User talk:MJBurrage/archived

Archives

• 2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2012 • 2016 • 2020

Airwolf Hellfires

I'm not a military weapons genius or anything, but I have to say, if memory serves me, the first time in my life that I ever heard of a "hellfire missle" came from this show when I was a kid and watched it religiously with Knight Rider and Street Hawk. So yes, I'm pretty sure Airwolf had Hellfire Missiles. I don't know exactly when or where it was mentioned, but I think it's safe to say she had them since they are designed specifically for helecopters (per the Hellfire article). Cyberia23 07:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf Missile questions

Greetings and felicitations. You posted questions regarding Airwolf's armament on the article's Talk page, ones which I believe I've partially answered. DocWatson42 08:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy looking quotemarks

If you're editing with MS Word or Notepad it makes goofy looking quote marks that look like crap on certain browsers like Mozilla and Firefox. I don't know why they do this, it's some bug with the fonts or something. I know this by testing in on several computers and not just my own. Both Mac and PC. If you're editing with word you have to fix your quotes in the browser's font. Cyberia23 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I know is that those rounded quotes don't show up correctly on certain computers. They look really tiny, are shifted out of place and appear as something other than quote marks. They irritate me to no end. Just a peeve I have I guess, and when I find them I and change them to straight quotes since it seems a majority of articles use them instead. Cyberia23 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox, and have always preferred—and almost always use—“typographic quotes” instead of "straight quotes". I also use – en-dashes, — em-dashes, … ellipses, and × multiply symbols where appropriate, regardless of the editor I happen to be using. —MJBurrage 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

At least on my computer, your userboxes do not display correctly. -Acjelen 15:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the mountain dew user box (though "Userboxes" appears along the top), the bottom fourth of the Vermont user box, and the "do the right thing" user box. That's it. -Acjelen 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Safari. At work (with Internet Explorer) the boxes all appear normally. -Acjelen 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landmaster

I'm the person who edited the Landmaster article and added the assertion that the Landmaster was used in Ark II. Later, I saw your correction. Thank you for setting the record straight. I should know better than to rely on thirty-year-old memories for this kind of thing. I did a Google search and found a few photos of the Ark II vehicle, and you are absolutely right -- it's not the Landmaster. Pat Berry 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page moves for continental navy ships

Hi, I noticed that you move a few articles such as USS Enterprise (1775) to the title Enterprise (1775). And while I understand your rational in moving these articles, due to the fact that the US Navy did not use this prefix yet, I disagree with the move. My basic opposition comes from the fact that the title Liberty (1775) just doesn't give the same info as to which nation the ship belongs. Also if you check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships I believe that it addresses this situation already.

However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice

While I don't think we need to refer to the ship as the USS Liberty in the article itself, I feel it better helps to identify the ship in question. Please let me know what you think of this. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out (I have moved them back to USS names). —MJBurrage 21:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Dé

Dear Wikipedian, I´ve seen you`ve been adding a Formula Dé reference to every Formula one circuit your prefered boarding game contains…. while this can have some importance to the fans of this boarding game, IT IS NOT RELEVANT in the history of formula one tracks like Monaco or Monza where drivers and people have lost their lifes! IT IS NOT IMPORTANT, not even last generation simulation video games are important and DO NOT DESERVE any mention in the page of every circuit…. Your contributions, as you know, are very well welcomed, keep on expanding the topics of your interest, but please observe what I have told you. User:C trillos 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Having removed all the crap you had added to the circuits pages…. I have to say that What you have done falls into the category of VANDALISM!!!! You even added your crap to the Indianapolis circuit Page!!!…. Observe What you are doing!!! DO NOT ADD REFERENCES TO COMERCIAL PRODUCTS in the way you are doing it!!! DO NOT put the image of your board game as the official image of a circuit as you did for the track in Argentina!!!!! I HOPE you modify your behavior!!! it took me some clicks to correct all the near 15 pages you had modify…. please make me a favor and leave’em like that!!! User:C trillos 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please C trillos, tone down a little. There is no need for the caps and multiple exclamation marks.

While Formula Dé is a commercial product, so is Microsoft Windows and yet many software articles reference those. While I agree that it is not required to add a full gameboard image to the article, a mention that the race can be played in a boardgame (that is mentioned in Wikipedia) isn't harmful enough to start shouting about it. I'm sure the references were added with good intentions so to put it on the same level as vandalism is rather unfair. Felsir 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major pourpouse of Wikipedia is to give knowledge for free and open to others... If we dedicate an entire page to Xbox 360 is because there are a lot of concepts that are asociated with it... processing units, Memory bandwidth, display technologies, storage technologies ... you see?.... if we add something like Microsoft Windows to Wikipedia is because first, people can get to know what is an OS, people can get to know what it is the cause of its social impact, people can get to know what is the difference between several OSs... comercial products can be added as part of a category... we add here albums which have a social impact ... so having a Formula Dé page is all right.. which is not all right is having a gallery Formula Dé page because it is asociated with just a comercial product and not with any other concept asociated with it... wikipedia must be not used for merchandising pourposes! and of course I can not get that someone adds a reference of a board game in the Middle of the Indianapolis circuit and not consider it vanadalism C trillos 15:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. I merely pointed out the windows reference to indicate that commercial products are part of Wikipedia. I do agree with you that Windows has more impact on the world than Formula Dé has. I thank you for explaining your point of view in a clear way without letting emotion taking control of your keyboard.

To conclude: the Formula Dé references stay out of the circuit articles. Felsir 06:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one of the major points (and advantages) of a digital encyclopedia, is the cross referencing and linking that is possible. I actually did think originally that the links and the images were positive contributions to the articles on the various racing circuits involved. Some of the circuits still do not have a diagram of the circuit layout, and even for those that do there are a number of images that portray the circuit.

That being said, I also understood Felsir’s original point, when he removed the images, but kept the links. As for the existence of a particular circuit as one of the boards in the Formula Dé game, that is a piece of information about the circuit, and is just as pertinent to an article about the circuit in question, as would be a reference to a movie set at the circuit, or a TV show filmed at the circuit etc.

In all of those above cases the links should at least be listed in a See also section, since in all three examples it IS a piece of information about the circuit in question. And simply mentioning the existence of a game (or movie, TV show, etc.) is not commercial promotion.

Lastly, just for the record, I do not represent the game or the company in any way. I teach Hospitality & Restaurant Management at the New England Culinary Institute —MJBurrage 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Formula Dé circuits

An article that you have been involved in editing, Formula Dé circuits, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula Dé circuits. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

AdamBiswanger1 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FD-00-01_Monaco.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FD-00-01_Monaco.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine cover fair use

No, no bias against partially clothed women, I was a partially clothed woman this morning when I got dressed. I have a bias against images that violate copyright and Wikipedia policy and pose a potential problem for the project as a whole. The tag states that images of magazine covers must be used in an article discussing the publication of said magazine. I interpret that as: [b]Cover photos can be used in articles about the magazine, not about the cover subject.[/b] That's what the tag says, and similar photos have been disputed for the same reason. Ckessler 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if an article about a person discusses an issue of a magazine, especially a note-worthy cover appearance, it may under fair-use include said cover. One clear example would be Demi Moore appearing discreetly nude and pregnant on the cover of Vanity Fair. So for a typical model, we cannot just include any random cover, but if the particular cover is noteworthy enough to discuss in the text, than it may be include, as the article itself is now also about that issue. —MJBurrage • talk • 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the Gap

===>Thanks I had no idea that these film titles could be so Byzantine. For what it's worth, you could have the current entry at Mind The Gap (although this would require an admin to move), and the new one at mind the gap (and technical limitations will rename it "Mind the gap") and make Mind the Gap (film) direct to Mind the Gap which itself would be a disambiguation page. I'd also recommend making Mind the Gap (disambiguation) redirect to Mind the Gap. Are you sure that "Mind The Gap" is the official name, or is the web site just mis-capitalizing the title? The same question goes for the film company (which I assume should go at either Mind the Gap Films or if they actually insist on capitalizing "the" Mind The Gap Films, with approrpriate mentions at the disambiguation page, wherever that ends up being.) I hope some of that made sense. If there is something I can do to help out somehow, let me know. Also, while I appreciate you cleaning up my Talk page, I'd prefer to leave it as is. Thanks all around. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted links

Hello! It's blacklisted at m:Spam blacklist. You cannot save a page on any WikiMedia project with a link to any of the sites listed. Try adding it back and see what happens! Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 07:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testpage

I noticed another editor removing a category link from User:MJBurrage/testpage4 so that it wouldn't show up in the category while it was still in your userspace; I figured it was probably a work in progress, and that removing the category might cause you to forget to put it back, so I reinserted it with nowiki tags around it. Just felt I should tell you. :) Essjay (Talk) 10:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MASH Decomissioning

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; My source was this NPR Story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5219020 Darthnice 22:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mdew.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mdew.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal disambiguation

Hello, you made criminal a disambiguation page, and now there are around 300 links to the disambiguation page. As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, there should be no links to disambiguation pages. Given that the number of links to disambiguation pages is growing, and becoming a bigger problem could you please try to disambiguate the links to one of the options on that page. Regards. -- Jeff3000 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the vandalism on the Rocket Man article

I just want to thank you removing the vandalism on the Rocket Man (film) article. I appreciate it! --Mr. Sinistar 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrunners

Thanks to Wikipedia and the random article link, I learned something new today! Even though I grew up with the Dukes, I never knew that there was a movie first. Thanks for taking the time to create that article, and bringing a smile to my (and probably countless others') face. Neier 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (XCV 330)

United States of America

Do you have a source for the assertion that the United States of America still exists in 2143? if so, please cite it. According to the Encyclopedia it can't be dated any later than 2079. The paragraph by the way is still unsourced speculation. Morwen - Talk 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:USS_Enterprise_(XCV_330).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USS_Enterprise_(XCV_330).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fault - I removed the {{screenshot}} tag from it, as it is evidently not a screenshot, but is apparently an enhanced contrast zoom from a set photograph. If you have details about where you scanned it from, that would be good. Morwen - Talk 10:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be all set now. I had thought screenshot was correct since it was artwork from the film.—MJBurrage • TALK • 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just got round to seeing this. So this comes from the Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture? Can you confirm that you have checked this book and seen that it is actually there. Because I can't find it in my copy of the book, which is a paperback reprint of it issued by Wallaby in March 1980 : this does include a bundle of glossy pages in the middle, but it's not one of those. Morwen - Talk 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Guard link under Green Mountain Boys flag

Hi Michael. While I think it's great that the Vermont Guard serves under an Ethan Allen vintage banner, the new link unfortunately goes to advertising. I wonder if there might be a picture somewhere of the Vermont Guard drilling or marching with the Green Mountain Boys/Vermont Republic flag? Best, Jim CApitol3 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the link to a section I created in the Green Mountain Boys page, which is better because it is internal. But back to your comment, the link I had used www.vtguard.com is the official page of the Vermont Guard. I wouldn’t call that advertising. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Vermont

Hi MJBurrage, excellent expansion of the Flag of Vermont article! Nice illustration of the earlier flag with large star and elements from the state coat of arms. CApitol3 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]