User talk:Serendipodous/archive 25

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

[1] 768,586 hits

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed

WP:TOP25

YEE HAW PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• As you are active at TOP25 could you add that for us and let me know when it's done? Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 02:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you're busy, but isn't this over due for updating? PumpkinSky talk 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, by that time it'll be time for next week's update and this week's will have lost its chance.PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not something I ever worked before and I was worried because there are many areas on wiki where people get upset if you work on "their" stuff. PumpkinSky talk 09:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I never saw the talk page. That's all news to me. PumpkinSky talk 11:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"What the heck?"

If you can provide a link/some links, diffs, user(s), etc, perhaps we can help do something about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Understanding discussion pages

It is sad that a user with about two years of experience is not able to use discussion pages without creating a thick trace of dirt. Not only did you start an RfC without clearly defined statements, but your edit summaries in talk pages have a high proportions of irrelevant junks like [2]. Why the tidy users’ way to create threads is not convenient for you? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

While the RfC concern may be valid (more context was probably needed), there's no need for the bad faith, and there's certainly no requirement to use the "new section" button to create a new discussion on a talk page ... there's no need to create a storm in a teacup, Incnis. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

thank you :) Serendi^podous 20:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Cuckoo's Calling

Did you see this by any chance? I almost fell off my chair! —JennKR | ☎ 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC) (Jennie--x)

History of solar system formation and hypotheses

My additions do not lack refernces. The references refer to all the material included.--Trouveur de faits (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Piscine and amphibian humanoids-related and more

I have seen your reversion to the List of piscine and amphibian humanoids page where you claimed that each one is the same. I had did the sorting to tell the difference between the piscine humanoids and the amphibian humanoids. Shouldn't we have left the difference between the two of them up? Outside of those humanoids, the reptilian humanoids, and the avian humanoids, I have noticed that insectoids and any mammal humanoids would've fit in those categories alongside the dragonoids (a grouping of humanoid dragons) that have been appearing in popular culture in the late 90's up to today so far. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:05, July 18 2013 (UTC)

I listed the Deep Ones as a hybrid of both even if they are a result of a union between a fish man and a frog man. Ape Sapien appears to be more fish like. Vodyanov's page doesn't mention any of his frog parts (which I have just added since the picture showed it with a frog-like face). It took me awhile to list the types of fishmen from the anime One Piece similar to having brought up the different types of merpeople from that anime as well. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:45, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Slender Man Page

I completely understand where you're coming from. The only issue I see is that the references and links provided to the page not only do not clearly support what is being said, but also have the validity of practically Fox News. If you were to, in some way, be suggesting that such links are valid simply because it's a few people's interpretations of an anomalous entity that has no real background or cultural ties, then I'll just find a reference somewhere that supports my aforementioned claims in the same manner. Not trying to be rude here, honestly. I know the situation such a page is in. I'm simply glad for once I can discuss this with someone who seems to have their head on straight. Djf2564 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

JK Rowling's 'Birth and family'

'(Stop edit warring. There was no consensus for this information's removal. You have been behaving uncivilly since this began; if you want to find a compromise, adjust your attitude and then maybe others will be more inclined to work with you)'

What??? Before taking any action, I politely stated my objection in the talk page, politely replied to both opponents, waited four days for further comments; then proceeded with the deletion plus an accompanying polite explanation. What more should I have done? So far, you're the only one who's edit warring. Beingsshepherd (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Edits to List of reptilian humanoids

Thanks for your notes on what's generally acceptable on that page - I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I noticed most were linked but assumed it was fine because the Sakkra were listed there and there's no corresponding page on them. Is that an oversight or is there some finer point I'm missing? Smiling Kevin (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP Top 25

I really enjoy looking over the weekly list. For two years, I worked at a website What the Trend, that tracked the most popular topics on Twitter so it's always interesting to me to see trends of what interests people. Of course, sometimes the "Why?" is a mystery! Anyway, I saw you did a lot of work on the page and just wanted to say your work is appreciated. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to second the above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Aaw thanks guys.:) Serendi^podous 21:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

Thank you! Serendi^podous 06:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-08-28/Traffic_report&oldid=570967980&diff=prev

Am I missing something? All I see is excess space before the 1. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunate, and I apologise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked it up, and apparently it's too new to be supported under XP; I've put in the SVG version, as XP is a pretty common operating system. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Extra eyes

So yeah, I made a couple edits to the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report. Is that the kind of stuff you're looking for? Best. Biosthmors (talk) please notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when you sign your reply, thx 09:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

In my opinion, there is a one-in-seven chance of any date being a particular day, because there are seven days. In any 336 month loop (12 months and we run on a 28 year loop), there should be 48 Friday the 13ths. Where are you reading 1 in 6.25 from?--Launchballer 11:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies; I forgot that we don't consider centuries leap years unless it's still divisible by 4 when you divide it by 100. We operate on a 33,600 month loop, so in theory, there are 4,800 Friday 13ths because there is a one-in-seven chance of any date drawing any particular day.--Launchballer 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Dear Serendipodous,

Thank you for catching what might be an error on my part.

I seem to recall the TMNTs being referred to as amphibious in the original cartoon series, which helped to explain their proficiency at swimming; this is why I had added them to the humanoid amphibians list.

Since I believe there is still some ambiguity, I started this discussion. In case it actually generates some sort of discussion, I wanted you to be aware of it, so that you could provide your insights as needed.

Best regards, and thanks again,
allixpeeke (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Traffic Report?

I missed seeing this week's Traffic Report in the Wikipedia Signpost this week. I hope it returns next week! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Serendipodous. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I did add a source.

While doing on this artice, I added a source! SuperHypercane (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Trends

Just noticed that Climatic Research Unit email controversy is getting a ton of views but no recent editing activity. Any clue why this is suddenly popular this weekend? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Top articles

Hey Serendipodous, you definitely have given us a lot to talk about tonight with the top articles! :) Thanks for the note - I will try to do your report justice. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Top 25 Report: for November 11 to 17, 2013

Hello, I have the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report on my watch list because I'm a data freak. I noticed that after the most recent changes the number of views for Climatic Research Unit email controversy and United States don't match with the rank column or the WP:5000. There may be others, but I noticed those. Wanted to give you a heads up so you could fix it. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for that. I've never done that before; all I can say is that it was late at night. Serendi^podous 07:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way

Please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page (which sends me an email) about a second opinion weekly on the top 25 whenever that might be desired, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost

Hey Serendipodous, thank you again for your hard work with the traffic report—it's very interesting, and I enjoy reading it each week. As I've noted in the newsroom, I'm going to skip a week and publish this edition as 12/4/2013 in an effort to get on a slightly more rational publishing schedule. I don't know if you'll want to combine the stats and do a two-week round-up or just skip a week as well, but I wanted to let you know what was going on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry to spring this on you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm a fan of the traffic report. Not all topics are meant to be stuffy and serious. While I hope that you will step a little carefully around contentious topics—as you did with Thanksgiving this week, thank you—I have no problem with the overall humor in the report and hope you'll keep doing it. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the Traffic report also. I think it's very good to have and I'm glad you do it. --Pine^✉ 06:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also note that the design and style are impressive enough to be copied elsewhere, like the Portuguese Wikipedia. Here's hoping you change your mind. :/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indian wrestling?

Ok so maybe I should have asked before reverting but is arm wrestling ever really called "Indian wrestling"? I've never heard it before, but that could just be my own ignorance. Morinae (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Praise on Wikipedia Weekly

I'm in the process of listening to Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode106 and wanted to let you know that you were praised there. Your description of Guy Fawkes Night on Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/November 3 to 9, 2013 at 42:45 was described as "A whole chapter of history in two sentences. ... Tight writing like you only find in the Economist." Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 04:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Future timelines

Seems like a good idea, replacing the failed "years in the future". Unfortunately, you seem to have stopped at 15:02, 12/12/13 (UTC). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bone char

Hi. How are we to explain this? Very odd. Best, Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Top 25 Report

Hey, Serendi^podous,
I'm organizing the Top 25 Reports in Category:Wikipedia statistics and there were a few missing charts. I think you just skipped these weeks but I found that some charts had no categorization so they don't appear in the stats category so they might be hanging out in the ether.

• First chart: January 6-12, 2013
• Missing Top 25 Report/April 8-14, 2013
• Missing Top 25 Report/September 29-October 5, 2013

I think that is it. Enjoy the chart as always! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tea! I've kind of got an organizing bug so I'm glad you didn't feel like I intruded in your domain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Pluto

Yes, who gave them "naming rights" to Pluto? And how did that organization acquire the right to give out naming rights? An explanation of that would be helpful. Thanks. John Paul Parks (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for information, it might not hurt to mention them, since I suspect a lot of people do not know that. John Paul Parks (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For contributions to various projects and related articles. Fotaun (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For diligence in contributions and editing in 2013. Fotaun (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Serendipodous!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Serendipodous: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Fotaun (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Draft Top 25 for 2013 report

Happy New Year, Serendipodous! I saw the interesting draft report you are working on for a year-end top 25. I would suggest, and its only suggestion, you can move down or remove your comment that its been a "mixed" first year for the report. A few naysayers on Wikipedia means nothing. Jesus could post videos on youtube and he'd get far more haters than the list has. The critical commentary (and humor) of the weekly list is valuable not only for current readers, but for future readers. If someone wants to get a sense of what 2013 was like in 2033, the commentary is going to be a key part.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dragon's Tale

Just told the IP as this is self-published (by Austin's Black Rabbit Press) we can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Stats.grok.se down

Hello, I saw your post at the Village Pump and thought that I would say hello to you. I use Stats.grok.se for my work and it is important for me to have access to it, even though I do not understand it nearly as well as I wish I did. If you ever want to talk about the service then I would like to talk to you, to ask you why you are interested in it and maybe so that we could be aware of each other if there is ever a need to petition for good maintenance of the service. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph

I do believe that the Telegraph riffed off your article without credit.[3] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Email

Just sent you one - if it hasn't arrived soon please email me & I'll resend. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTFORUM listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NOTFORUM. Since you had some involvement with the NOTFORUM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Email

I've sent None one - there's an opportunity you would need to move on quickly. Thanks again for yesterday. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging of Barren planet

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Barren planet. I do not think that Barren planet fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The concept of a "Barren planet" is a long existing one in science fiction and in the study and speculative study of other planets. This may not be a good article, and it might not survive an AfD, but it doesn't fit A11 or any other speedy criterion that i can see, unless i missed a copyvio.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Barren planet for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Please be careful when tagging for speedy deletions. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)