User talk:Bobby D. Bryant

Hello

Hello there Bobby, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Firefly (television)

Hey, glad to see someone else working on Firefly! Thanks for your contributions. This show truly ended before its time... -- Wapcaplet 12:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Canberra

Nice work on the Australian War Memorial, Bobby. Do you live in Canberra? Arno 23:04, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I was just there for a week in December for the Congress on Evolutionary Computation. I really enjoyed the visit, and met a lot of nice people. I had about a day and a half of free time, so I visited the Dinosaur Museum, the National Gallery of Australia, and the Australian War Memorial. The latter impressed me so much that I spent two afternoons there, and left wishing I had had more time for it. I'll try to add some more notes about the collection as I have time.

That's fine. I've added one or two more notes there. Hope you don't mind them. Arno 23:44, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Old European Script

The Old European Script article looks much better now. Thanks. But should it be listed at all under Alphabet, given that it's not even certain that it constitutes writing, let alone an alphabetical system? -- ChrisO 23:58, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I deliberately added it a few places like that so that more people with sound knowledge of writing systems will notice it and, hopefully, help us keep the page policed for statements of nonsense. It's also a good place to point out the dubious status of the OES as a script. But I won't take offense if you decide to remove it. — B.Bryant 02:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hittites

I saw your note that you want to re-write the Hittites page. I'm interested in seeing your work; while I wouldn't label what's there "hearsay and biblical legend", it could stand some work. (Once upon a time I actually took a class on Hittite, so I might still be able to point out a major error or two.) I'm still trying to untangle the pages dealing with the kings of Judah & Israel, so I doubt if I'll be able to contribute anything to that article myself. -- llywrch 04:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It just seems really unfocused, disorganized, and full of somebody's pet topics that really don't belong in an article about the Hittites. I'll probably start by imposing a new outline on the page and copying the existing material to the relevant places — losing a bit of it in the process. I'm certainly not an authority on the subject, but I've done some coursework and supervised independent study, and I have a big pile of professionally selected reference materials that it would be fun to work through again. — B.Bryant 06:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Neural Networks and their models

Thanks for moving the template to the right place. Still I think you're wrong, see my argument in the discussion. Ben (talk) 00:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, some one else moved it. I noticed it in the history list, but I forget who it was. — B.Bryant 03:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just checked out your background. No flattery intended, you have some nice articles in your reference list. I especially liked the Who article series and the Afrika Korps. Ben (talk) 01:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've actually been thinking about replacing that list, because I've had my fingers in so many things lately that it would be a big effort to keep it up to date. My latest binge has been a thorough reworking of List of German divisions in WWII to put everything into series and identify aliases. It's far from done though, because I keep branching off to create stubs for the divisions, rework some existing ones that have problems, and force some order/regularity on the namings and the hierarchy of relevant categories. — B.Bryant 03:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems we share a common interest in WWII as well as in CS and some other stuff. I will check some of the articles later. Ben (talk) 10:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

hi, Bobby! There has been a new development in the Neural Networks discussion. There has been a concur vote, meaning "yes, move, but the page should be for disambiguation". Seems reasonable. I'll be off for the weekend and will see how you decided on Monday, cu, Ben (talk) 20:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Operations and Units

I see you restored Category:German units in the Arctic to the three articles i removed them from. Care to explain why these articles should be in that category? Operation Polarfuchs, Operation Silberfuchs and Operation Renntier are operations, not units. (And besides, the name of the category is wrong, most of the units listed where nowhere near the arctic).

I'm making a distinction between Category:X and List of X. I certainly wouldn't put those articles in a List of German units in the Arctic, but I put them in the category so people can easily find more articles on the topic. — B.Bryant 12:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not the way categories here on Wikipedia are supposed to work. It is extremely confusing to find operations and even wars in a category that is clearly meant for units. It is hardly easier for people to find relevant info if there are a number of random articles in the category. If people want to find the operations, they will find them through the different unit's articles. I am going to revert your changes. -- Jniemenmaa

Also, what units are you talking about not bein in the Arctic? The Arctic Circle runs south of Kandalaksha in the USSR and Bodø in Norway. Did I include some articles about units that didn't operate there? — B.Bryant 12:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at Arctic, it has nothing to do with the Arctic Circle. --Jniemenmaa

Your "list of aliases" in German XXXVI Corps is not according to the standard. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style-- Jniemenmaa 10:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the reader needs to know that s/he hasn't been redirected to the wrong article, and the list of aliases at the top seems to be the easiest way to do that, and I always put the reader's needs over stylistic regulations. — B.Bryant 12:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The other names can be presented i bold somewhere else in the lead section. As was done in German XXXVI Corps. -- Jniemenmaa 12:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)

Thanks for the heads-up on this. Do you have any suggestion re:List of German WWII POW camps ? Regards - Oldfarm 00:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article you link is now the sum total of what I know about the topic. Though it's interesting to learn about the Wehrkreis numbers being used... I've been thinking about writing a stub Wehrkreis article so I can mention them in the order-of-battle articles without leaving readers in the dark. — B.Bryant 12:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message. Actually, what I do is when wide awake, I often try to pursue some scientific research, but occasionally peek at Wiki. When tired I look to see the latest changes to things in my watchlist. When I'm sleepy I look at random links and fix up English or nearly trivial items (like Prince Rupert's drops left out of Prince Rupert, and the adoption of the Rosenberg children by the Meeropols having been omitted). When I work on a military-related article it's usually because my eye spotted an obvious misspelling or omission. But thanks for the invitation to look at nomenclature. If I had more time I guess what I would "get into" is the creationists and similar pseudoscience, such as parapsychology and "General Semantics". But I am discouraged. In a random hitting of links in the wee hours I ran into the page on "liquefaction" and noticed it omitted the main usage by physicists and chemists on the liquefaction of gases. So I put in a tiny addition on that. The article, which was on soil liquefaction in earthquakes etc, otherwise looked OK, to a scientist who is not a geologist. Woe unto me, woe unto science and reason, if not sanity. With "liquefaction" on my watchlist, next I saw someone removed a link to "creationism" there, a link I had not noticed. I agreed it was inappropriate, and took a look at "Creationism" - which had no reference to "liquefaction" (sic) but which had some slurs on scientists (e.g. they are crass materialists). I touched that up a bit and sent a thank-you to the chap who had removed the link. Dear, dear, the person who claims to be the original author of the liquefaction article sent me a polite but not very friendly note pointing out that he was a creationist (I think it was Untgss) and had written the article to start with. To make a very long story only long, some geologists have been looking at that liquefaction page and it is full of errors, as you would expect to see in an article by a pseudoscientist. I just did not pick up on them. That is what these guys do - pick up some ideas out of context and in deliberate ignorance (dislike of science), and warp them to fit their view, writing articles that look good to the unwary, but lead one down some garden path, I am afraid not that of Eden, but a sort of labyrinth, possibly with a Minotaur at the center. I am leaning towards finding a different late-night pastime, because I do not think sensible folk can keep up with creationists, followers of "Scientology" and parapsychology, and so on. In fact the articles on simple positional astronomy seem to have been written largely by astrologers, too. But thanks Peter Pdn 13:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Morton Smith

Thanks for the edits. I was trying to get the stub there so we could have something to look at rather than red links.

No prolem; I was in a fix-em-up mood last night anyway. — B.Bryant 18:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that 1915 is his birthdate, although I've seen at least one reference to 1919. --Bastique 16:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The_Who albums

I just re-read some of the articles you created. Thanks a lot for them! Ben talk contr 04:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Be aware that lots of other people are also working hard to make those pages worth reading. — B.Bryant 02:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek language

Perhaps you hadn't noticed that I had already corrected the "petty vandalism" before you overwrote my edit? --Macrakis 15:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For today, off the top of my head, observing your unfortunate three-per-band limit, omitting lots of obscure Steeleye Span songs, and in ordered by group rather than favoritism, it would be something like –

13th Floor Elevators
- "Slip Inside this House"
Dire Straits
- "Tunnel of Love"
Every Mother's Son
- "Come on Down to My Boat Baby"
The Monkees
- "I'm a Believer"
The Moody Blues
- "Our Guessing Game"
- "Question"
- "You and Me"
The Who
- "Bargain"
- "Go to the Mirror!"
- "Happy Jack"

But such a list leaves out a lot of really nice songs.

Of possible interest

You may be interested in taking a look at Talk:Intelligent_design/Marshills_NPOV_objections - there is a straw poll about whether the ID article is POV, as it allegedly contains too much criticism of ID and is not sympathetic enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Monkeys

Hello,

I noticed that much of the information you added to the Twelve Monkeys article last August also appears here. My guess is that the website copied content from Wikipedia. They don't license it under the GDLF, so I would like to contact them, but first I need to make sure that the content in question was added by you and doesn't come from some other souce. Please let me know.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like their whole page is just a version of the Wikipedia article, including some text I wrote specifically for Wikipedia. For example, it contains my brief mention of David Drake's Birds of Prey, which I added on August 22, 2005, the same day I started the Wikipedia article about the book. – B.Bryant 02:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your response. I have removed the link to that site from the article and sent an e-mail to the site owner asking him/her to follow Wikipedia guidelines for copying content.

Acegikmo1 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Congrats!
You have been named one of User:Editor37's favourite members!
For your contributions about The Who.
He loves you.

No content in Category:Battle of Gallipoli museum exhibits

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Battle of Gallipoli museum exhibits, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Battle of Gallipoli museum exhibits 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:Battle of Gallipoli museum exhibits, please affix the template {{hangon}} 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) 04:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bobby D. Bryant. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (The Who Sell Out) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Who Sell Out, Bobby D. Bryant!

Wikipedia editor Innisfree987 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hey, you’re just get this message because someone erroneously redirected your entry, and then fixed the error, so it went back in the review queue. Entry as good as ever, thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Innisfree987's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Innisfree987 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountain monuments and memorials has been nominated for deletion

Category:Mountain monuments and memorials has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 01:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]