User talk:Stephen Burnett/Archive3

I didn't edit anything. ?

This is the only time I have logged on, and I have only been on for a few minutes, I haven't edited anything yet,(as if I know how to edit.) You are sure it was my account?--Hanpingz 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you just edited my talk page without problems. If you don't know how to view edits made by your account, this will display a list of them. The edit I'm referring to is this one. --Stephen Burnett 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Teawaker

Hi, this is Sheridan H. I refer to your editing of my contributions to the Teasmade stub. As owner of the website www.teasmade.com I have some authority with regard to the use of the name Teasmade and the words teamaker and teawaker (which I invented). The word teamaker is inadequate as a generic on this stub as it does not distinguish tea making machines with an alarm function from those without. I discussed the adoption of the word teawaker as a real word with the Oxford English Dictionary before I initiated its use, and I will shortly be approaching them with the evidence they require for its adoption. My aim is to create a generic word which can be used freely without incurring the wrath of Littlewoods who own the trademark Teasmade. I am not attempting to advertise the website www.teawaker.com. Under the circumstances I'm sure it must be acceptable to define 'teawaker' on Wikipedia and to use this word anywhere on the site. I would like to reinstate it please.

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately Wikipedia relies on authoritative sources for the vocabulary of its articles. It is my personal view that when the Oxford English Dictionary sees fit to introduce the word "teawaker" into the English vocabulary then its use can be considered on Wikipedia. Forgive me, but would I be correct in my suspicion that "the evidence they require for its adoption" is evidence of its prior public use, which you are hoping to bring about by introducing it here? If so, I don't think that coining and publicising new words is what we are here for.

Your assumption regarding evidence is correct, but the word has already reached the required standard for inclusion, so publicity is not required. I intend to talk to OUP again soon, but I am in no particular rush!

I discussed the potential genericisation of the word "teasmade" with a number of authorities as there is no alternative generic other than a lengthy phrase "an appliance which combines the functions of a teamaker and an alarm clock". I was advised that it was impractical to pursue the matter and that under the circumstances it would be perfectly appropriate to introduce an alternative.

My entry on Wikipedia is not for publicity. What would be the point? I have no commercial interest in the new word - in fact its whole premise is anti-commercial. I respect Wikipedia and all it stands for, and I believe that it is the best place to correct the misconceptions and mistruths about Teasmades/teawakers.

The other problem I had with the word was that, just as "teamaker" does not distinguish tea making machines with an alarm function from those without, "teawaker" does not cover one of the functions of the Teasmade, which is to make tea immediately, without the use of the alarm function.

The word "teamaker" does not cut the ice as a definition of "an appliance which combines the functions of a teamaker and an alarm clock". I have explained the Tea Now aspect on the Teasmade discussion page, and can go into more detail if required.

Having expressed my own view, the way things happen on Wikipedia is by discussion and consensus. If you are agreeable, I can copy our discussion to the article's talk page for consideration by other editors. If there is a reasonable consensus towards the adoption of the word then I am willing to be persuaded.

I have opened discussion on that page.

By the way, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time.

Thanks for your explanation. There's a lot to learn but I'm getting there!

Many thanks. --Stephen Burnett 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are Mistaken

You have left a message for me accusing me of vandalism. You are mistaken. I in no way defaced the page dedicated to William Faulkner. According to my service provider IP addresses assigned to their users can change as often as weekly.

I do not appreciate being accused of something I didn't do.

I have just reviewed the edits made under your current IP. If you are referring to an edit made under IP 74.123.72.106, the only edit to William_Faulkner is this one, which is clearly a revert made to delete vandalism. In that case I can only apologise for what is a rare mistake: I revert scores of incidents of vandalism every day, and I do my best to attribute warnings appropriately.

If the warning appears under another IP, however, that is simply an unfortunate consequence of using Wikipedia anonymously, rather than signing up for an account. Anonymous IP's are not exempt from action taken as a result of vandalism simply because a number of users may have used that IP; the action will be taken regardless of who happens to be the user on the other end. Further vandalism from that IP will therefore result in escalating warnings, and finally in a block.

It is, however, very quick and easy to sign up for an account, and this will enable you to retain your own individual identity and editing history. You can do it here.

By the way, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Body_painting

please explain why the deleted link is any different in content from the two other links at the bottom of the body painting page. this is an online photo portfolio as the other two links are.

1. I feel you would benefit by reading Wikipedia's policy on external links, particularly the sections on Links normally to be avoided and advertising and conflicts of interest:

One should avoid ...:

Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

2. The presence of other links which you feel are similar in nature in no way invalidates the above; each link has to stand or not on its own merits.

3. I would point out that the other sites are competently designed, with well structured content and a main page which loads in a reasonable amount of time. This is very much to their benefit.

By the way, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time. Regards, --Stephen Burnett 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know... but both of the RPV accounts have been blocked due to your warnings and the creation of the sock to get around your warning ;-) Balloonman 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to let me know. :)) --Stephen Burnett 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Thanks for your kind comment. I would like to invite you to give some input on the Francis Bacon article. Although you have admitted that you are not that familiar with the subject matter, I believe an objective simple analysis of the short article's proportion of space given over to (what in my opinion is) speculation might help in inching toward some consensus. Aburesz 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhythm

I did'nt even touch the page on rythm, The only thing I edited today was the page on The international school of Choueifat!

You need to review the list of contributions from your IP here. I can only repeat what I said to a previous anonymous contributor above. Picking up warnings and blocks, due to the actions of others, is simply an unfortunate consequence of using Wikipedia anonymously. If you don't like being tarred with the same brush as the vandals who happen to share you IP, there is an easy solution: get yourself your own account.

To repeat another piece of advice, it is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 09:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Hello, I've recieved a message just now, from May 20'ish about a edit in a 1970's article. I've never even seen that page before or wouldn't have interest in doing so, so I don't see how it was my IP that made an edit... What was the edit if you don't mind me asking?

The edits made through your IP are summarised here.

May I refer you to the advice given to previous anonymous editors on the benefits of registering for your own user ID, and also on signing your talk page contributions.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

folding tyres / Birdy

I haven't ever edited this article but "folding tyres" are kevlar beaded tyres instead of steel beeded and fold up to go in paniers, unlike normal tyres. Apparently not available for birdies. I have them on two of my bikes. --BozMo talk 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see - many thanks for the explanation. I'll edit the page accordingly. --Stephen Burnett 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

recently added link

Hi Stephen,

In what way was the link I added not relevant or not a link to useful content?

Thanks

Please read Wikipedia's policy on external links, particularly the sections on Links normally to be avoided and advertising and conflicts of interest:

One should avoid ...:

Links mainly intended to promote a website.

Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

How not to be a spammer is also relevant, particularly item 5:

Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching ....

Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun.

Also, please note previous advice on signing your talk page comments.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 12:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule involving anonymous user

You had written a comment to me about the 3 Revert Rule. I am aware of this rule, and I certainly do not desire an edit war. I would ask your advice on what to do about an anonymous user that keeps entering irrelevent defamatory text into the Francis Bacon article. When I remove his paragraph, he immediately adds it back (within 2 to 8 minutes). I have tracked his various IP address to a network in Paris, France. He uses different IP addresses at different times. On the Talk:Francis_Bacon page all the comments signed in red with "Candid" or an IP address number are this anonymous individual. What can be done about such a situation? Emery 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you what the answer isn't - to descend to the same level of endless reverting as the other party, with no attempt to discuss the issue. The other editor is not actually doing anything which can be classed as vandalism - which is of course not covered by the 3 revert rule, and for which he could be blocked. Although you may find his edits disagreeable, what is happening here is an editing dispute.

There is a policy in place (described here) which requires that you at least attempt to resolve your differences or arrive at a compromise through discussion. Sometimes you may think it is obvious that that is just never going to happen, but that doesn't mean you don't have to bother trying, however tedious it may be. So far, you have not, as far as I can see, made one single edit to the article's talk page. If you were to engage in the dialogue and attempt to gain some kind of consensus on the issue, then you would be on stronger ground. At the moment, all I see is two individuals having a war with each other, and that is just not allowed. I'm not taking any sides on the issue, and as you have probably noticed I have issued the same warning to the other editor. I hope this will have the effect of moving the discussion to the article's talk page where it belongs. --Stephen Burnett 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my comment from talk:Village pump (technical) ?

I don't think it was an accident; you followed my wording fairly closely to ask your question about the "clear watchlist" feature, but in the process you removed my question. --Trovatore 17:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do seem to have done that - I would guess an accidental cut when I copied your heading to modify it. It certainly wasn't my intention, I apologise. --Stephen Burnett 18:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks. --Trovatore 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TheDevilsRequiem

Hi Stephen

I'm sorry to have to say this but the real conspiracy is not a theory - if you would take the time to read my page 'TheDevilsRequiem' - Times Final Rose you would understand what I mean. I'm not trying to sell anything and I'm not asking anybody for anything. What I am showing people is factual and can be verified through Times Final Rose.

Wikipedia is a free enclyclopedia that anybody can contribute to if they have their facts right. My facts are straight Stephen, why not check it out for yourself. All I'm doing is showing people the information that their governements should have made public.

The reason the books are self published is beacuse no publisher is brave enough to print this particular story.

If you want I'll send you the code to download the books from my website and that way you can see for yourself. But to do that you would have to email personally at skkobiela@yahoo.co.uk

"Having your facts right" is demonstrated by relying on responsible authoritative sources. Self-published books and websites won't do; please learn the difference. Wikipedia is not here to publish things that "nobody else is brave enough to print" or that "governments should have made public". If you believe otherwise, you have a profoundly mistaken view of what this project is here for.

Also it would help if you learned to sign your talk page contributions - see above advice to other contributors. --Stephen Burnett 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature, I thought that when you were signed in, it was automatic.

I seemed to have annoyed and that I can assure you is not what I wanted, it only makes things harder.

You say that basically I have to rely on responsible authoritative sources - well the source of my information comes direct from the creator God and the code that I am trying to show you if only you would take the time to look, verifies itself time and time again. It proves beyond all doubt that no human being could be responsible for its content. Here is a little example -

The anagram code we were led to was completed in 2002 and uses the same 34 letters -

ANNA TELLS ROSS TO PR TN CODE BY WIKIPEDIA.

Ross Kelly who is currently living in TN (Tamil Nadu India) is the keeper of the key. Anna is it's creator, she is God, and the line is an instruction that is now being carried out.

TONY BLAIRS M.O.D HIDES TOP SECRET ANA LINK - - MOD - Ministry of Defence) That line is an anagram of - SHOW IT TO DIANA SPENCERS BAD KILLER TONY - which is an anagram of - PARIS - LIKE A CANDLE IN THE WIND BY O TO ROSS - (O, by dictionary defintion means cipher ELI RIPS, DROSNIN, ANA TALKS TO THEM BY CODE

Chance doesn't come into it Stephen or belief for that matter. The facts speak for themself. You could actually help in this matter if you would please take the time to watch the 2 films on the timesfinalrose website.

Please Stephen take this the way it is meant. I am trying to help a dying planet by showing them the one and only thing that can solve the problems, for real.

I am not a time waster and I assume that neither are you. Just check the facts for yourself, you'll be amazed at what you don't actually know. Some things didn't make it to Brittanica or Wikipedia, but maybe we can change that.

ShirleyTimes_Final_Rose 12:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret that due to constant demands on God's time, He is not available personally to all on a basis which is sufficiently regular or consistent to be cited as an authoritative source; this is particularly the case with individuals such as myself, who have become enmeshed in sin and depravity, and have therefore lost access to His guidance. Unfortunately He also has a very cryptic way of expressing Himself, and many of the writings of His subordinates have had their meanings clouded by the passage of time and subjective interpretation, so they cannot be relied upon either.

To repeat, the only sources which are acceptable are those which conform to the description in WP:SOURCE: ie "properly reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Again, I have to point out that Wikipedia is not here to break the mould by publishing things which nobody else dares to. I strongly advise you to find alternative outlets for what I am sure is a genuine desire to spread enlightenment. Usenet, bulletin boards, your own personal website, would all be appropriate vehicles for this. Wikipedia is not. Regards, --Stephen Burnett 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to external articles

One of my articles on the church at Aubeterre-sur-dronne has been linked to for over two years. I have a new website and so changed the link to the new page, but you have now re-routed it back to the website I am in the process of closing down.

I did not put up the original link, but was quite happy for it to remain on your site. If you wish to use the external link (I am a professional writer) would you please change it to: http://www.lorrainemace.com/index_files/Mono.htm

While I was on Wikipedia today I tried to add a link to an article on the history of the early years of the Tour de France and also a link regarding Hector Berlioz and Harriet Smithson. Should you wish to see if these articles are appropriate they can be found at: http://www.lorrainemace.com/index_files/Page1342.htm and http://www.lorrainemace.com/index_files/Page1195.htm respectively. Should you go ahead with the Berlioz/Smithson link I think it would be a good idea to put the same link on both the Hector Berlioz page and Harriet Smithson page.

In no way whatsoever could my links be regarded as spam.

Kind regards,

Lorraine Mace

Please read WP:EL, which is very clear on the subject of linking to personal websites.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have since read the page and realise you feel that links to personal websites are not to be encouraged, but I must ask you to please change the existing link to my article on the church at Aubeterre-sur-Dronne. I repeat, I did not put up the original link, I have no idea who did. My website has changed and the link you have will expire at the end of July. Please change the link to: http://www.lorrainemace.com/index_files/Mono.htm

Clearly Wikipedia felt this link was appropriate.

I was trying to be helpful in making the other links, but have no issue with them not being used.

Kind regards,

Lorraine Mace

Marcus Aurelius Page

Hi Stephen,

I understand your concern about blogs and personal pages. But the 5 lectures on the page I linked in are buy a recognized academic authority. I left you a note on the talk page about it.

All the Best, SE

I understand your desire to help and I do not doubt your good intentions. The policy, however, is very clear:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

If you would care to do what WP:EL advises you to do - ie open a discussion on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus that supports you - that's fine. The point of the policy on external links is to prevent articles turning into lists of links to other sites. Somewhere in obtaining that consensus you will therefore need to explain either

a) why you think the article will be acceptable when dozens of other people, all with the best of intentions, also add links to their sites

or

b) why you think your site is a special case and should be included when the others are not.

Regards --Stephen Burnett 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I opened up a discussion for consensus.

Many thanks for your understanding. --Stephen Burnett 07:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Synthesizer

My contest insert of Hybrid Synthesizer systems is a humiliation for me. All the content is history and should be known by the world. The page to which I link is not commercial. I am a artist and on that page there is nothing commercial to find. Give your self a second and go there. http://www.ssimusicalevents.com/Paginas_UK/Hoe_het_begon.html I am mentioned in the Famous Fingers http://www.synthmuseum.com/arp/arp250001.html#ff http://www.synthmuseum.com/roland/rolsys70001.html So please allow me to mention my merits. I am 70 years old. Please let me know how I can insert information about this matter. Guido Mylemans Mylemans 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is very clear:

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

If you want to make your merits public, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. If you believe otherwise, you are mistaken. --Stephen Burnett 08:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:AIV

Well, thanks for the cheery note.

Actually, I was doing the appropriate thing. The IP that you listed had not vandalized in 20 minutes before I removed its listing. Blocking is preventative to inhibit further disruption- the vandal was no longer disrupting. We don't issue blocks when they won't be effective. Take a gander at the blocking policy and perhaps be a little more polite when communicating with other editors. The last thing we need are trigger happy admins who block an IP simply because it was reported even though the vandal has gone away. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a mistaken transgression on your part.

Up to this point in my life I have never heard of Thomas Hardy. However, I am not the only person to use this computer, thus it is entirely possible that another might have. Though, knowing my family, it is illogical as to why any of them would deem it fit to change said page. I am almost certain that none of my family members would vandalize Wikipedia.

The list of contributions from your IP is summarised here. As I have pointed out to previous anonymous contributors, picking up warnings and blocks due to the actions of others is simply an unfortunate consequence of using Wikipedia anonymously. If you don't like being tarred with the same brush as the vandals who happen to share you IP, there is an easy solution: get yourself your own account.

It is useful if you sign your contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) by adding four tildes - like this: ~~~~. This will expand to show your user ID date and time.

Regards, --Stephen Burnett 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Studies

Is it not the truth that media studies are qualified in many quarters as mickey mouth studies? So what "vandalism" are you talking about?! I just obtained my A-level results and if I would have depended thoroughly on your edits about media studies, I honestly would have been misled. So, facts are sacred.

This is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board. Please read the Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and citing sources and learn the difference. These policies ensure the preservation of those "sacred facts" which you're so concerned about. Editing without regard to them constitutes vandalism, and will be treated as such. In particular, descriptive terms such as "rubbish", "dumbing down" and "Mickey Mouse" are not language which is appropriate to an encyclopedia.

It would be helpful if you would learn to sign your talk page contributions - see the advice already given to previous anon contributors. Regards, --Stephen Burnett 09:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kate Silverton

At the time the link was not working, it the page displayed a "The article you are looking for has moved" page. So I searched for the article and added a new link. I see from checking the history that both links now work so it must have been a problem on The Mirror's side of things. - X201 08:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. Regards, --Stephen Burnett 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Hi Stephen

Maybe now you can see that the real conspiracy is not a theory. I mean the CIA and Vatican editing pages secretly - at least I am open and honest about my actions.

You take care now.

Shirley Kobiela (The Devils Requiem or Times Final Rose) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.96.23.161 (talk) 10:23, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

hey man

common man have some fun, its okay to okay to edit, its just harmless fun it always goes back o the way it usually is so there is no harm, is there, just cool down man chhhhiiillllllll —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomasfallen7 (talk • contribs) 15:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

No, it's not OK, it's not harmless and it's not fun. You seem to think it's cool to go round spoiling the hard work of others. Wrong. Some of us are trying to build an encyclopedia here, and we don't appreciate having our time wasted.

Every page you vandalise has been created by people who have given their time and effort to create something useful to others. If you're not capable of contributing to that, the least you can do is to leave it alone. --Stephen Burnett 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven

Hi, I received a message from you asking me not to delete from the Beethoven page. I hadn't visited that page so I don't know how it was changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.61.11 (talk) 05:48, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The edits made using your IP are listed here. Picking up warnings for edits which others have made is a result of using an anonymous IP. The solution is to sign up for an account.

Can you please sign the contributions to talk pages (NOT articles) with four tildes - like this: ~~~~ Many thanks --Stephen Burnett 07:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)