User talk:Cburnett

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

/Star Trek for Star Trek related May 5, 2005 June 17, 2005 /Math for math/stat/probability related May 5, 2005 June 17, 2005 /Oscars for Academy Awards related May 5, 2005 /Style for MoS, categories, etc. related May 5, 2005 June 17, 2005 July 17, 2005

/Movies for film and television related June 17, 2005 July 17, 2005 /People for people July 17, 2005 /Users for user related things July 17, 2005 /Admin for my admin nomination July 17, 2005 /Geography for geography, places, etc. July 17, 2005

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Nigeria
• China

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)

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)

Fair Use

In case you dont see it in this page [1], 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)

Mercury disambiguation

No, I don't read the summaries when disambiguating. I've never had anyone re-ambiguate a link before. I think I understand why you've done it, but I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Why don't you want the wikilink changed to a http link? Josh Parris ✉ 23:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That link is *specifically* there to point to the disambiguation page. The "what links here" page is there for a reason and bypassing it with a full-blown link defeats the entire purpose.

Nevermind the fact that it makes the article non-portable outside of the english wikipedia. I actually see no benefits of doing that except to make your viewing of "what links here" easier to sift through. Cburnett 05:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your participation

You have all been unwitting participants in a peice of performance art entitled "Wikipedia Project: Spring-Summer 2005". All of this has been a big giant peice of art involving several people throughout North America. Thanks for unwittingly playing your roles to a tee. TheSpottedDogsOrganisation 13:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I got one of these congratulatory notices too. Isn't it thrilling? (For one thing, I hadn't even realized I was in North America.) I'm asking Spot to pay me €50 for artistic services rendered to this "peice" (sic); how about you? -- Hoary 14:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Our performance art collective is based in North America you moron! And you ain't getting one red American cent you Euroweenie! Spotteddogsdotorg 23:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Celebrating

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)