Wikipedia

Cburnett

Joined 23 November 2004
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cburnett (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 27 June 2005 (→Personal attack summary = vandalism?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 20 years ago by Goethean in topic Stuart Davis
Learn more about this page

PLEASE NOTE: I tend to keep track of my postings on other user pages (especially the more recent) so you're welcome to reply on your own talk page instead of here.

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

Archives:

template:US state

A couple of comments about your recent changes.

  1. Adding km2 to the Area label doesn't work for Kansas (which has measurements in both English and metric units). Missouri (not using the template yet) also lists English and metric units.
  2. Perhaps not obvious, but the ISO 3166-2 code includes the USPS abbreviation so listing both is actually redundant.
  3. I don't mean to argue about it (just curious, really), but what don't you like about including the statehood order parenthetically after the date?
  4. The way you have the title for the population entries makes the parenthetical rank look (to me) like it is somehow related to 2000, rather than all the population data being as of the 2000 census. Please don't fix this by reverting the ranks back to their own lines.
  5. Given you've changed width and length back to their own lines I'll stop trying to think of a way to combine max/mean/min elevations on one line.

We clearly have different preferences on how compact the table should be. I strongly lean minimalist, but I suspect we both agree comprehensibility is most important. BTW - you didn't respond on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states about adding FIPS code or motto. What do you think? -- Rick Block 21:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments Rick. :)

  1. I think we should make them all km² or all mi² or both. It is a template to provide unity across state data.
  2. I know that, but does everyone else? Does a 5th grader know who ISO is? :) And which really came first: USPS switching to 2-letter or ISO defining 3166-2? The real driving reason I wanted to put USPS abbreviation in the infobox is I saw a lot of states specify it inside the article in haphazard locations, but typically in the opening paragraph. First step to not needing it in the article.
  3. On a web page, width is in short supply but length is not. (I absolutely hate side-scrolling; there's page up/down but no page left/right). For me all the changes I made are putting things to keep them from wrapping because they're too wide. I don't mind scrolling down to read more. My definition of "compact" is a matter of width not brevity. Wrapped lines/data are confusing and not particularly necessary when things can easily be moved to another line
  4. Without making the template wider I don't think you can.

Yes, I certainly agree. Comprehensibility is key. I'll respond to your FIPS, etc. comments when I get a chance. Cburnett 21:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With the current version there are problems with Arizona and Texas (at least with NS 7, W98, and "classic" skin - seems "nowrap" fails to have any effect). Also note that with this version most entries fit in the left half of the horizontal space. In some sense (perhaps only theoretically) I think this means the table at its current width is roughly twice as long as it could be. I don't think we're going to shrink the US map to reduce the width of the table to less than 300px, so I'd prefer we reformatted some things to use more of the available width. We should at least redistribute the white space so everything isn't piled up in the left half of the table. -- Rick Block 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tea and Empathy

Salve, Cburnett!
Thanks for the cleanup on the Julia Stiles article. I am delighted it is now a WP:FA, the second one I can claim. (Credit is due also to User:Niteowlneils and User:Rossrs for their contributions.)
I was away and missed the revert dispute between yourself and Zen-master on dates but I can empathize. I had this same discussion with him a month ago (it's still on Talk:Julia Stiles) and despite my citations to the stylebook on this and other issues he raised the dates question once more. Previously, when I added a bibliography on the Stiles article he objected to the whole idea (notwithstanding the "cite your sources" message that comes up when editing articles) and just deleted it. I looked at his talk page and those on articles he's been active (e.g. here and here) and there's a pattern. So we're not alone.
If you would, please reply to my talk page. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 15:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC).

Disneyland

As much as I love Disneyland, and as much as I see where you are coming from - not everyone sees Disneyland as a dream world. It has no spirit, and as much as it saddens me to say this, it is just a theme park. Yes, I did just say that. Actually I'm quite surprised with myself for saying that but it is true. It doesn't have a spirit - I think the word you are looking for is ethics. OK, maybe I'm not one of those people who greet people with "Have you had a Disney day today?" but I am in awe of Walt Disney's vision - yet a plaque doesn't embody the spirit (even if it had one). I am not critising your views - there is nothing wrong with seeing Disneyland the way you do, but it is slightly....I can't think of the word......innappropriate (?) to make such comments on a public encyclopedia. It isn't a fan site. I am happy to discuss this with you though. Speedway 16:33 23 March 2005 (GMT)

Perhaps I making myself not clear in what I mean. The plaque embodies the spirit Walt Disney wanted in the park: to leave reality and enter a world of fantasy. Of course a park doesn't have a spirit, but I don't mean the secular/theological/philosophical definition but the one that MW says:
"temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated <in high spirits>"
Cburnett 18:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the new caption is suitable - in fact, I like it a lot. :D

Speedway 18:54, 23 Mar 2005 (GMT)


Hi again. Can I have permission to use your Disneyland plaque image in my user page? Thanks. Speedway 12:45 30 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Of course, it's GFDL'd. :) If you use the same image as I uploaded then my attribution is still there and don't need any more. If you were to modify it and upload it as a new image then you'd just have to say your modified image is based on mine and link to my user page (see User:Cburnett#Images). Cburnett 01:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Terminator2004.01.jpg

Thank you for your message. You have asked the enhanced image to be deleted, while merging it with the original image. Fine with me. But the problem is, when I look at the orginal file, I still see the original image. There is a link in the history to the enhanced image. But after this one is deleted, this link will be broken. Furthermore, in the page Terminator 2: Judgment Day, where the image belongs, the orginal image has replaced the enhanced image. I have tried to upload the enhanced image again, but this time under the orginal file name. As expected, I got a warning that the file existed already. I saved anyway, but the orginal image was being kept. Am I missing something ? JoJan 10:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is your browser cache. You'll have to refresh or do something to purge it. My upload *was* the enhanced image but your browser wasn't showing it to you because it had it cached. Cburnett 14:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, fellow Tau Bate. Thanks for the addition to the article, especially the picture. I'm Kentucky Beta '03. Just out of curiosity, did you go to the national convention in Lubbock in 2003? (BTW: I'd prefer if you replied on my talk page). Cheers. CryptoDerk 01:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I presume by year of initiation (or should it be induction?) and the current fields in the list now you meant when they became chapters. You might need to have an asterisk by some schools for those that merged from Sigma Tau. When they merged, the national office gave the chapters a year or two to move over. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the last chapter that switched did so in 1976 or 1977. In this case you'll either want to have an asterisk or, preferrably, both dates. Now, as far as the actual dates for all the chapters, I'm almost positive you'll find this in the yearly info booklet that the national chapter sends out to the chapter advisors/president. If your chapter is like my chapter, they always send a billion of them, so there should be no shortage. You should be able to check the minutes of the conventions posted online for the most recent chapters. Two got in at the national convention in 2003, and at that convention there were proposals for some more for the following year, so I presume there were some chapters approved in 2004. Hope this helps. CryptoDerk 03:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Rick Aviles

1. I did not protect the Rick Aviles page. Look at the history of the page and you will not see my name. I only dedicate myself here to writing mostly and talking with friends. 2. I did not appreciate the words you told User:Marine 69-71, who is my father. I think you should respect him like most wikipedians respect each other. As an administrator of the site myself, I am willing to ask someone to mediate between you and him. 3. I have never protected any pages. Thanks for the concern, however, and God bless you. "Antonio Bellyline Martin"

[1] is calling you a liar.
23:02, 28 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Rick Aviles (Temp only)
You'll have to excuse my curt tone when I find an admin who doesn't follow the policies to protect his father's edits. Cburnett 09:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, [2] is calling you an even bigger liar:

  • 23:02, 28 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Rick Aviles (Temp only)
  • 19:09, 13 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin unprotected Miguel Ferrer (I Believe that the vandalism is now under control)
  • 23:06, 10 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Miguel Ferrer (Temp Protection from vandalism and continous deverts)
  • 21:41, 10 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin unprotected Miguel Ferrer (Will make a fix)
  • 19:39, 10 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Miguel Ferrer (Temp Protection against vandalism,)
  • 21:00, 8 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin unprotected Wilkins Velez Zambrana (Temp protection finished)
  • 22:08, 13 Feb 2005 AntonioMartin protected Wilkins Velez Zambrana (Temp/ protection against Vandalism)
  • 01:59, 26 Jan 2005 AntonioMartin protected Joaquin Phoenix (keep from continues revert)
Well? Cburnett 09:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess I forgot having protected those pages, but its because I have a thousand things on my head, like, for example, a doctor's appointment I had today to see if I needed a CT Scan, not to mention the always existent risk of dying from diabetes. But if, in three years of working here, writing every day Ive only protected four pages, I dont think that's such a bad record. When I saw the links you provided, it only said a temporary protection, however, which is used against vandals.

Im going to ask a mediator to talk to you and me so we can end this in a peaceful way.

God bless! "Antonio Header Martin"

So did you or did you not protect the Rick Aviles article? The logs say you did and you indirectly admit it. What troubles me is that you failed to follow policy and procedure on how to protect a page, or you leave your account free for anyone (notably your father) to use your admin privileges. Since you explicitly stated that you did not protect the page that leads me to the conclusion that you're a bad liar or your father used your account without you knowing about it.
If anything here, it would seem that RFC is warranted for your use (or lack of protection of those uses) of administrator prvileges. To not follow policy (unilaterally doing it and making no notice that it's been done) to protect a page on your father's behalf is pretty a Bad Thing if you ask me. Cburnett 23:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Peace Pipe

O.K., I thought that the horizontal rule (line) would have been innovative as an indication where the main article ended. But O.K., there's no reason to make a big issue over it, so I hope you accept my peace offering. I do want to keep the ==See also== as a cross reference because it'll lead others to read about other Puerto Ricans in a related topics. So what do you say? Wikipedian Freinds? Tony the Marine

Linking to a list of famous puerto ricans in every puerto rican article loses its meaning. No different than linking to lists of movies, directors, and actors in every article about movies (they were prevalent some time ago but I've managed to get them almost gone).
The problem I have with it is that it's an extremely general link and doesn't add to the article. If someone wants to find a list of puerto ricans from an article then they can hit the category link at the bottom or go to Puerto Rican and find it there. The list is directly relevant to an article on puerto ricans but not directly relevant to someone who happens to be puerto rican. Cburnett 00:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disneyland...

Hey, there's no need to make me feel like I did something wrong. I removed the Amusement Parks tag because, officially, Disneyland is not an amusement park. I apologize for not clarifying that... --Evanwohrman 03:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disneyland is an amusement park.
Amusement park is the more generic term for a collection of amusement rides and other entertainment attractions assembled for the purpose of entertaining a fairly large group of people.
There's no way Disneyland does not fit that description. Cburnett 03:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disneyland is OFFICIALLY not an amusement park. Disneyland is OFFICIALLY a THEME PARK. If you want to read about it, look for a biography on Walt Disney. He made it clear that Disneyland was not an amusement park. --Evanwohrman 10:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And look at the parent category of Category:Theme parks. Theme parks are amusement parks just in the same that all squares are rectangles. Cburnett 17:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Typo alert!

Wanted to alert you to some typos you've made on the ISU notables page. Dormatory/dormatories should be spelled dormitory/dormitories. Would correct myself but you are in the process of editing at the moment, thought you should be informed. Adm58 07:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. :) Cburnett 07:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Old_Right "left-wing" celebrities vandalism

Hey Cburnett, did you intentionally put messages intended for Old_Right on my talk page rather than his? Though I agree with your assessment. zen master T 08:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, since there was already a conversation going on there (at least so says my watch list). :) Feel free to move or delete as you see fit as I'm in the middle of removing all his vandalism. Cburnett 08:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thx for being the one to clean up the mess Old_Right made. zen master T 08:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM#Relevant policies and guidelines (Requested moves is not the proper place to request renaming images or categories. ... + instructions how to). Hope this helps --Philip Baird Shearer 14:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, jeeze, do you think it could be put in a more prominent ___location other than at the bottom of the page??? Cburnett 16:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VEISHEA Veishea

There are examples on veishea.org that are lower case, although most are upper case. In print however, including the Iowa State Daily and the Des Moines Register, it is written "Veishea".

I guess I'm a little baffled by this, I thought I had checked it out pretty well before making the change. Oh well. Adm58 08:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

That's the AP style for acronyms. You'll find they also use Nasdaq when it's an acronym. I've never been a fan of AP style. :) Cburnett 16:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. I just wish there were more consistency. In the Daily, it's always lower case. Throughout the ISU website, it's sometimes caps and sometimes lower case, even within the same page. On veishea.org, it's nearly always upper case. It's fine with me to use all caps on Wikipedia. I think I like it better that way, I had only changed it because I kept seeing it written lower case. Adm58 17:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's just AP style. Sometimes an acronym becomes a word lik "radar" then it's lower-case, but I always capitalize acronyms sans "of", "the", etc. unless it's apart of the name. I'm pretty sure most people have this style except journalists... Cburnett 01:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Would you like to be an admin? Because I'd like to nominate you shortly, April 23rd to be exact. - RoyBoy 800 20:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd enjoy being nominated. :) Cburnett 20:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
So what's so special about the 23rd? Cburnett 22:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
You're 5th month anniversary! :'p Yay! And that should make you an admin for May 1st... which just seems cooler in my books. - RoyBoy 800 22:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course, should have checked that one. Cburnett 02:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
You are now on the WP:RfA list. Good luck! - RoyBoy 800 06:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HA!!! Now thats pretty hillarious. Funniest thing I seen all day. An admin momination. Somehow, putting it up on the "23rd" sounds sort of like a indirect poke at me in a way (having a "23" in my nickname and all). Hope you get the job. If I reverted something of yours, what the hell? You could just ban me. Cyberia23 06:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I've been extremely civil toward you despite what you've said to me. I guess you thinking I would ban someone I disagree with and the way you respond to me shows the difference between our character. But, there I go, I'm probably getting too much into the psycho-analyzing for you again. Cburnett 06:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm just messing with you. I still have your talk page on my watchlist, and saw the admin nomination. It was just seemed too ironic. Cyberia23 15:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cartman gets an Anal Probe

Thanks for fixing the links. I was going to do that now. (Ben talk) contributions) 07:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

No prob. :) Cburnett 13:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

My Vandalism

I just wanted to say thanks for catching the vandalism on my page. Good luck on your Admin nod. --TheGrza 18:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cooperation

Thanks for your cooperation, since I saw you work on South Park I added this South_Park#Music enjoy! --Astrowob 03:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing the DVD cover for the ST movies, check if you like it (should finish in about 15 mins) --Astrowob 03:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coo, should eventually drop movie infoboxes on those pages as well. And, by all means, if you have access to episodes of TNG then feel free to help with screenshoting. Cburnett 03:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

SinCity/SimCity dab

Aloha. I have commented on the Sin City talk page. I don't understand why we have a dab notice for SimCity. --Viriditas | Talk 23:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ugh?

In a recent edit, your statement read: "Ugh, condensing to semi-colon delimited paragraphs is very hard to read." For someone who's posted so much, I would figure you'd realize that the attitude in comments is really unnecessary. All you need to say is the "Expanding number since" and the condensing part. There've been many times where I've wanted to say such things in comments, but I always resist the urge, because it achieves nothing but making the other person look dumb and create an unfavorable environment for editing. Alas, this happens a lot on Wikipedia, and now I remember why I stopped editing in the first place. Baryonyx 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


Request for assistance

I was wondering if you might check out a dispute I'm having with the Central College article.

Currently there is some information about what I feel is a relatively minor racism issue on the campus. You can see some of my reasoning on the article's discussion page. Perhaps I can summarize:

If the information is retained, I'd like to see it trimmed down a lot. But I'm relatively new here, maybe you will have more insight into this. Please respond on either the article's discussion page and/or on my talk page. Thanks for the help. Adm58 01:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to alert you that I'm responding on my talk page. Thanks. Adm58 02:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Congratulations!

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • Well done! (Oh, if you'd like to exercise your new superpowers, head over to Netbux, a particularly noxious new page that has rightly been marked for speedying.) -- Hoary 07:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • Congratulations--you have clearly earned the community's trust, and I expect that you will make an excellent administrator. I just wanted to drop you a note to say so, and to note that I hope you take no offense at any remarks I made. I'm still getting to know your work, but it is obviously in high regard, and that speaks very well, I think. Thank you for your many contributions, and keep up the good work. Jwrosenzweig 21:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks. In the end, I opted to not respond to your reply (I had at one point a reply written but didn't post it) but I guess I will now. :) WP policies are no different than laws and rules: they're always open to interpretation. Just ask any judge or lawyer. My interpretation of "obviously inappropriate" does not mesh with your interpretation of it. The pic was a screenshot of the #6 highest grossing films of all time that centers upon the relationship between the two. The screenshot, to me, captures a key moment in the development of their relationship. For that, I don't think it's "obviously inappropriate" and therefore see the removal as censorship. As I said on my RFA, I'm very opinionated and try to justify my position. Even though the consensus was against my opinion & interpretation, I went with it. I think the whole ordeal is a testament to my character, not a flaw. But that's also my opinion. :) I didn't take your opinion as offensive and I appreciate your candor. Cburnett 23:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to agree with you that it is a testament to your character. I came to that conclusion late in the RFA, but decided switching the vote would serve no useful purpose--perhaps that was the wrong choice. In any case, even though I disagree with your position, I recognize you have a solid set of reasons for your perspective, and I'm convinced this is a matter about which two intelligent people can reasonably disagree. Maybe you don't feel that way...anyhow, regardless, best of luck as an admin, and thanks for offering your thoughts. Jwrosenzweig 06:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
        • Of course I can agree to disagree. There's no reason to expect any two people to agree on issues like this. Cburnett 07:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

STNG Images

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Obviously you're busier than me nowadays; I'd be happy to finish adding images to the STNG list. How were you acquiring them predominantly? What size should I aim for? etc etc. - RoyBoy 800 05:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's finals week right now. Then I have to move to a new apartment. Then finish my thesis. Ugh! :)
I've been just taking a screenshot and doing some basic enhancing (some slight unsharpening mostly) and usually end up with 512x384 image. I do no rescaling and make no target size (I think GIMP defaults to 75% quality...whatever that really means).
By all means, knock yourself out. :) Cburnett 05:50, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I realized I won't be able to do the images. I got Lower Decks from a Divx download, but I'm lacking the appropriate source material. I looked around the net a bit, but its all crap! :'D Sorry. I'll try to supplement anything else I can. - RoyBoy 800 03:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Image:ST-TNG The Masterpiece Society.jpg is from the Conundrum. - RoyBoy 800 01:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are correct...and I deleted it. Should I replace the current Conundrum with it? Cburnett 01:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Tough call, although your image is certainly more unique to the episode I like the subversive quality mine has with the guy in the background. Perhaps yours is better to keep spoilage low, although I'd like my image to remain for the article.
Also I just added the Distant Origins image, I followed your suggestion and have used the sharpen more function on Paint Shop Pro 5.03. I generally avoid sharpening because it makes the image look weird close up, but I realize it does improve the image for how it will be used in Wikipedia. Give me feedback on the sharpening since I intend to use that from now on, at least for TV captures... and I'll likely redo my previous images. (I know the faces are a little dark on Distant Origins, but it was tough lighting and I can't figure out how to brighten just shadows, perhaps I should install Paint Shop Pro 7 or 8, but their bloatware compared to 5 :-). - RoyBoy 800 15:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I hate to discourage you from helping but I uploaded my version of Distant Origin at Image:ST-VOY Distant Origin.jpg. Perhaps that will give you something more direct to compare with but yours is too bright and too grainy. Having taken all these captures, I've noticed that the majority of Star Trek is shot in darker conditions so I don't think it's necessary to make it as bright as you did.
It's been a *long* time since I've used PSP, but I don't recall if it has a sharpen with an "amount" slider. If you could adjust it down then the image won't be near as grainy. Cburnett 16:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well I can use sharpen instead of sharpen more, but the grainyness is probably from poor source :'( ... your image is cleaner, but goddam that's dark. I've brightned it, hopefully not too much. - RoyBoy 800 19:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stuart Davis

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't want to fight with you over this. But have you heard his recent music? It's not folk by a long shot. It's rock, if it must be categorized. --goethean 17:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

See the talk page, I explained my edit there. I edited the article before seeing the point on the talk page, sorry. Cburnett 17:38, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Matthews

Our friend Old Right has made another change to the Matthews bio. Want to take this one? Boisemedia 09:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he only reverted the anonymous user's change. See [3] which is a null diff. Cburnett 14:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for handling this issue. I was offline for a couple days so I wasn't able to followup on my earlier stated concerns about this link (as noted at the WikiProject: Star Trek page and on "Memory"'s talk page). I had a feeling something didn't feel right about it. Cheers! 23skidoo 00:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use

In case you dont see it in this page [4], I am responding to; "You can't agree to fair use. Fair use requires you to admit copying a copyrighted material first, then claim fair use as a defense. You can't agree to fair use at all. Cburnett 07:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Fair use is a legal term exclusively used within the US, and is used in two different set of laws. Fair use as a license agreement, primarily known as 'Fair dealing' in most of the world is a way using material in somewhere else. Quoting a text is allowed under fair use.... Fair use is a term used in trademark law is used as a defence. Colloqually when people say fair use, they refer to the copyright license agreement, not the trademark defence. - UnlimitedAccess 10:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
17 USC 107 sure doesn't make it sound like a license. Cburnett 15:40, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Before the world got all crazy with copyright law. The world had a large deal of unrestrived uses. For example, we could buy a product we could smash it, we could pull it apart, we could take it outside and do a big dump on it, we could do whatever we wanted with it, all these were unrestrivtive uses. Restricted use was for example the rights to print a book or reporduce the product, fair use back in the day only reffered to things like quoting and referencing, fair use was only something academics worries about. However as copyright got more intense (in the 1930's), the government slowly removed unrestrictive uses and now when ever we play a game or install a piece of software it has a huge list of all the fair uses, whereas they were once all unrestricted uses. Take the example of one of those crazy dancing Japanese robots that people sell, a guy on a website showed the world how you could with a little bit of wireing teach the robot to play Jazz. That of course sounds quite resonable and holsome, however the company that owns the robot forced the guy to take down the website because teaching their robot to play Jazz didnt come under their fair use contracts. Fair Use is a joke, its basically a huge list of things you CAN do, when their really is an infinite posibilities of what we can do.... Even Wiki is getting crazy, if copyright law continues unchanged then in 50 years their will be 4000 different fair use copyright tags. Trust me, fair use is an agreement of do's and do not's..... Fair Use in trade mark law is very different. Look up the Fair Use article, it clarrifies things better than I ever could. - UnlimitedAccess 01:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image processing vs. digital image processing

I can assure you that image processing existed before the invention of digital image processing. Consider, for example, dot-screening techniques for print, film mattes, bluescreen, and compositing, and analog television. Yes, today digital techniques dominate all other techniques, but nothing about image processing is inherently digital. Please don't merge the two. -- The Anome 06:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was myself surprised someone merged them. If I had to choose, I'd rather IP be merged into DIP, but I'd prefer they be separate. See my clarification on Talk:Image processing. Cburnett 06:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

state elevations

Hi - I've been trying to track down where some of the state data originally came from, and mean elevation is one of numbers for which I can't find the source. You just linked the state infobox template to List of U.S. states by elevation. The source that's listed in this article does not include mean elevation figures. Do you have any idea where the mean elevation numbers came from? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The information in the tables was originally taken from the {{US state}} info box on each of the 50 state articles (links in the topmost table). This source is also the reason the information is given in meters instead of feet, many of the state articles only give the information in meters and I did not feel like doing the conversion when the original tables were being built. --Allen3 talk 01:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
That was going to be my guess, but you beat me to the punch. Now, as to where the mean data came from that's in the infoboxes....not sure. I don't find anything on the talk page. I see Rick has asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states. Cburnett 01:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still trying to chase the mean elevation numbers back to their original (non-wikipedia) source. The actual ultimate goal is to update the state infoboxes to have both metric and US measurements, clearly indicating the original source (which, I think, for the current measurements was US not metric). It's currently kind of hard to validate the metric numbers we have since it's not obvious the originals were not metric. What the list article currently says is that the source of the numbers is a USGS web page, and linking to this list from the state infoboxes sort of implies the numbers in the state infoboxes came from here. As long as the numbers match up (and can be verified from the cited source), I don't care how we got here. If we're going to add US measurements to the list article, they should definitely NOT be converted from the existing metric numbers since I'd be willing to bet the metric numbers were converted (at some time, by somebody) from the (non-metric) USGS originals. So, the question remains - where did the mean elevation numbers come from? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

help out Rich Warren?

Hi - do you think you might be able to help out user:Rich Wannen? He seems to be a film buff kind of guy, but is having a real hard time getting into the swing of things here. I'm not sure how to help him out, but it seems like knowing there's another film buff around might help him. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before doing anything, I suggest you look over his edit history and his anonymous edits as User:12.73.195.116. Also, read through the discussion at the village pump. Good luck. -- Samuel Wantman 20:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Help out Rich ?Warren

Howdy, Thanks for your friendly note. At this point, what I need most from Wikipedia is the freedom to learn my way about and make a contribution in the process. Unfortunately, people like Mother Wantman seem more interested in just criticizing style and getting real fretful when someone doesn't immediately conform, and from people like Splash in ringing up bonus points for # of "contributions" by scurrying about deleting things without so much as an effort to contact the affected contributor (in this case, me).

Indeed. I've been at ISU for more than 12 semesters now and averaged 18 credits/hours of class work per semester for my undergrad degrees in engineering. I fully understand learning through mistakes. I've come to realize that self-taught is the #1 way to learn something; #2 is from your mistakes; and #3 is from other people (university is so focused on teaching via #3 that I can no longer stand being in a class room and doing what profs should say I should do to learn, but I digress).
Honestly, I didn't sift through your contributions like Wantman suggested. I peeked at it, but didn't go through thorougly, so I'm not fully aware of the "complaints" drawn against your contributions. The only thing I'd recommend (I wish someone had to me earlier) is to read through the style guide (WP:MOS) and the how-to-edit-a-page (WP:HEP). Since WP was my first experience with the whole wiki-syntax, my contributions (quality-wise) improved by quite a bit by reading those and just editing. In this regard, I think some were definitely wrong by "biting the newbie" since you have clearly shown the negative impact the "biting" has.

No argument, this is a different kind of beast. I've been a top-50 contributor, annually, at IMDb since 1996, That site is my frame of reference, therefore, and in many ways Wikipedia operates quite differently. This is most noticeable in the case that there is no real management-in-charge here, which can be a good or bad thing depending: I'm enthused by the opportunity to add information without having to wait for a less-knowledgeable or less-interested "Section Manager" to get through "processing" my submissions before they appear online, so that I can proceed from step 1 to step 2 to step 3 without the passage of so much time that I've forgotten the project (in one section, there is an 11-month backlog!); and that any factual mistakes can be just as quickly fixed by follow-uppers with the same or better knowledge-base than I have (in my case, my base started building, in re films, in 1953).

On the other hand, the same lack of management control allows trolls, style nitpickers and know-it-all-wannabees to come swooping down in the dark of night and delete or corrupt, one way or another, a good deal of hard work and future planned work, without even the courtesy of someone contacting the author(s) of the project first to let them know their work is in peril. Since you are an admin, I think this is something you should want to talk about with the others, as it's been the core of most of my posted complaints, and seems to roll off some people (including Mama W.) like water off an oil-soaked duck. I'm evidently not the only one who feels that way, judging by the eventual responses to my first post on the Village pump, and it was I think useful I went ahead and made that post in terms of drawing some people out to discuss it. Currently Madre W. seems to want to rekindle the thing, but no one is paying him much attention: now I see he has popped over here, too, to "tattle".

First things first: unless someone has done some really weird stuff, all your contributions should be salvagable. After an article is deleted it is still on the system (I'm not sure if there's a way to *really* delete something). If you give me an article name, I'd be glad to look to see if I can find anything.

The "anonymous" edits, I should point out, are a result of my not being used to logging in every time I return to a site from which I have not logged out. There is no intent to deceive, as Wantman seems to imply in his use of the word "anonymous", and it is that kind of attitude he presents which makes me now blow him off completely. He knows very well I explained to him what I was working on, and asked him to please not worry about the stylistic points of honor until I'd finished working, and he seemed to accept that in his first response, but now he goes on fussing about "wikifying" and *me* being uncooperative or "anonymous".

Generally, an edit from an IP is called an anonymous edit. IOW, it's standard nomenclature here. But that's not to explain Wantman's posts or attitude, just giving you some info.

I can grant that most of the Wikipedians are good people; but they are also largely invisible to me. Only a dozen or less people responded to my initial complaint, and they were about half and half divided on whether I was a victim or a bastard. No one "official" seems to have come into the picture, and the complaint was effectively left unresolved to the best of my knowledge. That's not a healthy sign, as I just don't think you will find the numbers of people needed to 'pedify the entire history of the world, when they know their efforts are subject to instant negative reactions, or actions, from the getgo. I have been much less hassled since my original outburst, but I must say I am proceeding further with less enthusiasm and far greater trepidations, that I will do a number of weeks of work and come back after it's done to take a peek, and find it's all been deleted or reverted; and, in the former case, there's no way to restore it, because the History gets deleted too, and then the work's just lost. Rick Block is the first - and only - person to volunteer to actually look at the *Wikipedia* problem with me in re its contents on movies, and work along as a fellow contributor rather than a self-appointed supervisor, and I very much appreciate that.

Regarding "official" people. Since WP has no real structure (there's Jimbo who seems to have the absolute final say (but rarely exercises it), there's bureaucrats (who's only job is to enable users as admins), there's admins and there's non-admins. There's no one really to act as officials, except maybe admins primarily because of their experience on WP. And I don't think you'll ever see someone come through and say "___ is wrong for ___" and "___ is wrong for ___". About the most official thing is the arbitration committee (WP:AC) but they only act upon request and as a last option.

There are certainly instances of "negative intervention" at IMDb, too, but the presence of a management team whose mere presence discourages rampant vandalism, and a Contributor's Board (at the instigation, BTW, of myself and 2 other people) to talk about structural and processing problems, and a system, however imperfect, to deal with them. IMDb may be too rule-bound at times, but there is just too little security at Wikipedia for those of good faith as well as bad.

Sometimes I wish there were more rules at WP, but there are definitely more times that I'm glad there's no bureaucracy to hold me up.

As an outsider who would like to contribute, and who comes with a different set of experiences and some insights into the pitfalls of different management systems (off as well as on the internet), including the Wikipedia system, I would be happy to collaborate on some means of reducing the worries and improving the product, if that's something Wikipedia wants to deal with head on. In the meantime, the best way to help me is to let me experiment - I learn much better by doing than by reading about doing - and come in and help me address the problem, rather than standing on a pedestal somewhere saying 'Don't do it this way; do it that way' (I gave up saying "Yes, Mommy" decades ago) or sneaking in behind my back and wiping out what I've started on but haven't completed yet [NB: This is not a personal statement about you, but just my reaction to the "help" coming from most of the interlopers since I've arrived here. It isn't real help, just evidence of boredom and/or self-aggrandizement on the part of the so-called helpers].

I never had the intention of telling you what to do or hold your hand. I would like to see more activity on the film stuff and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies. If you look at my user page at the bottom you'll find "my current project" (which I haven't been keeping up with) and it's just a simple categorization project of oscar awards. By mere exposure, I've seen a couple other people pick up on it.

PS - As to what I'm currently working on, see my == Film Wars, Part II == message on the talkboard of Rick Block.

I'll look it over and respond there. Just a tip (yeah wiki-syntax), you can link directly to a section/heading like this: User talk:Rick Block#Film Wars, Part II:

Again, thanks for your interest. Rich WaNNen 7:57PM CST, 20 Jun 2005.

Just let me know if you need anything or want to know anything (wiki-syntax, style, tips, whatever). Cburnett 02:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete STNG pages

Please make sure The Chase (TNG) and Schisms (Star trek) are deleted; as they are now deprecated pages. - RoyBoy 800 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Sub Rosa (Star Trek episode) - RoyBoy 800 01:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had been thinking of just waiting until ST:TNG is done and just make a big WP:RFD list. Cburnett 03:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Issue at the Replicator article

Hi. You've demonstrated interest in that article. So I was wondering if you'd care to read the issue I'm taking with an anon in the talk page. I apologize in advance for my long comments there. I know it will be a drag to read all of that. But I could use a second opinion on the matter. Thanks, Redux 20:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of rivers by length

Thanks for fixing my hack of the legend table. The little markup (html or wiki) I've done is usually trial and error. It took me at least a good 30-40 clicks of the Preview button to make the bottom table here from the one above it, and the only difference is moving the county seal. Niteowlneils 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I've been doing web stuff for long enough that I'm down to a couple previews on a good day and a dozen on a bad day. :) I can't even recall how many for List of Star Trek: TNG episodes. Cburnett 19:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack summary = vandalism?

"Revert vandalism: calling me an idiot or liar = bad faith editing => vandalism"

That would be nice, but I doubt it works that way. Of course he's making an ass of himself, but you're just looking for a good reason to continue a revert war so you can end it forcefully. Don't stoop to that level. 82.92.119.11 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been put up for protection. Cburnett 00:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Your call. Disagree, though. Protecting because neither side can bear to have The Wrong Version up while sorting it out is a cop-out. Now I'm actually not sure blocking him wouldn't have been a better idea. 82.92.119.11 00:46, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't care if it's reverted back to it was before this all started. All I know is that the reliable sources (IMDB & MGM) show the movie was released in 1989. The date on DVD cases are copyright dates, and they are irrelevant to how wikipedia sorts movies by year. Furthermore, I'm not the one calling people idiots or liars. I'm not the one that the page needs protection from: it's the incivil one. Cburnett 01:01, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstand: protection hurts everyone. When a page has been protected it's completely irrelevant who it needed protection from, that's the point I'm trying to make. A page doesn't need protection from any individual user, unless we somehow lack the technical means to block that user. 82.92.119.11 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The user in question is already banned and is doing it anonymously. Cburnett 01:56, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Cburnett, you big dumb idiot. Please stop reverting the edits on Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, you know it was released in 1988 and you are in the wrong about the year 1989, I am sorry, but seriously leave it as the correct year (1988). If you continue reverting it again, I have no choice but to report you. Please answer my last message at the talk page to see how it feels when you stop. I am just not threatening to ban you, I just want you to keep it that way (my version). -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:58, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're the one flinging the insults around. IMDB & MGM say it was release in 1989. The dates on DVD cases are copyright dates, not release dates. Wikipedia does not sort by copyright dates, but by release dates. And last I checked, you are not an admin and cannot ban me. Cburnett 01:03, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care what Wikipedia says or doesn't do and there's nothing you can do to stop me from changing it back to the correct year (1988). Again, I am not threatening to ban you at all. Can't we give it a break? The movie was done in 1988 and was released in 1988 (as seen on the DVD). I am sorry for insulting you when I tried correcting the page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:06, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cburnett&oldid=15895921"