User talk:Runa27/Archive 1

This is an archive of previous comments to User talk:Runa27, made before October of 2006 and considered inactive by Runa27 by that point.

Hey

Hm. You've been around since December and never gotten a welcome message. I suppose the canned "welcome" template is kind of pointless now.

Just so you know - Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is not about a production of Hamlet; rather, it's about what happened to the characters at the moments when Shakespeare wasn't focussing on them. Apparently (although I've never checked), Stoppard wrote R&G such that it and Hamlet could be performed simultaneously, back to back. I'd say that pretty definitely qualifies it as fanfic.

Even trickier, though, is Nick O'Donohoe's novel Too Too Solid Flesh, about an android theater company that was built specifically to play Hamlet...

Eh, what the hell, here's the canned welcome template.

Welcome!

Hello, Runa27/Archive 1, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DS 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for the welcome! :)

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead would probably qualify as fanfic by almost anybody's standards, then. I'll have to check that out sometime. Runa27 22:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a very old and moot discussion at this point, but having seen the film, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it a fanfic - it causes all sorts of issues with classification. I think you need to look at intent - for example, in film, the Troops parody is fanfic, done on a fan budget. R&G, on the other hand, was a commercial film, and falls more into humor and parody. Therefore, if you call R&G fanfic, Blackadder would be fanfic (it re-imagines history a bit), and by extension, anything that takes something established and twists it would be fanfic, regardless of budget or intent. In short, I think you're getting a little too close to blurring the line between fanfic, parody, and humor here. Re-evaluating this a bit may help the fanfic article, BTW. MSJapan 14:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being parody does not exclude it from being fanfic; parody is still one of the most popular subgenres of fanfic (although thanks to the huge number of teenage girls writing, it takes a considerable backseat to romance stories as far as popularity and prolificness go).

Now, it should be noted that alternate history is not fanfic in and of itself, since history isn't fiction (despite some retellings becoming reminiscient of it :P), it's nonfiction, a record of past, real events. Note that under "original fiction" it was noted that usage of historical figures, especially non-recent non-living ones, is generally not considered fanfic (thus, George Washington's Socks and Dear Napoleon, I Know You're Dead But... are not fan fiction, but merely fantasy/historical/alternate history fiction) - other than living figures sometimes being written about ("real person fic", a somewhat controversial subgenre that is outlawed for various reasons on a couple of different big sites, including the granddaddy of online fiction archives, Fanfiction.net), I've never seen real life as being a direct source for a story referred to as fan fiction (i.e. while there are certainly tsunami stories and 9/11 stories, they still feature other people's fictional characters).

In short, save for the exception of RPF, usually fan fiction is based entirely on other fiction, or on heavily fictionalized accounts (e.g. The Odyssey, a heavily fictionalized account of part of the aftermath of the Trojan War, with the Trojan War apparently having actually happened in some form or another; or tales of Crete telling of the minotaur, which I beleive at least one historian or archeaologist had suggested was derived from the importance of the bull to Minoan culture. Also, one could write fan fiction based on fictionalized movies about real historical figures, and it would usually be still considered fan fiction).

In a way, I do see it as being a bit weird, and I can see how some would argue that alternate history (seeing as their are sort of "canon books" regarding ut) could be a form of fan fiction, especially in stories where real figures and events are specifically changed or altered (common things that also happen to characters in fan fiction). Generally though, the usage doesn't seem to include it. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone argue in favor of the usage of historical figures as being a form of RPF.

The commercial nature or lack thereof is a significant factor in whether some, but not all, consider a work to be fan fiction. For example, much debate exists on the "canon" nature of spin-off novels for series such as Stargate:SG-1, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Star Trek, with many such works not being considered "canon" because they were not written or so much as edited by the series' creators and many times the original makers of the series will say "they're not canon". Some believe that because they're not canon, but are fiction, they are automatically a form of fan fiction, regardless of monetary gain. Others believe that something can only truly be "fan" fiction if it's written as a hobby and not for a profit. I doubt there'll ever be a consensus on it, hence why my introduction (well, last I looked at my introduction I wrote for the page, anyway) points out both points of view. I should probably add in more about how "most do not seem to consider alternate history or fiction including historical figures to be a form of fan fiction, although modern-day celebrities are sometimes written about in what's referred to as real person fic[tion], usually shortened to RPF, a genre that is frequently counted as a subgenre of fan fiction, despite usually not being based on a fictional source." How's that sound, do you think? Runa27 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction article

Thank you for contacting me about the cleanups and changes to Fan fiction. I especially like the idea of "subgenres based on X" and that whole categorization trip. The most important thing is to make the concept of fan fiction understandable and palatable to adults in the everyday world who have never heard of the concept. Some of the articles I've been reading that attempt to describe fan fiction can only focus on the bizarre because there's almost nothing online to contradict the stereotypes. --Bluejay Young 06:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. :) When I put the article up for Peer Review, somebody suggested reorganizaing the subgenres and terminology into sub-groups by theme, and, well, obviously it was a good idea so I went ahead and did it! ;) I'm glad you agree with my decision on the reorganization, and that you liked the way I went with it. I still think one or two things may need reorganizing there, but it's MUCH better than it was, that's for sure! I'll be posting this message to your Talk page as well as mine, so I can keep track of what we've dicussed while also allowing me to ping you. Runa27 07:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I zilched "hatefic" a few minutes before I was pinged with your latest. I just haven't seen enough evidence that it's that necessary. I plan to get my ace legal terminologist in-house to take a look at the Legal Issues section and see if he can do anything with it. (All our contributions go under my username -- I'm thinking of changing the username to something that reflects the number of people who have been contributing to wikipedia from this signature.) --Bluejay Young 07:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Great Wikipedians think alike? :P I'm thinking of zilching "Suethor", since it's really not all that necessary compared to "Mary Sue" and certain other terms, and besides of which, is mentioned briefly in Mary Sue's main article. Good idea on snagging a lawyer in to look at the Legal Issues section; I was considering seeking out a few lawyers here on Wiki myself to do it! 'Cause I mean... I'm pretty scared to touch it, other than mild tweaks here and there for phrasing, and correcting that silly thing about for-profit fanfic dôjinshi being "totally legal" in Japan, when they're really not (they just are tolerated, is all). Runa27 08:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he isn't a lawyer, he's a paralegal. We do have a lawyer friend on Wikipedia, and we may ask him to examine it also, although copyright law isn't his specialty. Also, we have two online friends who are presently students in Japan, who can verify the thing about dojinshi being illegal. I'm going to zilch "Suethor". I've never liked that term anyway, particularly since the time I was accused (in the discussion section of the Mary Sue article) of being one. --Bluejay Young 08:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, he's still closer to being a lawyer than I am, though. ;) But yeah, get as many legally-knowledgeable people as you can; we need it rather desperately over there.

Oh yeah! I forgot that was you that got accused of being a "Suethor". I don't mind the term in and of itself; perhaps it's because I've recently been theorizing that EVERY creative mind, especially one that's aimed at storytelling, goes through a "Suethor" stage, like a coming of age, as it were - once you start realizing that genuine flaws and limitations are more fun to write ito a character than a mostly-perfect character who is never disliked by a sympathetic character, etc., then you've sort of had your writerly Bar or Bat Mitzvah(sp?) and are on your way to being a "full-grown" writer who can create some truly appealing and interesting characters that older audiences can relate to. By my theory "Suethor" would be no inherently worse a word than "child" or "prepubescent" would be, it would only be a bad thing to use it specifically as an insult (as it usually is, similarly to how generally, calling someone a "kid" or "child" is often insulting). However, that's just my theory, and again, the term is covered in the main Mary Sue article, and it's a very minor term that really, isn't half as important as its mother term is for understanding fan fiction. ^_^ I created the entry there, but I'm perfectly fine with it being deleted from the page. Runa27 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really comment on your Suethor phase theory. Don't know enough about it. When I attempted to write fiction as a teenager, most of my characters were slightly whimsical private investigators (I was somewhat influenced by The Persuaders), or reformed villains who sought to right the wrongs they'd done. I never wrote fan fiction. I read plenty, but never saw any Mary Sue type characters. I've written on the Mary Sue discussion page about what I think Paula Smith was thinking when she came up with that story.

As far as my system, yes, we do have individual names. We are very real presences to one another. You can find out more about healthy multiplicity at our website, and you are welcome to email us with any questions you may have. My problem was in thinking that I'd be the only one of the group doing Wikipedia, and then Andy and Chris got in on it. There are a handful of other healthy multiples on wikipedia. --Bluejay Young 11:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my "Suethor phase" theory is primarily based on personal and anecdotal experience, combined with looking at the evolution of writers online.

From personal experience - my first handful of original characters were, while not completely flawless (there are varying degrees to which characters fill the full description of "Mary Sue", and it's primarily the "balancing factors", such as weaknesses and personality flaws and neuroses, that make a character seem like a "Sue" or not), well, let's just say they tended to be a bit too idealized, and usually kind of cardboard, and often had unrealistic skills sets... such as the 13-year-old who was nearly bilingual in English and Japanese (despite having only been learning Japanese for a couple of years of completely independent, tutorless study in my own home state of Florida, which has very few native speakers of Japanese), had a brown belt in judo and karate, AND had a whole bunch of psychic powers that ranged from strong intuition to all-too-conveinient premonitionary visions, AND was secretly the princess and sole heir of TWO fallen kingdoms in another dimension AND was one of the few humans to be able to survive frequent transportation between alternate universes, AND had the super-special magical Amulets of Pyros and Geod, which effectively allowed her to do practically anything with fire (including forming it into shapes such as arrows), immune to burning from everything ranging from a stove to a full volcanic eruption (lava and all! The Amulet absorbed all heat energy), AND able to create local earthquakes (at the time I came up with this, I never really gave a thought to how that might affect the rest of the Earth's not doubt delicate tectonic balance; she only had to worry about local property damage), oh, and she had a bishounen-like love interest who was a Star Trek-esque "empathic psychic", which basically all but made him the perfect boyfriend for just about anybody, since he avoided confrontation and upsetting people like the plague (HE was immune to electric shock, and has some weird light-based powers as well. And was a long-lost prince and sole heir to... you get the idea). Ahem. However, somewhere between the end of middle school and maybe Sophmore year in high school, I discovered the meaning of "Mary Sue", realized it was more interesting if the main characters weren't very "Sue"-ish, and starting delibrately trying to change characters who had seemed Mary Sueish into less Sueish characters, and found that they got better-developed and more interesting and, according to my "beta" reader (unofficial editor of sorts), more sympathetic and realistic. Again, that's my personal experience.

Anecdotal experience - that came mostly from my contact with the folks at Godawful Fan Fiction; almost all of the users there who're also writers seem to have at least once openly admitted to being a former Suethor or Stuthor early on in either their young adolescent writing or their pre-pubescent playground roleplaying and doll/action figure games. Interestingly enough, they still tend to fixate on the "scourge" of Mary Sues in fan fiction, which kind of reminds me of most former smokers. :P You know - once they know it's bad for them, they quit it and then get all derisive about the people who haven't quit yet. Heh.

Observational experience - I frequently - both anonymously and as a signed-in user - will give constructive criticism on stories on places like fanfiction.net, especially when it's clear the author of the piece cares about grammar and spelling (this is usually a good way to tell the people who're in it for the "social" aspect from the people who're in it because they want to write good stories; well, at least it is on fanfiction.net), and if I can see some potential for an interesting character or story. One of the most common problems amongst authors who really are just a little inexperienced but really do want to write well... seems to be Mary Sues, especially in fan fiction. Generally, though, "Sueishness" is fairly easy to fix. I've seen at least one or two people that went from barely knowing what a Mary Sue was supposed to be, to being well on their way to being able to craft a story with, despite a slightly cliche premise, a fairly well-developed character that isn't easily labeled a "Sue".

As you've noted, professionally published fiction tends to be far less heavy on the blatant Sues and Stus than fan fiction is - this is, as far as I can tell, because most people who have gotten to any kind of genuinely professional level of writing skill have learned to avoid creating truly annoyingly cardboard characters with Sueish/Stuish traits. Runa27 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, I never saw any of that in the 60s and 70s; I didn't write that way, and neither did anyone I knew. There definitely were fanzines back then and the different stories were reviewed, commented upon and thrown back and forth, and I'll never forget the way so many people found Kraith so exquisitely fascinating that they wanted to write Kraith stories themselves and were actually provided a "Kraith Creators' Manual" by the original author, just for that purpose. It's all online now at http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/kraith/ if you are interested... and, like I said in the talk page for the Mary Sue article, I think one of Paula Smith's sources for the idea might have been T'Rruel, while another might have been Sherrith McRaith. My problem is that I never saw the Sherrith story when it was first published, and that I did see "Spock's Affirmation", which is T'Rruel's story, and instantly fell in love with her.

What you were much more likely to see back then were stories about Spock getting in trouble in order to rescue Kirk, and I mean extreme trouble; powerful ladies in positions of authority, who did or did not have an affair with Kirk, Spock or whomever; followups to episodes (What happened in the mirror universe? Did McCoy ever get back together with Natira?) and stories like Ni Var, which was part of Quartet Plus Two. Those types of stories were the most common. The one teenage character I remember was a boy named Szrich, son of a Vulcan father and a Taman mother. This was in 1969 and '70 and the Tamans were not the ones who say Darmok and Jilad at Tenagra. They were much more like Gem's people. Szrich was apparently orphaned (it turned out later his mother was okay but in another dimension) and the Enterprise picked him up and he kind of gravitated to Spock in a mentor relationship for a time. He was not overly powerful, his problem was that he had abilities (both Vulcan and Taman) he had never been trained to use.

I wondered at first if the types of characters you describe tend to be more prevalent now because the age at which fans begin writing is younger, but I don't think this is true. The age spread -- from fifteen to about twenty-five -- seems to be just about the same then as now. In fact, the oldest writer was about fifty, and I couldn't stand her stuff. She had a tendency to confuse the ideas of "rape" and "ravish", and I shudder to think at her effect on young girls reading her stuff and learning that "all women feel a shudder of visceral pleasure at the thought." This was in the liberated 70s, no less. --Bluejay Young 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can't do it right now, but your legal treatment section needs *way* more citations. The most famous copyright case in this genre is the Gone With the Wind case (The Wind Done Gone). There are others, but the more striking problem with the FF article is a lack of *sources*. Admittedly, it is not as though there are 500 NYTimes articles to jump on, but your article right now reads much too much like something that runs afoul of WP:NOR. The framework and content are there; if I were to edit it I would be sprinkling {citation needed} all over it. Whollistically, there will not be an answer to any particular question about anything in copyright; that's the nature of the beast. If smart lawyers go to war over it, you can bet college students, much less Wikipedians, will gyrate themselves into oblivion over it. Copyvio is always a problem on WP. Glad you thought of me.--BradPatrick 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking a look at it! I know what you mean by the lack of sourcing; in the recent Peer Review I requested, people noted the exact same problem. Thus far, since I'm too twitchy about touching the legal section, especially without knowing of any good citations for it, I'm working on backing up the major theories as to the origins of it in the history section and two major approaches to modern fan fiction broached in the current draft of the introduction. In the course of my research efforts online I almost immediately found a draft copy of an academic paper from a Dr. Judge, Phd., of a law school (I can't remember which one, since that link is bookmarked on my home computer right now, and not this one, but I'll update you over the weekend after I've been back online on that computer and been able to look it up again) that brought up the "descended from oral storytelling" theory with cited sources, as well as (this is the main focus of the paper, actually) describing the history of 18th-century printed fan fiction and some of the hullabuloo that arose from it, and copyright law of the time - which effectively provides an I assume reasonably reliable history for what's arguably some of the earliest of modern fan fiction and the surrounding legal and ethical issues of the time. What's more, from the look I took at it last night before bed, it seems to list a lot of specific trends (such as writing and publishing unauthorized sequels before an author could meet demand for one themself), and specific, apparently high-profile cases, such as an unauthorized sequel case involving Robinson Crusoe. Since it was marked as a DRAFT, and since it was requested on the paper itself that the author of it be contacted before any citations or quotes, I've emailed Dr. Judge regarding it. I have yet to hear from her, but I believe I emailed her 12 hours ago or less, nto to mention it's the weekend, so that's understandable. :P Runa27 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey runa. I just noticed your update on my talkpage re: the paragraph i deleted on the fan fiction article. I'm of the opinion that paragraphs like that should just be deleted so that the folks who are inclined to put in such paragraphs think more carefully about what they're trying to say. I deleted the paragraph because i think it misses the distinction between fan faction (the unauthorized robinson crusoe novels being a good expample) and allusion based on classical sources (stoppard et al in the original paragraph.) Hamlet being so widely known that it is no longer the purview of fandom whereby allusion to it makes sense, but it has in fact become the stuff of culture. to that end i think the apocrypha link should go, although i'm not likely to delete it myself since this article is proving to be one of those ones over which there is apparently more enthusiasm than expertise involved in the editting process. Which is to say, my original edit was completely justified because what the paragraph you inserted in the place of the one you deleted in fact says something very different. now, whether yoy can site dr. so and so as having written an academic paper stating the biblical apocrypha was a form a fan fic, i don't really care. I'm of the opinion that if dr so and so believes that, then dr so and so obviously doesn't understand the nature of the biblical apocrypha. My point being one has to be careful when using examples because if one doesn't understand those examples fully, one is liable to say something other than what one is intending to say. furthermore, it seems a bit grasping to me to use such examples as such examples being accepted "important works" are seemingly being included in an attempt to legitimize something that there is a wide perception of as having a general low quality dorkiness to it. My only point there being that a wikipedia article shouldn't be used to push such an agenda, but rather should note that the agenda exists without allowing it to creep in to the tone of the article.JFQ 02:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Featured Articles

Thanks for your interest in my WikiProject Featured Articles proposal. Feel free to improve the proposal however you want in order to attract more participants. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 03:06 UTC

Well I don't think there is such a thing as most populer web serial. But http://neonaliens.livejournal.com & http://www.insert-name.com are mine.

- Ginja

Of course there is such a thing as a "most popular web serial", or at least, there are probably a handful that fit into that category. I'm not always fond of people using the following argument to define what in general is "notable" enough for Wikipedia, but it's a good argument for the purpose I'm about to use it for: I would argue that the handful of web serials that got the most Google hits, were linked to most often, and got the most hits, would be the most popular. Sure, hit count isn't the best way to rank something, as people who view it multiple times might tip the scale a bit, but between that and hits in response to the title as a Google keyword, you should be able to get a grasp of which lucky few are more popular than most of the other serials, which is of course the definition of "most popular". ;) Additionally, I'm pretty sure FictionPress.com has plenty of web serials whose titles/author names one could use as a keyword to find out how popular they were. That's a start. When I get the chance, I will check out your serials, though, as the URLs amuse me, and I'm big on names/URLs that amuse me when it comes to reading material. Runa27 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom

Two things, 1. Don't ever say that the Harmony is a (rolls eyes) mistake 2. What the Hell do Spiderman and Harry Potter have to do with Danny Phantom in the first place?

1.) Wow! Ever heard of, say, being polite? Especially when you're giving a person very little context as to what the hell you're even talking about? Gee, thanks for affording me that much! I'll be sure to do them for you, Mr. or Ms. Can't Be Bothered to Get An Account and/or Sign In So I Know Who I'm Even Talking To!

2.)Care to tell me why you didn't post this to the actual Danny Phantom Talk page, considering you're replying, apparently, to posts that were not signed, and which, I'm sure you'll be quite happily embarrassed to note, I did not write. Or at least, I don't think you're replying to ones I wrote, but hey, seeing as you don't specify exactly what comments you're even replying to, it's kind of hard to tell. For the record - I ALWAYS SIGN MY POSTS. I also always reread my posts, whether or not I've used the Preview feature. If it's not signed by me and I do not post something immediately afterwards about having forgotten to sign it, the fact of the matter is I did not write said post. OK? Good! Let's move on, shall we? On to number...

3.)I'm sorry... say the what is a mistake? "Phantom" is right, by the way. Hello Mr. or Ms. Anonymouse, care to actually look at who wrote what?. I never said that "the Harmony is a (rolls eyes) mistake." If you'll care to take a gander at the ACTUAL TALK PAGE, you'll find that it was another poster that said that (although what they said in fact implies the direct opposite of what you're implying it implied) - and I quote - "Both the heroes (Danny & Harry) and the girls (Sam & Hermione) are "mistaken" (rolls eyes) for being boyfriend/girlfriend." The translation of this other user's post (hint: I ALWAYS SIGN MY POSTS!) is, as I took it, actually in fact "there's a lot sexual tension between Danny and Sam and between Harry and Hermione, to the point where's it's obvious [to said poster] that they've got the hots for each other, and other people call them boyfriend and girlfriend even when they aren't dating, because the sexual tension is just that obvious." In case you're wondering who really wrote it, judging from, you know, the actual section of those comments that was signed by a user, it was User:Mare-Silverus.

If that's NOT what you're talking about, then I'm even more confused as to what on Earth you're even talking about. "The Harmony", in other words, of what, exactly?

4.)I was under the impression it was spelled "Spider-Man", not "Spiderman", actually.

5.)If I Recall Correctly, I merely pointed out that some of the rather slight simularities between various popular series (including Harry Potter and Danny Phantom) that Mare-Silverus pointed out are very common or negligible, including and especially that certain numbers (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9), especially certain odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 9) are common for teams (yes, you can be a "team of one" by this logic), in popular modern fiction, especially supernatural or superheroic fiction (Danny Phantom fits in both categories; HP fits in at least one, as does Spider-Man) including the trio (group of three). I also pointed out that there are perfectly logical reasons why JK Rowling and Butch Hartman (creators of Harry Potter and Danny Phantom, respectively) would each create a strong, intelligent female character who is a vocal proponent of change (albeit different kinds of change, though both progressive) to fill out the trio completely independently of each other, mostly naming the fact that each character was at her heart a decent post-Feminist role model, making it easier to market such series to kids, or rather, their parents. That's really what what I actually said boils down to.

6.)What do they have to do with Danny Phantom? Well, since you asked, I'll point out to you... that other people made those comparisions as well, often well before I did and in much more depth or detail! Again - read the damn article's Talk page, jeez. Just because they're in some cases unsigned does not mean I wrote those comments. In fact, I have always signed my comments on any Talk page, and at least one set of comments on that page that you seem to falsely credit me for was in fact posted by User:Mare-Silverus!

In other words - if you've actually come back and read this, I'd like to invite you to actually read what I actually wrote over there, before accusing me of pretty much anything. That is, make sure you understand what a person did or did not say, before you comment on what they have or have not said, and for goodness' sake, make sure you aren't confusing them with someone else!.

Also, in addition to making sure you aren't confusing one person's comments with another's, it would be nice if in the future you didn't take comments from a couple of weeks or more previously and assume people would still know what the hell you're talking about. Context is a lovely thing, my friend. Please learn to write comments that actually fully use it. Human memory is quite faulty, and usually needs help, doubly so when talking to a person that's been medically diagnosed as having ADD, as ADD people (such as myself; see: my main userpage) tend to have even worse memorie than most's.

Oh, and not signing so much as an ISP, let alone some sort of name? On Wikipedia, that's typically seen as fairly cowardly. Should you post again, please either sign with your ISP, sign with your Wikipedia username, or sign off with some sort of invented nickname. Preferably the second option, as I could respond on your user Talk page, or the third option, as I'd still at least be able to refer to you by an acutal name instead of Anonymouse. ;) Runa27 05:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David91

Hi Runa27, I saw your message on David91's talk page. David91 may now be deceased, but no one knows for certain. He left a message on his talk page in mid-April saying that he was going into a hospital for more tests, and has not edited since then. I thought I would let you know, just in case you wonder why you aren't hearing back from him. RockinRob^Talk 14:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fan fiction article

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. MSJapan 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan fiction

Sorry, Runa, this is WAY beyond my range of knowledge or abilities. There's nothing I can do here, it's just not in my area. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FanFic

I'll look it over during my next wikibinge. Thanks for asking. Pedant 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Jesu/Apology

I'm sorry I was rude about the Pie Jesu article. :| The article was far from being "completely wrong" indeed, and I shouldn't have stated it like that. I've searched throughout the net and I couldn't find the origin for the Pie Jesu. It seems not to be a part of the standard "Roman Mass", but still is referred much earlier by Fauré, and is related as one of the Requiem Mass parts in many websites. Of course, in Webber's Requiem, the song is his, but the words are not. About the delete request, I don't know who put that, indeed I'd be against deleting it one way or another. The whole other information I took out was because I intended to edit, and then, internet got down... afterwards I've been into some trouble with time with work/college... In the end I forgot about the whole thing. Needless to say, Charlotte Church is noteworthy indeed and the article should mention her. I'm still figuring out some rework, but I'll have to research more about the Pie Jesu. For example, I don't know if Church's version is a rendition of the Mass part or another song altogether, since it could really be the case. Still, it is, primarily "a part of the Requiem Mass". Perhaps it could even be merged to the Requiem article. But that's for another talk. Thanks for comprehending, and sorry again about it all. ;) nihil 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: About being a classical piece, I still dispute it. ;) Since Webber is not a classical composer, and the song itself is his. Though I'm not quite a defender of the "line" separating "classical" from "popular", Webber is not close to what could be considered classical if the division is considered. Hence, in example, Fauré's Pie Jesu is a classical piece, whereas Webber's is not. Note that being "orchestral" is not enough for the "mainstream" criteria for being labeled "classical". nihil 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Jesu Domine -- whap
Dona eis requiem -- whap
(Andy says: I can't hear this piece without giggling.) --Bluejay Young 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Reavers vs. Starcraft Reavers

Hi Runa! Thanks for the comments. To reply, in brief:

I've gotten a few previous comments due to my username educating me in the ways of Firefly. Although I'm a huge reader of science fiction and a huge Star Trek fan (Next Gen especially), I haven't yet seen an episode of Firefly.
An ID tied to a unique IP address would be sort of a pain, but I think it would be outweighed by the pain it would avoid. Maybe another system would accomplish the same purpose with less burden, like emulating gmail and tying a username to a unique cellphone number.
The subjective userpage content has been very informative very quickly for me when investigating the motivation, credibility, etc. behind someone's edits. It's also provided interesting information in its own right, in learning about Wikipedia users from different backgrounds. I think it allows people to very quickly familiarize themselves with some basic important info on other users to help get to know each other and work together. And I think it helps raise a sense of accountability.
Law is my day job. Other than a couple biographical entries on a famous lawyer or judge, I don't make legal commentary on Wikipedia. It would defeat the purpose of using Wikipedia to think about other things for a change. Sorry. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Neutrality Project

Greetings. You've shown support for the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, which unfortunately became inactive since the original creator left. I've decided to take it up and currently am actually remaking it, proposing with serious changes in methods (but not the purpose). The proposals are discussed on Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Project, and I'd appreciate any input, and look forward to your participation. CP/M 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Many thanks for your help on Pie Jesu

No problem, it's all part of the service. And, within an hour of my rewrite, someone else dropped in and polished it up, so it's not all down to me. --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Big shiny welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Firefly WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Firefly's coverage of topics.

A few features that you might find helpful:

The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our style guidelines outline some things to include.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Firefly article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow Browncoat, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Keep flyin'plange 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, good job on organizing the promotion and release! Also, do you have a source for the $10 million budget? Great thing to add, just want to source it :-) Thanks and welcome! plange 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! :D You're really on the ball, here, aren'tcha? I'm trying to dig up a source as we speak; I do know that everybody I saw talking about it on FireflyFans.net was always saying "and they only spent $10 million on marketing!", again and again, "$10 million". Definitely sourcing it, though. :) And hey, no prob on the reorganization! With so many things relating to its promotion, it needed to have subsections. :) Runa27 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! good to have another active Browncoat onboard! I think we're real close to being able to put it up for peer review and I think it has a good shot at being an FA... plange 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was replying over at your Talk page when you were replying on mine, apparently! I think it does indeed stand a chance at FA if the Themes section's cleaned up a bit (it's a bit ORish right now, don't you think? I mean, cited, yes... but still a bit insistant on a couple of POVs of the themes in the film) and a couple other areas are tweaked and a couple things sourced (like that silly marketing budget number I'm having a hell of a time tracking down a source for). I mean, it's very detailed, lots of shiny pictures, plenty of sources. At very least, it stands a decent chance of making FA. :) Runa27 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I've actually had the same idea about Companion and Charity screenings being their own articles. I unfortunately don't have the Espenson book yet, but it's next on my purchase list. I think with that and some other sources, a really solid Companion article could be had. I also think the SNEN thing is very unique and deserves exploration. I was the organizer for the Atlanta screening so am a little biased there :-) On the themes, let me know what parts strike you as OR-- I wrote it actually and tried pretty hard to just restate what Joss said, but I'm VERY new to Wikipedia and totally invite review and help on it... I'm definitely on the side of wanting to try and not have any OR or fancruft and so definitely want to know if anyone thinks I've strayed over the line... What kind of fan fiction do you write? I only recently got into that, and wrote just a few pieces after the Pride and Prejudice movie came out.... plange 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're going to LOVE the Espensen book. :D Anyway, OH MY GOD! If you were "the organizer for the Atlanta screening", I may have talked to you on the Serenity Now/Equality Now Yahoo! Group! :D If you were, you may remember me as being the one who asked what recipe you used for the Fruity Oaty Bars that turned out to just be Quaker Oats bars? :P Definitely a solid Companion article could be had, definitely. I suggest working out a basic structure and introduction first before we even name a page, though.

I think that the charity screenings are easily notable enough for Wikipedia (47 world-wide, all for charity, all fan-organized, all with a cult film... and managing to raise tens of thousands of dollars for charity? Despite the sorta lackluster box office take originally? Like WHOA notable, of course. Thinking it's notable enough for this site isn't really biased, as I would agree that any similar effort, no matter what film it was, would be notable, because that is a pretty impressive effort! But anyway, I think this set of screenings was the first of its kind, was it not? Doubly notable, then, if that's true). However, it MUST be well-sourced. Keep in mind, some of the screenings were covered in local media; cite them, every single one you can find. It will both be good for the sake of having sources to cite other than the screenings' website, and for helping prove notability. :)

Now...as far as fanfic goes, I write mostly parody nowadays (you can see a relatively early draft of the first chapter for one of them on my LiveJournal). In my head, I write some more serious or "seriocomic" ones, but seeing as a lot of said ideas involve my own fantasy story's characters, I tend NOT to write them. :P Not just because it would be kind of egotistical of me or because I would be bending canon in some cases, but also because I've really been needing to finish more of the original!

I DID have a Stargate: SG-1 AU I was going to do with an alien race that had paralells to Earth's cultures and some amusing culture clash moments (including an amusing bit where the national anthem of one of their nations turns out to have the same tune as Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive"), but it's an awful long prospect and I had an equally-amusing original fic version that would be much shorter and that I'm hoping to finish the first of three or four connected short stories of in time to submit it in October to Jim Bahn's UNIVERSE. ^_^

I have some others I'm working on, too, but they're under a more secret nom de plume thanks to a troll following one of my previous usernames around (my current parody series as a matter of fact got booted from fanfiction.net via bot after said troll persued reporting it for non-existant TOS violations, which is why it's on LJ now), so I'd prefer not to post it on a public place such as this (I will gladly discuss it with you through email, though). Right now, though, actually, even though I occasionally read and give constructive criticism on fanfic stories, most of my writing efforts are being focused on my original fiction. Especially the one I'm spending good money to keep a domain and site up for. :P Runa27 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If and when the Companion article goes up, we should also be careful to change the link referencing Inara's profession on the hooker with a heart of gold page (it's pretty far down the list of characters who fit the archetype, hint: Nandi's the "hooker with a heart of gold" being referenced there, but the note should stick out because it makes that character reference longer than the others thanks to noting that Inara can't be considered a "hooker with a heart of gold" since her status as a Companion is considered respectable. That reference does not clarify that a registered Companion is an escort/geisha/courtesan/sex worker/therapist all rolled into one, so it'll definitely need a link to the actual main article if'n when it goes up. Well, I'm pretty sure it WILL go up eventually, because not having one sticks out like a sore thumb here, but still :P)

Yep, that was me you asked about the Fruity Oaty bars! Small world! re: fan fiction - I also had an idea for an SG-1 episode-- had the plot written out etc., but never got around to writing out the actual script-- It was going to be about someone from back during when the Gou'ld (sp?) were still in Egypt and some regular Egyptian priest/follower followed him (Apophis) through the Stargate but just then a solar flare happened and he wound up coming out the other end in present time at SGC -- obviously thought of this all when that was still the story arc, LOL! Had a whole moral stuggle for the poor guy, etc. Can't remember specifics anymore, luckily I wrote it down. -plange 15:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith

There is a commented portion of the article that specifically details reasons not to list Neon Genesis Evangelion. There is also a brief discussion in the talk page that touches on the topic. Your changes have been reverted. Danny Lilithborne 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...? WHAT PAGE? I edited at least two two pages today where I mentioned or edited a mention of Evangelion, and I no longer have those windows even open, because they were HOURS ago. If you are going to send such messages to people, please at least have the courtesy of telling them WHAT PAGE you are even talking about.

Second - I have to say, your comment is VERY RUDE-sounding. It's the curt phrasing, in case you're wondering, especially the confusing "The is a commented portion of the article that specifically..." (What the heck is "commented portion" supposed to mean? I was not aware of that even being Wikipedia terminology, please explain) and the far more curt "Your changes have been reverted." Your entire explanation gives me no ACTUAL explanation - all you do is tell me there are "comments" on a Talk page that you neither list nor link. Please tell me you did not intend it to sound as such, surely? Because while I have edited a couple of anime pages before, I haven't edited any religion pages before. No need to so rude.

If you are referring to the page Lilith (which I cannot go check at the moment, because I have to get some sleep before I go in to work), why?? The page Lilim, which is already linked from that one, also mentions the series, and goes into equally spoilerness. So if it's spoilers you're woried about, I'm not the only fish needing frying.

However, if it's not spoilers (I must apologize, but I really must sleep, I'm losing sleep just by replying, but if I don't reply now I'll probably forget to, and I don't want that to happen), WHY NOT? It's a VERY notable reference - it's one of the most well-known and most popular anime series of ALL TIME, and the myth about Lilith plays a key role in all versions I've seen so far.

Why remove it completely - which is exactly what it sounds like you did - when it's a big role in a popular series, though? If you want to avoid spoilers, why not simply allow people to state that "A version of the Lilith story plays a key role in..." and leave it at that? Because then it's true and there's no spoilers. I just don't understand. Runa27 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what goes on in the Lilim page, as it's not on my watchlist (although it probably should); but there was a discussion some time ago about what should go in the popular culture section of the Lilith article per se and what should go in the Lilith disambiguation page. You'll find the EVA reference of Lilith in the latter. The popular culture section was defined as for things that directly reference the legendary Lilith character, and the EVA version of Lilith is a weird organic robot thing, a part of Hideaki Anno's half-ass take on Judeo-Christian mythology. I probably should apologize for my curt tone, but many editors get that "down-to-business" ethic after some time here.

My character, Danny Lilithborne, is the main character of an erotic fiction I wrote entitled "Chateau Aensland", which also features a lot of sideways Biblical references towards its end. As you might guess, his mother is Lilith (and my story portrays her rather sympathetically). But it's rather adult. Seeing as I drew a lot of the inspiration for that character from myself, I made him my online alter ego. Danny Lilithborne 11:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YoungWizards.net

I see you edited Diane's talk page -- do you know about the forums and chat rooms at YoungWizards.net? Diane has regularly-scheduled chats there, and has been known to drop in unannounced... --Sar e kOfVulcan 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues with fan fiction

I'll have a look at it tomorrow and see if I can add anything. :) Tim! 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Runa

I haven't checked my messages for a while. Why don't you write me an email on nordastelo at gmail.com and I can see how can I help you about Esperanto and Romanian.

Gebeleizis 18:04, 03August 2006 (UTC)

Psychological Horror

Read your comments in discussion, couldn't agree more. Care to help clean the article up? Think we actually need a plan of action for that one. in the discussion, I suggested deleting the "Elements of Horror" you found so bedeviling.Vafthrudnir 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006 Firefly Newsletter

The August 2006 issue of the Firefly WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why did you remove the AIDnom!?

See above, in reference to the article fan fiction. I do not understand why you removed the AID nomination note from the top of the Talk page, especially since from what I recall, it's not time yet for the vote to be tallied (I could be wrong, but it would be nice if you actually mentioned as much), and am of the opinion that removing the tag at this time WITHOUT addressing it AT ALL on the Talk page to explain why it was removed, either (I'm sure you had a legitimate reason, but it would still be nice if I didn't have to go to the page's EDIT SUMMARY to even see who removed it, let alone not even find an explanation for its removal, either), is not the best idea. Please explain your action, and next time, please explain why you've removed the notice on the Talk page of any article you remove such notice from, because I think avoiding this kind of confusion in the future is a damned good idea. :\ Runa27 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Don't forget to assume good faith. I was cleaning up Category:AID candidates, and fan fiction was listed there, but not on WP:AID, so I had every reason to believe that the nomination had expired. In fact, it turns out that User:Stovetopcookies had removed the nomination for no reason at all. I've readded the template on the talk page, added a new nomination on the AID page (I changed the dates so that the article still has a fair chance of getting 4 votes in a week), and I posted a notice on Stovetopcookies' talk page. I'm sorry about the mistake (though I had no means of guessing what had happened). Thanks for warning me! If you have further comments, you can post them here. Pruneau^talk 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried to AGF. ;) But I was quite confused, so I still ended up sounding more annoyed than I really was, for which I apologize. ^_^;;

Thank you very much for readding it! :) I think the article has had a great amount of improvement in the past year, and with just a little elbow grease, I'm sure it could at least make GA, even if it doesn't make it to Featured (I think it'd need a picture to manage up to FA, hmm...). :D Thanks for being so patient with me and figuring out what was going on!

I'm wondering if the other user thought that you could only be an AID once? Because early May 2005, it was the AID of the week, but that was over 14 months ago, and it's changed a lot since then. Maybe that's what happened? Runa27 23:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other user didn't do it on purpose; see his reply on my talk page. Good luck with the AID nomination! Pruneau^talk 11:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Laird Barron; Walker (machine); Repertory; Jinbocho; Anime Unleashed; Judgment notwithstanding verdict; Chambers Dictionary; Jewel Staite; BoycottAdvance; P. T. Deutermann; Page tearing; Escapist fiction; M. Christian; Erica Durance; Paraliterature; Creature Shop; Christine Auten; Science Fiction Forum; Companion

Cleanup: The Tempest (play); Multiple endings; T/G Virus
Merge: Science fiction Western; List of Hollywood movie studios; Tolkien fandom
Add Sources: Charles Gramlich; Janeen Webb; Nicu Covaci
Wikify: Gratitude; Science tales; Byronic hero
Expand: Curtis Magazines; Garapan; United States Federal Witness Protection Program

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]