User talk:Bryan Derksen/Archive 18

Wow, four years later you are still editing
Thanks for this article: Head transplant, which you wrote 4 years ago. Something I am working on lately. Travb (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're weclome. Though I only wrote about two paragraphs so all I really did was get the ball rolling, you've added a heck of a lot more. :) Bryan Derksen 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A comedy or a tragedy
There's no such field of scientific study as astrosociobiology. It was invented by George Dvorsky, who created Wikipedia articles for it and several other invented subjects that he thought up in the shower one day, and then sat back and watched as other editors then expanded the articles. See Articles for deletion/Astrosociobiology. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * diff
 * The name of the article may be a neologism, but I don't see why we can't have an article about the concept behind it. Bryan Derksen 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The concept is a field of scientific endeavour that George Dvorsky invented, from whole cloth, in the shower one day. Read Dvorsky's very own explanation, hyperlinked to from the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find Dvorsky's claim plausible. Lots of other people have considered this stuff, possibly under different names, hence why so much material has been added. But arguing here on my user talk page is pointless, feel free to comment further over on the AfD page itself. Bryan Derksen 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User blank, User blank-N, and User blank-10
Could you also put documentation on these pages as you did with the other blanks? It is too complicated for me. 76.16.187.218 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't actually know much about the standard practices for userbox templates, but I've added template documentation frameworks so that they can be easily filled in by other editors. Could you give me a link to one of the other blanks I've done before? I've been doing a lot of random cleanup in the template namespace lately and I can't remember everywhere I've been. Bryan Derksen 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Gula Mons
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gula Mons, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Scrubs episodes
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Scrubs episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Scrubs episodes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Scrubs episodes, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pesky rules
I don't know if you are aware, but it is kind of against the rules to look at a user's edit history and then revert their changes one after another. Also, although certain users aren't very helpful at explaining their changes in their edit summaries, it is incumbent on all Wikipedia editors to follow the interlocking rules WP:N and WP:RS. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you'll review my own edit history a little more carefully, you'll see I didn't "revert their changes one after the other" - I reviewed a bunch of them and reverted some, made further edits on others, and even deleted a few articles that should have been deleted rather than redirected. I'm actually paying attention to the details of what I'm doing rather than applying rules in a mechanistic bot-like manner to mass numbers of articles. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I see that you are an admin, and at one point were the human editor with the most edits. I guess we (and TTN) are fast editors, not bot-like. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fast editing of large numbers of articles is all well and good, I've done it myself quite frequently (hence my unreasonably large edit count). But in TTN's case he's been doing it against consensus, or at least where consensus is dubious or controversial, and he's been doing it apparently without applying human-style discretion or analysis in some cases. That sort of editing requires oversight. I note on your userpage that you're a proponent of the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"; perhaps consider my recent edits to be part of the "revert" phase of that cycle. The discussion part seems to be over at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be better if TTN was less single-minded in his edits. I myself got burned for applying "reliablesources" tags too quickly for some people's tastes, and have concluded that the best thing to do is to vary one's edit summaries. Anyway, you didn't revert me, so I'll see you around. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:TSF Tuesday
Hello! Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page.

This is one of the seven "TSF { {CURRENTDAYNAME}}" templates used at Main Page alternative (Classic 2006) (so it's transcluded there on Tuesdays). With the advent of ParserFunctions, such a setup is no longer needed, so I'll make the switch and delete the unneeded templates. —David Levy 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I found it via random-paging through the template namespace so had no idea whether there were any others like it. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Erskine May reference
When you get a chance, please see the "Journal" talk page. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

DYK
Incidentally, is it too late to wish you a merry Christmas? :P --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Frank Campion
Re your question here : Sorry for being late in responding (I'm on vacations). What I meant was not that it was a copyvio in the sense of being copied from somewhere, but a copyvio in the sense of engaging in excessive re-narration of (copyrighted) plot elements not justified by a fair use requirement of supporting structural literary analysis, thus potentially qualifying as a derivative work and a breach of our non-free content policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kardashev Scale
Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TCS Concordia
An article that you have been involved in editing, TCS Concordia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/TCS Concordia (2nd nomination). Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories
Hello, I have noticed that you made a lot of edits that put userboxes in Category:User templates, which is very good. The problem is that they are all categorized as "U" (they should never be categorized as because that is what happens) and a lot of them should be categorized into subcategories. If you think of putting any more userboxes in this category please familiarize yourself with the subcategories and take note of Category:Interest user templates, as that category also has a few more series of subcategories which go to subsubcategories or even subsubsubcategories in this case. -Babelious 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncategorized templates
I noticed you marked Template:LDS Temple/Halifax Nova Scotia Temple‎ as uncategorized. Before you use a bunch of your time marking all the sub-pages of LDS Temple as uncategorized, I wanted to let you know that I'm working on them right now, and I'll be sure to categorize them. (If you have a category suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it.) –  j ak s mata  20:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found it via the random template link so I wouldn't have wound up going through them systematically anyway, but thanks for the heads-up. I don't have any specific ideas for how to categorize those, I'm afraid - I just randomly cruise template space looking for the obvious things to fix (template namespace has been rather neglected over the years :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for speedy deletion for Kelly Brownell
A tag has been placed on Kelly Brownell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

duplicate page - see Kelly D. Brownell, which already has the same info and is much more detailed

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --tess (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shield (Stargate)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Shield (Stargate), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Portia (Shakespeare)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Portia (Shakespeare), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OJ287
Please, use search to check for existing articles before creating new ones. Article on OJ 287 was created 1.5 years ago. So, an appearance of your "new article" OJ287 in "Did you know" section this year was inappropriate deja vu issue. Av0id3r (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did search. Not my fault Wikipedia's search engine sucks. (Update: Even now that I've completed the merge, Wikipedia's search engine doesn't find the old article: ) Anyway, the content I added was all new, so why not just thank me and merge it? Much more productive. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kotor 8.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kotor 8.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Slartibartfast
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Slartibartfast, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Slartibartfast. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i proposed arcology for deletion
Feel free to remove tag if you disagree. No hard feelings! Rich Peterson130.86.14.90 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slartibartfast
An article that you have been involved in editing, Slartibartfast, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SGDHDProgram.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SGDHDProgram.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please extend Globular cluster template
Hello,

Please extend the Globular cluster template to add a caption as you have done elsewhere.

This would be used by Terzan 7.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I don't have time to go through all the articles using the template to move the existing captions into the caption parameter right now, though. I'll get back to that in a few hours. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, never mind, it looks like I had time after all. Thought there would be more articles in need of fixing. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! WilliamKF (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kardashev Scale
In the last month or so there's been a edit dispute on the article, about what it is, who it was meant for, where the article needs to go, whether it needs to be split. Not of lot of people work on it, so there's very few people deciding these issues. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article, it's history, and talk page and put your two cents in at the bottom of the Talk:Kardashev scale page. If you could, it'd be really helpful. THX--Sparkygravity (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Chin (mayor)
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Peter Chin (mayor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alt.usenet.kooks
An article that you have been involved in editing, Alt.usenet.kooks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks (2nd nomination). Thank you. Calton | Talk 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Lifetime
Template:Lifetime has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of isotope tables
As someone who has maintained Isotope table (complete) and/or Isotope table (divided) in the past, your input is needed. User:Greg L is proposing (and prematurely executing) a merge of the two tables, each about 50k, into one table of over 100k. I am opposing it, and no other editors have commented yet. Please come to Talk:Isotope table (complete) and offer your opinion. Thanks, JWB (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've chipped in my two cents. To get further input, perhaps try contacting Wikiproject Chemistry? Bryan Derksen (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryan: I saw your post on here on Talk:Isotope. I hope I revised option #5 to be in conformance with your point. Please advise if I didn’t correctly understand you. If I correctly memorialized your point, let me know and I would be pleased to correct the other options. Or feel free to make the changes yourself. Greg L (my talk) 04:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that resolves that issue. It's probably just a minor semantic quibble but I've had to undelete and clean up a lot of merge-and-deletes in recent months so I try to get the word out when the opportunity arises. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

British or American
Bryan, I’ve noted the spelling “colour” in Isotope table (complete). As current Wikipedia policy is to retain the spelling of the first major contributor (which I’ve been observant of), I now wonder: do you use Britsh English or American English? Greg L (my talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. I'm actually Canadian, so I randomly oscillate between the two. Use whichever makes your spellchecker happy. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting new planets to a wrong place
You just added three new planets to the wrong article list of unconfirmed exoplanets. I strongly suggest that you should transfer these three planets to the list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets and don't forget to update the numbers of planets. BlueEarth (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. I put them there because I didn't know the confirmation status myself, if you do know the confirmation status by all means update them. I don't own the article. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...
GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)