User talk:Brucevdk

Archives
July 2005 – May 2006

Brucevdk. I am not sure what you had intended to say with the sentence "NSD was developed." on the NSD article you updated recently. Please update/clarify. Thanks -- enyc Enyc 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. These were the changes I made, I never modified the content of the article I just converted external links into references and added a disambiguation link to the Nassi-Shneiderman diagram article. The changes you're talking about were made by an anonymous user (User:80.126.124.36) after my own, see this change log. --Bruce 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you removed the animated GIF image from Franklin D. Roosevelt which someone else recently added from Wikipedia Commons, and was wondering why? JGHowes ^talk - 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because of 2 reasons: 1) I'm not very fond of animated GIF images and 2) it wasn't near anything relevant. I looked it up and the image was added by User:Alex:Dan on February 16, 2007 (see user contributions, see article diff) along with many other animated GIFs to other articles.

I have to admit that my reasons for removing the image are quite subjective/personal, if you strongly feel like the image should be put back into the article you're obviously free to do so. I'm not aware of any policy/guideline recommending against using animated GIFs representing fragments of movies. If you do add it back, I request that you verify the reason as mentioned on the image description page. Notice that the original caption was "Roosevelt signing war declaration against Japan in 1941".

I'm wondering though, why did you feel the need to contact me about this issue? --Bruce 08:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bruce, for the info. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about that particular gif, I was just wondfering if there's some Wikipedia policy or guideline about animated gifs I'm not aware of, and figured you'd know. I refrain from reverting an established editor without discussing it first, hence my post on your Talk page. Cheers, JGHowes ^talk - 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, glad to be of service. --Bruce 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note since I thought that you might be interested.. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message regarding your edit (diff [1]) at the talk page of the article Namir Noor-Eldeen. Thanks Acebulf (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied --Bruce (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your message at the afd discussion just now. I am not sure about the particulars of this incident, however it was Durova (talk · contribs) who nominated the video clip for FPC status, as such you may wish to drop a line on her talk page and see if she could give you some idea about where you should start you investigation. I wish you luck in you attempt to uncover the information. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know, they kept File:Plutchik-wheel.svg (uncopyrightable). There may be hope left for Art and Science after all.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alan Yurko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Yurko until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Scientizzle 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Los Angeles Tennis Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]