User talk:Cburnett/Style

=May 5, 2005 archive start=

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

Extra line breaks
You said in an edit comment:


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

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


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


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


 * Is this sufficient to keep you from reverting unnecessarily? How to edit a page (second box) Cburnett 04:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I've been editing for much longer than you. Please also note that insults are not recommended. Also note that your edits that I reverted contributed very little. If you'd taken the time to check the results of your edits you'd see that the links you created to April 1992 and January 1993 are actually broken. Perhaps you would care to check the policy on linking dates: Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29.


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

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


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


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


 * On to relevant discussion.


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


 * Do I need to quote you the relevant line from Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29? When you just have a month and a year, you just link the year.  This is where me being here longer than you is more than the pissing match it might have seemed.  A while ago a bunch of editors went through and changed all month year links to either a specific date including a day or simply a year link.  That is why if you do check the "what links here" link you'll find that there is very little demand for month year links.  I don't know why, I wasn't involved, I just saw the edits.


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


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


 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29/archive12


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 as I started a discussion about this "Month Year" bit. Cburnett 08:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have mentioned Don%27t_use_line_breaks (RTFA, the title is misleading) which discusses the validity of line breaks within a paragraph. I'm fairly agnostic on their utility, but I think that removing them on principle is impolite. &mdash; PhilHibbs | talk 18:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


 * Ugh, this conversation is diverging.
 * Yes, sticking with what the community de facto decides is "rampage of ego-reverting."
 * I have no problems with making articles look better, but you're sacrificing edittability to cover up the effects of a bug.
 * I have editted many more thousand articles than you and the de facto standard is one per line with cats first then interwiki links.
 * Mediation is not necessary. This can be solved by making the discussion public by taking it off my user page.  You're contradicting a de facto standard and if you want to change it then you need to get community support.  My actions have moved to keep the status quo, not put forth a policy I wish to make (like you).
 * Cburnett 23:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * This is getting kind of fun. :)


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


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


 * If you think I'm a liar, then I can't help you with that. But I'm not the one posting anonymously here.
 * Yes, WP has a style guide (WP:MOS) and article layout practices (Guide to layout) and de facto standards ("TITLE is a YEAR film", one category per line, etc.).
 * Cburnett 19:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No, no, a liar you are not. But don't hold my anonymity against me. As I've said, I'm just testing the Wikipedia waters.
 * A community effort should afford to foster experiments which might benefit the community as a whole. Saying that a bunch of messy, practically stub-status pages use a certain (easily mended) style isn?t really saying much. I mean, here we are, at your talk page, when we should be having this discussion out in the open, in some page that lays out the conventions. You may continue this discussion at the talk page of WikiProject Movies.
 * Remember, a convention is something that can be upgraded. And its not so terrible if competing styles co-exist for a while. 62.148.218.217 20:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * WP uses a program called diff to generate the differences between revisions and one sentence per line makes them smaller, easier to read, and much smaller when viewing multiple revisions in a single diff. Read Don't use line breaks, specifically the last section, for more on why. Cburnett 23:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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

Since I don't see why this discussion must be relegated to my talk page:
 * Village pump %28policy%29

Cburnett 01:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) =May 5, 2005 archive end= =June 17, 2005 archive start=

Reverting
I must admit I laughed when I saw that you had reverted my change to Pringles, noting "(No reason to disambig "saddle" since any of the definitions at saddle is sufficient)". Clearly this isn't a big issue, and I won't bother fighting over it, but it is important to note the condescension in your voice. No harm was done by directing the link to the origin of the term 'saddle', and using phrases like 'no reason' and 'sufficient' denotes your need to control more than your understanding of the issue. Keep that in mind when you are correcting other people's work. --Bookandcoffee 22:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are definitely not the first to point out my summaries, and to that my reply is: blame the developers for limiting the lengths of summaries. If I could write and write about my reasoning then I wouldn't have to make it concise and terse.  Regardless, my point still stands: any one of the uses on saddle is sufficient to explain the shape of a pringle and I see no reason to pick any one of them.  To a geologist, the mountain pass explanation might be more descriptive; to the mathematician, the saddle point might be more descriptive.  There's also no harm in pointing to a disambig page.  There seems to be an abundance of people that have a need to avoid redirects, disambig pages, and red links....like they bring on the plague, but that's a rant for another time. Cburnett 06:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Morning glory (disambiguation)
Your revert comment makes no sense. I did not make two disambig pages. I removed items that have no place there. Please reread the disambiguation policy. Mikkalai 23:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * some discussion of this is on my talk page as well as Mikkalai's talk page. --Heah (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Sampler
Please respond to my comments on Talk:Sampler. We need to resolve our difference of opinion in a civilized manner, and that's the only way it's going to happen. Isaac R 22:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Disambiguation
I did not say anything like "every wikipedia visitor understands the disambiguation process", I have no idea where you got that from. I simply pointed out that we do not disambiguate pages where because of the page name no confusion can arise. This is most definitely the case with Replicator (Star Trek). I'm afraid the google argument has been bought up before and it was decided overwhelmingly that disambiguation lines were not required to deal with google visitors. If you have a problem with that I suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to explain why you think it is neccesary, not argue with my removing disambiguation lines that run against Wikipedia policy. Disambiguation explains when to use disambiguation lines and when not to. Joe D (t) 18:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see nothing that supports your position. Disambiguation discusses disambig pages not links, save one line:


 * Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion.


 * And I vehemently disagree of your assessment of "no risk", ergo my reverting. You're going to have to link to something more than simply WP:D to convince me. Cburnett 19:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Try the next two sentences:
 * Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page? Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion.
 * Disambiguation is about the search box. I have already explained quite clearly that nobody who put "Replicator (Star Trek)" in the search box is going to be looking for anything other than the article "Replicator (Star Trek)".  The disambiguation link goes on "Replicator", not the other articles.
 * You may also be interested in this discussion in which somebody made the same proposal as yours to put disambiguation lines on already disambiguated pages. Joe D (t) 19:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

disambiguation talk
Hi - I hope you're OK with me deleting some comments of yours on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. I've been on a civility kick lately, and would really like to see WP become a nicer, kinder place (especially to new users, although that doesn't seem to pertain here). In any event, I gather you're frustrated with User:Steinsky. Do you think you might be able to put those feelings aside, at least in the discussion on this particular page? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Q Who?
I noticed that you disambiguated the page to the more specific Q Who? (TNG episode) yet failed to follow it up with anything. Can you explain your reasons for doing this? Reply on my talk page please. Ambush Commander 19:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aha. I see. Thanks. Ambush Commander 19:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

=June 17, 2005 archive end= =July 17, 2005 archive start=

Rick Aviles
1. I did not protect the Rick Aviles page. Look at the history of the page and you will not see my name. I only dedicate myself here to writing mostly and talking with friends. 2. I did not appreciate the words you told User:Marine 69-71, who is my father. I think you should respect him like most wikipedians respect each other. As an administrator of the site myself, I am willing to ask someone to mediate between you and him. 3. I have never protected any pages. Thanks for the concern, however, and God bless you. "Antonio Bellyline Martin"


 * is calling you a liar.


 * 23:02, 28 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Rick Aviles (Temp only)


 * You'll have to excuse my curt tone when I find an admin who doesn't follow the policies to protect his father's edits. Cburnett 09:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, is calling you an even bigger liar:


 * 23:02, 28 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Rick Aviles (Temp only)
 * 19:09, 13 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin unprotected Miguel Ferrer (I Believe that the vandalism is now under control)
 * 23:06, 10 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Miguel Ferrer (Temp Protection from vandalism and continous deverts)
 * 21:41, 10 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin unprotected Miguel Ferrer (Will make a fix)
 * 19:39, 10 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin protected Miguel Ferrer (Temp Protection against vandalism,)
 * 21:00, 8 Mar 2005 AntonioMartin unprotected Wilkins Velez Zambrana (Temp protection finished)
 * 22:08, 13 Feb 2005 AntonioMartin protected Wilkins Velez Zambrana (Temp/ protection against Vandalism)
 * 01:59, 26 Jan 2005 AntonioMartin protected Joaquin Phoenix (keep from continues revert)


 * Well? Cburnett 09:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess I forgot having protected those pages, but its because I have a thousand things on my head, like, for example, a doctor's appointment I had today to see if I needed a CT Scan, not to mention the always existent risk of dying from diabetes. But if, in three years of working here, writing every day Ive only protected four pages, I dont think that's such a bad record. When I saw the links you provided, it only said a temporary protection, however, which is used against vandals.

Im going to ask a mediator to talk to you and me so we can end this in a peaceful way.

God bless! "Antonio Header Martin"


 * So did you or did you not protect the Rick Aviles article? The logs say you did and you indirectly admit it.  What troubles me is that you failed to follow policy and procedure on how to protect a page, or you leave your account free for anyone (notably your father) to use your admin privileges.  Since you explicitly stated that you did not protect the page that leads me to the conclusion that you're a bad liar or your father used your account without you knowing about it.


 * If anything here, it would seem that RFC is warranted for your use (or lack of protection of those uses) of administrator prvileges. To not follow policy (unilaterally doing it and making no notice that it's been done) to protect a page on your father's behalf is pretty a Bad Thing if you ask me. Cburnett 23:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Peace Pipe
O.K., I thought that the horizontal rule (line) would have been innovative as an indication where the main article ended. But O.K., there's no reason to make a big issue over it, so I hope you accept my peace offering. I do want to keep the ==See also== as a cross reference because it'll lead others to read about other Puerto Ricans in a related topics. So what do you say? Wikipedian Freinds? Tony the Marine


 * Linking to a list of famous puerto ricans in every puerto rican article loses its meaning. No different than linking to lists of movies, directors, and actors in every article about movies (they were prevalent some time ago but I've managed to get them almost gone).


 * The problem I have with it is that it's an extremely general link and doesn't add to the article. If someone wants to find a list of puerto ricans from an article then they can hit the category link at the bottom or go to Puerto Rican and find it there.  The list is directly relevant to an article on puerto ricans but not directly relevant to someone who happens to be puerto rican. Cburnett 00:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Typo alert!
Wanted to alert you to some typos you've made on the ISU notables page. Dormatory/dormatories should be spelled dormitory/dormitories. Would correct myself but you are in the process of editing at the moment, thought you should be informed. Adm58 07:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. :) Cburnett 07:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Image USA 2004 presidential popular vote
Please see WP:RM (Requested moves is not the proper place to request renaming images or categories. ... + instructions how to). Hope this helps --Philip Baird Shearer 14:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, jeeze, do you think it could be put in a more prominent location other than at the bottom of the page??? Cburnett 16:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Zurich
Zürich has been nominated on Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VEISHEA Veishea
There are examples on veishea.org that are lower case, although most are upper case. In print however, including the Iowa State Daily and the Des Moines Register, it is written "Veishea".

I guess I'm a little baffled by this, I thought I had checked it out pretty well before making the change. Oh well. Adm58 08:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the AP style for acronyms. You'll find they also use Nasdaq when it's an acronym.  I've never been a fan of AP style. :) Cburnett 16:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from. I just wish there were more consistency.  In the Daily, it's always lower case.  Throughout the ISU website, it's sometimes caps and sometimes lower case, even within the same page.  On veishea.org, it's nearly always upper case.  It's fine with me to use all caps on Wikipedia.  I think I like it better that way, I had only changed it because I kept seeing it written lower case.  Adm58 17:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's just AP style. Sometimes an acronym becomes a word lik "radar" then it's lower-case, but I always capitalize acronyms sans "of", "the", etc. unless it's apart of the name.  I'm pretty sure most people have this style except journalists... Cburnett 01:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

categories
Yeah, I'm deeply lazy...will try to remember to do so in the future. Sorry. john k 28 June 2005 04:48 (UTC)


 * No big deal. I'd just prefer to not click on the pages you've been adding categories to (lazy, yada yada) but don't know which those are. Cburnett June 28, 2005 04:51 (UTC)

=July 17, 2005 archive end= =January 14, 2007 archive start=

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)
Howdy, I've overhauled Manual of Style (lists of works) based on the 2nd round of feedback. Possibly it's complete and ready now?

The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I still suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.

Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) --Quiddity 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

=January 14, 2007 archive end=