User talk:Smb6009

Welcome!

Hello, Smb6009, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Preview Image[edit]

{{helpme}} The map I uploaded (at [1]) only shows up at a 200px by 200px square. Is it possible to resize this preview so the map is readable? Smb6009 (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is only a preview on that page - if you click on it, it enlarges. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a way to change the preview size. When you embed it in an article, you can decide the size that it is shown through the use of the [[image]] tag. Hope this helps,Gazimoff ^Write _Read 20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Looks Stretched[edit]

{{helpme}} I'm new at uploading images. The PNG previews of the SVG maps I uploaded at [2] and [3] appear stretched out. Is it possible to preserve their original ratios? Smb6009 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look stretched to me... Are you certain that they are stretched? Try on a different computer or browser - it might be your machine or web browser. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I mean the Oswego County map has a preview of 200px x 200px, but its actual dimensions are 1000px x 880 px. Smb6009 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 342[edit]

The licensing on the map you uploaded for State Route 342 is quite fine: nothing at all is wrong with it. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Smb6009 (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your maps[edit]

The U.S. Roads maps task force has established standards that all maps should follow - and "should" in this case is generally understood to be "follow this unless there's a very good reason not to". While some of your maps follow some of the standards, many do not. I'll take File:Map of NY Route 178.png as an example. The township lines and the different shading for different jurisdictions are little more than clutter. The county line is both the wrong color and the wrong stroke (solid instead of dashed). The west half of the map - where the water shapefile doesn't match up to the county one - looks awful. And finally, it's a PNG, which has long since been deprecated by the MTF. I'm assuming you're using QGIS to make these maps. If so, it's very easy to fix the last three issues if you take certain steps in the program. There are two tutorials on the MTF page that cover some of them. – T M F 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind feedback on my recent map uploads. I actually didn't notice the issue of water shapefile not lining up with the county data, specifically on the map of NY Route 178. Perhaps you could advise me on another source to find water and county data that properly lines up? Right now, I'm using the 2000 Tiger/Line data (which has a link directly from the MTF page). I have noticed this to be a bit difficult to use, especially because each county has its own data, so in order for me to properly load the data, I have to load a file for each county in the map. Also, thanks for the advice on the borders, I actually did forget to set the color codes for the borders in my recently uploaded maps. I'll try to fix that.

However, I don't understand how the inclusion of the towns, villages and hamlets appear as "little more than clutter". I would agree with this if perhaps the route being highlighted was a state-wide route. However, most of the maps I have been creating are small routes (i.e. NY 631, NY 635, maybe no longer than about 25-30 miles. Thus, my "good reason" for including this data was to help show detail on where the route passes through each community. Unfortunately, MTF does not specify the color codes for this data. It does provide, however, that "if there is any deviation, a legend should be included on the map to prevent confusion." Therefore, I did provide a legend in the info section. I did change my color schemes to brown, green and yellow, so they would stand out a bit more. I actually thought it looked a bit cleaner. The colors I used most recently are different than my first few maps were (see File:New_York_Route_310_Map.png as an example of one of my earlier maps). Should I perhaps go back to my old scheme?

And Finally, I have spent many hours trying to get my SVG's to appear correctly in the Wikimedia commons, and I just can't get them to look right (take File:New_York_Route_49_Map.svg) as an example. I chose to use the PNG's because I never had a problem with them, and while "preference" is given to SVG's, I don't see any requirement that says they must be used.

I look forward to hearing back from you for some tips. Thanks! Smb6009 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force#Townships and jurisdictions on regional maps. – T M F 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for your contribution to the article Wolf (disambiguation)!Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent call sign changes[edit]

Hi. It appears that, in the process of updating the articles for stations WSEN-FM and WOLF-FM (in part reflecting that the WNDR-FM call sign is no longer used), you copied the contents of the WNDR-FM article and pasted an edited version of it into the WSEN-FM page, and similarly took the existing WSEN-FM article's contents and placed it on the WOLF-FM page. In doing so, you have performed a series of "cut-and-paste moves", which are undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. I've undone the moves, but in a way to ensure that the changes you made to the article texts will not be lost. In the future, if you are unable to perform a particular page move using the "Move" tab (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful feedback and for correcting this! I will keep this in mind in the future. Smb6009 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Smb6009. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Smb6009. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]