Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 18 January 2007

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

For a listing of my archives: /Archive. I have archived on

• May 5, 2005
• June 17, 2005
• May 13, 2006
• January 14, 2007

Award

Photographic lenses

Hi, sorry I have taken so long to reply, but I've been away from WP and only just noticed your question (from July) on my talk page. You've probably found out already (or don't need the info anymore) since I've left it so long, but just in case, an "element" is generally a single lens, made from one piece of glass, and a "group" is a group of lenses (elements) that are touching or very close together. If you look at Zeiss Tessar, you can see four elements, and three groups, for instance. --Bob Mellish 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

TCP: Connection termination

The topic was discussed in the talk page. There was a previous edit war going on, which i noticed and tried to stop. I did try to make it neutral, but your version is a even better. Thank you.

I do have a few concerns, however:

1. You stated there is a two way method of closing a connection? Please describe this! I am unaware of a way to do it in only two ways, aside from the first side ignoring the FIN/ACK, which seems to violate the protocol.

2. Furthermore, there is literature (see the talk page) which supposedly refers to the termination as 3-way, regardless of actual method used.

3. The connection process is pretty much universally described as a three-way handshake, despite the fact that it could be done in more steps. Shouldn't this lend credibility to the description of termination as a three-step process?

Let's talk on the talk page as this is an interesting point: How do we determine how many packets are required to establish or terminate a connection.

--Kevin L'Huillier 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement on STCP

Hello. If possible, I would appreciate a quicker response to Talk:Stream Control Transmission Protocol (section 'TCP stream reassembly') so the case can be closed. -- intgr 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png

Thanks for creating Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png; just to let you know that your help is appreciated JdH 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to Sadi's comment: you did see the clean version of that image (Image:Solar Updraft Tower clean.png) which could be used on the articles in other languages (I suppose I should have put it on commons instead)? Thanks for note, I appreciate it. :) Cburnett 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could; I think that the sister projects could benefit from it. Trick is that you would have to let them know that it is there; one way of doing that is create a gallery under Commons, and insert links to Commons in the sister projects. You may want to look at Willem Einthoven and Commons:Willem Einthoven to see how that is done. JdH 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Or put the textless image on the other pages to make it visible with links to english and french hoping someone can translate from one of them. Cburnett 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeoman Rand Tampering

Your an admin now right? If so, please keep an eye on this Rustyblue. He likes to slap images of Yeoman Rand in all the TOS articles, really big annoying ones that have no place there. He even pissed me off by changing the image for The Enemy Within with some stupid crap he found trying to be sneaky about it. I warned him in the past of this on his talkpage but he completely ignores it and continues his bullshit. I think an official warning by an admin threatening a ban or something would be appropriate in this case. At least let him know that Misplaced Pages doesn't allow articles to become a user's personal scrapbook. Since the TV screen shots are on the choppingblock right now, we don't need trolls around here vandalising images to make a stupid point. Thanks. Cyberia23 18:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

could you take a look at...

... Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem and comment on this content dispute i am having with a fairly recent editor to the article. i think, from your earlier comments on the talk page, that i have some of the same concerns as you. BTW, i created the zero-order hold and first-order hold pages you have on your Things to work on section of your user page. i hope you approve.

my goal of the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is to keep it technically accessable, yet accurate from the POV of the Electrical Engineering discipline (which means we treat the Dirac delta like the limit of the nascent functions and less strictly than as a tempered distribution). but my difficulty with this latest editor is not about that. r b-j 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about the logic of proofs. I would also value objective commentary on these issues. As a "fairly recent editor" I don't have much experience with how to handle disputes in which someone refuses to respond to particular points, especially when they involve logic. Dicklyon 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 alpha-3

Hi, sorry that I didn't inform you when I reverted the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 article. Personally, I don't like the 3-letter country templates, since there's no rule of what the countries' display name should be, so they are arbitrary and any user can change them when they want. And I'd prefer the ISO pages follow the usage of ISO's official country names. You can find the list at ISO 3166-1. Chanheigeorge 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's make them none arbitrary and put <noinclude> notes on the templates saying it's the ISO 3166-1 name and to not change it unless ISO changes it. How about that? Cburnett 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the 3-letter country templates? I don't think that's a good idea. A lot of the people who use them are not aware that they're using ISO codes. And sometimes the official ISO country names are a mouthful, e.g. IRN -> "Iran, Islamic Republic of", while the template now displays  Iran, which is actually better in most cases. Chanheigeorge 00:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention some controversial names chosen by ISO (and by UN), e.g. TWN -> "Taiwan, Province of China" or MKD -> "Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of". Chanheigeorge 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So how about {{ISO IRN}} instead? Cburnett 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that should be okay if you create these templates. Chanheigeorge 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxis

I am unsure why you have reverted various -taxis topics from redirects to the (fairly short) article taxis to individual articles. As they stand, they are merely dictionary definitions, which do not belong in Misplaced Pages. They should only be split out from the main article (in this case, "taxis") when that article starts getting too big, which I don't expect will happen soon. I have reverted them all to redirect to taxis. By all means expand that article, but I see no gain from having many tiny articles which say nothing more than, for instance, "Geotaxis is a taxis stimulated by gravity", since this fact is already included in taxis. --Stemonitis 08:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you don't want stubs then delete the redirects and leave the links. Red links are not bad. Redirects exist to increase the chance of finding the correct article but redirecting geotaxis to taxis requires that the geotaxis word not be linked otherwise you will link to the same page. So what happens if someone writes an article for geotaxis? This then depends on them fixing taxis now too and if they don't then geotaxis will be an orphan article.

The status quo (which you brought back) does not encourage anyone to write the article on geotaxis. A stub would encourage more because there is already a start. All around, the visitor loses, IMO. And that's why I changed the redirects to stubs (there was no proper reversion done as that was all original work). And to be honest, I now have less desire to pick one up and write more than a stub on it. Is that what you were aiming for when reverting my work? What's worse: having a stub article or discouraging even seasoned editors from editing? Cburnett 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not being an admin., I lack the ability to delete the redirects. For that, you'd have to ask someone else. As I mentioned above (albeit too briefly), the best way forward is to add information to the article taxis. You can do this, I could do this, and any new editor could also do this. Nobody needs to feel put off doing anything. The medium for such information exists, and there's nothing stopping anyone from adding anything. If there's enough information about any particular subtopic, such as geotaxis, then that will become apparent as the parent article taxis grows to accommodate it. What you created weren't even stubs — they were one-line definitions that repeated the content at "taxis". This puts readers off, who are enticed to click on a link with the promise of more information, and find none. That is worse than putting editors off. We often forget to think about things from a reader's point of view, but it's the most important aspect.

Having geotaxis being a redirect only means that taxis should not link to it. Any other article can and not, as you claim, that the article will inevitably be an orphan. If it's only ever going to be linked to from one article, then perhaps the topic isn't that important. I don't think this is the case; I'm sure there must be lots to say about geotaxis, and all other taxes, with plenty of examples, a discussion of the evolutionary importance, etc., etc., etc. So, don't feel put off. I'm not trying to kill the topic. I'm just applying a temporary measure to keep the information in one place. You'll notice that I've left articles like phototaxis and rheotaxis alone, although they could conceivably be merged into taxis as well (this would be a matter of taste, and not worth arguing about). Once you've got that much to say, a separate article is justifiable. Until then, it's not. --Stemonitis 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Taxis contains a list which is not even remotely the right way to "add information" about geotaxis. To add information requires rewriting the article in non-list form, and believe it or not, that may be too high of a bar for some to care to add in details. I only did what I did because it made no sense to have some unlinked and it snowballed from there to, what I think, remedy the situation.

Not intending to lay a guilt trip on you, but what you did is stop the chance of me writing more about a taxis be restricting it all back into a list. And my desire to do anymore has completely waned as the effort in arguing this vastly exceeds what I want to put into it and, not to mention, that my work on it thus far has been all but erased. Had my effort been for nought, I probably would have made those articles more than they were but since I have to argue my way through the editing...I leave the stagnant taxis to you as I no longer care. Congrats; have fun with it; peace out; and good luck on the biology doctorate. Cburnett 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the new format will make it easier for editors, including yourself, to flesh out the details of specific taxes. You are right that a bald list is not the best way to present the information, so I have abandoned that for a quick prose list, followed by more detailed sections. --Stemonitis 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemotaxis and categories

Hi Cburnett, Thanks for the work on the Chemotaxis page. You have deleted two categories, 'Behavior' and 'Perception'. I agree, that both have more underlined significance in neurology and psychology, however, 'swimming behavior' and 'migratory behavior' is/was frequently used to describe chemotaxis as well as perception has also aspects at receptor level. Therefore I resored the two categories, after checking the keyword-lists belonging to them. If you have any problem with it or you have a stronger evidence against the above mentioned categories please let me know, I am happy with any improval on the page. Thanks again. Best regards from Kohlasz 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Three sheets to the wind

Someone editted this page, Three sheets to the wind, after you created it. Could you take a look at it? Morenooso 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PHA ribbon

Hi there, unfortunately I can't find anything that specifically says "periwinkle ribbon". There is the PHA online store where you can see a number of illustrations. For that matter, I don't own a ribbon myself, I just have a wristband. Sorry I couldn't be of further help.

Oh, wait. While the store doesn't seem to sell actual ribbons, they do have this page that is selling a "periwinkle magnetic ribbon for your car". Will that do for your purposes? --Kyoko 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and changed the reference link in the article so that it takes people to the page I mentioned. I hope this is acceptable for reference purposes without being seen as spam. --Kyoko 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

List of The Daily Show guests

Just because it survived AFD once doesn't mean that it should be kept. Tons of articles are only deleted after 2-3 nominations. The AFD closed with "no consensus" either, which means that there was a strong number of people who wanted it gone (as opposed to a more definitive "keep"). But very well. I'll take it to AFD someday. Hbdragon88 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's a threat... Cburnett 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What? It's obviously not a speedy. I prod, you contest, the next step is AFD. Hbdragon88 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests sure as hell looks like a consensus to me. I'm not sure which deletion debate you're talking about. Cburnett 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your comment on my talk page. Hbdragon88 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing images from articles

I have started a new thread on this subject at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Removing_images_on_sight. Feel free to weigh in. --Oden 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR and copyright

User:Dicklyon keeps adding big block quotes after I have rewritten the article on Lenna (diff). Feel free to deal with it, because I am not reverting another article today (I will probably have to send this to WP:AN/I or WP:AIV). --Oden 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on talk:standard test image: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In regard to this diff. Please be civil and assume good faith. --Oden 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA:

Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute.

Considering your rifling through my user page and sub pages, I would say you are creating a dispute out of being blocked. You need to read what you preach to others. Cburnett 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1RR?

I had a look at your log, and you blocked a total of three people under 2006. I am concerned that, apart from your apparent lack of knowledge of some of our core policies (such as WP:IUP), your knowledge of how to use your admin privileges have become rusty. I don't wish to de-sysop you, but you should seriously brush up on your reading list.

You blocked me for two reverts within 24 hours (01:19, 15 January 2007 and 03:34, 15 January 2007). I know that 3RR is not a fixed rule, but usually the rule is more than three bad-faith reverts in 24 hours. Maybe we should call it 1RR? And since they were good-faith edits (as stated on my talk page, the article talk page and the page history), maybe you should also have a look a those in the future? --Oden 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Striking my inappropriate comment. --Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are making this very personal:

1. 08:13, January 14, 2007
2. 20:19, January 14, 2007
3. 22:34, January 14, 2007

That's three. You might learn to look closer before you call my counting skills into question and before you THREATEN to de-sysop me. Your reverts disrupted the page and no one agrees with your rationale behind doing so. No one. The IFD will settle if your interpretation is correct but it would seem that current consensus is that you are not. Cburnett 17:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:3RR states "Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing." More than. Not the third revert, the fourth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From the same page:

It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique...

Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

Oden used reverting as a means to an end despite starting discussion surrounding the very content he was reverting. This indicates to me that he had no care nor interest in really discussing the issue at hand: only that he was right and that's that. He refused to listen to editors whom disagreed with his interpretation and he called it vandalism. This is followed up by him attempting to circumvent the IFD by speedying the images.

The key point of 3RR which is absent from your copy/paste is that reverting is not the answer to content disputes: it is not an entitlement nor a hard-fast absolute rule. Oden used reverting as his means to say "I'm right, you're wrong" in full and complete knowledge that civil discourse was taking place under both the TFD & IFD he started and on talk:Standard test image.

Thank you for your comment. Cburnett 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I entirely disagree, but you knew I'd say that. Four reverts over three days is hardly edit warring. I'd go further: removing misused fair use images is clearly a special circumstance and doing so is unlikely to be edit warring on the part of the remover. Civil discourse is lovely, but fair use is essentially a legal and policy matter, just like WP:BLP. There's only one right answer, and it doesn't involve having fair use images on user subpages or for decorative purposes on templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the status of the images in question, then you are welcome to the TFD, IFD, and talk:standard test image. My page is not the place for that. Oden was hiding behind WP:FUC to stalk and edit war. Cburnett 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image in user namespace

Hello!

You have used fair use images in your user namespace (Image:Uno Draw 2 card.jpg, Image:Uno Reverse card.jpg, Image:Uno Wild card.jpg and Image:Uno Wild Draw 4 card.jpg in User:Cburnett/GFDL images). Criterion 9 of the Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." I have removed them on these grounds.

Sincerely, Oden 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Striking my inappropriate comment. --Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you have a personal bone to pick with me (examing my block log, examing my image uploads, etc.), I would like to inform you that it is courteous to retain the links to the images. Cburnett 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists of episodes

During my involuntary expulsion I took the liberty of examining your upload log. You have uploaded hundreds of screenshots, and they are used in lists of episodes. For instance: *List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes *List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes *List of NUMB3RS episodes *List of Medium episodes *List of The Unit episodes *List of Futurama episodes

The use of fair use images on these pages are in violation of Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Photo_montages and Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria # 3 and 8. I cannot remove these images since that would be stalking. However, if I were to encounter these images in an unrelated context (for instance while going through Category:Lists of science fiction television series episodes) I can and will orphan them.

Personally I am disgusted when I see the use of fair use images in this manner. The doctrine of fair use is what allows us to use Picasso's Guernica, or to quote Ray Bradbury, not this type of frivolous nonsense. --Oden 12:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Striking my inappropriate comment. --Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First, you should realize you are by far not the first person to address images in episode lists. Welcome to the game. Second, before you remove images you need to realize what you are jumping into. It is clear to me that you are substituting "montage" for "any number of images". Cburnett 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Third, I am warning you now that since has been discussed many times that you should make discussion first as thus far you have not stated anything original as an argument against keeping the images. Cburnett 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't stress this enough...

It is not an edit war when implementing policy. That you are an administrator and don't know this is the scariest part of all. You should seriously consider handing in the mopp, bucket and keyes, because right now from my viewpoint you are doing more harm than good.--Oden 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Striking my inappropriate comment. --Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A montage to me is a collection of random images showing the same idea. Images of sheep are a set of random images of sheep: they are all just images of sheep. Standard test images are not random. They are specific images. Furthermore, my point of developing each image into a section to itself only gets things farther away from being a montage (even under your definition). And this is what you don't get about edit warring. Neither I nor anyone else can do this while you absolutely insist on remove the images. Your edit warring has disrupted the editing process and prohibited things from progressing. You still don't understand this but I'm not going to suggest you're a sub-par editor and you should hand in your account because of it. Your edit warring on standard test image has done more harm than good.

I am not the only one saying these words to you. Another admin agrees with me and stated so on your talk page and other places. Curiously enough, no one has stepped up and sided with you. And you still don't understand what makes these images unique and special.

I also appreciate you sifting through my images. Given your attitude above, I find little reason to assume good faith on your part...you know, because you insult me as an editor and an admin. Cburnett 16:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, neat. You even put it up for speedy deletion on commons and didn't even let me know. That's awesome dude. Really awesome. Cburnett 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Atomic Energy Lab

Could you please check Misplaced Pages:Main_Page/Errors#Errors in Did you know.... There is a question regarding a DYK entry by you. Thanks!--thunderboltz 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything there for me to correct... And I didn't write the DYK about the energy lab. I also didn't know it was recalled, just that it didn't sell well because it was expensive. Cburnett 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So long

Hello!

First of all I don't want you to have the impression that I am leaving Misplaced Pages entirely because of your actions, they were more of a trigger. When you blocked me you opened my eyes to the possibility that the thankless task which I had undertaken really is hopeless (see my user page).

As far as stalking is concerned, online stalking refers to out-of-process harassment. Stalking would be for instance nit-picking all of a user's contributions, as opposed to those which are relevant to the context, or failing to separate a user's contributions to Misplaced Pages from their personal life. WP:STALK says:

"This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful."

I really hope that you never encounter a real cyberstalker. I have suffered harassment several times when removing copyrighted content. One editor created three puppet accounts and vandalized by userspace repeatedly (like here). I've also had the dubious pleasure of users creating vandal accounts with descriptive terminology appended to my username (User:Odenass, User:Odinass). Luckily no one has attempted to become involved in my personal life (yet).

My general impression is that you appear to be a valuable member of the community. However, you need to improve your knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies, especially when acting as an administrator. I still consider your action in my case and your abilities as an administrator questionable.

I would also urge you in the future when acting as a administrator to review any matter thoroughly and attempt to enter into a dialogue with the editor in question. You should also try to get more experience by monitoring WP:AIV, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, Special:Recentchanges (WP:RCP), Special:Newpages (WP:NPP), Category:Administrative backlog and relevant WP:CSD categories. With more experience, you will hopefully learn to make fewer mistakes (although avoiding them entirely will probably be impossible).

And remember what it says in WP:BLOCK: "Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith". Blocking can in such instances only serve to deter, to the detriment of all.

Best wishes, Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are an admin now!

I think #4 needs to be emphasized more. --Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Oden has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Oden 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)