User talk:Bryce

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz[edit]

I saw your AfD vot for Simson Garfinkel. While he is of somewhat greater noteriety than I (David Mertz) am, there seems to be a common weird bias against academics/computer writers (but a porn actor or indy band of 1/20th the influence is automatically kept). If you feel like voting, thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being the inclusionist I am, I voted for keeping the article. No problem. Bryce 20:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I confess there is a vanity aspect to wanting the article about me to continue, but then, I would (less vehemently) work to keep articles on writers/academics who are less notable than me; just today, an AfD vote and a minor cleanup for Shari Evelyn Kendall. I'm not completely inclusionist, but I do tend to think that earning Ph.D.'s and writing academic books is more notable than a lot of things that people do without being listed on AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep professor Kendall also, thanks for pointing it out. If you'd like to point me at any other endangered academics, feel free; I'll strongly consider voting to keep them. I do wish that these articles talked more about why the person is notable, however. What amount to snippets from a CV may make someone notable if you are in the same field, but for the general audiance of Wikipedia, I think more explaination of the significance of the person's work would be highly helpful. Not only would the articles perhaps be more useful/interesting, it would help keep them of AfD. Bryce 00:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily follow AfD that much. Usually I just see some particular topic that I think should be kept; then kinda get drawn into reading the AfD pages for a couple days. Then it fades. But if I do that, I'll keep you in mind to mention academics at issue. Having started a couple pages on academics myself, I both certainly agree with you on the need for giving general-reader context, but also know that it's a lot easier to start the two sentence version of an article than it is to write six paragraphs on why their work is actually important. If AfD'ers would give articles a couple weeks to magically evolve, I think the significance of academics would emerge better... but when things get AfD'd in a day or two, it's harder. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:1630analyzer.png[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1630analyzer.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really goofed up. I created that image and put it into the Public Domain, at a time when - IIRC - it was legitimate to simply put the generic 'PD' in the description. Paranoid morons going around and deleting images because they don't know the exact circumstances are hurting Wikipedia, by filling pages with broken image links. I see more and more of these disappeared images these days. It was one thing to delete images with no claim as to their copyright status, but this is going too far. That image had been around for quite a while before you decided to do this. I happened to not log in for a few days and this happens! You could have at least waited a month or so, given how obviously non-urgent the situation was.

Really, do something constructive. People like you are vandals as heart, hiding your destructive tendencies behind a disguise of lawfulness.

Thankfully, the image was replaced, as I have lost the original that you destroyed. Bryce 20:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not goof up. If I remember correctly, there was no source information on that image, which means the PD tag had no validity. The policy of Wikipedia is an image older than 7 days without a source is to be deleted. Pretty sure I followed the policy in this case. If you are unhappy with this policy, please contact User:Jimbo Wales. I remove image links from articles, when I delete the image, but I'm sure I have missed a few. Others bother not to remove broken links, which, like you said, is detrimental. Though, what could really hurt Wikipedia is if they end up in court because of any one of the thousands of copyright violations on the site. The faster we can get rid of images that are not properly sourced or licensed the better for the project. Sorry if we don't see eye-to-eye on that. Nv8200p talk 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük[edit]

Hi Bryce. I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you agree with us that deleting bots is not the best for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight this proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! Smeira 02:14, 16 January 2008.

Sorry I couldn't help, I was on vaccation. Glad that a Keep vote was obtained. Bryce (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Grammar Improvements[edit]

I am writing regarding your apparently automatic replacement of "due to the fact that" with "because." While it is often a good idea to replace the periphrastic "due to the fact that" with the slightly shorter "because," this does not actually work in all sentences, and you should not do it automatically without reading the whole sentence. You have done this twice now on the Leprechaunism article, even after it was reverted once before by a native speaker of English. Please stop changing it there. If it really bothers you, rework the whole sentence so that it works correctly with "because."

Thanks. I do appreciate your efforts to improve the grammar and style of the article.

Bryce (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the entire sentence in question twice (I try to avoid sentences where it won't make sense), and the "due to the fact that" there is clumsy and poorly-written. Per your suggestion, I've re-worked the entire sentence, but reverting back to bad grammar doesn't make any sense to me. Finally, there's the issue of the reference at the end of that sentence, which cannot be verified, and probably should be replaced. Since you obviously care for this article, I shall leave that up to you. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree that "due to the fact that" was ungrammatical, I like the reworked sentence better than either of the old versions. I'm glad that worked out well. I'll see what can be done about finding a better reference, if one is needed. Bryce (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to the fact that" should be avoided in formal writing [1][2][3][4][5]. The reference in the article now isn't verifiable; it's personal communication, and another Wikipedia editor would be hard-pressed to track down the personal communication (partly because it's personal communication, and partly because the author's name is only partially complete). A peer-reviewed medical paper would be much better. Thanks for taking a look for a better reference. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

I was trying to link to the URl, but if simply putting, "YouTube - The Annoying Orange" won't do it, then I may have to copy-paste the URL.--ObiwanLostToBarney (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]