User talk:Cburnett

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

Take a look at Three sheets to the wind

Someone editted this page, Three sheets to the wind, after you created it. Could you take a look at it? Morenooso 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PHA ribbon

Hi there, unfortunately I can't find anything that specifically says "periwinkle ribbon". There is the PHA online store where you can see a number of illustrations. For that matter, I don't own a ribbon myself, I just have a wristband. Sorry I couldn't be of further help.

Oh, wait. While the store doesn't seem to sell actual ribbons, they do have this page that is selling a "periwinkle magnetic ribbon for your car". Will that do for your purposes? --Kyoko 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and changed the reference link in the article so that it takes people to the page I mentioned. I hope this is acceptable for reference purposes without being seen as spam. --Kyoko 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

List of The Daily Show guests

Just because it survived AFD once doesn't mean that it should be kept. Tons of articles are only deleted after 2-3 nominations. The AFD closed with "no consensus" either, which means that there was a strong number of people who wanted it gone (as opposed to a more definitive "keep"). But very well. I'll take it to AFD someday. Hbdragon88 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a threat... Cburnett 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What? It's obviously not a speedy. I prod, you contest, the next step is AFD. Hbdragon88 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests sure as hell looks like a consensus to me. I'm not sure which deletion debate you're talking about. Cburnett 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your comment on my talk page. Hbdragon88 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Ethnic Chess Openings

In case you missed it, you may be interested in my comment [1]. Pete.Hurd 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight redirect

Re The Outlandish Knight is another name for Lady Isabel ballad: Thanks cburnett I've expanded substantially and added two sources. The full ballad and variations are all online at the source mentioned. Goldenrowley 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyberias message

I am against fair use policing as well and I combat it where possible, I will try and help you as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would much appreciate it. I'm just slowly chugging along, in chronological order, on ST:TNG. Cburnett 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An example of a fair use rational/template I use is here - I don't even think some of the fair use policies more prominent members could argue with that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Southpark_ep907_1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Southpark_ep907_1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Southpark ep906 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Southpark ep906 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Baseball diamond image

Hey. I also posted the following on the Baseball talk page:

Well, I finally got around to determining the minimum and maximum dimensions of existing MLB fields. We can say in the diagram "Distance down foul lines varies between 302' and 355'" and "Distance to straightaway center field varies between 390' and 435'" (the extreme marks, by the way, are held by Fenway Park [short foul line, short center], Wrigley Field [long foul line], and the Astros' Minute Maid Park [deep center]). I also noticed one crucial label missing from the diagram: Home plate.—DCGeist 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup and I've updated the image & responded on Talk:Baseball. Cburnett 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Heroes summary

Frankly, dude, I was being nice. The summary, overall, was crap. Redundant, selective linking,—why is everyone seemingly avoiding links to Peter Petrelli?—comma splices, mispelled names, et cetera. No offense, what do you have such a hardon for it? Don't tell me you wrote that mess. Oh. *checks* You did...gees. Okay, dude, let me break it down slowly.

"Peter continues to follow the invisible man while his brother, Nathan, seeks help from Mohinder." Already off to a bad start. Like I said above, why you linking to everyone but Peter? One link in the article (probably in an above summary) is enough. Also, that sentence looks a little spliced. "Matt's wife comes to terms with Matt's thought-hearing power; Matt faces a review hearing at work and has to make a hard decision about his power." A semicolon isn't a period. Don't feel insulted, I've found it's a common mistake. The reviewboard thing is more of a non-summary detail, and his decision isn't really related to his power. "Nikki is freed from her straight-jacket and a psychologist wants to help her with her multiple personality disorder — Nikki refuses to help." One "k" for Missus Sanders. Once again, not really summary details. Also, an em dash isn't a comma. "Hiro tries his powers again but fails." This isn't even relevant. "He and Ando are chased around a parking garage, caught, and then kidnapped by men working for his father." The chase is a lame and borderline non-encyclopedic detail. Their whole role in this episode can be safely fit into one, less splicey sentence, as I did there and elsewhere. Oh! Before I forget, doesn't "caught, and then kidnapped" sound vaguely redundant?

"Claire searches for her biological parents. The Haitian reveals to Claire that her mother died in a fire. Further researching the fire she calls everyone with the last name to find family members who may know more: and she does." As evidenced by my edit, you had a one decent sentence there, but you bogged it down with non-summary details. Hell, I'd settle for something like the previous "tries and succeeds" as bad as that was. Also, that last part is a definite run-on sentence. "D.L. wants to free Nikki from prison but she refuses and tells him to step up and be a father." Successive "ands" in a single sentence is never a good thing. This is also a minor non-sumarry detail overall. Micah Sanders uses his powers to take large amounts of money from an ATM to help his dad, D.L., pay the rent. You just linked after the character was introduced textuaully. Plus, describing Micah's reasoning borders on OR, and, of course, non-summary detailing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, don't take this personally. And, if it makes you feel any better, I plan on writing professionally. Between that and being a wikipedian, I'm kind of hard on this sort of thing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Heroes episodes is all yours now; Ed, for that matter is all yours two — I really dont give a damn now as, i, wrote all that wordage too provide much depth coverage and most full over view of episode, such that, Ed make happier because...more context = more words = more critical commentary farther to justifi fare use rationale for teh screenshot in an attempt 2 determin what is needed 2 hope fully, and possibley, put the fare use, & episode list issue to rest completely because I'm – quite frankly - very tire off dealing wif it every where I go

Don't take it personally? Kiss my ass. 22k edits on 10k articles. Only once have I voluntarily quite editing an article because of another editor (hint: it's not Ed nor Oden who stalked me after I blocked him). You make two. Congrats! I hope your writing ability surpasses your understanding of copyrights by leagues because your understanding is more pathetic than my crappy mess that — here's a kicker — I honestly didn't even proofread. Cburnett 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Timing Diagrams link removal

Hi Cburnett, while I frequently refer to the wikipedia, I don't often make edits. I added a link to a commercial timing diagram editor (mine, actually) when I saw that someone had added a page about timing diagrams. Pardon my ignorance, but does wikipedia have a policy against adding external links to products that are directly relevant to the entry? I can see how there might be such a policy for things that are only remotely relevant, but it doesn't make much sense to me for directly relevant products (in this case, a product for creating/editing timing diagrams). If there is such a policy, could you provide me with a link so I can familiarize myself with what is and isn't acceptable? On other pages, I've seen commerical links that were relevant and have been on the pages for some time, so I didn't think I was doing anything unreasonable.DNotestein 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Wikipedia:External links. Of interest is the Links normally to be avoided section and number 4:

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

My only objection is the link you added is for a commercial product and doesn't add to the understanding of what a timing diagram is. If the company has a FAQ or tutorial on timing diagrams then by all means link to it and we can go from there, but that's a separate issue. The main concern is that adding links to commercial websites puts wikipedia (and its editors) in the position of deciding which links to keep (otherwise we become a links directory) which leads to other questions that wikipedia is not intended to answer: which product/company is best? or which product/company doesn't make the cut?

Now, if the product you linked were of direct interest (there are thousands of these on wikipedia such as on the Microsoft Windows or Pro/ENGINEER) then the link is just fine.

On a complete side note: on your user page, if you remove the leading spaces then your text won't be considered preformated. Note difference between:

*this

and

• this

I'm happy to answer any questions you have or continue discussion on this. :) Cburnett 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering what was going on my user page. I just made the page and didn't have a lot of time to investigate the problem. Generally I've just made grammar and spelling changes to wikipedia, so never bothered to set up an account before.

Ok, seems like a reasonable method of handling the links. We do have a lot of reference material about timing diagrams and methods of performing timing analysis with timing diagrams but it is spread out on our site, so when I can spare some time, I'll make an overview page on our site with direct links to the reference material and add a link to the overview page. Thanks for the clarification.DNotestein 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind the conflict of interest. :) Cburnett 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Around the World in 80 Treasures.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Around the World in 80 Treasures.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wildlife Conservation Society logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wildlife Conservation Society logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ST-TNG Thine Own Self.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ST-TNG Thine Own Self.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Felis concolor

Aren't the two binomial nomenclatures, Felis concolor and Puma concolor, synonomous?A mcmurray 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have such a question posed at Talk:Cougar#Felis concolor vs. puma concolor. If you're asking because of my revert on Henry Doorly Zoo then my reasoning is simple: the zoo uses felis concolor then so should we. If they are the same (I honestly have no clue) then there's no difference either way except the zoo uses felis concolor. Seems pretty cut and dry to me... Cburnett 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say, yeah I saw that and was just wondering. A quick Google search turns up hits on either.A mcmurray 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image use

Hello cburnett! I just wanted to let you know that i'm using several of your SVG images in the new b:Microprocessor Design wikibook. At the moment that book is very new (incomplete and even stubbish), but I intend to write lots of really fantastic prose around your images. If you want to drop by and help out with the book yourself, that would be fantastic, but I know you have your own projects to work on here. --User:Wknight8111 (WB:Whiteknight) 18:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. If there's an image you think I could create to add to the book please don't hesitate to ask. Cburnett 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there are probably so many images this book would need, but it's too early now to start working it all out. There is alot of text that needs to get written, and then we can figure out what images we need to add extra clarification. Thanks for the offer though. --User:Wknight8111 (WB:Whiteknight) 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do..

Keyboard batteries died as soon as your message came through, sorry! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you are awesome!

Thank you soo much for undeleting the pictures for the Heroes article!! I'm glad that they are back. Are they safe now? Do they have proper rationale? Also, would you mind putting the pictures back into the List of Heroes episodes article? thanks!!!!! ^_^ dposse 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I only undid Cyde's failure to follow policy. Cyde continues to claim that the rationale is not proper for the list of episodes page, but I can't figure out who placed him in a position to decide that exclusively himself. Cburnett 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order on filmographies

I was wondering if you could help me or at least direct me to somewhere that could help me

I saw that you were involved in the filmographies debate about whether the order should be newest to oldest or oldest to newest.I found 2 topics dealing with filmographies here and also here

As far as I could see there was no consensus at that time

The latest entry I found about the debate was here with the people earlier pushing for older to newest first commenting among themselves but as far as I can see if they changed filmographies they did it without putting a MOSLOW notice on the articles first

My main concern is that MOSLOW tags being placed by anon editors are being used to push a consensus regarding filmographies that doesn't exist since when I did a random check the order seemed to be 50/50 newest/oldest first on the pages I checked and also that MOS are guidelines to be followed but are not set in stone.

A user , I spotted from the Sarah Michelle gellar page ,82.2.94.245 popped up on 10 Feburary and whose sole purpose seem to be to put MOSLOW tags on a number of actor articles

On 11 February another user ,I again spotted from the Sarah Michelle gellar page with the IP 82.9.25.163 turned up and started placing MOSLOW tags on actor articles and also did a complex edit here to put a barnstar on the page

Also dispite being a anon editor that had just popped up they quoted this WP:LOW is quite clear. The "Ordering" section refers to all lists of works, including filmographies. Please acquant yourself with all of the WP:MOS before further editing. You should also read Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn what exactly constitutes vandalism. here to an editor who asked them to stop putting MOSLOW tags on articles

I didn't want to get into an edit war especially if there was a consensus about this subject and I just couldn't find it so any comments you could give me about this subject would be appreciated .Garda40 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any actual consensus was reached. I will point out that the MOS is a guideline, not policy. Disagreements over style can't be considered vandalism. Cburnett 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't saying it was vandalism.

Just that an anon editor ,and especially one who quotes chapter and verse about wikipedia policy etc , seeming to pop up just doesn't feel right.

Anyway thanks for the quick response .Garda40 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) a

Yes, it is strange that an anonymous user knows policy so well but it's possible they're a user who just didn't log in. Dunno. Cburnett 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot FU template

I saw what you did to the Heroes images. Me likey. I added it to my bookmarks, and will use it from now on. I was actually thinking of making something like it, but it's already made. Cool. - Peregrine Fisher 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we roll the "This image is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: it is a low resolution still of a TV series;" etc. into this template? Then there would be nothing but fields to fill out, and new users would be more likely to correctly create these image pages. - Peregrine Fisher 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. All that would have to be optional to some degree. Cburnett 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of The Daily Show guests

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of The Daily Show guests, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination). Thank you. Hbdragon88 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice. Cburnett 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you kindly notified me when you removed the prod from those two TDS guests articles, so I figured that you deserved the same when I finally got around to AFD'ing it. Hbdragon88 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Me vs. You

I think our fight was over Star Trek images, I had put some screencaps up and you put some up and I felt like you were invading my terf or something. It was just dumb and I got out of line. Anyway, I try not to step on toes if I can help it. I found calmly discussing disputes helps more than getting angry. Cyberia23 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need people with an opinion

Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmoraphies and lists of works in general here. There is now a RfC discussing this and more aspects here. It would be nice if you took a look and gave your comments on those matters. Thank you. theroachman^TC 10:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007

Hi Cburnett. I'm trying to see how this wasn't disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, just because you were cross about List of The Daily Show guests being on AFD. Please don't do such a thing again. Proto ► 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION IS NOT DISRUPTIVE! If I outright deleted 2007 then THAT would be disruptive. Have you ever read WP:POINT? I'll quote from the first sentence for you:

Discussion...is the preferred means of changing policies..

I would really love to hear how AFD is not discussion. What part of AFD is unilateral? Those were both rhetorical questions and I will quote, again, the first sentence from WP:AFD:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss...

I see the word discuss, how about you? AFD is about discussion.

From one admin to another: if you're going to close my AFD and lecture me about disruption and WP:POINT then you need to at least read the first sentence of the policy/guideline you're lecturing me about and telling me what not to do again. The preferred recourse is discussion and that's what I started: discussion.

As for the daily show AFD. If the interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO & WP:NOT#DIR is against a list of guests on a notable television show then it must be against all lists of facts that have very little in correlation with each other except when and/or where. Has nothing to do with retribution or being "cross" that an article I care about is up for deletion. FWIW, when I started the 2007 AFD the keep votes were ahead of the delete votes. In fact, there are still more keep than delete (13-6 if I counted right). Cburnett 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

However you describe it, you knew full well that the AFD was never going to succeed, and embarking upon such a fruitless discussion, particularly such a high-profile article, was potentially making a point. Was it disruptive? I would say yes, given the background, but I accept that there's different views on that. I did say I was trying to see how it wasn't disruptive, so thanks for the explanation. One question - do you really think the article should be deleted? Proto ► 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Prior to the TDS guest list nomination: no. After seeing that people like hbdragon above and otto4711 interpret policy to mean "a list of vaguely related items are not encyclopedic" then maybe I didn't understand policy. The AFD clearly answered that I was not and hbdragon & otto4711 were. My personal opinion is that 2007 and TDS guest lists are no different in terms of what binds the items on the page. However, the delete votes on TDS guests have yet to sufficiently explain how they are so different that the reactions to the two AFDs are quite different. Again the -cruft suffix has been used in favor of deleting. Cburnett 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, why don't you wait until the AFD closes up? The fact that it was 13-6 in favor of keep kind of makes appear to be even more disruptive, as it appears that you were doing an AFD discussion when a VP discussion would have been more appropriate (if it's on AFD, you want it to be gone). With the amount of discussion and keep votes, I'm pretty sure that the TDS guests article be no consensus/keep, though not the snowball that the original AFD was (partly because I tried to provide a better reason than "unencyclopedic cruft"; a number of keep votes on that AFD were "what does this article violate?").

Besides that, this 2007 AFD is the textbook case listed in WP:POINT: If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles...

• do state your case on AfD in favour of the article.
• don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it.

I'm gonna regret this, but I really don't want to write that essay for public speaking, so why not? Hbdragon88 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Don't list hundreds...". I listed one. Furthermore I disagree on the grounds of your interpretation of that example as you never called it "silly" or anything like it and TDS guest list is hardly my favorite: I think it's encyclopedic. Then again you and I don't seem to interpret the same words the same way, but I think you're way off on this one. Cburnett 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just picking at every letter of the policy here (WP:WL). If I called it "absurd" it sounds like you'd still say that it did not meet the example of WP:POINT that I listed because I didn't call it "silly." The "hundreds" bit is an exaggeration; even 2-3 or more nominations would be considered disruptive, you don't need to list a hundred before it's considered disruptive. The spirit is that you just don't nominate it solely because another AFD is going on. Hbdragon88 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, quit harassing me with this insulting bullshit. Wikilawyering? Good god man. I've been here longer than you, I've made more edits than you, and I'm an administrator unlike you so I think it's fair to say that you can stop quoting and linking policies & guidelines to me.

AFD is for discussion (it's in the first sentence). WP:POINT clearly states that discussion over unilateral action is preferred (that's also in the first sentence). So the bloody spirit of WP:POINT is discussion over action, ergo AFD is discussion not disruption and deleting is disruption not discussion. Yes, AFD can be used to disrupt if used in excess or in bad faith. A single article AFD with sound rationale is neither in excess nor a disruption nor in bad faith.

So not only do the two key articles here (AFD & POINT) agree on discussion, your "textbook case" is wrong on all three key points: 100s, name calling, and favoritism. 1 != 100s. No name calling != name calling. Encyclopedic != favorite. You are wrong on just about every aspect on this even when interpreting them liberally and you throw pejorative names at me? Just...stop, drop it, and leave me alone if that's all you got because I have better things to do that sit here are take insults from you. Cburnett 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, awesome, now you've pulled out the "I've been here longer so I know more than you" argument. Length of time here != knowledge of the policies. I can think up of a number of admins who have exercised poor judgment in applying policy: Everyking, Seabaun, NSLE, freestylefrappe, Karmafist, Carnildo, Guanaco, MarkSweep - the list could go on and on. Then there are those who haven't been here as lnog as I have who understand the policies just as much or better than I do. Their names are not relevent to this current thread at hand.

AFD is about discussion, yes, it is. But there are other, better places for discussion. The closer of the AFD suggested starting a thread on the Village Pump.

Three other people & the closer of the 2007 AFD all claimed that it was a violation of WP:POINT. When four people separately come to the same conclusion, whose interpretation is right? This isn't a lynching mob here, nobody is not voting to recall your adminship or anything; they're merely commenting. There was nothing at stake here besides the fate of the 2007 article. Hbdragon88 06:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You need some basic reading skills. Seriously. It's insulting how high of a horse you're riding. Go away. Cburnett 16:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So is your interpretation of WP:POINT, but hey, whatever. We're not going to get anywhere here, so this is my last post on this topic at least. Hbdragon88 08:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Look: a "I know you are but what am I?" insult.

"you can stop quoting and linking" does not mean "I know more than you." Then again to you: WP:POINT "discussion" doesn't mean AFD "discussion", 1 means 100s, encyclopedic means favorite, and no insult means "silly". At least you stopping linking WP:POINT. Cburnett 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Color List for Star Trek: TNG

Hi, I added a list for you at the discussion page that you requested. Feel free to reply to this, but leave a copy on my User talk, too so i know to look for it? Thanks! jpmck 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of The Daily Show guests (AfD discussion)

I replied in-thread. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-21 07:06Z

• Moved to User talk:Quarl

Entrance image at Prospect Park Zoo is not appearing

Hi Cburnett. I see that there has been recent vandalism on the zoo infobox template; since then, the picture of the Prospect Park zoo entrance has not been appearing. The picture still exists in Commons and still appears in pre-infobox versions of the page. See remarks in my Sandbox. I've not investigated this as fully as I'd like, but I thought to bring it to your attention: with enough pairs of eyes, all problems are shallow, or one hopes. I'll revist this problem on the other side of the weekend when I hope to have quality Wikipedia time. Thanks for any insights you might have. Gosgood 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Still don't understand what may be the issue with 300 pixel images, but I modified the infobox to explicity set the width to 250 pixels, which is pulling an existing cache image. I don't think the infobox itself is a problem; not sure what the real problem is, but the workaround works, albeit with a somewhat smaller picture. I'll push this up to the help desk when I have time to document what I've seen. Gosgood 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be there for me. is the image I see in the infobox. Try doing a hard refresh (usually hold shift or control click and click the refresh button). If not that then clear your browser's cache. Cburnett 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tau Beta Pi

Hi Colin. I've proposed here that we rename and repurpose Category:Tau Beta Pi; there are a number of other remedies possible, though. Please join the discussion. All the best ×Meegs 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't change modern marvels episode numbers to the production codes

TV.com removed the actual season numbers for some reason, which are more relavent. I use and edit this to archive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.67.131.200 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

A little help is needed

I was reading the Talk:Minnesota Zoo and saw you mention something about an {{improve}} code and was wondering specifically what it meant. I have look all about the WikiHelp and can not find any great listing with codes such as that to help me out. Dolph72 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Do you recall in my edit summary me saying that it was a rule? No. I said it was frowned upon, as in it's looked at like a "list" in an article that isn't one of those "List of" articles. I've only ever come across 1 FA that had a table, and that was Dog Day Afternoon, every other film article that's FA doesn't have one. If you are attempting to get the article up in status, I'm telling you that it will be a concern addressed by the reviewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to get snappy with me. Where exactly did I say rule? I used "frowned upon" on both your talk page and in my revert.

If tables are frowned upon to the extent that it warrants a revert, literally, within a minute of my change then surely it must be written somewhere. In short, please be more clear in your explanations when reverting another user. If you say "see featured articles" then I'm going to look at the criteria for FAs (I'm not going to browse every FA to look for tables). Cburnett 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your image Image:IP stack connections.png

It seems you, like me, have caught the SVG-izing bug :-)

Your image Image:IP stack connections.png is currently listed at Category:Images which should be in SVG format. As you have the original ODG files, it should be relatively simple to get a vector version. Would you mind doing so? (Beware: OpenOffice Draw's SVG export is flawed - it will not export smooth curves and will convert strokes to paths. Or at least that's what the last version I installed does.) Cheers, Stannered 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool stuff - cheers! :-) Stannered 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RAID 6 diagram

First of all thanks for the diagrams. I noticed that the RAID 6 diagram however does not match the diagram here: http://www.acnc.com/04_01_06.html ; I actually do not know which is right, however since this diagram comes from an actual hardware manufacturer it raises enough doubts to have it checked - and it does make a bit more sense since every disk would have 2 parity stripe blocks. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the problem. The only difference I see is the naming of the blocks otherwise the parity is spread the same. Cburnett 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

SVGs

Sorry for the late reply. Here, you can find many images that could be SVGs. If you have time and energy, a standard design for these images would be much needed. Thanks for aksing! NCurse _work 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Friendly bit of information

so you don't get burned. From WP:3RR :

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

since you're counting your reverts as if you were taking care of not using up your reverting points -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin and am very familiar with 3RR. Do you quote rules and policies to random people or is there a reason you graced me with your ability to copy and paste? Cburnett 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, what are you talking about? Where am I counting my reverts? "Reverting points"? Cburnett 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and fair use

Consensus does not override U.S. law. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Fair use before editing in matters related to it. Specifically, see that "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". These images are used in pages where they constitute a major portion of the page (even worse, in many cases the entire page is a copyright infringement and there is no harbor in fair use whatsoever). Also, "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." These pages have dozens upon dozens of uses of these images that do not satisfy the legal requirement or the Wikipedia requirement. If there is good reason for including screenshot field in the template, these illegal and inappropriate uses of the images need to be cleaned before they are propagated via the template. —Centrx→talk • 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See also [2]. Wikipedia:Fair use must be followed. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is. Please familiarize yourself with the page and page of discussion held on this very topic before changing a widely used template and lecturing on my talk page about something I already know about. Cburnett 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think that having long lists that consist only of copyrighted images placed alongside short descriptions typically copied from the DVD or the producer's website satisfies Wikipedia:Fair use, then you clearly do not. —Centrx→talk • 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to catch up with a years worth of discussion, then you should accept there's no consensus behind yours and the minority interpretation (FACT: Centrx's opinion is not gospel) of the Fair Use policy. Get consensus for your heinous actions (FACT: That does not mean a meeting in the admin's IRC [eyes everywhere :)]). Matthew 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use law and the fair use policy is quite explicit about this. There must be substantial original work for fair use to apply, and the images must be low-resolution images. Neither of these are the case in the majority of instances where this template is used. There is nothing minority or questionable about this. In the substantiality of the use this has been law prior to the existence of Wikipedia; in the resolution of the images this has been plainly explicit policy for over a year. —Centrx→talk • 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, I challenge you to prove it true. "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". Matthew 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to take this debate to Template talk:episode list but you didn't acquiesce my request. My talk page is not a forum for such debate. Cburnett 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for abusing your talk page. Matthew 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hey Cburnett, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SLR cross section

I would like to use the image you made as I earn the photography merit badge. However, I do not wish to print several pages license along with the image. May I use Image:SLR cross section.svg under the Creative Commons Attribution license? --Midnightcomm 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I traced the original image Image:Slr-cross-section.png which is only under the GFDL. I will be glad to release my SVG under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} but that requires commons:User:Fiaschi to do so as well. Cburnett 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

x-men episode list

someone keeps reverting stuff at List of X-Men episodes,can you protect that pageDCboy 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbus Zoo

Thank you for your suggestions for improving the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium article. It was very helpful, and the article is now significantly better. It still needs pictures, but I believe the text is much more informative. For the life of me I cannot find the reason why the zoo closed in 1905 though. Either way, thank you again. Polypmaster 19:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

G'day Mate

G'day mate im Adrian and i hope we can work together in the WikiProject Zoo, i lookforward to helping make all the zoo articles great. Cheers and Kind Regards Adrian aka CheetahKeeper 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

G'day Mate 2

I am the person who has been adding stuff to the Hamming Code section. I can definitely say that they are still been used on current high-tech state of the art equipment. You can email at Astro_rabbit @yahoo.co.uk I notice your film list is missing Tron, The Forbidden Planet and DarkCity, these you should watch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.12.108.161 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Family Guy

How ridiculous. So, what IS the location of the debate on "are these fair use" because they are obviously OK to use in that list. I swear some people use the most ridiculous rationale. SchmuckyTheCat 05:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to really dig around to find it. I'm 99.9999% certain that it was gmaxwell who used it last time around so you could peruse his talk page history for a slew of posts about an episode list. Maybe a month or two ago? Cburnett 05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image request: Joker card

Hey. I just saw the cute card deck you made and we think about using them in a game we develop. The joker card is missing, though. Would you mind creating one? Thanks (anyway)! --Robin Stocker 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)