User talk:MJBurrage

Archives

Aérospatiale Gazelle & Highwayman

I noticed you added the pop culture reference to the Gazelle article but it will probably get deleted. I had added it and I got into an argument with someone who kept deleting the reference from the Gazelle page saying it wasn't "notable" enough - and it pretty much came down to him having never seen "The Highwayman" series and therefore he didn't want it on the helicopter's page. Cyberia23 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Dew userbox

This user drinks Mountain Dew.

Thought you might like this code. It adds a picture to the Mountain Dew userbox. I didn't want to just barge in and change your page.

Have a great day! – J.delanoy 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Grit

Many thanks for starting the article on the TV movie. I hadn't caught that "further" title in my research. It's a big help. — WiseKwai 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters in Film

GREAT job on the "Helicopters in Film" – ANigg 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf clean-up

Thanks for the clean-up in the Airwolf (helicopter) page's Infobox. That's kinda what I had in mind when I forked off the page from the Airwolf series article, but never got around to finishing it up. Also, thanks for helping out on the Bell 222 and 430. I think I remember seeing you around late last year when I joined Wiki, but not much since then, so it's good to see you active again. We may do some things a bit differently, but the important things is producing good articles, and you are doing that.

A drive-by editor actually suggested the Airwolf (helicopter) page be created a few months back, but I haven't seen him around since then. I think the Airwolf page has worked out better that I thought it would (though I did think it was a good idea), and seems to draw alot of interest and activity. Given that, do you think there are enough good sources or interest to do justice to a Blue Thunder (helicopter) page along the same lines? - BillCJ 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Mozart Festival

You are right that I originally authored the section on financial sustainability, and indeed the entire article, last year. My writing was based largely on the historical piece by Ms. Hill, which I cited. The financial section was unfortunately based only on word-of-mouth information I received by attending the Mozart Festival in the summer. In retrospect, I can see why it has proven problematic, as it does not appear to be of lasting "encyclopedic" value--falling more in the category of gossip. I do not consider it crucial to the presentation of the VMF; indeed, its presence seems to impede attempts at maintaining a professional, unbiased tone. The anonymous edits do appear to be self-promoting, favoring the new administration, though the original content was perhaps "promotional" as well, reading a bit too much like an advertisement and plea for donations. Having reviewed the edit history, my conclusion is that the best course would be to simply extract this section from the article. If one could provide a more detailed financial overview of the festival stretching back to its founding, then I would see it as having some lasting value and interest, but as it is the section is too caught up in the present politics of the organization. - Chaognosis 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]