User talk:Bryan Derksen

Use this link to add a new topic.

Old User talk

• /Archive 1 - 15 Aug 2002
• /Archive 2 - 21 Dec 2002
• /Archive 3 - 22 Nov 2003
• /Archive 4 - 4 Feb 2004
• /Archive 5 - 28 Feb 2004
• /Archive 6 - 3 Apr 2004
• /Archive 7 - 11 Jul 2004
• /Archive 8 - 1 Oct 2004
• /Archive 9 - 1 Jan 2005
• /Archive 10 - 7 Apr 2005
• /Archive 11 - 2 Aug 2005
• /Archive 12 - 24 Nov 2005
• /Archive 13 - 12 Mar 2006

---

My User Page

Heya! i'm glad you were willing to help me with my User Page. However, i just want to know why the certain categories were removed, so i can better alter my page in the future, and possibly remove/add any further content in upcoming edits. Thank you and continue the great work, friend. Feel free to contact me on my user page for anything. :)

Raccoon Fox 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

MK9 Bomb

I will work on getting those cites. They are simple calculations bassed on pure physics calculations. I believe a Cold War era damage calculator for nuclear effects can show a simple set of calcs. Alyeska 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Until then I've removed them as the figures directly contradict quotes from the episode. I hope we're not going to wind up in another argument over original research again. Bryan 07:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, I'd like to give you a barnstar for your referencing work on Mao (game)!

For referencing the unreferencable! Mao is a better article for your efforts. Fieari 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Woo! Thanks! But I'm not done yet, let's see if I've gone mad by the end of the evening... :) Bryan 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Move Request

Some time ago now you locked the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy page from moves. I was hopeing that now that a new title has been decided on that you could move the page to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians for us. I don't believe that the page move lock will be nessiccary any longer either. thanks --T-rex 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Woohookitty who locked it, but I'll take a look at talk and see what's up over there. Page locking is meant to be temporary so I'll probably unlock it. Bryan 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Koptsev

Extreme amounts of media coverage. Very famous religion-motivated crime. Cf. Baruch Goldstein, Richard Reid and the nineteen 9-11 terrorists. - the.crazy.russian τ/ç/ë 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Don't tell me, tell every future editor who stumbles across the article by adding this sort of stuff to it. As the article currently stands it gives no indication of the guy's fame. Bryan 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? {{prod}} takes a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Alexander Koptsev for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move request

Could you please move Code: LYOKO to Code Lyoko as per the the talk page discussion? The redirect page has an edit history preventing the move. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Bryan 07:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One more addition to this. Aelita (Code: LYOKO) also has a redirect preventing a move to the proper page name. - Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

goa'uld ring transporter

they werent created by the goa'uld, so, why put them there? who cares if they just took over the usage and started producing them? it is NOT goa'uld technology, and thats what the page is about, goa'uld tech... if you put it under, say, "Technology the Goa'uld have stolen", then, sure, maybe as a reference then. cause we all know the goa'uld steal most of their technology, it has been said multiple times... Xornok 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They weren't created by the Goa'uld, but they are now the only race manufacturing them (and also perhaps the Tok'ra) and pretty much the exclusive current users. IMO that's a perefectly reasonable justification for mentioning them there. I suspect most casual viewers of the show wouldn't even know the ring transporters weren't Goa'uld-originated. If one were to rigidly exclude "copied" technology like this, then Tau'ri technology#Naquahdah generator would also seem to be in violation - it's Orbanian technology. The X-301 should also probably go, the Tau'ri didn't even build all of the components for that themselves. Anyway, when I restored the ring transporters to the Goa'uld technology list I also added a note explicitly pointing out its non-Goa'uld origin. Some of the other entries could use similar notes, I notice that the Sarcophagus doesn't mention Ancient healing device for example. Bryan 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

because the sarcophagus was developed from the ancient healing device, whereas the ring transporter has not undergo any change at all. the ring transporter is still the same design, etc, that the ancients used. the orbanian design was different from the tau'ri one, but yes, it is in violation... maybe "Tau'ri design naquahdah generator", because it is NOT tau'ri tech, only the design... but i suppose the mach 2 would be, because they engineered it to be 600% more effective then the original... something the orbanian people couldnt do... the x-301 is experimental, the fact that they added different components means that they were trying to modify it... which they failed with the 301... its a hybrid, but it led to the 302... just like taking an idea, transforming it, and making it your own... -Xornok 00:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This all seems like excessive hair-splitting to me. It's all well and good to have detailed descriptions clarifying these technologies' origins within the show, but we shouldn't go so far as to make the article's layout or contents violate expectations in a non-obvious way. People who are reading about Goa'uld technology are naturally going to expect ring transporters to be mentioned since Goa'uld use and manufacture them so extensively. In computer programming terms this is the principle of least astonishment. If we don't mention ring transporters under Goa'uld technology I expect there will be an endless stream of people such as myself coming to "correct" the "omission". Bryan 06:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe

Hello Mr. Derksen, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link to it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)