User talk:Bryan Derksen/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Help!

A problem. I don't know who to contact about this, but since you seem to be well-versed in matters Wikipedian, I decided to come here.

I boldly changed numerous articles using a stub called {{Horror-stub}}, but have now learned that it was (apparently) recently created by a new user. Since I made the same mistake in the past (that is, creating a stub template without approval), I don't know if this stub is officially sanctioned (and because it has a mundane title, I thought it was just a run-of-the-mill stub).

So what should I do? Should I manually change all the stubs back to the {{fantasy-stub}} template; or can this be done with a robot?

RlyehRising 22:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty normal sort of stub category to me, I don't expect there'll be a problem with it. If it ultimately gets listed on Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion I presume there's some sort of bot they use over there to clean up after a deletion or merge (I've never looked at that page before, but Wikipedia:Categories for deletion has such a bot and this seems like a very similar sort of task).

I just noticed that the stubs-for-deletion page mentions Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries as a place to list stubs like this, and that horror-stub is already listed there for consideration: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#{{Horror-stub}} / Category:Horror stubs]]. You might want to add a comment there if you're interested in continuing to use this stub type. I've never really cared for stub notices and categories myself and usually ignore them completely so if you read those pages you'll probably know more about how these things work around here than I do :). Bryan 00:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Got it. Thanx. RlyehRising 01:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing since my previous conversation with you was also laden with references to Wikipedia guidelines and stuff. Don't get paranoid worrying about "following the rules". Almost all the "rules" on Wikipedia are just guidelines, subject to flexible interpretation and changes whenever a situation comes along that might warrant it. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a useful guideline. Bryan 01:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Next you'll be telling me to ignore the black helicopters circling my house (kidding). I'll try to keep your suggestions in mind. However, don't count on me creating any more templates in the near future! ...Or using templates that I'm not familar with. Maybe I'd better play it safe and stick to simple editing. RlyehRising 01:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Bryan Derksen in Wired.png

Hi, I came across this picture while working my way though this list. It's a nice picture, unfortunately having it on your userpage is strictly speaking against Wikipedia fair use policy, wich explicitly does not allow "fair use images" on userpages. Not that I think this one is likely to cause any trouble compared to the people who splash DVD covers and what not all over theyr userpage, but still. Have you tried contacting Wired, and asked them if they are willing to release the picture under GFDL (or a compatable creative commons licence)? That would have been the ideal solution. I've left a notice on the image page for people speedy deleting orphanded fair use images to give it a pass for a while, but I suggest not delaying for too long. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I kind of figured this day would come but I've been putting it off in case Wired says "no" (and because in the grand scheme of things it's not really all that important, I guess. I can always take another picture of myself, that one just looks extra cool. :). I'll dig out the email address and give it a whirl, thanks for giving me a heads-up to kick me into action. Bryan 07:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Just so you know...

BTW - When I marked the various Cthulhu mythos categories with rename/delete templates, I was NOT AWARE AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE THE ORIGINAL CREATOR of these categories. It never occurred to me to check the History to see who made them (until now); I just assumed they were created by someone in the past (and Wikipedia users tend to come and go—whatever happened to User:Cthulhu2000?). Ergo, nothing personal! It's just that recent events got me to thinking about categories and how incompatible they seem to be with my mergist philosphy. I realize you created them in good faith, but unfortunately in some instances they aren't practical, primarily because there is so little information about the various fauna and flora of the mythos. It is virtually impossible to write a comprehensive article about each and every one (for example, under Tsathoggua#Tsathoggua's family tree, I merged lots of stub articles that were no more than one or two sentences...and furthermore, that was about as much as could be said about those beings!) Although Wikipedia doesn't exactly spell out what an "article" is, one might infer that a few paragraphs (or at the worst, a few sentences) is not generally recognized as an official Wikipedia article—especially if such a small article can be merged into a larger article (hence, those enigmatic stubs). Granted, some (or many?) of my mergers are controversial, even though I try to merge in the most logical way; for example, Deep One merges several seemingly disparate pieces, successfully (?), I think, primarily because they all revolve around the eponymous character. But enough of that. Just thought I'd drop you a line, and clear the water—uh, I mean air. RlyehRising 00:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I merge articles fairly often myself, but mergism can only go so far in cases like this. There's enough material for stand-alone articles on at least a dozen of these Cthulhu mythos species, probably more, and IMO a dozen articles is enough to warrant a category. The distinction between alien and non-alien species seemed clearer back when I created the categories, I've no major issue with merging those two categories now, but I don't think more than that needs to be done. Bryan 07:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't take anything personally. I'd actually forgotten I created those categories, in fact. :) Bryan 07:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[1] or the Requests for comment/TDC[2]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [3]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I only vaguely remember encountering TDC, and the only comment I can find of mine on either of those pages is a couple lines mentioning that I'd looked at some of his edit summaries and found him making personal attacks. I suspect I won't have anything of any significance to contribute to this current arbitration. Thanks for the heads-up anyway, though! Bryan 07:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Slang confrontation

Even though the AfD vote was to keep, the opposition (User:The Literate Engineer and User:Voice of All(MTG)) deleted it anyways (though it was still in the history). I've written a long letter pointing out their bogus plan, revealing them for the frauds they are. I've taken the bold move of reverting the list to BEFORE they started their hack job on it (Nov 15). If you want that list retained, you better get over there and help with the reversion war that is likely to result. I can't do it alone. Bend over 17:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you—one more thing...

On my talk page you concurred that Great Old Ones should be renamed and moved to Great Old One. Consequently, I added a move request to address that issue. If you could put in your two cents on the talk page for that article, it would be much appreciated. RlyehRising 20:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The assault on the List of sexual slang

Two users in particular The Literate Engineer & Voice of All(MTG) have apparently made it their duty to get rid of the list and they have been using underhanded tactics in an attempt to do so in any way they can.

But word is getting out, and supporters of the list are starting to rally against them and protect the list (via rerverting vandalism, countering their tactics, etc.).

[snipping out a 7-section description of some sort of disagreement about the sexual slang page] Bryan 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Red Rover 22:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't spam my user talk page like this. If you want me to have a look at some argument or another, just use a link to point me to it instead. The whole purpose of hyperlinks is to remove the need to paste multiple copies of the same material everywhere it's referenced. If I wish to get involved more deeply, I'll do it on the relevant pages where the argument is actually being argued about. Bryan 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

State ritual and ceremonial

What the heck did you remove the state ritual and cermonial category from articles? All that happened was that some user renamed it to remove an amersand from the name, but didn't set up a redirect. Now I'm going to have to go through all the articles that were in the category and reinsert it again. Could you not have done a quick search first just to make sure that the name of the category hadn't been slightly renamed? Sorry if I sound a bit grouchy but I have spent most of this week doing nothing but fixing other people's screw-ups and I'm getting fed up having to do it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith, you've misunderstood why I was removing articles from it this category. It was not a screw-up or a result of lack of diligence in searching for alternative categories. The ones I took out were already sorted into subcategories under it, and the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories state:

"A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. For example, Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her."

As an example from this particular case, Half-arch (crown) is categorized under Category:Crowns, which is already a subcategory of Category:State ritual and ceremonial (via Category:Crown Jewels). So "State ritual and ceremonial" is redundant once Half-arch is already categorized under "Crowns", which it was. Unless there's some specific reason why half-arch should be categorized under both of these categories, I or someone else will just end up removing the overly-general parent category from it again in the future in accordance with the guidelines. The same goes for the other articles you're putting back into State ritual and ceremonial. Perhaps we should discuss this on Category talk:State ritual and ceremonial if you think there's some reason to make an exception here? Bryan 00:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I've just gone back to check and noted that I was the one who put the category up for renaming in the first place on October 22, at the same time I did the various removals: [4]. It wasn't moved until October 28, well after I'd finished with them. Bryan 05:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started removing the redundant categories again, going slowly in case you do have specific objections but just haven't got to writing them up yet. Bryan 04:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Help With stargate

Sorry about adding the links. As I stated, I felt that there wasn't enough interconnectedness and I didn't know who to make a template. (And stil don't) I am going to delete the sections. If you want to help they are on all race articles, all technology articles, and all articles in the general template. Thanks and sorry Tobyk777 01:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's okay, everyone learns by experience on Wikipedia. It's kind of a mixed blessing that you're so industrious and dedicated that this learning experience has touched so many articles. :) I've been using your user contribution list to find articles to check for the big see-also section so I think I've got them all identified now, it shouldn't be too much effort to finish cleaning it all up. Bryan 01:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• While you were doing that I just cleared the sections on about half of them. I saw that you got the other half. I did keep the relevant articles in the sections though. There all done thanks. Tobyk777 01:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Linking dates

I came to your user page because on the Wikipediholic page you notd that you compulsively link dates. I compulsively unlink dates, at least when it's just the year, because that what the style manual says and because linking to dates serves no purpose. I don't mind defering to your experience, but we definitely need to talk. Ghosts&empties 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't updated that page in a very long time, I suspect that it's no longer an accurate description of my editing style. I still link some dates but only ones of particular significance to the subject of the article, the sorts of dates where one might find it genuinely useful to get an overview of the other major events were going on in the world at that time.

Good gravy, I just checked the edit history and I apparently added myself to that list sometime before December 2001. I think that makes me more of a Wikipediholic than anything else. :) Bryan 05:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Seal of Rassilon

I can't remember where I pulled it off from, but User:Throup did a PNG version of it at http://www.throup.org.uk/images/doctor_who/rassilon_flat.png which is almost identical. Alternatively, I could pull a screenshot of it off one of the stories. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Throup's version would probably be ideal because we stand a good chance of being able to get him to put it under the GFDL or some other free licence, which would let us put it on Commons and forever be free of the stigma of Fair Use. :) Bryan 09:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can track Throup down - he hasn't edited for about a month. I also found another, jpg version, on the Doctor Who Image Archive and have e-mailed Steven Hill to ask for his permission to use it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.shillpages.com/dw/other20.jpg ? That looks like it could be the original for the version you uploaded, it has the same grey lines along the top and right hand edges. Perhaps if all else fails this will be able to provide a source to get rid of the "no source" tag. Bryan 16:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bougereau Gallery

You have edited the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. It has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The deletion discussion is here. A proposal to modify the policy is here. Please join either or both discussions and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:LarryWall.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LarryWall.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 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.

nazi antarctica

Yeah, there's these orphan arts that look intriguing (I have started some myself at times) that dont seem to ever get the followup. Let's hope there's someone out there in the ether/wiki who will! vcxlor 04:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I found it by following the link from Elder Thing, which appears to be the only place referencing it, so the article may well end up to be about something fictional. In which case the categories will have to be changed. But as they say, the best way to get information about something is to post something obviously wrong and wait for people to come swarming in to correct you. :) Bryan 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

TIE vs. Peregrin render

That one's been in my collection for a looooong time. I'll set about finding the source at once; I'm pretty sure I got it on Spacebattles. It's either that or the Star Wars Modeling Alliance, which is now defunct. Rogue 9 05:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. If you can't find a source, perhaps we could ask one of the artists at Spacebattles to provide an example under the GFDL or similar free licence. That's always the ideal solution, if possible. Bryan 05:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Desert

I'm really sorry about having deleted a big chunk off of the Desert article. I though it ended sort of abruptly the way it was when I saved my edits, but I didn't realize that was because I deleted some. I hope everything is back to normal. --Think Fast 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, no problem. I figured it must have just been some strange slip-up, the rest of your edit certainly didn't look like vandalism. :) Bryan 17:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Years in art

I notice you created Category:Years in art, which contains articles whose titles begin with a year. If you have time, could you please go through and make sure the articles are sorted in their respective year (or year-in) parent categories using sortkeys as outlined at Wikipedia:Categorization#Year categories? (Don't forget to start the sortkey with a capital letter.) If you've done this already, thanks and sorry for bugging you about this. I plan to go through a ton of such pages early next year; it would be nice if some of the work were already done... - dcljr (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Are you watching all the "year in art" articles? If so, I'll remove them from my watchlist. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-25 05:55

Nope. I just like mass categorization projects, so I'm willing to take a crack at it. :) Bryan 06:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

All done. Bryan 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How To Copy

Question is posted on talk page of user Sango123. Thanx. --Therealhrw 15:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Clanking replicator

Yes, sorry, the way I worded it had unintentionally change the meaning somewhat. I am working on concepts to do with advanced automation plants that have various components shipped in via an automated transport infrastructure that could enable a large part of the economy to become in effect a distributed clanking replicator, that might explain why I wrote it the way I did. I am creating a collaborative website at http://www.AdCiv.org to develop these ideas. CharlesC 17:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat! Yeah, I was considering whether I should leave mention there of the possibility of a distributed clanking replicator, but since I didn't know of any proposals for one offhand I figured it would verge on original research. I've got Freitas' "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines", I really should sit down with it one day and do a thorough expansion of related Wikipedia articles based on it. There are a lot of proposals in there I hadn't heard about before. Bryan 20:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How interesting, yes I think that would be a pretty worthwhile exercise, and the related topics are only get more relevant to the modern world as time goes on. I'm aware of the book you mention but it's pretty expensive and I haven't forked out for it yet! It looks like a fairly seminal work on the subject - have you read through it all? There may be a copy at a university local to me, but otherwise I'll just have to bite the bullet! If you ever feel you've finished with your copy and want to sell it, I'd certainly be interested. CharlesC 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Gimmiet

Just a heads up, Gimmiet's 24 hour block you mentioned does not seem to work for his user page, as he has blanked it again. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already requested page protection. He also appears to have started using a sock puppet to continue a revert war he was in, I suspect that block is going to be extended soon if so. Bryan 05:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've requested page protection for the Natasha demkina page. --DocJohnny 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd do it myself but since I wound up being the one to accuse Prycon as a potential sock puppet it's probably best if I minimize my involvement in the actual dispute. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that there's really no hurry, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much if the article gets reverted today or tomorrow or next week. Bryan 06:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryan, I didn't want to put this on the arbitration page, but the evidence (short of an IP check) is pretty conclusive on the "Prycon" issue. Note this page on his personal website, www.gabrielsimon.com. "Prycon" is identified as a character in some story he's writing, just like his other sock puppet accounts Khulhy and Gavin the Chosen. I'd have stopped pulling sock puppet names from my online fiction after I'd been busted once or twice for it...--Craigkbryant 12:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was already pretty certain of it just based on the timing, editing subject matter, and Gavin's unique approach to spelling. Given that Gavin appears nearly incapable of learning from his mistakes this final bit of evidence isn't surprising. At least he seems to have stopped editing from that account for now. Bryan 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Dyson sphere

You're quite right. My apologies for the uncommented edits. I've tried to keep a descriptive comment with each edit since you left the message. Beowulf314159 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't always use edit summaries myself so I'm not normally one to complain, this case was just a little more extreme than usual. :) Bryan 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a questions about why you removed the "decription" section however. To my mind, an article breaks down like this

• Abstract: Brief synopisis of article or definition of concept.
• Table of Contents
• Sections: The "meat" of the article.

The way you have merged it, the abstract sumamary leads right into the "meat" — which is fine if it is a short, simple article with no sub-sections, and no TOC. However, when there are sub-sections to the article, then not using the abstract/main article divide places the main part of the article outside of the table of contents, which doesn't seem right.

I realize that splitting off a "description" section seems a little artificial, but it does bring the whole article (except for the abstract, which is proper) under the TOC.

Beowulf314159 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It was exactly because the "description" section seemed artificial that I merged it. The description seemed like good intro material to me, the sort of thing someone should read if they're just wanting a basic overview of the topic, and it was too short to warrant a separate section elsewhere in the article (if it became longer than a paragraph or two I'd definitely support splitting it out again). I guess our minds just break down the article differently, I think every intro should have some meat to it regardless of the article's size otherwise it's just wasted verbiage. Bryan 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I should mention that I'm not absolutely wedded to the layout, so if you really think it needs to be split back out again I'm not going to raise a fuss. It was only the apparent deletion of large amounts of material that made my rollback finger twitchy before I contacted you about edit summaries and such, rearrangement's not such a big deal. Bryan 00:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to "split the difference" as well as the article. I made the open paragraph more "meaty", and only split off the history on the concept - which expands on the opening paragraph. Beowulf314159 01:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly Board

Bless you for changing the USA version. That's been grating for a while, but I wasn't prepared to do the big task. I wish I'd thought of your approach! --Surgeonsmate 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Inverting the board seemed like it'd be more work than creating it in the first place since I used a WYSIWYG editor for that. Fortunately someone else did the hard work of inverting the UK board, so I got to cheat both times. :) Bryan 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question on interference article

It appears that you are the person who added the following to the article on interference.

When a single source interferes with itself, the principle of conservation of energy dictates that the energy "missing" from the darkened regions of an interference pattern where destructive interference has taken place will be found in the brightened portions where constructive interference has taken place.

There are no citations for this article, and the above sentence appears to be wrong. (See Feynman, QED, chapter 1.) See also, Francis Weston Sears, Optics. (Check the index under interference.)

If it were as you suggest, then people would be using this phenomenon to create more intense bursts of laser radiation. If you wanted a really bright laser light at one point, then you would create an interference pattern and use the "super bright" part. But nobody seems to be doing this kind of trick. I suppose it might be because it is easier to scale up an ordinary laser than to concentrate the beam of an ordinary one, but I should think that people would at least occasionally talk about what might be done to push the envelope of intensity of laser beams.

If you have a citation for the claim I quoted above, please let me know. P0M 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That was over four years ago and I neglected to add an edit summary, so I have absolutely no idea where I got that information from. :) Physics isn't really my field so go ahead and edit mercilessly. I'm curious how the energy conservation issue works out otherwise, though. Since the interference pattern is spread out over an area larger than the original beam, shouldn't that allow "super bright" patches to be avoided if they're a problem? Bryan 08:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Stargate Templates

I would like to inform you there's an active debate on Stargate Templates going on here and I would like to hear your input. -b 19:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutron Stars and Neutronium

If the gentleman you were discussing the neutronium and neutron stars with is an advocate that neutron stars do not in fact contain matter composed of neutrons, why does he not advocate the changing of that article as well to something more relevant? I myself cannot really contribute an arguing factor against him or in agreement with him as i have only just begun Nuclear physics and the fact that i did enjoy the Neutronium Alchemist by Peter F Hamilton, but i see no reason why a neutron star cannot contain matter composed of neutrons if they obey the Pauli exclusion effect. Yes learning about that effect has led me to the conclusion that neutron matter in 'clumps' cannot exist outside of extreme conditions, but maybe the gentleman should advocate the changing of neutron stars names to Pauli Exclusion Stars after the effect they may utilise whether it be with neutrons or the entire family of fermions. Perhaps genuine science and science fiction should not be so hostile to each other, as implied by the gentleman, he just has to remember that going to the moon was science fiction at one time, and many new ideas are spawned from science fiction that could be utilised by modern physics --Cranstoun 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh. That talk page conversation is almost two years old now, I think the issue's probably moot. Thanks for the support, though. :) Bryan 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

nuclear photonic rocket

Hello!

An article you originated, nuclear photonic rocket, is up for deletion as of Thursday, Jan 26; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuclear_photonic_rocket.

Among things being said about it is that it's original research or a hoax. I tend to assume good faith, so I thought that I might at least bring this matter to your attention, so that you might contribute your opinion on the AfD. -Ikkyu2 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I originated it by splitting it out of the old spacecraft propulsion page, which at the time consisted of dozens of detailed sub-articles like this spliced together into a monsterously huge collection. So unfortunately I've got no particular references or sources for this other than Wikipedia. Bryan 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal from AfD

You're right, of course. I've seen bad nominations removed before, but this was an over-reaction on my part. Thanks for correcting my mistake.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really have an opinion on the article itself, but the point of the *fD processes is to get a whole bunch of eyeballs to come and check the article over. This seems like a valid use for linking that AfD entry even if the entry itself is closed. Bryan 07:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gimmiet

I see you are the one to block him today, so you get the question.  :) I'm not sure where to go to let someone know that he also did 2 reverts to Cahokia today about no source image removal. I could see that he had violated the terms of the arbcom and I didn't feel like getting into an revert war (looked like a situation that needed to be handled carefully), so in the future, where do I need to go post to get help with this kind of thing? Thanks,Pschemp | Talk 06:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw trouble brewing because I've got Gimmiet's user page watchlisted due to his previous disruptions, in theory you could post a warning there and probably draw the attention of others who might have him watchlisted for similar reasons. But Gimmiet's had a history of simply deleting stuff he doesn't like from his user talk page, so that might slip through the cracks. You could try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, since this falls under pretty much the same umbrella - though you'd probably want to include a link to the arbitration case with your notice there so that random admins who happen by can quickly check on Gimmiet's special limitations. In fact, I noticed just now that Dream Guy has already done this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Gimmiet Bryan 07:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank YOU! Pschemp | Talk 07:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Villain and italics

You should have looked at what you reverted...the mix of wiki-style italicization and apostrophes threw bolding into the mix. A previous editor avioded this by using <nowiki> tags, but this seems to defeat the point of wiki markup, which is to make things easier to read while editing. NickelShoe 06:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, apostrophes. My old nemesis. Bryan 06:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tok'ra TOC

Dear Bryan,

Could we have at least had a discussion about the TOC before you removed it? I spent an HOUR looking for the template for it. I couldn't find a category that lists all the different templates such as Category:Templates. So you just wiped out an hour of my work without so much as a warning. Please respond on my talk page.

Lady Aleena 07:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum...our discussion and collaboration on the Tok'ra issue made my day. Hopefully that you had some fun during it, because I did. I feel much better now. I was a little depressed since it felt that no one was really interested in the work. That you took interest makes me feel the effort was worth it. I actually laughed during the discussion. Thank you for that. LA

No problem. Unfortunately a lot of great work on Wikipedia doesn't get the slightest bit of recognition until someone disagrees with something about it. Fortunately I'm obsessive enough about Wikipedia that just doing the work is usually its own reward, but I'm glad to have helped cheer others as well this time around. :) Bryan 09:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bryan,

I am at my wits end trying to defend our work on Known Tok'ra. I swear I am about to lose it, literally. If you feel as strongly about the layout that we had come up with during the initial phase of that page, would you please defend it. I am coming to a breaking point. I just pray that I don't have this much trouble when I do the merged Asgard page, but that may be just a pipe dream.

Lady Aleena 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll join back in. However, bear in mind that we're pretty much equal for the most part, and if others have legitimate issues with the layout we should hear them out. They might be feeling just as much at wits' end as well, after all. Bryan 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Asgard page won't have the same problem with distinguishing hosts and symbiotes that the Tok'ra do, but there might be issues similar to the Jacob Carter one with major Asgard like Thor. I'd suggest waiting to see how that resolves over there and then copying whatever the result is. Bryan 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

relativistic rocket edit conflict

Looks like we both took the time to re-edit relativistic rocket, sorry about that! I've blatted over your edits as I think mine are bigger and more wonderful (;). If you can, could you look through my edit and see if I missed anything you added? I shall go through the diff of your edits some time and try to merge, but I'm done for tonight. I've restructured things a fair amount, and redone some of the maths, which were confusing and poorly notated. njh 10:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

user IP 211.28.7.201 edits on timecube page

Hello Bryan. I dont understand why IP 211.28.7.201 is allowed to make edits on the timecube page like the recent one he did of 09:32, 10 February 2006 which was mostly propaganda for his own site, cubicao. He re-worded most of the article to sound pro cubic, and to give it a "slogan" kind of feel. He also removed some links to refutations of the theory because he said the forum where the links came from was already linked to, however the specific threads where the refutations come from are not obvious to find, so it is most helpful to have the links as absolute addresses, rather than being included under the general home page of said forum.

I reverted the timecube page back to how it looked just before he made his edit. This is ridiculous... if you want wikipedia to be serious, you have to start blocking people who abuse it repeatedly, and evidence suggests this user has so in the past. He is slowly working to remove any criticism, and to pull all traffic to his own website (cubicao). He also frames his wording as though timecube is some sort of accepted theory. There is clearly enough junk on the net not for people to start giving credible voice to any crackpot who is persistent enough. Is there a policy on nuisances like this? Its certainly getting to be NOT NPoV when he is allowed to make these subtle changes all the time.

He (211.28.7.201) also claimed that timecube makes many sociological observations, and that the theory is a worthy TOE. This is totally preposterous, and makes it sound like wikipedia is endorsing the theory as legitimate and a worthwhile TOE. Thats nuts! Cheers, ewm

Yeah, he's been clinging to that page for quite some time, and I fully agree with the ArbCom's "shoot on sight" suggestion regarding his crank editing. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the article lately myself, though, just popping in every once in a while to see what the state of play is. Don't worry, I doubt his edits will last long. Bryan 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fraggle Rock

Hi Bryan, just wanted to express my admiration for your witty summary of Fraggle Rock species. Haven't been this entertained in a while! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! A lot of other editors have contributed too, though, so share the commendations around. :) Bryan 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy AKA Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians

The page, Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy was undergoing some discussion about a potential page rename recently. I was mostly staying out of it in the hopes that a few choice words would allow time to introduce perspective where pages of commentary would not. Sadly, Storm Rider wasn't having any of it, and just moved the page. I would have restored it to its previous name (incorrect caps and all, just to avoid the argument) but before I noticed Martianlostinspace renamed it to History of Unfulfilled, non-Biblical Prophecy by Claimed Christians. Then T-rex moved it to Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians and edited the original redirect. Then finally, you moved the page to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians.

Would it be too much of an imposition, given that all of the parties agree that no consensus was reached, for me to ask you to just put the article back to its original name until the discussion is over? Right now, we cannot move it back because the redirect at the original name has been edited, so the move tool won't overwrite it.

Thank you for you time and effort, and sorry to drag you back into this. -Harmil 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okie-dokie, I'll check in at the talk page and see what help I can be. Bryan 05:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

MORoutebox

Thanks for taking care of it. Working with templates, etc. isn't my strong point. I'm sorry for responding so late, I got sidetracked and away from the project for a while.Rt66lt 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Bryan 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode

Sorry about misinterpreting your intent for &#32; in Template:Cite episode. But now I'm confused about the purpose of having any space manually added there. Couldn't you just insert a space between the appropriate consecutive {{qif}} tags? (I'd expect that, if the template returns nothing, you'd just get extra whitespace that would be rendered as a single blank, and if it returns something, you'd get the needed spaces around its content.) Is there something odd about the current transclusion mechanism that mishandles whitespace between consecutive templates in this situation? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not completely sure, the initial version of the template was just a rejiggered copy of Template:Cite book and it used those like that. Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web, and Template:Cite news also use #32. My assumption is that if you use an ordinary space (as in " ") at the beginning of a template parameter it gets trimmed away as whitespace, and so the sections of the template would get all mushed together. I'll test that in a sandbox in a moment. Bryan 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a cite using a sandbox version which replaces the #32s with ordinary spaces:

Mr. Yam's Fantabulous Adventures episode"A Handful of Thyme",season 13No 9(2006-03-09). Written by Paul Reubens

As I speculated, the spaces get removed and everything's mushed together. Bryan 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well. Numeric character entities it is. Thanks for checking this out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image Tagging Image:Solardisk.jpg

The tag has been updated and the source website has been added. Fosnez 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

squidward vandal

Hello Bryan. Regarding [5], if you see vandalism of that type, please block the IP address indefinitely rather than for 24 hours because it is either an open proxy or a compromised zombie computer. If it is only blocked for a day, it will be used again in the next attack, and shorter blocks always take precedence. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Squidward for more information. — Mar. 12, '06 [08:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

If there are any legitimate users of that IP, we can unblock later once they confirm that their grievous security problem has fixed. — Mar. 12, '06 [08:43] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Alrighty. I don't normally block much or do RC patrol, he just stumbled across one of my watchlisted articles and he seemed busy so I put a stop to him quickly. Bryan 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)