User talk:Burningmace

WTLS Changes

Hi, I'm not sure that I agree with the criticism that you added to the WTLS page: Firstly, The WAP forum does (or rather did) set out interop standards which is more than could be said for SSL/TLS; Secondly, turning off a security protocol is legitimate (if dumb). In many cases μbrowsers have the same fundemental problem that all browsers have, how do you enable the user to make good decisions about security? The extra disadvantage the μbrowser has is greatly reduced ability to communicate with the user (who wants to wade through pages of text to work out whether they should read their email on their cell?) pcr^talk 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense, I understand (and agree with) what you are trying to express, if i think of a good edit I'll make it. The point is somewhat moot given that (hopefully) WAP will be seen as a footnote in mobile information access. pcr^talk 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic (South Park)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Pandemic (South Park), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit consisted of the line "In addition, several lines from the film are parodied." I didn't see any mention of the more elaborate information you described on my Talk Page. In any event, it makes no difference, since parody is a question of intent on the part of the show's producers. While a narrative work can indeed function as its own source for its plot, it cannot do this with respect to issues of creator intent like parody. Without a citation, perception of references in one work to another is influenced, at least to some degree, on personal interpretation. The degree to which comes into play may vary, but what this means is that, while you and I may personally agree on the Cloverfield references in this ep, we may spot another editor asserting a reference in another article that we agree is completely tenuous (and indeed, I have seen such assertions). Without a policy to point to, on what basis could you and I tell that other hypothetical editor that his edit must be removed, but ours can remain? Sorry, but Wikipedia policy on such things is clear.

As for the color of the sky, well, that example only proves my point, since the sky is not blue, but a variety of different colors, depending on the time of day and atmospheric conditions. :-)

What I would suggest as a compromise is to make explicit mention of some of the lines that you say are identical, since the identical nature of highly specific, non-incidental amounts of dialogue would arguably be something not subject to interpretation, and reasonable to mention. If you want, how about you present some of these comparisons on that article's Talk Page, and we'll see how we can incorporate them into the article. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the conflict described here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Burningmace! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 92 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Dieter Schwarz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Super AIDS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Super AIDS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super AIDS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]