User talk:Bryan Derksen/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bryan Derksen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Tucker's kobolds

I have nominated this article (which you created) for deletion as part of the current drive to remove the cruft from the D&D topics on Wikipedia. Comments regarding this and other related articles welcome. J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tucker's kobolds

An editor has nominated Tucker's kobolds, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucker's kobolds and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Novikov self-consistency principle

When you originally created this article you included the sentence "Novikov found that the probability of such consistent events was nonzero, and the probability of inconsistent events was zero, so no matter what a time traveller might try to do he will always end up accomplishing consistent non-paradoxical actions." Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that Novikov just argued that as long as self-consistent solutions were possible they would be the only ones allowed by nature, but that actual calculations of probabilities of different outcomes using quantum mechanics were done later by Kip Thorne and Gunnar Klinkhammer, as discussed in Thorne's book Black Holes and Time Warps and also in reference 11 in [1]. And I'm not sure if this approach actually proved that QM would give inconsistent outcomes probability 0, or if they just assumed that only consistent outcomes were possible and used QM to find the relative probability of each one. Hypnosifl (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm... I vaguely remember writing the article, but it was six years ago so the details are lost. I think I dug up the Friedman paper, the title is familiar, but not the original by Novikov that first proposed the principle. If you've got sources that contradict what I wrote then by all means go with those sources, I'm hardly an expert on this. Just a dabbler. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Winebox

Hey, no problem, although due to my inexperience with these things, I was a bit baffled. But, considering your competence with such stuff, do you think you could take a peek at it and check that I haven't left behind novice mistakes? MURGH ^disc. 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looked good, the only problem I found was some leftover table HTML that probably didn't make any difference to the displayed infobox. I split off the documentation into a doc subpage, but that's not a "novice mistake" it's just a bit of stylistic standardization. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. MURGH ^disc. 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hello! I have returned for a long wikibreak and i saw the improvements on Wikipedia! Wow! I'll get straight to the point, can i request rollback? --Lolipod (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. On which article, to which version, and why? Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the rollback bit. Sure. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL"

This is, as near as I can tell, a novel claim. Do you have a reference for this claim? Nandesuka (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From the GFDL, under the requirements for producing a modified work: "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." From further down, in the section on combining multiple GFDLed works together: "In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications"." Basically, the GFDL requires that you must maintain the authorship attribution of a work under the GFDL when you copy or modify it.

Under the history of the Tucker's kobolds page you can see that my contribution of the text is properly attributed. That text, which I hold the copyright to but have licenced to Wikipedia under the GFDL, is now in the Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) article. However, if you look at that article's history, you won't see my attribution under it. Wikipedia "gets away" with this by considering itself to be a unitary work, so the fact that my attribution remains under the old article's history means it's still compliant. However, the moment you deleted Tucker's kobolds my contribution was no longer attributed to me anywhere in Wikipedia. That meant that Wikipedia was violating my license terms, making the article Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) into a copyright violation. This may seem like quibbling, but really, the GFDL is fundamental to making Wikipedia work and so compliance is very important.

This is a subject that I've raised before on the wiki-en mailing list, where I've met with general agreement, so I'm quite certain that this is the correct interpretation of the GFDL. Have you closed other AfDs as merge-and-delete in the past? If so, we've got some cleanup to do. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you used your admin tools in order to undelete a page that you were the creator of, and your rationale for this is that if Wikipedia doesn't make the page history available, we're violating your copyright? Is that about the size of it?

I have re-deleted the page under CSD G4 (the AfD closed as delete, not "merge and delete"). I have also removed the material on "Tucker's Kobold's" from the Kobold article until its copyright status can be established. I will contact WP:OFFICE and ask them if they agree with your novel interpretation of the GFDL. I note that no discussion of this novel interpretation is on any of the pages discussing our deletion policy. I trust that if you disagree with this decision you will open a discussion on the issue, rather than unilaterally using your admin tools to restore "your" copyrighted material. Nandesuka (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright status of Tucker's kobolds is not under any dispute that I know of; I wrote it myself and released it under the GFDL. The problem is now with Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), which contains the text that I wrote without any attribution that I wrote it. This is a violation of the licence under which I released the material. If anyone should be taking this to OFFICE it should be me, I'm the one being wronged here. I'm going to take it to WP:AN instead, though. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believed your copyright was being violated, the correct course of action was to mark it as such and get an uninvolved admin to assist you, not to use your admin powers to arbitrate the status of an article that you (essentially) wrote. Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) does not contain the text you wrote at the moment, because I removed it. We can selectively delete past revisions, if needed, if the office deems it necessary. Nandesuka (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that I didn't restore the article itself, I turned it into a redirect to where the material had been merged to. I don't see why having a redirect there is such a big deal that you'd wheel war over it. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Okay, thanks, Bryan. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on a related GFDL issue?

Bryan, I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL and I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Summary style#GFDL concern regarding GFDL issues from splitting articles, in case you are interested.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had an operator head-space and timing problem (aka brain lock) I guess. I replied there further on that issue. The other issue that overlaps both of these (this one and the one brought up at AN) is copying from one page to another. Certainly an appropriate edit summary is necessary but do you know of anywhere that editors are so instructed?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not, I haven't read any guideline pages in a long time. You'll probably need to ask someone newer to Wikipedia than me. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid it doesn't exist. I'll keep checking but there are such a mess of pages about copyrights that you can't get a straight answer to most common questions. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmonton meetup

Hello - I'm contacting you with this message because somebody once told me that you were from Edmonton - if you are not actually in Edmonton, I apologize for bothering you. Anyway, I am investigating the possibility of creating a Wikipedia meetup in Edmonton for sometime during the spring or summer of 2008. If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/Edmonton, add yourself to the list of interested editors, and watchlist the page. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox}} edit

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for making this change. Much appreciated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Motorway sign images

I have replied on my talk page. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 08:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

HD 24040 was created

I saw that you created the article HD 24040 on February 25, 2008 and saids that this planet was published, but The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia says it is currently unconfirmed. BlueEarth (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put that there, it appears that the template defaults to "published". That's probably not the appropriate default to have, I'll go change the template so that it doesn't assume anything. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I added defaulting Published back and added unconfirmed to HD 24040 article, because when you removed it, most published extrasolar planets articles saying "Published" in planetbox discovery would have been disappear. BlueEarth (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't those boxes be updated to actually say published, then? This isn't particularly robust behavior for the infobox, there's no way to know which ones are published and which ones are just showing the default value. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There, I've just fixed it. I went through every article that used template:planetbox discovery and, if it lacked a discovery_status parameter, added one with "Published". It's now safe for me to create articles on extrasolar planets without having to find out their publication status first. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Category colons

Ooh, great spot - thanks for pointing that out! I'll reconfigure my bot. Verisimilus T 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Royal Australian Navy ships

Category:Royal Australian Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Film

Your recent switch of this infobox to the {{Infobox}} meta-template isn't entirely uncontroversial - at least not for a protected template with tens of thousands of transclusions - and has raised several negative comments on the talk page. The main point of contention appears to be with regard to the font size. I won't ask you to revert the change, but a bit of discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film wouldn't go amiss. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Various event templates

A few templates you created, Template:EventRecordBottom, Template:EventRecordRow, Template:EventRecordBronze, Template:EventRecordSilver, Template:EventRecordGold‎, and Template:EventRecordTop‎ , have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't being used anymore, then by all means, proceed. Thanks for the notice! tiZom_(2¢) 03:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I owe you a big apology for the way I acted when I reverted all those templates. I got a little carried away, and it was really rude of me. While I still think some of the infoboxes don't need to be converted, I will try to keep an open mind and consider your viewpoint. In the very least the system does a heck of a good job at improving consistency and cleaning up some of the somewhat ugly ones. But yeah, I don't know what I was thinking that night, and I feel bad about it. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I know how the heart can get racing and the edits start flying when one sees something one strongly disagrees with. I went right up to the abyss of simply rolling back your reversions en masse myself, which I'm sure wouldn't have helped matters any. :) In this case there's a balance to be struck between customizability and consistency. I tend to be quite strongly on the consistency side of things, myself, but since compromise is a necessary part of life here on Wikipedia I do my best to accommodate. Would you like to go through those templates you reverted and see if there are any specific issues with the way they got converted that I could perhaps address? Or issues with {{infobox}} in general? Finding infoboxes that can't be cleanly converted to use it has been a good way for me to finding things to fix. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Bryan. I don't have anything to particular to say, I just wanted to thank you for being on Wikipedia and being you. --Kiz o r 13:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Thanks! You do a great job too. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bug included

Bryan,

Thanks for your help in categorising the subtemplates of {{convert}}. This may now be a non-issue now but there seems to have been some sort of bug which put the category in <noinclude></noincluded> tags (note the verb tense in the closing tag).

some of the affected subtemplates

Template:Convert/And0
Template:Convert/And1
Template:Convert/BTU
Template:Convert/Ba
Template:Convert/Brnmi
Template:Convert/Btu
Template:Convert/Cal
Template:Convert/DWton
Template:Convert/DWtonne
Template:Convert/Es
Template:Convert/GW.h
Template:Convert/Gm
Template:Convert/Gs
Template:Convert/L/100 km
Template:Convert/L/100 km mpgU.S.
Template:Convert/L/100 km mpgUS
Template:Convert/L/100 km mpgimp
Template:Convert/L/100 km mpgus
Template:Convert/L/T-f
Template:Convert/L/T-f S/T-f
Template:Convert/L/Tf
Template:Convert/L/Tf S/Tf
Template:Convert/L/km
Template:Convert/L/km U.S.gal/mi
Template:Convert/L/km USgal/mi
Template:Convert/L/km impgal/mi
Template:Convert/L/km usgal/mi
Template:Convert/LT-f
Template:Convert/LT-f ST-f
Template:Convert/LTf
Template:Convert/LTf STf
Template:Convert/LinAoffDbSoffF
Template:Convert/LinAoffDbSoffTs
Template:Convert/LinAoffDbSonF
Template:Convert/LinAoffDsSoffF
Template:Convert/LinAoffDsSoffTs
Template:Convert/LinAoffDsSonF
Template:Convert/LinAoffDtableSoff2
Template:Convert/LinAoffDtableSoffF
Template:Convert/LinAonDbSoffF
Template:Convert/LinAonDbSon2
Template:Convert/LinAonDsSoffF

JIMp_talk·cont 00:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably just a copy-and-paste error, made subtle by the fact that the template page itself looks correct once saved. Since it took until now to get fixed I hope that means it wasn't a major problem. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional species

Category:Fictional species, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – I knew our paths would intersect at some point. :) Cgingold (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: An empty category deletion

Thanks for the heads-up. I tagged the category description page with {{go away}}, which should stop me (and any other admin) from deleting the page again. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Woodling/Busbey coaches

The following articles Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homer_E._Woodling were nominated for deletion. You are welcome to share your opinion on if they should be deleted or not. Thank you for your time. --SportsMaster (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Corpsicle

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Corpsicle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Corpsicle

I have nominated Corpsicle, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpsicle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lists of infoboxes

Howdy. I've got a merge proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Lists of infoboxes that you might have interest in/feedback for. I have 2 specific questions below, but feedback on anything is welcome :) Essentially I'm wondering what is going to be the most helpful for both the creators and users of infoboxes, and I'm trying to minimize the historical/outdated information that is linked to.

What I'm planning, is that Wikipedia:List of infoboxes will be checked against/merged into the category system. I'm unsure whether to then tag the Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and its subpages as historical, or just replace them with a redirect to the category?

At the proposal thread, nobody mentioned opinions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#List of templates. Should it remain intact (ie. could it serve a useful purpose as, either a potentially full list, or as a short list of examplar/popular infoboxes?), or is it more trouble than it's worth and should be merged/checked into the category system and then deleted completely?

Thanks :) reply wherever you like, I watchlist :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you update an infobox

re: Eoarchean_Infobox, per this, this template is 200 MA out of date in the Early Eoarchean boundary. Can you fix it up? If you can point me to any guidance on those, I can probably manage to not break it next time I try. But changing the wrong thing sure can make a mess! Ooops! (didn't save) Thanks // FrankB 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it, I think. The "easy timeline" extension has a bit of a misleading name sometimes. :) I needed to make changes in three places; I changed the length of the scale of the timeline as a whole, changed the start point of the eoarchean bar, and changed the label text. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Medal Icons

Hello, I am having some problems with Nobel Prize Medal Icons. I was looking through Nobel laureates and noticed that the peace laureates had a nobel medal icon under their name and above their picture. So i thought the other laureates should deserve one as well. Then another editor said i shouldnt because i wouldnt follow the rules of editing wikipedia articles, and referred to some articles in my usertalk. After reading i asked why the nobel peace laureates had one, and he said that other people hadnt got around to delete them. Hence i went on to delete some of the icons from the nobel peace laureates.
When i did i was apprehended by an administrator. The administrator said i shouldnt, when i asked why and asked for help and clarification, he gave an ambiguous answer: "certain articles want the images, others don't" and suggested i shouldnt even try editing. I believe his tone was incredibly condescending when I was just asking for help and not particularly familiar with editing.
As administrator could you please help me with the icons and act as the neutral admin Thank you Someone111111 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your input on this issue at Template talk:Nobel icon Zaian (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

William Krar

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at William Krar. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Here's the sum total of what I wrote for that article:

"William J. Krar is an American who was central to the Tyler poison gas plot in 2003. On May 4, 2004 Krar was sentenced to 11 years in prison after he pled guilty to building and possessing chemical weapons."

I can't see how that would be interpreted as an "attack page." Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Stargate

Hello, Bryan Derksen/Archive 19! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Stargate, has been moved to the inactive members list, as part of a process for update the activity of the wikiproject. If you would like to continue to be an active member, please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list.

Thanks! – sgeureka ^t•c 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely right

I used a template from a column on the speedy delete page without reading the template. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, and thanks. Even though I'm far from a newbie and can withstand such things, keeping the 'don't bite the newbies' credo in mind is handy to minimize strife. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bit (character)

I have nominated Bit (character), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit (character). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shifter (Eberron)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shifter (Eberron), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing of Robert Grosseteste

Hi. Can I trouble you to add a reference to the history of the telescope, telescope, and optical telescope articles in regard to Robert Grosseteste? I am trying to add his name to those articles. I didn't evne know about him and I want to add a little on him, but I have no reference. Thanks for yout time. InternetHero (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gerardo Flores

I have nominated Gerardo Flores, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerardo Flores. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Papal conclaves

Template:Papal conclaves has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Microformats in Infoboxes

Please see a question about class nesting in relation to your changes to {{Infobox}}. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox

Please see several recent queries, which I have posted at Template talk:Infobox, and which I think you'll be able to resolve. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just posted some responses in various places. Sorry it took me so long to get around to it, I've been on a sort of unofficial wikivacation lately. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:JonSDSUGrad/Sandbox/PBB Further reading/doc

Do you still need Template:JonSDSUGrad/Sandbox/PBB Further reading/doc? Suntag (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, the page it was documentation for is gone. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stargate SG-1 2x01 Serpent's Lair 059.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stargate SG-1 2x01 Serpent's Lair 059.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ancients (board game)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ancients (board game), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancients (board game). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Schuym1 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice please

Hey Bryan. Having seen your great work regarding infoboxes, I wonder could you direct me to any page advising computer novices like me how to edit an existing infobox. I would like to amend the infobox here by removing the Race 2, Race 3, and Final Standings sections. They don't pertain to this specific race, but do to others in the series with the same infobox, so I don't want to edit this and mess up related articles. Can you assist with advice please? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. For most infoboxes, I'd recommend using {{Infobox}} - it's a generic template I created that makes it really easy to whip up a nice standardized infobox with optional sections that disappear completely when there's nothing in them. However, for {{V8 Supercar race report}} that's not going to work, since the V8 template isn't the standard two-column layout that {{infobox}} supports. So I'll have to insert the parser and HTML code necessary to make those sections "conditional" directly into the existing infobox.

Rather than walk through all the steps, I'm going to just go ahead and do it (in the spirit of being bold :). You'll notice that I used HTML tags for parts of the table that are wrapped inside those #if: statements; that's because both wikitable markup and if statements use the pipe character "|" for different purposes, resulting in a huge mess when you try to combine the two. Sorry about that, I haven't come across a nicer alternative. Anyway, each of those table sections is now wrapped in a conditional statement that will only display a section if any of the parameters in the top row of that section are defined (I figured nobody would ever try defining parameters for the second row without doing the first row first, so ignored that case for simplicity). To make the section disappear, just leave the parameters for that section blank. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just going through the pages that use this template to make sure I didn't break anything, and I've found a couple of others that can take advantage of this modification to the template as well. 2007 Grand Finale (V8 Supercars) and 2007 Sandown 500 for example. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Brian, but you lost me. The 2008 Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000 article still has the infobox containing Race 2 and Race 3 (there was only one race). What I need to know is how I edit those empty bits out of that infobox in that page. Please remember that I earlier mentioned "computer novices like me". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They're still there because they're not empty; you've got "n/a" in those lines. Take the "n/a"s out, leaving nothing but whitespace, and due to the modifications I made to the template that infobox is using those sections will disappear. You may notice that the "Final standings" section has already disappeared, that's why it went and the others didn't. Bryan Derksen (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaarrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Blushes. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Star Wars trade routes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Star Wars trade routes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --EEMIV (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Star Wars trade routes

I have nominated Star Wars trade routes, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars trade routes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --EEMIV (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC) --EEMIV (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Not sure why you've been on mailing lists (which has meant me joining new lists to get mail for me and waiting on moderators to reply) but in case you didn't know the project pages are at Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, also you need to look at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team and btw my email from my wikipedia page in my signature works fine ;). There is a reply to Erik on the mailing list saying clearly we think we are license compliant but as a community project we ought to bow to community feeling such as it is and we are anyway putting the exact urls from which version articles are taken on every article page. Beyond that (which would be offline names) we're looking at it. I appreciate your offer to help with mining contributers since if that is needed then all the offline projects will have to look at it not just ours. I think you should consider a discussion with the wider offline people about what is needed offline. --BozMo talk 09:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW in case you wondered the URL to compare traffic for Danny Wool's famous Verpedia (total) versus the Schools Wikipedia (online only) is [2] :). --BozMo talk 14:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the Release Version series is at http://www.wikipediaondvd.com which I guess you need to assess according to your criteria as well? But more constructive is to start on the project pages and contribute to these projects from within of course. And if you felt like having a look at Danny Wool's Veropedia before agreeing further with him (I saw your comment on his blog) about how terrible we are then see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#veropedia.com... seriously though I am happy with the notion we should do everything possible, and some further possible fluffy feelgood is doable. --BozMo talk 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted on the Wikien-l mailing list because the subject had been brought up there, and even if it hadn't been it's a good forum for discussing matters related to the English Wikipedia (which this is). As for Veropedia, I've just had a look at a random page on it and it does in fact have a link back to the source article's history, but it's not in a particularly obvious place; you need to click through a couple of buttons to get there. It could be a lot better. But what does that have to do with anything? I'm not saying I think your mirror is noncompliant because Danny said it was noncompliant, I'm saying it because as far as I can see your mirror is noncompliant. And I considered it to be particularly important compared to the many other noncompliant mirrors out there because the Wikipedia logo is being used, which gives the site an official "stamp of approval" of sorts. Frankly, I'm more upset at WikiMedia Foundation for letting their logo be used without due diligence than I am with the fact that there's another medium-compliance mirror out there. They should be more attentive about these things. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at Wikipedia on DVD, and it looks to be in poor compliance as well. It appears that the site was intended to provide backlinks to Wikipedia, but for some reason every single backlink goes to India - presumably a bug of some sort. I've added it to the list of mirrors. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And they use the logo as well. Hrmph. I'm mentioning this one on the mailing list as well, in that case. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to WMF, they gave permission to use the logo over two years ago when Wikipedia for schools was rated "highly compliant" and the acid test was considered to be the local copy of the GDFL. There was a multi-party discussion and since then they were diligent enough to add a condition that we include image pages which at the time put us back at highly compliant. This condition has not apparently been applied universally (but CC is much more explicit than GFDL). Adding URLs on the online copy is so easy that a politely worded email at any point in the last three years would have had it (but no one asked despite repeated requests for comment at the village pump etc). But I should have been watching license pages for developments I guess, although I posted a question here: [3] and just got refered back to WMF. There is perhaps a disconnect between what their legal counsel felt was license compliant when it was discussed a few years ago and what the "Mirrors and Forks" community now requests (although I think the Release Version has far more members as a Wikiproject than Mirrors and forks). The question about what offline copies now need is open. However you contributing to a blog with the title "WFU" which was higly rude about WMF in apparent agreement with a blog owner when there were obviously places within the wikiprojects to address it, is something else. And I suggest again that a mailing list is not the place to start criticising a wikiproject when there are plenty of online watched pages. However I am not my brother's keeper and I leave you as the judge of your own behaviour, of course. --BozMo talk 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

Request for [rollback]

Hello. You're listed as an admin willing to consider rollback requests. As a wikignome, I seem to encounter vandalism more and more, and I think this feature would be most helpful. TIA. — VoxLuna ^T / C 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

CD for schools

Hi, I believe you're the user who replied here. I'm happy to hear that someone else thinks GFDL should have been more respected, although your sentence I believe you’re making a couple of errors here and are presenting the situation as more complicated than it actually needs to be. seems to refer to my comment ;-) I'll read the project page to know more about it, I'm curious to know what you meant by getting bad press. I am not sure whether the footnote This article was sourced from http://en.wikipedia.org/... on the mirror's articles was present when I (we?) first commented. Should you reply to my message, please do so in my talk. Bye, --Elitre (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps: 4 Vesta

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Hey there, i am on wikipedia since 2006. Now a days i find many times vandalism across it so can you please grant me the ability of rollback feature so that i can fight the vandalism here, i would be very thankful for your any other advice. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take care in evaluating this request for rollback rights. The editor has not exhibited good judgement as can be seen from his history of bad speedy deletion tagging [4]. Also, the claim for being an editor since 2006 is completely at odds with his actual edit history showing an earliest edit of May 30, 2008. Note that lying is something this editor has done in the past with him claiming to have taken pictures with his own camera when they were taken frome the web. [5]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has also requested rollback from 6 admins and been denied 3 times already by myself, Friday and Yannismarou. Shell ^babelfish 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Normally I just take a quick look at the user's talk page to see if there's any indication of bad editing practices, I never expected anyone requesting rollback to not pass such a minor check. It's not like it's actually needed for reverting things. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ipachart.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ipachart.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

4 Vesta

Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jefferies tube

I have nominated Jefferies tube, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jefferies tube. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --EEMIV (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Down The Rabbit Hole

You moved Down the Rabbit Hole to Down The Rabbit Hole. But surely policy is not to capitalize "the" ? - [[6]] -- Beardo (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So I did. Darned if I can remember why. Moved it back. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Planetary engineering

Aside from a few websites, I can't find any support for "caeliforming". Can I remove it? Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not familiar with the term myself, if I added it to that article it was only because I moved it in from some other article. I vaguely recall creating this article as a result of other articles becoming loaded with unrelated material that needed a better home. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you made the right choice at the time. :) Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Venera 13 and 14

I have nominated Venera 13 and 14, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venera 13 and 14. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [7]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but probably won't be able to get to it for 24 hours or so. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Bahá'í practices

A RfC you participated in is being discussed

Laws are like Sausages Ikip (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of tools available to help you with that AfD also. Ikip (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Land of the Lost (1974) - Sleestak.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Land of the Lost (1974) - Sleestak.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomb of Horrors

FYI, Tomb of Horrors, an article you worked on, is now the D&D Wikiproject's 9th Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Craters on Callisto

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Craters on Callisto, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Craters on Callisto has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Craters on Callisto, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 6 articles which were deleted then redirected to be userfied, :):

From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

Can you please move all 6 pages to my userspace, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.

Thanks :) Ikip (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth is the Coprates quadrangle?

OK, I realise that you did not create these Martian quadrangle articles but surely you could have managed to put the word Mars in the first sentence of each one? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could have. But so could you. Why didn't you? It's less typing than putting that whereisit template on there. I've been busy just doing the copying and pasting to get these things moved out of the category namespace and into proper articles, and I'm not even done that yet for all of them.

I hope you'll understand for future reference that when someone has done literally hours of work tidying up a set of Wikipedia articles it's not going to leave a very good impression if you come over to his userpage and berate him for overlooking some petty little detail in the process. If tacking "on Mars" onto the first line is so urgent, go ahead and do it already. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Locating the subject to the nearest million kilometres is scarcely a "petty little detail"! But I fully accept your criticism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There were thirty of these articles that needed moving from category to main namespace so I'd developed a pattern of copying and pasting that minimized the amount of typing I had to do to make it go faster. Doing any rewriting of the text would have slowed me down and as it is I still had to come back online rather late at night to make sure I didn't leave the job half-finished. If you don't get to all the articles you flagged with "whereis" before my next block of free editing time I'll probably get to fixing that too, but in the meantime IMO there are ample clues to let people figure out what planet these quadrangles are on. Hence it seems like a lesser matter to be concerned about in the short term. Not worth staying up past 4:00 AM to fix, at any rate. Bryan Derksen (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

You've left this article looking ridiculous for over a year now! Someone even seems to have cheekily added a 'less citation needed' tag! Couldn't you have fixed it then instead of leaving all those unneeded references cluttering up the article? Surely you realised it looked ridiculous at the time? --78.151.126.30 (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you sure know how to motivate a volunteer to work on something he has no particular personal interest in, eh? I have a suggestion; visit the various citations yourself, pick out the ones that are less valuable or relevant, and remove them. Since you left a note here on my talk page you're evidently familiar with the process of editing, and this one shouldn't be all that hard to do.

The edit I made was an incremental fix, an improvement but not intended as some kind of final state of perfection. Having a dozen references all bundled together in one reference tag is more problematic than having a dozen reference tags. I see nothing improper with what I did. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Comet

I have nominated Comet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)