User talk:Cburnett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BY COMMENTING HERE, I ASSUME TO REPLY HERE UNLESS YOU SAY OTHERWISE! Archives:

Contents

[edit] List of breweries

You reverted a version of this with redlinks that are simply incorrect - there were no redlinks in any of the sections that I changed to See Category entries - the categories are in all cases more comprehensive as well, and the lists were arbitrary and pointless. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer. Justinc 10:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you havent responded I have re-reverted your changes. Justinc 13:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, I missed your posting here. Why:
  1. Red links are not Bad Things
  2. A "List of ...." is not a page intended for linking to categories (that's what parent categories are for) and removing links to be replaced with links to categories undermines the entire purpose of listing them in the first place
  3. I'm debating on VFD'ing the list and/or posting a merge with the other list that includes brands
Cburnett 19:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
There were not any red links on the parts I replaced with categories. Look at the history:

for example, which you have left with redlinks in. You reverted an earlier version with typos, incorrect names etc. I dont have anything against redlink lists, although I prefer them to be non-arbitrary lists. I only added categories to emphasise the total uselessness of the list in the first place, and also said I was keen on VfDing it. And I linked to where the discussion about this was going on, where it would be polite to respond, rather than re-re-reverting. Justinc 23:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Arthur's Carrousel

I agree that something must be done about the King Arthur's Carrousel section. It is obviously a British or archaic spelling, which is throwing people off. I just want to keep the article looking good and not having little notes everywhere on everything that people might change, like the controversial amusement park/theme park categories, but I'll put a note on the page to remind people not to change it, because, apparently, people haven't been looking at the history for the article. --Evanwohrman 05:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Les Mis

Hi! I ran across you at WP:PUI. Les Mis is my favorite musical too. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrating

Enlarge

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS conspiracy theories

I expect to see your replies to my comments on the talk page. Then I guess you'll be disappointed, then. --Calton | Talk 03:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so you have no intention of participating...just reverting? Look up Strawman argument when you get the chance.

Also, just so I know, since I missed the memo: who died and left you in charge? --Calton | Talk 03:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No one died, though 33 people put me in charge. Does that answer your question? I just find it interesting that you revert an article you've never edited and have explicitly stated you'll never discuss the article. Cburnett 03:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I hereby award you this long overdue Barnstar for your tireless quality contributions, notably the STNG list. - RoyBoy 800 16:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I hereby award you this long overdue Barnstar for your tireless quality contributions, notably the STNG list. - RoyBoy 800 16:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photographic lenses

Hi, sorry I have taken so long to reply, but I've been away from WP and only just noticed your question (from July) on my talk page. You've probably found out already (or don't need the info anymore) since I've left it so long, but just in case, an "element" is generally a single lens, made from one piece of glass, and a "group" is a group of lenses (elements) that are touching or very close together. If you look at Zeiss Tessar, you can see four elements, and three groups, for instance. --Bob Mellish 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TCP: Connection termination

The topic was discussed in the talk page. There was a previous edit war going on, which i noticed and tried to stop. I did try to make it neutral, but your version is a even better. Thank you.

I do have a few concerns, however:

1. You stated there is a two way method of closing a connection? Please describe this! I am unaware of a way to do it in only two ways, aside from the first side ignoring the FIN/ACK, which seems to violate the protocol.

2. Furthermore, there is literature (see the talk page) which supposedly refers to the termination as 3-way, regardless of actual method used.

3. The connection process is pretty much universally described as a three-way handshake, despite the fact that it could be done in more steps. Shouldn't this lend credibility to the description of termination as a three-step process?

Let's talk on the talk page as this is an interesting point: How do we determine how many packets are required to establish or terminate a connection.

--Kevin L'Huillier 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the reminder

Very nice of you to call out my error in your edit summary. [1]-- No Guru 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you take making a mistake (god forbid!) gracefully by utilizing contemptuous sarcasm. I'll try to remember to not extend you the courtesy of dropping a friendly reminder on your talk page next time you're negligent in exercising your administrative abilities. Rest assure, from now on: you can safely make mistakes without ever be given the opportunity to learn from them by notification from me. Have a great weekend. Cburnett 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The friendly reminder was fine. Thank you for that. The edit summary was pointlessly rude. You could have used a summary like:

Closing Admin forgot to remove Afd notice - or
Removing AfD notice as per talk page -- or
Deleting AfD notice -- see talk page -- or
Deleting AfD notice for closing Admin --
Continue to point out all of my mistakes to me (for I make them in multitudes) - just don't be a dick about it. Have a good weekend. -- No Guru 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you call that rude?
  • Did I use any derogatory terms?
  • Did I call you names?
  • Did I comment on you as a person?
  • Did I mock your abilities as an admin for forgetting to delete the notice?
  • Did I call for your removal as an admin?
  • Did I poke that you need to go reread (or, heck, read for the first time) administrator guidelines?
Did I say anything resembling any of the following:
  • "Retard didn't do his job"
  • "You guys voted for him to be an admin? pffff!"
  • "What a lamer"
  • "IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSE AN AFD THEN AT LEAST DO YOUR JOB"
  • "Thanks for wasting my time"
  • "AFD closed: vote was a waste of time and No Guru couldn't waste his time to finish it"
Did I say anything other than the truth: are you not User:No Guru and did you not delete the AFD notice?
The answer to all of the above is a resounding "no". Absolutely not. No, I merely said you didn't delete the notice. Nothing inflammatory, nothing rude. On a scale of 0 to 10 of rudeness, my summary might have been a 0.1.
The only reason you read something "rude" is because you didn't assume good faith. Did you? The reason I didn't do any of the above is because I assumed good faith on your part and that it was just an oversight. That's it.
I left a brief, detailed summary (something I strive to do on every edit) and a friendly reminder on your talk page. Your real problem is that I used your name and that somehow makes it rude. To be honest, I'd apologize but I don't see anything to apologize for.... Cburnett 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement on STCP

Hello. If possible, I would appreciate a quicker response to Talk:Stream Control Transmission Protocol (section 'TCP stream reassembly') so the case can be closed. -- intgr 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penis Banding Article

Dear Cburnett ,

I am a FemDomme active in the BDSM scene. I use Penis banding on my husband for many reasons. One it helps with our chastity play and second it makes it so he lasts longer when we do have sex. I know of several other Femdommes as well as several Doms in the local scene and nation wide that also use penis banding for many reasons. It has nothing to do with castration fantasies. Many men that wish it to be done do not want to loose their penis, just the problem of premature ejaculation and stamina problems. Is it a normal solution to a common problem? No, but it fits perfectly with our lifestyle.

I often used the penis banding article to send to potential submissives that were asking about it. It was easier than typing the same thing out over and over again and gave it a hint of authority since it was on Wikepedia. I’ve also sent it out to other FemDommes interested in the subject since it include some of the medical advice of length of time, proper technique etc.

I suggest that instead of immediately assuming that because you weren’t interested in it or understood it that you should vote on deleting it. The BDSM lifestyle is very complex and there is no right or wrong way about it. As long as everyone is consensual the best thing is to try and find the safest way about it. Instead try asking the person who wrote the page about it. Or ask someone else familiar with the practice. There were several edits to it so someone else had to be practicing it. It was definitely not to paraphrase you ‘a made up activity to get it on Wikepedia’. If you wish I’ll even send you pictures of the activity in question *winks*. I know of several late night prowlers that do it on webcams for fun. You can question them about it too.

As for show your show you some articles:

http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Banding

http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding

And the article answered many of the questions posted here:

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=2abec268e43a391a3a83154b6fce9fcc&t=8574


Take time to broaden your horizons before you reject something out of hand. It doesn’t do anyone any favors.


Mistress Taboo

I didn't say I was uninterested nor misunderstanding (thanks for copy/pasting a reply). My rationale of deleting had nothing to do with either. The paramount policy on wikipedia is verifiability. Linking to a couple of sites saying "this is what we do" and "this is what we call it" is not verifiable. They are not reliable sources.
If the practice is legit, etc., etc. then you should have provided links to magazines or books or something more reliable.
The reason the page was deleted was to avoid the very reason you used it:
...and gave it a hint of authority since it was on Wikepedia.
Wikipedia requires "authority" (by way of being published) for something to exist on it. You can't make WP be authoritative when you have no reliable sources backing it up. Wikipedia is not a primary source! Cburnett 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penis banding Cont'

Who reads a book anymore? It’s all on the internet now a days! But for your information: Books with the subject:

Family Jewels: A guide to male genital play and torture by Hardy Haberman for a modest $12.95

Erotic Bondage Handbook by Jay Wiseman $16.95

FemDomme Queen Elise Sutton talks about it in her book Female Domination. For $24.95

So why should someone pay that much for a few lines that can be summed up on the web? I personally learned about it going to a Bondage seminar. But not everyone is out of the closet…

And just for your information BME is the foremost of authority for BDSM on the web.


Mistress Taboo

Precisely like I said in my delete vote: show me verifiable sources then I'll change my vote. Since the vote has been closed I can no longer do that. Pull all those books on penis banding (with ISBNs, sans prices) and follow through with the deletion appeal. Cburnett 22:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard III (1955 film)

You may be interested that an article that you created quite a while ago, well, it was a stub back then, has been given a hell of a lot of expansion by me. It's now up for Featured Article status, on the nominations page. Just though I'd let you know. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brewery poll

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [2] SilkTork 11:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png

Thanks for creating Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png; just to let you know that your help is appreciated JdH 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to Sadi's comment: you did see the clean version of that image (Image:Solar Updraft Tower clean.png) which could be used on the articles in other languages (I suppose I should have put it on commons instead)? Thanks for note, I appreciate it. :) Cburnett 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could; I think that the sister projects could benefit from it. Trick is that you would have to let them know that it is there; one way of doing that is create a gallery under Commons, and insert links to Commons in the sister projects. You may want to look at Willem Einthoven and Commons:Willem Einthoven to see how that is done. JdH 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Or put the textless image on the other pages to make it visible with links to english and french hoping someone can translate from one of them. Cburnett 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yeoman Rand Tampering

Your an admin now right? If so, please keep an eye on this Rustyblue. He likes to slap images of Yeoman Rand in all the TOS articles, really big annoying ones that have no place there. He even pissed me off by changing the image for The Enemy Within with some stupid crap he found trying to be sneaky about it. I warned him in the past of this on his talkpage but he completely ignores it and continues his bullshit. I think an official warning by an admin threatening a ban or something would be appropriate in this case. At least let him know that Wikipedia doesn't allow articles to become a user's personal scrapbook. Since the TV screen shots are on the choppingblock right now, we don't need trolls around here vandalising images to make a stupid point. Thanks. Cyberia23 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FUC and lists

Hi. I'm not clear on exactly what you were trying to get at in your comment. I think that there is a kind of "generation gap" going on here. Many newer users have gotten used to the idea that it is normal Wikipedia practice to fill up articles with all kinds of unfree images, while older users are finding themselves shocked by what they perceive as a sudden explosion of unfree content. Our guidelines and policies were written with the idea that everyone here is committed to the open-source movement, or free culture movement, or whatever you want to call it, as applied to giving away a free, reusable encyclopedia, and that may simply no longer be true. There may be more users who want to create a well-decorated encyclopedia than one with content made by Wikipedians to be reusable. I'm not optimistic about this really being resolved on a case-by-case basis, and even centralised discussions are prone to veering off into weird armchair-copyright-lawyering, confusion about what fair use is, and the strange idea that the best way to preserve the allowing of fair use on en: is to abuse it heavily and fight attempts to keep it to a minimum. I suspect that we have a reached a point at which the solution will be a top-down one, but, in any case, I will take another look at the discussion that you pointed me to. Jkelly 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You had made a comment that you would like to see #8 discussed further and the link I provided on your talk page is pretty entirely based upon #8 and what "decoration" means. I now see that your comment was posted well before my reply so here's some context:
I am not for "reckless" (as hyperbolically stated by the bainer) use of fair use images (or "fill up" as you put it). I think an image per episode is quite reasonable in the eyes of the copyright act considering the only way to visually represent a copyrighted TV show is by a screenshot. I definitely side with the belief that if a free image can be obtained then a fair use equivalent should not be allowed and that a free image should always be favored over a near-equivalent non-free image. A free image for a TV show is not obtainable for like 75 years (I forget what the current duration of a copyright is). Cburnett 20:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I looked over the discussion again, and I don't see that I have much more to contribute. I'm certainly not of the opinion that taking a list of television episodes and adding an unfree image for each list item is an improvement to Wikipedia! I don't know what "Copyright act" you are referring to above, but as for the duration of copyright, in many television-producing countries, including the U.S., copyright expires seventy years p.m.a. Jkelly 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright Act of 1976. It codified fair use in the US. Just looking this up: Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to 95 years for companies which would, obviously, include TV series. Cburnett 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Northern hemisphere

you have been at Talk:Northern hemisphere. Maybe you like to say something about capitalization. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't there be only one talk page? [[3]] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I messed up in responded on the talk page. I had the talk page opened before I moved so when I replied it posted to Talk:Northern hemisphere instead. Anyway, all fixed (I hope) and thanks for catching it. :) Cburnett 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 ;-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Jodiefoster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jodiefoster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox (Pilgrims)

Thanks for the quick eye on my userbox - man, I must have been very sleepy Noles1984 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medium

Woh, Are you telling me Medium starts Aug 21 this year? If so i think i've just had a heart attack :D! Everywhere i looked it was saying around 2007 etc MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, Just checked the NBC website.. Glad its coming back soon :-)! MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Heck yeah! :) Cburnett 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang, the episode listed on nbc.com is a repeat but I didn't know because the remaining 5 episodes of season 2 weren't on the episodes list page. Cburnett 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea i realised there where some episodes missing last night but i went to bed as i was to tired, maybe we should write to NBC January 2007 is a long wwaayy off. AT least Prison Break returns on Aug 21st.. It's a good show to. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] could you take a look at...

... Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem and comment on this content dispute i am having with a fairly recent editor to the article. i think, from your earlier comments on the talk page, that i have some of the same concerns as you. BTW, i created the zero-order hold and first-order hold pages you have on your Things to work on section of your user page. i hope you approve.

my goal of the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is to keep it technically accessable, yet accurate from the POV of the Electrical Engineering discipline (which means we treat the Dirac delta like the limit of the nascent functions and less strictly than as a tempered distribution). but my difficulty with this latest editor is not about that. r b-j 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about the logic of proofs. I would also value objective commentary on these issues. As a "fairly recent editor" I don't have much experience with how to handle disputes in which someone refuses to respond to particular points, especially when they involve logic. Dicklyon 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO 3166-1 alpha-3

Hi, sorry that I didn't inform you when I reverted the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 article. Personally, I don't like the 3-letter country templates, since there's no rule of what the countries' display name should be, so they are arbitrary and any user can change them when they want. And I'd prefer the ISO pages follow the usage of ISO's official country names. You can find the list at ISO 3166-1. Chanheigeorge 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's make them none arbitrary and put <noinclude> notes on the templates saying it's the ISO 3166-1 name and to not change it unless ISO changes it. How about that? Cburnett 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean the 3-letter country templates? I don't think that's a good idea. A lot of the people who use them are not aware that they're using ISO codes. And sometimes the official ISO country names are a mouthful, e.g. IRN -> "Iran, Islamic Republic of", while the template now displays Flag of Iran Iran, which is actually better in most cases. Chanheigeorge 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention some controversial names chosen by ISO (and by UN), e.g. TWN -> "Taiwan, Province of China" or MKD -> "Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of". Chanheigeorge 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So how about {{ISO IRN}} instead? Cburnett 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that should be okay if you create these templates. Chanheigeorge 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Iowa

Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in Iowa. Therefore, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining (proposed) WikiProject Iowa? If so, please add your name to "Interested Wikipedians" at Proposed WikiProject Iowa --Tim4christ17 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa ghost towns

Hey Cburnett, I noticed you had a link to Donnan, Iowa and other disapearing/vanished Iowa towns on your userpage. If you do ever get a chance, some of the ones listed on your page are definitely woth visiting. I used to live near Donnan, and wrote the Wikipedia article on it. It is a strange and somewhat surreal place. The abandoned post office, if it is still there, would definitely be worth a visit. There were only five or six buildings left when I last visited, in the mid-90s, but if you can find it, it is worth looking at. Do not bother trying to visit Doris, Iowa unless you are prepared to be terribly disapointed. The buildings have all been razed, and nothing is left except the ruins of what I was told was the mill. The other Fayette and Buchanan County ghost towns vary in quality: there is nothing left at Buchanan, but Bryantsburg has some (around 3) really nice old farmhouses that are now inhabited by Amish families. Shady Grove has (had?) a really huge white barn with the words SHADY GROVE on the front, but little else is left. The northern six blocks of Randalia, including the old school, were in the process of being razed the last time I was there, so I'm not sure what may be left. Monti has a very interesting 150 year old church, a giant cemetary, and (a rarity amongst such empty places) a community center that might be worth a visit. Just figured I'd drop you a note in case you ever get the chance to visit. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand chemotrophic flowchart?

I think your flowchart on chemotroph could be very usefull for the more general article on Primary nutritional groups. Do you have time to modify it? Regards, Sjors.

I can sure look into it! Cburnett 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots for The Unit

Thanks for adding all the episode screenshots to List of The Unit episodes. Will you be able to get a screenshot for episode 105 and the three episodes that recently aired? -- Gogo Dodo 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it on my list of things to do! :) Cburnett 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thank you! =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Doorly Zoo

I'm side tracked with my efforts on another article I am working on, off and on and with my typical tunnel vision, I'm not able to make much effort on the zoo article. I'll keep it watchlisted and do what I can to get it to FA.--MONGO 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm just seeking ideas on how to improve it as it would seem to be the first zoo article anywhere near an FA. Cburnett 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on Red Deer, and if you check there, every footnote links to the bottom of the article and the appropriate reference. I used the Harvard style referencing when I wrote (well, of course with the enormous help of others), the article titled Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Before it becomes an FA, we'll need to make text of the lists and standardize all the refs. A general expansion of some areas is also needed...but the article can be an FA, and the zoo certainly deserves it.--MONGO 07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock IP

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 65.125.133.211 lifted.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the navigation in List of films by year

Hi Cburnett, I am working in the List of films by year. I have given a consistent form to all years until the 1990s. I have made a comprehensive list of films for each year, which includes all films in awards and top grossing, being extra careful to put each film in the right year and fixing all links on my way. I have also given a steadier year navigation, by correcting all right-side boxes to a uniform way, so navigation doesn't jump up and down or to the right. In May 25, 2005 you have introduced a template navigation that is also a navigation to television and home video. I have seen your tremendous amount of work and I am in awe. Yet I would like to ask you if it's ok to keep on with the old navigation through the 1990's, adding to the right side box a link for the year's home video and the year's television articles. This would make an unbroken navigation to the 2000's. I would appreciate to hear from you in my talk (from the amount of work you do I think my watch list would become hard to follow, if I put this page on watch). Hoverfish 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and suggestion. For the moment I will just use the former table for the 1990's, adding for each year the home video and television link. I have noted articles on template-making but haven't studied them yet. They are very practical (like CSS, as I understand it), but I have to make sure I know what I am doing first. I may then make a round and change all years' navigations in template. Hoverfish 09:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope you are aware of User AMK152 who is also contributing with the template and making it consistent with other issues by year. Ok, it's considerably bigger than the original box. One thing with this template, including the home video and television, is that each topic will disappear in older years (I hope they leave no empty lines), so as one navigates upwards, the box resizes to include the new media. I like it. It gives a feeling of how things grew around "film" in time. I will get the knack of templates some day, I hope. Hoverfish 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's as simple as removing one of the "in?", "in2?", or "in3?" parameters and that particular row disappears. You can try it yourself and hit preview to see the row disappear (of course don't save it :). Of course, you or anyone else is welcome to start replacing {{TV years header}} with the yearbox and can base it from 2006 in film. Cburnett 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Good work with the templates. I'm not sure what you mean on the templates for deletion. I'm still not an initiate in the esoteric aspects of templates. So it's all still code symbols to me. Whenever I embark on the journey to enlightment, you will sure hear from me. I see you have a whole portofolio on programming languages. Poor me knows only HTML, CSS and an old version of Basic used in Sinclair's Spectrum. Hoverfish 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And if you have questions about templates, feel free to ask. Cburnett 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medium

15th of November, 2006 (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't come soon enough, eh? :) Cburnett 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipinion

Interesting essay. I think slashdot style ranking would be helpful. Instead of ranking edits, I think it would be best if we could easily rank the pages Stub, Start, B, A, FA. Then show the latest highly ranked version. - Peregrinefisher 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. Les Misérables was also my favorite big budget NY play.

Thanks for the comment. :) First one to do so!
What you propose is good from a macro level but when you get down to a micro level of individual edits then a single edit can drop a FA to spam. The rankings attempt to address the micro level. On a macro level, I think what you propose (I've seen this ranking on various talk pages) is good. Editors need to earn their — for lack of a better word — ranking based on what kind of an editor they are. Pages need to earn their ranking based on what kind of an article they are. I think we need both. I shall clarify this on my page. :)
I've got tickets for phantom of the opera, mamma mia, and monty python's spamalot this coming spring. Can't wait. Cburnett 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject?

Hey there, I noticed your edits to Phoenix Zoo and Reid Park Zoo. I have been thinking for a while about starting a Zoo WikiProject, whose goal would be to maintain and improve all zoo articles. What do you think? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I've been putting Template:Infobox zoo on all the AZA zoos (List of AZA member zoos and aquariums) that have WP articles. I have the Henry Doorly Zoo under peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry Doorly Zoo) and I noticed before doing so that there really is no standard to zoo articles nor are there any really good articles to go from.
Instead of zoos specificially I'd propose to include aquariums ("fish zoos") and aviaries ("bird zoos") as well, but a zoo wikiproject could encompass them as well since most zoos have aquariums and aviaries.
I think a project is definitely in order to form some consistency because I found some contention on Minnesota Zoo as too "travel guide"ish (it's been drastically cut down today so see history for what it was earlier). Cburnett 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You have been doing terrific and needed work, that is certain. When I arrived at Phoenix Zoo it was a one-sentence stub; now it is a GA. Reid Park Zoo didn't even exist. I agree that a potential project should include aquariums and aviaries - I can think of a number of those as well. If we make a WikiProject, we can define standards, make the infobox template standard, etc. I have had experience creating a WikiProject - perhaps I should post to the list of proposed projects and see if there is any other interest? --Aguerriero (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. There's also plenty of articles to create. One project idea I'd like to add is to rally people near a zoo to talk a picture of the entrance to go in the infobox... Cburnett 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I added the Zoo idea to the list of proposed projects. You can add your name if interested. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television Episode Naming Conventions

Colin, if you're at all interested, I'd like to invite you to the discussion on naming conventions that's going on at WP:NC. I think your experience in dealing with Star Trek episode naming conventions — specifically, the pros and cons of universally adding "(TLA episode)" that you're aware of — would be valuable in this discussion. Thank you! --TobyRush 17:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting of very long lists

Hi again Cburnett, finally some other user saw to it that templates are used for year navigation in years in film instead of the old box and I am in contact with him now to optimize its performance.

I need your advice, please, on splitting the four lists by letters to twenty. I have a simple link table in my Notebook. The lists have gotten so long, that some users get stuck with unresponsive script warnings and they are hard to update. A-D is 136 KB for example. I don't know if for such list issues it is necessary to call for administrators and I certailny wouldn't like to put this load of work on someone else's back. There is no issue of controversy. It's just for film gnomes to do their work easier. It will help also in making the list more user friendly. For replacing the huge amount of links to the new lists would it help me to apply for AWB, or is there a faster way of doing this? I will appreciate to learn a bit on correct procedure for this issue. Hoverfish 12:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of WP:AWB before but, alas, I do not run windows so it doesn't matter.
Large article size should be of concern (the limit is generally given to be 32 KB). I think they way you have it split on your notebook looks fine. Just open up List of films: A-D and copy paste into List of films: A, List of films: B, List of films: C, & List of films: D with an edit summary of "Copy/pasted from List of films: A-D" so people look for the history of List of films: A can go back to List of films: A-D and seek the real edit history. Then just convert List of films: A-D into a dab page with a list to all 20 articles. At least that's how I'd do it. :) Cburnett 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I will proceed as you suggest. Hoverfish 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion of 4 mistakely created articles

I went ahead with the first step, having missed your point on moving which page to where, and copied the existing 4 lists in 21 pages. Now however, I got your point. I should have copy/pasted on A-D the new content of A and moved it to Lists of Films A. Can you plese delete articles List of films: A, List of films: E, List of films: J-K and List of films: S? Later today, I collaborate with Nehrams2020 for fixing all the what-links-here's. After this we are ready to make the 4 moves (A-D moved to A, etc) and put the linking table on Lists of films, right under the By Year section.

I not sure if it would be good or necessary to have a separate article linking to the 21 letters (and sets), like the "By Year" linking table has in "Years in film". "Letters in film" doesn't sound very inspiring, I guess. The only other title I can think of would be "Index of films", with explanation that we are only giving there films with articles. I have also created the WikiProject Films/List of films without article in WikiProject Films that could extend it to a more general film index (as See also). Hoverfish 12:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not proper procedure for me to delete them but you should be able to get them in speedy deletion.
However, I'm not seeing why you need to do that. List of films: A looks fine. You copied the content from List of films: A-D#A into List of films: A and marked the edit summary just fine. You just need to do the same for B, C, and D. So to summarize:
You seem to be going down the right road so what am I missing? List of films#By letter & number can link to the 21 separate articles just fine. And by changing the current articles (A-D, E-I, J-R, S-Z) to point to the new articles is for google results and anyone with the links bookmarked so when they come looking for List of films: A-D then can find the separate articles. No need to create a separate "Letters in films" as List of films would be just fine. Cburnett 14:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help, Cbrunett. Everything seems to be working out fine. Hoverfish 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)

Howdy, I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on the 2nd round of feedback. Possibly it's complete and ready now?

The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I still suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.

Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) --Quiddity 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxis

I am unsure why you have reverted various -taxis topics from redirects to the (fairly short) article taxis to individual articles. As they stand, they are merely dictionary definitions, which do not belong in Wikipedia. They should only be split out from the main article (in this case, "taxis") when that article starts getting too big, which I don't expect will happen soon. I have reverted them all to redirect to taxis. By all means expand that article, but I see no gain from having many tiny articles which say nothing more than, for instance, "Geotaxis is a taxis stimulated by gravity", since this fact is already included in taxis. --Stemonitis 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you don't want stubs then delete the redirects and leave the links. Red links are not bad. Redirects exist to increase the chance of finding the correct article but redirecting geotaxis to taxis requires that the geotaxis word not be linked otherwise you will link to the same page. So what happens if someone writes an article for geotaxis? This then depends on them fixing taxis now too and if they don't then geotaxis will be an orphan article.
The status quo (which you brought back) does not encourage anyone to write the article on geotaxis. A stub would encourage more because there is already a start. All around, the visitor loses, IMO. And that's why I changed the redirects to stubs (there was no proper reversion done as that was all original work). And to be honest, I now have less desire to pick one up and write more than a stub on it. Is that what you were aiming for when reverting my work? What's worse: having a stub article or discouraging even seasoned editors from editing? Cburnett 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Not being an admin., I lack the ability to delete the redirects. For that, you'd have to ask someone else. As I mentioned above (albeit too briefly), the best way forward is to add information to the article taxis. You can do this, I could do this, and any new editor could also do this. Nobody needs to feel put off doing anything. The medium for such information exists, and there's nothing stopping anyone from adding anything. If there's enough information about any particular subtopic, such as geotaxis, then that will become apparent as the parent article taxis grows to accommodate it. What you created weren't even stubs — they were one-line definitions that repeated the content at "taxis". This puts readers off, who are enticed to click on a link with the promise of more information, and find none. That is worse than putting editors off. We often forget to think about things from a reader's point of view, but it's the most important aspect.
Having geotaxis being a redirect only means that taxis should not link to it. Any other article can and not, as you claim, that the article will inevitably be an orphan. If it's only ever going to be linked to from one article, then perhaps the topic isn't that important. I don't think this is the case; I'm sure there must be lots to say about geotaxis, and all other taxes, with plenty of examples, a discussion of the evolutionary importance, etc., etc., etc. So, don't feel put off. I'm not trying to kill the topic. I'm just applying a temporary measure to keep the information in one place. You'll notice that I've left articles like phototaxis and rheotaxis alone, although they could conceivably be merged into taxis as well (this would be a matter of taste, and not worth arguing about). Once you've got that much to say, a separate article is justifiable. Until then, it's not. --Stemonitis 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Taxis contains a list which is not even remotely the right way to "add information" about geotaxis. To add information requires rewriting the article in non-list form, and believe it or not, that may be too high of a bar for some to care to add in details. I only did what I did because it made no sense to have some unlinked and it snowballed from there to, what I think, remedy the situation.
Not intending to lay a guilt trip on you, but what you did is stop the chance of me writing more about a taxis be restricting it all back into a list. And my desire to do anymore has completely waned as the effort in arguing this vastly exceeds what I want to put into it and, not to mention, that my work on it thus far has been all but erased. Had my effort been for nought, I probably would have made those articles more than they were but since I have to argue my way through the editing...I leave the stagnant taxis to you as I no longer care. Congrats; have fun with it; peace out; and good luck on the biology doctorate. Cburnett 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the new format will make it easier for editors, including yourself, to flesh out the details of specific taxes. You are right that a bald list is not the best way to present the information, so I have abandoned that for a quick prose list, followed by more detailed sections. --Stemonitis 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the new template navigation

I made some changes in the template as to the name given and to widen the linking areas of single letters (the I was the most desperate). Well, thank you! I still don't find this imp which keeps changing the bold formatting for every page. Hoverfish 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more detail that could be convenient to change: please, see Category talk:Lists of films. I don'k know in which way the sorting is done, since editing the category page doesn't offer any obvious way of changing it. Hoverfish 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When adding a category to a page you can put a pipe then followed by a new key to sort by. For example, [[Category:Lists of films|*]] will sort the page as if the name were an asterisk just like how Lists of films is sort. This could be added to the template and subsequently deleted from all the list pages if you want. Cburnett 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating templates

Hi again. If I edit in [[Template:Guidelines on adding new entries]] and place there the guidelines section that is in each of the Talk of each of the lists by letters, and then replace the section by {{Guidelines on adding new entries}} in each of the pages, will it work right? Are there any rules about creating templates that I should know? Hoverfish 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just click on "edit" in the box and it will take you to [4]. Then just add the text after the table and save. Then delete the text from the list articles. Cburnett 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I start getting the hang of it now. Thank you. Hoverfish 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemotaxis and categories

Hi Cburnett, Thanks for the work on the Chemotaxis page. You have deleted two categories, 'Behavior' and 'Perception'. I agree, that both have more underlined significance in neurology and psychology, however, 'swimming behavior' and 'migratory behavior' is/was frequently used to describe chemotaxis as well as perception has also aspects at receptor level. Therefore I resored the two categories, after checking the keyword-lists belonging to them. If you have any problem with it or you have a stronger evidence against the above mentioned categories please let me know, I am happy with any improval on the page. Thanks again. Best regards from Kohlasz 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years in media

The years in film category is in parent categories History of film and Events by year. The first comes under the Film Project. Discussing in the film project, I don't get any reactions on the years in film. So I go ahead and try to make them more complete, consistent and presentable. Is there a project (or a main article /guidelines) on Events by year? I'm also restyling the tables in the later years of years in film to make the pages more presentable and more (visually) consitent with former years. There are some complaints by users having a bad time with entring data in tables. A list is surely simpler, but it looks nicer with tables, especially with border=0. Yet I also notice that pages with many tables take much longer to load than equally large pages without tables. I don't know if this delay is globally the same, but I do get it here and it is quite annoying. I was thinking if it would be better to create a subpage for each of the later years for the tables of the broad release films, so that a user can link to it if he wishes to find more detail. This would keep the content consistent through the years. I am interested in your opinion and if you think I should post this somewhere else too. Hoverfish 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any project for the "years in *" articles.
I prefer tabular data to be in tables because it's much harder to read tabular data in a list (something I've been pushing for during my tenure on WP). 2005 in film takes only 4.2 seconds with my DSL to download. Not bad. With large tables it is probably more a factor on your hardware than your connection (I've got a 2 GHz amd64 with 2 GB ram so I'm at the upper end so I'm not a good one to ask if this is the problem). Perhaps a question to ask is if the studio and notable cast are worth putting on there to begin with.
My preference, again, would be that older years in film be updated to match the newer years. Cburnett 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This should be it then. I'm only on 750MHz with 448MB SDRAM. I agree 100% with studio and notable cast, but there are some enthusiasts that keep adding them. It's a load on the articles. Even in academy awards, the best motion picture is followed by production studios. I'm not a deletionist but it does hit on the eye. I will see if I can get some interst of the film project later again. I would like to have consent before attempting to disappoint these users. For the moment I would appreciate it if you take a look in 2004 in film and tell me if the way I've styled the tables of Events, Top Grossing and Deaths are easy to read and as you like them. Apart from practical use, I'm very concerned in presentability for the years in film. I have an ambitious feeling they can become a big plus for Wikipedia. Hoverfish 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the tables to have a border. A collapsed border is fine too. Perhaps not for the top grossing films but for tables that span pages it is a bit harder to follow. In particular is when a given month has many rows (like july deaths) it's a bit harder to visually easily determine what is in july. I welcome more discussion but I need to run. :) Cburnett 13:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will adjust the styling to a thin line border. And one more question: are there template-like-links that can display their content in line with text? Hoverfish 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what exactly you mean. Do you mean that I could just {{some template here}} and have text put inline seemlessly? Cburnett 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it may not be called template in this case. Hoverfish 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, still a template. :) I don't see a template used for just test except as a subtemplate of another template. What are you thinking? Cburnett 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is for lists, (like this one). I wanted to make some template that would follow each title and would accept some parameters to display preformatted info. For example if a film is awarded, comedy, french, broad release, I would enter something like {{infoline|Aw|Co|Fr|BR}} and this would display (inline) some bold colored abbreviations with a special background color for each parameter (if entered). Is it technically possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoverfish (talk • contribs) .

Ok, gotcha. Text-only templates are used for various deletion pages (such as {{ifd2}} for WP:IFD). That could be possible but you need to define exactly what you want it to do. Personally, I find your example confusing and would recommend something a bit more natural like {{movie infoline|awarded=yes|genre=comedy|lang=french|release=broad}}. Cburnett 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the hint, Cbrunett. I finally got into Meta Templates, so I have some studying to do now. Hoverfish 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Like always, feel free to ask if you have questions. Cburnett 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Zoo

Hey there, I asked you sometime back (I am formerly the user Aguerriero) if you would be interested in a WikiProject for zoos, aquaria, and aviaries. There was not much interest at the Proposal page but I decided to create it anyway, figuring more members could be recruiting by placing project banners, etc. The in-work page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo if you want to check it out. Still have a lot of work to do, in particular fleshing out the article content guidelines. I have already made most of the templates, subpages, and navigational elements. And of course, you have already made the infobox. I was thinking - do you think it would be desirable to add a "color" parameter to the infobox to signify Zoo, Aquarium, or Aviary? Similar to how {{Album_infobox}} has different colors to indicate the type of album. Let me know what you think. --Ars Scriptor 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'll have to look more into it when I get home. I have no objections to the color but I don't know how much of a real need there is; compared with albums there are a dozen album types but only three here. Cburnett 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. As long as the right info is in there, it doesn't matter. Do you like the {{Zoos}} template? Maybe there should be one for aquaria and aviaries? I was thinking of how to work that template into the article guidelines section. --Ars Scriptor 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How about retitling the box with "Zoos, Aquaria, & Aviaries" then there's only one template to deal with. Like the colors, I have no objection but I don't think the need is there provided {{Zoos}} is modified to explicitly include them.
On a parallel thought, what about museums in general? I'm of the camp that a zoo/aquarium/aviary is a type of museum, albiet of living specimens. Perhaps a long-term goal is to get the zoo wikiproject going then start a parent project of museums (timeline depending on, obviously, participation and desire of others). Cburnett 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a terrific idea, and definitely an area that's not being covered very well right now. I have started to look at the Zoos template - I think it could use some additions and reorganization to provide common links for aquaria and aviaries as well. --Ars Scriptor 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for statement

Cburnett, the issue about article naming for television episode articles is still under dispute, and has proceeded to an ArbCom case. Would you be willing to offer a statement with your view of things? There appears to be some disagreement about your own views, as to whether you would like to see consistent suffixes, whether you changed your mind on the issue, etc. In short, if it were up to you, today, which system would you like to see used? Consistent suffixes, or "disambiguate only when needed"? Thanks, --Elonka 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)

Hello. I am soliciting comments on the article about Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode). Have put on peer review as well, planning eventually to try to get it up to FA status. Any thoughts? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 10:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/b/u/User_talk%7ECburnett_2510.html"