User talk:MJBurrage/archive 2009

Handling the time technicalities in WALL-E
Just wanted to say that I saw the solution you implemented, nicely done way of "thinking outside the box" and coming at the problem from an entirely different angle. All good! --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I still think "circa 2805" is the most accurate wording, but can live with "almost seven hundred years after 2110". —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fishman
Sorry about the confusion; I know the difference between villages and towns in the Vermont context — it's simply that I misunderstood where you were going. Now that I know what you meant, I look back at what you wrote and think "of course that's what he means". I've removed him, because he simply doesn't belong at a place where he's not lived. Thanks for the note! Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bea Arthur Part 2
Attention my fellow comrades. User:Chrisrus, has provided us with the site: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PUgDa1jy4) in which Arthur is supposed to have stated (I say "supposed" only because my internet connection is so slow that I haven't looked at it) that she was never a member of the United States Marine Corps. We "must" look into this because if it true then her name must be removed from the List of U.S. Marines. Please take a look and make recommendations. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I'd just like to thank you for the moves you've made with regard to getting to the bottom of this matter. I am greatful for your help and like what you've done.
 * Just one small thing, if you could just look again and see if the reference to Arthur's name on the List of Famous Marines shouldn't rather omit the Stanford Trivia quiz. It would stand fine as
 * While multiple sources—including the USMC's Marine magazine (Vol. 36, #1, January–March 2007)—state that she was an early female Marine Corps recruit; in a 2001 Archive of American Television interview she was asked (after a WWII question) "I had read somewhere that you had joined the Marines, is that true?" and responded "oh, no" (Interview Part 1 of 5, 5:17 in).
 * If you still don't think that the Marine Magazine isn't enough, there are some more sources that someone left on the talk page that would be nice. There's a beautiful book on The Corps there that's available on-line and would serve the purpose very well.Chrisrus (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I kept the Stanford source because, they are known to do their own fact checking, and it predated the USMC magazine. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Marine Pride was written in 2004. The Quizbowl is dated in 2005.  Maybe the Quizbowl used it as a sourse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but we don't know, and personally I find Stanford Quizbowl to be a better example/contrast to go along with the later Marines source.
 * As I said on the related talk page, until the USMC itself responds to the issue, we will never really know, since the extant sources are both reliable and conflicting. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Until the USMC clarifies the matter it is uncertain"


 * Ok, but when will they do so? It seems to me that probably not until someone asks, at least.  Why not work on figuing out who and how to ask?  The bottom of this should be gotton to! Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Image
I don't care enough about the ISS image enough to make a fuss about it, but I'd appreciate if you'd try to find some third-party commentary discussing the appearance/development of that ship, either in the original episode or (probably more easily) the remastery. Even review/commentary from a reasonably decent review site, like TrekToday, would work. But the cosmetic changes are negligible, and have no bearing whatsoever on understanding the ship, the "idea" of the Mirror Universe, etc.; I doubt it would stand up under IfD as the current 1701 and Starship Enterprise articles stand. --EEMIV (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. A step in the right direction. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode template
There isn't one, because there isn't a guideline that says it must be used. Using one template over another has always been the decision of the community editing those specific pages (which would mean having a discussion on those pages). As far as this template goes, you cannot manipulate it as easily as the current one on the page. That is a template, which means any major changes have to be done on the template page, because they will affect every page that uses that template. Not so when using the one on the Smallville pages. You can change them how you like and never affect any page other than that one. The template also takes up way more space, because you have to put "title", "writer", etc. every time you add a new episode. The Smallville pages uses a more efficient format, that only requires those section titles to be listed once. Not to mention that the template is visually uglier. Everything is grayed out with a single thin strip separating each episode. With the current format, you get contrast between the episode production info, the plot summary, and the next episode in the list. The current format is the one used on the season 1 page, which it has always used and was never a problem when it became featured over a year ago. I'm not really understanding the need to change the episode list table format.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Linking an episode is minor. The table isn't that big, that it would be a hassle to just scroll down and find the episode title. Wikipedia is not concrete. No two articles every look identical. The template itself is not customizable on an individual level beyond simple color change. I can reformat the whole thing and put writers first, directors first, titles first, etc. You have to follow a set pattern as determined by the parent template. I never said the template was hard to use. It's simple, just like the current formatting is. The template itself, IMO, is flat out ugly when presenting information. It doesn't look at presentable when compared to the other template.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mischa Barton BLP violations
None of the actual news articles you cite report as fact that Barton suffered a "breakdown," and none report the involuntary commitment you claim. The fact that an online photo caption, wherever published, makes such unsupported claims when the affiliated news organization has been careful not to cannot be taken to meet Wikipedia reliable source requirements. From WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. . . The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons."


 * Look at the sources again, the LA Times mentions the 2150 hold, and the Guardian (along with many other reliable sources) cite a breakdown. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources again yourself. The Guardian did not report the breakdown as factual, but only as "reported." The LA Times mention is only in the introductory caption to an online photo gallery, not in any actual news articles, and the claim is not reflected in the actual news article as updated by the LA Times. No one identifies an actual source for the claim, and her representatives deny it. Whatever you believe is correct, there's not enough to meet WP:BLP reqirements for reliable sourcing and verifiability, or, for that matter, encyclopedic significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC) BLP violations

Navy SEAL pin
was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process. As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information. Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred. Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All I did was make the background of a previously uploaded image transparent. There is now a much better image of the pin at File:US Navy SEALs insignia.png —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Essex (Junction)
The reason that I believe what I do about the intro to the article is that Essex is officially the town only, and EJ is officially the village only. Although the village is part of the town, that's not necessary to mention for the town article — we don't usually note if a town includes an incorporated village — and anyway, there's no good reason to make the intro different from other community articles, both in Vermont and elsewhere. After all, the first sentence of each article makes it clear what type of community is the focus of the article — if someone doesn't understand what a town or village is, and they don't know to click on town or village, a nonstandard introduction won't help. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we have to be careful to use references properly. Introductions really aren't the place for disambiguations.  Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox bridge changes
Please see Template talk:Infobox bridge for existing discussion. You can't really just change this, as some bridges are destroyed. - Denimadept (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)