User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 2

Evolution/Solar System

Hi, yep, I'm still intending to make that change, I'm just really busy at the moment. I feel kinda guilty when I edit something else in the meantime, but I need to spend some time to put the two side-by-side and see what needs moving across/replacing. I hope to get it done soonish but it is on my to-do list, promise! Spiral Wave 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. John Reaves 09:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Okay, I see you point. It's just that this program shows that you only leave summaries for 11% of you major edits and 9% of your minor edits. That's pretty low, and I would wager that all of those edits haven't been insignificant. (P.S. - Feel free to delete the warning now, I just wanted to make sure you weren't going to ignore it.) John Reaves 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fools Guild and Fools' Guild confusion

Your changes to the Fools Guild page and your new article about the Discworld Guild have created a world of confusion. The Fools Guild (http://www.foolsguild.org) has discussed the use of the apostrophe and has chosen not to use it. It is sometimes spelled as Fooles Guild but never with the apostrophe. Moving the Fools Guild page to Fools' Guild and then moving the article that you created to Fools' Guild (Discworld) is confusing. It changes the history of all the edits to each of the pages.

I think that the pages should be changed back to their original places and spellings and to include the reference to the other page at the top of each article. I hope that you can revert your changes as I am not sure that I could do it without problems. Kember 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System sub-headings

Serendipodous: I've tested out a way of keeping sub-headings for the planets, while still reducing the size of the TOC. (That seemed to be the concern on the FA talk page.) Anyways, there's a note at Talk:Solar System; if the changes don't work for you, no problem - although it does seem odd to highlight Ceres/Pluto/Eris/Sedna while not doing the same for the planets. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System - FA notes

Hello... sorry it took a moment to reply - busy day. With regards to the review, I would suggest treating it like an extension of the consensus model - see what sort of feedback comes in, then combine/discuss it and proceed from there. Otherwise, you'll end up reacting to Ideogram's notes, then to the next person's notes, and so on, each set of notes being based on a different article. Better to have a range of input based on the same source, so that any conflicting suggestions can be worked through. (Given that the article is in the FA process, I should probably be discussing my ideas at the FA page rather than just through the edit summaries... my bad!) --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Resizing

I resized all the images for consistency. There is no set policy, but it is recommended here: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Rules of thumb #11 In general, there is no need to specify thumbnail size. Users can select their ideal size in preferences. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Solar System

The article Solar System you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Solar System for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.--JEF 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, congratulations. You have put a lot of time and effort into revamping the article, and it shows. Good work. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW (re: Solar System)

I wanted to mention that my comments on Solar System shouldn't be taken too seriously if you don't like them (i.e., I won't be offended). Actually, I think it's a really good article already, you've done a stellar (ha ha) job with it. I just thought combining the planet sections might be one way to be more concise and shorten the article (although I understand that it may be no easy feat). I'm going to very much enjoy seeing this article at featured status someday.--Will.i.am 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it wasn't misleading. I got the gist both times. :) And I really didn't think that you objected, I just wanted to emphasize that "these are ONLY suggestions." I'm hoping that over the holiday I might get in to give Solar System a good copy-edit (which I see you've been working on). I was also going to mention that another way to get more opinions would be to go after specific people in the Space Exploration, Spacecraft, etc. Wikiprojects. Generally they're very willing to give a read through if you just leave a note on their talk page. The more people that look at it the better (and all that). Cheers!--Will.i.am 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now I HAVE seen it as FA! Congratulations!--Will.i.am 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read the rather lengthy FAC page for Solar System and it looked rather toxic dumpy as well. Your patience throughout that process impressed me! These days I've been pretty reclusive trying to finish up my degree, hence the "diverse" (read that random) and rather few (unfortunately) smattering of user contributions. But don't worry, if I need an extra set of eyes on anything I'll come a calling. :-) Let me know if you need anything else reviewed! --Will.i.am 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

I hardly did anything, you deserve all the credit. But it seemed unfair to let you struggle on alone where I could chip in. I'll give the whole thing a proof read for you today. Spiral Wave 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but I doubt I know any more than you. I'll see if I can dig up a reference or two I can understand. BTW, I had a quick scan (again) and the science content at least seemed in order, but I left off a full proof read since it seems there are still changes being made. Spiral Wave 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, I've had a go. I'm sure someone with any real knowledge of the subject will come along and think 'Oh my God, what has he written?!' but it's the best I can do in an afternoon. Hopefully such a someone will feel compelled to fix whatever's factually incorrect. But it should satiate your redlink critics, at least. Spiral Wave 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I'll have a go. As it happens I have a little bit more to add to galactic tide - tidal tails/collisions is in itself a big topic and it should have more than a single sentence in the text. Plus it will let me move the Mice image down a bit when it's done, so the page looks nicer (I like the images, but they feel a bit cramped at the moment). I had printed myself off some reading materials so I can get it right, but I was just thinking much of this new stuff would be better in interacting galaxy. So I guess now you've been asked, we might as well do it. I won't have much time till the weekend though. And hey, it's nice to feel wanted, eh? ;) Spiral Wave 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague gave me some extra stuff to read, so I can make a passable attempt at knowing what I'm talking about here. Not got through it all yet, but just thought I'd let you know I'm still working on it. Spiral Wave 01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially worried about the overlap too, but it turns out there's plenty to go on the interacting page that doesn't belong on tides. (By rights, it should be much bigger than tides, but I know nowhere near enough to get that sort of detail.) I'll see to it, don't worry, it's just that I'm out of my depth too! So I have to do a little reading first. I'd like you to have a read through once I've done it though - your fine-tuning really helped with galactic tides. I've added subheadings to that, see what you think. (Unfortunately it's made the similarity between the two worse, at least until I add to the other article.) Spiral Wave 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, thank you! It was a team effort. And congratulations on your graduation! Spiral Wave 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail?

You should confirm an e-mail for this. John Reaves (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Murphy

I am sure that I read an interview somewhere with Jill Murphy, where she explictly said there were no bad feelings towards Rowling, and that in fact the success of the Harry Potter books had rekindled interest in her own. Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down that quote. Looking back, it's probably well over five years since I read it, who knows if the interview still exists online. The first time I ever ran a search for "Harry Potter" on altavista (this was before I had ever heard of google) I only got 6 hits for the phrase, so you can imagine I've been into this for a while... --woggly 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of interacting galaxy

I saw your work at galactic tide. Since you seem to be on top of the subject, could you please rewrite interacting galaxy? Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system suggestion

My suggestion was flippant, but basically what I was saying, is your article could point to another Main article about "When you can see the planets in the sky", and "original observations that led to certain deductions that can be spotted by the barenaked eye in the sky, and the "circular arcs you can trace in the sky over many hours, and how you can determine south, north, east, west with them". It's another article, and though related to this article it doesn't have any bearing on your FAC. But a good book on the subject is Thomas S. Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution.-BiancaOfHell 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serendip

I'm OK, though a little busy with WP:FAR. I've not been working much on Astro-bio articles lately (though I did bring Barnard's star up to FA late last year). Right now, I'm working on Norte Chico, which I'm enjoying.

Re the Definition of article, my point from a while back still stands: I believe the IAU definition should be the first point made, and from there the intro should move backward to historical ambiguity. I haven't looked at it closely beyond the lead recently, but will try to soon. Good to hear from you, Marskell 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't actually realize it was on FAC when you posted to me. Kudos on the re-promotion. Marskell 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

See BI talk re the Faroes. Hughsheehy 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turok

Hi. I've responded to your comment at User talk:Flyguy649#Turok's back. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, this has gotten really crazy. This person (or people) have over 45 socks. See the following: "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Turok 1" and "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Turok 19". You can link them from the bottom of User:Turok 01 and User:Turok 19. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've actually moved all the socks to the Turok 1 Acct. This is likely a long-term sockpuppeteer who does this to have fun. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Aha! We're both leaving messages at the same time. If you're into vandal patrol, then I'd say watch the new user creation logs for suspicious names and new users who start editing suspiciously. In general, if you happen to revert the same vandalism from different users, it's likely sockpuppetry. In that case when you report the user to WP:AIV (assuming the vandalism is at that point), add a note that the user is a sock of the other user. Attacks like yesterday are unusual in how long it went on, though. And feel free to ask questions of me or any other experienced user. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic tide

Hmmm, i didn't know the user changed it to B-class, but B class isn't a big deal (unless it needs to go through some sort of review in the Wikiproject). A GA reviewer will eventually review the article, i took a brief look but science isn't my area, but i spotted two minor things - only text in the first sentence should be bolded per WP:MOS and the one paragraph sentence under Effects on external galaxies should be merged into the paragraph under it. There's currently a big backlog at the GA page - 183 to be exact, someone will eventually review it but it can take awhile. M3tal H3ad 10:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Galactic tide

The article Galactic tide you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Galactic tide for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about you, but I expected that. I thought it was a bit short for a GA, TBH. But to only fail on three points... I think it's worth trying to finish, and get that promotion. I'll have a think about what "major aspects" can go in. Hopefully that will provide/contribute towards an "adequate introduction"; then that just leaves the jargon, which presumably refers mostly to the italicised terms. Those can be explained easily enough. Spiral Wave 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for all your help so far! I would never have bothered to submit it for review in the first place... :) Spiral Wave 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

What seems to be the problem? Is it the lack of citations, the general prose, some other controversy? I had a look on the talk page but didn't see anything that seemed to be directly connected. I'm happy to help but if you'd like me to check a specific bit you'll have to tell me what I'm looking for! :) Spiral Wave 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. I'm not a Kuiper belt expert, but I'll grab the papers on the talk page and work from there. Spiral Wave 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nae bother. One of these days I'll learn to check the references for sufficient curly brackets, too... Spiral Wave 10:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serendipodous! Can you hold off the rapid fire edits for a minute or two, I'm trying to get a major rehash (which is hopefully an improvement) in, but keep getting the dreaded "Edit Conflict" page ;-) Deuar 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Vimes

Hi, I'm writing you as it appears you were the primary author of the Character section of the above article. While I think it's an excellent analysis, I've tagged it as Original Research per WP:Original_Research. I wanted to let you know so that if you DID have sources for the analysis you could add them.--Lepeu1999 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Nebula

You moved the article under a new title called "planetary formation". I disagree with this move. The Solar Nebula theory is a theory for the formation of the solar system. Although we can talk about "planetary formation" somewhat distinctly from the formation of the sun, in reality all these processes occur together, are linked not only in time, but interaction. The "Solar Nebula" theory is about the whole solar system, is a not just a theory for the formation of the Sun. All that text should stay under Solar Nebula, and an article about "planetary formation" should say and link to the solar nebula theory as the current model most astronomers are working with and on, which describes how planets form. maybe you don't like the fact that it's called "solar", but that's what its called! Myrrhlin 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation, and the idea to separate formation of _our_ solar system from formation of planetary systems in general. I would argue however that you cannot really separate these. Until recently, in the field, they were one and the same. Now that we are finding other planetary systems, we are revising the "solar nebula" model, which describes how planetary systems form. Of course this has only begun, and will continue to evolve for decades. Most of what we understand about the formation of planetary systems still comes from the study of our own. The little bit of data we have about other systems is causing us to revise and expand the theory. But it's still ONE big picture theory. Myrrhlin 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be happy with some redirecting or short "definition" articles. Since the solar nebula model is pretty well accepted, it can appear under the "planetary formation" article, but there might also be alternative models listed there, which could lead to confusion. Furthermore, the formation of the Sun is also part of the solar nebula model, and that doesn't really fit under the "planetary formation" title. That's why I objected to moving it. Can you think of a sensible alternative? Myrrhlin 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fault is mine, I said I'd work on the planetary formation aspect and I still haven't done it. We'll have a better case to argue with once it's clearer there's material on that page that shouldn't be there. I'll see if I can flesh it out substantially this weekend. (Personally, I'd settle for "nebular hypothesis" if I must, but "solar nebula", if it's not to be a separate article, should link there and not the other way around.) Spiral Wave 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'll respond either, but at least I've said something before I do it. I'll keep expanding the other sections (might be one a week at this rate) like I did to planetesimal, until it's clear to everyone the page is no longer about the "solar nebula" and we can force the issue of a move. Then solar nebula can have its own page, expanded from the small section that's actually about the solar nebula in the current article... although to be honest, a redirect to protoplanetary disk may be more useful. But that's for another day (year?!). Spiral Wave 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor planets

Hi, Serenipodous. Yes, you're right. I didn't fully comprehend the numbering system for the minor planets. I have now. As you say, it doesn't affect my edit, but it's good to learn a thing or two. Thanks. JackofOz 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#History dragging where I have just fixed some mess you created. If you want to move a page, please use the 'move' tab, as opposed to simply cutting and pasting the content from one page to another. This is to preserve the GFDL. – Steel 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet?

Being relatively new (less then 2 years) I'm still learning all the proceedures. If you could help with a possible sock puppet report, at least 2 usernames that I can figure: albertod4 (This one I think has done a large number of various misinformation edits w/o being caught by mostly stiking to obscure topics/entries as in the contrib history many edits that are questionable seem to lack sources) and linkman424. Both these usernames have done similar styled Vandal/misinformation edits to pluto. Any help or direction on this matter woul dbe most appreciated. Abyssoft 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and direction, it is much appreciated. Abyssoft 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apocralypse

In the article Discworld Gods I noticed you refer to the horseman of the Apocralypse. Where did you get that spelling? In Thief of Time, it is spelled Apocalypse.

Thank you for responding to my comment and clearing that up for me. I replied directly to your talk page rather than the article's discussion page because I wanted to make sure it was seen, as I was quite curious. In no way did I mean to be rude, and I thank you for being polite and helpful in your response. As for the signature, I'm afraid I simply forgot. I'll try to remember from now on. Thanks again! Briham 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's Comet

I am not a comet expert, so I would not know exactly where to look for articles on Halley's Comet. I am also a little busy with other things at this time, so I cannot contribute right away. However, I would suggest using this paper as a starting point for finding citations for Halley's Comet. Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Io eruption animation

I nominated that Tvashtar eruption animation for featured picture status and it is already winning support. Spikebrennan 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just promoted it: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tvashtarvideo. Congratulations! Now if someone would move it to commons... MER-C 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

work in progress

i moved your page to User:Serendipodous/Heliosphere draft while you're working on it. ··coel acan 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: heliosphere

Here is a very rough draft of how the combined heliosphere articles would look. I've left out bow shock because it doesn't only deal with the Solar System's bow shock, but with planetary bow shocks as well. This merge is potentially pretty contentious, so I'd like to get at least one other person on board before going ahead with it. Serendipodous 10:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all I see is a red link. Could the bow shock material that is related to the Sun be included? I don't have any problem with retaining a separate Bow shock article, but it seems to make sense to also cover the topic in a merged article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems mostly okay as a working draft and as a starting point for an article. Good luck trying to get others on board. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realised, looking at the empty talk pages, that I was never going to get anyone else on board if I just posted my draft and hoped, so I decided to go and do it anyway. If people object, they can talk about it on the discussion page. I don't think they will. Serendipodous 11:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logical merge so I can't imagine why anybody would object. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also merge it with heliospheric current sheet, or is that one merge too many? Serendipodous 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea. But you might want to pose it on the article's talk page for a week to see if anybody objects. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima/Alpha Centauri

I saw your edits to Oort Cloud and was about to revert the part that claims that Alpha Cen. is the closest star to the Sun. But you seem to know what you're doing, and so I thought I'd check whether this is some style thing I don't agree with. Can you justify it (ie are you claiming that Proxima is Alpha Cen. c or something)? Chrislintott 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; I see that both Proxima and Alpha are listed on their pages as being the nearest star the solar system, although taking the distances quoted Proxima wins. As far as I know, there is no dispute about either distance, just about whether Proxima is an independent star or part of the Alpha Cen. system as it always used to be thought to be. I've thus removed the claim that Alpha is the nearest star to the solar system, and changed the mention in the Oort cloud to proxima. If you're claiming that there is some dispute in which of the two is nearest, let me know and I'll dig out the references when I'm at my desk tomorrow.

Keep up the good work Chrislintott 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've expanded the discussion of this point in the Proxima Centauri article. If you have time, could you have a look and check it makes sense? Chrislintott 08:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oort cloud

I'm going to fix it up tomorrow. Could you review Rings_of Jupiter article (review page Wikipedia:Scientific_peer_review/Rings_of_Jupiter)? Since you are a native english speaker any suggestions about the language, grammar (especially articles) and use of words are welcome. Ruslik 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to write smth about the issue. Ruslik 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for a clean up of Rings_of Jupiter. Ruslik 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jovian / jovian

Hi there, are you sure it should be 'jovian' and not 'Jovian'? I just wonder, since the article in question (Rings of Jupiter) uses 'Metisian' not 'metisian', and it ought to be fully consistent. Thanks, Rubble pile 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Harry Potter

I seconded your message on User:Libertycookies's talk page, and once again removed the section. I do have two suggestions, but wanted your input before unilaterally making them: a) add in the See Also section a link to Harry Potter#Criticism and priase, and b) make the lead more specific about what we mean by controversy. All of this user's contributions appear to be aimed at putting this same information on every Harry Potter page, so he obviously feels passionately about it, and I'm thinking these minor changes might not be enough to satisfy him. After that, not sure what to do. Karanacs 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Same topic, different viewpoint) I certainly sympathize with your difficulties with Libertycookies, but I also recognize that their could be some "nuggets of gold in the sands of Liberty", which would add value to the article if properly extracted and posted. I would strongly recommend avoiding an edit war at all costs. What I would suggest first is to make an honest effort to verify (or disprove) the information that Libertycookies is attempting to put forth, by looking for reliable sources. If it is indeed factual and can be verified with reliable sources, and fits in with the intent of the article, then we need to try to find a neutral and simple way to incorporate the material, with references, into the article. Perhaps all it needs is some cleanup of blatent POV, and blending it in with the rest of the "criticisms" material already posted. A compromise is the best way to deal with the new material, by reasoning and consensus, assuming that the info is valid and can be proven so. If the material cannot be proven, then it should be removed post haste. Sandbox the verifiable bits on the talk page for consensus views. If Libertycookies refuses to allow any sort of revisions to his/her posts in the article, or resists removing uf unverifiable POV junk, and if he/she violates 3RR or otherwise engages in edit warring, then have an administrator do a speedy 3RR block while other editors work on the controversial material to make it suitable for posting. Also remember that it is never a good idea to get in a fast and furious edit war. Revert once or twice if necessary, then wait a few hours or a day and try again, all the while making clear and concise edit summaries, and document your actions and reasonings on the talk page. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've thirded (?) your message on User:Libertycookies' talk page and will also keep an eye out for this section. I agree with User:Karanacs suggested actions - I take the point that this is valid criticism as the editor has provided citations for his section but have yet to see any cited evidence that this line of criticism has formed into any form of controversy or action against the author/books. I say we invite Liberty to provide sources for such a statement in the talk page and if they check out then we could pull the content back into that article. I think trying to adopt a half-way house solution would muddle the direction of both articles. Just my 2 cents. AulaTPN 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like everything is all cleared up, but I'll keep an eye out. I agree with your distinction between "controversy" and "criticism." --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serendipodous, I'm starting to feel that you are not being objective, and that it may be politically motivated since you brought up politics in your call for "backup". If you can find evidence to the contrary of Rowling's socialist beliefs and values then by all means post them. Feel free to bolster the literary criticism and praise of other parties, but the lack of detail there isn't reason to delete the political criticism. My contribution don't rise to the level of grafitti simply because you don't like them. Maybe leave them up for a few minutes for others to evaluate. Or simply edit out what you think is POV and put it on the talk for others to evaluate. I'm considering complaining about your deletions as well. If you don't like me personally, please get past it. Libertycookies 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with the Harry Potter Series

Hello Serendipodous, this is the first time I've added comments to a discussion section, so please accept my apologies if I've done this incorrectly. A little while ago I added a section called "Comparisons with Harry Potter Series" (I wasn't logged in at the time, which is why my name doesn't show up). You left it there for a bit then deleted it with the comment: "Unless you can provide citations, this is original research". I'm not sure I understand what the issue is...? What do you mean by "original research"? What citations am I meant to provide? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doushenka (talk • contribs)