Jump to content

User talk:Bryan Derksen/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Outstanding Work!

I, Dbraceyrules give you this tireless contribution award for being the Number one contributor on Wikipedia, and having over 77,000 edits!Dbraceyrules 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. My compulsive tidiness is finally paying off, it seems. :) Bryan 05:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

From the Edmonton Journal

Bryan,

My name is Archie McLean and I'm a reporter at the Edmonton Journal. I guess you've had a million of these media requests by now, but I thought you might be willing to chat with the local paper for an article I'm writing about Wikipedia. If you're interested, please contact me at the number or email address below...

Cheers,

Archie


tel: (780) 429-5257 cell: (780) 554-0792 amclean@thejournal.canwest.com

National sport categories

Please don't remove sport categories from the top tier national menus. Sport may be a branch of culture to a sociologist, but I'm sure that very large numbers of ordinary people wouldn't expect to find these categories there, and Wikipedia is for everyone. Osomec 16:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The category guidelines say to put subcategories into the most-specific categories that they fit into, is there a compelling reason to make an exception in this particular case? I don't personally consider sports to be "special" enough to warrant special treatment. Bryan 23:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

CBC Edmonton

Good afternoon,

CBC Edmonton would like to invite you on to our afternoon show Radio Active to talk about your contribution to Wikipedia. Please call me to line up a good time for you.

thanks,

CBC Edmonton (780) 468-7428

Journal article

Congrats on the Journal article. It's always nice to see Wiki get good press, and it's also nice to know that Edmonton Contributes. Congrats also on your four-year anniversary with Wikipedia. Gadzooks, some marriages don't last that long. Here's to another four! Denni☯ 05:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Thanks! Hard to believe it's been four years already. Wish I could remember how I first came across Wikipedia, that's one of the first questions all these interviewers ask me but it's been so long now... :) Bryan 08:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon's RfC

Thanks for signing... but you caught the page just after he totally messed up the evidence section... ugh, I don't even want to try to fix it anymore, it takes up to much time. DreamGuy 07:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, I'll try to help out. Bryan 07:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I got the latest one... unless it's being chnaged again as we speak... sometimes my edits are undone before I can even refresh the page. DreamGuy 07:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

removal

complaints of the nature that were onthe 3rr page will be removedby somene, if not methen someone ekse, itsmy experiancethat anythingnotneededgetes made to disapearfromthere. Gabrielsimon 08:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering all the trouble you're getting yourself into, I think it would be wise for you to let someone else do that. If you think those comments shouldn't be there, ask someone else to remove them. Bryan 08:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

thats probably wise. would you beleive that a lot of my 3rr blockswerethe result of insulting edit summaries (when dealing with dreamguy) that can be considered baiting? this laat block he used to try to say therer was consensus when therre wasnt on the vamprie article. checkthe edit hiwstories to see the vbaiting as well as the scheming. Gabrielsimon 09:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Therianthropy

Bryan, I saw your comment on Talk:Therianthropy that you intend to unlock the page tomorrow. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't do that, partly as you're involved in editing the page, but also because I'm currently trying to work out how best to approach the clash between DreamGuy and Gabrielsimon, and the page protection is part of the process of trying to cool things between them. I don't intend to keep it protected for long, particularly if others want to edit it, and I'll leave a note on the talk page to that effect. Both DG and GS seem to be problem users (for different reasons), and DG is one of the rudest editors I've encountered. Any light you can shed on how to approach the issue would be much appreciated, as it's led to serial reverting, 3RR violations, blocks, complaints, and page locks, but the origins of it are hard to trace now. Feel feel to e-mail me if you'd prefer. I heard there was an article about you by the way, which I'm about to track down, so congratulations on that. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, considering that User:SlimVirgin here has repeatedly shown severe bias in her actions against me, and has for several days before the latest incidents came up, I already requested that she remove herself from taking any actions involving me. If I was rude to her it's because she is not at all even trying to treat situations fairly. If she says *you* are involved in editing the page and should step out, she clearly should have removed herself days ago. If she wants to open conversation with me on any topics she best send someone else completely or apologize for her behavior, as I already explained to her several times. In the meantime I have nothing to say to her. Other admins have been completely fair, and the more she insists upon inserting herself into it the more she demonstrates exactly why she shouldnot be involved in these matters. DreamGuy 09:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

incidentally, Dreamguy, i doubt hat brians interested in taking sides in our peronsal wars, and brian, im sorry if this was put of line. Gabrielsimon 09:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

DG, you can request all you like that I remove myself, but I'm not going to. I'm trying to be even-handed, and if you would stop being so aggressive and just explain the problem to me, we might make some headway. Feel free to e-mail me again if you want to, but be constructive. You'll find that I respond well to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to take over your user page, Bryan (but then again she threatened to block me for posting on hers)... SV, the most constructive thing there is here is for you to let it go... Think about this here: why are you so incredibly headstrong about it being YOU who deals with me? There are many, many other admins here. My point is that you seem to be biased and overly emotional in your responses to me, and the fact that you won't let anyone else take over can only be seen as proof of this. I've explained the problem to you, I've made suggestions on how to get past the conflict, but you are unwilling to do so. Why is that? Put yourself into my shoes here, what else am I supposed to think? You need to back yourself out of these conflicts as you are clearly too emotionally involved, or calm down and apologize for your rude overreactions that escalated the problems instead of helping. You can't possibly claim to try to be even handed and ignore that your presence makes things far worse instead of better. DreamGuy 09:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

thatsallp[retty words, but whats that gotto do with herianthrop[y, dreamguy?

and heyt, brian, wonderfully large amount of patience i see you exhibiting,way to go Gabrielsimon 09:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

i really am trying not to be a problem. Gabrielsimon 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, ideally everyone involved in this dispute would just "let it go". I realize that's not likely, though, I've been in arguments like this before and I know how it's like. :) In the case of Therianthropy, IMO if the problem is just GabrielSimon and DreamGuy reverting each other then the solution should be to apply the 3RR. Protection would only be necessary if the fight was sufficiently widespread and complicated that 3RR wouldn't be useful and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Bryan 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

If other editors on the page request unprotection, then I'm happy to do that. So far as I can see, there was no 3RR violation, though it looked as though there was going to be, which is why I opted for protection, rather than later having to block people. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
It's better for those who are going to violate 3RR to go ahead and violate it so they can be blocked and others can get some work done on the article (not to mention to prevent them from further vandalizing other articles) than to lock a page and let the abusers have a victory in disrupting it. Instead you prevented that to avoid disciplining someone whose side you took in other conflicts. That's not a good plan. Once again, other than sockpuppets and the extremely abusive editor Gabrielsimon, everyone on that page is on complete agreement on what to do. See the additional comments there.
Incidentally, does reverting the evidence section of your own RfC count towards 3RR? How about reverting other people's talk pages to versions they don't want. If so, he should be blocked for that. DreamGuy 22:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bryan, I don't think it's a good idea for admins to unprotect pages that they have been involved in editing, nor to enforce 3RR on those pages, particularly when another admin has already protected the page. You really should work this out with the first admin, or take this to WP:AN for an outside opinion. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I jumped in and made one edit a couple of days ago before I saw what a mess the dispute was I and don't plan to make any others while it's going on. Since no proper protection request was made in the first place, and since I am of the school of thought that protecting a page is worse than banning a combative user, I figured being bold would be good here. Do you want me to re-protect it, or just lay off on the 3RR enforcement promise? Bryan 23:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I noticed on the article Talk: page that SlimVirgin did solicit requests for it to be unprotected from the people involved in the dispute. No-one appears to have requested that it be unprotected yet. Some people might interpet your unprotection as a vote of non-confidence in SlimVirgin's admin decisions. The article is currently not in terrible shape, so I don't see a pressing need for major changes to it. I think it would be a good idea to re-protect it, and have the involved editors approach SlimVirgin, or make a request for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which is the normal procedure. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering that it was protected by an editor who was involved in the article in the first place, if you object to that then the protection should never have been there, so he was right to remove it, right? DreamGuy 23:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any edits by SlimVirgin in the article itself, and only her announcement of the protection in the talk: pages, is there discussion of the therianthropy wording issue going on elsewhere (aside from the general stuff about Gabrielsimon's RfC)? Bryan 23:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Therianthropy is part of associated aricles like Otherkin (and they were even discussing a merge), and SlimVirgin made several comments about Otherkin and what kinds of things could be mentioned and not as far as mental disorders and so forth both on the otherkin talk page and originally on the Verifiability policy talk page. The thing she is discussing in that context is specifically the things that were changed on therianthropy... especially since the relationship between these conditions at mental illnesses are more obvious with clinical lycanthropy being a professionally mentioned and sourced topic, whereas SlimVirgin's argument is that there is no sources of any sort to justify mentioning mental health problems on any of those articles. DreamGuy 00:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see it. Looks like slightly less involvement than I had on the therianthropy article, so I might still be "in trouble", but still possibly significant. Sigh, so many subtle complications... I wish you hadn't leapt straight in to edit your preferred wording back into therianthropy minutes after I'd unprotected it, it makes me look suspicious. I'm not really on "your side", you know. :) Bryan 00:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A Talk: page comment on a different article in response to a request for comment is hardly being "involved in the article in the first place". I doubt SlimVirgin has even heard the words "Therianthropy" or "Otherkin" before; they're rather specialized areas of knowledge that few would have (or would want to have) any familiarity with. I know I don't. Please try to work with the admins involved, rather than making spurious accusations about them. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is, she was on the Otherkin talk page *actively arguing* for her position, telling Gabriel to remove things and that he wsa justified in doing so, and she CLEARLY heard of the terms because she was discussing those exact words and the implications of the topics and ridiculing other sides several days before she progressed to locking down the articles in question. This is not a "spurious" accusation, she was directly involved. It would help if you would read what I am writing or go check out the pages I mentioned to see exactly how involved she was before you condescendingly jump to the conclusion that there's nothing to it. DreamGuy 00:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I hate to intrude, but could you perhaps take non-me-related arguments to other talk pages when they branch off topic like this? I haven't even looked at the Otherkin article until just now. Bryan 00:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Getting back to your suggestion above, I think I'll re-protect the article for now as you suggest. "There's no hurry" has always been my mantra so I can hardly argue with it when it's used against my actions now. Bryan 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way

Hey Bryan, no worries, and thanks for your note; I appreciate it. I just finished reading the National Post article by the way. It's really very good, and a well-deserved recognition of your work. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Stardom

Congratulations on your recent fame, and also sorry for bumping you from the top of List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The interest by the press seems to have spread, as today I was interviewed by an Ottawa Citizen reporter. Any tips for dealing with the hordes of admirers that are sure to follow? - SimonP 20:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to ask for advice from the guy you just bumped out of the hallowed #1 editor position? (Obviously I need to categorize more articles...) Anyway, if my experience is similar to yours, expect to be surprised by how impressive the non-Wikipedia-aware people you know think this all is, and prepare yourself for the bitter taste of having some other young whippersnapper bump you down the list in turn. :) Have a couple of interesting articles in mind to mention when need arises, as well as a quick list of "reasons why Wikipedia's great". They always ask how you first found Wikipedia, which was awkward in my case since I've long since forgotten. Bryan 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, my bumper has become the bumped himself. :) --mav 00:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

reply about parent categories

Well, the comedy films category was overloaded, so was the film stubs category. Basically the comedy film stubs category was to merge overloaded categories for population control. Why would you want it to retain the comedy cat tag after being stubbed as a comedy film stub? I mean, comedy film stubs is tagged as a subcat of comedy films. --SuperDude 22:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Stub categories have always been a bit of a difficult spot for me - they really shouldn't be on articles at all, in accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace they should be on the talk pages of articles. When I tried putting the stub templates on the talk pages instead, though, that caused some difficulties for stub-active editors who didn't like not being able to tell at a glance whether an article was properly stub-tagged or not. I can see their point on that issue, and so after that I just ignored stub tags - someday, hopefully, a better technical solution will come along. But I don't think I can ignore it if the stub categories start devouring the contents of regular categories wholesale. :)
Basically, what I object to is breaking up the contents of a category based on details of the way the Wikipedia article itself is written, rather than based on some characteristic of the subject of the article. If the comedy films category is too big, then subdividing it based on more detailed genre divisions is the way to go. It's already been started with the comedy-drama subcategory, for example, and I note that Category:Satirical films only has four articles in it currently so can probably take in a heck of a lot of the stuff currently in comedy films. I'd be quite willing to help out with such a task, if you like - I've been looking for a nice big categorization project to get into again. Bryan 23:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
(I never know how to handle these cross-user_talk discussions, whether I should keep them all in one place or bounce back and forth between the two user talk pages. :) Bryan 23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Isotope tables

Isotope table (complete) and Isotope table (divided) are in need of more detailed descriptions of their contents and underlying definitions. See Talk:Isotope table (divided). You as the main early contributor may be able to lend some insights. Femto 12:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20021104150635/www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuchart5.html Is this archived page from the site that you remember? (might require javascript, here's a direct link to one of the images http://web.archive.org/web/20030425163919/www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuchart5.gif) Determining the exact definitions used for the articles would be much easier then. Femto 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, is it? Femto 12:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one (sorry, got 404 and 403 errors the first time I checked those links - the second one still doesn't work for me). Bryan 08:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

VfD and WP:POINT

Hi Bryan. I am concerned that you are disrupting the VfD process to make a point by voting on an article without regard to its content. You seem to be upset that nominators are using the abbreviation "nn" to refer to "non-notable," and are voting keep on all such nominations because you disagree with this abbreviation. I suggest that a less contentious thing to do would be to read the article, vote on it as you see fit, and contact the nominator on his talk page or make a remark on the VfD in question. Yours, Sdedeo 21:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

True. However, I had no idea what "NN" meant, so as far as I could tell there was no actual justification given for proposing those articles for deletion. I saw the first one because I have TCS Victory watchlisted for reasons I've since forgotten, the others I saw because I checked User:ComCat's contribs. I don't "hang out" on VFD, so I don't know anything about the VFD process - if putting up a VfD with only the code "NN" as justification is acceptable practice over there then the process may well be even more messed up than I've surmised from the debates I've seen over it. I stand by my actions. Bryan 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I understand. Being on the internet means never having to say you're sorry. :) Sdedeo 18:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Category: British Hills by Height and Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km)

I am posting this to all the particants of the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Books by title discussion and debate. (Where the categories were voted for deletion).

This earlier discussion has been cited as an example as to why the category Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) (and sub cats) should be deleted.

Could you please take a look at the following CFD and vote. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 1#Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) and its subcategories

A complication could be that Category: British Hills by Height seems be to liked by the actual British Hills content contributors. By contrast the category Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km) is not liked by User:RedWolf who seems to be a major Mountain page contributor.

Special note: the Ocean trenches by depth categories were added after the all of the people had voted. But frankly these have no real contributors and would probably get deleted if another vote was taken. You should specifically mention these to ensure there is no confusion in future.

ThanX ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

sigma thete tau

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sigma Theta Tau, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! Bryan 17:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

WayneRay 17:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)WayneRay Not my article ??????

Nevertheless, it appears that you were the one who added the copyrighted material. See this diff: [1]. Bryan 22:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

WayneRayYes I remember now, it was a starter expansion I was going to come back and work on as I have knowledge of the Org. Sorry I went about it the wrong way. Just delete or whatever, i will do the work before hand and then submt the expansion of the original article

No problem. I would have deleted it myself, but there was a short article there before the copyrighted stuff was added so I figured I'd let other editors have time to figure out whether it was salvageable. Bryan 23:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that these articles:

that you worked on in the past are now are up for deletion. Would you vote in favor of keeping these articles? They show the history of the advancement of video game graphics over time and are useful as a source of images for graphics for video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the people making a case for deletion here have some good points I'll need to ponder a bit before I make a vote. In the meantime, I'll go through the images over the next few days and make sure they're all used on articles about the games themselves, since that usage isn't controversial - that way if the galleries do get deleted there won't be orphaned images. As an alternative to gallery pages, how about we create some subcategories of the screenshot category to put these into? Bryan 23:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Belief classification table

Sorry, as I made my own new table in Talk:Theism I unwittingly changed some links ([2]) in yours... do you mind? Jules LT 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Official complements section

Hopefully the rest of the community agrees, but wow, have you done alot! Sign you name to say thanks for this guy!

unsourced images

Hi Bryan, I have just been trying to tag unsourced images, I notice that you listed a number of images uploaded by User talk:GusF on 10th June, the user added tags to some of the pages you marked, but still neglected to give the source so I have again marked some of these as no source, however, one image that was not tagged by GusF Image:Christopher Judge -2-.jpg which you tagged on 10th June as no source has still not been deleted even though the template states that "the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added.". Are these "no source" tags therefore ineffective, do we perhaps need to list them elsewhere ? Arnie587 01:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

At the time I added that template this is what it looked like: [3]. All that it says is "Images without this information may be deleted in the future," and as far as I can recall there were no other steps to be done other than just slapping that template on the image page. If more rigorous procedures were later come up with I'm not aware of them. Bryan 01:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
OK that explains it, it appears that images with this tag are all now up for deletion (see Category:Images_with_unknown_source) Cheers Arnie587 11:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for the help on JenuGimmiet 15:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, just a little tidying. :) Bryan 15:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Also thank you for (hopefully) ending all the bluster and warring on lycanthropy. ~~ N (t/c) 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem again. A lot of disputes on Wikipedia actually reflect disagreements about that subject in real life, and such disagreements are important to describe in an article about that subject. :) Bryan 17:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


ehy erroniously

I say erroniously, because its called that only becaeu of a surface simmilarty, if you examine both things closer, you find significant divergance, this is why...Gimmiet 18:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but it isn't erroneous to say that clinical lycanthropy is named after lycanthropy. The differences between them are described thoroughly in the rest of the article, and it's pretty obvious that the two are different because we've got two entirely different articles about the two phenomena. Bryan 18:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


ppint taken.Gimmiet 18:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Gimmiet

As you may know, Gimmiet is the new account of Gabrielsimon, who previously got in hot water for similar editing patterns. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon, it specifies that "If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity". SlimVirgin and I have decided that this remedy is appropriate, and I was wondering if you would be willing to endorse it as well and ultimately have him blocked another month. For the reasons we feel this remedy is necessary, see User talk:Nickptar#Gabriel, plus the email which I will be forwarding to you. I'm sorry you're involved in all of this. ~~ N (t/c) 00:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspected as much based on his editing style and subjects of interest. Fortunately, I don't have otherkin watchlisted at the moment so I've missed what's been going on over there - the stuff on lycanthropy and clinical lycanthropy has been pretty tame and I wouldn't endorse banning him again based solely on that. Give me a few hours to go over the stuff in Otherkin and your user talk page and I'll see whether I can endorse a ban then. Bryan 06:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that didn't take long. Based on what I've seen at otherkin and its talk page, I endorse your interpretation that Gimmiet is Gabriel and has violated the ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon that you brought up. Go ahead and ban him for a month. Really, he should know better than to start obsessively removing that clinical lycanthropy see-also link again. Make sure to log the ban here at the arbitration page, as required by the arbitration decision. Bryan 06:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada for instructions.--Rmky87 01:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin and CL

You're right in what you said to the anonymous user; adherents are inherently POV. I don't think, though, that including their statements about what their position is would automatically be POV. Especially not when the opposing claims are no better sourced than some anonymous non-otherkin users at kuro5hin.org and a wikipedia editor who sees a self-evident relation between a psychiatric condition and a belief.

How would you feel if the section on transformation enthusiasts in the article on shapeshifting were edited to include an unsourced suggestion that they too are related to clinical lycanthropy in some unspecified way? After all, couldn't the case be made that there is a "self-evident" relation between "people who want to be animals" and people who believe they are animals? (Yes, I realize not all people who have a thing for transformation want to be animals, but I can easily see it being taken that way and the statement on the page about having a thing for shapeshifting being distinct from therians, otherkin, and any other group that actually identifies with or wishes to become something else accused of being original research in the same manner that the distinction otherkin draw between themselves and those with clinical lycanthropy is being branded as original research.) Jarandhel (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that the statements of adherents shouldn't be included at all, I was arguing that their statements shouldn't be taken as if they were the first and final truth on the matter. As for editing the transformation enthusiasts article, yes, as you propose above that would be not good. But that's not what was going on with Otherkin, it was simply a see also link. "See also" links don't require references, they're just a bunch of articles covering similar topics. I certainly wouldn't object to a clinical lycanthropy "see also" in a transformation enthusiast article. Do you mean Transformation fetish or Animal transformation fantasy, by any chance? They both lack such a see-also and could perhaps use one. Bryan 21:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
With respect, it is not the "see also" link to clinical lycanthropy that is being debated on Otherkin. It is the section of the article on Otherkin that states "When mental health professionals have encountered individuals who believe that they can transform into an animal or are otherwise non-human in some way, they have sometimes diagnosed the condition as clinical lycanthropy[18] or some other mental disorder." The citation points not to a mental health professional claiming that clinical lycanthropy is related to otherkin, but to an article on clinical lycanthropy itself (and one that you have to pay to read more than the abstract of, to boot.) The description of clinical lycanthropy, as given, is also overly broad... it has been purposely broadened to sound more like otherkin beliefs than its actual definition. Nothing in the definition of clinical lycanthropy says "or are otherwise nonhuman in some way", that wording has been taken straight from the description of otherkin beliefs. The article on clinical lycanthropy defines it as a disorder where the afflicted persons have a delusional belief that they "are or have transformed into an animal", period. Jarandhel (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As further clarification, these are the specific diffs being debated: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otherkin&diff=26155849&oldid=26139668 Jarandhel (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't what I was debating, so I don't have much to say on it one way or the other. My attention was drawn solely by the removal of the see-also link. Bryan 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I see. I must have misinterpreted your statements about adherents, I thought you were specifically referring to the inclusion of the quote by Orion Sandstorrm that represented the otherkin rebuttal of non-professional accusations of clinical lycanthropy. Since you weren't, and I presume from your statements that you won't be becoming involved in that dispute, never mind and thank you for your time. Jarandhel (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I've got clinical lycanthropy and a few other related articles watchlisted so the Great Otherkin War spills over into my awareness from time to time. :) Bryan 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Understood. Frankly I'm starting to think I was insane for coming here at all and involving myself in it; I had heard about it from Vashti in her livejournal and knew she had reached the point of burnout with it, but I never realized it was this bad. Jarandhel (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Heh. There are a few articles here and there on Wikipedia where some sort of monomaniacal collective insanity seems to have ensnared many of the editors who get involved in them, the stuff going on at Otherkin is relatively tame compared to some. If you haven't seen it before, check out some of the examples listed at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. I usually manage to avoid getting involved by taking a long-term view of things; Wikipedia is still going to be here in a year, or five years, or ten years, and eventually things will settle down enough to go fix whatever problems are remaining. There's no hurry. :) In the meantime you can always wander around tinkering with some of the other related articles, or just clicking random article until something catches your interest. I do that a lot. Bryan 23:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Your AFD votes today

I'd appreciate it if you could review and reconsider a couple of your AFD votes that were cast apparently in protest of the nomination. High School tram station is a tram stop, a structure of similar purpose and build to a bus shelter. George Alexander (US Army soldier) is an article about a person of questionable notability, and notability is indeed a factor in determining whether an article about a person should be kept (per WP:CSD A7). You also voted to keep Habbo Paper, which is pretty obviously a minor fansite of the sort routinely deleted every day, and doesn't come within a mile of the (admittedly proposed) guidelines at WP:WEB.

I think some of these votes may have been a bit hasty. I can understand disagreeing in good faith about George Alexander, but I'm a little curious about your reasoning on High School tram station and a lot curious about your reasoning with Habbo Paper. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm also curious about Tim Brady, where you voted to keep despite the fact that he is clearly a high school student taking a film class. Certainly doesn't pass WP:BIO, and and comes close to failing WP:CSD A7. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't vote "keep" because I felt those articles were necessarily worthy of Wikipedia, I voted "keep" because the nominations were of abysmally poor quality and I feel they should be tossed on that basis. If they're renominated later with a decent explanation given for why they should be deleted I doubt I'd notice. I may revise some of my votes later when I've had more time to review what others have said subsequently, but I'm not strongly motivated under the circumstances. Bryan 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Then take the first delete vote as the rationale for deletion. AFD is unmanageable enough as it is without...I hope you won't take it as an attack if it seems to be that your reasoning is bordering on POINT. If you'd like to open an issue RFC about overuse of obscure acronyms and neologisms on AFD, I'll be right there to endorse, and I guess I'd help you open a user conduct RFC against ComCat if you feel strongly, but I urge you not to continue on this course of action, because of its disruptive effects.
In any event, if you insist on continuing to do this, please do still take a more-careful look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Brady, where I think you've mistaken ComCat's terse vote for User:JiFish's perfectly reasonable nomination. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
My bad on that one, I've withdrawn my vote there. As for the others, there's already an RfC against ComCat and the debate about this sort of stuff going on in AfD has been going on for many months without any resolution in sight so I feel a need to be a little more proactive when nominations this bad show up. I don't think it's inappropriate to vote against deletion solely on the basis of "no adequate reason given to delete" - the policy is to keep when in doubt, after all. Bryan 03:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I've now gone through all the other votes I cast, and I've decided that they're all staying "keep" - my initial reaction turns out to have been adequate. I've provided more detailed reasoning on each of the respective AfD pages backing the "keeps" up. Bryan 06:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've chosen to participate in some of these AfDs as I know you usually stay away from AfD. The addition of your input on any AfD is probably more valuable than that of almost any other editor bar none. While the overall problems at AfD are obviously larger than just poorly supported AfD nominations, that is a major problem with the AfD process in the first place.--Nicodemus75 08:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking it may be about time for me to focus a ton of attention over there and see if I can't help fix this problem more directly than just commenting on the mailing list. Fortunately I'm not at the Ed Poor level yet, but I guess we'll see whether prolonged direct exposure to AfD causes me to snap. :) Bryan 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to make a comment on this, if I may. While I agree with you in principle: Poorly reasoned AfD nominations are a problem. Voting keep simply because the nomination was done poorly (and not because the subject is noteworthy) is disruptive and counter-productive (and as User:A Man In Black pointed out above, borders on WP:POINT). By all means point out the fact, but you should not allow it to affect your vote. Thanks for you time. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So long as unreasoned AfD nominations and votes are given weight, why shouldn't I put in a vote with weight in the opposite direction to counter them? Articles can be re-nominated for deletion at a later date, so if a poorly-justified AfD results in keep because I don't think it's adequately justified, but the article itself is worthy of deletion, it can later be re-nominated with a proper justification. Or the nominator/voters could provide reasoning for their votes and convince me to change mine as a result. A deleted article, on the other hand, is much harder to bring back.
I really don't think I'm as close to POINT as people keep saying, despite my comment on the mailing list that I was expecting accusations along these lines. If anything, I think my votes will serve to help reduce the disruption of Wikipedia that these inadequate and seemingly-random AfDs might produce. And in any event, if you'll take a look at the ComCat AfDs I voted keep on you'll note that I later went back and checked the article's merits to provide justification of my own. Every single one of them stayed "Keep", which doesn't give me any reason to doubt my initial approach to these things. Bryan 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining this to me, it is much appreciated. I still disagree with your reasoning, and I think you will find this attitude common. However it is certainly your vote to use as you wish, and I belive you are acting in good faith. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
And thanks for that, I try to assume good faith too even in rampaging deletionists. :) I'm losing track of where I'm having all the different facets of the discissions on this action of mine, so I'll mention it here as well; I would have preferred my vote to be "no deletion" rather than "keep" but went with "keep" because that's one of the more common and clearly-understood options people use on AfD. It's a subtle distinction but perhaps helps make my outlook more palatable; sort of a "not proven" rather than a "not guilty" verdict. Bryan 23:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

Hi! As per AfD suggestions, I rewrote the ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network article. Since you voted there, I thought you'd like to know. --William Pietri 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I already voted "keep and rewrite", all good. :) Bryan 04:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sandbox

The links to the individual cricket matches on your page, User:Bryan Derksen/Sandbox, will be soon marked for deletion. --AllyUnion (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgot that thing was still there, thanks for mentioning it. Bryan 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bryan_Derksen/Archive_12&oldid=1190093616"