User talk:Cburnett

PLEASE NOTE: I tend to keep track of my postings on other user pages (especially the more recent) so you're welcome to reply on your own talk page instead of here.

BY COMMENTING HERE, I ASSUME TO REPLY HERE UNLESS YOU SAY OTHERWISE!

template:US state

A couple of comments about your recent changes.

1. Adding km² to the Area label doesn't work for Kansas (which has measurements in both English and metric units). Missouri (not using the template yet) also lists English and metric units.
2. Perhaps not obvious, but the ISO 3166-2 code includes the USPS abbreviation so listing both is actually redundant.
3. I don't mean to argue about it (just curious, really), but what don't you like about including the statehood order parenthetically after the date?
4. The way you have the title for the population entries makes the parenthetical rank look (to me) like it is somehow related to 2000, rather than all the population data being as of the 2000 census. Please don't fix this by reverting the ranks back to their own lines.
5. Given you've changed width and length back to their own lines I'll stop trying to think of a way to combine max/mean/min elevations on one line.

We clearly have different preferences on how compact the table should be. I strongly lean minimalist, but I suspect we both agree comprehensibility is most important. BTW - you didn't respond on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states about adding FIPS code or motto. What do you think? -- Rick Block 21:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Rick. :)

1. I think we should make them all km² or all mi² or both. It is a template to provide unity across state data.
2. I know that, but does everyone else? Does a 5th grader know who ISO is? :) And which really came first: USPS switching to 2-letter or ISO defining 3166-2? The real driving reason I wanted to put USPS abbreviation in the infobox is I saw a lot of states specify it inside the article in haphazard locations, but typically in the opening paragraph. First step to not needing it in the article.
3. On a web page, width is in short supply but length is not. (I absolutely hate side-scrolling; there's page up/down but no page left/right). For me all the changes I made are putting things to keep them from wrapping because they're too wide. I don't mind scrolling down to read more. My definition of "compact" is a matter of width not brevity. Wrapped lines/data are confusing and not particularly necessary when things can easily be moved to another line
4. Without making the template wider I don't think you can.

Yes, I certainly agree. Comprehensibility is key. I'll respond to your FIPS, etc. comments when I get a chance. Cburnett 21:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With the current version there are problems with Arizona and Texas (at least with NS 7, W98, and "classic" skin - seems "nowrap" fails to have any effect). Also note that with this version most entries fit in the left half of the horizontal space. In some sense (perhaps only theoretically) I think this means the table at its current width is roughly twice as long as it could be. I don't think we're going to shrink the US map to reduce the width of the table to less than 300px, so I'd prefer we reformatted some things to use more of the available width. We should at least redistribute the white space so everything isn't piled up in the left half of the table. -- Rick Block 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comment on templates for Deletion

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --fvw* 23:28, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by date of statehood

I'm going to change some of the setup back to the previous version...it's complicated, but see the "preceding entity" to Delaware before its "Date of [U.S.] state sovereignity" was not the Delaware Colony, it was a fuzzy state (not a U.S. state) under the Articles of the Confederation, not unlike a nation-state of its own. We've had this debate a lot in the past and the previous language was what was settled upon. Thanks for setting up all the tables and stuff. jengod 22:17, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) sovereighy

Backslashes in TeX

Hello. Your raised cosine article prompts a comment on TeX usage. Please note the difference between

$\sin x\,$

and

$sinx\,$

The backslash provides for proper spacing between "sin" and "x" and prevents italicization of "sin". It should also be used in \log, \det, \max, \sup, etc. Michael Hardy 23:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stubs?

Hi, why are you adding those {{film-stub}} tags to articles about movies such as Sadie Thompson? What would you expect contributors to add there?? Best wishes, <KF> 18:17, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Most notably, the tend to have little or nothing on the plot. Sadie Thompson only has a single sentence on the plot. The rest is about awards and such. Cburnett 18:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there any agreement that there should be more about the plot? I personally agree with you, but that's just the two of us. However, you really shouldn't add those tags uncritically: I just came across The Boys from Brazil, which is neither a stub nor a film article. <KF> 18:35, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

That one was a mistake. I made categories for the various academy awards and in adding movies to the categories I find a few movies not directly linked to the movie article (look at the history of best picture, best actor, or best actress for the number of disambigs I've made). I'm bound to miss some that don't make it obvious there's another article on the movie. There are many articles that contain both the novel/play and movie. But there are many more articles that definitely warrant the film-stub. Adding the award categories to movies is proving to be extremely time consuming and I can't spend the time each article deserves. Cburnett 18:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

{RfD} tags

Hi, to get redirects deleted, as the directions on WP:RfD state, you need to not only add the {RfD} tag to the page, but you also need to create an entry on WP:RfD. I routinely trawl for pages which have tags, but weren't listed, and found all the "Richard III" ones and added them for you, but in the future you might want to do this yourself. Thanks! Noel (talk) 20:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

(Six Degrees of Separation (film) move)

We had Six Degrees of Separation and Six degrees of separation which is mad so i made the lower case one a dismb. and the upper one move to (film) -- hope that makes sense --Davelane 12:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please add content

Wouldn't it be better to add a few well-written movie articles than many article a half-sentence long with a link to IMDB? Rmhermen 15:23, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. PLEASE stop creating these micro-stubs, and make more meaningful articles. RickK 00:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

This posted on Rmhermen's talk page

If you read about my current project (User:Cburnett#Current Project) you'll see I'm adding categories to movies. So my purpose in creating very stubby movie articles is a place holder for the categories. After adding thousands (and many thousands to go) of category entries I don't want a couple dozen movies to be missing them just because someone else created them after I passed the movie in one of the lists. I'd consider putting more effort into stub articles but the process of adding categories has proven so time consuming that spending even 15 minutes or more on each would amount to a lot of time...and I'd like to finish this project some day... Cburnett 16:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: IMDb links

Thanks for the advice. I have already used Template:imdb title on many movie articles for quite sometime but I will take note of Template:imdb name. By the way, there are many articles on actors which do not have proper IMDb name template. --*drew 07:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving film stub

I've been moving the film stub message to the middle of the category list because the film stub also creates a category listing. I've been trying to keep categories in alphabetical order, so I moved the stub to the middle of the category list. Why is this a problem? I'll stop until I hear back from you. While we're on the subject, I have some questions thay you may be able to answer:

1) Why is the tag "film stub", but the category is "movie stub"? It seems as though "film" is the better choice as "movie" is an Americanism.

2) Why are some film diretors in categories by country and others are just in the category for directors. I think every director should be in the directors category, and also in categories for each country. Both would be useful.

--Samuel Wantman 02:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point on the category name. There's (good?) reasons why I think {{film-stub}} should not be mixed with categories:

1) It's theoretically a temporary category until made a non-stub, so not too much effort need be added to make it alphabetical with the categories

2) If it's essentially located in a variable place it makes it that much harder to find (not that it's much harder, but for order/structure's sake)

Until I realized you had a reason for moving them, your moving them seemed like just random moves. Having editting thousands of movie articles, I've seen (and subsequently made my policy) the stubs not listed within categories.

To answer your questions: 1) Originally I believe the template was named {{movie-stub}} and {{mov-stub}}. Another one was added, {{film-stub}}, to address the name variation. If you look at Category:Movie stubs you'll see the preferred is now {{film-stub}} with a request to change the older names to the new. So I guess "Movie stubs" is leftover from that. I'd think the template could be changed touse "Category:Film stubs" without much argument.

2) I agree. As far as I'm concerned, all applicable categories should be added to any article.

Cburnett 03:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clerks

Don't revert Clerks.

It is OVERWHELMING best practice to redirect plurals to singular. There are just too many times this has come up. Take a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:R from plural (R_from_plural is a template we use to mark these redirects. I am in the process of fixing all the bad links and pointing directly to the movie article. Don't revert again, since it will add confusion in the future. -- Netoholic @ 09:35, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

If you want to move "Clerks." to "Clerks (movie)" then put it up at WP:RM like "Adaptation." is going under. Until you do, I'll revert whatever you do back to the way it was until "Adaptation." move fails. Cburnett 09:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was happy enough making a redirect. I moved it knowing you would... but that is about the MOVIE. About the OCCUPATION, leave clerks as a redirect to clerk. -- Netoholic @ 09:46, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Do you enjoy making extra work for everyone, just to be right? I mean really... you are reverting to bypass a redirect, how useless an activity. -- Netoholic @ 09:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Do you enjoy being a...what's that word you used?...a pest? Cburnett 09:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ed O'Brien

Er, right, not at all apropos of the contretemps above . . . I happened to notice that (i) you've just made an article on Edmund O'Brien and that (ii) there's another for Edmond O'Brien. I'd thought (well, guessed) that the former (yours) was correct, but IMDb seems quite sure that no, it's Edmond. I could just zap your article on Edmund and redirect it to Edmond, but I'm not doing so because you might after all be right. Perhaps you could look again at your sources.

Incidentally, I'm amazed by the respect with which Barefoot Contessa is treated. I greatly enjoy a lot of films of the period, but thought that Contessa was the biggest crock of marinated BS ever. (Oops, I hope it isn't one of your favorites!)

No need to reply, but if you do so, please do so here. -- Hoary 07:52, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

That would because "Edmund O'Brien" was on Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for Seven Days in May. I'll speedy delete the wrong one now and change the misspelling. Thanks for pointing it out, I appreciate it. Not much room for quality control when doing thousands of edits. :) Cburnett 08:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I've actually never heard of him. :) I'm just adding categories to academy award winners (see my user page under Current Project if you care). Cburnett 08:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You haven't? Sheesh, you need to potato on your couch more! He's famous for sweating. (Even if he's not actually sweating, he looks as if he's sweating.) Rent White Heat; you won't regret it. He's even more desperate in DOA, but that potentially excellent movie is almost killed by its asinine soundtrack. -- Hoary 08:26, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

NetBot on Cyrano de Bergerac

What your bot changed was more than advertised in the summary. See the [1] edit in question. Those HTML comments are in a specific place for a specific reason, plase see to it that your bot doesn't mess those up. These comments only exist (by me anyway) on movie pages as they related to the Academy Awards. Moving or removal of the comments will cause me excess work in the future for future changes I intend to make. Cburnett 08:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see why you'd say it was the bot's fault, but it's really about non-standard formatting. The way the categories are moved to one-per-line will happen anytime a bot runs on that page, so you'd probably do best to find a new format for those comment lines.

Anyway, why in the world would you add movie categories to an article about a historical figure? You've got enough there to create stubs for the films (Cyrano de Bergerac (1950 movie), Cyrano de Bergerac (1990 movie)), add the categories to those, and then link to them from the article. Let me know if you need any help. -- Netoholic @ 08:49, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

That's one of the pages that has a mix between the person, the novel (it's actually a play, so that's an error on the page), and the movie (there are plenty with just play/movie or novel/movie) in one page. I tend to split them off into different articles but since most were there I left it and moved on. When I come back around to utilize the comments I'll deal with it then. Cburnett 09:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Just to let you know what is going on with the edits of the Charles Darwin article—there has been a long-running edit war (since the beginning of December) over the inclusion/deletion of a reference to the fact that Charles Darwim and Abraham Lincoln have the same birth date. If you are interested, see Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln for all the gory details. gK ¿? 08:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reversion. Even if you decide to join the opposition, I appreciate the gesture. As for reading up on the details that would be a heroic feat: the talk page now has 14,000 words on this. And believe it or not, I am acting on principle. I am not "some weirdo with an ideological agenda". And neither is GK, or most of the Wikipedians opposed. Vincent 09:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the box primarily because (1) I didn't see there was an edit/revert war over the box and (2) I really didn't want to get involved. I think with the addition of move valuable (and more "where would I put ______ in an article???" type of information, the infobox could be more valuable and worth the space. As is, it's rather bland. Cburnett 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Miracle Worker

Dumb mistake on my part. I was trying to Cat the article's reference to Patty Duke to the Best Supporting Actress category but I kept doing it wrong and couldn't figure out what to do. I didn't want poor Patty going unrecognized so I used the only category I could get to work. Sorry. Thanks for correcting my error. Ray Foster 11:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No problem, don't worry about it. :) Cburnett 16:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Birthdates coinciding with religious holidays

OK, you and Adam have made your point and I humbly withdraw my contributions. Cheers JackofOz 22:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have a problem with something like List of births and deaths on Christian dates or List of births and deaths on religious dates. I just don't think it's NPOV to put them in all biographies. Now, if it's a person primarily involved in religion then I'd also have no problem with it. Cburnett 23:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Filmography tables

I see you've presented Liam Neeson's filmography in a table. Are sure we want to start doing this? It takes up a lot of room and looks pretty awful. Lists do the job fine and can be integrated into the text. What gives? BTW nice work on the Academy Awards categories! Jihg 19:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've actually used the same table format for several other fimographies as well as for numerous lists (see the history of this one for how much the table improved it: before and current). I haven't had a single revert or change to any of them (or none come to mind). I've certainly had no discussions/debates about it. Generally, repeatative data is better presented in a table format and particularly for multi-columned data where the lack of a table makes seperation of data much harder.

Though the particular style of the table is easily up for debate (I've been thinking of making a template just to keep the style consistent and easily modifiable) but I think the need of a table is still there. Flipping back and forth between revisions of Liam's filmography shows drastic improvement in readability. Without closely inspecting it in list format, you probably won't realize that some movies have "as Oskar Schindler" and some are just "Will". The table provides a more consistent means of presenting repeatative data.

Re: academy awards. Thanks. It's been countless hours so far and it'll be numerous hours just to finish it. Then there's all the other awards. If I didn't do some clean up and disambiguation for each article, I'd much like a bot to do the work. But I think it'll be worth it in the end.

Cburnett 19:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree about tables in general, but I still don't like the look of the filmography tables. They disrupt the 'flow' and readability of the article (not that Neeson has much to disrupt). Maybe you could make the style a bit 'softer' and float them to the side. Also they look better without the notes column, so you could leave that to the main text and stick to year/film/role. Jihg 01:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to any implementable ideas you have. :) "Softer" and "float" aren't really quantifiable, if you know what I mean. Please feel free to draft an example here or somewhere. I definitely would like to make the tables friendlier and I'd like input. Personally, they don't bother me so I'm not sure how to gauge your aesthetic taste. I appreciate any help you can give. Cburnett 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Teacher's Pet

Hi, I assumed it was an isolated case deviating from an ancient convention here to call films films or movies in articles but always movie in titles, for the sake of uniformity and easier access to entries for users looking for a particular motion picture.

During all the years here at Wikipedia I had come across maybe three or four uses of film in the title and changed them accordingly to movie. I was quite surprised to see Ben Hur under film (immediately after my moving Teacher's Pet) and have been wondering since if I have missed out on a change of policy. <KF> 23:16, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I wish there was such a policy. Cburnett 23:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I tried to point out above, there is. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Movie_titles. All the best, <KF> 23:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies) doesn't fully support what you linked. Cburnett 23:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So what? What do you want? Which of all the possible replies I might make now would give you the greatest amount of pleasure? I can't do more than actually point out a matter of policy to you which you said didn't exist. We all know, don't we, that Wikipedia is work in progress, and that unanimity is impossible to reach anywhere in this project. <KF> 23:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

United States move

When you voted to support, you may not have realized that it is also being proposed to move United States (disambiguation) → United States. That is, the page United States would become a disambiguation page.

Can you please clarify at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#United_States_.26rarr.3B_United_States_of_America_.26_United_States_.28disambiguation.29_.26rarr.3B_United_States whether you are voting in favor of only one or both of the proposals? -- Curps 23:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:34, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Template talk:Sisterproject#Survey

On WP:TFD, you voted for keeping Template:Sisterproject. However, another vote is needed to ensure it is used. Please state your opinion at the above link. — Itai (f&t) 15:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Short Film Oscar

Your plan is fine, though I would suggest that the title format be more consistent (Animated Short Film, Short Film (Color) or Color Short Film, Live Action Film (2 Reels), etc.) —tregoweth 21:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

png rendering

sometimes it's useful to force PNG rendering to make an equation consistent with others on the page, regardless of user preferences. - Omegatron 21:44, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mixed up chess icons: king and queen

The chess piece icons: Chess king icon.png and Chess queen icon.png appear to have been uploaded the wrong way round -- I get a queen where there should be a king icon and vice versa. I presume one could use the move function to sort this out, but I decided to take heed of the loud warnings on the 'move' page and leave it to someone more experienced. (That, and I believe you were the one who put the files there -- John.)

I should have it fixed now. Thanks for the notice. Cburnett 17:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Next Gen Pages

Please stop putting text blocks in the Next Gen Episode Pages. Im actually trying to get rid of them. they're ugly, they're lame, and they screw up the page. Besides, they repeat what I already put in at the top, why insert double information? Cyberia23 03:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means don't make your time wasted and plaster that you're getting rid of it. In fact, I found no discussion of it. The point of using infoboxes is to standardize the basic, common information. That information is barely standardized across the pages...that's why I did it. Cburnett 04:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're probably not gonna like me but sorry dude, you don't know what kind of personal vendetta I have about the use of info boxes. Yeah some, when done right, look okay, but honestly I think they are archaic HTML tables from 1995. Yours pushed the image way down, and screwed up the main text on the page. They never appear right in certain kinds of browsers, especially Mozilla, and thats why I hate them. Nothing personal against you, I just despise them and seeing them mess up pages I spend time working on really irks the crap out of me.

If you think you can come up with one that at least incorporates the image within it, prefeably at the top, instead of shifting it down and so the whole thing sits nicely below the Spoiler Line, that would probably work out a lot better, although I don't think thats possible since I've tried to work this out before with other text block designers. Cyberia23 04:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a table is the only thing HTML provides.

I reentered the table on Encounter at Farpoint with some style changes and image inclusion. Please continue discussion here or on Template talk:ST episode. Either way, please don't delete the table until we can have some discussion. Cburnett 05:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well... not trying to nitpick, it looks somewhat better. Can you get the "caption" below the image to appear? it sort of explained what was going on in the scene. Also consider episodes that I didn't put images into, you'll see blank "image" tags with nothing there. I could try and find some for those, but most I had found wern't very interesting.

I still feel text tables shouldn't used. I was never planning on listing all the full actor credits anyway, too many names to deal with. I didn't for any of the TOS episodes. I just include "creative credits" the writers and director. Additional info like stardate, episode and production number are in the subheader. If a reader wanted more info on a particilar character, they could always click character's link and get more about them.

Well, I dunno man. I just hate tables. But I don't want to argue and fight about them, so it's your call. I'm gonna finish what I started, put up the synopsies up my way. I won't add a table on my own, but if you want a table you can add it yourself. If you do, I won't delete it. I'd rather not see them personally. I'm more concerned about eveything being uniform and tidy, that seems awfully big around here anyway. Text tables just look gaudy to me and sometimes my browser displays overlapping text right through a table. I don't know why, it does it on certain pages, works fine on others. Cyberia23 10:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved the series text to above the image and added the caption. See The Battle for a use where there is no image. Please nit-pick away; I'd like to find a style that's aesthetically more pleasing. Cburnett 17:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats cool. I guess I'll live ;) Cyberia23 21:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re Category for Canadian actors

I changed them to give credit to America that created the movie industry and reflect reality that that they acted in the USA, lived there, and made their career there. Many such as Mary Pickford lived in the USA for 60 plus years and became U.S. citizens. To Categorize her Canadian birth, I inserted the "People from Ontario" category. For others , I think it is appropriate to label then as both a Canadian actor and an American actor plus the Province they came from. Note that Michael Ondaatje is in the "Canadian writers" category, not Sri Lankan writers. JillandJack 23:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just saying you left a couple with contradicting data and that there might be mixed definitions. Cburnett 03:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

angelina pic

jsut a heads up. when someone (including yourself) changes a pic and you have viewed it recently, you will likly have to use control + F5 to do a hard refresh and get the new pic rather than the one cached on your box. if reply is needed, plese do so on my talk page. Cavebear42 23:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i just verified that i did, in fact, change the pic. please respond on the Angelina Jolie page if you feel that my take on fair use is incorrect. Cavebear42 23:08, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

Date format

Why did you remove [2] the comma from the birth date on Tom Hulce? The proper date format is "December 6, 1953" and not "December 6 1953". Cburnett 18:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was removing the comma from between the date so that people who wished to view dates in the format "1 January 2004" can view it that way. If you look back at my revision, you'll note that the comma is put in automatically since the dates are wikied.

I won't get into a comma war with you or anything, just explaining why I did it. Here's my reference – let me know if I'm interpreting incorrectly. Either way, it had no effect on the appearance of the article.

Cheers.

--BaronLarf 19:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's either:

• February 17, 1958
• 17 February 1958

so it doesn't show "February 17 1958". Besdies, the date format is a preference that defaults to "no preference". So wiki will only change it to users who change their preference, which isn't everyone so it's best to format it correctly. Cburnett 19:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TNG Episode List

Good work on your TNG episode list, I suppose you noticed I filled in all the episode overviews. Are you going to do one for The TOS list? I've redone all the synopsises for those episodes already. I'm working on the TNG ones now of course, but it's a slow process since I have other things to get done to. Cyberia23 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I finished expanding the overviews of ST:ENT episodes and changed the ST:TOS list to a table. Cburnett 07:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image talk:KateWinsletTitanic.jpg

Let me assure you, the reason I flagged this image was not that it has a nude breast. The image was added by User:1337, whose edits I was following because of what appeared to be a troll in an unrelated article on my watchlist. I did recognize the image as being from the movie Titanic, and thus I thought it was copyrighted. Is WP free to use images from movies? Paramont and Fox both have strong warnings on their websites about using images from their films. Is there an exception in copyright law that allows us to use this?

I just wanted to let you know why I did what I did, and to assure you I was acting in good faith. Jonathunder 00:27, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)