User talk:MJBurrage/archive 2007

Wesley Crusher
LOL.... my wife and I have been rewatching the series from NETFLIX... and I keep thinking, I need to add Wesley Crusher to the list of fictional military brats... I came online to do it, and you had beaten me to it ;-) Thanks... Balloonman 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates/Years
Alright, thanks for the link. :-) | A ndonic O  Talk 11:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise
With regards to the merger tags, whoever put them there did not give any reasons on the talk pages, and with out any arguments for merger, I felt no need to argue for the existing separate pages.'' —MJBurrage • TALK  • 15:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to restore my work on this page, please do not just remove it again. I checked my work in both Firefox, and Internet Explorer'' to make sure it would flow well in both despite the resolution of the users screen.  It is specifically set up to put ships side-by-side if there is room (800px +) and one above the other if there is not.  If you have some constructive criticism I would welcome it.  But just removing my input fixes nothing.

Merges are discussed, you are welcome to discuss them - and you may discuss your changes, pages should certainly not be formatted like that, and certainly when they don't render well for everybody, so you could say I dispute your edit, and hence you must discuss this first with the other editors on the talk page, thanking you very muchely. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Side note: When a merge is not opposed on the talk page in some time on an active page it generally indicates an endorsement. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say they do not “render well” could you be more specific please. I would be happy to work on any issues given the chance. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How can anyone discuss my edits if they cannot see them? Please at least leave them long enough for other users to see, comment, and possibly improve.  That is the whole point of not just reverting someone else’s work as you have done twice now.
 * They can easily see them, in the history, Wikipedia is not your personal webspace ([Perma link]) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many editors, and most potential editors, will not look at the history unless they see a change on the page itself.  And I would still love specific feedback. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page titles
Hi MJBurrage,

Thanks for correcting me regarding Wikipedia's guidelines. I made the assumption, without checking, that adding "(disambiguation)" on the end of a disambig page title was the preferred method. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 09:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

“Frankly, my dear, I just don't give a damn”
I won't revert any subsequent edits you (or anyone else) makes. I would ask that you stick to using CSS instead of deprecated HTML&mdash;but I imagine that, too, precludes PDA support. My opinion is generally thus: I don't really care about PDA (or any other atypical device) support. I refer back to my opening statement in case you think this will cause an edit war between me and you or anyone else. I just wanted to note that I thoroughly disagree with your justification. If a device or application can't render the page in a sufficiently understandable fashion, then it shouldn't even bother. I can run any major graphical or text-based browser and still find the table arranged the same way. It makes little sense to me to adapt to devices that fail to properly interpret the difference between rows and columns. And besides, aren't there modified versions of HTML specifically designed for PDAs and other compact devices? Anyhow, like I said, I won't change anything again. I just don't agree with you.&mdash;Kbolino 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Highwayman Truck.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Highwayman Truck.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Danica Patrick
The image was being used to illustrate the person, not in an article or article section about the book, and as such is replaceable. Your claim that because the book is an autobiography any article about her is also about the book was tenuous at best. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the image made it eligible for speedy deletion: "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate.". ed g2s &bull; talk 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The replaceable fair use template is for images which fall foul of WP:FUC #1, "Images that do not comply with this policy within 48 hours after notification to the editor who uploaded the image will be deleted.", see also WP:CSD #7. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:VSS_Enterprise.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:VSS_Enterprise.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJ Talk 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The image in question was cropped from this image, also on Wikipedia, and at the time listed as in the public domain. The copyright listing of the original—without my knowing it—is now “copyright holder [Tony Bonanno] has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties.”  I am not sure where that puts Image:VSS_Enterprise.jpg with-respect-to Wikipedia’s interpretation of fair-use. —MJBurrage •  TALK  • 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted and we are using it under fair use. This image needs to be removed unless it is used in an article. BJ Talk
 * Having just looked into it some more I believe the model being held is actually a SpaceShipOne not a SpaceShipTwo so neither image is correct for the article. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yet another dewuserbox
using a picture I uploaded. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. Thanks
Also, thank you for the tip about logging in. I did not see your message until today, but you are right that I am quite bad at remembering. I have not been terribly active in a while, but I will certainly try to remember. - Chaognosis 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ozymandias.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ozymandias.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Verdier
A person can be added to all the nationality-specific categories that apply. The plain category, however, isn't meant to be a generic category for individual people — people should only be in the more specific subcategories and the plain one should serve only as a navigation tool to collect those subcategories. Bearcat 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowrun ISBN and FASA numbers
I'm not sure why you think these were unrelated prior to 2003. I own all of the Shadowrun novels and, even on books from the early 90s, the FASA number on the spine corresponds to the ISBN number. I can't be bothered to register for Wikipedia so if you want to talk back to me about this maybe you could use the article's discussion page. Thanks. 70.81.193.217 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:LandMaster4x4.png
Thanks for uploading Image:LandMaster4x4.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:USS Enterprise NCC-1701-J.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:USS Enterprise NCC-1701-J.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared
An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're Beautiful
I do not dispute that REM also did a modified version of their song on Sesame Street. That has nothing to do with James Blunt or You're Beautiful. Hundreds of artists have done the same thing. There have been over 4000 Sesame Street shows over 38 years. I personally can think of at least 40 artists who have done the same thing - and it would be ridiculous to add "See Also" sections listing them all on every artist's page. If you feel that singing a song on Sesame Street is particularly noteworthy, perhaps you might want to create an article entitled List of songs modified for performance on Sesame Street or something to that effect. I have removed the addition again, and have explained why on the talk page of the article, which is the appropriate place to discuss disputed additions and reversions of material. Risker 06:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Fishman
Thanks for the note, but as the point of the section is to list those who live in the community, I do my best to keep it pruned of people whose articles give no indication of their living in the community. The point of the section isn't to prove that they live there, but to list them; therefore, proof belongs in the biographical article — therefore, I check the article. It's not my responsibility to build their articles; it's simply a question of keeping unsourced information out. I watch several thousand place articles: if I were to check where people lived before deleting them, I'd never do anything else. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Roberts and Barrand
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Roberts and Tony Barrand, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nowell Sing We Clear
Talk:Nowell Sing We Clear --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now i understand it they are a musical group. Listing them as Nowell Sing We Clear is very confusing. I think maybe you should move the page to Nowell Sing We Clear (musical group) then it would be more clear. Like Edea (musical group) is listed. What do you think? --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or maybe Nowell Sing We Clear (musical ensemble)? --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis Ouimet
The Open de France and the French Open are the same tournament (French and English names). The French Open Amateur is a different tournament entirely, that's why I delinked it. I have no idea about the "1916 French Open" - it certainly isn't the Open de France/French Open. Tewapack (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

SCC
How can anyone confirm the source without illegally obtaining the pilot? It hasn't aired yet. Any information from the pilot that is from another reliable source can go in. Another thing, the article mentions reshoots since the pilot was leaked. So, some things have changed since then. Once the actual show airs, then we can freely get information from it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You say there are copies of the pilot out there legally. Those are for major news sites to review. And as I said above, you can cite information about the pilot from a reliable source. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you can't use it because of it's rarity. I'm saying you can't use it because it is illegal. Have you been reading what I've been writing at all? Wikipedia does not allow copyright violation, which is what using an illegally obtained pilot is. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times since the pilot was leaked. If after all of this you don't understand why citing something that is illegal to possess is not good, I won't be able to explain it to you. Just wait a few weeks until the show airs, and then you can cite anything from it you wish. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't put my hand on one, and a search for "citing illegally obtained materials" turns up nothing. However, if you want to ignore me, I would suggest posting something on the talk page to see if anyone agrees with you, or contacting an administrator to make sure. And on top of it being illegal, as I said before, and as the article states, there have been reshoots since the pilot was leaked. Therefore, this information from the leaked pilot could be incorrect. And as the citation policy states, it's before for Wikipedia to be silent than wrong. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Or'zet
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Or'zet, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Or'zet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)