User talk:MJBurrage/archive 2010

Episode counts

Episode counts on TV shows advance by the number broadcast, not in terms of what's planned, might be produced or is presumed to be in existence based on media coverage, to paraphrase your original edit summary. You've been reverted for this on other shows, and you know how this works, so please don't start an edit war in order to mislead readers into thinking there are currently 13 episodes that have been broadcast. TNT may never show all 13; certainly that was true of NBC, which canceled the show before the first episode of Season Two was ever shown. How accurate would your episode count have been had TNT not picked the show up? And can you source there are 13 episodes in the can? Of course not, so we go with what we know firmly, and is the practice all over the Wikipedia: episodes broadcast, which alone is enough to revert you. Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline for Template:Infobox television says to use the number of episodes produced when known. In the case of Southland the article itself and the two sources I used describe that 13 episodes have been produced. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop, as you are at risk of running afoul of the 3RR and edit-warring guidelines. Long-established practice, as demonstrated on thousands of television-related articles, holds that we only update episode counts for active (i.e. currently airing) series as new episodes air. I can certainly understand your confusion, as I've seen similar cases arise before. however, every time they have, the outcome has been that airing series update the infobox only as new episodes air. Your interpretation would be valid in the case of series such as Drive or Firefly, which went off the air before all episodes were aired. However, Dollhouse and Southland will air all of their episodes, and as such we go with the standard operating procedure. Again, *please* stop before this escalates from a difference of opinion to a serious problem. Multiple editors have tried to explain this to you, and continuing to revert your version in doesn't help to resolve it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In the rare case of a show where the confirmed number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, your stance is incorrect. According to long standing written Wikipedia guidelines (see my links above). For these two shows, multiple people using only the episodes aired, just means multiple people not following the guidelines. The intention of the infobox is to list the number of episodes known to exist (which will be the same worldwide), not just the number aired in some part of the world. Your thousands of articles example means little, since for almost all of those thousands of articles, there are not sources specifically describing episodes known to be produced that have not aired. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We have also been over this before: Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 7#Number of episodes. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the directions for the infobox, and also with the way in which they have generally been applied. Please note that the text you're referring to is a set of instructions for using the infobox. While it may well use the term "guideline" (as with many similar pages of template documentation), it is not the same thing as a formal Wikipedia guideline. I also fail to see what your link to the talk archive resolves; in that discussion, you are putting forward the same argument you are using now, but there is no consensus that your interpretation is correct. (For that matter, there was no resolution whatsoever to the discussion.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your interpretation, and the long standing guideline says otherwise (correctly in my opinion). What is done on almost all other TV series pages means nothing, since the case where known episodes produced is higher than aired is unusual. In those cases the correct answer to "how many episodes exist?" is the number produced, not the number aired.

The simple fact is that there are 27 episodes of Dollhouse and 13 episodes of Southland. The Infobox should say that. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fess Parker Navy or USMC?

Hello MJBurrage, I noted your change of USMC to Navy and provision of needed references for this fact in the article. I found that the USMC reference has been in the article for at least 2 1/2 years.

I had no idea which was right, but I have found this reference, "Remembering Fess Parker in The Know". Or you can go right back to the original 2003 article in the Alcade, Playing the Hero on Google books. In this Parker himself say Marines. I suppose this is a primary source, so I'm not certain what to do here.

The relevant reference is already in the article as I have used it as a citation for the stabbing incident. Use <ref name=austin>.
Hope this is of interest. Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Not sure if this is the right venue, but I just wanted to thank you for your contribution to the Shooter (film) article! I know it was a while back, but I see that you resolved a dispute that was very much in need of a third party. Much thanks! Dave (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Splechta

I've PRODed this article and thought you might be interested to know. Smartse (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, TIME 100 Greatest Novels

I created a page with this list and it was deleted for copyright violation. This one probably will be too.WQUlrich (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned

Re this edit - please note that the {{unsigned}} template should normally be substituted, ie {{subst:unsigned}}. Further, it's not supposed to be used for IP-address contributions (because they don't have user pages), for which {{subst:unsignedIP}} is provided. There are also {{subst:unsigned2}} and {{subst:unsignedIP2}} which take their arguments the other way around, so that you can snatch the time/date and username directly from a history list, without needing to exchange them. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BeyondWestworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BeyondWestworld.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005

Hello MJBurrage, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on March 7 2010, TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:GiantSnowman (page has mainspace links, and 10 edits). This has been done because the page is unquestionably a copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:GiantSnowman. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Hopkins

G'day Michael, are you familiar with this: Talk:Samuel_Hopkins_(inventor)#Maxey:_wrong_Hopkins? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you the JPTOS via email; email me if it didnt arrive. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Overhauling The Woodwright's Shop article

First I have to say thanks for all the help with the article and especially the episode list. Thanks very much. You get a cookie.

Hydroxonium has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I am looking at doing a major overhaul of The Woodwright's Shop in the next few days/weeks and I want to get your input as you have more experience than I do. I'll be moving parts, rewriting parts, adding sections and generally expanding the article using WP:MOS:TV as my guide. I wanted to get your input before I started. I can be bold and just start in, or I can discuss the changes on the talk page first. Which would you prefer?

I'm also hoping you'll come by after I've finished, and clean up any of my mistakes. Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 00:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MJBurrage. You have new messages at Hydroxonium's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bugatti Veyron

Hi, Just to let you know, I've replaced the citation needed marker. This is partly my fault - I changed a ref name but didn't replace the pointer so it was picked up by a bot; That left the old ref in place on the paragraph above the 'citation needed' one, and so I can see why you added that. I've got some concerns about the sources (please see my reply to your reply on the talk page). Thanks for your input, and I hope this doesn't cause offence! Bertcocaine (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, much appreciated and apologies for any confusion - I was too tired to be editing the other night. I've also added some conversions to the other parts of that section and change the quoted top speed to kph for consistency. Thanks again! Bertcocaine (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Veyron Horsepower

Hi, I'm wondering why you changed the horsepower to bhp? While there have been quite a few changes since I added those conversions from metric, you were the only one who entered a note with the edit (assuming others also changed it?) so I've come here, but I'm curious as to why you assume brake horsepower is the valid source. As you point out, 'hp' is what is quoted everywhere, and no-one (including Bugatti) include the actual unit used, but I applied it as metric based on 2 things: All the speeds are originally in metric - as these figures were all provided from German sources OR from testing in Germany using German government officialdom, and that is the figure provided by the German manufacturer, it seems likely to me that the figures are also in the German standard. Admittedly I haven't got a source for that, but equally there is no source that it's imperial either; When I added that I did a fair bit of checking from various sources on the use of horsepower conversion and it's application in different markets - the industry standard is now kW but the Germans still use PS and refer to it as horsepower (generically) in English statements. I've haven't currently got time to source that info but I was wary of assuming in the first place, and the sources don't relate specifically to the Veyron anyway. However, I remember when the original was launched it was often quoted as 987bhp (top gear mag I think has this, got the copy somewhere which I will dig out at some point). Also, a recent documentary on the UK Discovery channel about the Veyron had interviews with various staff at the factory and from the design process, who were German and referred to the need to get to the 'magical' 1000 mark - again German's use hp to mean PS. Again, not proof but a strong indication IMHO. As you say they may well be producing more, but I'm only talking about the quoted figures. Interestingly, someone has added a note on the horsepower page about exotic cars being misquoted, but I suspect this goes back to the same problems as with the speed.. I'm interested to hear your views! Thanks. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

scrap that, a google search has solved it - it's definitely PS! it's written on the power dial clocks in the car:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-Bugatti-Veyron-Targa-Florio-Gauges-1600x1200.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertcocaine (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A gauges maximum measurement is not the same thing as the maximum value being measured. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

replying to all on the Veyron talk page - although I keep getting stuck as you have added comments while I'm typing and I lose mine! Got to go now, but thanks for the informed debate. Bertcocaine (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion review board input

Hello,

I was hoping I could get your input at the deletion review board where I am appealing the decision to delete the M-Energy_Drink.jpg file, even though we had reached a consensus in our favor, an administrator came in and deleted the image for no valid reason. I went to his talk page to ask him to reconsider, and he didn't even give it a second thought, and gave no reason at all. If you were to only leave a one short response in favor of overturning the decision without following the review board, that would be all it would take to greatly help the outcome. I've had one administrator reply so far, and he has been beating around the bush, trying to create reasonable doubt, even though there is no doubt at all. Anyway, even if you decide not to give a response on the deletion review board, you've already helped a lot on the proposed deletion page with valuable information, and thanks, I appreciate your help. Editor182 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Editor182 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Metric Measures table edits on Cooking weights and measures

I'm not certain your changes to the table in the section Metric Measures was an improvement: old table vs after your edits. Part of it may have been an improvement, but you also eliminated some of the decimals, changing 100ths to 10ths. I do see the FDA column, and agree that change is an improvement as it more closely follows the cite. I'm undecided about the table format to span several of the row cells when the value is the same, whether it gives the table a cleaner look, or not: Perhaps if the "cleaned" single values were centered it would look better. However, I do not understand the desire to eliminate decimal accuracy. Do you have a rationale for eliminating one decimal place of accuracy? Gzuufy (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)