Sorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.  :) -Ebyabe 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Consider me a member. I have great interest in anything historical pertaining to my homeland (South Florida).

keep them coming, and I'll cover the Ft. Lauderdale / Palm Beach area, as well as Miami.

I need to get a better camera first, but for now, I'll use my 1.3 mpxl until I can get another 4+.

ReignMan 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I'll be sure and continue taking them as I see opportunities arise. - Marc Averette 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you fixed a couple of redirect links in Little Haiti.[3] While your diligence is commendable, it is unnecessary and occasionally counter-productive to do so - see WP:R. Hope this saves you some work.

Oh, I see what you're doing. When you move a page, a redirect is automatically created from the original location to the new page. There is no need to go through and update all the links to the old page. However, if there are any redirects that pointed to the old page, they should be fixed. You can check this out using the "what links here" link in the toolbox on the lefthand side. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links to Biscayne Boulevard (Miami) & Miami Avenue (Miami) because they no longer exist. They are now just Biscayne Boulevard & Miami Avenue, due to unambiguity. I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is here. - Marc Averette 14:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a problem, it's just a waste of time. If you click the links you'll find that they spit you out at the correct page anyway, because the pages do in fact still exist - see [4][5]. The reason these redirects are created is so you don't have to go through and fix all the links every time you move a page. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought that it was proper Wiki policy to change the links instead of having them go to redirects. If it's OK to leave them, I'll do that from now on. There were only about 5 pages that linked to the old one, so it wasn't a big deal, but if there were many I can see how it would be a waste of time. Thanks. - Marc Averette 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for the quick catch. Lost my head for a moment. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With great displeasure I saw that in the new article Mule Keys you converted the km figures to miles, with the remark that the United States would use miles. Even if this were true, I don't think that the English language wikipedia is owned by the United States. I also don't think that the United States is the only country where English is spoken. In addition, millions of users whose native language is not English, use the English-language wikipedia to look for information, since it has the most information. And most of the world uses the metric system. And the United States is changing, too:

• Microsoft Encarta, the encyclopedia of a United States company (English-language version), uses kilometers (miles only in parenthesis)
• NASA World Wind, a software by a United States government agency, which I used to take the measurements, provides distances only in meters and kilometers

Therefore, I dare to change the article back to usage of metric units. Thank you for your understanding.--Ratzer 13:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM, people. U.S. articles use imperial units with corresponding metric conversions rounded to a similar accuracy in parenthesis. – Chacor 15:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples on WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement first give metric units and then imperial units in parenthesis (just like Encarta). If that's the agreement, alright. User:Averette however removed metric units and replaced them by imperial units, contrary to this agreement.--Ratzer 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from the Wikipedia manual of style "For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon. " The article pertains to a place under jurisdiction of the USA, therefore USA measurements should be used. The distance between islands in the USA is measured in yards, feet or miles, not kilometers or meters. If metric measurements MUST be used for the rest of the English speaking world outside of where the article pertains, they should be listed in the parenthesis, not the USA ones, since the area the article pertains to is in USA and is subject to measurements used in the USA. - Oh, and the USA is not even close to changing over to metric. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you've been sadly misinformed. - Marc Averette 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had referred to the Wikipedia manual of style at the moment you made your changes, you could have shortened this discussion. I certainly do accept what the manual of style says (as I don't place myself outside of the Wikipedia community but consider myself part of it), "U.S. measurements first", but I do not accept your interpretation of it that you can drop the metric units as you please. If there is a first, there MUST also be a second. - I gave you two indications of the USA changing to metric, and I am adding a third now:

1. Microsoft Encarta in English (Microsoft is a U.S. company)

2. Exclusive use of metric units in NASA World Wind (NASA is a U.S. government agency)

3. Exclusive use of metric units on the pages of the Bureau of the Census, which is a U.S. government agency, e.g. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_lang=en&_ts=184471117172, where the area figures of all units, states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, blocks, etc. are given in m² (square meters)

These are hard facts, not misinformation (of course you may find other examples where still U.S. customary units are used, but this won't disprove my point since I'm not contending that the USA has gone completely and exclusively metric yet). You may however keep using U.S. customary units.--Ratzer 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep this discussion here, no need to follow up on my discussion page.--Ratzer 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Microsoft is a private company that happens to be a multinational, therefore they choose to go with the most common world measurements. Irrelevant.

2. Same applies to NASA, since it's their World Wind site, chooses to express their data in worldy metric. I can assure you all data given to USA television & radio weather forecasts is in imperial units.

3. I went to the Bureau of Census, the exact link *you* gave, and guess what? I clicked on the 'map' tab, chose 'select geographic type' = state, highlighted Florida, clicked 'Map It', and what was the first thing I saw? 1625 MILES across. The bottom of the map shows the scale of the map as being 1625 *miles* across, not kilometers or meters. Now, what were you saying about the Census Bureau "exclusively" using metric again?

USA is using imperial units and there is no "change" on the horizon that I can see. Temperature is in Farenheit, road markers are in miles. That's just the way it is here. These are hard facts. - Marc Averette 14:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 3., I take back the "exclusive". All area figures that I have seen were in square meters. A bunch of them I used in the islands table of the Mule Keys article. Go ahead if you wish and change the whole table to square yards, but please leave the square meters in parentheses.

In general, the discussion of a change toward metrication is moving away from hard facts to evaluation. To me, the examples show a change toward metrication, to you, they mean nothing. We might just leave it at that. Whenever I have a chance, I'll put your yard and mile figures back into the Mule Keys article, with the metric figures in parentheses, but I don't think the table, all with original census bureau figures, should be changed (adding customary units would just destroy the design of the table).--Ratzer 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to change the table. The table is straightforward scientific data and should be left just as it's sourced. The only things I wish to change are the primary paragraphs of articles that state only metric data. If it's a place in the US, it should have miles, degrees Farenheit, pounds, etc. because that's how the data is actually measured here. The metric equivalent could be put after in () for other English readers. The entire scientific world uses metric (including the US). Perhaps this leads to the false impression that the US is 'changing', but I don't see it happening in either of our lifetimes. All road signs, media reports and official (legal) documents here use imperial measurements. The schools here teach both systems, since it must be known for any type of science or engineering degree, and it would be beneficial for all the world to use the same system, but I'm afraid that's a long, long way off. - Marc Averette 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that in the article Stock Island, Florida, you changed Raccoon Key to Key Haven. You present no reason for this change. I do greatly respect your local knowledge, and I understand that Key Haven is a common use name of the island in question, but it is not the official name as defined by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. Is there an agreement in Wikipedia to prefer common use names over official names? Someone without local knowledge who uses authoritative sources like [6] to find Key Haven doesn't get anywhere. The detailed USGS topographic maps also show only Raccoon Key, not Key Haven. So what's the point? It would seem correct to me to use the official name first, and the common use name in parenthesis.--Ratzer 09:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Raccoon Key is still the official name, as no maps that I can find list it as Key Haven either. The problem here is that everyone local refers to it as Key Haven. If you were to ask someone directions to Raccoon Key, they would most likely tell you there is no such place. Mention Key Haven, and anyone local would immediately point you in the right direction. Same is true for Marathon. Everyone seems to call the island "Marathon Key", although there is no such place. It's true name is Key Vaca. Perhaps Key Haven is too small to be listed as a CDP. The community name is definitely Key Haven, since there is a large decorative welcome sign at the entrance that says Key Haven in gold script. The civic association amongst the islanders that care to join is called the Key Haven civic association as well. Also the main road on the island is Key Haven Road, Key Haven Boulevard and Key Haven Terrace are also streets there. The article is also Key Haven, not Raccoon Key. If it is the official island name however, I'd have no objection to putting it back to Raccoon Key, although almost nobody that is local and reads it will know what it refers to. - Marc Averette 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about main article Raccoon Key and Key Haven redirecting to it (instead of the other way around). And in the text Raccoon Key, commonly known as Key Haven... Would that be a solution for both local people and the whole wide world, where everyone would find his thing?--Ratzer 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury pointed out that it's Wik policy to use the most common name as the article name. Perhaps if the introductory paragraph for Key Haven was re-worded to say "Key Haven, officially named Raccoon Key...? " - Marc Averette 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great photo! I am being picky, but is there any way you can chop off the bottom part with the boat and the time stamp? More skyline and less boat/water would be nice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstepp (talk • contribs)

I agree, I'll see what I can do. - Marc Averette 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. It looks great!... The Miami skyline is growing up fast these days.

It sure is. I have to take a new photo every month just to keep up. Right now there are more cranes on the skyline than there are buildings. By 2010 Miami is expected to be as cosmopolitan as NYC and Chicago. - Marc Averette 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, first I want to wish you a happy new year! Would you care, as a local resident, to apply for geographic name changes for those of the Lower Keys where official and local use names do not coincide, as outlined in [7]? I would be curious of how this process works, how long it takes and how easily name changes are approved. I am mainly thinking about Tank Island/Sunset Key, Dredgers Key/Sigsbee Park, and Raccoon Key/Key Haven, but maybe you know more obvious cases.--Ratzer 06:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to apply online, or does it require a petition? Sounds like something the officials in Key West and Monroe County would have to bring up at meeting and petition votes for. If there's a way to apply or at least get the ball rolling online, I'd be happy to do it. - Marc Averette 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The application form is on [8]. This is a PDF document that must be printed out and filled manually, and then returned by mail to the address given on the top right. It doesn't say that individuals cannot apply, but of course some evidence is required. So, only the application form is available online, the rest works the old way, as it seems.--Ratzer 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if you crop the date from the picture? It's sort of distracting visually. bibliomaniac15 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I guess that info really isn't necessary. - Marc Averette 13:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for the cleanup on my addition to SR 836. Last month, I started WikiProject Miami, and from your contribs, I figure you would be a valuable addition to the project. Please feel free to join in, even if you are a (shudder) Gator. PS: Thanks for beating Ohio State, Cane fans were actually cheering for you for a change.  :) CodeCarpenter 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a participant in WikiProject Miami.

Sure. I've been adding/fixing a lot of Miami/South Florida pages anyway, so I may as well make it official. Oh, and if and when the Canes make it to the next championship, I'll be sure to cheer for them; unless of course they're playing the Gators! - Marc Averette 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the number of pages you've created and edited, it looks like you're the person to talk to about the Florida Keys wiki pages. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I'll be working quite a bit on all the pages relating to the Florida Keys, and would appreciate any help and advice, particularly on my first project -- the Keynoter.

--JKBrooks85 02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to give whatever input I can. - Marc Averette 14:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering about the Seaquarium edit. Don't you think both sides should be presented in the article? I backed up my contribution with sources, and left the part about Seaquarium helping with conservation. I don't want to make this into a confrontation or anything, just saying. --Sealife 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been recent page blanking vandalism to the article. I reverted it since the added info was suspiciously similar to the other vandal edits. This happens occasionally on heavily vandalized articles. If there are reliable sources for the info you added, feel free to add it back. If one of the administrators feels it's questionable, it may be deleted at a later time, but in the meantime I'm willing to check out the facts for myself. The seaprison site appears to have an agenda - not the best source, but a reliable media site might. As long as the current info & photos aren't blanked for no valid reason, I'll leave it alone. - Marc Averette 03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

I was born and raised in Key West, Florida. Genuine key lime pie has meringue on top. The source you cited is complete bunk. It is someone’s personal website and is not reliable. It is irrelevant how you or people you know in San Francisco make the pie. San Francisco is not in the Florida Keys and your opinions have absolutely no merit in regards to authentic key lime pie. The description before you vandalized is accurate. You should check with proper sources become a bit more informed before you attempt to make corrections on things you know absolutely nothing of.

Hello, Averette. We Southerners certainly are passionate about our food; I won't dispute that. I appreciate your passion.

I was always told growing up in Miami that authentic key lime pie had graham crust and no meringue. Maybe this is yet just another subject in a long, itemized list of food items that we Southerners are known to debate about ad nauseum;

• "fried green tomatoes: dip in cornmeal or dip in egg batter?"
• "Pepsi or Coke?"
• "Chicken salad - made with mayonnaise or Miracle Whip?"

Etcetera ...

Let's consider it one of our many cultural traditions, along with spinning a good yarn and college football.

All the best. - Kosmonaut

You might want to look at this, in my browser your image caption font tag is making all of the article text appear as white, or basically invisible until you highlight it. This can be solved by adding the </font> tag after the caption, as I did in the next diff. I think this is a new development, server software might have changed or something, as the page previously looked fine. Just a heads up in case you've done this on any other articles, you might want to close the font tag. --W.marsh 13:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It looks like a change was made to the software. I'll fix them as I find them. Thanks - Marc Averette 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't tagged because they didn't come up on the conflict of interest page. When I looked at the article, it states the buildings aren't finished, nor are they the tallest. so what precisely makes them notable? Furthermore "X has an article" doesn't mean that Y should as well - every article stands on its own merits. If you cannot assert the location's notability, the article will have to be sent to deletion discussion, as it violates Wikipedia policies as it stands now. MSJapan 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other unfinished buildings with articles. See List of tallest buildings in Miami. I was only contributing to a project that's being done by several others. Not sure why you felt the need to single out my one contribution, or why you would even care. - Marc Averette 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's the one I happened to see. Go look at WP:COIN under the "autobiography botlist". MSJapan 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with Category:Attractions in Key West, Florida, please put a {{db-self}} at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough. Od Mishehu 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure of the code to get that done, now I know. - Marc Averette 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove all of it from there. It was such an interesting addition to the article. If you look at any other pages of big cities (Ex. Los Angeles, California) it has a brief history and a link to the main article. Now the Miami history section looks ugly and barren. Skillz187 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a note on the top of the page when I went to the article that said "Page is xx kilobytes long, article too big, excessive, etc" so since there is a history of Miami article that has the exact same info word for word, I figured it would be a good time to move it over there. Maybe it would be good to include a brief history, but what parts to include and what to leave out? - Marc Averette 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job cathing that Image:1490 Biscayne.jpg was in Midtown Miami. The reason I put it there was http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=100920 stated it was in the Upper Eastside, but I should have double checked it on a map. Keep up the good work.--Jorfer 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit on the article, and a history check shows that you have dealt with this issue before. I was willing to wait a couple of weeks for the cites, and then delete, but I think your solution to the problem may be more appropriate. Unfortunately, the same bozos will likely reinsert the deleted information sooner or later, so I will keep the page on my watchlist. Horologium t-c 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unfortunately this is an old story. It appears that some fanatical animal rights activists keep forcing their miamiseaprison.com viewpoint on it. - Marc Averette 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you compare it to the older version, you can see a serious difference. A 'big time' city is sprouting up before our eyes! Give it a few years, and new pics of Miami will be all over. Thanks for leading the way! --Rstepp 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, people are already talking about it on skyscrapercity here: [9] and you can really see the difference between the 2 skylines in just 8 months if you look at these 2:

Amazing for us all to see such a world-class city spring up before our eyes in such a short time. It's neat to be here and witness it firsthand. - Marc Averette 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know your Port of Miami Skyline and Wikipedia are credited for use in the book cover art of "A Margin of Error, Ballots of Straw." Geeksta 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thanks for the info. - Marc Averette 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might be getting carried away with the distance from the skyline. Compared to any other city, the limit was already being pushed on the length to height ratio with the previous skyline pic. As it was, you had to open it to see the city. Now, it is insanely small! The picture is 90% air. Also, I think it's better to show the water, because that's Miami's trademark. Can we go back to the previous version of the main skyline? Better yet, a clearer pic of that same previous angle. Thanks. --Rstepp 01:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Averette,

You appear to be active in WikiProject Miami, or have contributed a lot recently to Miami-related articles. I would like to invite you to contribute your opinions on a grant proposal for a project that may provide unique and helpful resources for Wikipedia in Miami.

Over the last six months, Wikipedia and Wikinews have been discussing a project proposal with the Knight Foundation which could create a new type of an environment for locally-oriented encyclopedic and news content. The general idea involves an official sanctioning of a local Wiki community in one or two charter areas, one of them being Miami. The Wiki community would be empowered to cover all things Miami -- even things that normally would not pass notability restrictions -- and cover both encyclopedic information as well as current events in the South Florida community. The proposal may even involve the creation of a physical "wiki space": some sort of a local room or office to coordinate efforts and provide community members with a place to create and edit articles.

I'm working on formalizing the proposal, and would like to invite you and other Miami contributors to a project brainstorming session via chat. The chat will take place this Saturday, July 14th, at 12 noon Eastern Time (9am Pacific). If enough people can't make it there will be an additional repeat meeting at some later time.

The online meeting will happen using IRC on the channel #wikipedia-miami -- you can use your own chat client or the use this handy link to join the chat. Please don't forget to provide your username when you log into chat.

I look forward to talking with you. Thanks! -- IlyaHaykinson 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure what to change back. The wide angle photo looks good under geography, but your older style photos should be the primary picture. If you take another photo of the solid skyline with good light in high resolution, I'll help you keep it posted. Thanks for the great photos. --MIA777 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite to back that up? (Miami fifth largest urban area) When I did a big edit this past weekend, I had to clear up a lot of nonsense (some Houston fanboy had kicked the metro area down to seventh place, behind Houston), which is why I added the citation from the Census Bureau. I am aware of the difference between the two definitions, but I am not aware of a site that tracks population by that criterion. The census bureau does not appear to have any datasets with that information, and the Wikipedia list that is linked has no citations, and therefore cannot be used as a reference.

As it stands right now, the Miami article is in terrible shape; I'm trying to fix it so that it doesn't get sent to a Good Article review, where I fear it might get delisted. The citations are lame, there is a lot of incorrect data (that information on housing costs is wrong, as per the citation; I corrected it but accidentally closed the window in which I was editing before saving it). This is one of the most high-profile articles in the Florida WikiProject, and it is the single most important in the Miami WikiProject; I'm trying to get this article properly cited and clean out the accumulated junk that has been added over the past year or so. Horologium t-c 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply went by the list that's already on Wikipedia List of United States urban areas. It's taken directly from the Census Bureau. The data at [10] shows that the population of the Miami UA is 4,919,036 which is the same # on the Wikipedia list. I'm assuming the other cities on the Wikipedia list have the right populations. I'll double check the first four to verify that Miami really falls into 5th place. - Marc Averette 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem. There is no citation at all on that article, from the census bureau or from any other source. You cannot use a Wikipedia page as a citation; this is explicitly spelled out in WP:SPS, which states: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources." As I said in my original post, the census bureau does not appear to have a dataset that tracks population by urban area, so without a citation, that page is nothing more than OR, unless a source is provided. It cannot be used as a reference; only the source can be cited, and right now, there is no source. I'd recommend reverting to my last edit, and changing "urban area" to "metro area", since there is a source available to support that statement; it's the one you deleted. Horologium t-c 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a citation to the list on the Census Bureau's website. Census Bureau list of Urbanized Areas. - Marc Averette 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add the citation to both the list and to the Miami page, and thank you for finding that reference. I was not successful finding it. Horologium t-c 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll add it to both. Glad I could help out. - Marc Averette 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to take all those pictures of Miami skyscrapers. They definitely add to List of tallest buildings in Miami. I was just wondering, is it all right with you if I remove <font color="ffffff"> Photo: Marc Averette </font> from the photograph captions? It is making the caption spaces longer than they need to be. Thanks, Raime 20:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Raime 20:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you're the guy to go to for Florida Keys articles, I want to get your opinion on List of fatal highway accidents in the Florida Keys. It's something I've been working on the last couple of days, but I'm wondering if it's too morbid for your taste. Since you're a Conch, you know how much accidents can affect travel down here, and I don't think notability is a problem. I'm just wondering if it's too off-putting in the way it's presented now. If you could give your opinion on it, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. JKBrooks85 15:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it, but it looks like someone else didn't think it was notable. It's a pity if you put a lot of time & research into it. Maybe you can bring it back under a different artcle name? - Marc Averette 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Averette,
I noticed you reverted my edit to the sunset article. Perhaps I can explain a little more why the image I replaced yours with is a much better one. a) It is in much much higher resolution. b) I believe it shows a much more interesting and dramatic (dare I say rare) sunset than your somewhat common one. c) That it is a good photo is by and large supported by members of the community given it's Featured Picture status, indicating that the community have judged it to be one of the finest on Wikipedia. For this reason I intend to revert your edit... --Fir0002 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo is not representative of a sunset. It is representative of twilight. The sun is not visible in your photo, as it is in mine and the others. If you must put it somewhere, stick it on the twilight page. In my opinion it looks more like a photo of a forest fire than a "sunset" anyway. - Marc Averette 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the Four Seasons Miami image from the articles. I had no idea it was a copyright violation. Rai-me 23:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Averette,
In reference to revert you did on brickell, I don't think it was a good judgement call, it's stealth spam ( clickable link to a RE site please check and you can confirm it), might it not be better if we routed that link to somewhere else or remove it, Sincerly - Onepoint
side note : if this stands, I could easily see about 50 RE sites trying to take over these properties and I have been systematically cleaning them out ( unless it's the developers site ), this is a huge can of worms and I don't have the experience to override your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepoint (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I found information on those sites that I included in the article and have cited the map in the article as a reference. Would it be better to remove the name info of the site so that all that shows under references are the numbers like this? ^[1] and ^[2]

- Marc Averette 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sugjest this link http://www.gmcvb.com/visitors/brickell_avenue.asp to replace homes.point2.com not as vulgar as the other site with the realtor listings right in front of you. - onepoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepoint (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for that update of the Miami Panorama. That is what we really need in that article. In case you didn't know, I was the one who shot the image of the Singapore Skyline. I just hope that the rest of the images in the article are as good as ours... In anyway, thanks for the nice input. I believe the article had its run, and needs clean up especially the images.

SomeFormOFhuman

07:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My new camera has a 10x zoom and can take much clearer shots than the one before. Also, it was an exceptionally clear day right after a heavy rain. Miami (according to the Almanac of Architecture & Design) has the 3rd best skyline in the country now, so I felt it was appropriate to include it. - Marc Averette 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please switch back to the photo of seven ships in port (for Miami, Florida)? The new picture may show an additional ship, but it's not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as your previous photos. I don't think the extra ship in the picture outweighs the decrease in visual quality of your previous shot. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It doesn't look as good. I was debating with myself when I switched it. I think you confirmed it, so I'll switch it back. - Marc Averette (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Not sure if you're aware or not, but we're organizing a meetup in Miami for Saturday the 19th of January. Discussion page. If you could come, that would be nice. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the watermark (the date in the bottom) on this image, which you uploaded. If there is a problem please contact me on my talk page. Joedamadman (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a link [11] that has Key West Islands in its name (though not in the text of the page), and it refers to those Florida Keys that are referenced as Mule Keys here in the Wikipedia (and on a few other sites). Is that name for those keys known to or used by Key West residents?--Ratzer (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it. The only ones that I ever heard talked about (and been to) while growing up were Woman Key and Boca Grande Key, mainly because they have beaches and many people go to them to picnic. I've never heard them all called by the collective "Mule Keys" either, but I guess they are. In any case, "Key West Islands" is most likely something someone just made up. - Marc Averette (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this, I agree, there's no way 900 Biscayne Bay is 712 feet (217 m) tall when the unfinished Marquis Miami is taller. In addition, I did a floor count of 900 Biscayne Bay and it turns out its only 60 floors (maybe 61 or 62 if there are mechanical floors above floor 60), but not 65. The completed building also looks different from the renderings on Emporis; it seems like a floor or two was cut here and there and the developer deleted the rooftop decor. Also, it appears there's a problem with Ten Museum Park as well; how can it be 585 feet (178 m) tall when the roof appears to be around 70 feet (21 m) lower than the 615 foot (187 m) Marina Blue roof? To me, it looks like 900 Biscayne Bay is about 630 feet (191 m) tall and Ten Museum Park is about 525 feet (160 m) tall. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 08:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm sorry to say, but I think these findings are just the tip of the iceburg. Emporis is apparently a mess. There must be a better source out there, but I don't think the city's planning or building depts have their blueprint data online. I found the building by address search, but the info isn't filled in - oh well. City of Miami Planning Dept. Marc Averette (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try SkyscraperPage.com with its Miami list, but that looks like a carbon copy of Emporis. From the above reply, do you mean that many other height figures and floor counts stated in List of tallest buildings in Miami are wrong as well, since the list heavily references Emporis? Can you provide some examples completed buildings / under construction projects other than 900 Biscayne and Ten Museum Park? Thanks. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer quickly - just off the top of my head - I know that the one they give for Carbonell Condominium on Brickell Key is complete BS, they are claiming it's like over 600 ft, when I know it's a lot less. (all the buildings next to it dwarf it). And then there's mysterious Ten Museum Park that they claim is 585, yet the others next to it completely dwarf it (Marinablue claiming 615 which is only 30 ft more or (roughly) 3 stories) The others have FAR more than a 3 story difference. You can see clearly on photos of the skyline that 50 Biscayne is at least 3-4 stories taller than Ten Museum Park, yet Emporis states 50 Biscayne is only 554 ft, so how can 10 Museum be 585 (30 ft more). I have come to the conclusion that Emporis is about as useful as a seatbelt on a motorcycle. What are we to do? I feel like walking around downtown for a day with a sextant and calculator. Maybe that's the only way we will ever really know. Original research; but at least *I* will know. Marc Averette (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another website documenting building heights: Structurae, but this one is of little use, since it contains a handful of Miami skyscrapers. Other than that, I don't think there's another skyscraper website other than Emporis and SkyscraperPage, which means a manual calculation like you said. I think another building with disputed / faulty data is the Four Seasons Hotel Tower with 64 or 70 floors. For now, in light of these concerns, I guess the Miami list will have an {{accuracy}} tag until these data discrepancies are sorted out. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The city categories ALL encompass the immediate area, not just the city limits. So "coasters in the Orlando Area" would be a duplicate of "coasters in Orlando". Similarly, "visitor attractions in orlando, florida" would encompass all attractions in the general Orlando region. This is consistent with all other city articles. For example, "casinos in las vegas" would include casinos in summerlin and henderson, which are suburbs of vegas. See the talk page for Walt Disney World Resort for a multi-year discussion (and last week's fiasco) on the topic. SpikeJones (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the convention then I suppose the Miami one needs to be changed to just say Miami instead of Greater Miami. Marc Averette (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that you are going to reset the Orlando categories similarly to match your previous agreement that the city,state naming convention encompasses the greater city area, based on at least this previous conversation? SpikeJones (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you took out a few sub categories that I placed. The reason I did it was because if you go here: Category:Seaside resorts in the United States, there are several towns there listed as a subcategory that are seaside resorts in the US. Would a proper subcategory for this only be a more refined one like a state, such as seaside resorts in Florida? If so, then the other ones that are just towns & cities should be removed as well. I'll remove them if so. - Marc Averette (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As an example, The Wildwoods are a series of shore resort communities in New Jersey, most of which have "Wildwood" in their name; Each of these communities are shore communities, so Category:Seashore resorts in the United States is appropriate. If you look at Category:The Wildwoods, New Jersey, there are entries for Wildwood Catholic High School and for Tramcar (Wildwood), both of which are for articles related to The Wildwoods. Category:The Wildwoods, New Jersey includes the parent catgeory Cape May County, United States, whcih makes sense, as every place, school and tramcar in The Wildwoods is part of the surrounding county. However, while all of the places are Seashore communities, the High school and the tramcar are not; The Category:Seashore resorts in the United States does not apply to anything other than places, and that's why it was removed. What could be done, and could also be done with similar multi-community resorts in Florida, is to develop an intermediate category, in this case called "Places in the Wildwoods, New Jersey", which would then have both Cape May County AND Seashore resorts in the US as parent categories. Without that the parent category would not belong. I hope this example helps. Please let me know if I can help further on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a big problem then. I've looked at many different categories. Here's one example Category:Virginia Beach, Virginia. Notice how the categories listed for that category are Category:Cities in Virginia and Category:Seaside resorts in the United States, yet there are many different articles on highways, schools, etc. within that aren't cities or resorts. Is this something that needs to be corrected? - Marc Averette (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing Category:South Florida metropolitan area from dozens of articles? Was there a discussion about this anywhere, or are you just being bold? In a couple of instances, you have changed the category, but most of them are simple removals, and while removing individual buildings from the category might be appropriate, removing major cities such as Fort Lauderdale, Florida and West Palm Beach, Florida from it is a little extreme. Horologium (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a higher-level category to all the articles that I'm removing it from. Just following Wiki standard -

For instance Miami, Florida is in the category Category:Cities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is under Category:Settlements in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is under Category:Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is under Category:South Florida metropolitan area - so Miami should be listed in Category:Cities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, but not in SFMA, since the 3 counties are already listed under that one. - Marc Averette (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to state this in the opening paragraph with the proper reference below, so could you please do the honors of placing it there? Both of these links below are the populations lists that the NYC page uses, and they both say that Miami is number four. I think that the Urban Agglomeration page is more impressive looking. If you can update the page, I'd appreciate it! Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_agglomerations_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamiomar (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your very strong argument, I now agree with you; the image you took that portrays the entire building is better suited for List of tallest buildings in Miami. The image I added, while probably more aesthetically pleasing, doesn't give a good aspect of the building's unique design. When I first found Image:Bank of America Center Miami.jpg on Flickr, I thought it would be great for the list, but you are right in saying that it doesn't capture the building's unique architecture as nearly as well as Image:Bankofamericatowermiami.jpg. Also, the Flickr image does not seem to "come out" very clear in the list as the image size is so small to begin with; the building may "blend" with the sky too much when its size is so small. Anyway, I have changed the image.

Oh, and this may be a lot to ask for, but as you have taken so many Miami skyline photos, do you think you could get an updated image that presents a perspective similar to that of Image:Miami-skyline-for-wikipedia-07-11-2007-by-tom-schaefer-miamitom.jpg? Your skyline panoramas are great, but due to their size they are unfortunately not suitable for the Miami list's lead. The above-mentioned image portrays the skyline well and is a great size for the lead, but as you stated before, it is outdated. Cheers, Rai•me 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that yesterday, but unfortunately the air is full of particles from the Everglades fire last week and was bad for taking photos. I live within walking distance of the bridge, so hopefully we'll have a good rain soon and I'll be able to grab the opportunity. - Marc Averette (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping this article factual and without the other nonsense that others have put up. Roland's daughter Sally is my grandmother...I know our family appreciates it. 71.71.100.54 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The only thing though - you might want to put in a reference. If an overzealous admin sees the article they might wipe out the stuff that isn't referenced. I'm sure there's a FL Keys history book that contains the info. I have several on Key West that I've used in the past. Also see here [12] - Marc Averette (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the distinction between Downtown and Midtown is pretty gray, and information specifying its exact borders are also gray. However, there is a Midtown and according to what I have read Midtown corresponds as the area the City of Miami calls "Wynwood" and "Edgewater". Wynwood is everything west of Biscayne Blvd from NE 20th St up to the Design District and Edgewater is everything east of Biscayne Blvd from NE 20th St to the Design District. So, that would mean your realtor is correct, Midtown does technically begin at NE 20th St. Which would make the area east of Overtown (roughly Miami Avenue) and south of NE 20th St all part of Downtown. However, some people would also call the area south of I-195 "Park West", so it can be confusing.

The way I see it is as such:

Brickell: South of Miami River, east of I-95, north of SW 26th Rd. These are the official boundaries set by the City of Miami and includes Brickell Key.

Downtown: North of Miami River, east of I-95 until NW 8th St then it becomes east of Miami Avenue and north up to NE 20th St. Inside this area is the part some people call "Park West", the are just due west of Museum Park and the "Omni" the immediate area you live in.

Midtown: North of NE 20th St, west of I-95 and south of the Design District. This includes Midtown's sub-districts of Wynwood and Edgewater.

I really hope that helps clarify things and I know it's a lot of streets, but it's the best way I can try and explain it. If you have any questions, just let me know. Cheers! --Comayagua99 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This map here also shows downtown ending at n 17th Terrace (which would make the Opera Tower the southernmost in Edgewater/Midtown), but it also shows it extending south all the way to Broadway (s 15th rd). So should the northern part of Brickell be called "the Brickell section of downtown Miami"? And south of Broadway should be called South Brickell. - Marc Averette (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, List of Registered Historic Places in Florida has been completely table-ized. Meaning that there's a spot for an image for every NRHP in the state. So if you have (or can get) any photos to fill in the holes, that would be wondermous. One could always start with List of Registered Historic Places in Miami-Dade County, Florida, could one. I'm working on getting the rest of the state north of Okeechobee. Cheers! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Interstate 395 is a short freeway in Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broworker122 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me how you download the U.S. Census Bureau map showing city limits? I see the map in the Bay Lake, Florida article that you updated. Please provide the link or process to download these map images. I'd like to add this type of map for a different city article. Thank you. Merbenz (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can go here, type in the city, town or CDP name. There are a multitude of maps. Reference map usually has confusing hard to distinguish colors, so I usually use total population map (just underneath). You can also adjust the scale after the map comes up. - Marc Averette (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Island cities in Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for converting into an article named [[:Category:]] ([[[:Template:Fullurl::Category:]] edit] | [[Category talk:|talk]] | [[[:Template:Fullurl::Category:]] history] | links | [[[:Template:Fullurl::Category:]] watch] | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of MTV’s The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors that may live in or near those cities. Do you live in or near Key Haven, and if so, would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Key West residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we're both hard headed Cuban-Americans (cabezón, as my abuela would say) with lots of pride in our hometowns. But could we please come to an understanding to end these editing disputes which we keep getting into? My hobby is Tampa culture and history, obviously you know a lot about S. Florida. I'll defer to you in matters of your expertise if you do the same for me (following wikipedia guidelines, of course).

Deal? Zeng8r (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. My dad seems to think that they had them in Key West before Ybor City, but he wasn't alive in 1870 and neither was anyone else. What confuses me is that I read in one of those articles that the original was made in Cuba and had turkey? I've never heard of that before. But for simplicity's sake, I accept that the Cuban sandwich as we know it was 'perfected' in Ybor back near the turn of the century. There doesn't appear to be any record of it before that. Sorry I jumped the gun on the edits. ☺ - Marc Averette (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. With social history like this, it's really hard to pin down specifics. By the time anything gets put down in print, it's based on stories about the "good ol' days", which can be conflicting depending on who's abuelo is telling the tale. Share the sandwich, share the credit, imo.

btw, do you happen to be a member of the "I love Cuban Sandwiches!" group on Facebook? You might enjoy the (relatively) good-natured discussions on there regarding the relative merits of the Miami and Tampa and Key West styles... Zeng8r (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally removed the AfD notice and maintenance tags -- I fixed it for you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Averette, I remember you as having local firsthand knowledge of the Key West area. I have been working on some articles pertaining to that area in the de-WP, and the question has come up which islands exactly do belong to the city of Key West. For the most part, it seems to be clear (Sigsbee Park, Fleming Key, Stock Island (north part) and Sunset Key, but not Wisteria Island/Christmas Tree Island). There are some smaller keys I've found on maps:

• Salt Pond Keys (probably this one and that one).
• Thompson Island (here).

Can you determine whether these little keys and islands are part of the City of Key West or not? Thank you, and greetings.--Ratzer (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I know that Wisteria island isn't the city, since they recently tried to annex it and failed. Looking at the city limits map here it appears that Thompson Island and those little uninhabited mangrove islands scattered around are in county territory. I believe originally the city was just the island; then later they annexed various other parts, so even a patch of land just a few yards offshore would not be the city, unless they had a reason for claiming it. I beleive Thompson island is artificially constructed. It is private and has a house on it. It is also connected to Key West (A1A) by a small bridge, but apparently is Monroe county, not city. - Marc Averette (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that seems to be right. Meanwhile, I found a detailed zoning map of the City of Key West, and it clearly shows Thompson Island outside the city limits. It does not map the "Salt Pond Keys" at all, but two other small and apparently unnamed keys/islets just north of Fleming Key are part of the city, according to the map. Or do they have at least inofficial local names?--Ratzer (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Congratulations Averette! Your image Image:Miamifireworks.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day. It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

Fourth of July fireworks in Miami, Florida

Image credit: [[User:Averette (talk|Averette (talk]] ([[User talk:Averette (talk|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Averette (talk|contribs]])

. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 10:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

User:Averette has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Averette's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Averette! Peace, Rlevse 00:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Hello, Averette. You have new messages at Bsherr's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]