User talk:Cburnett/WP

May 13, 2006 archive start

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)

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)

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)

Compression

Image:USA 2000 population density.jpg seems to have data compression artifacts, and (before I go and integrate the key in the lowerleft), Id like to know if this was the original state, or if you compressed it in an image editor. Sinreg-St|eve 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The image is a saved JPEG from a screen capture from nationalatlas.gov. I don't know what the format that gets the image to my browser (I can't readily find out) but I would suspect the compression artifacts are from me saving it. Feel free to pull up the map on the website, upload a new one in PNG (or JPEG with a higher quality setting) and put the one I uploaded for IFD. Cburnett 07:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Cburnett,

We are having some difficulties over at Talk:Electrical engineering over which version of the article should be adopted. Essentially the question is whether we stick with an existing version that discusses electronics engineering as a subfield of electrical engineering (while acknowledging they can be treated as being distinct) or adopt another version that limits discussion about electronics engineering. I am hoping with enough votes we can quickly end the debate and move forward in the right direction.

Thanks.

Cedars 06:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hey Cburnett,

I replaced one of your images, USA 2000 presidential popular vote by county winner.jpg, with a PNG version, thus, I've marked your version for deletion. Also, I updated the only page linking to your image.

Incidentally, my version is: 2000 election popular vote county.png

Thanks. -- User:Jumbobrian

Thanks! Much cleaner image. Cburnett 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I also replaced one of your images USA 2000 black density.jpg with a PNG version, and have marked yours for deletion. I also updated all pages (except your image page) that link to it. The new version is Image:USA 2000 black density.png

Thanks -- User:Agonizing Fury

Fair use image galleries

Hi, I took the libery of turning your galleries of fair use images at User:Cburnett/Images into a list of links instead. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use images to be displayed on userpages, or subpages thereof. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy. --Sherool (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Electrical and Electronics Engineering Survey

Hi Cburnett,

Currently there is a survey on the electrical and electronics engineering talk page on whether to redirect electrical and electronics engineering to the featured electrical engineering article. The survey has five votes, most of which are for the proposal, but does not seem to be getting any additional traffic. This has left the electrical engineering article with an unsightly merge tag. If you could review the issue and possibly offer your opinion, it would be most appreciated. Hopefully this would help the issue reach a conclusion.

Thanks,

Cedars 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ten-codes page

Um, I've never edited a wikipedia page before or anything, but I have a complaint :)

I don't like the long list formatting of the Ten-code page. It was easy to hear a ten code on the radio and see the associated meaning with the old table, but with the new one you have to scroll all over the place. Was the formatting change necessary? Is it even better? Why'd you change it?

Disambig pages

Hi, please don't wikify extraneous links on disambiguation pages. Take a look at the Manual of Style for a full explanation. The gist of it is that disambiguation pages are intended to allow users to quickly find the correct link from among the possible (ambiguous) choices. To make this simpler, the only links that should appear on the page are the ones that disambiguate the term. I reverted your change to Power play (disambiguation). The correct link there is just Power Play (TNG episode).--Srleffler 04:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, when you add a Star Trek episode to a disambiguation page like Divergence (disambiguation), please only wikilink the episode name. Do not also wikilink the name of the series. This is per the Manual of Style.--Srleffler 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

#1 albums

Hi there, just a note to explain my revert of your #1 albums template changes... lists similar to those exist for numerous Billboard charts and all of them use the same formatting, so in the interest of keeping everything uniform I switched them back. (Just my opinion, but I find them to look cleaner and easier on the eyes without the grid-looking tables you had.) So just thought I'd let ya know why I did that. -- eo 07:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

List of areas in the National Park System of the United States

The two table-ized sections of this page have different data. One has year and size, the next has nearest town and full date. I think they should be standardized but am not sure which details would be best to include in the table. Rmhermen 03:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The parks can certainly be beefed up to include full year and nearest town. Area can be added to monuments as well. I'm all for inclusion of information over removal of information. Cburnett 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, though, too much info would make the table too wide. Cburnett 03:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Deleting nav boxes

Apologies, I thought undid that, I was confused by the way theres two nav boxes, ones at the bottom and ones under episode info and thought the ones I deleted were old. --Johnny 0 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Domain Registrars

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ardenn 01:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I did use edit summaries. 2. If you check ICANN's website, there are from ICANN alone (forget all the various CCtld registrars) there are 100 registrars in the A-category alone. Ardenn 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? I do not see one.

Your response to #2 makes no sense. "from ICANN alone"? Which url specifically. Can you actually explain why you think it's an indiscriminate list or do we have to keep going back and forth, back and forth? Cburnett 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

GPL

over at you have a license for the software. Can you tell me how I add that. Thanks. Pdbailey 01:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what exactly you're asking. Are you asking how to add the box that talks about the license or how to add the GPL'ed code? Cburnett 03:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry, the box about the license. Pdbailey 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's done with templates. For example, {{GPL}} shows up as

There's more information about templates at Wikipedia:Template namespace. The actual text itself is shown in a box by putting a space in front of each line. For example:

Templates often look like text boxes with a
different background colour from that of
normal text. They are in the template
namespace, i.e. they are defined in
pages with "Template:" in front of the name.

That help you at all? Cburnett 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Pdbailey 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

January 14, 2007 archive start

Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document

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

Brewery poll

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

WP:FUC and lists

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

You had made a comment that you would like to see #8 discussed further and the link I provided on your talk page is pretty entirely based upon #8 and what "decoration" means. I now see that your comment was posted well before my reply so here's some context:

• The discussion seems to have started some time ago here about the fair use status of images in episode lists
• Clarification of FUC #8 was request
• Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists
• Without warning or notice to the latter discussion, Ed g2s proposed an amendment Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2

I am not for "reckless" (as hyperbolically stated by the bainer) use of fair use images (or "fill up" as you put it). I think an image per episode is quite reasonable in the eyes of the copyright act considering the only way to visually represent a copyrighted TV show is by a screenshot. I definitely side with the belief that if a free image can be obtained then a fair use equivalent should not be allowed and that a free image should always be favored over a near-equivalent non-free image. A free image for a TV show is not obtainable for like 75 years (I forget what the current duration of a copyright is). Cburnett 20:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I looked over the discussion again, and I don't see that I have much more to contribute. I'm certainly not of the opinion that taking a list of television episodes and adding an unfree image for each list item is an improvement to Wikipedia! I don't know what "Copyright act" you are referring to above, but as for the duration of copyright, in many television-producing countries, including the U.S., copyright expires seventy years p.m.a. Jkelly 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Act of 1976. It codified fair use in the US. Just looking this up: Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyrights to 95 years for companies which would, obviously, include TV series. Cburnett 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Northern hemisphere

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

shouldn't there be only one talk page? [[3]] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I messed up in responded on the talk page. I had the talk page opened before I moved so when I replied it posted to Talk:Northern hemisphere instead. Anyway, all fixed (I hope) and thanks for catching it. :) Cburnett 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

;-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Jodiefoster.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

WikiProject Iowa

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

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 00:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A question on counting user "clicks"

Hi, and Happy New Year. Is there a way to count how many users visit a given page? This question comes from a recent discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Extended plot sub articles, where to decide on the usefulness of film "sub-articles" for "extended plot", it would be good to keep track of whether they are being visited often enough. Hoverfish Talk 09:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki does supports page views but was, last I knew, disabled on wikipedia due to the extreme high traffic. Cburnett 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cbrunett, good to know. I'll inform all concenred. Hoverfish Talk 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oldmtdewbottle.jpg

Hi, I've just come to place a fair use template on your picture at wikimedia commons. It will be deleted because the policies of Commons don't accept fair use. BUT the description of this file on wikimedia is still available with templates. This is the best way: keep all fair use logos on wikipedia for articles but not on commons, the link would be broken. Best regards--Patricia.fidi 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan Peer review

Hello there. I have noticed that you have peer reviewed several articles at Wikipedia before. I am asking if you could find some time to peer review J. P. Morgan for me, and leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/J. P. Morgan/archive1. Many thanks! — Wackymacs 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Always glad to give an opinion, especially when asked for it. :) Cburnett 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yearbox Template

G'day,
I just saw the enhancement you made to the yearbox. Im' not sure if you did it, but now when you use the box, it makes the bottom row appear wrongly. Here's the one I just did for 2008 in music:

Years in music:	2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Centuries:	20th century · 21st century · 22nd century
Decades:	1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s
Years:	2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

If you look at the bottom row, it shows the years, except it has Template:pagename (talk · links · edit) at the bottom, which means that it only works to show the proper field in the regular year pages, which is nto what you want for the tv, home video, music and film pages (and any others that I'm omitting). As I said, I don't know if what you did to the template did that, but it should be fixed. Do you know how? I could probably figure it out, but if you can do it quickly, that's better.

Thanks!
--linca^linca 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) PS: A reply (or at least a nudge on my talk page) would be great. I have too many pages on my watchlist to keep track of everything I do. Ta.

I don't know what's going on, but it was (I'm pretty sure, unless I'm deluded or something) showing that way yesterday. Weird. Anyway. Thanks for looking anyway.

--linca^linca 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There was a change on Jan 5 [4] but was reverted. That might have been what you were seeing. Cburnett 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SPI daisy chain image

Colin, please would you add the missing line to the image you created to illustrate SPI daisy chain. Refer to the talk page. Thanks. DFH 16:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)