User talk:Cburnett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

For a listing of my archives: /Archive. I have archived on

  • May 5, 2005
  • June 17, 2005
  • May 13, 2006
  • January 14, 2007
  • March 17, 2008

Contents

[edit] category

Hi. A category you created Hydrosaurus is a subcat of Agamas, which I am currently clearing out. It does not appear to be a categorisation for Agamidae, rather it would contain the members of genus Agama - and there is only two articles for them. This will make your category an orphan, so you may want to fix that. Regards, cygnis insignis 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of awareness ribbons

Hi there -

I was surprised to see that you reverted my edit on an OTRS ticket here [1]. While you're certainly welcome to revert any edits by anyone that have sourcing issues - OTRS is clearly not a way around that - it's generally considered a good idea to notify someone before making a direct revert on an OTRS edit. The result of this issue is a dust-up on OTRS. The ticket submitter and I were working through proper sourcing on a sensitive issue that includes a restraining order, etc. I'd welcome dialogue. - Philippe | Talk 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are a party to a RFM

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:Nikon DSLR cameras, to which you are a listed party. This Mediation is an opportunity for you and the other parties in the dispute, to discuss your differences and the issues of the dispute, and reach an amicable compromise. Mediation is completely voluntary, and can only go ahead if you state that you agree. You can do that here.

You may also wish to read:

Don't hesitate to contact me at my talk page if you have any further questions; and I encourage you to offer your agreement or disagreement to the Mediation at this area. All the best, AGK § 07:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Full-adder with gate delay.svg follow up

I guess my concern with the image was a misinterpretation of the diagram. I assumed the red was merely to trace the path of a given input to it's logical output, which the diagram does not. I now see from your response what the red path was intended to trace. I am contemplating a change to the caption on the Propagation delay page to hopefully prevent such confusion in others.Balder Odinson (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DSLR categorization dispute

Hi Cburnett, I've laid out some of my thoughts on the basic issues in this dispute: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras#Additional_issues_to_be_mediated. I hope this is useful towards resolving it. Let me know what you think! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My solution is authoritative sources (that pesky policy mumbo jumbo) and internet reviews do not count as authoritative. I've said it before and I'll say it again: find a book or something authoritative and I'll be happy. No one has stepped up to the challenge which, mind you, is the responsibility of those [continually] adding unsourced information.
Without any sources saying this Canon line is prosumer and this line of Nikon is prosumer means that wikipedia is taking an authoritative stance that not only are they prosumer lines but they are equivalents to some degree. If you can't authoritatively establish those labels then any sense of cohesion amongst camera templates is purely an advocation against everything the three main policies stand for!
  • NPOV: how do you present neutrally when you insist your opinion is "correct" and the manufacturer is "wrong".
  • V: how do you verify without any authoritative sources?
  • NOR: what part of equating differing products to your label is not original research?
And I'm fighting for keeping of references which utterly blows my mind. Cburnett (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well... as I've said before, I understand your frustration with arbitrary categorization and sources that don't seem authoritative. (Though I don't see any reason why an online review from something like DPReview should be considered any less authoritative than a book, frankly!) But, as I said on the page linked above, I don't believe that your insistence on authoritative references is really in line with the ultimate goal of these templates: to organize lists of camera models in ways that users will want to navigate them.
How do you respond to that? Do you think there's any fine-tuning of the policies on verifiability and sourcing that could help to resolve this dispute *AND* to ensure that we won't go back to squabbling over prosumer vs. enthusiast vs. whatever?
Furthermore, I find it somewhat surprising that you bring NPOV into this. Adopting manufacturer's labels would seem to me to satisfy V, but definitely not NPOV... they are, almost by definition, completely POV, since the manufacturer's choose them with the specific goal of selling, not documenting the cameras in question!
I've never said that Wikipedia should have less references.  :-) Only that I don't see the need to include them in navigational templates which are supposed to be a narrow and faithful summary of data from other articles!
ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never opposed the creation of an article to discuss these labels which is where this stuff should belong. List of camera categories or camera categorization (and appropriate redirects of the various categories) which discusses, with references, the full variability of them including manufacturers' categories, "mainstream", etc. Let the facts stand and let the reader connect things, that withstanding then the categories need authoritative sources or they shouldn't be used at all.
I don't consider reviews as authoritative simply because they are written by a person who is spouting their personal categorization (WP:SPS). Just because a reviewer says "prosumer" doesn't mean anything. Find me a well known book, a photography association, or something that indicates some form of peer-reviewed or industry consensus or something on these categories and that will be your best source.
Templates don't need references if you can defer the reader somewhere where they can get references. No such place exists, ergo the templates need references by policy and there's no room to hash out various references. Cburnett (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review and sign the dispute located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras SyBerWoLff 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Building PHP into a Featured Article

I am currently trying to build PHP into a Featured Article, and I noticed that you have contributed a considerable amount of time to the PHP article. If you have time, could you please help out and improve the article, copyedit it, and peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to improve the article to featured status, and I believe it is ready for that. But, I already have one nomination right now, so I can't nominate another article. If you think you can donate some time to the article's nomination, then I would be more than willing to help out. Please let me know. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] credits

you said: Do not credit photographer in articles since that belongs on the image's page. We don't credit article text within the articles and images should be of no exception.

do you have an mos citation for that? i see this a lot, and it drives me crazy, but hesitate to remove it because i've not been able to back it up. --emerson7 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it's an underpinning concept of a wiki. Pages have a page history. Images have a page and file history. These pages serve to give credit.
Second, WP:SIG says to not sign edits in the main namespace because "the article is a shared work based on the contributions of many people and one editor should not be singled out above others." Contribution of an image is still a contribution and images can be derivatives by image enhancement, etc. so the original author need not be singled out.
Third, credits are a distraction to the reader.
Fourth, it is image policy to specify both the license and the source on the respective image page and, therefore, redundant to duplicate this credit information in the article the image is being used.
So there is no explicit policy/MOS entry about image-crediting-in-articles but everything points to it being both wholly unnecessary and frowned upon. Cburnett (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knoxville, Iowa sign

Hello, Collin. I've now straightened out the problem with the more close up, higher contrast version of your photo of the Knoxville sign. Do you mind if I put that version back in the infobox? Tim Ross (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Cburnett (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chess diagram/temp

Can this be removed? Temp=Temporary? Just to tidy up. ChessCreator (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:Nikon DSLR cameras.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Anonymous Functions and c# support for same

CBurnett, you added a comment that stated:

C# support for anonymous functions currently employs the creation of a static function within the class. This means anonymous function support is a convenient facade presented by the compiler while the created anonymous function is really just a named static function (with a semi-random name) and thus not a real anonymous function. What this ultimately means is that anonymous functions are not dynamically created and executed like in, say, JavaScript.

But in the top level definition for Anonymous function, it does not say anything about dynamic creation. I respect that dynamic languages do things one way and compiled and statically typed languages do things in different ways. But to say "it is not dynamic therefore it is not a real anonymous function" seems presumptuous.

I think to resolve this you ought to change the "anonymous function" definition to state the requirement that anonymous functiuons must by definition be dynamic, or, you should remove the statement that says "not a real anonymous function". If you choose the former path then you should also apply that requirement to other compiled languages, such as Java. If you choose the latter path then you may wish to elaborate on the relationship between dynamic definition of functions and anonymous functions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point, thank you. My distinction that I was aiming for was that while C# v3 supports full anonymous functions (as far as the coder knows) they aren't real anonymous functions because they are in fact ordinary, static, named functions (therfore not "real"). So my use of the word "real" does not mean dynamic but rather that they are ordinary, static, named functions. I do believe it is possible to have a compiled language without resorting to named functions.
So I see three methodologies:
  1. dynamically created functions (JavaScript)
  2. compiler trickery (C#)
  3. compiled but unnamed (?)
I guess I'm inadvertently classifying #1 & #3 as "real" and #2 as "non-real", though only #1 is "dynamic". I'm open to suggestions and think more clarification is a Good Thing. Cburnett (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meditation Cabal Case

Hello, this is a friendly reminder to visit and state your position at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31 Nikon DSLR cameras to continue further discussions. Cheers. Janus8463 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Canon_EF-S_18-55mm_lens.jpg

Hi! I recently saw your photo of the 18-55mm lens. However, I noticed that the lens has a filter attached. Would you mind if I replaced your photo with a photo of the lens without the filter on it? ĞavinŤing 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the need then I can't stop you, but it's the quintessential filter every lens should have... Cburnett (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Question

Is there a way to get the svg images to render in a copy and paste in MS products? I am referencing an article about RAID (Rendundant Arrays if Inexpensive Disks) and the images in the table would be very helpful to have... Please email me at chris.zampogna@gmail.com. Thanks, Colin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.191.131 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an unpublished "trick" that you can do to get wikipedia to resize images for you. For example, on Image:RAID 5.svg you see the image. If you get the image source (in firefox: right-click and choose View Image) you get http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/RAID_5.svg/675px-RAID_5.svg.png as the URL. The "675px" is the width of the image. So 100px, 1300px, etc. That gets you a PNG which should be more readily manipulated for you than SVG. Cburnett (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Just stop by and say Hi. Haven't seen much people from ISU. I'm currently a bureaucrat in Thai Wikipedia. --Manop - TH (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ST-TNG The Neutral Zone.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ST-TNG The Neutral Zone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cyberia23 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting know, Fasach Nua is on some personal crusade to rid Wikipedia of the Star Trek images we've uploaded to the articles. So far, he's targeting first season Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, I have a feeling he'll go for the others soon enough. If you're for keeping the images, please say something about it. Thanks. Cyberia23 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)