User talk:Bryan H Bell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page includes sections last updated between 2001 and 2010, inclusive.

Image Tagging for Image:Bryan_dot.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bryan_dot.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated the image to GPU-self. Bryan H Bell 01:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Noah Oppenheim, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theintellectualdevotional.com/authors.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted material. Bryan H Bell 04:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move from The Intellectual Devotional. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to rewrite the information, however, thereby removing the original infringement of copyright. — madman bum and angel 04:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind tone in your message. It was not my intent to move the entire contents of the Intellectual Devotional page to a new location, which is why I didn't use the "Move" tab. I only intended to create a new entry for information about the book's author which was off-topic on the page about the book itself. In essence, I was splitting the page into separate smaller articles. Am I going about this the wrong way? How should I go about moving a portion of a page to a new location? Your help is appreciated. Bryan H Bell 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you only move a portion of a page, generally you must link to the main article, both on the article and on the talk page. Should the original page be deleted, you must contact an administrator requesting a history merge. Cheers! — madman bum and angel 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hancock Esther.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hancock Esther.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the errors in my upload and rationale. I have replaced the image with a lower resolution version and updated the fair use rationale template accordingly. Bryan H Bell 18:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trust Me.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trust Me.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the article's name to the "Non-free use rationale" template for the image. This is the only reason I can see that the image was flagged as disputed for fair use, so I'm also removing the disputed fair use rationale template from the image's page. Bryan H Bell 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Blue Sky (2007 film)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mr. Blue Sky (2007 film), because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fox's Biscuits logo.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fox's Biscuits logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the copyright status. I'm not sure why this didn't get added to the image page since I'm sure I selected the non-free logo status when uploading. -- Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Results notes

In Democratic Party (United_States) presidential primaries, 2008#Candidates and results, I thought the intent of the more extensive notes was to inhibit anonymous users and less-well-trained people from making changes to the table that didn't agree with the stated sources. Yes, it's enough for properly trained users to just state the reference in the column heading, but not all of us are so well-trained. That's why I made the notes invitingly easy to read.

So, I agree with your putting the CBS News reference into the table header, but don't agree with your removing the source statement from the notes. Wdfarmer (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about the intent of the notes and you have a good point. While I liked what you'd done with the formatting, it seemed to push the table even farther down the page. I was concerned about the page space taken up with administrative information overwhelming the page space devoted to actual article content. I had noticed that Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview of results doesn't include a note about the sources above its table and seems to have no more or less trouble than "our" article does. So I thought I'd experiment with cutting down on some of the redundant information in the note, something which had been bothering me for a while anyway. But I'm not married to the deletions I made. If you want to put the sources back into the table notes, you'll get no further argument from me. What do you think about removing the definitions of pledged/superdelegate from the notes? That information is already given later in the article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. See what you think of the current notes. Wdfarmer (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. Oh, and thanks much for your help kicking around the templates idea. I haven't had time yet to learn how to create templates in Wikipedia, so I also don't yet understand how best to use them. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm currently an unemployed software engineer, so I have lots of time. I'd wanted to understand templates myself, so it was a welcome opportunity. Wdfarmer (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User in 77.132.192.0 - 77.132.255.255

There's been quite a bit of editing activity in Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries from the 77.132.192.0 - 77.132.255.255 domain in Germany, who I believe are all the same user. I've left messages on the IP talk pages each time, but haven't gotten a response yet; the latest one is at User talk:77.132.240.19‎. I hope we can get this person to become more collaborative; I don't know and haven't tried to figure out the reasoning behind their latest changes to the Overview of results, but issued a revert instead, as you did this morning. Wdfarmer (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my slow response to your note. My ISP has been having trouble and I've not had regular access to Wikipedia. I completely sympathize with the difficulties you've had with this unreasonable IP user. Something in the text of their edit summaries and discussion page posts makes me think they're maybe a little unbalanced. However, after reverting their first edits I originally felt a bit of remorse, feeling I may have been a bit rash in calling their edits vandalism. While I think the user's edits have been confusing and disruptive to the article, I don't think they were made maliciously. I think the user just has some unhelpful ideas for the article and is unaware of how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. Judging from their discussion posts, the user also seems to have some issues with appropriately responding to others. Nevertheless, I will do my best to support you in your efforts to deal with this disruptive user. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. True, the edits were not malicious, but I felt they were too aggressively being done unilaterally without consensus. As the "Overview of results" table develops and we develop standards for it, I'm becoming more defensive against edits that do more than just update its numbers to match the agreed-upon references, particularly when those edits come from an anonymous IP. The IP domain is in Germany, so I guess that the user is not a native English speaker, so we have a language barrier adding confusion, and it's possible that they're more experienced with the German Wikipedia, which could have a different culture. But I think they're probably just young, brash, and inexperienced, which is great for innovation and creativity, but not quite what I want applied to what I consider by now to be a mature product, this article. They do seem to have participated in our discussion, so I hope they continue to be productive if they would just register. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion polling added

Hi, you probably right about my add dividing the Overview results.. Would be good though to have a link to the page I added as I frequently open one page or the other and having the link on the same page I think would be good, I'm sure other people would click on it watching the poll results as well. What do you think? --JoeJoe11 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be ok to include a link to the opinion polling article using a See also section at the end of the article (before the References section). I just don't think the link warrants its own special section. I think the scope of the Results article ought to be confined to the results of the official contests. Of course, this is only my opinion. You might want to post your proposal on Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and see what the other editors think. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your advice is fair enough, I'll try with the See Also link. Thanks, regards. --JoeJoe11 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryan - POV, etc.

Hey Bryan, I thought I'd shoot you a message on the side... First, thanks for the edit on the democratic elections page. Looking at your edits, I can see that you're very serious about avoiding POV. I am, as well. I respect your concern, which is why I'm sending you this side-talk. First -- you're correct that the state's won count represents Obama in a favorable light. So does total delegates and pledged delegates. Party leaders present Clinton in a favorable light... The reality is: in an election, facts are favorable or unfavorable. IMO, our job isn't to ignore facts because they may encourage a bias. If that were the case, we should just hang it up altogether. Rather, we should present facts as fairly and accurately as we can. The state count is an important figure. People care about it. The press cares about it. And it's important that wikipedia present this statistic as accurately as we can -- because, as strange as it sounds, there are different statistics out there for this number (check out barackobama.com, for an example of this). Anyhoo -- I hear what you're saying, but I think this is important info. If someone put in a section called "11 contests in a row" for example, I'd zap that personally. It doesn't belong in wiki. But the basic info does, IMO. Again, thanks for your work on these election sites. I'm one of the primary editor on the LIST OF SUPERDELEGATES page, and I know that it takes a commitment to stay up on the process. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to carry on further discussion of this at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and I have responded to you there, but I will provide a short rebuttal to your comments above. While it may be a fact that, for example, Clinton won the most delegates in California, it is not a fact that she "won" that state's nomination. Stating so ignores that fact that Obama picked up nearly half of that state's 370 delegates, putting him almost as close as Clinton in California to wining the Demoratic Party's nomination. Statistics about the number of states in which each candidate won the most delegates do not in themselves convey a point of view, but presenting such statistics as if they were an indicator of the candidate's progress in the nomination process does convey a point of view. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Brian. I'm fine with the consensus opinion and am happy with the page edit. FYI, the reason why I replied over here is that I wanted you to know, personally, that I respect where you're coming from. I didn't need to rehash my arguments. That was overkill and was "off topic" to my real purpose. My apologies. Thanks again for your hard work, and regards. BTW, please feel free to delete this section. My comments are meant for you. MH --Scantron2 (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. As I stated on Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, after thinking further about it, I came to the realization that I was wrong about the presence of the "States won" column introducing POV to the article. Presenting those statistics as if they were an indicator of the candidate's progress in the nomination process doesn't convey a point of view, it's merely misleading. My apologies to you for mislabelling your contribution as POV. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas Democratic primary, 2008

I added the CNN reference for the caucus because it gave totals. The official reference doesn't have totals (from what I can see). Andareed (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andareed. That makes sense, but won't it be confusing as to which source the precinct convention numbers come from? I'd prefer a single source, unless some numbers come from one source and other numbers from another. By the way, the ones currently in the table come from the party source. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas primary

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I'm trying to move us quickly toward consensus on the Texas issue. Please vote here: Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Moving Toward Consensus. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Northwesterner1. I have placed my vote. You did a nice job summarizing and clarifying the issues requiring consensus. Your input to this and other articles has been consistently valuable and well-reasoned. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Event-based rows

Thanks for the excellent work here, Bryan! I'm not voting, as I find myself genuinely conflicted about this one, and I will wholeheartedly support the consensus that emerges. I'm more concerned with how we present and explain this information in the article once we've reached a new consensus. (i.e. If the consensus is to keep event-based rows, I think there is a separate issue to be considered about whether to include the summary at the top, "X candidate won X events.") In any case, the discussion this week has been exhaustive and hard to keep up with -- I appreciate you bringing it to a solid resolution. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope I adequately and fairly summarized the various views (some of which were yours). I'm sorry to hear that you're not voting since your insightful commentary on the talk pages as well as your excellent writing on the articles themselves has elevated my respect for your input above that of many others. I agree that the decision is a tough one, though. I'm certainly more conflicted than I was at the outset of this past week and my vote shifted back and forth as I was writing the position summaries. I suspect the reason we've had such a tough time resolving this issue is that it's truly a tough decision to make with equally valid arguments on either side. Anyway, I'm glad to have your clear-headed input whatever the outcome, but especially if we decide to continue with event-based rows. I agree taking that path will involve some special challenges in presenting the information clearly. In addition to the issue you raised, we'll also need to wrestle with how (or whether) we display (and total) estimated results when there's more than one row for each state in which to display them. I think we can figure it out, though. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi primary

Here is where I got my info for the changes I made to Mississippi, Obama picks up two more delegates in Mississippi. HoosierState^Talk 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good news for Obama's campaign, but until the Mississippi delegate numbers are updated by the reliable sources we're using (not blog entries such as these), we should keep the counts as is. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. HoosierState^Talk 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though that article is itself a blog (albeit the blog for a major media outlet) MSNBC's election results page has now also been updated with the numbers, so I think it's safe to go forward with the updated numbers. I've updated Mississippi Democratic primary, 2008 with that MSNBC election results page and someone has already updated Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I didn't much doubt that the reported change was true, but didn't want to update Wikipedia articles until it was confirmed by a reliable source. We can observe a little patience here. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a newspaper. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in articles

If you have a problem with the location of an image in an article, the typical response would be to move it rather than deleting the image altogether. Further, your placement of the image in the article on Washington's Democratic Caucus is purely semantics. It looks better at the top of the section and the caption isn't misleading at all. You could also pay a visit to WP:DONTBEADICK for a quick refresher on how not to come across like a jerk. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Image:43rd_Legislative_District_Democratic_Caucus_1.jpg which you added to Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and Washington Democratic caucuses, 2008. For the former article, I didn't have a problem with the location of the image in the article. Rather, I didn't think the image was relevant enough to any section of the article. It therefore seemed more appropriate to remove it rather than move it. The reason you gave in your edit summary when you reverted my change seemed inadequate, so I changed it back with an edit summary that addressed your reason.

The image did seem more appropriate to the latter article, which is why I didn't remove it from that one. However, in that case I did think the image was misplaced within the article, so I moved it. I agree this leaves the article's appearance temporarily a bit unbalanced, but as we add more content I think it will even out.

I'm sorry if my edits (and/or their accompanying edit summaries) upset you. My intention was to address the appropriateness and placement of the image, not to address the merits of your image or you personally. Telling me to visit an essay titled "Don't be a Dick" so I can learn "how not to come across like a jerk" seems a bit strong as well as a violation of WP:NPA. Nevertheless, I'll take your criticism to heart and try to be more careful about the tone of my edit summaries. If my tone was indeed inapprorpriate or uncivil, I sincerely apologize. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

biscuit disambig

Rather than immediately revert your changes, let me explain my disagreement.

1) My summary of North American biscuits is relatively short and to the point. With all due respect, yours is unweildy and odd. First, soft and moist are practically the same thing when it comes to quick bread. Biscuits and cake rounds are both made in rounds, but cakes are often made in rectangles as well and biscuits can be made in scone-like triangles. I don't get the point of comparing items that are often circular to each other, when you can just describe the first directly as circular. Finally, it is quite odd to use five descriptors in a row to describe and object; this makes the sentence read in an awkward fashion.

before:
*[[Biscuit]], in North America, a small round of [[quick bread]] marked by a rich and moist crumb
after:
*[[Biscuit]], in North America, a small, round, soft, moist, and cake-shaped piece of quick bread

2) Why would you remove any mention of the biscuit as the term is used in the UK? Are you denying its usage or demoting the relevance of non-American culture? Or do you not understand it is a different object altogether (more similar to a cookie)?

Your changes make no sense to me. Please explain. Rosenbluh (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing to me to disucuss this rather than simply reverting my changes. I think we can find a way to edit the page that will work for both of us. However, I think it would be better to discuss content issues on the article's talk page, so I'll respond there. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and moving the discussion to the appropriate page. Feel free to delete my post here. (I only wrote here since I thought you might not be watching the disambig talk page.) Rosenbluh (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Raritan Valley

You can find this in the discussion section of Central Jersey. But I have sent you the message anyways.

Hi Bryan H. Bell. Thanks for your message. Also, thanks for introducing your proposal in a civil manner (unfortunately, as Alansohn can attest, that has not always been the case in discussions about this article). Regarding the Raritan Valley and its existence, I have no strong feelings one way or another. The original article on Central Jersey before I came, while filled with inaccuracies, did mention the demographic shift in Central Jersey and how that shift has led many to believe that Central Jersey simply does not exist. I am assuming that this refers to the Central Jersey counties bordering North Jersey, which is basically the Raritan Valley counties. I hesitated to remove the entire article because doing so might have resulted in editing wars stemming from the complete change of the original article. Despite this, I have substantially revised that original section. I added comments about how people in the Raritan Valley still think they're Central Jersey. I also came up with the suggestion of calling the Raritan Valley North/Central Jersey. The latter seems to be supported by evidence. There is a Realtors association using North Central, a family website devoted to North/Central and a reference by US News using North/Central. That is enough for me to propose that we keep the section. There certainly seems to be a push towards defining the area at least as the northern part of Central Jersey (a Forbes article uses this). Therefore, there is certainly a "northern" component to the area, which you can say is linked to North Jersey. There is also a geographic reality about the Raritan Valley counties because they are geographically north of the center of the state. All of this would appear to justify a small paragraph on the "northern" component of the Raritan Valley. I don't see this as "striking," because the section is supported by evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jps57 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You actually have to dispute what you think is disputed

Hello Bryan, I understand your concerns, but I see no reason not to remove the dispute because you haven't added anything to the discussion. If you would like to add something to the discussion by disputing or refuting my analysis, then you are more than welcome to do so. Furthermore, there are three cites in that section. I don't see how you can label that as disputed when citations are present. Also, the line in the beginning is simply a preview of the paragraph in question. No citation is necessary there because there are three citations in that section already. I don't see where you're going with this other than to prolong the time this section is considered "disputed." At least Alansohn raised an issue about his doubts that the Raritan Valley exists. I have refuted that presumption with sources. I have also refuted anticipated concerns about the other section by sourcing that section as well. You, on the other hand, haven't brought anything up. You have simply labeled a section as "disputed" for no reason. Delay is not an excuse. I do not mean to be rude, but you have to put up or shutup. Talk about the actual issue, and then we'll talk about changes. If you don't, you're just wasting time. Jps57 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)jps57

Jps57, it's not necessary to cross-post comments you've placed on Talk:Central Jersey here on my user talk page. The Central Jersey article is on my watchlist so I'll see your comments when you post them there. Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening

Bryan.

I have reverted the opening. I dissent from your opinion that the opening is too "authoritative." It is not. The Raritan Valley does exist and there is very strong evidence that the suburban northern shore exists (Bayshore region). That is all laid out in the article. The opening you proposed was confusing because it essentially supported the current configuration while confusing the reader. The opening I have very clearly espouses the idea that Central Jersey is more accurately defined through New Jersey's center of population as opposed to New Jersey's geographic center. This is supported by the weight of evidence. We are here now because of this evidence.

I will say this. There was an "other theories" section before you came. That section talked about Mercer and Northern Ocean. It was a truthful analysis of both regions. Someone came on and protested the section, so I have changed the section to only talk about Mercer County. If your concern is about Mercer County, you have nothing to be worried about. Mercer was included in the key NYTimes cites defining the counties. I felt, however, that Mercer County deserved its own space because of the unique characteristics of the county. The whole NY Metro thing is simply a formality. All of Mercer County is part of the NY Metro area, so that should not be an issue.

The opening is not opinion. The Raritan Valley and suburban N. Jersey shore do exist. They do comprise Central Jersey. And Mercer County is definitely in Central Jersey. So there shouldn't be an issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jps57 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 May 6 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on the article's talk page. By the way, from now on would you please sign each of your posts on my user talk page? Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

I'll tell you what Bryan. Why don't you tell me what you want to be included in the article? It is obvious that you are uncomfortable with the current configuration of things, so just tell me what's on your mind. Why are you here? What changes do you wish to make? I am very candid about making changes that are supported by evidence. If you tell me what changes you want, perhaps we can work with the article. Just be honest with me. Tell me what you want to include. I am perfectly willing to consider your proposals, but unlike a lot of other agenda pushers here, you have to tell me what exactly you want. Jps57 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)jps57

Your hardball tactics won't work

Bryan, I am very disappointed by your hardball actions. You are a coward. You have failed to provide justification for your flawed opening statement revision. Your failure is based only on your insecurity. Why don't you just tell me what you want? You haven't done that yet. Where are you in the discussion section? Fact is Bryan, you need to put up or shutup. You cannot come here and slowly whittle this article away to your personal preferences. Jps57 (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)jps57

I'm not playing hardball, I'm just asserting my right to make changes to the article. You have not seen my response on the article talk page yet because I am still composing it. A little patience with me, please. I'm apparently not as fast a typist as you. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you!

Just wanted to say thank you for your ongoing help on the Washington Democratic Caucuses 2008 page. I'm enjoying starting to learn how to properly edit wikipedia, and your comments have ongoingly been very helpful and courteous. You rock. Benjaminady (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy to help. I remember well how daunting the task can be to learn all the ins and outs of editing Wikipedia. It's easy to get started, but difficult to master. I recently finished reading John Broughton's book Wikipedia - The Missing Manual, which I recommend. The book does a good job of organizing the overwhelming amount of information available on Wikipedia about how to edit. It would have taken me much less time to learn all this stuff had the book been available to me to read a few years ago. Even now, though, reading it has helped me to fill in the gaps in my knowledge of editing. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008‎

Hey, we've been missing you these days over at the Democratic primary articles. I know you put an incredible amount of work into them, and I imagine you're taking a well-deserved break. Feel free to ignore this if that's the case. But I thought these discussions about whether to freeze delegate counts and how to limit or structure the article scope would be up your alley. Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Northwesterner. My life situation has changed (I've returned to college and taken a part-time job to pay for it), so I don't have much time to devote to Wikipedia editing. I'll stop by when I can, but I don't expect to be able to participate as frequently as before. Thanks for all the work you've done on the Democratic primaries articles. They have benefitted greatly from your effort, care, and attention. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand. Thanks for all your work, & best of luck with everything. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fox's Biscuits logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fox's Biscuits logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in McVitie's, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not add lists of indiscriminate information, as you did to the article mentioned above. — Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Bryan dot.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bryan dot.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Roseanne

I disagree, all evidence points to most of the last season -not- being in canon. Lots42 (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is being used in an article once again. I have removed the orphaned banner from the image's page. Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Siskel & Ebert.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siskel & Ebert.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Roger Ebert & the Movies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Roger Ebert & the Movies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ebert & Roeper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ebert & Roeper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ebert & Roeper and the Movies.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ebert & Roeper and the Movies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ebert & Roeper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ebert & Roeper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)