This user may have left Wikipedia. Dsreyn has not edited Wikipedia since March 29, 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Dsreyn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 08:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

From where you took information about World's Strongest Man competition 2005 title? I corrected the information to show the real winner Žydrūnas Savickas. Please revert back information on Pudzianowski page (he didn't win it in Quebec)--Vytis1 15:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So others can join the discussion more easily if necessary, I have responded on the discussion page for the World's Strongest Man page. Dsreyn 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message about the mis-categorization. I got careless towards the end. -- Pinktulip 17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion of this subject (Collins' versus Collins's) a while back in the MoS talk. (It's now somewhere in the archives.) Some people took your view. Others, like myself, tend to follow The Elements of Style (Strunk & White), according to which the omission of the final s is a newspaper headline writing shortcut that shouldn't be used elsewhere. Various other style guides were quoted, some agreeing and some disagreeing. Still other Wikipedians took the position that whether you write the s depends on how you would pronounce the word. It would be hard to say with confidence that any one answer is the most commonly accepted.

I think that the earlier discussion was at least a year ago, though. If you think there might now be a consensus for the shortened form, you could raise it again and urge that the MoS be changed. JamesMLane t c 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Before I make any move on that page again (as I was the one who re-ordered), I'll apologize for the POV accusation. I would like to, due to my belief the wrestler is the most notable of the "Steve Austins," have "Stone Cold Steve Austin" lead the list. What's your view? Thanks, Bob ````70.20.237.163 (sorry, new to properly signing)

I'm actually not sure there's anything wrong with changing it, but I don't see a need, either. I don't think there's generally much signifance to the order of listings on disambiguation pages. Usually, if the list gets long, the convention seems to be to group related items, or to arrange things alphabetically. Incidentally, you might want to consider registering if you intend to be a regular editor. Dsreyn 01:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. I've actually been editing probably for about 6 months now with unsteady IP's. I just prefer being as anonymous as possible in terms of site registration.

and as I just realized, my IP moved again, lol since i edited that disambig page

I guess I don't quite understand the motivation for not registering. Your username can be just about anything - it doesn't have to reveal your identity. Anonymous edits tend to be looked at more suspiciously by a lot of people. Dsreyn 03:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(Same person as before, just different IP)- I understand your view, but almost everything needs some kind of registration and its nice once and awhile not to think about it. Also, I've seen many user pages, and it almost is like a competition for most active, most created list, most creative, and its just too trivial. Thanks though!

Hello! The link for Scottish Forsyth in this article points to an American person. (el wiki user mmsoft --62.1.62.237 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC))reply

Why did you cat Derek Oldbury under "British draughts players" when he is the only one categorized as such? Shouldn't there be more than one member of a category? NTK 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply

In the category "Draughts players", there are several similar categories - it looks like the trend is to put players in categories by nationality, so I followed that trend (note that the categories for Barbadian, Dutch, and Russian draughts players all contain just one player). I don't see a problem with a category having just one member, particularly if there's a good possibility that more will be added later. Dsreyn 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply

Why did you report my article on "Jackson McNeill" as vandalism. I'm very hurt. All of the information provided in the article was true and factual. It was also helpful and interesting to the many people interested in Jackson McNeill's life. Please, justify yourself.

If you go to the revision history and do a diff, you'll see that I didn't report your edits as vandalism. It was the subsequent edits by 71.194.134.169 that were vandalism. Your last version is the one that was restored. However, now that you have been kind enough to point this out, it's not really obvious that this "Jackson McNeill" is anyone of significance (for example, although you say he's an actor, there is no listing for him in IMDB.com). So, I'm taking that out as well. If you really think he's important enough to be listed, it can be discussed on the Jackson discussion page. Dsreyn 10:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply

I moved Burns (disambiguation) back to Burns. I also left a note on the talk page of Robert Burns. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply

I wasn't aware of having done this. If I did, it was probably inadvertent. McPhail 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply

Hi. I see you do quite a bit of disambiguation. You might want to look into Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. If you're computer-savvy, it's a very handy tool for several things, esp. disambiguation.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)reply

It is pretty obvious that your advocacy deleting of Robert D. Parks is revenge for my nomination of Robert Reynolds. Nice. Captaintruth 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about the Robert Reynolds article, so suggesting that I'm getting revenge is preposterous. You might have a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I'm sure if the Robert D. Parks article belongs here, the AfD process will work properly. Dsreyn 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)reply

thanx for the assist. i actually planed to combine the list but it was late last nite and i was tired. i also want to give to who ever created the original list a chance to comment.joe 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)reply

Yeah, I agree on the value of lists, but to be honest i was a bit fustrated by the sheer carelessness of the page when I made that edit summary. Problem here is that quite a few pages, though they have potential to be usefull, are candidates for speedy deletion --Coil00 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply

I have cleaned up the article and cited sources. Might you consider withdrawing your nomination? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)reply

Thanks for the additions at Dan Levenson. I had the bio link originally because his site is very "busy," almost chaotic, and it could prove difficult for a general reader to find info about his life and background -- so I did the work for them. I don't see a problem with linking to the main page as well as the bio, as the main point is to get the proper information into the hands of our readers. Badagnani 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)reply

Please do not make AfD nominations of articles that have been proposed for deletion, as you did for laction and Down with the Clown, unless the prod has been contested by someone intentionally removing the {{prod}} tag. Prod is intended to reduce the number of AfDs, and your AfD'ing uncontested prods reverses this. Regards, Kimchi.sg 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply

Some notes in addition to the above: 1) Afd is far more resource intensive than prod; most articles should be prodded before taken to afd; 2) In this case you doubly wasted efforts since I had already taken the time to nominate the three articles for proposed deletion (the third was Here's the sitch); 3) the very least you should have done is drop me a note on my talk page if you were going to deprod articles I had nominated not because you contested deletion but also felt it should be deleted since you took it straight off to afd 4) Afd nominations, in my opinion should take the time to explain their reasoning by reference to policies/guidelines. In this case you didn't even bother to copy my policy & guideline linked prod text, yet lackadaisically copied my reasoning. If I had nominated I would have increased' on the deletion reasoning, not failed to even bother to use what was already present.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion says:

If you feel that the article should be deleted, but not without discussion, you may nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate. Dsreyn 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply

An editor that prods an article is suggesting that it be deleted quietly after 5 days. If you disagree with that outcome, remove the prod tag (and prod2a or prod2 tags if any), inform the editor who prodded the article (using {{deprod-afd}} if you wish) before listing it on AfD. Kimchi.sg 14:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)reply

Replied on my talk page. Besides that quote, you may also wish to check out WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling. It probably is your cup of tea. Kimchi.sg 08:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply

Hi! You changed the sort key at Wang Yan (athlete). Chinese names are generally written with the family name first, see Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. Punkmorten 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)reply

Oh, I apparently was confused by the format. This is my first time to PROD or AFD, any help in the processes would be appreciated. Kyaa the Catlord 13:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)reply

Thanks for telling me the differences between the PROD and Afd things. :) -Correctus 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)reply

Thanks for adding Attacco Decente (an article I started) to Category:Hammered dulcimer players. I see you play the dulcimer yourself. Are you familiar with the work of this band, or their main man Geoff Smith? I'd be interested to know your thoughts on them, if so. If not, I highly recommend you investigate them. Smith's playing is a joy. Go well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)reply

Regarding the above deletion, you should always notify the user that created the article in cases like this, using the {{AFDWarning}} tag on their userpage. This tells them that their article may be deleted in the near future and why, giving them a chance to react. Assuming that they have a similar level of confidence at Wikipedia as you is a common way of accidentally biting the newbies, so please take care with processes like this. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)reply

Dsreyn, when you get a chance, would you please combine the three AfD nominations for the NHL results: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL Results October 2006 and the like noms. Thanks!--Kchase T 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)reply

Thank you so much for cleaning this up!!! I have listed more "articles" of the same type here, just waiting to be nominated for deletion :) Punkmorten 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply

Hi Dsreyn, how can we best keep the issue contents on the ranger rick article without it sounding too "newsy?" DbishopNWF 13:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply

Cool, thanks, I'll remember that. DbishopNWF 15:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)reply

Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply

If I were in your position, I should probably suspect that the creator and defender of this article (i.e. me) was Mast himself. Permit me then to properly frame this debate by observing that I am not he. I am a long-time editor and administrator, not some blow-in who felt like writing an article about himself. I created the article as part of WP:BANKSIA, a small but very active WikiProject that has produced three FAs in the past year. I'm not suggesting that any of this should carry any weight in a dispute over notability. I'm just making sure that this debate is properly framed as a disagreement between two long-time good-faith contributors. And now, on with the debate:

Within the small world of Banksia research, Mast is one of the big three names, along with Kevin Thiele and Alex George. Thus Austin Mast is currently linked to by over fifty Banksia-related articles, and it would easily be triple that if every article that ought to link to it did so. You are right that references and notability are two different things, and in this case he is indeed more notable than the limited availability of references would suggest.

Hesperian 06:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply

Hello, I don't understand this message:- You really should stop the name-calling. And I don't really appreciate the threat of getting an admin involved either. Suit yourself, but I haven't violated any policies with my edits, so I'm not really sure why you think admin action is required. Do you think I'm 156.34.142.110? I haven't "name-called" anyone and I don't know anyone in admin. INXS-Girl 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply

I have replied on your talk page. Dsreyn 12:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. 156.34.216.32 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply

I have been attempting to work things out on the talk pages, but this requires that the other party be willing to listen. As I have mentioned previously, when there is a lack of consensus (as is clearly the case here), you should discuss sweeping changes first, only making changes after an agreement is reached. Dsreyn 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply

Have you not read the rest of the talk page? You could positive contribute to the growing list of notable "to be created". Have you not read other musician talk pages. Did you not see how some of the links have been repaired on the main article? INXS-Girl has started to fix links that were valid but entered incorrectly. Your rv is undoing her work as well has mine. She is currently on a temporary hiatus. and will be returning shortly. Perhaps you could contribute to the "work in progress" section rather than rv other editor's work. 156.34.222.2 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply

Concensus between multiple editors had been reached and work had begun. Work that is supported by the discussion/concensus of an entire WikiProject. There are numerous other editors besides INXS-girl who mirror the concensus reached by the guitarist project. It's a slow growth but it is constant over many musical instrument articles. YOu will be hard pressed to find a "player list" on any guitar related article since most were more pov fan favourite lists as opposed to players notable for their use of the instruments in question. Please do not hold an "anti-anon" bias against me.(my AGF is that you aren't) I am a former "logged" editor with over 20000 edits on Wikipedia. After seeing a growing "anti-snon" trend, which I felt was compeletely against what WIkipedia was about... I determined to re-establish integrity and trust in at least 1 IP range.... my own. And, over 20000 more anonymous edits later... I have done just that. Very few IPs have been awarded barnstars for their contributions here. My static IP has many.(My former login page had over 20 so that is the goal I am shooting for :D ). I have been here almost as long as there has been a project to be here for. I average over 150 edits per day. With over 40000 edits I have never received a warning from a Wiki-administrator for any of my work. I am only here because I am dedicated to the idea that... someday... this global project will be a respected encyclopedia. Sorry for the splurge... I just wanted you to see what was being built here. And what my part has been in it. Hopefully we can start with a fresh clean slate. Your knowledge in the subject would be most helpful. Have a nice day. 156.34.222.2 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply

PS The Wiki-Admins have nicknamed me "Libs". Reason... for close to 25 years I have been a University librarian. I think they are all nice to me because I can give them {cite book} refs so quickly. My co-workers are also anonymous editors but they concentrate on their own personal interests... history, science, politics etc. They do, however, copycat my particular edit summary style. So it makes me appear to be even more active that I actually am. If you happen to see a 156.34 edit on an article that isn't related to music... and you've taken offense to it... it's likely not "Libs" so go ahead and give 'em hell :D. It's a confusion that's pretty common here. And if you see a 156.34 edit that is clear vandalism... that would be from one of the students. Good day. 156.34.222.2 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC) "Libs"reply