User talk:Cburnett/Users

July 17, 2005 archive start

Tea and Empathy

Salve, Cburnett!
Thanks for the cleanup on the Julia Stiles article. I am delighted it is now a WP:FA, the second one I can claim. (Credit is due also to User:Niteowlneils and User:Rossrs for their contributions.)
I was away and missed the revert dispute between yourself and Zen-master on dates but I can empathize. I had this same discussion with him a month ago (it's still on Talk:Julia Stiles) and despite my citations to the stylebook on this and other issues he raised the dates question once more. Previously, when I added a bibliography on the Stiles article he objected to the whole idea (notwithstanding the "cite your sources" message that comes up when editing articles) and just deleted it. I looked at his talk page and those on articles he's been active (e.g. here and here) and there's a pattern. So we're not alone.
If you would, please reply to my talk page. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 15:40, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC).

Hello

Hello, fellow Tau Bate. Thanks for the addition to the article, especially the picture. I'm Kentucky Beta '03. Just out of curiosity, did you go to the national convention in Lubbock in 2003? (BTW: I'd prefer if you replied on my talk page). Cheers. CryptoDerk 01:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I presume by year of initiation (or should it be induction?) and the current fields in the list now you meant when they became chapters. You might need to have an asterisk by some schools for those that merged from Sigma Tau. When they merged, the national office gave the chapters a year or two to move over. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the last chapter that switched did so in 1976 or 1977. In this case you'll either want to have an asterisk or, preferrably, both dates. Now, as far as the actual dates for all the chapters, I'm almost positive you'll find this in the yearly info booklet that the national chapter sends out to the chapter advisors/president. If your chapter is like my chapter, they always send a billion of them, so there should be no shortage. You should be able to check the minutes of the conventions posted online for the most recent chapters. Two got in at the national convention in 2003, and at that convention there were proposals for some more for the following year, so I presume there were some chapters approved in 2004. Hope this helps. CryptoDerk 03:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Old_Right "left-wing" celebrities vandalism

Hey Cburnett, did you intentionally put messages intended for Old_Right on my talk page rather than his? Though I agree with your assessment. zen master T 08:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, since there was already a conversation going on there (at least so says my watch list). :) Feel free to move or delete as you see fit as I'm in the middle of removing all his vandalism. Cburnett 08:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thx for being the one to clean up the mess Old_Right made. zen master T 08:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Vandalism

I just wanted to say thanks for catching the vandalism on my page. Good luck on your Admin nod. --TheGrza 18:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh?

In a recent edit, your statement read: "Ugh, condensing to semi-colon delimited paragraphs is very hard to read." For someone who's posted so much, I would figure you'd realize that the attitude in comments is really unnecessary. All you need to say is the "Expanding number since" and the condensing part. There've been many times where I've wanted to say such things in comments, but I always resist the urge, because it achieves nothing but making the other person look dumb and create an unfavorable environment for editing. Alas, this happens a lot on Wikipedia, and now I remember why I stopped editing in the first place. Baryonyx 20:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I was wondering if you might check out a dispute I'm having with the Central College article.

Currently there is some information about what I feel is a relatively minor racism issue on the campus. You can see some of my reasoning on the article's discussion page. Perhaps I can summarize:

• Reads like a news report (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base, #5)
• Skews the article in favor of one minor topic
• Is written in a weird non-encyclopedic way
• Slightly confusing to those not familiar with the incident

If the information is retained, I'd like to see it trimmed down a lot. But I'm relatively new here, maybe you will have more insight into this. Please respond on either the article's discussion page and/or on my talk page. Thanks for the help. Adm58 01:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to alert you that I'm responding on my talk page. Thanks. Adm58 02:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

help out Rich Warren?

Hi - do you think you might be able to help out user:Rich Wannen? He seems to be a film buff kind of guy, but is having a real hard time getting into the swing of things here. I'm not sure how to help him out, but it seems like knowing there's another film buff around might help him. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before doing anything, I suggest you look over his edit history and his anonymous edits as User:12.73.195.116. Also, read through the discussion at the village pump. Good luck. -- Samuel Wantman 20:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help out Rich ?Warren

Howdy, Thanks for your friendly note. At this point, what I need most from Wikipedia is the freedom to learn my way about and make a contribution in the process. Unfortunately, people like Mother Wantman seem more interested in just criticizing style and getting real fretful when someone doesn't immediately conform, and from people like Splash in ringing up bonus points for # of "contributions" by scurrying about deleting things without so much as an effort to contact the affected contributor (in this case, me).

Indeed. I've been at ISU for more than 12 semesters now and averaged 18 credits/hours of class work per semester for my undergrad degrees in engineering. I fully understand learning through mistakes. I've come to realize that self-taught is the #1 way to learn something; #2 is from your mistakes; and #3 is from other people (university is so focused on teaching via #3 that I can no longer stand being in a class room and doing what profs should say I should do to learn, but I digress).

Honestly, I didn't sift through your contributions like Wantman suggested. I peeked at it, but didn't go through thorougly, so I'm not fully aware of the "complaints" drawn against your contributions. The only thing I'd recommend (I wish someone had to me earlier) is to read through the style guide (WP:MOS) and the how-to-edit-a-page (WP:HEP). Since WP was my first experience with the whole wiki-syntax, my contributions (quality-wise) improved by quite a bit by reading those and just editing. In this regard, I think some were definitely wrong by "biting the newbie" since you have clearly shown the negative impact the "biting" has.

No argument, this is a different kind of beast. I've been a top-50 contributor, annually, at IMDb since 1996, That site is my frame of reference, therefore, and in many ways Wikipedia operates quite differently. This is most noticeable in the case that there is no real management-in-charge here, which can be a good or bad thing depending: I'm enthused by the opportunity to add information without having to wait for a less-knowledgeable or less-interested "Section Manager" to get through "processing" my submissions before they appear online, so that I can proceed from step 1 to step 2 to step 3 without the passage of so much time that I've forgotten the project (in one section, there is an 11-month backlog!); and that any factual mistakes can be just as quickly fixed by follow-uppers with the same or better knowledge-base than I have (in my case, my base started building, in re films, in 1953).

On the other hand, the same lack of management control allows trolls, style nitpickers and know-it-all-wannabees to come swooping down in the dark of night and delete or corrupt, one way or another, a good deal of hard work and future planned work, without even the courtesy of someone contacting the author(s) of the project first to let them know their work is in peril. Since you are an admin, I think this is something you should want to talk about with the others, as it's been the core of most of my posted complaints, and seems to roll off some people (including Mama W.) like water off an oil-soaked duck. I'm evidently not the only one who feels that way, judging by the eventual responses to my first post on the Village pump, and it was I think useful I went ahead and made that post in terms of drawing some people out to discuss it. Currently Madre W. seems to want to rekindle the thing, but no one is paying him much attention: now I see he has popped over here, too, to "tattle".

First things first: unless someone has done some really weird stuff, all your contributions should be salvagable. After an article is deleted it is still on the system (I'm not sure if there's a way to *really* delete something). If you give me an article name, I'd be glad to look to see if I can find anything.

The "anonymous" edits, I should point out, are a result of my not being used to logging in every time I return to a site from which I have not logged out. There is no intent to deceive, as Wantman seems to imply in his use of the word "anonymous", and it is that kind of attitude he presents which makes me now blow him off completely. He knows very well I explained to him what I was working on, and asked him to please not worry about the stylistic points of honor until I'd finished working, and he seemed to accept that in his first response, but now he goes on fussing about "wikifying" and *me* being uncooperative or "anonymous".

Generally, an edit from an IP is called an anonymous edit. IOW, it's standard nomenclature here. But that's not to explain Wantman's posts or attitude, just giving you some info.

I can grant that most of the Wikipedians are good people; but they are also largely invisible to me. Only a dozen or less people responded to my initial complaint, and they were about half and half divided on whether I was a victim or a bastard. No one "official" seems to have come into the picture, and the complaint was effectively left unresolved to the best of my knowledge. That's not a healthy sign, as I just don't think you will find the numbers of people needed to 'pedify the entire history of the world, when they know their efforts are subject to instant negative reactions, or actions, from the getgo. I have been much less hassled since my original outburst, but I must say I am proceeding further with less enthusiasm and far greater trepidations, that I will do a number of weeks of work and come back after it's done to take a peek, and find it's all been deleted or reverted; and, in the former case, there's no way to restore it, because the History gets deleted too, and then the work's just lost. Rick Block is the first - and only - person to volunteer to actually look at the *Wikipedia* problem with me in re its contents on movies, and work along as a fellow contributor rather than a self-appointed supervisor, and I very much appreciate that.

Regarding "official" people. Since WP has no real structure (there's Jimbo who seems to have the absolute final say (but rarely exercises it), there's bureaucrats (who's only job is to enable users as admins), there's admins and there's non-admins. There's no one really to act as officials, except maybe admins primarily because of their experience on WP. And I don't think you'll ever see someone come through and say "___ is wrong for ___" and "___ is wrong for ___". About the most official thing is the arbitration committee (WP:AC) but they only act upon request and as a last option.

There are certainly instances of "negative intervention" at IMDb, too, but the presence of a management team whose mere presence discourages rampant vandalism, and a Contributor's Board (at the instigation, BTW, of myself and 2 other people) to talk about structural and processing problems, and a system, however imperfect, to deal with them. IMDb may be too rule-bound at times, but there is just too little security at Wikipedia for those of good faith as well as bad.

Sometimes I wish there were more rules at WP, but there are definitely more times that I'm glad there's no bureaucracy to hold me up.

As an outsider who would like to contribute, and who comes with a different set of experiences and some insights into the pitfalls of different management systems (off as well as on the internet), including the Wikipedia system, I would be happy to collaborate on some means of reducing the worries and improving the product, if that's something Wikipedia wants to deal with head on. In the meantime, the best way to help me is to let me experiment - I learn much better by doing than by reading about doing - and come in and help me address the problem, rather than standing on a pedestal somewhere saying 'Don't do it this way; do it that way' (I gave up saying "Yes, Mommy" decades ago) or sneaking in behind my back and wiping out what I've started on but haven't completed yet [NB: This is not a personal statement about you, but just my reaction to the "help" coming from most of the interlopers since I've arrived here. It isn't real help, just evidence of boredom and/or self-aggrandizement on the part of the so-called helpers].

I never had the intention of telling you what to do or hold your hand. I would like to see more activity on the film stuff and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Movies. If you look at my user page at the bottom you'll find "my current project" (which I haven't been keeping up with) and it's just a simple categorization project of oscar awards. By mere exposure, I've seen a couple other people pick up on it.

PS - As to what I'm currently working on, see my == Film Wars, Part II == message on the talkboard of Rick Block.

I'll look it over and respond there. Just a tip (yeah wiki-syntax), you can link directly to a section/heading like this: User talk:Rick Block#Film Wars, Part II:

Again, thanks for your interest. Rich WaNNen 7:57PM CST, 20 Jun 2005.

Just let me know if you need anything or want to know anything (wiki-syntax, style, tips, whatever). Cburnett 02:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack summary = vandalism?

"Revert vandalism: calling me an idiot or liar = bad faith editing => vandalism"

That would be nice, but I doubt it works that way. Of course he's making an ass of himself, but you're just looking for a good reason to continue a revert war so you can end it forcefully. Don't stoop to that level. 82.92.119.11 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been put up for protection. Cburnett 00:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your call. Disagree, though. Protecting because neither side can bear to have The Wrong Version up while sorting it out is a cop-out. Now I'm actually not sure blocking him wouldn't have been a better idea. 82.92.119.11 00:46, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if it's reverted back to it was before this all started. All I know is that the reliable sources (IMDB & MGM) show the movie was released in 1989. The date on DVD cases are copyright dates, and they are irrelevant to how wikipedia sorts movies by year. Furthermore, I'm not the one calling people idiots or liars. I'm not the one that the page needs protection from: it's the incivil one. Cburnett 01:01, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand: protection hurts everyone. When a page has been protected it's completely irrelevant who it needed protection from, that's the point I'm trying to make. A page doesn't need protection from any individual user, unless we somehow lack the technical means to block that user. 82.92.119.11 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user in question is already banned and is doing it anonymously. Cburnett 01:56, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Email from Danny

Hi, please let me know if you received my email. Something happened when i sent it, so I am not sure you got it. Thanks. Danny 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Hi, I sent another email. Please let me know if you got it. Thanks. Danny 30 June 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Don't Tread on Me

Re: 3RR

Well, Cburnett. I have totally promised of never breaking the 3 revert rule again. Once again, I do apologize for the threats and insults from a long time ago. -- Mike Garcia | talk July 2, 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it took only 1 day for Mike to break his pledge of never breaking the 3RR rule again. He reverted Hypnotize maybe a dozen times today in the span of about a half hour. 66.36.134.67 3 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

Your last message on Mike Garcia's talk page

Sorry for not answering your latest message on my talk page a couple days ago. I probably wasn't watching the talk page closely. Yeah, I know I promised not to violate the 3RR. Sorry, but it's not my fault that it happened on Hypnotize. The user did it first, he has threatened me to add some source and play games when he kept removing the information that wasn't first written by me. Another user (Freestylefrappe) once impersonated him and left me some stupid message, but I removed it. Or maybe the user was impersonating him (Freestylefrappe), I looked at the contributions to see if it was the same user or not, but I'm afraid the anonymous needs to be banned in somewhat case, still he has refused to stop vandalizing and answer my message at the talk page. -- Mike Garcia | talk July 9, 2005 01:40 (UTC)

May 13, 2006 archive start

Thank you for your participation

You have all been unwitting participants in a peice of performance art entitled "Wikipedia Project: Spring-Summer 2005". All of this has been a big giant peice of art involving several people throughout North America. Thanks for unwittingly playing your roles to a tee. TheSpottedDogsOrganisation 13:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I got one of these congratulatory notices too. Isn't it thrilling? (For one thing, I hadn't even realized I was in North America.) I'm asking Spot to pay me €50 for artistic services rendered to this "peice" (sic); how about you? -- Hoary 14:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Our performance art collective is based in North America you moron! And you ain't getting one red American cent you Euroweenie! Spotteddogsdotorg 23:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Cburnett. Regarding your note on my page, no-one is "compelled to revert", and there is no such policy as "being in line with the spirit of the 3RR". Moreover, I was dead set against there being any notice at the top of the page; however, when Zen Master insisted on there being a notice, I felt a reasonable compromise was to leave a notice indicating that there was a conflict, but at least an accurate one indicating the true state of affairs. I appreciate that you were only attempting to enforce policy, but it's best to enforce pre-existing policies rather than creating new ones on the fly, and especially (as happened in this case) when the facts are prone to misinterpretation. Still, no hard feelings, keep up the good work. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Zen-master? Your 4th edit was by no means a compromise: all you did was state your side of the edit war. Cburnett 02:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've explained why it was indeed a compromise, and also why you can't block for violation of non-existent policies. I appreciate you're trying to do your best. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Blocking has admin's discretion
2. I find your comment "...you're trying to do your best" (emphasis obviously mine) insulting because it comes from an administrator who fails to grasp the understand of the 3RR: to carry on discussion, not warring. Edit wars never solve anything; only disrupt WP; and generally wastes time on an ancillary issue. Perhaps you need to do some reflection about your editing habbits before commenting on mine?

Cburnett 02:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to yourself when you talk about "an administrator who fails to grasp the understand of the 3RR"? If so, I agree that you obviously don't, based on your block of me. As for your statement that "edit wars never solve anything", and "perhaps you need to do some reflection", I'd take them more seriously if you hadn't started edit warring on the page yourself. Rest assured, I won't really block you for violating the spirit of the 3RR, though it would be fully justified based on your comments regarding the "spirit" of the policy and administrators "discretion". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And now you fail to grasp what I actually said. Cburnett 03:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I grasped it, but it obviously applied more accurately to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No you didn't. Cburnett 14:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

I've put a new 3RR violation listing up on WP:AN/3RR - would you mind taking a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Some other thing

Sorry about deleting that. I just hit the wrong button. I wanted to say that we have the same taste in a lot of things. I hope you can continue contributing because of that. I was trying to nomiate or vote for you to be an admin but you may already be one.

from 0waldo

what the fork ever concerning ip address. 0waldo 02:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OH MY GADS ALREADY! you freekink blocked me for being such a bad boy!!! I added back the link that three other prix deleted in err but I'm so bad!!!!

R.eading, Riting, and EuRythmics!

0Waldo, "now".

Look, don't take it so hard; if I were there I would give you a teddy and a blankie and a bottle of warm milk too. I don't give a crap about banning me. Ban me all you want, it does not matter. I am very proud of my contributions and I'm not going to lik-arz around here - If you don't know that by now then get over it and realize it. Ban me forever if you don't like it, or alternatively, suk harder to get a different flavor ok? Nothing personal mind you ;) Ha! 0Waldo.

Now really, please don't get your feeling hurt ok? I don't want you to think that I'm too terribly serious here, after all you may lose your temper and get mad and ban me or something bad like that! 0Waldo (again) P.S. Eat SHortbread Cookies ;)

GaDZ bernie! This is the forth freekin edit I have pulled off since you banned me 1/2 hour ago? Is that the best you can do? Come on here, what about the 3R's here fella? rebuke, revert and rebuttal? What about blocking me like you said you were going to do? I hate to bring this up -again- but I contribute scads of cash to Wiki. (I know, I'm not supposed to use that as a means by which I get my way around here but I just can't help it!) 0Waldo. (for the forth or fifth time).

Are you going to block him again, or do you think it's a waste of your time to deal with minor trolling? Just wondering if I should bother reverting his edit to IP address now or wait till he gets tired of messing around. Thanks. :) Hbackman 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind -- didn't notice that he was IP-hopping. Hbackman 04:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: 0waldo

I have applied to have his recent sockpuppet checked. (You can reply on my talk page if you wish, so I can cut down on the pages I'm watching). - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK

Im sorry about today ok pal? 0waldo 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just be nice. The world is a better place when you are. Cburnett 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

January 14, 2007 archive start

Les Mis

Hi! I ran across you at WP:PUI. Les Mis is my favorite musical too. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Celebrating

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder

Very nice of you to call out my error in your edit summary. [1]-- No Guru 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you take making a mistake (god forbid!) gracefully by utilizing contemptuous sarcasm. I'll try to remember to not extend you the courtesy of dropping a friendly reminder on your talk page next time you're negligent in exercising your administrative abilities. Rest assure, from now on: you can safely make mistakes without ever be given the opportunity to learn from them by notification from me. Have a great weekend. Cburnett 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The friendly reminder was fine. Thank you for that. The edit summary was pointlessly rude. You could have used a summary like:

Closing Admin forgot to remove Afd notice - or
Removing AfD notice as per talk page -- or
Deleting AfD notice -- see talk page -- or
Deleting AfD notice for closing Admin --
Continue to point out all of my mistakes to me (for I make them in multitudes) - just don't be a dick about it. Have a good weekend. -- No Guru 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you call that rude?

• Did I use any derogatory terms?
• Did I call you names?
• Did I comment on you as a person?
• Did I mock your abilities as an admin for forgetting to delete the notice?
• Did I call for your removal as an admin?
• Did I poke that you need to go reread (or, heck, read for the first time) administrator guidelines?

Did I say anything resembling any of the following:

• "Retard didn't do his job"
• "You guys voted for him to be an admin? pffff!"
• "What a lamer"
• "IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSE AN AFD THEN AT LEAST DO YOUR JOB"
• "Thanks for wasting my time"
• "AFD closed: vote was a waste of time and No Guru couldn't waste his time to finish it"

Did I say anything other than the truth: are you not User:No Guru and did you not delete the AFD notice?

The answer to all of the above is a resounding "no". Absolutely not. No, I merely said you didn't delete the notice. Nothing inflammatory, nothing rude. On a scale of 0 to 10 of rudeness, my summary might have been a 0.1.

The only reason you read something "rude" is because you didn't assume good faith. Did you? The reason I didn't do any of the above is because I assumed good faith on your part and that it was just an oversight. That's it.

I left a brief, detailed summary (something I strive to do on every edit) and a friendly reminder on your talk page. Your real problem is that I used your name and that somehow makes it rude. To be honest, I'd apologize but I don't see anything to apologize for.... Cburnett 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Iowa ghost towns

Hey Cburnett, I noticed you had a link to Donnan, Iowa and other disapearing/vanished Iowa towns on your userpage. If you do ever get a chance, some of the ones listed on your page are definitely woth visiting. I used to live near Donnan, and wrote the Wikipedia article on it. It is a strange and somewhat surreal place. The abandoned post office, if it is still there, would definitely be worth a visit. There were only five or six buildings left when I last visited, in the mid-90s, but if you can find it, it is worth looking at. Do not bother trying to visit Doris, Iowa unless you are prepared to be terribly disapointed. The buildings have all been razed, and nothing is left except the ruins of what I was told was the mill. The other Fayette and Buchanan County ghost towns vary in quality: there is nothing left at Buchanan, but Bryantsburg has some (around 3) really nice old farmhouses that are now inhabited by Amish families. Shady Grove has (had?) a really huge white barn with the words SHADY GROVE on the front, but little else is left. The northern six blocks of Randalia, including the old school, were in the process of being razed the last time I was there, so I'm not sure what may be left. Monti has a very interesting 150 year old church, a giant cemetary, and (a rarity amongst such empty places) a community center that might be worth a visit. Just figured I'd drop you a note in case you ever get the chance to visit. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Expand chemotrophic flowchart?

I think your flowchart on chemotroph could be very usefull for the more general article on Primary nutritional groups. Do you have time to modify it? Regards, Sjors.

I can sure look into it! Cburnett 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipinion

Interesting essay. I think slashdot style ranking would be helpful. Instead of ranking edits, I think it would be best if we could easily rank the pages Stub, Start, B, A, FA. Then show the latest highly ranked version. - Peregrinefisher 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. Les Misérables was also my favorite big budget NY play.

Thanks for the comment. :) First one to do so!

What you propose is good from a macro level but when you get down to a micro level of individual edits then a single edit can drop a FA to spam. The rankings attempt to address the micro level. On a macro level, I think what you propose (I've seen this ranking on various talk pages) is good. Editors need to earn their — for lack of a better word — ranking based on what kind of an editor they are. Pages need to earn their ranking based on what kind of an article they are. I think we need both. I shall clarify this on my page. :)

I've got tickets for phantom of the opera, mamma mia, and monty python's spamalot this coming spring. Can't wait. Cburnett 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox (Pilgrims)

Thanks for the quick eye on my userbox - man, I must have been very sleepy Noles1984 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)