User talk:MJBurrage/archive 2008

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Connecticut College Seal.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Connecticut College Seal.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of The Individuals (Chicago band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Individuals (Chicago band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Individuals (Chicago band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Individuals (Chicago band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Celebrity Apprentice: Team Columns

The other The Apprentice articles don't use that format, breaking the consistency if this one is applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Celebrity Apprentice suggestions

Yeah, your format might be better. I'd still recommend changing the text in team names to bold display, since the boxes have color. As for the results, you should probably change "1st fired" to "fired in task (or episode) 1", because multiple firings will probably occur and it'd be strange to list two people as "2nd fired", for example. Oh, and thanks for the tip. Tam001 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sailboat Specifications

I´m affraid I don´t know either how to limit both width and heigth... I myself still find 180 px too large for cases like Snipe (dinghy), but it´s not a big problem, and much better than 250 px. Thanks for writing.--Banderas (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Landmaster

The article cannot stand on its own. You're talking about a subjective view of notability, which is not valid. The topic will never stand on its own, so it is best to leave it as a redirect. I'll put it up for deletion soon if you're persistent on keeping it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arwing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Fox for the definite outcome of it. TTN (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles on fictional topics must have information pertaining to their creation and reception (i.e. "The idea for the Landmaster came from..."). This topic does not have it. You are welcome to include information under a general header describing all of the main vehicles in the series somewhere in the main article. There is nothing to warrant an article. TTN (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminator

It was decided a long time ago at Talk:Terminator (character) that there was not enough evidence to reference it is a T-800 or T-850 or whatever. We came to a decision to either have it the way it is now in the Terminator (character concept) article, to use Model 101, or just to use "The Terminator". Unless consensus has changed, it should probably be the way it has been. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Please don't remove hatnotes from biographical articles, as you did in this edit to John Connor, when you removed {{otherpeople|John Connor}}. The hatnote is essential, because it is the only way that a reader can find the other people named John Connor, who are listed at John Connor (disambiguation). Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, it was unintentional on my part. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gotham map

Some minor edits are non-issues, such as cropping, "cutting-out" an element, or color correcting to the image original colors. And a few, like desaturating backgrounds to force emphasis, while pushing it, are seen as acceptable.

Changing an image to the point where it is a derivative work though isn't acceptable since it stops being fair use. Whether you assert it or not, it's your work, not the image the fair use rationale is based on. - J Greb (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bill Jaaska

A tag has been placed on Bill Jaaska requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel you didn't have an opportunity to fix the article. However, it didn't have enough substantive content to be included on Wikipedia; if you'd like, you can recreate it in your userspace (for example, User:MJBurrage/Bill Jaaska) and work on it there before moving it to the mainspace. Remember to include reliable and verifiable sources. Cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that I should've given at least a few minutes. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Jaaska

I have nominated Bill Jaaska, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Jaaska. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reiko Aylesworth

Shooting Vegetarians should be 2001, not 2005 which is why I changed it. 2005 is the release date on DVD, it was filmed in 2001. Also, the (Four Episodes) note for The American Embassy is correct as the character was not in two of the six that were shot. But thanks for messing with the page and screwing up the work a lot of people have done to it.--MiB-24 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MiB-24, If you are going to work on a collaborative project, you should learn to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. I made the edits to improve the article. Chronological lists on Wikipedia are supposed to begin with the earliest item and go to the latest item. Having years span multiple rows makes the table code unnecessarily complicated, making it harder for others to edit, and harder to reorder if required. (Also row-spans cannot be properly sorted under the sortable table style.)
With respect to Shooting Vegetarians, all online source including the New York Times list it as a 2005 release (which is the dating convention used on Wikipedia for films). Regardless of when it was filmed, it has to be shown publically (such as at a film festival) or released for sale, to have a release date. Can you provide a source for a showing earlier than 2005?
Sincerely —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost the ability to assume good faith long ago when I see people running over the rules and getting away with it. I was a member here once before and left for over a year because I had uploaded over a dozen pictures to the site. These were pictures I took which meant I held the copyright to them. They were unique, added valuable content to the pages, and existed for months without so much as one complaint. However, someone who didn’t like them tagged them as being in violation of copyright. Despite my efforts, an admin deleted all of them.
Oh, as for a source for Shooting Vegetarians being shot earlier than 2005, take your pick. Actually, it looks like it was shot in 1999, not 2001. Thank God for Lexis-Nexis.

• “Filming in the US.” Daily Variety. (28 May 1999) p. 19
• Grant, Kieran. “Bash Time for Oasis.” Toronto Sun. (26 April 2002) p. 65.
• Worrell, Kris. “Film Festival Frenzy First-Ever Fest Takes Woodstock in New Direction, but Music Still has Starring Role.” The Times Union, (Albany, NY) (17 September 2000) p. I-1.
• Associated Press. “You Won’t See These Films at Multiplex.” Press of Atlantic City. (20 September 2000) p. B-8.
• Vellucci, Michelle. “Hours of Joy Fill today’s Film Fest.” Poughkeepsie Journal. (23 September 2000)

--MiB-24 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MiB-24, I looked over the Lexis-Nexis articles and they boiled down to the project being filmed in 1999 and 2000, followed by:

• Woodstock Film Festival, September 2000
  • Planned to show Shooting Vegetarions, "A Work in Production" by Mikey Jackson
• Nodance Film and Multimedia Festival, January 2001
  • Planned to show the "world premiere" of Shooting Vegetarians (Mikey Jackson)
• North By Northeast music festival (NXNE) June 2002
  • Planned to show a "world premiere sneak preview" of Shooting Vegetarions (This suggests that the film did not actually run at Nodance 2001.)

There was no other mention of the film until 2005, no reviews, no comments etc.

While IMDb is not perfect, it is generally pretty good on release dates. Furthermore, every source I found that dates the film gives it a date of 2005.

From all of this I would guess that the film was unfinished from the end of principal photography in 2000 until is DVD release in 2005.

Do you by any chance know what the copyright date is on the DVD, or do you know of an article that gives more detail than the above? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was shown at film festivals, it was completed. The reason it was not put out on DVD until 2005 was simply because getting very low budget, independent films onto DVD is a hard thing to do. On the DVD commentary, the director said he has been trying for 3 years to get it onto DVD and this was back in 2004. (He gives the current date as they were doing the commentary as being “2004.”) As for IMDB and Amazon.com, those sites should never be considered reliable; at least no more than this place is. Go to Amazon.com and search for “Reiko Aylesworth,” “Kiefer Sutherland,” “Carlos Bernard,” “Elisha Cuthbert,” or any other notable 24 actor. You will find all kinds of crap including Penthouse and Playboy videos all because some idiot added their names to over 100 DVDs, books, CDs, etc. About IMDB, it took me nearly 6 months to get Reiko added to the cast of Mr. Brooks despite articles saying she was in it; 2 months to fix someone’s screw up on The Knights of Prosperity; 6 months to add Sherman’s March, etc. etc. etc. Also, now maybe you see why I no longer assume good faith. I could have found 200 sources and you would simply torpedo them as well. --MiB-24 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In your response to the above, you say that if it was shown at a festival then it must have been complete, but the first festival listed specifically say it was still a work in progress. The second festival says it will be a world premiere, but so does the third from a year later. You can't have two world premiers. Also all of the Lexis Nexis articles and the related festival pages were written before the festivals happened. If a finished version was shown at the third festival, then why do all sites about the film including for example the New York Times say it is a 2005 release. All I am looking for is even one review or description, after the fact, of a showing from a festival before 2005. Basically a citable source to contradict the film distributor's 2005 release date. (Since Wikipedia's guidelines are for films to be listed by release date rather than production date.) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. As usual I have to encounter someone who has to be so obtuse about all of this that the only way it will end is you whining “edit war” to an admin. Nice picking and choosing of the rules to support your abstract view of how Wikipedia should be run. Your little note on Shooting Vegetarians does NOT resolve this issue. You are another perfect example of why good faith should NEVER, ever be assumed about any edits. Dealing with people like you who do not have any desire to actually improve the content here gives me a headache. Go find some other good page to destroy. I’m done talking to you. --MiB-24 (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New Amsterdam (TV series)

Hello, I was happy to see someone had started a timeline and was keeping track of this info. Would you be interested in contributing info to the forums of NewAmsterdam-Forever.com by any chance? Thanks --John T. Folden (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, I have an account at FOX's press site and so generally have access to material for future episodes. Fair point on his sobriety. --John T. Folden (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be in the unaired pilot, but without a source, we can't prove that. Aired material is valid without a cited source, because it's implicitly the aired material itself. However, if it's unaired, it's impossible to just look up the show online and verify. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said sources had to be online. I just said that they had to be cited. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice how in the Buffy pilot that you mentioned, the article cites an interview with Joss Whedon, TV.com, and the BBC. That article has sources. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

re: production codes. The official episode descriptions from FOX list Reclassified and Love Hurts as NAM-108 and NAM-107 respectively. The promo pictures released for each episode are, also, labeled as 108 and 107. --John T. Folden (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New Amsterdam TV series infobox episodes

Hey thanks for clearing that up for me. I was always told that production was not counted for. 35.11.200.66 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotham Knight

HI. I see you've tried adding that to the two Nolan film pages, and seen it reverted. Here's why. Although early talk was that one, some, or all of the episodes would become 'canon', by release, none were openly called canon. Instead, they're in the same mood and spirit as the films and overseen by some of the same production team. It's a fine distinction, but important. Odds are that the executives didn't want folks confused. and example of the discord between the two is that in one of the viral marketing tie-ins for TDK, an ad for Killer Croc is seen. I don't have the link any more, but it was in there, with him as a carnival attraction, like his comic origin, instead of as a sewer myth, like in Gotham Knight. Hope this helps.ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jericho map

I guess its possible that the ASA in Jericho controls Alaska, but it isn't stated by the show. I suppose it might be good to add an unclear/mixed control color for Louisiana, Alaska, and Hawaii. You may want to contact the creator of the SVG map to request for that uploader to make that change. Hello32020 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to say that for Minnesota too, because the Mississippi River begins and is located within the state. Another thing would be to ask if it would be possible to add the Blue Line to the map. Hello32020 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Faith

Burrage, I understand your dedication and passion for your side of the argument, but the whole point of the RfC is to get outside opinion. If you're merely going to restate exactly what you've stated countless times in the thread above the RfC, then please do not respond to comments. Those editors that come to give their opinion are aware of the discussion that has taken place and it is their responsibility to read it. By restating the same thing over and over again to anyone new that comes to the page you're really doing yourself a disservice (as it seems that you don't respect other people's opinion so much so that you're going to constantly restate the same thing over and over again until it's burned into their brain that they are wrong [...before you assume anything, I would like to clarify that I don't not believe that this is your intention, I'm merely stating how it can be perceived]), and it also comes across like you think those neutral editors are either too dumb to read the above sections, or just don't care enough to read them. Notice how I didn't respond to Worm when he posted his comments. There is no point in wasting your energy retyping the same argument when it's been said numerous times prior.

I'm coming to your talk page out of respect (instead of just posting this on the article talk page), because it just comes across as bad form to bagger "neutral" editors that come to the page looking to give their own insight, only to be bombarded by the same people that couldn't decide the issue amongst themselves. We've had our time in the limelight, and we could not agree. It's time for others to take part in the discussion. That being said, I'm not discourging responses from the RfC section, I'm merely discouraging responses that you've already stated. If someone brings up a new point, and you want to provide a rebuttle to that point that isn't already covered in our 10kb worth of debate, please feel free to do so. Please do not read my comments as an attack on you, as I really am just trying to give you some friendly advice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to strike it, it's still visible if you do. I'm just letting you know that-for the most part-the RfC is really for neutral parties to come in and discuss and you and I (including Paul and the other editors that took part in the numerous discussions on "Lehane") should just sit back and let the RfC unfold. Hopefully, we will get a good number of responses from some unbiased eyes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Flyboys Cast

The transformation of the original section is WP:BRD but it introduces superfluous information as in lesser characters. Unless there is an explanation for the change, it will go back to the original format, as this is a stylistic change at best, besides removing a cite, rearranging the cast list and introducing a raft of redlinks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

There is no preferred style for a cast list but when one is presently in use, changing to a different style for mainly stylistic reasons is not the norm. Besides, there were changes made in one version of the cast list that did not correspond to screen credits as well as in introducing a number of redlinks. Basically, the first style of an edited piece usually predominates, as in WP:LAYOUT although I am not adverse to using lists, a graphic list was first used so that is what I usually go with. FWiW, the same goes for dates, numbers, ENGVAR and other considerations in an already established style. Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Please comment on the Flyboys talk page so we have a centralized discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Burn Notice Episodes

Then get the correct number of episodes produced, which is more than 20, and be able to source it reliably. BN and most TV shows work several episodes ahead (based on casting announcements, they're working on at least number 12 of season 2 at present, which would bring the total to 23 already produced and the 24th in production.) 20 is the number of episodes for which the show has released summaries to the media, but that's all. The form around here is to add episodes to the total once they are broadcast. You're using poor wording that better applies to completed seasons to add inaccurate information. Drmargi (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation

You recently contributed to a poll on date formats.[1] The option you supported won the poll but is now an option in a final poll to test support against the current version.[2] The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of this poll, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of U.S. Marines

The rules of the list clearly state the following: "When adding a name to this list, please place the same in alphabetical order and provide a reliable verifiable source. Secondary sources such as fansites are not allowed. As a guide please see: sources. Additions that are not in alphabetical order and/or do not provide a primary reliable verifiable source will be removed."

There are no exceptions to the rule, if you are going to add the name of Donald E. McQuinn, it is up to you to cite a primary reliable verifiable source where his service in the Marine Corps is stated. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Every single name in the list was verified last March before the rule was implemented. There have been too many instances when the names of "rumored" Marines were added and we want to keep the list as reliable as possible. It is a simple request in the management of our list and we expect that all those who want to add a name to comply with the rules. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the issue, take it up in the "List of US Marines" talk page. As it stands you can not cite Wikipedia as a source and the article on the subject is an exact copy of what is posted in the website in direct violations of copyright laws. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You finally got your references right. Take care! Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I never cited the Wikipeida article as a source; I described the off-line source (his Del Rey bio), and simply linked to McQuinn's article for more details. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Spain... on the road Again

That's understandable, and I figured as much on the spelling part. The titles definitely need to stay as they are spelled on the television show, but I thought it would be best for consistency to use the most common English spellings (as well as the article spellings) in the location column. The odd thing is that not only did they mix the spellings between different languages (Catalunya is Catalan whereas Andalucía is Spanish), but they also misspelled the word Castilian as Castillian with a double 'l'. I haven't seen the show yet but might get the DVDs if I can't pick it up on television. Kman543210 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning-up the USS Enterprise ship index page! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the latest addition? Seams awfully ... big for something that is not even really canon. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of The Individuals (Chicago band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Individuals (Chicago band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Individuals (Chicago band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Individuals (Chicago band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)