User talk:Serendipodous/archive 28

Traffic report

@Milowent: I'm working with the WMF for the summer, and we got a press inquiry today about a page view stat from about a year ago. I don't think I'm allowed to be any more specific until the article comes out, but your traffic reports/top 25 made the task really easy. Thank you both for writing it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's great to hear!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

collab etc.

• I expect my current project to take months, quite seriously. After that... I dunno. Maybe edit. Maybe not. It's all lost the sense of urgency, don'tcha know. But some topics are still interesting, and working on things might be... may be... a possibility. Anyhow, cheers • Arch♦Reader 11:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report discontinued?

I have noticed the absence of the last two traffic reports. Have they been discontinued?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter & Star Wars

You are free to discuss your concerns on the talk page, but don´t edit war. I can start a discussion if you like, but I´ll warn you I´m quite busy this summer and won´t be able to respond for days, perhaps weeks on end. There´s plenty of sources online, especially going back many years that cited many borrowings from Star Wars.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I never denied they also both borrow from a common source(s) but they also share common termonologies not found elewhere. The comaprisons between Harry Potter and Star Wars are somewhat WP:DUCK.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to add, it´s not just the heros, but the villains and storyline as well, which is mentioned and cited in the article. You better bring up future concerns on the talk-page to avoid confusions and missed points.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

List

You might have to change the description of the list, because it clearly implies Harry Potter´s borrowings, or similarities if you prefer, to other forms of literature only. I thing the top description needs to be changed to avoid confusion.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of Gravity Falls characters, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A Record of Murder

Just wondering, but the film is in the style of a Found Footage, and im just wondering why you removed it twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.43.152 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Argument

Check out The X-Files sources and analogues which I created. It borrows from many movies and TV series, most that I don´t give a darn about, many that I dont even like yet I still noted them as sources, despite being somewhat of an X-Files fan.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry i didnt realise that I might have accidently deleted a comment of yours on th talk page. I checked the history and can seem to find it. You are free to restore it and sorry abotu that, but I still stand by my claims. The sources also claim it to be such. If you can find some valid counter sources that claim the opposite then you may have a good reason to remove it. For the record the other authors are accusing her of takign their ideas, wheras the reference to Star Wars is no different. The soruces claim that Rowling did borrow, but I put possibly to make it seem neutral, though I´m like 99.9% sure it is taken, but I´ll let the sources decide that, which they do.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

i'm on it.

thanks for the notes, i'll get it up today.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Red Spot listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Red Spot. Since you had some involvement with the Great Red Spot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DN-boards1 (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Traffic Report

Hi, Serendipodous,
I saw this week's Traffic Report and wanted to say something before it went live. In the U.S., Frank Gifford is not most well-known for his playing career or his marriages, but for hosting Monday Night Football for 27 years, which is an American institution (or it was when he was a broadcaster). He was a commentator for the Olympics and Evel Knievel's jumps. If it involved sports and the ABC TV network in the 1970s and 1980s, he was the announcer. The fact that he married a morning talk show host only became well-known after he retired when Kathie Lee Gifford got her hosting job and would talk about her family on air. But many, many more people watched Monday Night Football than a 9 am talk show. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Sorry about that (TNO template)

Thanks for getting that fixed so promptly. --SchutteGod (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Slender Man - As Folklore

Hi Serendipodous,

I think you've done a wonderful job keeping the Slender Man article in good shape. That said, I want to push back a little bit against some of the reversions you made to my edits on the "As Folklore" section of the article.

In your description of why you reverted my edits, you mentioned that deleting valid material is problematic. I would suggest, however, that the section--as it currently stands--gives prominence to Dr. Chess' work in a way that makes it seem definitive. Indeed, the citation of her work far exceeds that of any other scholar on the page. She should not simply be seen as correct because her information was there first. This ignores the continually developing nature of academic argument and favors quick publication instead of depth or breadth.

Furthermore, validity of the deleted material is indeed an issue. Dr. Chess's work on the topic is quite controversial among academic folklorists. For instance, my own published work would classify the Slender Man as a legend (not a myth). This is a significant distinction. Many of the sub-points I deleted from the paragraph were made by digital folklorists nearly a decade ago, but the current entry makes it seem as though they are new contributions by Dr. Chess. Additionally, the folklore/fakelore distinction has generally fallen out of favor among academic folklorists since the 1970s. Although I could include a few follow-up paragraphs describing Chess's work as controversial and providing arguments against it, I'm leery of substantially lengthening the article to make such points.

My intention here is not to neuter Chess's contributions to scholarship but to provide a more balanced view of scholarship on the topic. To this end, I abridged Chess's part of the section to a couple sentences that presented a condensed version of the highlights of her research. I then asked Jeff Tolbert to contribute a few sentences (of roughly equal length to Dr. Chess's) doing the same. Finally, I added a few of my own based on the key takeaways from my own peer-reviewed published work. The goal was to provide the reader with similar information while also drawing from a variety of different sources. In light of the rapidly developing conversation surrounding the Slender Man in academic circles, this seemed the most egalitarian way to represent the various modes of scholarship on the topic.

If you'd like to discuss this further, please let me know. I'm going to revert my changes (pending your response), but I'm happy to keep editing the new paragraph (that represents several scholars) until we find a compromise we are both content with.

Ampeck (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)ampeck

Hey Serendipodous,

There's actually a good deal of scholarly literature on the topic! In addition to Chess's article (which is cited here) and her book with Eric Newsom, check out Jeff Tolbert's 2013 article in Semiotic Review (free online via http://www.semioticreview.com/pdf/monsters/tolbert_slenderman.pdf) and my 2015 article from the Journal of American Folklore (requires membership, let me know if you want me to send you a .pdf https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_american_folklore/toc/jaf.128.509.html). Funny thing, my article was actually written before Chess's (2012) came out (Tolbert 2013 cites it), but JAF (which is the highest-impact journal in the field of folklore) has like a two-year wait time for publication. I also know at least a half dozen other folklore scholars with things in the pipeline regarding Slendy.

When I say Chess is controversial, I'm specifically referring to her work on the Slender Man (I really can't speak to her work with games/gaming). The main issue a lot of folklore scholars have with it is that it purports to make an intervention into the study of [digital] folklore without having reviewed or cited a significant body of already-existing literature on the topic. If you read my article of Jeff's, you'll see that significant work has already been done here that Chess has missed. In short, much of what is included in the "as folklore" section of this article disingenuously represents work done on the Slender Man by folklorists. My edits to this section were meant to minimize these omissions.

On the subject of fakelore, your argument seems a bit tautological, as the entire point of the citation is to say it is not fakelore. Indeed, if you go to the fakelore page, the entry (which cites points both Jeff and I make) advocates for seeing the Slender Man as folklore. I feel the edits I made still get to the spirit of this assertion (scholars agree it is folklore) without the baggage of the 'fakelore' citation.

Finally, you wrote that "Over time, this problem will be redressed as newer and more varied sources appear. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and no article exists in its final state." As such, the information in the article needs to change and grow with associated scholarship. This is exactly what I am trying to do here. The article has outdated information that lacks diversity of opinion. If, say, a student were to stumble upon it, then it would give an inaccurate picture of scholarship regarding the Slender Man as folklore.

Ampeck (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Far future

I have reverted your edits to Far future and Talk:Far future. I found your article edits to be unhelpful and unsupported by any consensus. This is clearly a WP:DABCONCEPT topic, so disambiguation is incorrect. With respect to the talk page edits, please do not delete talk page comments or discussions by other editors. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Far future in religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalpa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Neberu

   Thanks the clarification, on my talk, of what you were trying to accomplish at Nibiru. I've responded at talk:Nibiru#Neberu, which facilitates recognition of your thots as a continuation of the prior treatment of this matter there where it belongs.
--Jerzy•t 07:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Top 25 Report

Two points about this week's: One, Jim Webb is a former Virginia senator, not governor. Two (and I realize this is somewhat picayune), Columbus did in fact set foot on what is now American territory. Once. See Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve - not a state, but surely it counts.

I do hate to be a nitpicker, but picking nits is what I do best. :-) Looks good otherwise - keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Serendipodous:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

About page for Top 25?

Hey Seren, I was thinking that the Top 25 report has been around long enough that it might help to have an "about" page, see User:Milowent/sandbox4 for a stab at this. If you like (and feel free to edit), consider how we could have a standard link to it from the Top 25 reports; maybe even using a simple template for each report that appears at the top of the page (maybe including the "last week" and "next week" links), sort of like the bottom line of the Signpost page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the J. K. Rowling page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Plan X

Just admit that Planet X is real Nreedl (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Black hole!

Its views dropped, right around the time we decided to finally remove it from the Top 25. I feel like the dark web is screwing with us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Top 25 Reports

Hi, Serendipodous,
I just noticed a lot of edits to Top 25 pages by HalloweenNight and wondered if you were aware of this. I know sometimes you take on other editors to help prepare the lists but they usually aren't edited after the week has passed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should ping Milowent, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the death metal edit. I was fine leaving it, as it makes good copy even not knowing in advance that the band name is a quite clever joke. But we don't need to be obtuse I guess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Serendipodous: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's greetings!

Hello Serendipodous: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience ^t 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and happy new year

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Traffic Report

@Milowent: So how do you guys want to handle the fact that we skipped a week of Signpost publication? Can do a "double issue", just skip one, it's up to you. Thanks for your continued work on this, and happy new year! Go Phightins! 16:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty to Signpost-ify it here Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/Traffic_report. → Call me Razr Nation 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Serendipodous. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:02, 3 January 2016 (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 Erhart (WMF) (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Venus

I have nominated Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Anon 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Venus core pressure

Hello,

Regarding the sentence: "The slightly smaller size of Venus suggests pressures are significantly lower in its deep interior than Earth's."

actually, it does make sense (lower mass bearing down, lower gravity) but it is uncited and I can't find a proper citation for it.

I wasn't disputing that the pressure is lower; just the word "significantly". To me that assertion needs an explanation and some data to back it up. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a recent reference for an interior model that posits a liquid core with a pressure 25% lower than the Earth's core:

Aitta, A. (April 2012), "Venus' internal structure, temperature and core composition" (PDF), Icarus, 218 (2): 967−974, Bibcode:2012Icar..218..967A, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.007, retrieved 2016-01-17.

See p. 970. Praemonitus (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

P9

Why remove possible characteristic of icy body, as noted in the Nature reference? prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything from Jupiter and beyond is made of ices. -- Kheider (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but why not point it out? There are few details, so adding info on the physical state is interesting, and the circumstance that everything from Jupiter and beyond is made of ices, might not occur to all readers. prokaryotes (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the Nature article you mentioned. You were referring to the Kuiper belt, which this object, if it existed, would be far beyond. 200 AU is the closest point in its orbit, not the average. And even that isn't in the Kuiper belt by the definition Wikipedia uses. Serendi^podous 22:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is that we should mention the characteristics, per sources. i.e. from Washington Post Astronomers at the California Institute of Technology announced Wednesday that they have found new evidence of a giant icy planet https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/new-evidence-suggests-a-ninth-planet-lurking-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system/ Why do you remove that tidbit? prokaryotes (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough but your addition had nothing to do with composition. Serendi^podous 22:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good. prokaryotes (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained Talk:Planet Nine deletion

The posts I deleted just came after I last loaded the page and I somehow didn't get an edit conflict. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shocking

I'd have clicked "Thank" but have no idea when you made the edit, so ...

Just saw your user page comment about the need for that YouTube video. Indeed, shocking. We do really need to get that bit about "WP:CITE" (click) across. They said a lot in 3 minutes, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fictional universes in games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional universes in games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional universes in games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Izno (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

You reverted my section in "Timeline of Modern History" about killing of innocent students in Pakistan. Can i know the reason for it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad numan mn (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My content was in 2010. Not in 2016