User talk:Cburnett/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I hereby award you this long overdue Barnstar for your tireless quality contributions, notably the STNG list. - RoyBoy 800 16:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Photographic lenses[edit]

Hi, sorry I have taken so long to reply, but I've been away from WP and only just noticed your question (from July) on my talk page. You've probably found out already (or don't need the info anymore) since I've left it so long, but just in case, an "element" is generally a single lens, made from one piece of glass, and a "group" is a group of lenses (elements) that are touching or very close together. If you look at Zeiss Tessar, you can see four elements, and three groups, for instance. --Bob Mellish 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

TCP: Connection termination[edit]

The topic was discussed in the talk page. There was a previous edit war going on, which i noticed and tried to stop. I did try to make it neutral, but your version is a even better. Thank you.

I do have a few concerns, however:

1. You stated there is a two way method of closing a connection? Please describe this! I am unaware of a way to do it in only two ways, aside from the first side ignoring the FIN/ACK, which seems to violate the protocol.

2. Furthermore, there is literature (see the talk page) which supposedly refers to the termination as 3-way, regardless of actual method used.

3. The connection process is pretty much universally described as a three-way handshake, despite the fact that it could be done in more steps. Shouldn't this lend credibility to the description of termination as a three-step process?

Let's talk on the talk page as this is an interesting point: How do we determine how many packets are required to establish or terminate a connection.

--Kevin L'Huillier 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement on STCP[edit]

Hello. If possible, I would appreciate a quicker response to Talk:Stream Control Transmission Protocol (section 'TCP stream reassembly') so the case can be closed. -- intgr 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png[edit]

Thanks for creating Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png; just to let you know that your help is appreciated JdH 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to Sadi's comment: you did see the clean version of that image (Image:Solar Updraft Tower clean.png) which could be used on the articles in other languages (I suppose I should have put it on commons instead)? Thanks for note, I appreciate it. :) Cburnett 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could; I think that the sister projects could benefit from it. Trick is that you would have to let them know that it is there; one way of doing that is create a gallery under Commons, and insert links to Commons in the sister projects. You may want to look at Willem Einthoven and Commons:Willem Einthoven to see how that is done. JdH 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Or put the textless image on the other pages to make it visible with links to english and french hoping someone can translate from one of them. Cburnett 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeoman Rand Tampering[edit]

Your an admin now right? If so, please keep an eye on this Rustyblue. He likes to slap images of Yeoman Rand in all the TOS articles, really big annoying ones that have no place there. He even pissed me off by changing the image for The Enemy Within with some stupid crap he found trying to be sneaky about it. I warned him in the past of this on his talkpage but he completely ignores it and continues his bullshit. I think an official warning by an admin threatening a ban or something would be appropriate in this case. At least let him know that Wikipedia doesn't allow articles to become a user's personal scrapbook. Since the TV screen shots are on the choppingblock right now, we don't need trolls around here vandalising images to make a stupid point. Thanks. Cyberia23 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

could you take a look at...[edit]

... Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem and comment on this content dispute i am having with a fairly recent editor to the article. i think, from your earlier comments on the talk page, that i have some of the same concerns as you. BTW, i created the zero-order hold and first-order hold pages you have on your Things to work on section of your user page. i hope you approve.

my goal of the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is to keep it technically accessable, yet accurate from the POV of the Electrical Engineering discipline (which means we treat the Dirac delta like the limit of the nascent functions and less strictly than as a tempered distribution). but my difficulty with this latest editor is not about that. r b-j 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about the logic of proofs. I would also value objective commentary on these issues. As a "fairly recent editor" I don't have much experience with how to handle disputes in which someone refuses to respond to particular points, especially when they involve logic. Dicklyon 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 alpha-3[edit]

Hi, sorry that I didn't inform you when I reverted the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 article. Personally, I don't like the 3-letter country templates, since there's no rule of what the countries' display name should be, so they are arbitrary and any user can change them when they want. And I'd prefer the ISO pages follow the usage of ISO's official country names. You can find the list at ISO 3166-1. Chanheigeorge 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's make them none arbitrary and put <noinclude> notes on the templates saying it's the ISO 3166-1 name and to not change it unless ISO changes it. How about that? Cburnett 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean the 3-letter country templates? I don't think that's a good idea. A lot of the people who use them are not aware that they're using ISO codes. And sometimes the official ISO country names are a mouthful, e.g. IRN -> "Iran, Islamic Republic of", while the template now displays  Iran, which is actually better in most cases. Chanheigeorge 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention some controversial names chosen by ISO (and by UN), e.g. TWN -> "Taiwan, Province of China" or MKD -> "Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of". Chanheigeorge 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So how about {{ISO IRN}} instead? Cburnett 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that should be okay if you create these templates. Chanheigeorge 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I am unsure why you have reverted various -taxis topics from redirects to the (fairly short) article taxis to individual articles. As they stand, they are merely dictionary definitions, which do not belong in Wikipedia. They should only be split out from the main article (in this case, "taxis") when that article starts getting too big, which I don't expect will happen soon. I have reverted them all to redirect to taxis. By all means expand that article, but I see no gain from having many tiny articles which say nothing more than, for instance, "Geotaxis is a taxis stimulated by gravity", since this fact is already included in taxis. --Stemonitis 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you don't want stubs then delete the redirects and leave the links. Red links are not bad. Redirects exist to increase the chance of finding the correct article but redirecting geotaxis to taxis requires that the geotaxis word not be linked otherwise you will link to the same page. So what happens if someone writes an article for geotaxis? This then depends on them fixing taxis now too and if they don't then geotaxis will be an orphan article.
The status quo (which you brought back) does not encourage anyone to write the article on geotaxis. A stub would encourage more because there is already a start. All around, the visitor loses, IMO. And that's why I changed the redirects to stubs (there was no proper reversion done as that was all original work). And to be honest, I now have less desire to pick one up and write more than a stub on it. Is that what you were aiming for when reverting my work? What's worse: having a stub article or discouraging even seasoned editors from editing? Cburnett 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Not being an admin., I lack the ability to delete the redirects. For that, you'd have to ask someone else. As I mentioned above (albeit too briefly), the best way forward is to add information to the article taxis. You can do this, I could do this, and any new editor could also do this. Nobody needs to feel put off doing anything. The medium for such information exists, and there's nothing stopping anyone from adding anything. If there's enough information about any particular subtopic, such as geotaxis, then that will become apparent as the parent article taxis grows to accommodate it. What you created weren't even stubs — they were one-line definitions that repeated the content at "taxis". This puts readers off, who are enticed to click on a link with the promise of more information, and find none. That is worse than putting editors off. We often forget to think about things from a reader's point of view, but it's the most important aspect.
Having geotaxis being a redirect only means that taxis should not link to it. Any other article can and not, as you claim, that the article will inevitably be an orphan. If it's only ever going to be linked to from one article, then perhaps the topic isn't that important. I don't think this is the case; I'm sure there must be lots to say about geotaxis, and all other taxes, with plenty of examples, a discussion of the evolutionary importance, etc., etc., etc. So, don't feel put off. I'm not trying to kill the topic. I'm just applying a temporary measure to keep the information in one place. You'll notice that I've left articles like phototaxis and rheotaxis alone, although they could conceivably be merged into taxis as well (this would be a matter of taste, and not worth arguing about). Once you've got that much to say, a separate article is justifiable. Until then, it's not. --Stemonitis 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Taxis contains a list which is not even remotely the right way to "add information" about geotaxis. To add information requires rewriting the article in non-list form, and believe it or not, that may be too high of a bar for some to care to add in details. I only did what I did because it made no sense to have some unlinked and it snowballed from there to, what I think, remedy the situation.
Not intending to lay a guilt trip on you, but what you did is stop the chance of me writing more about a taxis be restricting it all back into a list. And my desire to do anymore has completely waned as the effort in arguing this vastly exceeds what I want to put into it and, not to mention, that my work on it thus far has been all but erased. Had my effort been for nought, I probably would have made those articles more than they were but since I have to argue my way through the editing...I leave the stagnant taxis to you as I no longer care. Congrats; have fun with it; peace out; and good luck on the biology doctorate. Cburnett 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the new format will make it easier for editors, including yourself, to flesh out the details of specific taxes. You are right that a bald list is not the best way to present the information, so I have abandoned that for a quick prose list, followed by more detailed sections. --Stemonitis 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemotaxis and categories[edit]

Hi Cburnett, Thanks for the work on the Chemotaxis page. You have deleted two categories, 'Behavior' and 'Perception'. I agree, that both have more underlined significance in neurology and psychology, however, 'swimming behavior' and 'migratory behavior' is/was frequently used to describe chemotaxis as well as perception has also aspects at receptor level. Therefore I resored the two categories, after checking the keyword-lists belonging to them. If you have any problem with it or you have a stronger evidence against the above mentioned categories please let me know, I am happy with any improval on the page. Thanks again. Best regards from Kohlasz 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Three sheets to the wind[edit]

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

PHA ribbon[edit]

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

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

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

List of The Daily Show guests[edit]

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

I suppose that's a threat... Cburnett 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What? It's obviously not a speedy. I prod, you contest, the next step is AFD. Hbdragon88 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests sure as hell looks like a consensus to me. I'm not sure which deletion debate you're talking about. Cburnett 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

List of Ethnic Chess Openings[edit]

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

Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight redirect[edit]

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

Cyberias message[edit]

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

I would much appreciate it. I'm just slowly chugging along, in chronological order, on ST:TNG. Cburnett 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
An example of a fair use rational/template I use is here - I don't even think some of the fair use policies more prominent members could argue with that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Baseball diamond image[edit]

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

Well, I finally got around to determining the minimum and maximum dimensions of existing MLB fields. We can say in the diagram "Distance down foul lines varies between 302' and 355'" and "Distance to straightaway center field varies between 390' and 435'" (the extreme marks, by the way, are held by Fenway Park [short foul line, short center], Wrigley Field [long foul line], and the Astros' Minute Maid Park [deep center]). I also noticed one crucial label missing from the diagram: Home plate.—DCGeist 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup and I've updated the image & responded on Talk:Baseball. Cburnett 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Heroes summary[edit]

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

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

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

Once again, don't take this personally. And, if it makes you feel any better, I plan on writing professionally. Between that and being a wikipedian, I'm kind of hard on this sort of thing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
List of Heroes episodes is all yours now; Ed, for that matter is all yours two — I really dont give a damn now as, i, wrote all that wordage too provide much depth coverage and most full over view of episode, such that, Ed make happier because...more context = more words = more critical commentary farther to justifi fare use rationale for teh screenshot in an attempt 2 determin what is needed 2 hope fully, and possibley, put the fare use, & episode list issue to rest completely because I'm – quite frankly - very tire off dealing wif it every where I go
Don't take it personally? Kiss my ass. 22k edits on 10k articles. Only once have I voluntarily quite editing an article because of another editor (hint: it's not Ed nor Oden who stalked me after I blocked him). You make two. Congrats! I hope your writing ability surpasses your understanding of copyrights by leagues because your understanding is more pathetic than my crappy mess that — here's a kicker — I honestly didn't even proofread. Cburnett 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Timing Diagrams link removal[edit]

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

Sure thing. Wikipedia:External links. Of interest is the Links normally to be avoided section and number 4:
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
My only objection is the link you added is for a commercial product and doesn't add to the understanding of what a timing diagram is. If the company has a FAQ or tutorial on timing diagrams then by all means link to it and we can go from there, but that's a separate issue. The main concern is that adding links to commercial websites puts wikipedia (and its editors) in the position of deciding which links to keep (otherwise we become a links directory) which leads to other questions that wikipedia is not intended to answer: which product/company is best? or which product/company doesn't make the cut?
Now, if the product you linked were of direct interest (there are thousands of these on wikipedia such as on the Microsoft Windows or Pro/ENGINEER) then the link is just fine.
On a complete side note: on your user page, if you remove the leading spaces then your text won't be considered preformated. Note difference between:


  • this

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

Ah, I was wondering what was going on my user page. I just made the page and didn't have a lot of time to investigate the problem. Generally I've just made grammar and spelling changes to wikipedia, so never bothered to set up an account before.
Ok, seems like a reasonable method of handling the links. We do have a lot of reference material about timing diagrams and methods of performing timing analysis with timing diagrams but it is spread out on our site, so when I can spare some time, I'll make an overview page on our site with direct links to the reference material and add a link to the overview page. Thanks for the clarification.DNotestein 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just keep in mind the conflict of interest. :) Cburnett 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Felis concolor[edit]

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

I have such a question posed at Talk:Cougar#Felis concolor vs. puma concolor. If you're asking because of my revert on Henry Doorly Zoo then my reasoning is simple: the zoo uses felis concolor then so should we. If they are the same (I honestly have no clue) then there's no difference either way except the zoo uses felis concolor. Seems pretty cut and dry to me... Cburnett 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hard to say, yeah I saw that and was just wondering. A quick Google search turns up hits on either.A mcmurray 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image use[edit]

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

Excellent. If there's an image you think I could create to add to the book please don't hesitate to ask. Cburnett 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there are probably so many images this book would need, but it's too early now to start working it all out. There is alot of text that needs to get written, and then we can figure out what images we need to add extra clarification. Thanks for the offer though. --User:Wknight8111 (WB:Whiteknight) 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do..[edit]

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

you are awesome![edit]

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

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

Chronological order on filmographies[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh I wasn't saying it was vandalism.

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

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

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

Screenshot FU template[edit]

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

Shouldn't we roll the "This image is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: it is a low resolution still of a TV series;" etc. into this template? Then there would be nothing but fields to fill out, and new users would be more likely to correctly create these image pages. - Peregrine Fisher 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. All that would have to be optional to some degree. Cburnett 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of The Daily Show guests[edit]

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

I appreciate the notice. Cburnett 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you kindly notified me when you removed the prod from those two TDS guests articles, so I figured that you deserved the same when I finally got around to AFD'ing it. Hbdragon88 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Me vs. You[edit]

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

Need people with an opinion[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007[edit]

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

DISCUSSION IS NOT DISRUPTIVE! If I outright deleted 2007 then THAT would be disruptive. Have you ever read WP:POINT? I'll quote from the first sentence for you: the preferred means of changing policies..
I would really love to hear how AFD is not discussion. What part of AFD is unilateral? Those were both rhetorical questions and I will quote, again, the first sentence from WP:AFD:
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss...
I see the word discuss, how about you? AFD is about discussion.
From one admin to another: if you're going to close my AFD and lecture me about disruption and WP:POINT then you need to at least read the first sentence of the policy/guideline you're lecturing me about and telling me what not to do again. The preferred recourse is discussion and that's what I started: discussion.
As for the daily show AFD. If the interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO & WP:NOT#DIR is against a list of guests on a notable television show then it must be against all lists of facts that have very little in correlation with each other except when and/or where. Has nothing to do with retribution or being "cross" that an article I care about is up for deletion. FWIW, when I started the 2007 AFD the keep votes were ahead of the delete votes. In fact, there are still more keep than delete (13-6 if I counted right). Cburnett 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
However you describe it, you knew full well that the AFD was never going to succeed, and embarking upon such a fruitless discussion, particularly such a high-profile article, was potentially making a point. Was it disruptive? I would say yes, given the background, but I accept that there's different views on that. I did say I was trying to see how it wasn't disruptive, so thanks for the explanation. One question - do you really think the article should be deleted? Proto  09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Prior to the TDS guest list nomination: no. After seeing that people like hbdragon above and otto4711 interpret policy to mean "a list of vaguely related items are not encyclopedic" then maybe I didn't understand policy. The AFD clearly answered that I was not and hbdragon & otto4711 were. My personal opinion is that 2007 and TDS guest lists are no different in terms of what binds the items on the page. However, the delete votes on TDS guests have yet to sufficiently explain how they are so different that the reactions to the two AFDs are quite different. Again the -cruft suffix has been used in favor of deleting. Cburnett 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Don't list hundreds...". I listed one. Furthermore I disagree on the grounds of your interpretation of that example as you never called it "silly" or anything like it and TDS guest list is hardly my favorite: I think it's encyclopedic. Then again you and I don't seem to interpret the same words the same way, but I think you're way off on this one. Cburnett 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Now you're just picking at every letter of the policy here (WP:WL). If I called it "absurd" it sounds like you'd still say that it did not meet the example of WP:POINT that I listed because I didn't call it "silly." The "hundreds" bit is an exaggeration; even 2-3 or more nominations would be considered disruptive, you don't need to list a hundred before it's considered disruptive. The spirit is that you just don't nominate it solely because another AFD is going on. Hbdragon88 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Man, quit harassing me with this insulting bullshit. Wikilawyering? Good god man. I've been here longer than you, I've made more edits than you, and I'm an administrator unlike you so I think it's fair to say that you can stop quoting and linking policies & guidelines to me.
AFD is for discussion (it's in the first sentence). WP:POINT clearly states that discussion over unilateral action is preferred (that's also in the first sentence). So the bloody spirit of WP:POINT is discussion over action, ergo AFD is discussion not disruption and deleting is disruption not discussion. Yes, AFD can be used to disrupt if used in excess or in bad faith. A single article AFD with sound rationale is neither in excess nor a disruption nor in bad faith.
So not only do the two key articles here (AFD & POINT) agree on discussion, your "textbook case" is wrong on all three key points: 100s, name calling, and favoritism. 1 != 100s. No name calling != name calling. Encyclopedic != favorite. You are wrong on just about every aspect on this even when interpreting them liberally and you throw pejorative names at me? Just...stop, drop it, and leave me alone if that's all you got because I have better things to do that sit here are take insults from you. Cburnett 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You need some basic reading skills. Seriously. It's insulting how high of a horse you're riding. Go away. Cburnett 16:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
So is your interpretation of WP:POINT, but hey, whatever. We're not going to get anywhere here, so this is my last post on this topic at least. Hbdragon88 08:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Look: a "I know you are but what am I?" insult.
"you can stop quoting and linking" does not mean "I know more than you." Then again to you: WP:POINT "discussion" doesn't mean AFD "discussion", 1 means 100s, encyclopedic means favorite, and no insult means "silly". At least you stopping linking WP:POINT. Cburnett 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Color List for Star Trek: TNG[edit]

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

List of The Daily Show guests (AfD discussion)[edit]

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

Entrance image at Prospect Park Zoo is not appearing[edit]

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

  • Update: Still don't understand what may be the issue with 300 pixel images, but I modified the infobox to explicity set the width to 250 pixels, which is pulling an existing cache image. I don't think the infobox itself is a problem; not sure what the real problem is, but the workaround works, albeit with a somewhat smaller picture. I'll push this up to the help desk when I have time to document what I've seen. Gosgood 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be there for me. Prospect Park Zoo-21-Jan-2006.jpg is the image I see in the infobox. Try doing a hard refresh (usually hold shift or control click and click the refresh button). If not that then clear your browser's cache. Cburnett 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tau Beta Pi[edit]

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

Don't change modern marvels episode numbers to the production codes[edit] removed the actual season numbers for some reason, which are more relavent. I use and edit this to archive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

A little help is needed[edit]

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


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

No need to get snappy with me. Where exactly did I say rule? I used "frowned upon" on both your talk page and in my revert.
If tables are frowned upon to the extent that it warrants a revert, literally, within a minute of my change then surely it must be written somewhere. In short, please be more clear in your explanations when reverting another user. If you say "see featured articles" then I'm going to look at the criteria for FAs (I'm not going to browse every FA to look for tables). Cburnett 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your image Image:IP stack connections.png[edit]

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

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

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

RAID 6 diagram[edit]

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

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


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

Friendly bit of information[edit]

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

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

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

I am an admin and am very familiar with 3RR. Do you quote rules and policies to random people or is there a reason you graced me with your ability to copy and paste? Cburnett 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, what are you talking about? Where am I counting my reverts? "Reverting points"? Cburnett 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and fair use[edit]

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

See also [2]. Wikipedia:Fair use must be followed. —Centrxtalk • 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is. Please familiarize yourself with the page and page of discussion held on this very topic before changing a widely used template and lecturing on my talk page about something I already know about. Cburnett 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you think that having long lists that consist only of copyrighted images placed alongside short descriptions typically copied from the DVD or the producer's website satisfies Wikipedia:Fair use, then you clearly do not. —Centrxtalk • 01:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to catch up with a years worth of discussion, then you should accept there's no consensus behind yours and the minority interpretation (FACT: Centrx's opinion is not gospel) of the Fair Use policy. Get consensus for your heinous actions (FACT: That does not mean a meeting in the admin's IRC [eyes everywhere :)]). Matthew 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use law and the fair use policy is quite explicit about this. There must be substantial original work for fair use to apply, and the images must be low-resolution images. Neither of these are the case in the majority of instances where this template is used. There is nothing minority or questionable about this. In the substantiality of the use this has been law prior to the existence of Wikipedia; in the resolution of the images this has been plainly explicit policy for over a year. —Centrxtalk • 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, I challenge you to prove it true. "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". Matthew 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to take this debate to Template talk:episode list but you didn't acquiesce my request. My talk page is not a forum for such debate. Cburnett 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for abusing your talk page. Matthew 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB[edit]

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

SLR cross section[edit]

SLR cross section.svg

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

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

x-men episode list[edit]

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

Columbus Zoo[edit]

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

G'day Mate[edit]

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

G'day Mate 2[edit]

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

Family Guy[edit]

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

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

Image request: Joker card[edit]

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

Yeah, I think I could do that. Don't hesitate to remind me if I forget. :) Cburnett 13:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canon law relationship chart.svg[edit]

I ran across Image:Canon law relationship chart.svg recently and I noticed that the very bottom diamond appears to be wrong. It should be 9 cous, not 8 again. The derivative Image:Canon law relationship chart example.svg has the same flaw. I know I should just fix it but I'm lazy. Nice chart btw. Vicarious 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed them both. Bad copy/pasting. Cburnett 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


We are a Spanish company that we want to use your image " the Model of the atom for Ernest Rutherford ". (Of wikipedia).

We Realize a free manual of aeronatica and we want to use your image.

If you could send us an e-mail with your assent, we will be grateful.

Best Regards

IFES-ANDALUCÍA Avd. Innovación nº3 planta 1º módulo 8 Edificio Hércules 41020 Sevilla (+34)954-25 07 63 Persona Responsable : Ana Mancera. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you can use it under the GFDL. If you want to use a different license then let me know which license you wish to use. Cburnett 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for answering.

We need your authorization by means of an email.

Please, send an email to this address: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

The GFDL is a non-exclusive license which means you do not need my authorization to use it. Cburnett 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Images from En to Commons[edit]

Now that I have a commons account how do I move my free images over to commons? BeckyAnne 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Upload the same file to commons with the same name. Then on the wikipedia image page put on {{subst:ncd}}. That will mark it as now being on commons and an admin can delete the file on wikipedia so that the commons file shows up in its place. Cburnett 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Can you please block User: and User:Blowland? They have no constructive edits whatsoever, and keep on vandalising my userpage. Can you please, have this activeties stopped by banning 'em? My page is being vandalised on a near daily base now! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 09:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on vacation. Cburnett 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed template {{IA Parks}}[edit]

It's obese, and needs some trimming, but this is better done later. Ravage my history for good Iowa geographical articles that require this template. I use the DeLorme map. --Ace Telephone 06:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is a nav box. What do you suggest? Cburnett 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No box could ever hold every protected place. For each category (parks, forests, etc) the link might be to the navbox for that particular cat (effectively, a list). I did Pikes Peak State Park where the template fit in beautifully, but not so gracefully for Bixby State Preserve; I don't plan on updating the template (I wouldn't know how). And then there all those WMAs, Trails, etc that all need articles. A new category "Iowa protected places", with subcats such as "Iowa state parks", "Iowa wildlife management areas", "Iowa wildlife refuges and preserves" etc. --Ace Telephone 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Postage rates chart[edit]

Hey, do you mind if I rework Image:US first-class postage stamp rates.svg in the spirit of Image:History of US federal minimum wage increases.svg? Thanks --Lalala666 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Make sure you make the background behind the graph itself white, not transparent. Cburnett 23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I took out the speculation about the sudden jumps--while a one-cent increase caused the 1917 & 1932 spikes, everything else was simple inflation, and I think it's pretty self evident which caused which. Let me know if you strongly object. (link) --Lalala666 19:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That was not speculation. It's mathematically provable. A small perturbation on a small value yields a larger percentage change as if the value were much larger. An increase of a penny on a dollar is a 1% rise. An increase of a penny on a penny is a 100% rise. So, yeah, I strongly object because it is not speculation. Cburnett 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, it's not speculation. Poor choice of words! I hate being political so feel free to add the text back if you still think it's relevant. --Lalala666 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Your excellent image is definitely not a darter. It's a heron of some sort. I've relabelled it as Great Blue Heron, but I've not got a NAm book in front of me, and since it's in a zoo it could be Grey Heron or something I've overlooked. Jimfbleak 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I saw it at the san diego zoo in a small bird pool of about 7 or 8 different birds. And of the signs there it looked the closest to that (they were drawings not photos). *shrug*. If you determine what it is then please let me know so I can reupload it with the correct file name! :) Cburnett 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Have to say that it is a Great Blue Heron. Compare with another image:

GreatBlueHeron.jpg Great Blue Heron at San Diego Zoo.jpg

Grey plumage, same height, yellow/white beak, blue strip at the top-side of the head, etc. If it's not a GBH then it's really, really close to it. Cburnett 15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Circular buffer[edit]

(In reply to User talk:Astronouth7303#Circular buffer)

Me neither. Copyright infringement, apparently. --Astronouth7303 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Computer science assessment[edit]

Thank you for your help tagging and assessing Computer science articles. Feel free to assign an importance when you assess as well, if there is any disagreement I will talk to you about it. Thanks again! --Ideogram 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious edits[edit]

Hey there, please help me keep an eye on edits from Zootycoon2freak (talk · contribs). He has been editing zoo articles and inserting sometimes strange information. I think we need to look out for hoaxes and at the very least, request citations. --Spike Wilbury talk 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Cburnett 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


While I had forgotten the request, I appreciate the example now that I am reminded! I think it does add to the article. Thanks! (John User:Jwy talk) 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing card images[edit]

Hi, nice work with the playing card images. However, the clubs symbol is upside down in the top-left corner. Example:

Playing card club A.svg

Also, maybe it would be better to upload "Plain SVG" rather than "Inkscape SVG"? - PatrikR 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I never noticed that. I'll have to fix that when I get home. As for plain vs. inkscape, I don't think there is any difference as rendered on the screen. Do you have any compelling reason for me to switch them? Cburnett 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm an SVG newbie myself, but according to [3], Inkscape SVG may be incompatible with hand editing. Also, I found this: User:Phidauex/SVG_tips#Inkscape_Problems - PatrikR 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates and "server load"[edit]

You've reverted attempts to change <references /> to {{reflist}} on PHP several times now using the argument that it places unnecessary load on Wikipedia's servers. I have never heard this argument elsewhere, and having gone looking today I'm having difficulty finding any official recommendation of this. Is this something which has ever been discussed? If not, and you're taking it from first principles, I'd suggest checking to see whether it really is of any concern before reverting this again, because other editors will probably keep attempting to change this in future. Chris Cunningham 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. You're in the computing world and you know for sure that TANSTAAFL is definitely true with computing and so I shouldn't have to justify to you that it does increase server load. A template purely to insert <references /> is a complete waste of resources and gains nothing. Wikipedia has had a long standing history with shortages of server resources which is why they now have an insane number of servers.
Now. If there were some benefit of using the template then I'd be fine with it but as a mere substitution for the references tag is not one of them. From your perspective, we might as well write a template to replace [[Category:{{{1}}}]] and == {{{1}}} == and so forth. They gain us absolutely nothing, but what the heck? Right?
I will continue to revert the use of this template because it:
  1. Wastes server resources
  2. Only confuses things by abstracting things to a template (it's anti-KISS principle)
  3. Provides zero benefit to justify it's use in light of #1 and #2 here
  4. People that add the template seem to be doing "just cuz they can"
And if you want links then please look for yourself. I found 4 or 5 pages within two minutes. Cburnett 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems pretty flimsy. Every article gets a half-dozen transclusions without trying already, so you'd imagine they'd be pretty well-optimised. I'm just saying that if nobody has actually said to do this in any official capacity then you could probably save yourself five minutes a year by not bothering to revert it. It seems like a rather minor optimisation considering that we aren't footing the bill, even if it's only a minor loss in functionality.
As for looking for myself for justification, I was hoping you'd have presented a link in good faith there. Chris Cunningham 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Using {{reflist}} has negative merit which is why I don't use it and remove it's inappropriate use when I see it. WP:AGF has nothing to do with me educating you or being your personal google because you have a question. (And, in all fairness, I think you picked the wrong day to ask cuz I'm having a bad day.) Cburnett 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. Hope it improves. Chris Cunningham 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

commons:Images of Fcb981[edit]

Hi. Please see commons:User talk:DRBot#heheh. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Half-wit[edit]

I realise that a pejorative term has every place in an encyclopedia. In the English language as spoken in England (where I live), the phrase 'half-wit' is not equivalent to 'a person with learning difficulties', or to use the rather vulgar phrasing of the Wikipedia entry, 'a person with mental retardation'. I am not a scholar of American English, and I am willing to condede that you are right to challenge me. Wiktionary offers this definition of the word:

half-wit (plural half-wits)

  • A person of around half the average intelligence of his or her peers
  • A stupid or inept person

Seeing as a person with half the intelligence of his peers would leave him with an IQ below 70 (I think!), which is the qualifying classification according to the mental retardation Wikipedia entry, I agree that a literal 'half-wit' would indeed be classed as mentally retarded. In England the phrase simply means stupid or idiotic, at least in common usage. Thank you for correcting my mistake. --Pipedreambomb 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'm willing to discuss. Since that dab notice was added for the House episode it has been pretty contentious specifically for the reasons you did what you did. If you have any ideas I'd appreciate hearing them.
Personally, a half-witted person is not just a "normal" person that's an idiot but just "sub normal" intelligence-wise which includes being an idiot. It's not a term I include in my daily vernacular though... Cburnett 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Circles of latitude illustrations[edit]

Regarding your illustrations of circles of latitude e.g. Image:World_map_with_tropic_of_cancer.jpg -- are the edges of the line meant to be translucent, fading into the map?

If not: I don't want to enter into the PNG/SVG/JPEG debate for these, but, if you do want to use JPEG, I suggest you disable chroma subsampling when saving the images. Subsampling in this case appears to be causing the red colour of the line to bleed into the other colours, and in general should be turned off for any JPEG that features bright red. If the GIMP cannot save a JPEG image without subsampling please slap them with a trout! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiraddje (talkcontribs)

Image:Red-black tree example.svg[edit]

Hello, just letting you know I uploaded (overwrote) a new version of this image you created, since three of the arrowheads (two below 11, one below 25) were not showing. I assume it is now how it was supposed to be. ssepp(talk) 00:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Why did you close the merge proposal? It's still underway. Will (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading Talk:Imaginationland#Imaginatioland + Imaginationland Episode_II I find the argument is not very good to merge and the majority of people oppose it. Cburnett 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Precedent is better than "but... the plot summaries!". Quite a lot of the opposers make excuses like "What about Star Wars/Lord of the Rings?" or "They're episodes so they deserve the pages", which are both wrong, given that a) LOTR/SW are generally treated as seperate parts, and b) people want to merge most episode articles into LOEs or just oturight delete them. Will (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you do know that I am actually a teenager, don't you? Will (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, but it makes sense. Cburnett 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Howdy - thanks for posting on the Tau Beta Pi chapter list. I tend to agree that in instances such as that, external links to the things listed make sense. I reverted the page pending more discussion. I understand wanting to make sure WP doesn't become the yellow pages, but I feel like official chapter sites aren't so much selling anything... DukeEGR93 04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Please see my reply to your message on my talk page. Thank you. --Hnsampat 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply on my talk page. Thank you. --Hnsampat 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to you on my talk page. Thank you. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added an additional comment on my talk page. Basically, let's stop arguing. The whole matter is trivial and is eventually going to be revealed for sure on the show anyway. No point in either of us wasting any more time here. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page. We're both in agreement and the way the page stands right now is fine by me. I'm glad to see that we were able to come to an agreement. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional brands in South Park[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional brands in South Park, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional brands in South Park (2nd nomination). Thank you. •97198 talk 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyclura pinguis[edit]

It looks cool in the infobox...I thought it would look better down below. Great pic, do you have any more you'd be willing to share? Sorry if moving it down offended you.--Mike Searson (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically of cyclura pinguis? Kinda. I took 4 pictures and that one was the best. The other 3 are pretty much the same. Cburnett (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually other Cycluras if you have them. We have 3 good ones now on Pinguis, Some of the other species: Ricordi, Cychlura, etc really could use decent pics. To be honest...I'm working on alot of different reptile articles and if you have any taken of rarer species and don't mind uploading them it could help out later, you've got good photography skills!--Mike Searson (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I generally upload pictures I take that are decent. I have a couple of zoo trips that I haven't gotten around to uploading yet (it takes a long time to sift through hundreds of pictures, figure out which to upload, then tweak appropriately and upload). Cburnett (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that your image on the Standard_RAID_levels page RAID_4.svg is not displaying properly. I temporarily changed the link to a low quality PNG version. Please upload a working svg file in all its vector glory. Thanks. Pgolubkov (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems in viewing the SVG. I guess I don't fully understand what you mean by "displaying properly". I reverted it back to SVG. Try clearing your browser's cache or doing a shift+reload on the page to see if it's some browser caching issue. Cburnett (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up. It appears that the problem is with my computer: both Firefox and IE do not display the SVG image. I tried other machines, including Linux, and it shows just fine. I am not sure what the problem is, since both browsers are affected and only that one image is not displayed for me. I tried clearing out both caches to no avail. Anyways, thanks for checking it out and sorry for the trouble, just didn't want the page to be missing such a nice image (or that's how it appeared to me). Pgolubkov (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter template[edit]

Nice work. I've noticed that people who do nifty things with the articles don't usually get an attaboy, whilst vandals and sockpuppets get all the attention. This is so you know that I appreciated the bold action you took in the template. Thanks. It looks swell now. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Canon DSLR cameras template[edit]

I noticed that you reverted my edit to remove the North American aliases for the ###D series of cameras. You are right that the aliases are used, but remember that the series is also known as the Kiss # series in Japan. If we are to include one alias in the template, it is worthwhile to include all the aliases to avoid systematic bias. I think this is a bit too much to include in a small template like this. Since the articles are named for the ###D series, let's just stick with this and leave aliases to the articles. thegreen J Are you green? 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Touche. Cburnett 04:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

North American Solar Challenge[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding the elevation plot to the NASC page. I agree that the page could use a lot more info about the race routes and their characteristics. I wonder, however: is there a way to integrate it with a race route map somehow, or otherwise make it more obvious why the plot is relevant? Perhaps I will move it to the section below that discusses race routes and their significance. Bry9000 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your SVG chess pieces[edit]

I recently stumbled across your SVG chess pieces (which I have categorized here. I do some work on an open-source chess game, and we recently wanted to switch to using SVG for the drawing rather than the simple bitmaps it has now. For this I need some open-source SVG chess art. Yours fits the bill perfectly except that my game (here) is licenced under the GPL which is not compatible with the GFDL.

What I am asking, therefore, is if you're willing to multi-licence your chess pieces as GPL as well as their current GFDL and BSD licences.

jdorje (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That should be fine. If I forget to formally mark them as GPL on their image pages then please remind me! :) Cburnett (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks. — jdorje (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. I added the rest of my chess images in commons:Category:Chess svg pieces as well. Cburnett (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have only a passing interest in the topic but I noticed your proposal of using SVG instead of PNG for the chess templates here. I made a quick mockup of the template using SVG at User_talk:Jdorje/Chess_diagram and the SVG version looks distinctly inferior. It looks to me like the wikipedia svg renderer is bad... — jdorje (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Land camera[edit]

please see the talk page for land camera concerning the photos thank you,Landcamera900 (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Picasso works[edit]

This was a very useful template, but is now redundant as the info is in Template:Pablo Picasso. If you, as original author, agree, I will delete it, as there seems no further use to be made of it. I will also ask User:Ewulp who modified a couple of dates. Tyrenius (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather it stay undeleted for purposes of retaining the edit history for non-admins. Clearly your template is derived from mine and the history of Template:Pablo Picasso doesn't show that. Redirect or something, just not delete. Cburnett (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not acknowledging your template. I was originally just going to expand it, but ended up starting a new page. I've posted the history on Template_talk:Pablo_Picasso for your requirements. Is there any objection now to its deletion? Tyrenius (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The template itself works fine for conveying the history and you can redirect templates you know.... Cburnett (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Links in "See also" sections[edit]


The "See also" section provides an additional list of related internal links to other articles in Wikipedia. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

Italics mine. In this edit, you declared removal on such grounds to be "invalid". On the contrary, this is one of the most pertinent reasons to exclude links from said section. I'm curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion in the first place; it's been in the layout guide since June 2006 or so. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to search the article for related topics. It's absolutely absurd to have to page search for "Roadsend" to find where its used in the article to get a link to Roadsend PHP instead of going to the see also section.
You will note that "common sense" is stated first and then semi-qualified with what you italicized. Common sense to me says "don't make life more difficult for a reader". Having to page search counts as more difficult. So removing strictly because "it's already linked in the article" is a bad reason. Removing a link to programming language because its in the lead & because it's not a related article to PHP are good reasons. Removing a link to MySQL is a good reason because it's not a related article to PHP (PHP can use it).
You will also find that WP:MOSLINK is more liberal than what you've italicized. Removing a link simply because another link already exists is an invalid reason. Removing a link because it's not directly related or because it's already been overlinked are valid reasons. Thumberward's rationale was literally "linked in-article" which in itself is an invalid reason. No more valid, anyway, than "just cuz". Cburnett (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSLINK is more liberal than WP:SEEALSO because it has a much larger scope. Characterising the following of the phrase "it should not repeat links" as not being valid to the act of removing repeated links strikes me as odd. And I rather think it makes like more difficult to the reader if he isn't able to find links in-article because they're omitted entirely (as the Phalanger / Roadsend links were) in favour of being added to an indiscriminate collection of links at the end of the article. Anyway, I'll take this to the article talk page. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rules of Acquisition[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Rules of Acquisition, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

State Quarters Map[edit]

Could you make a new map which include the new quarters to be issued in 2009 that is Washington D.C, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text[edit]

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


thanks for the help with miner things--Blood sliver (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar

50 State Quarters Map[edit]

Please include in the Quarters, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories since the Quarters will include them in 2009. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Cburnett (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for putting my user page back together. TheMindsEye (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

You just recently removed a PROD tag from Shadows of P'Jem. Out of curiosity what makes you think that this article doesn't deserve deletion. Thanks :D Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I disagree with prodding as a means to deletion of articles. Second, I disagree with the wide-spread anti-fiction movement abound on wikipedia. That said I see no reason to make it "easy" for you. Cburnett (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hearts and etc.[edit]

  1. Are you working on 800*600? I'm. 4 cols also make careless scroll-line. And there is no difference between 4 or 5 cols on 1027*768.
  2. The 4 cols are very careless in respective aricle. 5 cols are more appropriate in these cases. We see all numbers on 2 rows without mixing with figures. We see all figures on single row without mixing with numbers.

Alex Spade (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do occasionally use wikipedia on a machine that is 800x600. It's more important to be better accessible than to have face cards and numbered cards in their own rows. Having face cards on their own row is pretty pedantic and of little concern. Cburnett (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Template: Nikon DSLR Cameras[edit]

"With each and every edit ask yourself this: does the edit make Wikipedia better?" Does you taking out obvious titles make Wikipedia better? I don't have time right now to go find referances for all of them but I know off the bat a link to the D3 press release stating it's a Professional Grade camera, and I have added it to the template. Anyone into photography knows these titles, and even if they're not released by the manufacturing company any avid photographer can tell you, by the specs of a camera, what grade it is. If you continue to remove the titles I promise you I will continue to undo it, If you have a problem with that, oh well, that's what these cameras are, and to take off the titles you would have to totally reformat the template, having 3 rows of "DX Sensor" makes no sense... SyBerWoLff 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC) P.S I was kind enough to reply to your messages on your page, please do the same to me.

I've already had a long conversion about this with another editor. The root issue is that people change these titles, reorder them, etc. It's a long string of changes I've seen to {{Canon DSLR cameras}} and it needs to stop because it is not bettering wikipedia. Unsourced information that is clearly contentious does not belong on wikipedia. In fact, this case demonstrates precisely why WP:V exists.
Since you've promised to violate policy then I promise you to uphold policy: WP:V and WP:3RR. Cburnett (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So does that mean you're done screwing with what doesn't need to be screwed with?SyBerWoLff 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you finished citing them? Cburnett (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider a truce of leaving the titles as they are and putting the sources up until we can get outside opinions? SyBerWoLff 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
'The Law' eh? The category titles are as such to make it UNIFORM through the templates. Think of your average reader, would they rather be looking through and see "Nikon prosumer" and "Canon prosumer" and know they're equivalent or see "Nikon compact-pro" and "Canon Whateveryouwannacallit". Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia and you may need verification but I'd rather know that the content is easier for the reader to understand than to know it's accurate with the sources... SyBerWoLff 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Dollar discussion, the law, and speculation[edit]

My reply is on my talk page. A bit wordy, but it will have to do. B.Wind (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sprecher Brewery[edit]

I took the tour this christmas when visiting my sister. We were charged an extra $1 for the glass. Their website may not be updated but that IS the current pricing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talkcontribs) 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Propagation Delay[edit]

I hate to say it to an IEEE man, but your image on the Propagation Delay page seems to be following bad logic. I mean, the input matches the final output, but the path just seems...wrong. Balder Odinson (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Image:Full-adder with gate delay.svg. I guess I don't understand what "bad logic" means. The red path shows the path of greatest gate delay. Would you please explain more? Cburnett (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Respond to Cburnett[edit]

I think criticisms sections can still be NPOV. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I noticed you reverted my edit[4]; I may not have explained it very well in the edit summary but I did not remove the redlinks due to verifiability concerns. The template is a means of allowing users to easily navigate the articles on Wikipedia relating to Harry Potter, the red links don't ease navigation of such articles so they may not be appropriate in a navigational template. The normal reason for having redlinks in tables or lists is that it will encourage users to create the pages. My point in removing the links was that in this instance there are enough editors commited to the topic that as soon as the relevent information is available the articles will be quickly created no without the links. In some ways the links are misleading as they indicate that the articles should be created even though at this stage such articles would likley be based on original research and not verifiable information from reliable sources. I have re-removed the links[5] and have brought up the issue on the talk page of the template (basicly restating what I've said above). I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I won't revert again if you or others feel the change in inappropriate. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

MiWi at IEEE 802.15.4[edit]

Hey, Colin. Btw, the picture above is indeed a Great Blue Heron, or at least it looks just like the one that comes to visit our pond in the summer. [This part copied at article talk page:] On the MiWi link, I wasn't clear in my edit summary...that was a conversation with User:Atomsmith, who works for the company that uses the trade name MiWi. I removed the link because it doesn't appear that there can be a MiWi article, yet...there are no links at all on a or search that support notability. I've asked him to try to dig up some reliable sources. I'll leave the dead link where you put it for now, but if I don't hear anything positive from Atomsmith for several days, then I'm going to assume there's no MiWi in WP's future and remove the link again. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DSLR templates[edit]

You have a decent point about SLR categorizing... it's hard to come up with a set of labels that would informative and accurate across brands. However, I do not think the solution is to simply parrot the manufacturer's descriptions of the cameras, since these vary model-to-model for marketing and other reasons that have little to do with the actual functionality of the cameras.

Furthermore, I have not made my edits based on "your own personal opinion", but in an attempt to come up with informative but not pedantic categories. (We've discussed this on talk pages before.)

I also think you've veered perilously close to personal attacks on a number of well-meaning editors in trying to sort out these categories. I believe there's a solution to these issues, and it will be easier to reach if everyone involved remains polite and patient with each other! Thanks, ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If being curt is more of a detriment than blatantly violating policy for wikipedia then I guess my priorities are all wrong. Having dealt with Syberwolff who repeatedly deleted references and called my argument of the need for references as bullshit, and Tejastheory who also wholly rejected'll forgive me if I have little to no faith that "everyone involved" is interested in following policy but, instead, floating their own opinion of the categories (it's opinion if you don't have a reliable source).
Find a reliable source for the categories of cameras and I'll happily dump the press releases. Reviews do not count. Blogs do not count. Saying "this says consumer/prosumer/whatever" does not count simply because it agrees with common categories. A good book over SLR's would do just fine. Cburnett (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll look for a reliable source that categorizes DSLRs. I do understand the argument that these templates may not be the most important place to insist on verifiability, but as I said above I also understand your frustration with categories that keep changes. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)