Jump to content

User talk:Bryan Derksen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WayneRay (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 7 September 2005 (→sigma thete tau). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Use this link to add a new topic.

Old User talk

Current User talk - add new comments to the bottom

Outstanding Work!

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

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

From the Edmonton Journal

Bryan,

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

Cheers,

Archie


tel: (780) 429-5257 cell: (780) 554-0792 [email protected]

National sport categories

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

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

CBC Edmonton

Good afternoon,

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

thanks,

CBC Edmonton (780) 468-7428

Journal article

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

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

Gabrielsimon's RfC

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

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

removal

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

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

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

Therianthropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way

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

Stardom

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

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

reply about parent categories

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

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

Isotope tables

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20021104150635/www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuchart5.html Is this archived page from the site that you remember? (might require javascript, here's a direct link to one of the images http://web.archive.org/web/20030425163919/www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuchart5.gif) Determining the exact definitions used for the articles would be much easier then. Femto 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD and WP:POINT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sigma thete tau

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bryan_Derksen&oldid=22798121"