User talk:Brian0918/Archive 28

DYK
You're right, it shouldn't have. I looked over the articles, but I think I just missed this one. It has now been replaced.  Nish kid 64  19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Better Source Request for Image:Sagegrouse21.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sagegrouse21.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Click?
Hey, thanks for replying to my post on the main page's discussion section. I may be reading it wrong, but I don't understand how click would help get an image on the background of a table - would you mind elaborating on my talk page a bit - I'd really appreciate it. Thanks either way! --DanielFolsom T|C|U 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, and by the way just in case you can't see it the link to my usertalk page it the "T" - or you can go to User talk:Danielfolsom - thanks again!--DanielFolsom T|C|U 03:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka and the Adolf Hitler article
Hi, I saw your comments on User talk:Haham hanuka about his conduct on Adolf Hitler. Since then he has continued almost pathologically to remove perfectly sensible edits on the article, including most recently trying to thwart almost every edit made. I have remonstrated, pleaded, etc, to no avail. All very puzzling because from his other edits he seems quite a decent editor and the edits he is thwarting on the AH page are not in any way pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler, in fact, quite the reverse. I wonder if there's anything we can do about it - do you have any thoughts? Thanks. MarkThomas 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RAID copyright violation
Your edit summary here


 * remove copyvio; not only does the section clearly state that it was taken directly from an internet forum, but a simple google search shows: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952998

is a bit condescending. If you actually read the thread on the forum that you googled for you will find a user "Matt Welke" asked for permission. You will also note that User:Matt0401 posted the guide here and is most likely the same person which leads me to believe the author granted him permission. However, I can't find the author granting permission but have asked Matt to provide it (email, url, whatever).

You are clearly not a newbie but in the future you could probe a little bit further if your edit summary is going to emphasize ("clearly" and "simple google search") the lack someone else's research (read: mine) when you yourself didn't read what you found (the thread is only 3 pages). Heck, the author could have granted permission in the thread you linked!

Finding a copy of text somewhere on the internet does not necessitate it being a copyright violation.

That's all, no hard feelings, I'm not yelling, etc. etc. Just a request. :) You will note Talk:RAID if you care to maintain an interest in this particular incident.  Cburnett 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
for removing that "official debunker" jab; I assure you, I'm not trying to piss you off. I'd just like to see some sources that determine whether this is really a law or just an extremely prolific and well-documented rumor. There are a lot of grey areas in numismatics, like defacing dollar bills with counterfeit detection pens, or pressing pennies as souvenirs, or making belt buckles out of quarters. A lot of the documentation about that stuff is speculation and personal interpretation that hasn't really been put to the test. I just want to see what the applicable law actually says in this case. Kafziel Talk 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006
The arrangements for the Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camera icon.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Camera icon.gif, has been listed at. Please look there 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. —Remember the dot (t) 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Edison light bulb video
I was wondering where you got the Image:Edison speech, 1920s.ogg video. I've just been trying to help decipher some of the words.--Dbolton 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Los Alamos copyrights
National labs have independent copyright policies, that is true, but Los Alamos' policy is a free one for non-scientific work. See this page for a discussion of different DOE lab contractor copyright policies. They are not all non-free. --Fastfission 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedialang
Hi, I was wondering if you could check out a suggestion of mine? At Template_talk:Wikipedialang, thanks :) Jack · talk · 22:04, Thursday, 15 February 2007

Possibly unfree Image:Publius_Vergilius_Maro.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Publius_Vergilius_Maro.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Can you translate the following:  "ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻨﻘﺬ" and "أسامة بن منقذ"  The reason I ask is that you reverted the change here   and I need to know why for purposes of a study (WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1) we are conducting. Thanks Remember 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The info you added about the SEM images of snowflakes
I'm a former microscopist and my area of expertise was SEM, and in particular LT-SEM. You information about the SEM isn't correct...but I could tell your heart was in the right place. You said that "...the capabilities of the electron microscope allow observation of fine structures at over 100,000X."

Actually, the SEM can produce high resolution images upwards of 800,000X and greater, particularly more modern instruments using field emitters for their electron source. You might get me on a technicality by the fact you said "over 100,000X" but you aren't really giving the SEM the credit it is due.

As for the temperature of the stage where the snowflakes were being photographed, -170C is pretty cold and not a practical temperature to work at. I routinely operated between -40C to -60C and this was more than sufficient.

Take care,

Bob Holt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.32.144 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I didn't say that, I copied it from the USDA site. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-02-28 18:15Z

Ah, got caught accusing you when it was the USDA who got it wrong. I suppose I should write them. B~

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Facebook0918.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Facebook0918.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

titin's name and move for deletion
Doing research over the internet (heh, the internet), I recently found some things relating to you from science.slashdot.org while trying to find the word for titin.

You were responsible for putting the string of letters representing amino acid (which is proven by the history of the page itself dating back to march 2005) which came to being translated into a word by FlameViper.

The only reason for my message is to implore you for some help to stop them from trying to delete a template as it is still impertable to remain on wikipedia or at least devise an external/wikisource link. They claimed that a consensus was reached but from time to time, the consensus proved to be a facade as those links were broken/invalid.

I hope I can hear back from you soon.

64.180.240.190 11:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anti-Japan2.gif
Hey, do you happen to know where you got this image from? It'd be better if it were sourced (and maybe on the commons) so that no one will be able to delete it for lack of a source. gren グレン 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Synesthesia question
Regarding the use of "sharp cheddar" or "loud shirt" our point in our articles on this is two-fold: What we want to suggest in our articles is not that "sharp cheddar" is an example of people who are not synesthetes "using" synesthesia. Rather, the idea (and hope) is that by examining the strong experiences that are present in people who experience synesthesia, we may be better able to understand the neural mechanisms of such cross-sensory phenomena that are present in everyone. Edhubbard 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) First, these are emphatically not *synesthesia*.  Some people, espeically in the linguistics community, have referred to such metaphorical utterances as synesthesia, since they are, like neurologically based synesthesia, cross-sensory in nature.  However, the word "synesthesia" should be reserved for the true automatic, conscious, experiences of stimulation in one modality eliciting an associated experience in a second modality.  This sort of carelessness in the use of the term has hindered synesthesia research since the early 1900s (see History of synesthesia research), and if we are to move forward with scientific investigations, we must be clear in our usage of the term.
 * 2) However, the same neural mechanisms that lead to full-blown conscious experiences of synesthesia in a minority (a significant minority based on recent data) may underlie everyone's ability to generate and understand such "synesthetic" or cross-sensory metaphors.  Note that even if such metaphors were first generated by someone with a gift for metaphor, other people readily understand them.  Part of what we, as psychologists and neuroscientists, want to understand is how do people do this?

deathcamps issue
Dear Brian, please look here for the explanation (and follow the links if you wish more info): - http://holocaustcontroversy.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-demise-of-deathcampsorg-how-fakes.html + All, any version of deathcamps.org with a hyphen is a counterfeit copy of the genuine ARC website and is in direct violation of our copyright. In addition: To post links or suggest linkage to a copytright violater is contrary to Wikipedia rules. - http://holocaustcontroversy.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#heartexposed + For anyone who questions these FACTS we urge you to visit WHOIS.NET and perform a domain lookup on the genuine deathcamps.org and note the dates of registration as 2002. Do the same for the counterfeit website with the hyphen and you will see the bogus site was created several months ago. THESE ARE FACTS not the anecdotal statements made on blogs. - Short explanation: + Thank you. - - deathcamps.org is now frozen, and it is "run" by a great person; + The ARC Team (deathcamps.org) - - death-camps.org is run by the founder and webmaster of former deathcamps.org, and the site is not frozen, so it has more up-to-date information. - --Sergey Romanov 15:40, 16 March 2007


 * Brian, thanks for the heads-up. I put the "analysis" on my User-Page. The claims about ARC copyrights and ARC "representatives" that this fellow makes aren't true, as the groups itself doesn't exist since Oct. 2006 and owner of the domain does not equal owner of copyright. --Sergey Romanov 13:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Szmul Zygielbojm.jpg and deathcamps.org
I don't mind the fact that you changed the URL from death-camps.org to deathcamps.org, and I don't want to get in the middle of the battle over the issue, but you've turned a true statement -- "The version of used here is taken from death-camps.org/reinhard/allies.html, where it appears without attribution." -- into an untrue statement -- "The version of used here is taken fromdeathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html etc.

The truth is that I took the photo from the death-camps.org site. Where they took it from, and where deathcamps.org took it from, and where it originated in the first place, are unknown to me (and the creators of deathcamps.org, I suspect), which is why I described the picture as "Undated photo of unknown origin." As I said, I don't care that you've changed the URL, but keep in mind that your zeal to "correct" every instance of death-camps.org may not be appropriate. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you reverted your edit. Never mind. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Color focus illusion
I think it might be helpful to redescribe the illusion as colors at fixation (e.g., red when you look at the center) seem to expand as you move forward, and since there is only so much space for the colors, the colors in the periphery (e.g., blue) must correspondingly contract. When you fixate the blue, then blue would correspondingly expand as you move towards the image.

Because colors seem to expand when they are at the center of gaze (projected onto the fovea) at the expense of the colors in the periphery, one aspect of the illusion might be due to cone spacing on the retina. Since the cones are tightly packed into the center of gaze with many fewer cones in the parafovea and periphery (see http://webvision.med.utah.edu/imageswv/Ostergr.jpeg) we only really see colors well at fixation. I'm still not clear how this interacts with the direction of motion. We also know that things appear to expand or contract as we move towards them, so perhaps this expansion or contraction is simply continued for the colors away from fixation through a process of filling-in (or, in this case filling out) so that the effects seen on the colors at the fovea are extrapolated towards the periphery of the visual field.

One thing I tried was to change the image to grayscale, since it is known that contrast affects percieved motion speed (Stuart Anstis at UCSD has done a lot of work on this). The illusion completely completely disappears. It is also worth noting, based on the grayscale image, that the colors are roughly isoluminant (equally bright). This is probably important to the illusion, since the motion system (signalled by the magnocellular pathway)is more or less color blind, while the color system (signalled by the parvocellular pathway) is pretty motion blind. I'll forward this to some friends of mine at UCSD who are world experts on color and motion, and perhaps they'll have some better insights.

I don't know how much vision physiology background you have, but this is an excellent site for things of this nature: http://webvision.med.utah.edu/. I'll let you know if I hear back from my friends at UCSD.

Edhubbard 10:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

National histories
User talk:Brian0918/National histories &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-03-18 20:03Z

Project Black history biographies
I bring tidings that I wrote the final articles and that all 756 persons now have articles and the project is complete. SYSS Mouse 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Any version of www.DeathCamps.org with a Hyphen is a counterfeit Website
All, any version of deathcamps.org with a hyphen is a counterfeit copy of the genuine ARC website and is in direct violation of our copyright. In addition: To post links or suggest linkage to a copytright violater is contrary to Wikipedia rules.

For anyone who questions these FACTS we urge you to visit WHOIS.NET and perform a domain lookup on the genuine deathcamps.org and note the dates of registration as 2002. Do the same for the counterfeit website with the hyphen and you will see the bogus site was created several months ago. THESE ARE FACTS not the anecdotal statements made on blogs.

Thank you.

The ARC Team deathcamps.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.161.15 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Question re: removal of account
Brian, I ask because you're somewhat "involved" is this issue now.

If you look at my history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sergey_Romanov&action=history

you can see that there is some person (one might easily guess who) who tried to vandalize my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383

(You can check out his link, but it is NOT work-safe!)

Now click on his IP to see his contributions, and judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.160.31.156

This is obviously the same "ARC-deathcamps.org" dude. Is this allowed in wiki, or can his account be removed? --Sergey Romanov 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Authorities have been put on notice regarding weblinks vandalized by Sergey Romanov
Brian this user is in violation of ARC www.deathcamps.org copyright and in direct violation of Wikipedia rules and regulations. Wikimedia has been contacted and made aware of this situation along with Google, Blogger, 1and1, the FBI and other relevant legal authorities. This behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

TFD
I think you're getting a little too worked up (I voted keep), just relax it's going to stay. Most people are voting keep the template's going to be fine. Tayquan 14:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

death(-)camps
Hey, Brian. You seem to have encountered the www.death(-)camps.org issue before. If you have a handle on who did what when and to whom, it would be very helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats, counterfeit websites, oh my!. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintained template
Sorry for the intrustion but a solution to the insane mess re deleting this template has been proposed and supported:


 * Strong keep with rewording to "The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources." I have placed this template on five articles I brought through the FA process: DNA, Enzyme kinetics, Enzyme, Enzyme inhibitor and Bacteria. This has resulted in a steady trickle of e-mail and talk page requests from people as diverse as schoolchildren and industrial chemists. These people might have had problems identifying any of the original contributors of these articles as the constant vandalism of FAs buries any constructive edits in the history under a mass of reverts. I don't see any harm being done either, as the history of Enzyme shows, having this tag certainly doesn't seem to deter people from editing the article! TimVickers 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but reword as per Kevin. -[[User:SeanMD80| Reaper  X  15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Originally it ended with a period but it should end with a colon as you have it, given "The following..."

Would you do the honors to the modify the template slightly to render the vote and insane 'delete debate' obsolete (given that it'll all be about wording that doesn't exist anymore)? Or shall I do it? I'll check back here in a few hours and if you haven't responded (or are in therapy for weeks trying to recover from the insanity you had to endure over nothing ... over and over again) I'll change it myself and you can always change it to whatever you like, whenever you like. But this 'delete' BS has to end ASAP.

Thanks for creating this template. It helps a lot and the only semi-valid issue I have ever heard of around it was brought up by me when I posted it in a section on the Toronto talk page to find out what others thought about it and to figure out the best way to enter data into the template for that specific article/talk page: ''it could look to anyone who doesn't know about the worthlessness of history lists in finding out anything, if they know about history lists at all, it could appear as though "the wiki-powers that be" (an admin or the like, even if they don't know that term) stuck the tag on a talk page and "appointed" someone as the official "verifier".

The solution to that was simple enough:

It's not as though text can't be added to or above and/or below the template to explain anything and everything and/or in HTML comments given that it's the only way to get a username added to the template; from the data file source code in edit mode. —S-Ranger 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

source cats
Can you comment on the suggestion at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24? — coe l acan — 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Philosophy of mind?
Hi Brian,

I am sure that the last thing you need is more battles (I've seen your heroic work on the Atheism page, great stuff!) but there is a user who is insisting on adding unreferenced (poorly written) WP:OR to the Philosophy of mind article. Francesco and I have reverted his additions up to our limits. The user sometimes edits under his username User:InternetHero and sometimes logs out to edit under his ip address, 63.135.9.214. He might be violating the WP:3RR (we're both close), but the most troublesome is the rants that he has left on my talk page, and Francesco's talk page. He seems to view this as purely a battle of wills, including the calling upon of other (previously banned) wikifriends, rather than a matter of logic, reason, and referencing. At this point, I have simply reverted, and insisted that his additions are OR each time. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Edhubbard 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reasons for your arguements are Wiki rules and the fact that I reverted to your tactics. My strategy is logic and has been from the start. You have yet to refute my edits on both your and Lactosias's talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InternetHero (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I love it!
Thank you for changing the atheism intro! I'm much happier for it. Thanks, thanks, thanks. You earned it! :))))Modocc 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of Mind
How do you make a talk page.

rv = no sense.

As stated earlier, my additions in questions are all from other Wikipedia articles and can post the links if needed.

Talk pg! = They have yet to reply to my edits on their pages.

death camps
Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation. Since it's impossible to edit any page with those links, I have taken the liberty of disabling the link above so your talk page won't lock up. I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for atheism
Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I have to take a short wikibreak for a few days, as some real life issues are getting out of hand. And I was just in a content dispute that I need to cool off a bit. If the project isn't completed when I come back, I will be happy to help! --Merzul 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Postulatory atheism
"Postulatory atheism. This view of atheism, usually taken by scientists themselves, is based on keeping gods outside of the epistemological system (that is science) in a first instance, thus not postulating any gods, unlike theology. Theistic assumptions, however, can later be re-admitted in areas at the scientific fringe, or in areas that are unexplored or considered inexplorable. (example: Stephen Hawking's pre-Big Bang God). This form of atheism is often represented in connection with the pragmatic or nominalistic atheism described above."
 * Took some liberties and casual license, hope it helped anyway. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaperon
Have you checked this with the fashion project etc? Personally I have never heard the word headwear before. Since I was clearly in the middle of editing, you might have warned me - as it is I lost a complicated edit. Are you always like this? Johnbod 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Headgear is used throughout WP in all the categories etc. Headwear is, imho, not a real word, though perhaps useful if you want to buy helmets wholesale. You should have raised this on the talk page. Sadly I don't think I can revert you, can I, or I certainly would. I will raise this at the project level; if you wish to pursue the matter please do the same. Otherwise move on. Johnbod 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't be able to, now the old title is a redirect, will I? Why you think gear sounds more protective than wear is beyond me - its the other way round surely? Johnbod 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ok reversal seems to work - I thought you could'nt move to an existing name. I understood you ok, I mistyped my comment. Johnbod 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism
Okay, the translation is at Talk:Atheism\reasons, as is a rant about why using the German article isn't going to solve the problem. —Angr 08:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AAFG
Hi Brian0918 - After a few months of editing Wilikepdia and occasionally citing WP:AGF as a friendly reminder of behavior standards, I came across the essay, Assume the assumption of good faith (AAGF) in about January 2007. Until I read your statement "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith," I had not realized that my friendly citation of WP:AGF probably was not being received in a friendly manner and, in fact, may have antagonized the situation. I gave your profound statement much thought and it really opened my eyes as to high standards towards which I can work. As we all essentially are equally positioned in Wikipedia, the very act of supporting judgmental statements with a cited policy, guidance, or other process may not assume good faith in some circumstances. I strive to guide my posts by the higher standard AAGF and wanted to thank you for posting the AAGF essay. -- Jreferee 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. It gave me a second quote to use, which promoted me to start my quote collection at User:Jreferee. -- Jreferee 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Animated Gun Turret
I notice that you voted against the promotion of the Animated Gun Turret on the Featured Picture Candidates pages; however, User:Emscopes, the creator of the image, has retooled it to reflect the suggestions of those who voted oppose. I was wondering if you would take another look at the photo and see if the new version warrented a change in your vote. Thank You TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonbelief

 * Moved to talk:atheism.

Image:Borlaug2003.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Borlaug2003.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. grendel|khan 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your work on the Atheism article
I just wanted to congratulate you for what I believe to be excellent work on the Atheism article. Your efforts have transformed the article into something that should be seriously considered for featured status. The final section (criticism) still needs a teeny bit of work from what I can see, but everything else looks great. Articles like this are hotbeds of controversy, and I think anyone willing to "grab the bull by the horns" with these sorts of subjects is brave indeed. -- Scjessey 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913 FAR
Great Lakes Storm of 1913 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding the situation. I will try to review the article later today and add my suggestions. Regards,  An as  talk? 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RFD notification
Hi. A number of redirects which were created as a result of pagemoves you performed have been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, it can be found here. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm in the process of closing the discussion and it looks like these redirects should be deleted. I just want to confirm that the fact you haven't made any objections means your happy with the deletion of these redirects (User:Brian0918/List of people in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography - A through User:Brian0918/List of people in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography - Z). I am uncomfortable deleting pages in another admin's userspace without permission. WjBscribe 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank. WjBscribe 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting Atheism
Sorry for reverting Atheism without explanation. The sentence The most direct criticisms made against atheism are claims that a god exists, says the same thing as the last part ... to arguments for the existence of God. I think the last part should be rephrased or omitted, but I may be mistaken. Good work on the article, by the way! Nivix 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the beautiful work

 * Moved barnstar to user page

New Talk:Atheism Archive?
Could you archive subjects 1-41 of the talk page so that I don't have to scroll so much? Thanks :) johnpseudo 16:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Ragib 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, Brian. Where may I ask do you see *myself* in making revert war?? Didn't expect such frivolous comments from an admin. --Ragib 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You claimed I reverted 4 times when it was only 3. As for the revert war you've been in, see . &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 22:15Z


 * I have provided references for your 4 reverts. And I reverted it once, that doesn't justify your fake 3RR warning. --Ragib 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I only reverted 3 times, so your notice on my talk page is just as justified as mine on yours. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 22:19Z


 * Please count the 4 diffs provided at the TFA/requests page. Thank you. --Ragib 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I only count 3 reverts. You have added an unrelated side-discussion to the tally, which of course is nonsensical. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 22:22Z
 * Brian, there are four reverts, not three. To revert is to undo changes made by another editor(s). I count the first revert as occurring at 16:59 18 April 2007, and I think you can tell that there were three more afterwards.  Nish kid 64  22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on ambiguity. There were 4 reverts to the article, but 3RR as I knew it was never a per-article tally. Someone has decided to broaden the policy without informing all administrators of this change. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 22:49Z
 * What do you mean "per-article tally"? I don't when the last time you looked at 3RR was, but during my time here, I know it's said 3RR block is applicable when four or more reverts in 24 hours are made to any article. The same content does not have to be reverted to make it 3RR. Frankly, I don't see how you didn't know this earlier.  Nish kid 64  22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't had to look at WP:3RR in at least a year; I can't help it if a random person introduces a change to a random policy without my knowledge. Frankly, please assume good faith next time, or at least assume ignorance. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 22:58Z
 * (edit conflicted)I was assuming good faith. I only came here to handle the 3RR request, and I wanted to know why you were saying you didn't know of the new 3RR policy. Anyway, the matter appears to be resolved. You know now, so that's water under the bridge.  Nish kid 64  23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism rv
Hi, You seem to know more about the Britannica numbers for atheists than I do so I'm fine with you changing that back, but I don't understand why you reverted all of the changes I made instead of selectively changing the ones you disagreed with. Please see Help:Reverting Tritium6 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no way that 18% of the world has any idea what the terms strong atheism or weak atheism mean, much less would so many refer to themselves as such. The other change- using names instead of "some", makes the statement meaningless with no context as to who these people are or what their statements might indicate. johnpseudo 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you suppose that one must know the vocab words in order to be considered an atheist? Under that philosophy it is logical to say "I believe there is no God, but I am not an atheist", which to me is nonsense. If I'm afraid of spiders, but I don't know that the name for this is arachnophobia, does that mean I don't count in the statistics of those afraid of spiders? No. Atheists are defined by their beliefs, not by whether they consider themselves atheist.Tritium6 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually thought I was reverting that entire addition by NBeale (thus my edit comment referring to it), but then you did it for me after my edit. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 23:11Z

oops
Try this: Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! I forgot about the clear all text. This should work.  Razorclaw  20070418234324


 * Done. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-18 23:58Z

Thats odd.
Log out and look here. Maybe it can be centered? That might help... Razorclaw
 * I don't see any problem. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 01:21Z

OH! I forgot to clear my cache. Nevermind. Thanks for changing it for me. Razorclaw ;)

Darwin protection
Aren't articles featured on the main page supposed to be left completely unprotected to provide an example of Wikipedia's openness to editing? Has policy changed on this issue? -Silence 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When there's rampant vandalism you can semi-protect for short periods to recover. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 17:46Z

Unnecessary recent additions?
I had added the following books at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#References:


 * Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford UP. ISBN 019824682X
 * Martin, Michael & Monnier, R. (Eds.) (2003). The impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 1591021200

These two are essential reading! I have absolutely no idea why you think that it's unnecessary to mention them. — Editorius 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to your message:
 * (1) Mackie's atheological masterpiece is not just any one among "a billion such books". It is doubtless one of the best and most sophisticated refutations of theism. It is definitely necessary to mention it in the entry on atheism. You may ignore the 999,999,999 other books but not Mackie's.
 * (2) You seem to have overlooked that "The Impossibility of God" (2003) and "The Improbability of God" are two different books with different contents, and not just two editions of the same book.
 * Editorius 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brain Trust
Haha... how do you know I'm an atheist? ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-23 17:04Z

Well I just figured you had to be because of how much work you put in to that article, plus every one one Wikipedia has to be/act like a atheist so as not to have a NOV Max ╦╩ 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have bullied NBeale a bit too much already, so I think it is best I don't get too involved in this. I easily lose my temper when dealing with him. Now, if there are reliable sources about, for example, agnostics who think this definition is usurping on their domain, then this should be included in the article, but I don't see the lead as terribly biased. The main complication is that while the broader def is less common, there is absolutely no consensus in the sources about which of the two narrower ones to prefer, and so it makes good sense to start with the broader definition. --Merzul 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At least NBeale is citing sources... Do you think the sophomore philosophy on the Talk:atheism will get us anywhere? I'm very doubtful... --Merzul 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the FA!
Congratulations! It looks like Raul654 is in the process of upgrading Atheism to Featured status. johnpseudo 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete Nicholas Beale
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nicholas Beale. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Brian. I honestly think that your decision to delete my article was wrong both in substance and in process. Since you have reverted many (but not all) of my edits on Atheism you should not be involved because of CoI. I should have been informed of the AfD proposal. And to close the debate after 3 days is wholly inappropriate even for a non-conflicted editor IMHO. NBeale 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian - sorry I misread the AfD (and have amended my complaint accordingly). I have redirected by request to the Admin who closed it. But I do think you should have informed me that you were AfDing it! NBeale 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW what exactly is the connection between you and Ryūlóng (other than both being US students of about the same age and WP Admins?) 13 minutes after your, perhaps understandable but quite mistaken comment about puppetry, Ryūlóng prematurely closed the AfD Debate? NBeale 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I've heard that name. Thanks for the implication, though! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 13:35Z


 * Hi Brian. You asked why I and User:Chiinners should have been informed when you listed Nicholas Beale for deletion, and why I didn't notice from my watchlist. According to WP:Articles for deletion "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."  There are over 100 of pages on my watchlist so it is easy not to notice a change unless you check it obsessively - I check it rarely. NBeale 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian. I don't think civility is "some random comment" and I'm a bit surprised that with your 75k edits you are not more familiar with AfDs. However one thing that both WikiPedia and life teaches you is that there are lots of different viewpoints and ways of doing things, and working together constructively is a great way to make both WikiPedia and the world better. NBeale 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL is a separate page from AFD, and the statement you quoted was not in the instructions section, so I didn't notice it. I used to be more involved in AFD (back when it was VFD), but the process has gotten way too complicated and tedious. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 16:05Z

Hi Brian. re Debretts - of course I agree that being one of the 0.04% of the UK population listed there is not on its own a guarantee of Notability, though it is perhaps relevant along with other factors, but perhaps you'd also agree that it is a reliable source? NBeale 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's anything like Who's Who?, then it's basically a pay service for labelling yourself as notable. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:12Z
 * Hi Brian. There are, as you say, publications with names like "Who's Who in X" which what you suggest, the original Who's Who (UK) is definitely not a pay service. As the article explains: "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other publications, has never involved any payment by the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been strictly regulated by prominence in public life or professional achievement." The same goes for Debretts. The main difference is that once you are in Who's Who you remain there for life, whereas Debretts is reviewed every year. NBeale 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: TOFA requests
By the way, I responded to your comments in response to my requests for the Jerusalem article to be Today's Featured Article May 16 or June 7. --  tariq abjotu  15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
You're blocked for being needless disruptive and violating WP:POINT by putting the HD-DVD key in your sig. State your intent to remove it, and I will unblock you. -- Cyde Weys 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That number is not the HD-DVD key. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:26Z
 * Ah, you're right, it looks like you've changed two digits. It's still needlessly disruptive. Cut it out. -- Cyde Weys 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, hasty blocks are needlessly disruptive. I lost a huge edit thanks to your block. I've removed it from my sig, even though there was no reason for the block in the first place. Now please unblock. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:29Z
 * How would you know I've changed 2 digits unless you yourself are in possession of the true number? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:32Z
 * Have you not seen Digg recently? -- Cyde Weys  15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you ... but please, for the love of God, don't go around trying to increase the drama level. I realized the block probably wasn't helping and have lifted it (and sorry about your lost edit), but as an admin, you should know better than to run around with a close facsimile to a very controversial number in your sig. -- Cyde Weys 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How did you know it was close unless you have had it in your possession? How many 16 character strings are no longer allowed to be used on Wikipedia because they are too similar to the one in question, and more importantly, how would someone even know how similar such a string is to the true one unless they already possessed the true one? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:37Z

Wikipedia isn't about making points, it's about writing the encyclopedia. Please, just consider your actions and ask if what you are doing is really good for the encyclopedia, or if you are just advancing some personal dislike of large corporations (a dislike that is shared by me, but I realize Wikipedia isn't the place to go on harping about it). -- Cyde Weys 15:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I don't care one way or another about the true HD-DVD key. I didn't post it anywhere. What I do care about is Wikipedia, and avoid admin abuse. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:39Z


 * A couple of points:
 * it isn't against the law to be in possession of a number
 * it's disruptive to troll.
 * Now please give an honest promise that you'll not troll again. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's disruptive to hastily use admin powers. Tell me now what range of 16-character strings I'm no longer allowed to post because theyre "too similar to the true string". &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:38Z
 * You're being needlessly wikilawyer-ish. This isn't about exact numbers, it's about intent.  Please read What colour are your bits?  -- Cyde Weys  15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What was your intent in blocking me without actually doing some investigation to make sure your block was proper? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:42Z
 * It was proper. You were being disruptive.  Now go read that article; it is very illuminating.  -- Cyde Weys  15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The disruption occurred when an admin assumed the worst and blocked without thinking; so, I didn't violate WP:POINT. How was I being disruptive? Is this signature also disruptive? If it's not, then admin powers have definitely been abused. I'm not faulting you; just try not to let it happen again. &mdash;  BRIAN  09180918091809180918091809180918 &bull; 2007-05-02 15:44Z

You knew what you were doing was purposefully controversial (there's a harsher word that is apt here, but I won't utter it). Please answer my simpler question: Were you acting with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, or merely trying to make some personal point? -- Cyde Weys 15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was acting with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Admin abuse of powers is something that Wikipedia should try to avoid. If you learn to be less hasty with blocking users in the future, then I have improved the community. It's not controversial to post a random string of characters without any context. I never posted the HD-DVD key. You've misused your powers, but as long as you learn from it, then all will be fine. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 16:01Z
 * You do realize that you're describing a textbook case of a WP:POINT violation, right? -- Cyde Weys  16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT covers disruptions. The disruption was not caused by me, since I didn't post any illegal string of characters. The disruption was caused by your hasty block. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-02 16:21Z

thank you
Hey Brian, thank you for taking a stand against the lunacy of cencorship and admin abuse.--MarSch 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Firefly_cast.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Firefly_cast.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. ShadowHalo 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Link
Brian, you may want to check your recent messages about the Nicholas Beale AfD, as the link appears to be off just a bit. I corrected it on Sophia's talk page, but you may want to correct the others. Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (second nomination). Pastor David † (Review) 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What is controversial?
I find it difficult to understand what the problem is regarding the Atheism article edits I have put in. The overwhelming majority of atheists do not define themselves has having a "belief" in the non-existence of god. Instead, they define themselves as having a "lack of belief in the existence of god." This is a very important distinction. To lead off the article by saying that atheism is a "belief" is a slap in the face to atheists. While it is appropriate to mention that there are those who claim that atheism is a "belief," it is outrageously inappropriate to lead off with that view as if it were the most applicable summary. I have included references by atheists that point out the importance of the distinction and included the previous reference that claims atheism is a belief in lack rather than a lack of belief. And yet, my edits keep getting reverted. While I appreciate your concern, the problem is not coming from my end. Rrhain 06:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What "wide-sweeping statements"? I included the references of what atheists have to say about themselves.  I could easily ask you why you are so adamant to insist that "belief in lack" is so important.  Yes, dictionaries are descriptive, but who do you think is most likely to use the term "atheist":  Atheists or theists?  There aren't that many atheists out there, after all.  This is quite similar to a creationist claiming that evolution is "just a theory" by relying upon the dictionary definition of "educated guess."  Yes, that is a definition, but it isn't the definition that science uses when using the term "theory."  So the question remains:  Why have the very first statement be a claim that the overwhelming majority of atheists would claim isn't true?  Who is best positioned to say what atheism is?  Atheists or those who believe?  Your argument is akin to having Judaism being defined by Christians. --Rrhain 06:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know what Infidels.org and the Secular Web are? Do you know what the Freedom From Religion Foundation is?  Your retreat to an encyclopedia is nothing more than the argument from authority:  JJC Smart said it, therefore it must be so.  Wouldn't it be better to look to atheists and see what they have to say?  The Freedom From Religion Foundation regularly surveys people for their opinions about questions of theology and atheism.  Their conclusion is that atheists, as a group, think that it is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack.  The Secular Web is essentially the Wikipedia of atheism, being written by the online community of atheists, having loosely developed out of the alt.atheism USENET group.  The entire philosophical discussion behind positive and negative atheism is written out there as well as discussion as to why this distinction is important.


 * On top of that, we have the books written by atheists that say that it is the lack of belief, not the belief of lack. You've got one guy.  As you said, you can find anybody who will say anything.  So why not listen to what the majority of atheists say and put that first?  I'm not saying that the position of positive atheism should be suppressed.  I'm simply pointing out that as a minority position, it should not be the first position given.  What is so controversial about that? Rrhain 09:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Zorkmidgold.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Zorkmidgold.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 01:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rusi Taleyarkhan
Hi, I noticed that you added the sentence, "After his results were verified by Edward Forringer of LeTourneau University in November 2006 (Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, vol 95, p 736), Taleyarkhan was cleared of any charges." to the Rusi Taleyarkhan article. Can you please provide a citation for this edit, since it seems to be contradicting many other news media reports such as this NYT article ? Thanks. Abecedare 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the refs, Brain! I'll work on the article in the coming days and try to add inline citations so that all the information in it is easier to verify. Cheers. Abecedare 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to Inform you
You and the number of articles you have successfully submitted to DYK has been noted here because you have been discovered as one of the twenty-five highest DYK article contributors. If you feel compelled to continue to update your number of DYKs on this list, and therefore the list itself, then it would be very helpful and help make sure that the list is as up-to-date as possible. If you, indeed, do not wish to be present on this list, then please notify me, the creator. Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"> &mdash;A • D  Torque 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:BatmanComicIssue1,1940.gif
Hello, Brian0918. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:BatmanComicIssue1,1940.gif) was found at the following location: User talk:Brian0918/Free images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism main page request, Raul654 is interested in scheduling it.
Brian, Raul654 is interested in scheduling the article, but he is looking for a better image. Also, the text on the request page needed revision, thus to update it, I tweaked it some, but that didn't work well, and since much of the content is in the current introduction, I simply replaced the old text with it and kept the statistics. Also informed Raul654 about the changes on his talk page. Perhaps you might find an artistic word image or want to revise the text again. I'm hoping Raul654 will accept the current image, so to increase its texture and page presence I enlarged the image slightly. Also, since the definitions became belief-free the talk page is getting too mundane. :-) _Modocc 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Well, thank you, Brian. I did not know about Three-revert rule. Once again, thank you!!

User:Devraj5000

No content in Category:Zamorano
has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem "edit war"
Please see the discussion on WP:AN/I concerning reverts to Jerusalem. We knew this would be an issue of contention yesterday, and multiple admins have stated that people reverting edits that go against solid consensus that has built up about the lead will not be held to 3RR. Please raise the issue there if you disagree. Best, nadav (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The 25 DYK Medal

 * moved to user page

Responsibility of an Admin to try to be accurate and fair
Hi Brian. A friend asked me to give the URL for the debate about N.B. and I'm afraid to say, reviewing it after a while, that I am disappointed in the fact that, as far as I can see, the majority of the statements you made in that debate were simply untrue. Now the debate is closed so nothing can be done, but I do think we all have a responsibility to try to tell the truth in such discussion, and that Admins probably have a greater responsibility. Something to bear in mind for the future perhaps. NBeale 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:V and WP:RS. A person fighting hard to keep his own article from being deleted shows a strong indication of conflict of interest and lack of notability. Just accept that in an encyclopedia such as Britannica, Oxford, or Wikipedia, you are not notable. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-24 21:32Z

WP:DYK
DYK was supposed to have been updated 4 hours ago! I just wanted to let you know, cuz it said so on the DYK page. --WoodElf 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

modernism and modern art
Pardon for my deficient English. Which difference is among modernism and modern art? You can answer here. 17:56, 4 June 2007

Non-free use disputed for Image:Infocom logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Infocom logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt fix to Image:Infocom logo.png
Thanks for your prompt fix to Image:Infocom logo.png when BetacommandBot marked it as not having a fair use statement. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of William Allan (Jesuit)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on William Allan (Jesuit), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because William Allan (Jesuit) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting William Allan (Jesuit), please affix the template 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate William Allan (Jesuit) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re : Your Socrates photo used in a museum
Hello Brian. I knew that some of my pictures taken in the Louvre museum were used in some Internet sites, but I didn't think even museums would use some, especially a creationism one ! I wonder if they respected the terms of the license !? But well, I'll not run after them for that one… I'm impressed : you really have got the eye for having made the relation between the two pictures ! Thanks for the link. Best regards. Sting-fr 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheism
My main concern is that the article spends too much time discussing what it isn't, primarily in relation to christianity, and not what it IS. In a large number of cases, the first line of reasoning concerns itself with what's been said about it (usually negative), and then a rebuttal.

I will agree that in general the article is much better than it has been previously, but like most discussions of atheism I feel it argues from the wrong perspective. Hmoul 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
Regarding this change to Cougar, I didn't engage the edits at the time because the page was so fast and furious. When I originally moved to upper case, I did so at every iteration because I felt the page would be too difficult to maintain otherwise. Strictly speaking, these edits are correct but I'm tempted to move back to all caps so that readers don't "correct" the usage and the page become a jumble. Alternatively, the page could go back to all lower case. It's more trouble than it's worth. I have added just added this regarding the issue. Marskell 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Conservator of the Peace with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Conservator of the Peace with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Conservator of the Peace saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. andy 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Help on Criticism of atheism
I've found your comments on the atheism page helpful in the past. I'm wondering if you can wade in on a rather thorny debate in - currently it does not have enough participants. It concerns the deletion of what seems to me to be a very reasonable and well-referenced addition to the article. Atheist that I am, the deletion seems to be clearly motivated by a pro-atheist bias that is ruining the article. Obviously, I take the risk that you will not agree with me and it's fine if you don't. Thanks either way. Dast 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Well, my gamble didn't pay off - but thanks for answering my request nonetheless. Dast 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph at Atheism
Hello Brian,

The paragraph you included did not cite primary research and did not represent a new synthesis in violation of WP:OR. Instead, it cited two literature reviews and simply repeated their authors' syntheses. I consciously avoided referencing primary research. -- Mwalcoff 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Bell study
I thought we had reached a broad consensus that the Paul Bell study should be excluded from Atheism due to the fact that there is only limited evidence of its existence and no evidence of its validity. What has followed is a revert war. I do not wish to violate 3RR so I was wondering if you would take a look at it? -- Scjessey 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Linear B
Hi Brian, I have to admit I'm not sure why things aren't working if you've got Code2001 installed. If you have Firefox or another browser installed, I'd try that, if that doesn't work there are a handful of other fonts you can try here.

You can also go to this page and this page to see if the glyphs show up on non-Wikipedia pages.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I don't have access to a Windows machine right now. If you continue to have problems, you might try posting at WP:VPT, where some more knowledgable people might be hanging out. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)