User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 4

Emily Watson

I had no idea!! Usually people are so miliatant about doing what I did, so i thought i'd change the order while adding that info. Thanks for the heads up - I'll get back the article to readd my info in a bit.Amo 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Preview

I noticed you put in a lot of work on Kuiper belt. But I also noted that quite a few of those edits were to the same section with little time in between. I would like to encourage you to make more use of the Preview button, to make article History pages easier on the rest of us. :-) Mdotley 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most of your edits seem to be to different sections, anyway, so it isn't nearly as bad as I thought it was, at first. That's why I went with "encourage", rather than anything stronger. Cheers! Mdotley 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter in Translation

I appreciate your attempt to expand this article based on the resources available, but some of your wordings are a bit misleading. Hiring a respected established translator does not make the translation process any longer, in fact the Turkish translation was one of the first to hit the market. I don't think you can mention Viktor Golyshev without mentioning his habit of making disparaging comments about the Harry Potter books in interviews; this is most likely the reason he was not rehired to translate book 6. There is nothing unique about the Harry Potter books being sold in English in other countries. In most countries I visited, English-language bestsellers are regularly available in bookstores, by authors such as John Grisham, Jackie Collins, etc. What is unique about the Harry Potter books is merely the volume of books sold in English in other countries. As far as I was able to calculate from statistics published in newspapers in Israel, one in five copies of "Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince" sold in bookstores in Israel was an English language edition (no way of assesing how many were ordered by mail). --woggly 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

serendipody

Hello - I thought it fair to tell you I've quoted your user page on mine. I suggest a new userbox may be in order for this emerging philosophy. (I read your page via the Kuiper belt FAC.) Cheers, –Outriggr § 03:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad ...

Sorry about that misdirected response. I could have sworn it was signed by you! *blush* Oh, well. Anyway, FYI, if you use the "+" link at the top to add a new topic to a Talk page, it would be less typing for you, and it would make the History less confusing. :-) Mdotley 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ever Considered an RFA?

Hey, have you ever considered running for adminship? You seem to be a quality, level-headed editor with lots of experience - you could be valuable to the project, and a few extra tools might make your life easier. If you ever do consider running, I'd be honoured to nominate you. Cheers, WilyD 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Aula^TPN 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Potter controversy grabbag

I'm going to be off-wiki for the next several days, so I thought it would be best to just share the sources I've found directly. Some of these may be useful to you, some of them may not. Book burnings: There's been more than one; the American Library Association catalogs another book burning in Pennsylvania and a "book cutting" in Maine, with some links to news articles—one of our articles gives some other possibilities, but that info is unsourced. Christianity Today: You'll find a large number of articles on Potter if you search the back issues—unfortunately you only get the first few paragraphs though; at another page you can find three relevant full articles from the magazine. Other publications: One of the other more prominent mentions was a positive article in the main organ of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (a church that is not, however, "evangelical" in the modern sense—in the US it would be considered "mainline"). Oh, and the Apologetics Index page looks like it might have some stuff worth exploring.--Pharos 07:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Libraries in Michigan, Kansas, Colorado, California and 10 other states have banned the J.K. Rowling stories, and protests in Orlando and Jacksonville have resulted in at least one reading-incentive program being canceled." Any truth to this?--Pharos 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about jupping up my username

But I wasn't sure how to write in the various fonts. Could you de-fog things for me? Thanks. Serendipodous 13:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I sure can, what did you have in mind? Aula^TPN 13:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, I was thinking of having my name boldened, and then the "pod" placed floating above it in red, just to highlight the spelling error. :-) Serendipodous 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like... Serendi^podous ...perhaps? Ordinarily you would do it with a <span> tag but as the signature box accepts so few characters you have to cheat and use the evil, deprecated <font> tag. Also, notice that 'Serendi' links to your user page and 'podous' links to your talk page. Actually you won't see that on this page because metawiki automatically eliminates self-references on pages but if you look on my talk page you'll see it there. Aula^TPN 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Could it come in black? :-) Serendipodous 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course... Serendi^podous ... trouble is that people might not realise your name is hotlinked. Aula^TPN 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Had a feeling it was bad etiquette

Can I ask you to edit my reply down to the topic and edit or delete your response to my non-topic question? Just don't want people to waste too many brain cycles on the US Master question. Libertycookies 13:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it already, but only because my remark was somewhat offensive and yours was out of context once I deleted mine. Libertycookies 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC Nomination review

Hi Serendipodous,

I took up Harry Potter analogues & influences wiki for GAC Backlog elimination. I'll probably be a bit slow on this due to my internet being offline... I had to go to an internet cafe to contact you. Also its just my second GAC review so please bear with me. Can you tell me where the peer review page for this article is. Theres a tag on the talk page but its peer review comment is a red link. Regards, AshLin 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Jane Grey

Frankly, I was unaware that the Chronicle of Queen Jane included the sentence in question, though upon checking my copy I see that it does. Thank you for alerting me to my own oversight. That is, however, the only contemporary version of the execution in which that phrase occurs. All other versions of which I am immediately aware omit it. How reliable is the Chronicle? An excellent question, one that depends in large part upon whether you are accessing the actual British Library Harleian Manuscript original or a later transcribed and printed version. Since you apparently live in London, you have access to the BL. But when I tried to examine the actual manuscript, I was denied access on the grounds that it has become too fragile. I was instead referred to the Camden Society printed version of 1850. That publication is not an exact transcription of the original, as the editor notes in his own text. It contains additions and amendments that the editor hoped would fill in missing or illegible portions of the original. In my opinion, the Chronicle is fairly reliable, so long as the reader is extremely careful to read all of the footnotes and cognizant of which sections are insertions from other texts as replacements for missing portions of the actual Harleian MS. But returning to the original issue, did Jane commend her spirit as her last utterance? The totality of the evidence suggests not. But in light of the fact that the anonymous author of the Chronicle may, because of what we suspect was his high-ranking position within the Tower, have been standing closer to her than other witnesses, I will happily concede that it is indeed possible. Again, thank you for alerting me to my own oversight, something that unfortunately happens when dealing with literally thousands of pages of documents. Just for fun, I will tell you that I will be in London on 18 October of this year giving a talk on Lady Jane Grey at the Surrey History Centre in Woking. Drop by, if you can. PhD Historian 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jane Grey and Traitor Heroine

You removed from the LJG page the phrase calling her the "traitor heroine of the Protestant Reformation." Your edit note states that no one seems to know where the phrase comes from. If I may point it out, you will find that some time ago I gave a full source citation under item number 25 on the LJG article "Talk" page. As you will also see, however, another "contributor" took me to task on it because the source was not readily discoverable using a "Goggle" search and was instead "obscure." That "contributor" was quite rude and sarcastic in his/her remarks, so I withdrew from the issue. Thus my sourcing information has never been transformed into the proper citation format. The proper and full citation is known and given, however. PhD Historian 11:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But as I said in the LJG Talk page, I lack the techno-skills to do that. I have no idea how footnotes are created in these articles. So I've had to leave it to someone who has those skills to perform the task. Can you do it? PhD Historian 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from my existing text on the Discussion page for the Jane Grey article: "The quotation is from the famous Tudor historian A.F. Pollard (d. 1948). It appeared in his volume on Henry VIII's successors entitled "From the accession of Edward VI to the death of Elizabeth," volume 6 of "The Political History of England," 12 vols., ed. Reginald Poole (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1905), p. 111. Pollard's full original sentence is, "No queen was worthier of the crown than this usurper, no medieval saint more saintly than the traitor-heroine of the reformation." Thank you. PhD Historian 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

British vs English

Quite a heated debate is starting with a newbie to Wikipedia regarding whether J. K. Rowling is British or English. The user is not reading the policies I've linked in their talk page and seems interested only in causing an argument. I think their logic is massively flawed but in case I'm losing my perspective (it does happen!) I wondered if you'd be so kind as to take a look? Thanks! Aula^TPN 10:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ready for reviewing Harry Potter analogues

Hi S,

My backlog of reviewing articles for GA is done and I'm nearly oxidated and phosphorylated. I'll take a breather for a couple of days before getting down to reviewing Harry Potter analogues and influences. In the meantime, anything I need to know or do background reading. My sole qualification to date for this review is having read and enjoying volumes 1 to 6 and seeing movies 1 to 4. Regards, AshLin 17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous,

May I request you to put edits you may have planned on hold for a while, while I analyse the wiki. Sometimes my internet goes down for a day or two and I struggle to get online. If you need to develop the article further, you may of course choose to do so on a personal page sandbox. After my first pass, you may add your edits if any. Any way, the article feels relatively stable by your bringing it under discipline after its weaving back and forth between some controversial and/or uncited material.

Since I am a relatively new GA reviewer please do not hold any obvious errors or misunderstandings against me. Thanks in advance, AshLin 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, had placed GAN Comments here instead of talk page of Harry Potter influences and analogues. Have reverted error and please see the talk page of the article. Your article has passed the GA nomination and is now a good article. Regards, AshLin 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Planet Helio/Geo perspective

I just want to make clear that I'm not disputing that the Greeks used a Geocentric model. I'm merely pointing out (on the Planet Talk page) that the current order of the list is most definitely in increasing distance from the Sun, since Venus is closer to the Earth than Mercury. I don't know if Mars or Mercury is closer to us on average, and since they have the two most eccentric orbits of our 8 planets, I don't feel like doing the math right now. (However, I haven't even looked at the base numbers, so it might be trivial.) :) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Saturn FAC

Hi, I have nominated the article Saturn, on which I have been working for a couple of weeks now, for FAC here. Just thought that you might be interested since you made edits to the page and since you say that you are now focusing on the Solar System Featured Topic and since you are a fellow member of the WikiProject Solar System. Hope you support it :) Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove tags, when the problem hasn't been solved

I don't spend my life online, so because I don't reply right away: doesn't justify your clear vandalism of the article. In response to your talk page post: Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. All the pop culture lists are clutter and trivial. The proper way to organize that type of thing is in paragraphs explaining the general effect it's had on pop culture, not just a list of any (or every) mention the subject has in a movie, tv show and so on. Removing cleanup tags at List of Harry Potter parodies: when the problem hasn't been solved, is simply bad faith and vandalism. RobJ1981 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added cleanup and fiction refs tags to other articles: I'm not making a point on the Harry Potter article, so don't assume. If you don't like the tags: that's one thing, but frankly you don't need to remove them. The article is in need of cleanup, and removing the tags is just disrupting that process. Any further tag removal will be considered vandalism, and could be reported. RobJ1981 06:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a sourcing issue: this is a trivia issue. Lists of trivial things aren't suitable for Wikipedia. The cleanup tag is for the cluttered mess for the article, the fiction refs tag is for all the trivial fiction refs in the article. As I stated before (which you chose to ignore apparently): Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. All the pop culture lists are clutter and trivial. The proper way to organize that type of thing is in paragraphs explaining the general effect it's had on pop culture, not just a list of any (or every) mention the subject has in a movie, tv show and so on. Placing a cleanup tag on an article doesn't usually mean it needs sources (there is other tags for that). I have every right to place tags on articles, and not do the cleanup. There is no rule against it, so stop acting stubborn and thinking you own the article. People should be able to edit the article (as well as place tags on it), without getting hassled by you. RobJ1981 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Other people's articles? Wikipedia article aren't owned by a certain editor. If you don't want your work edited by others: put it on your own personal site. I don't know (and frankly don't care) if you made the article, you still don't own it. Claiming ownership isn't something that is done here, period. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles if you don't believe me.RobJ1981 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Assume all you want, but you simply don't own the article (even if you have edited it more than I have). I know about featured lists, so don't act like I'm stupid or whatever. The issue here is pop culture: Wikipedia isn't a guide to it. Also, just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should remain. Just about anything can be sourced: that doesn't always make it instantly notable, and safe from deletion. With that, I'm done trying to explain things to you. You simply wont listen or understand, no matter what I say. RobJ1981 06:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alliteration in Harry Potter

What does "It's basically listcruft" mean? I think alliteration plays a significant part in Rowling's literary framework, as it reflects her style and sense of humor. Apparently, others felt it was significant to mention, as they modified my list by adding on many other examples. Why did you unilaterally delete it? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

I will added references I promised. However I think parts of the article about the planet itself should be expanded. In the present form they are not comprehensive. Ruslik 09:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of to expand. For instance, subsection "Composition and structure" does not in fact contain any information about the structure. In addition, the content of section is fractured and is not 'brilliant'. IMHO, there should be a subsection about composition summarising what is known about the bulk composition of the planet and chemical composition of the atmosphere. The internal structure subsection should provide an overview of models of Uranus: its core, ice layer, outer gaseous envelop.

The subsection about atmosphere (climate is not a good title for this section) should, first of all, define what is understood by atmosphere, than describe its vertical structure: temperature and pressure variation with altitude, cloud layers, possible convection. It should contain a brief description of each atmospheric layer: troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere, corona. Now this subsection only has smth about internal heat and core temperature, which in fact should belong to the internal structure subsection, then says smth about dayglow, and ionosphere, the latter added by me recently. This is not satisfactory.

"Seasonal variation" subsection ought to characterize briefly seasonal changes that have happened for the last 40 years (the literature is available) not to simply say that there was an outburst in cloud activity in 2004, which in fact was only an episode in the steady grouth of the activity observed for more than 10 years.

Writing the article about a major planet is very difficult, much more than about Kuiper belt, or Callisto, which I have just finished. So I have a plan:

1) I will add refs, for which I can find a place in the current text;

2) As the next step, I am going to write subsections about composition and internal structure. Before putting them into article I can place them on talk page for discussion;

3) The subsection about atmospheric structure is the most difficult part, it's necessary to review the literature more thoroughly;

4) The last in the list are seasonal variation and magnetosphere, which is easier.

If you don't agree, please, tell me about your plans about "Uranus" article. Ruslik 11:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Ruslik 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture

Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games

List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Testing testing <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>[[User talk:Serendipodous|^{<font color="#b00">pod</font>}<font color="#00b">ous</font>]]</b>]] 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you uncheck raw signature. --Eyrian 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Testing testing

Oh, very nice. Thanks. :) Serendi^podous 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Testing testing Serendi^podous 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Serendi^podous 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Solar System

I confirmed that this article correctly has the Earth revolving around the sun, so there is no reason for me to edit. Libertycookies 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake Potters

Thought you might like to read about new unauthorised sequels:[1], and an unauthorised translation: [2]. --woggly 06:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture articles

Like most broad classes, there are popular culture articles which do indeed belong, and popular culture articles which are in effect original research and do not. For the will-o'-the-wisp, quite honestly, it does appear to me to be the second rather than the first. The "sources" are not something which actually discusses the fact that will-o'-the-wisps appear culturally, they're simply primary sources. If no other sources have seen fit to write material about the subject, we shouldn't be the first publisher of it, from primary sources alone. With the Harry Potter one, I see a lot of the same (there are a lot of primary source citations, but that doesn't change that they are. When we're citing The Onion, there might be a slight problem.)

Quite often, these types of articles are more suitable for fan Wikias, or Wikibooks (both of which allow at least some degree of original research) than Wikipedia (which is intended to be a tertiary source, meaning that the specific subject must have been the subject of independent study and verification prior to publishing here, and strictly forbids original research). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An essay I've written

Hello. Though we are often on the opposite side of deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

and there is a related RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/EyrianDGG (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Seriously though, congratulations on Saturn

Cheers. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Planet hab ref formatting

Another user did one of those cite conversions and I've let it stick. I need to now go through and provide proper cite templates for everything. I've been meaning to do this for over a year. You'd mentioned on the talk that you had some more info for red dwarfs but couldn't figure out the formatting. Add away.

Thx for the Barnstar, BTW! Marskell 15:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Planet, Archive 8

Just a small spelling error: Talk:Definition_of_planet/definitiin_of_planet_archive_8, you wrote definitiin in the page name. ;^) wildie·wilđ di¢e.wilł die 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology of solar terrestrial planets

ummhhh... fine i will add something new to all the section. but can you let the current content exist in this article. afterwards i might re-nom this page for FAC. thanks, Sushant gupta 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

i have withdrawn the FAC. now i will gradually remove all the content you wrote and replace it by my orignal one. is that okay. thankyou. Sushant gupta 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

Yes, I made it. However I used an image from Wikicommons for the dipole fileld, which can be found here: dipole. Ruslik 11:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

About magnetic field

I tried to stuff too much into these two sentences. In the second sentence I actually tried to explain that for Uranus the definition of the rotational poles is differerent from that of the geographical poles. However I noticed that this explanation is already present in the 'Axial tilt' subsection. So I have rephrased these sentenses. Ruslik 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I actually think that your decision to go to FAC right now is not good one. The FA nomination is a bit premature and the article is not ready, at least in my opinion. Comments show this. I actually wanted to expand one more or two sections then take a break for a couple of weeks. After that I wanted to read the article again correcting a large number of errors that usually crop up when you distance youself from your own text.

However since you have already started FAC I will try to improve it and I hope that we will be lucky. Ruslik 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Potterpuppetpals.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Potterpuppetpals.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Harrypottercow.jpg

I have tagged Image:Harrypottercow.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology of solar terrestrial planets

now do you have any problem with the content??? i added my actual work too. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

tell me what else is needed in the article in order to meet the FA criteria. thanks, Sushant gupta 08:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

fine i will be nominating the article for GAC, then can you review it. what i was thinking is that before hand only you tell me what all needs to be fixed. but if you think that the content is fine then should i pass on to GAC. thanks, Sushant gupta 08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

dude, for the last time please! tell me atleast that is there anything i can do in order to improve the article. fine don't review it but give me the green signal that yes nominate the page for GAC. thanks, Sushant gupta 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Geology of solar terrestrial planets is now a Wikipedia:good article. Thanks for all your advise and suggestion. Sushant gupta 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)