User talk:Bryan Derksen/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

←

→

Barbie

The links in Barbie were change from straightforward links to references. Is there a way of doing this with a bot? --Ianmacm 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of, unfortunately. Bryan Derksen 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Universal Animation AfD Debate

Need more participation to reach consensus in Universal Animation (AfD). Since you contributed to the article one the New England Anime Society, your comments would be valuable. Echocharlie 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arilou.png

The source code, not the images, is released under a free license. Andre (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did some digging around and the images are in fact released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5, see [1]. The non-commercial bit is still an obstacle but it's still freer than fair use, I'll add notes to the image pages. Bryan Derksen 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: UQM images

I believe that the copyright to the graphics/sounds was still held by the publisher and that there was not yet an arrangement to release them under a free license. The situation might have changed since then; probably be best to check their homepage. [ælfæks] 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The licence text from UQM says otherwise, I provided a link above. Since this is the licence that UQM is actually being distributed under by the project I'm assuming they're pretty confident that the graphics and sounds are licenced like that. Bryan Derksen 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Free Software

Hi Bryan, I notice that you've edited articles on the topic of open-source/free software. Please consider joining WikiProject Free Software. We're just starting out, and we could really use some members. Thanks! Geekman314^{(contact me)} 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Confused about Deletion debate instead of assessment

Hi Bryan, in my attempts to improve I've become confused which guidelines and ratings are appropiate for webcomic articles. Currently, there seems to be a lot of deletion attempts, while the assessment results and the sorting into lists (need expansion/mostly OK/kicks ass) seem to be left on the wayside. I had understood assessment and ratings as methods to help people to improve articles, and found that quite a good idea, but it doesn't seem to be used at the moment. Can you explain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Afraid not, I've completely ignored the whole "article assessment" thing since its inception (I don't necessarily have anything against it, I just find it irrelevant to my activities) and I only just became involved in the recent kerfuffle because El Goonish Shive is on my watchlist for some reason. The webcomic deletion attempts are extremely annoying to me since I'm strongly inclusionist by nature, but on the plus side for webcomics at least there's the refuge of Comixpedia where material can be saved and worked on until the climate here on Wikipedia improves and some of the deleted ones can start coming back. I keep hoping that some form of article validation feature will finally be implemented and allow editors who consider pop culture articles to be "cruft" that degrades Wikipedia with its presence to peacefully coexist with them by ignoring them. I suppose it's small comfort, but webcomics as a form of literature are only a few years old so it may still be a while before they get levels of critical recognition in keeping with their actual readership levels. Bryan Derksen 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Space Debris kudos

You did what I was about to do to Space Debris, good work. Theres a little more info in space.com's report if you're interested, but probally nothing to add to the article... --Porkrind 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually emailed out of the blue this morning by someone who wanted to add information about this event but who hadn't edited Wikipedia before, and wanted me to do it for her so she could see "how it was done." Guess there's a hidden fandom devoted to space debris out there. :) Bryan Derksen 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image dumps

Hi Bryan, I noticed your question at Wikipedia_talk:Database_download#Image_dumps_getting_old. Since nobody seems to answer, do you know an additional place to ask the people running the technical side of Wikipedia (or maybe you already did that, and even got an answer)?--134.130.4.46 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't tried elsewhere yet because it was a somewhat idle question on my part, I wasn't planning to download the image dump myself for any reason (I probably don't have the spare hard drive space for it :). You might try the wikitech-l mailing list, at [2]. I'm subscribed and lurking there already and while it's mostly focused on discussing software development there is also some coverage of issues like importing database dumps and suchlike. Bryan Derksen 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Creator of the Doctor Who article

Bryan, someone's just awarded me a barnstar for creating the Doctor Who article based on a mistaken reading of the article history. It wasn't me but unfortunately the earliest history is lost. Any idea who the real creator was ? It wasn't you was it ? You certainly edited the article before me according to the nostalgia wiki. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't the slightest clue. It was six years ago, there's no way I'm going to be able to remember details like that and I quite possibly never even checked at the time. I'd suggest telling the award-giver that you didn't create it, and if he still gives you the barnstar anyway just go ahead and take it with the appropriate caveats. Perhaps try to find a heavy contributor to Doctor Who to pass it along to, if you prefer. :) Bryan Derksen 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I couldn't remember either. I've already told the awarder that it wasn't me but I just thought that I'd pass it by you on the off-chance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Suzumiya redirects

Nice idea, but you spelled the name wrong...the disambig page needs to be moved, and all the redirects redirected. Doceirias 09:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Or wait, no you didn't. Brain far, sorry. Doceirias 09:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I was just in the middle of composing a rather confused response. Never mind, then. :) Bryan Derksen 09:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts category

Maybe there is a better subcategory then the articles you shifted to martial arts were in but alot of effort has gone in to keeping that category sorted - martial arts really is too broad a category for individual articles.Peter Rehse 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a better subcategory, then by all means move them over to it. My position is that the category "martial arts terms" is a worse one than just plain "martial arts", because those articles are not in fact about terminology. So while moving the articles may not have been perfect, it is nonetheless still an improvement over the current situation. See Category talk:Terminology for some general discussion on this topic. Bryan Derksen 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll take a look and see if I can find a better place.Peter Rehse 10:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done a whole lot of work on the martial arts terms category yet, I'll try to do some more detailed re-sorting next time I take a crack at it. There's rather a lot of terminology-related categories that are in need of cleanup, I expect this will take quite a long time. Bryan Derksen 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit the martial arts terms sub-category might just have been a catch-all for articles that didn't quite fit anywhere else. I see your point though. I usually sub-categorize new martial art entries once a day - I'd be happy to help out but just do me the favor and don't overwhelm me.Peter Rehse 11:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm taking on the entire Category:Terminology tree as a cleanup project, so I'll have plenty of other things to intersperse with martial arts stuff. :) I'll help out with sub-categorizing martial arts entries too, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the field so I'll only do it when the right choice seems obvious. Bryan Derksen 11:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for editing my user page sandbox

I was working on that page on my user page sandbox. Yes, it had stub links, which put it in a category. Wouldn't it have been more polite to just leave a note on my talk page asking me to remove it? It's only been on there for one day, and I was going to move the whole page tonight. -- Pesco 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I come across a lot of those sorts of pages when I'm on category-cleaning sprees like I was last night and usually they're relics that have been forgotten by whoever was doing the sandbox work. Unfortunately due to the nature of how categories work there's nowhere else I can edit to take such pages out, I have to go right to the source like that. I always do the minimum editing necessary, though, so hopefully it hasn't interfered with whatever work you were doing on that text; just take out the ":" and the "tl|" and everything's back exactly as it was. Bryan Derksen 05:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, now. I know there are a lot of categories that need cleaning. I'm very much an amateur editor so it took me a couple minutes to figure out exactly what you changed and why you did it, but I see now. I suppose it's not a 'private' sandbox if it creates links externally. In a way I was surprised, I never thought someone would find that page in a pretty quiet category in five hours. In the future, could you leave a talk page note just to say that you made that kind of edit? It was an accident that I even noticed it. Thanks. -- Pesco 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Guess it was just bad luck I happened along right then, but such things happen from time to time. I'm always willing to help out new editors, BTW, if you have any questions or suggestions for things you'd like a second pair of eyes on feel free to give me a shout. Some of the syntax that Wikipedia has developed over the years is not very intuitive when coming upon it for the first time. Bryan Derksen 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Freebutchers

I thank you for your interest in the Freebutchers; however, I can assure you that it is real. Freemasons and Freebutchers are not allied and thus few Freemasons would actually know about the Freebutchers. Thus, the word of your friend is not a reason to move the page. If you can trust the word of your Freemason friend, I can trust the words of my Freebutcher friends and evidence. My Freebutcher friends attest that it as true as Freemasonry, if not closer to the Truth than masonry based on the wisdom and fervor of its adherants. I am not a Freebutcher myself, but I can attest to its reality. Furthermore, many Freemasons do not know about other paramasonic (which does not mean "masonic") groups such as the Fraternitas Rosae Crucis, various orders of Martinism, or even the Order of the Golden Dawn. The page Freebutchery, due to its lack of sources, was deleted (which caused a stir among the Freebutchers themselves). Now, with the second attempt, and acting as a mediator between Freebutchers and the Wikipedia community, I have provided several sources. I would request that this page be put back up under the name of the original page "Freebutchery". If this is done, I can go through the article and delete any elements that may be questionable (as I myself only know of Freebutchery's exoteric factors). I thank you for your administrative assistance. Lazarus322 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty myself since I have no access to any of those references, but in a case like this I can recommend a couple of possible approaches. For starters, since the article claimed "The Zehrmark" isn't publically published, it's useless as a reference since there's no way for anyone else to verify what's in it. In fact, you'd need some sort of reference to show that it even exists. You should also attribute each bit of information in the article to a specific source. Your list of Freebutchers, for example; what source lists each of those people as being a Freebutcher? Take a look over Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Citing sources, it's very important for things like this. You can work on getting the article tidied up by creating a subpage of your user page (User:Lazarus322/Freebutchery for example). Once you feel you've got a solid case, you can try showing it over at Wikipedia:Deletion review to get Freebutchery undeleted. Make sure you've got a good case before you go there, though. Frankly, you're probably going to need to spend a lot of effort simply convincing people there's such a thing as Freebutchery; it really does sound like a joke and the only hits that Google finds are from this Wikipedia article itself. Since some of the sources you list are indeed Freemasonry-related I would also suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry to get some backup. For there to be an article then someone other than Freebutchers need to have heard of it, and that's probably the best place to find them. Bryan Derksen 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting Dinosaur

Hi Bryan,

I'd like your input into Dinosaur. Yesterday, you unprotected Dinosaur with the edit summary "Unprotected Dinosaur: Been almost a month now, and there wasn't a lot of vandalism to begin with". The reason I had protected the article was because of widespread IP vandalism; there wasn't a single "good" edit to the article in the last 500 edits. And there were hundreds of IP edits. I'm not sure what qualifies as "a lot of vandalism", but it would seem to me that 250 instances of vandalism out of 250 IP edits does qualify as widespread IP vandalism.

Since you unprotected the article yesterday, the page has been vandalized four times by four different IPs, and it doesn't seem likely this vandalism will ever abate; the IPs can be blocked, but as they are likely seperate individuals, this vandalism probably will not stop. I've semi-protected the page again; you can, of course, unprotect, but it doesn't seem to me that unprotecting this article will prove useful. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked the edit history/block log and the only explanation given for the protection was "kid down the hall is vandalizing" - a rather unhelpful description. I reviewed edits for a month or so prior to that and found a bare handful of actual instances of vandalism, certainly not enough to trigger protection IMO. I checked the talk page (and the most recent talk archive) and there was no further explanation given there, no mention of protection of any kind. The default for Wikipedia articles is for them to be unprotected unless there's some good reason for them to be protected, and then only for the shortest time and with the least restriction that will solve the problem. Since there were no good reasons I could see to keep the article protected, I unprotected it. I would suggest posting your analysis and reasoning on the talk page under an appropriate header. Bryan Derksen 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-Referential Humor

Hey, you countered an edit I made on Self-Referential humor. Please see the relevant talk page: [[3]]. Jamestown James 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've mistaken me for another author. I commented on the talk page yesterday, but I haven't edited the article itself since 21:27 28 March 2006 (fifteen hours short of exactly one year ago :). Unless by "countering an edit" you mean objecting to leaving that self-link in the article, in which case I'm not sure what more needs to be said - I still disagree with leaving it in there. The fact that Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about how robust the articles are when they get transfered from one medium to another. We've got the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references guideline for similar reasons. Bryan Derksen 05:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparent copyright violations

Since I own Deep Shag Records and all underlying content on the website, there are no copyright violations. Perhaps some copyright tags are mislabeled as I have had some difficulty in understanding some of the Wikipedia procedures. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. I have reversed your well intentioned, but incorrect changes.Powerofshark

Ah, that would indeed change things. My suggestion would be to create a user page at User:Powerofshark that makes this clear, and also post something at the talk pages of the individual articles themselves confirming this. I'll move the two Deep Shag entries from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 April 5/Articles to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Poster claims permission, please go there and describe the situation. I notice that you've also reverted the copyvio blanking of Peter Himmelman, which wasn't copied from Deep Shag; I take it you're claiming copyright on that material too? If so, I assume that means you're also User:Shookonezii since he's the one who posted it? You should make those facts clear too.

You may also want to read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since other editors could potentially have problems with you editing articles related to your own record label. This page contains some guidelines to help ensure there's no appearance of impropriety. Bryan Derksen 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there we are, I'm back online. Sorry, I only had a few minutes this morning to try to sort this out. Basically, all of the above guidelines and suggestions have the root purpose of allowing other editors who come across these pages to verify for themselves the fact that it's not a copyright violation, and to help them ensure that the articles aren't otherwise biased. Since Wikipedia is edited by anyone who shows up we have to leave notes and references lying around for them to find in situations like this. For example, I came across these articles purely by accident while I was marking free use images to be moved over to Wikipedia Commons - I know nothing about the bands in question, I'm not much of a music listener. Bryan Derksen 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the tips - I will look into all of them to make sure I'm following the rules. My reversing the Peter Himmelman was a mistake on my part and I have put it back to what you had (sorry about that). While I did do some editing on it, it was only a few sentences and I have no claim to the article as a whole. Powerofshark

And thanks for not taking my actions the wrong way. If you are in fact the owner of the copyright to this stuff, then I've actually been acting in your interest by deleting it when there wasn't any indication you'd released it to Wikipedia. Most of the time when I find an article that's been copied verbatim from another website it's not done legally. :) Don't fret too much about the conflict of interest rules, as long as you're willing to allow those biographies to be edited just like any other Wikipedia article to fit our policies of neutral point of view and such I doubt there will be a problem. The most important thing here IMO is transparency - both to make sure these copyright confusions are cleared up and to make sure any potential sources of bias are accounted for.

As one possible way to make sure you're really authorized to release that material, how about if I email info@deepshag.com or michael@deepshag.com for confirmation? Will those email addresses reach you? Bryan Derksen 05:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We have introduced shiny new subcategories to the {{Convert to SVG}} template. You added the template to a load of chemical structures yesterday, when {{Convert to SVG|chemical}} would have been appropriate. I'm going through and adding the parameters on these images now; would you mind doing it yourself in future? Other parameters are listed on the template page - just a heads-up! Cheers, Stannered 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always used that template here on Wikipedia in combination with a {{Move to Commons}}, and over on Commons the directory structure doesn't quite match up with the ones here so I've been subcategorizing them once they show up over there. "chemical" is one of the categories that does match, though, so I'll use that one right away if you prefer. Bryan Derksen 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it's entirely cosmetic; it just saves Category:Images which should be in SVG format from being cluttered unnecessarily (there's plenty of clutter already) in the period before the images get TransWiki'd. Stannered 18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've done my share of cleaning up the analogous category over on Commons so I know how that can get. :) Bryan Derksen 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We're down to about 4 pages now! When I started, we were closer to 10. Such a good feeling - although still a long way to go. :-) Stannered 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

invitaton to wikiproect

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster

CHICOTW - AT&T Corporate Center past editor

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited AT&T Corporate Center. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG images

I have noticed that you replace chemical structures that exist as high-resolution PNG files with transparent background with low-quality SVG images (e.g. Image:Dimethyltryptamine.svg vs. Image:DMT.png). Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing and discuss things there before making those files. Thanks, Cacycle 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not low quality, they can be scaled up just as large as the PNG files. I also use BKchem to produce them, which includes the underlying structural information within the XML file itself and so allows much easier editing of the structures in the future so I don't see how a PNG would be superior to that. And besides, the PNG images remain if you still want to use them. Bryan Derksen 16:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your structure misses the indole-1-H. Additionally, the molecule is rotated at a strange angle, the atom letters are misaligned, the benzene double bonds are rotated one position from the common indole style, the canvas size is too large, and the bond widths and lengths do not match the recommendations of the Wikipedia Project Chemistry guidelines. The latter points would not be such a big problem if you and others would not replace existing better structure images.

Additionally, it is far from clear if the PNG images stay, actually, they have all been tagged for deletion! Cacycle 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The H is there, it's just hidden under the default BKchem settings I used. The bond widths, lengths, and other such cosmetic details were all also left at the default values so I don't see how that's "wrong" so much as simply "different;" I trust that a program specifically designed for chemical structure diagramming is not going to have unacceptable defaults built in. If you really want to try imposing uniform chemical structure formatting across all languages of Wikipedia perhaps you should start a page over on Commons itself?

As for putting images up for deletion, here's the version of the superseded tag that I was putting on those images as I created SVG versions: [4]. You will note that there are instructions on it for the additional steps required in order to nominate the superseded image for deletion. The current version of the superseded template is even more explicit about deletion being a separate matter. I did not at any time actually do that, so your beef is not with me, it's with whoever was going around and doing that additional step. I have not been putting images up for deletion and would not support deleting them if they were since there's no harm in having alternate formats available. I usually don't even edit articles to use the SVG versions when doing chemical structures, and I didn't in this particular case; [5]. Bryan Derksen 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing_workgroup#Low-quality_SVG_images. Cacycle 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but if you want to change any policies or guidelines on Commons itself you should also take up the matter over there as well. commons:Category talk:Chemical structures seems the logical existing place, or maybe commons:Category talk:Chemical images that should use vector graphics, but commons:Commons talk:Images for cleanup seems to be where the most discussion related to this kind of thing is actually going on. Bryan Derksen 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Tinsley Viaduct

Hi there Bryan Derksen/Archive 16. I see you have edited the above article, I'd like to invite you to a poll on the inclusion or not of the coordinates box, here. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Transhumanism

If you don't have anything more to add to our debate on the Talk:Transhumanism page, I will consider this dispute settled. --Loremaster 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not, I just haven't had a lot of free time in recent days. What's the rush? Bryan Derksen 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Poster claims permission

Hi, I saw you added a few articles to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Poster claims permission. Have you already heard something from the original editor? Garion96 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't get to emailing the rights holder to confirm it was him and I just sort of forgot about the subject after a bit. I'll do that today. Bryan Derksen 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, then I will wait a while before deleting them (or not if that's the case). Garion96 (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I got a response from info@deepshag.com: "Yes, that was me. The material is indeed free for use on Wikipedia. Thanks for your diligence." So it looks like this is okay. I've added a note to the copyright problems page and to the two article talk pages, but I assume this means the issue's resolved and can be deleted from the copyright problems page entirely now. Just figured I'd let someone else do that to serve as a final check on the process. Bryan Derksen 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to be completely safe, you could send a copy of the e-mail exchange to the permissions OTRS queue. Either way, I will remove it from WP:CP. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. I've never submitted anything to the OTRS before, is info-en-c@wikimedia.org the right place to forward it to? Bryan Derksen 01:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The best e-mail is permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. You obviously never got a {{Nothanks-web}} tag. :) Garion96 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can proudly say that yes, I am clueless in that regard. Thanks. :) Bryan Derksen 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

09 F9 editors

I asked NetSnipe for his comments here, but seeing how your awake currently, I thought i might bring the issue up with you as well. MrMacMan^Talk 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just heading off to bed myself, actually. I wouldn't worry too much about his edits, there have been a number of editors who've tried to be "clever" about posting the number and in his case at least he isn't spraying it all over the place. Bryan Derksen 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. MrMacMan^Talk 09:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS Arbitration

I have initiated an arbitration request due to User:Thebainer's unilateral decision making and full-protection of AACS encryption key controversy. I am notifying you as you are one of the parties involved. You can find the arbitration request here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#AACS_encryption_key_controversy. --Rodzilla (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about source of page's content

You are apparently the creator of the article on François Arago. Do you remember the original source for the content? Thanks in advance for your time. -- Astrochemist 00:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The very earliest revision from 2002 has "from a 1911 encyclopedia" at the bottom. At the time a school of thought was dominant that we couldn't actually say "from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica" without violating trademark laws, so "a 1911 encyclopedia" was a code phrase to indicate that source. I don't remember specifically whether I imported that particular article but the OCR errors suggest I got it off of one of the scanned copies of that work available back then. Bryan Derksen 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured that it must have been the 1911 Britannica, since the writing is amazingly sophisticated (no offense to anyone). Thanks for your very rapid reply! -- Astrochemist 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Supertall skyscrapers

Hello Bryan. I see that you were the one that created Template:Supertall skyscrapers. I recently added Torre Mayor, which is Latin America's tallest building. This might not be interesting for you but it is part of the story, certain user is trying to "talk down" whatever related to Mexico, and he deleted Torre Mayor from the template saying the template is only for +300m tall buildings. Is this true? Because I don't see anything in the talk page as an agreement to include only +300m tall buildings. Well thanks for reading this and I'll be waiting for your replay. Have a nice day. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually "created" the template merely by splitting up Template:Supertall, which at the time contained waaaaay too much stuff for a navigation footer (see the version immediately before I started hacking it to pieces :). Anyway, the original "Supertall" template does contain an explicit 300m cutoff limit. I don't know why 300 meters, it could be an arbitrary number that was picked as a way to keep the list's size under control or it could be a threshold used by some major engineering organization or something. All I know about the subject is that a navigation template that occupies two screens on a widescreen monitor is way too big.

Perhaps an approach that would satisfy everyone would be to create a separate "tallest buildings in Latin America" list or template, for use in articles about structures that are unusually tall in a local sense but not so much in a global one? If Wikipedia were to eventually have separate sublists for each major geographic area in addition to a global one I can see that being a useful development. Bryan Derksen 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of EditPad

An article that you have been involved in editing, EditPad, has been listed by Vacuum Cleaner 01 (a self-admitted sockpuppet) for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad. Thank you. --Urod 04:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Image:Smallpox image from?

Do you have the url for the page where you got the Image:Smallpox.jpg photo? I'm looking for a hi-res version for a textbook. Thanks.

I didn't find that image originally, I just moved it over from the meta Wikipedia to the en Wikipedia. It was originally at [6]. However, it looks like it has since been deleted from meta and moved to commons, so the chain of custody seems to have been lost. You may want to ask an admin on meta to see if the deleted image description page is still available. Bryan Derksen 23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stacy Prowell's Red Iguana in the IPU page

I only just noticed a link to Stacy Prowell's Red Iguana in the Invisible Pink Unicorn page. It pointed to my old homepage; I've updated it to my current page. However, I am puzzled by its inclusion, especially as it is a footnote to a sentence refering to a "manifesto" for the IPU. As far as I can determine, you were the one who included this link, back in May of 2006. Do you happen to remember why you linked to the Red Iguana Dawn series? Magidin 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean [7] then someone else added it originally. All I did was convert it from an inline external link into a cite template with ref markup. That's one of my standard cleanup reflexes so I probably didn't really ponder the validity of including. Bryan Derksen 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother, then. I'm going to remove the link; it really does not belong where it was put. Magidin 22:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the Nordic skiing articles

Good job on the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships article category additions. I adjusted the Nordic skiing World Championship template to where it was more readable, but good job on that adjustment as well. Thanks. Chris 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Template:Cheshire, Borough of Crewe and Nantwich‎

Hello, I've reverted your edits to the above template for a number of reasons. (a) The edited template became inconsistent in its appearance with other Cheshire-district templates (see them on Cheshire WikiProject Templates sub-page and the county template, which is consistent in its appearance with other county and district templates (see, for example, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, and many more), (b) the centred nature of the list seems quite ugly and is, I consider, better in appearance if it is left justified, as it was in its original, now-reverted form, and (c) the shading down the left hand column additionally looks bad. There are some good points to your additions, however, including the possibility of hiding it. Also, if there is some way of specifying options so that its appearance is aqs close to identical to the old template, and shows consistency with tyhe county templates, then that would be good. If you feel your change is definitely required, then can I ask you to discuss this more, either on the template's talk page, or, better still, on the talk page for the Cheshire WikiProject. For discussions on changes with the county template, I suggest that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography might be a good place? Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Those details of appearance can all be modified using the various style fields of {{navbox generic}}, I'll pop over there and implement them. It now looks almost exactly the same as it did before but has less wasted whitespace, which was the original reason why I made that change in the first place. I'll bring it up at that Wikiproject as you suggest, I'm willing to change over all the other templates to maintain consistency (and save even more whitespace in the process, everyone wins :). Bryan Derksen 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Under Hamilton, NJ, it is quoted "Hamilton Township derives it name form the village of Hamilton Square, which was named for Alexander Hamilton.[4"]

I referenced the book, and the information does not suggest that Alexander Hamilton is the namesake of Hamilton, New Jersey. I dont know if you posted that, but could you please point me to who did, only so that i can try to research this more effectively?

I find wikipedia difficult to navigate - which is why i'm asking for your help - if you could email me at questionsfordoug@yahoo.com, because i question my ability to find where you've responded. thank you!

question

Under Hamilton, NJ, it is quoted "Hamilton Township derives it name form the village of Hamilton Square, which was named for Alexander Hamilton.[4"]

MedCab

I'm the mediator of a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy. Would you agree to join the discussion? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Already have it watchlisted. It's been a number of years since I was involved in mediation, where should I participate? Bryan Derksen 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Dream Guy

(Look at his block history.) I removed the block just now as a trial, and will reinstate for a longer period if similar editing resumes. DGG 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with your comment about "previous VfD"

Hi. You posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naconkantari about his "speedy deletion" of your page.

He also deleted one of my pages and I'm trying to find out what re-course I have.

What is a VfD?

Thanks, --NetafimUSA 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

VfD stands for "Votes for Deletion", it was the predecessor of the current AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion) page where disputed deletion requests are discussed. The article I undeleted was discussed on VfD years ago and so it wasn't eligible for speedy deletion as a result.

I've just had a look at the deleted page, Netafim. It was deleted under criterion 11 under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General criteria, ie, Naconkantari felt it looked like it was intended as advertising rather than as an encyclopedia article. I'm of two minds on this myself, I think it looks like there's good material in here that could make for a decent article if it was cleaned up but on the other hand it does look a bit advertisey. Also, I take it from your username that you're a representative of Netafim yourself? That adds other complications, we've had problems in the past with people editing articles where they have a conflict of interest and were making the article non-neutral as a result. You can see our guidelines regarding this sort of thing at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So there isn't necessarily any problem with having an article about Netafim in Wikipedia, the problem may have simply been how the article that did get written looked and who it was written by.

How about we give Naconkantari a day or two to respond to your request, and then if nothing unexpected comes up I'd be willing to undelete the article and do some editing on it to get it all nicely straightened out and non-advertisey. It may not wind up looking exactly as you prefer, but that's the nature of Wikipedia - no one user "owns" any particular article, everyone can have a say on how it is written. We try hard to be accurate and neutral so hopefully you'll be satisfied with it. Sound good? Bryan Derksen 05:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

You've been doing some excellent work in getting to consensus over the links to external Wikis. I hope it works out, though too many people on both sides seemed to be misinterpreting the rules. I'm out of the furry stuff for now; not worth it when I don't actually care either way - I thought that someone neutral who might work to keep both the raving anti-fur and the really, uhm, engaged furries from taking it too far in either direction might help, but its not worth the abuse (and oddly, not from the side I thought I'd offend, if you look at my comments on earlier issues in the talk page). The conclusion seems to be wrapping up to about what I was striving for in that MedCab, a recognition that guidelines aren't laws to enforce and context is important. Good luck with things. --Thespian 00:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pleased with how things are going right now too. Ideally nobody will go away from this feeling like their "side" has been completely shut out. Thanks for your contributions too, the more moderates and outside voices the better in this sort of situation. Bryan Derksen 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

R.E. Shenzhou webpage

Thanks for adding the links - I'll try and use the basic template in future!

Best of luck!

No problem, you did the hard work of finding the reference in the first place. I just did a little format tidying. :) Bryan Derksen

David S. Garnett

Thanks for straightening out the alphabetization. Since I might be the one who screwed it up in the first place :-( Pete Tillman 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything "screwed up", the page was fine. I just added a standard birth year category and moved the existing sort keys into the more convenient defaultsort tag. It was no trouble. Bryan Derksen 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:1 iii.JPG

Hello, Bryan. I noticed that you recently tagged Image:1 iii.JPG as a candidate to be copied to the Commons. I am curious: What use do you think this image will have on the Commons? —Bkell (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully more use than the English Wikipedia is putting it to. The image currently isn't used in any articles and isn't in any topic-specific categories or galleries so it's unlikely to be found by anyone who needs it. On commons people from a wide range of Wikipedia projects might go searching around for something like this and be more likely to find it than if it remains tucked away here on en. Bryan Derksen 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true; but I don't see any way in which this (rather poorly drawn) image could be put to a useful purpose. While I support moving images to the Commons, I also think that the Commons shouldn't be cluttered with useless stuff just because that stuff happens to be free. Of course, this could be an argument by lack of imagination, so if you believe this image can serve a useful purpose, then I won't stand in the way. —Bkell (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Once it's converted to SVG it'll be much "cleaner" and more useful. One of the things I do when I'm in a Commons mood is go through the categories of images over there that are in need of SVG conversion and converting them over, so I would see this image as useful raw materials even though the current quality is poor. I often use the SVG conversion and move-to-commons templates in tandem like this, and see it as something of a race (if an SVG exists I don't bother with tagging the original to move to Commons, just the SVG version. So whichever gets done first wins. :) Bryan Derksen 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good plan. Do you have an idea of what this image is supposed to illustrate? —Bkell (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue. I just happened to be in Category:User-created GFDL images for other reasons, saw a thumbnail of an image that looked like it would do well as an SVG, and reflex kicked in. The fact that it was orphaned turned out to be an added bonus (in terms of the value of drawing attention to it, that is). If you think it's really just useless clutter then feel free to put it up for deletion or other such process, I probably won't do anything more with it unless I see it again on Commons when I'm back in an SVG conversion mood. Bryan Derksen 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's listed at User:Hamedog/Images#School shit, which makes me suspicious that it's a one-time-use image created for a homework assignment. I fear that without understanding what it's supposed to illustrate, we won't be able to give it a good filename on the Commons, categorize it properly, write a proper description, or even convert it to SVG in a meaningful way. I can ask Hamedog or post the images on the mathematics reference desk if you think it would be useful to solicit suggestions. —Bkell (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamedog's most recent contribs suggest he's just left Wikipedia, so the reference desk may be the best way to get the proper eyeballs looking at this thing. Looks like all the other graphs in that section are also orphaned so if this one's deletable then the others might also be. Bryan Derksen 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a question about these images at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Suggested interpretations of images.

Also, on a tangentially related matter, I think that for images such as these that both should be in SVG and should be on the Commons, it is best to copy them to the Commons first, and then create the SVG. If the SVG already exists, my suggestion would be to upload both the SVG and the original raster image, as the raster image is an important part of the history of the SVG, and should be kept for historical reasons (and possibly licensing reasons also). However, not everyone agrees with me, and there is quite the debate about whether we really need to keep the old images around; see Commons talk:Deletion requests/Superseded if you're interested. —Bkell (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been directed to that debate before since in my SVG sprees I wind up marking a lot of images superseded and it occasionally draws ire. My personal position is that there's no need to delete superseded images, we should just not use them. I don't consider the superseded template to be a deletion template. However, in some cases it's fine to delete the original if there's no significant creativity involved in it (I did a ton of chemical structure diagrams, for example. I could have just as easily created them from scratch and wound up with the exact same image). Bryan Derksen 06:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to agree. —Bkell (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dire flail

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Dire flail, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. Pak21 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged into Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons. I think it's reasonable to make note of common weapons in the D&D setting with no historical analogues, I created the two articles I just merged after a friend of mine went hunting for articles on various D&D-setting weapons (bastard sword, etc) and complained that he didn't find all of them. Bryan Derksen 17:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't d20 sources be adequate for the task? I've AfD'ed Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons so we can get consensus, at least. — Coren ^(talk) 17:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A little discussion before lunging straight to AfD would have been nice. d20 sources don't make it clear which weapons are based on real historical sources and which are just made up "to be cool". This is to be expected since d20 sources are only concerned with in-universe information, whereas a Wikipedia article covers out-of-universe stuff as well. Bryan Derksen 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you had any luck starting a RPG combat article? If you need a hand, just holler! — Coren ^(talk) 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't started yet, figured I'd wait to see the outcome of the AfD. If it goes 'delete' I'll need to be careful that whatever I start doesn't get speedied as a recreation of deleted material or somesuch. Bryan Derksen 13:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons

I've nominated Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Fictional weapons of Dungeons & Dragons during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Coren ^(talk) 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)