I don't really see any point to it. If there is something interesting to say about the roads (which is published and verifiable), then perhaps. One of the primary objections I had to the original article was that it was unsourced and that the road numbering system you listed did not appear to be in use. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Coldwater that is a tributary of the Thornapple River (I agree with the disambig creation at (Michigan) by the way) called the Coldwater, how did you generate the list of its tributaries? It would be nice to add to the Thornapple article so I would if I knew what it was you did (other than actual hard work :) ). Also I linked to that article from the Thornapple article, thanks for creating it, and for your other west michigan efforts. ++Lar: t/c 12:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Compiling the list of tributaries was a matter of using the USGS maps from Topozone and traversing the river's length and various branches. At some points I'd also consult a Michigan County Atlas by UniversalMAP (mostly for names, it is not very precise in regards to location and routes of the waterways). older ≠ wiser 14:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So basically by hand then? I am a little leery of that... I fear WP:OR, and I fear what I myself did on Thornapple where I count the dams (and found the mean impoundment elevation by looking on topo maps) might be considered by some as OR too. But.. :) would you consider doing the same thing for Thornapple? GRIN. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly an element of research involved. But as everything is verifiable (or at least, where things are less clear, I am correspondingly less precise), I don't see it as OR in terms of formulating some novel synthesis. I can't promise anything on Thornapple. I have to be in a certain state of mind to delve through the USGS maps. I will keep it in mind next time I am in a mind to work on rivers. older ≠ wiser 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image licencing

Thanks for the note. You caught me a split second before I uploaded an image for Moses Wisner Jjmillerhistorian 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isaac_Peckham_Christiancy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Isaac_Peckham_Christiancy.jpg, 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. BigDT 06:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mi11 109.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mi11 109.gif, 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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tinsley Viaduct

Hi there Bkonrad/Archive 19. As you have commented on the above article's disscussion page, I'd like to invite you to a poll on the inclusion or not of the coordinates box, here. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Harrison-HB4026 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comprises vs. is comprised of

Re Berkley, Michigan: the replacement gets rid of informal/incorrect grammar, but doesn't change the meaning. See wikt:comprise. -- JHunterJ 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, live and learn. I must say it sounds back-asswards to my ear, but then I'm undoubtedly part of the group more familiar with the "increasingly accepted usage" that traditionalists consider incorrect. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Granholm article

User talk:Politicalmichigan did it again reposting heavily biased text in the Jennifer Granholm article. I posted a warning in his talk page and I suggest you do the same since he did not post anything in the Jennifer Granholm talk page before reediting. Steelbeard1 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edward Hamilton (soldier)

Why all the verbiage on the Edward Hamilton dab page? He's the only soldier and the only CIA operative on the page, so it's not needed for disambiguation. I'm a little surprised, because I know you've been around dab pages a long time, and are familiar with the guidelines. BTW, what do you think of the article? I investigated the red link you created, and that got me started. How did you come up with the red link in the first place? Chris the speller 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Soldier" by itself is very ambiguous -- what war? what country? I would rather have disambiguation entries that provide sufficient information to actually be useful without being excessive, rather than obsess over trimming things to the bare minimum. It's an OK article for a beginning stub. I don't recall precisely anymore how I came to add the redlink--I think when I created the dab page I checked what links here and saw that there was a link from Deaths in June 2006 which had the basic verbiage and a link to the Washington Post obituary. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the (soldier) qualifier being used for other articles about military people, including officers, so I went with it. Besides, it differentiated him from the British naval officer. The qualifier (officer) could be military, police, a person who writes parking tickets, a CEO or the Grand Poobah of the Order of the Lemmings, so I'm not sold on it, but suit yourself. I plan to rm "highly decorated" from the dab page, as it doesn't disambiguate, it advertises. Happy editing! Chris the speller 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)