User talk:Cburnett

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!

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)

Please add content

Wouldn't it be better to add a few well-written movie articles than many article a half-sentence long with a link to IMDB? Rmhermen 15:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. PLEASE stop creating these micro-stubs, and make more meaningful articles. RickK 00:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

This posted on Rmhermen's talk page

If you read about my current project (User:Cburnett#Current Project) you'll see I'm adding categories to movies. So my purpose in creating very stubby movie articles is a place holder for the categories. After adding thousands (and many thousands to go) of category entries I don't want a couple dozen movies to be missing them just because someone else created them after I passed the movie in one of the lists. I'd consider putting more effort into stub articles but the process of adding categories has proven so time consuming that spending even 15 minutes or more on each would amount to a lot of time...and I'd like to finish this project some day... Cburnett 16:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving film stub

I've been moving the film stub message to the middle of the category list because the film stub also creates a category listing. I've been trying to keep categories in alphabetical order, so I moved the stub to the middle of the category list. Why is this a problem? I'll stop until I hear back from you. While we're on the subject, I have some questions thay you may be able to answer:

1) Why is the tag "film stub", but the category is "movie stub"? It seems as though "film" is the better choice as "movie" is an Americanism.

2) Why are some film diretors in categories by country and others are just in the category for directors. I think every director should be in the directors category, and also in categories for each country. Both would be useful.

--Samuel Wantman 02:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the category name. There's (good?) reasons why I think {{film-stub}} should not be mixed with categories:

1) It's theoretically a temporary category until made a non-stub, so not too much effort need be added to make it alphabetical with the categories

2) If it's essentially located in a variable place it makes it that much harder to find (not that it's much harder, but for order/structure's sake)

Until I realized you had a reason for moving them, your moving them seemed like just random moves. Having editting thousands of movie articles, I've seen (and subsequently made my policy) the stubs not listed within categories.

To answer your questions: 1) Originally I believe the template was named {{movie-stub}} and {{mov-stub}}. Another one was added, {{film-stub}}, to address the name variation. If you look at Category:Movie stubs you'll see the preferred is now {{film-stub}} with a request to change the older names to the new. So I guess "Movie stubs" is leftover from that. I'd think the template could be changed touse "Category:Film stubs" without much argument.

2) I agree. As far as I'm concerned, all applicable categories should be added to any article.

Cburnett 03:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Filmography tables

I see you've presented Liam Neeson's filmography in a table. Are sure we want to start doing this? It takes up a lot of room and looks pretty awful. Lists do the job fine and can be integrated into the text. What gives? BTW nice work on the Academy Awards categories! Jihg 19:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've actually used the same table format for several other fimographies as well as for numerous lists (see the history of this one for how much the table improved it: before and current). I haven't had a single revert or change to any of them (or none come to mind). I've certainly had no discussions/debates about it. Generally, repeatative data is better presented in a table format and particularly for multi-columned data where the lack of a table makes seperation of data much harder.

Though the particular style of the table is easily up for debate (I've been thinking of making a template just to keep the style consistent and easily modifiable) but I think the need of a table is still there. Flipping back and forth between revisions of Liam's filmography shows drastic improvement in readability. Without closely inspecting it in list format, you probably won't realize that some movies have "as Oskar Schindler" and some are just "Will". The table provides a more consistent means of presenting repeatative data.

Re: academy awards. Thanks. It's been countless hours so far and it'll be numerous hours just to finish it. Then there's all the other awards. If I didn't do some clean up and disambiguation for each article, I'd much like a bot to do the work. But I think it'll be worth it in the end.

Cburnett 19:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree about tables in general, but I still don't like the look of the filmography tables. They disrupt the 'flow' and readability of the article (not that Neeson has much to disrupt). Maybe you could make the style a bit 'softer' and float them to the side. Also they look better without the notes column, so you could leave that to the main text and stick to year/film/role. Jihg 01:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to any implementable ideas you have. :) "Softer" and "float" aren't really quantifiable, if you know what I mean. Please feel free to draft an example here or somewhere. I definitely would like to make the tables friendlier and I'd like input. Personally, they don't bother me so I'm not sure how to gauge your aesthetic taste. I appreciate any help you can give. Cburnett 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Short Film Oscar

Your plan is fine, though I would suggest that the title format be more consistent (Animated Short Film, Short Film (Color) or Color Short Film, Live Action Film (2 Reels), etc.) —tregoweth 21:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Next Gen Pages

Please stop putting text blocks in the Next Gen Episode Pages. Im actually trying to get rid of them. they're ugly, they're lame, and they screw up the page. Besides, they repeat what I already put in at the top, why insert double information? Cyberia23 03:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means don't make your time wasted and plaster that you're getting rid of it. In fact, I found no discussion of it. The point of using infoboxes is to standardize the basic, common information. That information is barely standardized across the pages...that's why I did it. Cburnett 04:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're probably not gonna like me but sorry dude, you don't know what kind of personal vendetta I have about the use of info boxes. Yeah some, when done right, look okay, but honestly I think they are archaic HTML tables from 1995. Yours pushed the image way down, and screwed up the main text on the page. They never appear right in certain kinds of browsers, especially Mozilla, and thats why I hate them. Nothing personal against you, I just despise them and seeing them mess up pages I spend time working on really irks the crap out of me.

If you think you can come up with one that at least incorporates the image within it, prefeably at the top, instead of shifting it down and so the whole thing sits nicely below the Spoiler Line, that would probably work out a lot better, although I don't think thats possible since I've tried to work this out before with other text block designers. Cyberia23 04:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a table is the only thing HTML provides.

I reentered the table on Encounter at Farpoint with some style changes and image inclusion. Please continue discussion here or on Template talk:ST episode. Either way, please don't delete the table until we can have some discussion. Cburnett 05:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well... not trying to nitpick, it looks somewhat better. Can you get the "caption" below the image to appear? it sort of explained what was going on in the scene. Also consider episodes that I didn't put images into, you'll see blank "image" tags with nothing there. I could try and find some for those, but most I had found wern't very interesting.

I still feel text tables shouldn't used. I was never planning on listing all the full actor credits anyway, too many names to deal with. I didn't for any of the TOS episodes. I just include "creative credits" the writers and director. Additional info like stardate, episode and production number are in the subheader. If a reader wanted more info on a particilar character, they could always click character's link and get more about them.

Well, I dunno man. I just hate tables. But I don't want to argue and fight about them, so it's your call. I'm gonna finish what I started, put up the synopsies up my way. I won't add a table on my own, but if you want a table you can add it yourself. If you do, I won't delete it. I'd rather not see them personally. I'm more concerned about eveything being uniform and tidy, that seems awfully big around here anyway. Text tables just look gaudy to me and sometimes my browser displays overlapping text right through a table. I don't know why, it does it on certain pages, works fine on others. Cyberia23 10:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved the series text to above the image and added the caption. See The Battle for a use where there is no image. Please nit-pick away; I'd like to find a style that's aesthetically more pleasing. Cburnett 17:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats cool. I guess I'll live ;) Cyberia23 21:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Table format

You said here:

Starting a row with ! makes it a header row and you don't make each row of a table a header row

True enough, but you can have a header column, and that is the wikitable syntax for such: note that only the first entry in each row was marked that way. (There is a bug in that if you attempt to put a row on a single line with cells separated by "||", starting the line with "!" does make the entire row a header, which is not what the rubric says should happen :-) HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 16:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

TNG Episode List

Good work on your TNG episode list, I suppose you noticed I filled in all the episode overviews. Are you going to do one for The TOS list? I've redone all the synopsises for those episodes already. I'm working on the TNG ones now of course, but it's a slow process since I have other things to get done to. Cyberia23 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I finished expanding the overviews of ST:ENT episodes and changed the ST:TOS list to a table. Cburnett 07:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TeX versus non-TeX mathematical notation

Are you totally opposed to the use of non-TeX mathematical notation on Wikipedia? Obviously, if one uses TeX in the normal way, instead of the way it works on Wikipedia, then TeX is superior. But on Wikipedia, TeX gets badly misaligned and mis-sized when it is embedded in lines of text. When "displayed", on the other hand, TeX looks good. Michael Hardy 00:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess you could put it that way. My preference is to have everything rendered as PNG and I can't think of a good excuse to not put everything equation related in tex. Compared to my browser, the HTML character set and tex character set do not match (italicizing is ok, but my browser won't render greek letters as italicized) and it looks horrible. If someone chooses to have their preference set to "render HTML when possible" (or whatever the option is) then most of the trivial tex changes should be rather moot.

If the alignment of tex with text bothers you, then that's another issue. I think there's a CSS addition you can make to change the alignment, but I forget where on WP I've read that. Cburnett 06:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extra line breaks

You said in an edit comment:

Revert: AlistairMcMillan, they are not extra; they keep revisions more sensible by only diff'ing changedlines instead of entire paragraphs

Please give me a source that proves this is policy. AlistairMcMillan 23:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No policy, but common sense. I have no clue what your background is or how much experience you have with a program called "diff", but it appears you have none (otherwise I wouldn't have to explain this). Each revision is diff'ed with the previous. In WP, a single line break produces no visible change at the output and if you put one sentence per line then it avoids the need to diff entire paragraphs for changes. It reduces the sizes of the diffs and makes viewing them much easier. For example, a removed comma in a 500 word paragraph (I have seen edits like this) and it's extremely hard to find the removed comma with it's red color. Worse yet, imagine it's an added space: it's hard enough to spot it on a single sentence, let alone a large paragraph.

Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer the best I can. Cburnett 04:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this sufficient to keep you from reverting unnecessarily? Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists and lines (second box) Cburnett 04:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I've been editing for much longer than you. Please also note that insults are not recommended. Also note that your edits that I reverted contributed very little. If you'd taken the time to check the results of your edits you'd see that the links you created to April 1992 and January 1993 are actually broken. Perhaps you would care to check the policy on linking dates: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Years.2C_decades.2C_centuries.

reduces the sizes of the diffs and makes viewing them much easier

If you personally have a problem reading diffs, then I'm sorry because you are going to find that most pages don't follow your personal preference of one line break after each line. AlistairMcMillan 05:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to play the "I've been here longer" card, then I'll play the "I have more edits than you" card. In the end, it's irrelevant.

I hardly see assuming you don't have experience with diff as an insult. Take it incorrectly as an insult if you wish, I won't stop you.

On to relevant discussion.

The dates in question don't exist but that doesn't preclude them from existing. See March 2005, February 2005, January 2005, etc. Just because they don't exist now doesn't mean they won't. Furthermore, clicking the red link and viewing "what links here" could give a gauge to how much "need" or "demand" there is for that page to exist. Red-links aren't bad.

Do I need to quote you the relevant line from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Years.2C_decades.2C_centuries? When you just have a month and a year, you just link the year. This is where me being here longer than you is more than the pissing match it might have seemed. A while ago a bunch of editors went through and changed all month year links to either a specific date including a day or simply a year link. That is why if you do check the "what links here" link you'll find that there is very little demand for month year links. I don't know why, I wasn't involved, I just saw the edits.

Then their efforts have been rendered moot. There are hundreds, if not thousands, linking to [[month year]]

Looking through the archives of said MoS, I only find one discussion relevant to the point at hand:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive12#.22September_2004.22_vs_.22September_2004.22

And it ended with an "agreement" to link it and leave it as red as it's an indicator to create an article. I see no dissention to linking in this form and I see no mention of mass efforts to remove the links. Perhaps you care to link it. Cburnett 08:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the month year format is REALLY popular. [1] And just in case you don't check, of the two blue links there one is a redirect. AlistairMcMillan 08:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you *did* say someone removed them all so what's your point? That no one has taken the time to create the pages? Must have been a Y2K scare or something that got people going: List of months by year: 2000-2005 Cburnett 08:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look I really don't care that much. I was just pointing out that the policy seems to be to not create month year links. I don't know the reason why. I don't really have that much of a preference, I was just pointing out the format everyone seems to stick to. The edits I reverted on ext2 weren't that significant, you made it sound like I'd reverted a few paragraphs of content or something. Also please note that none of month 2000 pages are more than four years old. I'm not going to waste my time checking the rest. AlistairMcMillan 08:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem reading diffs, but I'm not about to make my life more difficult for the fun of it.

What you will find is that most people have no qualms about one sentence per line. (In fact, I bet most don't know that a single line break doesn't affect the article.) I'm not about to give you a list of articles that I do and have done it to, but you are the first to revert them. And it's more than a personal preference, it's a preference based on an objective goal rather than a subjective one (like yours). Cburnett 06:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is my objective reason for disliking a line break after each sentence. If you have a line break after each sentence, then when you check the diff Wikipedia will only show a few lines above and below the edited line to give the edit context. However if you only put a line break at the end of the paragraph, then Wikipedia will show the entire paragraph. [2] [3] Wouldn't you agree that when someone is checking an edit they should have as much context as possible?

I agree that it is a pain in the ass locating an edit when all someone has done is change a comma or move a space (believe me that bugs me as much as it does any editor), but making it more difficult to judge substantive edits just so we can see the relatively minor ones is not a good solution. AlistairMcMillan 07:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you personally have a problem getting context, then I'm sorry for you. Turning-quotes-around-for-jokes-and-to-make-a-point aside, in the end this is no different than "13 June" vs. "June 13" or "colour" vs. "color" except the dividing line isn't geography. Cburnett 08:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Linking_of_.22Month_Year.22_vs._Month_.22Year.22 as I started a discussion about this "Month Year" bit. Cburnett 08:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have mentioned Wikipedia:Don't_use_line_breaks (RTFA, the title is misleading) which discusses the validity of line breaks within a paragraph. I'm fairly agnostic on their utility, but I think that removing them on principle is impolite. — PhilHibbs | talk 18:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Please give me a source that proves this is policy. AlistairMcMillan 23:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

I guess that answers the question then. Thanks for the link Phil. Cburnett 01:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oscar categories

The "Categories" are getting way overloaded. It makes sense to me at least that they be limited to matters directly applicable to the article. In the text of the article, awards given to the people involved should/can be listed. The Director Oscar etc. goes on that person's own page. If you click on a category, it should be clear and easy to see, read, and understand, not a million lists of clutter as has now happened with the gizillion baseball players per team. Maybe if you disagree, you could put this on the Village Pump or wherever appropriate for discussion. The categories are in bad need of clean up. Ted Wilkes 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been on CFD once and is there again (to a much less extreme because I "won" the first round). Cburnett 19:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't see it on that CFD page. Can you point it out? Thanks. Ted Wilkes 19:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cramér-Rao inequality

Did I misunderstand or were you using both lower-case n and capital N for the same variable? (I've changed them all to lower-case.) Also, I have some qualms about writing "n samples" rather than "a sample of n observations". Michael Hardy 00:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe I had it correct. If you put the observations into a vector then it's size N, but n is an arbitrary sample on [0, N-1] (or [1, N] depending on what your starting index preference is). Cburnett 17:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

julia stiles date wikilinks

Sorry, it was not traditional vandalism but I actually argued on the julia stiles or another talk page previously that excessive wikilinking is a form of vandalism, the most often manifestation of this is date wiki links. I did and do not think it was accurate what you claimed in your check in comments: that the date wiki links are somehow related to finding more info about the references, that is not true. How does finding out what happened on June 5 lead you to more info on references for a julia stiles biography? Wikilinking should be reserved for "for more information" sort of links that relate to the essence of the article, when too much stuff is wikilinked it leads to chaos of critical thinking since everything is given an equal weight of importance. Excessive wikilinking also seems to slow wikipedia down and tarnishes the look and feel of an article. zen master T 22:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Vandalism is bad-faith editting: WP:-( Sorry, try again, and don't dare call it vandalism. Please continue the discussion on Talk:Julia Stiles. Cburnett 22:50, 15 Mar 2005 (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).

==There is a reason, Revert-mad maniac== (Apologies for the hyperbolic insult)

The reason for the interwiki and category segments and the abscence of line break is that many of those articles end up with gigantic white spaces at the bottom of the article due to many lines without text that shows up. It's for the design of the page and it doesn't do any harm to the article or the editing of the article. Now, please stop changing all these edits without understanding why they were done.--TheGrza 21:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

That is a bug in media wiki. It's on the books and it's being fixed. The problem is *not* the articles. I apparently know more about the problem than you, so perhaps you need to understand things before changing 'EVERY' article you edit (perhaps there's a reason most articles are the way they are). Cburnett 21:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is currently inside the articles until the bug is fixed. I do understand the problem, but my remedy works and doesn't in anyway change the editing or viewing of the page negatively, so to change it all back is pointless and rude, especially when you turn it into a crusade against all my articles instead of this simple point. Secondly, we should stop this stupid edit war. We're wasting a lot of time on a relatively minor issue which should be determined by community consensus. --TheGrza 21:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The remedy causes a complete clash with the layout of virtually every article on wikipedia....all 500,000 articles. You are going against the community in your "remedy."

And I disagree with the negative impact. Smashing them to one per line makes editting more difficult, makes it harder to find a single cat, and it contrasts how WP diffs articles for revisions.

Look, I'm not going to hash this out on my talk page. You're going against the community and you'll have to take it elsewhere if you want to make any MoS changes. Cburnett 22:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps also a compromise is in order. The internal labeling shouldn't even be an issue because it doesn't affect anything. Some of the articles and their Interwiki links get a little obtuse where all squished together because of the specialized characters. Perhaps all on one line, with spaces in between so the longer links get their own line without causing more white space at the bottom? Just a thought. --TheGrza 21:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The problem will be fixed in due time. The whitespace is at the bottom and doesn't cause a disruption. Editting 500,000 articles to cover up the bug is a disruption. No compromise. One per line with cats first then interwiki links. Comments are wholly unnecessary if this layout is followed. Again, you're going to have to convince WP of your bug cover up. Cburnett 22:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a bug cover-up, it's a fix for the time being. If the problem no longer existed, I would revert them all myself. Secondly, I try to limit this type of edit to articles with terribly large blank spaces at the bottoms, simply because it becomes so disruptive to the article. An article with a sliver of white doesn't need to be edited because it actually doesn't affect the article. Being at the end doesn't mean that it doesn't mess things up, either, otherwise it would seem asinine to fix the "non-existant" bug. Also, to seperate the Categories and the Interwiki buttons with a notation seems completely innocuous. There is no reason to prefer a blank space over information in the edit box, and your seemingly dogmatic position on that specific part of this argument is completely nonsensical. --TheGrza 22:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is. You're attempting to remove the direct result of the bug: that's a cover up.

It's the de facto standard of WP to have one per line so stop doing it. I'll revert them to it and you can take it up in a more public location. Cburnett 22:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you continue with your rampage of ego-reverting, I am confused by your use of the word "cover-up". It's not as if I'm attempting to hide the bug, I'm attempting to remove some of it's detrimental effects. If, as you say, someone is working to fix the bug, then it can't really be covered up. I apologize profusely for trying to make pages look better and trying to apply a band-aid to a problem that has yet to be fixed. Secondly, it is not "de facto" standard to have a simple seperation line. In fact, there is not "standard" because there are thousands of articles with both the space and the "interwiki" and "category" distinctions. --TheGrza 22:55, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a situation we should both submit to the Mediation board. Are you willing to try and resolve this with me? --TheGrza 22:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, this conversation is diverging.

• Yes, sticking with what the community de facto decides is "rampage of ego-reverting." </sarcasm>
• I have no problems with making articles look better, but you're sacrificing edittability to cover up the effects of a bug.
• I have editted many more thousand articles than you and the de facto standard is one per line with cats first then interwiki links.
• Mediation is not necessary. This can be solved by making the discussion public by taking it off my user page. You're contradicting a de facto standard and if you want to change it then you need to get community support. My actions have moved to keep the status quo, not put forth a policy I wish to make (like you).

Cburnett 23:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take it from your recent edits that you have no intention of gathering consensus. Excellent community attitude you have there. Cburnett 03:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on reverting the tags and the realignment, please note the other changes made on the page and don't revert these as well. Several of these pages had erroneous spacings and were differentied from other pages in the same vein. Don't revert good work, and don't keep following me around on wikipedia like some revert rapist. Secondly, I am editing articles as I see fit after submitting this to mediation, which you refused to second. --TheGrza 04:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious you didn't pay much attention to my reverts as I made a very good effort to removing spacings and such. I won't claim to be perfect.

Unlike you, I'm not about to get much into insults (twice now from my count) but it appears you're not entirely good at reading. You don't look at diffs and you don't see that mediation can be requested by a single party. Requesting mediation also means the articles go back to their original state (the de facto standard of one-per-line) and no further editting should be done.

Unlike you, I'm not refusing to take this discussion to the community to discuss things. But since you're the one going against the grain it is you that should raise the question.

All I'm doing is keeping the status quo and the de facto standard. Cburnett 04:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We both have the same intentions toward Wikipedia, though we may sometimes disagree on the methods of arriving there. Now that the bug has been fixed, we can continue on our path of good-faith edits and community minded Wikipedianism. Thanks again, --TheGrza 06:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers! Cburnett 06:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

period and math tags

Thanks for your comment about period at the end of formula. There is one think I would like to remark. You see, if you put the period after </math>, what can happen is that sometimes the browser separates the formula and the period, with the latter showing up on a new line. Try to make an experiment by resizing your browser window so that the formula is at the edge and you will see.

That said, my next project would be to put all periods before </math> rather than after. If you do not agree, probably now is the time to settle this matter. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 03:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm vehemently opposed to having to make an article work around bugs or unexpected behavior (see discussion above to see what I mean). I did get my browser to wrap periods to the next line with equations (images really). However, I don't readily see this as a WP issue but rather a browser issue. Either way, whatever is decided on the wikiproject page I'll go with. Just can't promise I'll always remember. :) Cburnett 04:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Academy Award categories

Hi - I just wanted to let you know that I am not in any way suggesting that your Academy Awards project is not worthwhile. The only thing I have an issue with is using categories to convey the information. I completely agree that this information is significant, and should be in wikipedia in an accessible form. You think it should be conveyed via categories; I think it should be conveyed via lists. If the community says categories, so be it. I hope you'll be OK with either outcome as well. I'd be willing to have a discussion about our respective views of categories and lists if you'd like (not to inflame, but to reach a better mutual understanding). -- Rick Block 20:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just added a list article for Best Supporting Actor, see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees. I haven't sorted the list by movie yet, but doesn't this list cover (in an easier to consume fashion) what is in both category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar and category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar Nominee? And if each actor article has a (wiki)link to the main award article (which I think you've agreed it should), and the award article links to this list article, isn't the same information content available (albeit with two clicks rather than just one)? -- Rick Block 22:01, 20 Mar 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"

[4] 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, [5] 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)

Spartacus (movie) title row

Thanks for helping me understand so quickly that Wikipedia isn't the place for me. The clash of pedantic souls is a terrible thing indeed. But have fun with the film articles! 213.250.75.218 18:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a style guide and article layout practices to keep articles consistent. Just like the AP and APA guides serve the same function for those that use them.

You must realize WP is a community effort. If you wish to change WP's general practices, then you need to appeal to the community.

If you don't desire to interact with a community, then it would be best if you left, but that's prerogative. Cburnett 18:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In that case, give me the links that spell out the conventions for film articles. I've gone through a heap of film pages at random, and the lead sentence is anything but uniform!

The style convention is actually a moot point. The real problem is that you were so adamant in changing the perfectly OK sentence (in view of the fact that the present situation is chaotic) to the one favored by you. I just don't want to spend my time bickering over trifles! Or do I? Actually, I'd like to add serious content instead of swapping words around... 213.250.75.218 18:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A general practice (de facto standard if you will) isn't necessarily writen down. Take random links for example (I am pulling up random movies that come to mind) Hilary and Jackie, Impromptu (1991), Ben-Hur (1959 film), 12 Angry Men, The Deer Hunter, Million Dollar Baby, Dead Poets Society, The Lion in Winter, Gangs of New York, Cast Away, & Casablanca (movie) all use the "____ is a XXXX film" or a very close variant "XXXX dramatic film" for example. I pulled those movies up at random and in that order and they all had the same format. Some I've editted (but check the history if you don't believe me) but I didn't change the intro on them before listing them. I'm sure I could keep listing off movies at random that follow the format.

Honestly, if you don't care about consistency, which I find to be mostly consistent given the sheer number of articles, then what's all this fuss about? If you're threatening to leave WP then it's obvious you do care...but you'd rather add serious content. So add serious content and leave the consistency to people like me.

In the end, you may have pulled up a fair number of articles that don't have the format I advocate (because it seems to be general practice) then why would you change Spartacus (movie) against the general practice. Cburnett 18:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting kind of fun. :)

Fact #1: We have no way of knowing if the other really pulled out pages at random. Which leads us to:

Fact #2: First you say: "Wikipedia has a style guide and article layout practices to keep articles consistent." but then you add "A general practice (de facto standard if you will) isn't necessarily writen down.". Somewhat contradictory, right? I mean, for the future benefit of all, every Talk page of every film article should have a link to the writing guidelines so that messes like this one could be avoided! So, a few links if you please. ;) 213.250.75.218 19:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. If you think I'm a liar, then I can't help you with that. But I'm not the one posting anonymously here.
2. Yes, WP has a style guide (WP:MOS) and article layout practices (Wikipedia:Guide to layout) and de facto standards ("TITLE is a YEAR film", one category per line, etc.).

Cburnett 19:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, no, a liar you are not. But don't hold my anonymity against me. As I've said, I'm just testing the Wikipedia waters.

A community effort should afford to foster experiments which might benefit the community as a whole. Saying that a bunch of messy, practically stub-status pages use a certain (easily mended) style isn?t really saying much. I mean, here we are, at your talk page, when we should be having this discussion out in the open, in some page that lays out the conventions. You may continue this discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies.

Remember, a convention is something that can be upgraded. And its not so terrible if competing styles co-exist for a while. 62.148.218.217 20:37, 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)

Underscores

Sorry about that, it won't happen again.

Cheers,

davidzuccaro 09:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I just wish spaces were generally allowable in URLs so that wikipedia wouldn't have to substitute a space for an underscore. Cburnett 00:51, 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)

Category links

You have corrected my category links at Benjamin Britten. Why is that? Most of my work here is making category links, so I'd like to know. The links display correctly even if you don't type the whole name, don't they? I'm sorry if there's a rule about it, but I'm new to the English Wikipedia and haven't seen any rules about that yet. Reply on my talk page if possible. Thank you, --Missmarple 12:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Replicator stuff

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'll take it one point at a time:

1. About the expression "in the fictional universe". I used to think that that was unnecessary too, but whenever I wrote something about Star Trek, someone would soon come by and add this expression. I too enquired as to why that was necessary, and it was explained that, as an encyclopedia, when dealing with the realm of the imaginary, we must make an express remark to that effect. In that line of thinking, simply saying "in Star Trek" would be insufficient. I've come to agree with that, for just because you and I know that when saying "Star Trek" we're referring to an imaginary world, it doesn't mean that this will be crystal clear to everyone who happens to visit the articles. You will find that, ideally, any article that deals with similar stuff will open with something like it ("in the fictional.."; "in the tv show.."; but the word "fictional" is preferred).
2. About the capitalization of the name, I'm not sure. First, because the original show was not called "The Original Series", but rather just "Star Trek", this subtitle was added decades later, to better identify it amidst the other shows, which all carry subtitles. Furthermore, the expression was used in the context as a description, not as a proper name (since "Star Trek" was indeed the original series). It would be like calling TNG "the second series" in a sentence. This wouldn't be capitalized.
3. About the red link. I agree that red links are not "evil per se" (but many, many people here would disagree), but neither do they contribute to the reader's understanding of the theme, since they link nowhere. If we actually had an article on the episode in question, it would undoubtedly be better to link it, but since we don't, it's far more productive to link an article that we do have, a list of episodes (they are indeed linked in many articles, you are mistaken about this aspect), which let's the reader know a few more details about the episode at hand that are not given in the Replicator article (since it would be off topic). And in any case, there's a red link to the episode in the List of episodes article, so anyone who follows that would find the link to create the article just the same.
4. About the "formula" thing, I don't see that the word is abused in the paragraph. It appears twice in the text and once as part of an example. Peer review had not indicated that as a problem, since, again, it does not appear excessive. But I wouldn't devote too much effort to that paragraph just yet. Other aspects of it are currently in discussion, and that may lead to a substantial change in it (it's about the theory described, not the text per se). So we could spend some time discussing the language, only to have it all obliterated some time later.

Well, I guess that's all. I hope that I've covered all the bases. Regards, Redux 13:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok:

1. I'll go with that
2. Except it's become known as ST: The Original Series and named that way for precisely the way you're using it: it *is* the original series (as opposed to second, third, etc. series). So the descriptive use (the series that is the original) and the accepted name are one in the same. There's no reason to reference it descriptively.
3. If that article is created then the link will point to the wrong place and no one would know. I'm > < close to creating it just to "win" this point because I think it's extremely bad practice.
4. Whatever then. I think it's "bad English" since it's overly specific. How else is it going to arrange molecules if not to the formula at hand? It would be like replacing all uses of "it" in my previous sentences with "replicator" even though it's wholly unnecessary.

Cburnett 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. So, the points still standing:
2. As I said, I'm not sure. Your point seems valid enough. Besides, it's such a minor change that, unless it was some huge faux pas, it would not be worth an extensive debate about whether to capitalize the "o" and the "s". Let's go ahead and capitalize it then.
3. Well, I said that if we had an specific article, it would be the natural choice. Since we don't, linking the episode list is the best we can offer the reader, since he/she would at least find out that it's the 4th episode of the 2nd season and get a synopsis of it (as opposed to a red link that adds nothing to the knowledge of that episode). But I disagree that no one would know if the specific article had been created, after all the episode list is a compendium of links to episodes (most of them red at the moment), so if the article was ever created, it would show as a blue link to it, so people would know that the article exists &#150; and if that person is a diligent Wikipedian, he/she would go back to the replicator article and fix the link so it will point to the more specific article. In fact, if you did create that article (but didn't change the link), I'd correct it myself as soon as I found out about the specific article (we can always link the episode list in the "see also" section). But if you do get to it, be prepared for the usual "it's excessive to have individual articles for every episode of a tv show" lecture from other users.
4. As I said, it's not worth getting too much into this paragraph for now, since it could be changed or even deleted soon &#150; although the people who brought up the problems are taking an awful long time to reply in the discussion page. I'm starting to think that they lost interest and may not be returning to follow up on the issue.
Regards, Redux 20:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply: 2) Changed 3) Article created, link changed. 4) Mkay Cburnett 20:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. All settled then. You will notice, however, that I've removed from the replicator article the detail about T'Pol and her previous encounter with a replicator. I did it because it's off topic for that article, meaning it's too much detail about a ENT episode for the more general replicator article. Even more importantly, it doesn't add anything new to what had been stated before, since T'Pol's anecdote would still have happened in the 22nd century (as she is in her early 60s, and since the show takes place in the 2050's, she would have been born in the late 21st century, and thus her "interstellar career" would have taken place entirely in the 22nd century), wich still places the retconned replicator appearence in the 22nd century. Not to mention that the T'Pol story was mentioned in "Dead Stop" just the same &#150; notice that the precise circumstances of the appearence of the replicator are not given in the article, since that would be off topic, as it would be to mention all those details about T'Pol's seeing a replicator. In that article, it suffices to say that it was retconned to the 22nd century, since that is the goal of that passage. I do believe that this detail would be suited for the specific article that you have created though. I will leave that at your discretion. Regards, Redux 13:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category Condensing

Hey, I noticed you reverted my condensing on Blade Runner... is there a functional reason why I shouldn't condense? I do it purely for aesthetics of the article since a lot of categories will leave space on the bottom that I find distracting. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whitespace you describe is a known bug and there's a known working patch to correct that. I'm not involved in development but I suspect it will be in production use....sometime soon. There's no need to sacrifice readability & editability of the categories to avoid a bug that has a known patch. Cburnett 06:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Nav Box

I put the nav box at the bottom of the page of Conspiracy becuase I had done that to all the other episodes I revised and added too. Is that a problem? It's not a big deal to me, but thats how I did it for the other episodes. Things should be kept uniform. Cyberia23 19:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is consistency. We should find some kind of compromise and/or style consistency. See any ST:ENT episode. We seem to each have our own consistency. Cburnett 19:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think most of the trek pages were a mess. None of them were the same. Some had nothing but a crappy image of the VHS box, those have to go. Everyone has different opinions of what should be here. Like I said, I could care less where the nav box goes. I prefer the bottom just above the category box (which defaults to the bottom of the page anyway. I don't like the tables on the side. I already debated with someone on that, but I told him if he wanted them, then it was up to hiom to add them to the pages. I wasn't going to deal with them. So far he only did Encounter at Farpoint and then stopped. Cyberia23 20:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who? Look up #Next Gen Pages. :) I'm still here and intend on doing it.

Really, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek needs revival and a standard form with conventions made. Feel free to fire off "the perfect episdoe layout" there and we can go from there. It seems pretty much dead. Cburnett 20:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh that was you? Oops. I have a hard time keeping track of people around here, sorry. Cyberia23 15:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TRA

Towers is not short for Towers Residence Association. It is not short for anything. Towers Residence Association is merely the name for that residence group, it is a name of the residence association (that is the student government like the Towers senate) applied to the four buildings. Similar to UDA and RCA. Does that mean Union Dr. is short for Union Drive Association? No. The street was there first.

My edit was technically correct and yours was technically wrong. If you dispute that then contact me, do not revert my edit and make a sarcastic comment. It undermines the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia. People are not content to contribute if they are going to be "bossed around." We are all equals here and should act as such.

Furthermore, come this May the Towers Residence Association will no longer exist as the buildings will be unoccupied and/or gone, so perhaps we should remove this reference entirely. Adm58 04:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

First, you can calm down there, chief. "Um, what else is there in TRA except the towers?" was a comment out of confusion, but like I've said many times here....take it as you see fit. That said, you can cram the "we are all equals here" until you remove your negative assumptions off my talk page about my edits and your assumed negative collaboration on my part.

Second, your edit was "The towers are part of the Towers Residence Association" ergo my "what else is there in TRA except the towers?" summary. If anything TRA is a part of towers being that it's the student body composed of the people that live there. You've got it backwards and that makes you technically wrong.

Now that the finger pointing is dispensed. Thirdly, exactly where/when/how was "Towers" derived? Towers is not part of TRA and not named after the TRA. Rethinking it, "Towers" and, ergo, "TRA" was derived from the buildings being tower-like. But I wasn't here decades ago to know exactly how "Towers" was coined. Do you?

Finally, Towers should definitely remain on the page and the TRA should stay. What needs to be changed is the understanding of the etymology of "Towers".

Now, accept my apologies for you misinterpreting my edit summary and my crassness in this reply. I don't care for accusatorial mini-tirads on my talk page, presumably, as much as you like being reverted with, um what was it, "sarcastic comment"s. So perhaps we can ignore all that and find a better way to write about the towers. Or would you rather continue on with finger pointing and quasi-insults, which would be rather amusing since it was you that called for collaboration here. :) Cburnett 05:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. As I may have misinterpreted you, I think you also misinterpreted me.

Regardless of all that, we should recognize that TRA is not a physical locality nor the actual buildings, it is the association of those who live in the buildings. Particularly, student government. It is an indefinite thing anyways, as evidenced when in 2002 Helser Hall attempted to leave the UDA and form its own association. After this academic year TRA will no longer exist, you will have UDA, RCA, and Buchanan Hall which I do not believe falls under any residence association. Shouldn't we remove the TRA reference since it no longer applies? If not, why do we not have similar mentions of UDA and RCA? The term "towers" is the best description since it refers to the buildings themselves rather than the "society/government" that surrounds them. Adm58 08:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Edit: I just noticed your recent edit to the towers section. I appriciate it and think it is an improvement. I personally might tweak it a little more, but I will refrain unless you give me the okay to do so. Again, apologies for any negativity that may have surfaced on my part. I think the ISU notables page is a great thing and I just like to see things as precise as possible. Adm58 08:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead. Cburnett 17:58, Apr 3, 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)

Single lines?

Hi, I was just wondering what the objective of putting sentences into single lines is? I find single lines much harder to read in the edit box. I assumed that it was some sort of fluke edit at John Garang, but apparently not... Thanks, BanyanTree 23:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP uses a program called diff to generate the differences between revisions and one sentence per line makes them smaller, easier to read, and much smaller when viewing multiple revisions in a single diff. Read Wikipedia:Don't use line breaks, specifically the last section, for more on why. Cburnett 23:39, 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)

Image USA 2004 presidential popular vote

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)

Probability distribution plots

Hi - MarkSweep said that you and he were generating all new plots for the probability distributions for use in the template. I was talking to him about the specifications for the plots, because I think I can do some also. I have generated plots for Poisson distribution and Levy distribution as examples of discrete and continuous PDF's. I need to know if these are acceptable before I continue, because I don't want to waste a lot of time on work that will be replaced. I have not been able to get hold of him, can you let me know if these are ok, or if any changes need to be made? Thanks for any help you can give me - PAR 18:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some quick comments:

• Should upload them to the commons instead
• I'm not sure what to think about the discrete cases...whether they should be continuous plots with marks (like what you did) or more like impulse graphs or just marks. I think your Poisson graph will probably be the easiest to read, but I'm still wary of people misunderstanding it to be continuous... maybe hashed lines or something?
• Please upload your gnuplot source as well under GPL or PD (otherwise I'll eventually replace it with my own and provide gnuplot source)
• Need matching cdf's for those graphs
• I don't think MarkSweep's images follow this, but I think it's helpful to do what I did here Image:Exponential distribution pdf.png
  • State the gnuplot source is at the commons
  • Link to the distribution, pdf/pmf, and cdf on each image
  • Add to Category:Probability distributions images

Otherwise, everything else looks great. Cburnett 18:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the Poisson plot, check out the Skellam distribution where I put an explanation in the caption saying the lines did not imply continuity. I think hashed lines and dots is maybe too busy, and for impulses the multiple plots may be hard to separate. I'll go slow on the discrete ones, maybe we'll get a better idea. I did the plots with IDL, not gnuplot, etc. so should I leave the documentation up to you? The rest I will take care of. Thanks - PAR 19:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too keen with Skellam pmf since it takes up a lot of space. Perhaps just simply "Only valid at integers" or something....or remove it entirely and put it in the text around the pmf equation.

In that case, would you mind making a list of distributions on the template talk page that need gnuplot source? If it will generate the same plots as you make then that's fine with me. Cburnett 20:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean a list of distributions whose PDF and/or CDF images do not contain gnuplot source code on their respective pages? Because the Exponential distribution PDF only has a message "See the image on the commons for gnuplot source" which I don't get, because it leads to a rather general page. PAR 21:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, those that do not have gnuplot code with them. Re: expo, you clicked the wrong link — you have to click the "description page" link to get to the image at the commons. Cburnett 21:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to images not in the commmons, do they have to be downloaded then uploaded to the commons, or can I simply replace the "PD-self" with "GDFL" in their respective pages? Or is there another way to avoid the upload/download? Thanks - PAR 19:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you'll have to go to commons:Special:Upload and reupload it (probably want to create an account at commons as well). The commons is essentially a different wiki (so different upload and login pages) but setup to allow image usage as if it were on wikipedia. That help? Cburnett 19:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I notice that some probability distribution images have Category:probability distributions and some have Category:probability distributions images. It seems to me the second should be in all, but what about the first? PAR 00:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys, pardon my meddling, but I just noticed that we're all working on the same things and it might perhaps be easier to explicitly coordinate, so as to avoid duplication of effort. Second, our current practice for creating plots is documented on several talk pages, and it's hard even for me to stay informed about further developments, like the suggestions on how to handle discrete distributions above. How about we document the current practice on Template talk:Probability distribution and also add our names there to let everyone else know who's working on what? If Template talk:Probability distribution is not the best place, perhaps we could start a separate project, or move over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Probability? Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of Template talk:Probability distribution. I'll direct comments there from now on. Let me know if there's a better place. PAR 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I am troubled by the fact that you readily declaim WP:FICT as POV-pushing, and the allegations to several users that I am using it to harm Wikipedia. Check your sources, as you haven't read the links on there. WP:FICT is not policy, and I never claimed that it was, but it does have a large consensus behind it on a recent public discussion page that was up for several weeks. Plus, WP:FICT only gives guidelines for the long-established idea of be bold. Merging is not deletion. Radiant_* 14:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find something purported to be semi-policy with one author and no talk page, then I find you're the only one quoting and in a way that makes it look like policy. I already admitted that I somehow glazed over the discussion link, but if I had seen it then I would have left it alone. And I won't hide that I contacted some people I saw replying to your "as per WP:FICT" on VFD.

That said, when did I ever say it was "POV-pushing" and "harm[ing] Wikipedia". I am troubled that you're putting words in my mouth. Cburnett 14:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't use those exact words, but you have made thinly-veiled accusations of me unilaterally creating a policy (that would be POV-pushing) and then using it on VfD (that easily sounds harmful to WP). I don't know if this was intended or not, but your words are easily interpreted as such. Let me just state that nobody here has deleted, or is intending to delete, any of the Star Wars wikiarticles. This is, however, just meant as an explanation and I would prefer if we dropped the matter. Radiant_* 18:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did make those accusations, which I implicitly retracted when pointed out that I missed the link to the discussion. There were no thinly-veiled accusations, I made them pretty directly. Rephrasing anything I said or did is your preroggative and open to your interpretations.

Without that discussion link, you did exactly what I said (from WP:FICT talk) you:

• did the bulk of editting on WP:FICT

• No, I didn't. WP:FICT was formed in the discussion Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters, where I am only one of many editors. I created WP:FICT because the title, 'deletion policy' makes it sound like policy, which it is not.

• seem to be the only one using it on VFD

• That may seem so, but it is simply not true. I am the major user so far, but other people are also using it. Go to WP:FICT and click on 'what links here' to find out. Plus there are some people using it without linking to it.

If you want to interpret that as POV-pushing and harming WP, then I'm not going to stop you.

In the end, all this stems from me glazing over the discussion link and interpretting what I saw: a user creating a policy and using it. Other than triple-checking for a discussion link, I'd do the same thing again and I'd take the blame for being stupid again. So what exactly do you want me to say? That I was wrong and you weren't the only editor of WP:FICT (which you did) and that you seem to be the only one using it on VFD (I chose numerous from "what links here" and you were the linker). So the two accusations are true. I'll gladly risk making a mistake to stop someone from making their own policy and acting on it. Cburnett 18:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

See above. Radiant_* 08:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

You aren't understanding me, you did the bulk of editting on WP:FICT: [6]. Cburnett 17:22, Apr 7, 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)

ST Overviews

I know your probably getting sick of me, but I changed some of your overviews. I wouldn't mention too much detail in them, like you been doing. It's cheesy and too wordy for a single sentence. Cyberia23 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well then. We seem to have come to a huge disagreement here. Most of the overviews you've been reducing are not overviews of the episode....only one part of it. None of the detail I add is specifically spoilers.

The end point is to be able to also find an episode given a small bit of the story. Cutting out pertinent details removes this ability. Stop making the summaries your personal pet project and deleting my contributions (images included). Cburnett 22:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

You're a jackass, and what your doing is changing shit that don't need to be changed. You might not agree with everything I do, but whatever. In wikipedia anyone can edit anything, so thats what I'm doing. Editing. AKA Damage Control. We can play the revert game. I have time. We can go back and fourth. Besides, I don't take commands from you. Who made you the boss? What are you gonna do? Get me kicked off Wiki for editing? Oh dear, what will I do? I don't know if i could live. Cyberia23 08:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see, so you've called me a jackass and call my edits "damage control" for no good reason and threatening to revert anything I do. I never claimed to be your boss, only that you're being extremely one-sided in what is sufficient. Cburnett 14:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You know what I hate? I hate seeing things abandoned and done half-assed. I been a Wiki member for about a year, and I came here and found a bunch of Star Trek stuff here, but nothing was organized. It was a haphazard mess of pages each with it's particular style and format. So I thought, "why not make them better, add some uniformity, and include as much as I can". I began that, and finished the Original Series, and moved onto Next Gen. Now I meet you. All of a sudden it's a turf war. I start something and people have to take an interest all of sudden and "help out", and to do that you need a set of rules and guidelines or else shit gets fucked up like it has been. A war starts, people get pissed off and leave, and once again shit gets abandoned and left half-assed. I've seen it done many times on other websites, and of course in real life. I'm a musician on the side, I can;t tell you how many bands I've been in that have collapsed becuase the members can't agree. So now I do shit myself. I'd rather do it alone anyway, cause I hate dealing with people.

You come in start adding things throwing off what I did. That was annoying, but yes, this is an open community and people can come in and do shit like that. However, you started something you never finished. I thought you were going to add tables to all the synopsis pages. You did "Farpoint" and a few more. Yeah I deleted them, but you said "let's talk" and get a community opinion. Well no one said anything, cause no one cares. So it's between me and you. The only chat I get is complaints by people like Kappa and chicken-shit anon users from Memory Alpha of why we're wasting time even doing this here and it should be deleted. Despite their attempts the admins allow us to continue, but as I said it's just you and me and we seem to disagree of what goes here. Nothing will get done.

I'd like to have simplicity and unifomity. Sorry that my style. I gave in to your table ideas, but where are they? You seemed to have abandoned that. You said you'd get to it, but I haven't seen it. You instead tackled the Next Gen listing page, which I said was a good idea, I liked how it looks with the pics and all. Then I said I have images upto half of season 3 already available. Now you started a rat race and began posting your own. None of yours are the same size as the ones I put in, so when it comes time to add the synopsis page the pic will be too big. Now I have to fuck around with pixel size and have a stupid "thumbnail" icon next to it. All your doing is making more work for me. Handsdown your the table master, but I think they're a waste of time and I hate editing them. You accidently delete the wrong thing and it screws everything up.

Anyway, do what you want since nothing will turn out how I planned it, and I don't want to war with people anymore. It's no longer worth my time. So have fun with your edits tables and whatever else. It's yours, enjoy it. However, I'll place a $1000 bet I come here in 6 months and see the same shit unfinished and abandoned like everything else, or the "deletion army" finally gets their way and it all gets taken down. Cyberia23 16:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's amusing is that you've gone from deleting my edits for "damage control" (who exactly is bossing whom around when you threaten to invoke a revert war because "you have time"?) to essentially "fuck this, fuck you, fuck off" (but at least said in a more civil tone).

I have no intention of driving you away nor do I intend on being a jackass nor being your boss. This entire discussion/pissing contest/flaming/whatever-you-want-to-call-it started because we have different definitions of "overview". Mine is not leaving out major plot details, but you apparently want a brief one-liner soundbite at the maximum. Except you're flat-out refusing to consider anything but what you write and you've made it explicitly clear you'd kick in the revert machine into high gear to keep your way. Crickey, you aren't even willing to consider discussion on the overviews: just reverting to keep your way.

This is not a turf war, this is you getting irate over not having your way. I only joined in on TNG because I happen to like the show and saw there was interest in fleshing out all the articles. I'm also helping edit the probability distributions because there's interest there as well. There's some degree of "fun" in editing a topic with others.

Regarding images. You can scale images without having to edit them. It's a very basic wiki feature:

• File:ST-TNG The Child.jpg
• File:ST-TNG The Child.jpg
• File:ST-TNG The Child.jpg
• File:ST-TNG The Child.jpg

So you'll have to excuse me when I say that's a BS excuse to upload new pictures and cry it's making too much work for you. Just wait until you run out of images and I'll have to supply the rest, but I suppose that'll be "too much work" for you as well? Come on, you're being unreasonable with this.

Regarding your "plans" to articles. At the bottom of the edit page you'll see:

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

So if you can't tolerate others editing articles you've written and "planned" then perhaps you should leave WP since you failed to read what I quoted above. Sheesh, and my overview edits are a far cry from merciless editting.

Regarding the infoboxes. If you desire to remove them, go ahead, but I'll put them back when the rest of the articles are done. It'll be much easier to edit them all in one fell swoop than adding them along the way...and god forbid I, or anyone else for that matter, actually write a synopsis on an article and really screw up your plan.

So, in short: are you going to continue to be "it's my way or the highway" and revert anything that impedes your "plan" as damage in addition to calling fellow wikipedians as jackasses for good-faith editing and never even attempting to discuss compromises? If you want to continue as a loner, then you came to the wrong place.

But you know what I hate? I hate wasting my time bickering and arguing about the inconsequential instead of editing articles and collaborating. But I go with it and consider it a "hazard" to the territory of wikipedia. The real question is can you go with there being more than one editor for articles you edit? It certainly doesn't look like it. Cburnett 20:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well like I said, you wanna work on them, go ahead. I won't stop you. I prefer doing it myself, and since that apparently won't happen, it's no longer enjoyable for me. So, I'm done. Cyberia23 21:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

M-kay, so me adding a few details to overviews to cover the gapping holes in the plot, adding infoboxes, and tabulating tabular data is too much for you.

Basically what you've said in this discussion is you refuse to collaborate with others on a web site that thrives on collaboration and when others attempt to collaborate, you get combative, insulting, and quick-triggered to keep it your way. What exactly were you expecting at wikipedia? Perhaps of the thousands upon thousands of editors here, that you'd be the only one interested in the most popular Star Trek series ever??? I know next to nothing about you personally, but I refuse to believe you're that unintelligent. Cburnett 21:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very well aware of what Wikipedia is about. You walked in, however, being ignorant to what was already in place and how it's arranged and organized, and then try to outpace me at every turn. You might think thats selfish egotistical rhetoric on my part, but whatever the fuckin deal is, I DON'T CARE ANYMORE, so by all means have it your way from now on. I won't interfere in your edits, so you can stop trying to psycho-analyse me and twist my words around to make me sound like a moron. I don't mind working with people, as long as they don't have their head up their ass, and I lack the patience to wait around to see what they're doing, so you're right; I guess Wiki, or at least the Star Trek editing part of it isn't for me, which is why I said I was quitting. Cyberia23 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you insist: adios. Cburnett 00:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's too bad. I appreciate the heads up... further discussion will be @ the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:03, 12 Apr 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)

Noise and covariance

Thanks for your help with the Kalman filter article. I hope you don't mind my asking - given Q, how would one go about generating a sample from N(0, Q)? Thanks! — ciphergoth 11:00, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Generally, you have to generate a vector of white noise with each element is independent from each other (as if the covariance matrix were identity). Getting access to a white noise generator is dependent upon your language, but almost all should be able to give you a uniform(0,1) generator which can be used with the Box-Muller transform to give you standard normal samples. (You can convert a standard normal to any other normal by multiplying by the desired standard deviation and add the mean.)

Once you have your normal samples, you have to do a process I can't recall of the top of my head. It involves taking the Cholesky decomposition of the covariance matrix and such. You'll probably have to search online or in a text for "pre-whitening", which does the opposite: whitens colored noise. Cburnett 16:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks! Cholesky decomposition was the key phrase I needed, and once you have Q = AA^T it's simple. Let g be a random vector of values drawn from a standard normal distribution, and w = Ag. Then E[ww^T] = E[Ag(Ag)^T)] = A E[gg^T] A^T = AA^T = Q. Fantastic - thanks again!

Now the question is where to put that since it'd be worth putting on WP. Definitely on Cholesky decomposition and perhaps a pointer from colors of noise and Multivariate normal distribution to that section on Cholesky decomposition page? Cburnett 17:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would say detail it on Multivariate normal distribution and link to it on Cholesky decomposition rather than vice versa. — ciphergoth 20:06, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Except it applies to any distribution...not just MV normal. Cburnett 00:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised by that - I had convinced myself that because normal distributions are the only ones preserved by summation, they were the only ones you could do this matrix trickery with. Could you give an example? — ciphergoth 08:31, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Anything really, I guess. If you had a MV uniform(0,1) then E(g*g^T) = I*var(uniform(0,1)) = I*(1/12) then E(ww^T) = E(Ag(Ag)^T) = A * E(gg^T) * A^T = AA^T/12 = Q/12. The non-unity variance is taken care of by multiplying by the inverse of E(g*g^T), which is I think a missing part of w=Ag and should be w=AgR^-1 where R=E(g*g^T) or something. I'd have to sit down and double check that (might be off by a half) though.

Really though, stacking independent samples into a vector is essentially the same thing as if you had an MV normal. Cburnett 14:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The covariance matrix for an independent MV standard normal vector is an identity matrix, that's what's so convenient. The thing is that an MV normal is characterised by μ and Q, and it stays MV normal when you apply a matrix to it. I guess what you say about an MV uniform is true, but it's less interesting because the resulting covariance matrix doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the resulting vector's distribution... — ciphergoth 16:53, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Interestingness aside :), coloring/correlating random data is a "function" of the Cholesky decomposition. I'd be perfectly happy with a general method to coloring noise in the Cholesky decomp article and then a specific method for MV normal. Maybe even a note on probability distribution or something as well. At least so if someone's curious how to color noise, they can find it at Cholesky decomposition, a link on probability distribution, or at multivariate normal distribution where they're most likely going to color (since there's a prevalence of using WGN or AWGN). Cburnett 18:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image correction: Enterprise

Hi. I made a correction to the location of the image you had for episode 117 (Fusion) in the List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes article. The one you had was actually a shot from 115 (Shadows of P'Jem). I thought I'd mention this because the image is actually called ep117 and this might cause some confusion when more images are added. You may want to rename it. (I note on the image page that you do have the episode name correct, so the numbers just got mixed up). 23skidoo 02:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put the image up for speedy delete, reuploaded it under the correct name (Image:Enterprise ep115 screenshot.jpg), and change the links to it. Cburnett 02:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx on Alpha Phi Omega

Thank you on the image characteristics redo, I'm still learning and was adopting what was there before.

Sorting categories

There is no such "de facto" standard in favor of sorting categories alphabetically—the main reason many articles are sorted that way is that's the result that bot addition and subtraction of categories typically leaves. Considering how categories classify articles, why wouldn't the most significant categories the article belongs to go first? The letter or number a category begins with is completely arbitrary and so that shouldn't dictate which ones appear more prominently. I can understand there being some disagreement as to which ones are more important for a particular subject, but the assertion that there should be no such attempt at sorting them is completely meritless. Postdlf 01:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forgive my interjection, this was just too tempting to stay away. I agree with Postdlf about significant categories being first. Now, about bots, it is probably easy to teach a bot to keep the order of categories, actually, one should I guess even insist that bot authors make sure the order of categories is preserved. I wonder if Postdlf actually has an example of a bot which was messing up the order. Oleg Alexandrov 01:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorting alphabetically is objective. Since when has objectivity become meritless? You two are the *first* I have seen to be opposed to alphabetical sorting. Every other editor I've ran acrossed that has taken a moment to sort cats has done it alphabetically. Cburnett 01:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Since I don't see why this discussion must be relegated to my talk page:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Categories in articles: alphabetized or other.3F

Cburnett 01:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

ST:VOY

I wasn't the one that removed (VOY) from all the ep links. Would you have rather I left all 55 alone that were pointing at non-ST related articles such as Phage and Tattoo? And I really appreciate your linking what you wanted me to refer to. It's always so helpful when people...oh, wait, you couldn't be bothered to take the extra 30 seconds. Nevermind. Niteowlneils 04:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek#See also -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek boy that was hard to find. For someone with over 15,000 edits I didn't see it necessary to hold your hand for you.

Now that the cat-fight is over (unless you'd rather continue what you started): no, I didn't think they should have stayed links to the wrong articles. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I can't inform you of what they should be, does it? Do you need to re-read WP:FAITH or what? What's with the sour attitude? Cburnett 04:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Kalman filter and var(X)

Please comment on the use of var(X) in Talk:Kalman filter - thanks! — ciphergoth 12:39, 2005 Apr 20 (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:

• 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)

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)

Small Pictures

About the mini-pictures, I must admit they were too small, can we do a background image in the table ok a whole new table? ---- Astroweb (sig added by Cburnett)

Might be worth bumping the size up to 100px or something add expanding the table to include a mini-synopsis. Something to justify the extra vertical space needed for the picture. Cburnett 03:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making them 75px though I had to widen the text boxes to keep the titles on one line. I agree adding a mini-synopsis would be a good idea. 23skidoo 16:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Starship Enterprise article

Canon is clashing with non-canon at the Starship Enterprise article. A couple of anons are trying to insert non-canon speculation as to the nature of the Enterprises F, G, H, I and J-- apparently they've even created articles for the F to I vessels which I imagine aren't long for this world if anyone decides to do a VfD. I can't do another revert without violating the Three-Revert Rule (I reverted two edits at once just now so technically I'm at my limit now). As a soon-to-be-admin ;-) could you take a look and perhaps offer your opinion on the matter? I'm going by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek for the most part on this, but I get the feeling the anon's aren't bothering to go look for themselves. Thanks! PS. Please reply on my Talk page - thanks! 23skidoo 16:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did the articles about the H and I because F and G were already there or something like that (for continuity), but if you feel that they really should not exist I will not oppose too, but there is no indication that the J did not in fact exist, where would Daniels come from? --Astrowob 01:34, 25 Apr 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:

• Reads like a news report (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base, #5)
• Skews the article in favor of one minor topic
• Is written in a weird non-encyclopedic way
• Slightly confusing to those not familiar with the incident

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)

Around the World in 80 Treasures

So glad that someone else has been watching and enjoying this series. Cruickshank's such an enthusiastic and interesting presenter, he really conveys his excitement for seeing these incredible places... and just makes me want to travel even more! - MykReeve T·C 10:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I find myself wishing there were more than 10 episodes. For every treasure he visits I'm sure there are literally millions of people watching the show that haven't and never will see it in person. Cburnett 13:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen any of his other shows? The specials where he went to Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel to look at how the museums and buildings of those countries have been affected by warfare were really superb. It's interesting - I like Michael Palin's travel series too, but Cruickshanks' have that additional element that he's so very interested in the culture and architecture of the places he visits. And, as for the treasures themselves... I'm up to 17! - MykReeve T·C 17:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually...I haven't. First time I've even heard of him...but I don't live in the UK so I guess I have an excuse... Cburnett 04:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Inline TeX

You seem to like inline TeX so much that you're changing inline non-TeX mathematical notation to inline TeX. Why is that? On Wikipedia, TeX looks very good when "displayed", and in the normal use of TeX (as opposed to its use on Wikipedia), it looks very good either "displayed" or inline. But on Wikipedia, when TeX is embedded in lines of text, it often looks terrible; either far to big or badly misaligned or both. Michael Hardy 23:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion at least once.... Cburnett 23:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is weird to write

$X\,$ ~ $N(0,1)\,$

instead of

$X\sim N(0,1).\,$

Michael Hardy 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was at MarkSweep's request since \sim isn't converted in HTML when possible. Should fill that out as a bug I guess. I've since changed usage of breaking out of tex since it clashes heavily when forcing PNG rendering. Cburnett 23:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to comment: Let's distinguish inline TeX from inline <math> (because "TeX" is ambiguous between the TeX language and the tex program that is used to convert TeX expressions into DVI, which are then converted into PNG). I think a reasonable solution is to use inline math whenever it is possible to render it in HTML. The problem with ordinary markup (double quotes for italics, etc., as opposed to inline math) is not only that it's more cumbersome and error prone and less intuitive (need to remember to write &minus; etc.), but also that people who prefer math to be rendered as PNG everywhere (per user preferences) don't get formulas constructed with ordinary markup rendered as PNG. For those readers, ordinary markup is a minor annoyance surprise, because their user preferences have no effect. So I suggest we use <math> markup as much as possible, except where it would force an inline formula to render as PNG. So, for example:

rendered	source	comment
$X\sim \mathrm {N} (\mu ,\sigma ^{2})$	<math>X \sim \mathrm{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)</math>	bad, forces PNG rendering
X ~ N(μ, σ2)	''X'' ~ N(''μ'', ''σ''<sup>2</sup>)	bad, precludes PNG rendering
$X$ ~ $\mathrm {N} (\mu ,\sigma ^{2})$	<math>X</math> ~ <math>\mathrm{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)</math>	good, because it neither forces nor precludes PNG rendering

Look at this page with different math rendering preferences to see the difference.

The example on the last row of this table is still problematic, because when texvc renders this formula as HTML it does not italicize lower case Greek letters. On the other hand it incorrectly italicizes upper case Greek letters like \Alpha that are not ordinarly defined in TeX. I've filed a number of requests for enhancement against texvc, and would work on it myself if I was fluent in OCaml, which I'm not. Meanwhile, I think the solution I've optimisitcally labeled "good" is a decent compromise.

To sum up, I recommend using <math> everywhere, provided that if it's used inline with text then HTML rendering must be possible. (There are a number of cases where HTML rendering is possible but looks ugly – all "big" elements, like sums, integrals, fractions, etc. Those should not be used inline in the first place.) --MarkSweep 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any reason to object adding \sim <--> ~ conversion on bugzilla? At least it solves the "distributed as" problem. Cburnett 02:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead anyway: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2015 Cburnett 02:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I was about to say this, but there was an edit conflict:

Perhaps it's more effective to list several of these together? I don't know how to go about this, but there must be a list somewhere of all the macros texvc knows about (we can always consult the texvc source). If there are other symbols like \sim that have Unicode/HTML equivalents and trigger unnecessary PNG rendering, it may be best to replace them all in one go. I don't have time to look into this at the moment. Why don't you go ahead and list it on bugzilla and I'll file a comment to go along with your report if/when I find other affected symbols?

I'll have a look. --MarkSweep 02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Each time so far I intersected with Cburnett we did not agree. :) Forgive my interjecting. Just one remark. According to Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive4(TeX), one should not use inline PNGs. This is the community consensus. So, unless we have a new community talk about this, I believe this should be followed. Cburnett, any comments? Oleg Alexandrov 03:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any disagreement. Inline PNGs are not desirable, but that need not stop us from using inline <math>. There is nothing wrong with inline math as long as it does not result in obligatory PNG rendering. So for formulas in text, we should only use <math> markup that can be rendered as HTML and leave it to user preferences to determine how it will actually be rendered. --MarkSweep 04:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm fairly certain that most of my inline tex is renderable as HTML. The exception is \sim, which has been added to bugzilla. Are there others? Cburnett 04:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have any specific example. I assumed you don't mind inline PNGs from your response in your first conversation with Michael Hardy, way above. So we agree on this one! Oleg Alexandrov 04:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the uniform style for my equations and HTML renders too differently (the image alignment with text is purely a CSS issue to be resolved AFAIC). What would be top notch is if we could set a preference to tip tex as to what font we'd like it rendered as. Cburnett 04:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

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)