User talk:Serpent's Choice/Archive 2

Zakharan deities in Shair's Handbook?

Hello there! I was having a look at Zakharan deities in the list of Forgotten Realms deities. The Complete Shair's Handbook is cited as a reference there, but I could not find information about deities in that accessory. Did I miss something, is it an incorrect reference or should it rather have been the Al-Qadim - Land of Fate-box instead? Thanks! Daranios 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once more! I could now get back to a copy of Arabian Adventures and have similar problems: I could find only a little information about the Zakharan gods there. I would - for the time being - put the Land of Fate as first source, until you can get to having a look if Arabian Adventures and the Sha'ir's Handbook are better sources or no sources at all. Thanks for your answer! Daranios 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RETROCAUSALITY

Excuse me. I´m a spanish wikipedist. I translated the article RETROCAUSALITY into Spanish. And, listen to me, I found yesterday in Jeanne Peijnenburg´s page a message from my antivirus McAfee: this page contains a phising menace. What do you think I must do? Usuario:Sürrell. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.53.131.120 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am not certain that I understand what you are asking about here. There is no specific Wikipedia page for Peijnenburg and no external links to the Metaphilosophy journal. Also, I am not certain what a "phising menace" is supposed to be. Perhaps McAfee thought there was a phishing threat for some reason? Regardless, I can state with confidence that no paragraph in the retrocausality article contains a virus of any sort. Serpent's Choice 09:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Querido amigo: I don´t say there is an article on Peijnenburg. I found it when I was investigating about her to verify my translation. I found it through Google. I also do not know what a phising menace is exactly. But there is a lot about phising in the Internet! Anyway, do you trust in McAfee? I found this message when I tried to read her whole work: "Shaping Your Own Life". Do you believe me? Sürrell.

Sorry again:

1. Google Shaping Your Own Life: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2006.00424.x 2. Click on 'Retrocausality', in the right side. 3. Then, click in Shaping Your Own Life. Full text PDF (118 Kb) 4. You have an alert of McAfee:

McAfee ha detectado un sitio Web de phishing en potencia. Los sitios de phishing aparecen ser legítimos, pero solicitan que se introduzca información confidencial, que puede utilizarse para cometer fraudes. McAfee recomienda que bloquee este sitio Web. (=McAfee recommends you to block this site.)

What is this? May your article introduce someone interested to a phising?

Thank you very much. Sürrell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.53.131.120 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think there is a problem. First, Blackwell Publishing is a well respected company involved in abstract and journal republication online. Their website is unlikely to be a security threat. Second, our Wikipedia article doesn't directly link to Peijnenburg's work as an external link, so even if there were a problem, it wouldn't affect the article (Wikipedia cannot be responsible for the rest of the Web). And, finally, paper copies of the journal Metaphilosophy exist. I used a paper copy in the writing of the article. Please let me know if this has helped with your concerns. Serpent's Choice 05:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.C., I've never, never seen such a threat before. And in this context is a nonsense. Isn't it? But, like any other user would to, I went into the threat directly from the Wikipedia. That is all. Now I have the complete work. I asked it to the author yesterday. Thank you very much. By the way, which is that choice? Bye. And, by the way, Am I not your translator? Sürrell.

I'm glad to hear you have a copy of the original source to assist in your translation of the Wikipedia article. My best guess is that the system of cookies and login scripts at the Blackwell Publishing site made McAfee think it was something malicious. As for my name, it is an allusion to the Ophian branch of Gnosticism. I'm not a Gnostic, but I find it an appropriate inspiration for my contributions to a body of knowledge that aims to be complete, neutral, and uncensored. Serpent's Choice 10:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...pointing to the serpent's trying to cause Adam and Eve to gain knowledge. Perfect. The Original Sin. Yes, yes, I´ve heard something about it. Maybe you don´t believe, but at this moment I´m writing something about gnosticism. I talk a little bit about Emil Cioran and his Poor Demiurge, etc... I´m agnostic and possibly only “trust” in this mauvais Demiurge. I´m sorry because I don´t dominate enough English. We will be in contact, my friend... By the way, I am also José Luis1 in Spanish Wik.: My favorites: Poe and friends. My best wishes. Sürrell.

WP:NPA

No problems...I just kept remembering how adamant several editors were right at the beginning of the discussion about how existing policy already covered it all, so I figured I'd better find out what the policy was back then. And I was pretty sure this wasn't the first go-round about the "outing" issue. Seems to me you did a good job of reshaping the policy back in January, and that your work was based on discussion and consensus done beforehand - the way policy should be developed. Edit warring in an active policy strikes me as being unseemly - perhaps it is because I do a lot of policy development in RL and we do all of that editing and commentary and consultation in draft form before making it official. In any case, thanks for your support. I'll take a look! : ) Risker 06:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NPA

I have responded on my talk page, as per your note near the top of this page. DES ^(talk) 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Alchemist Dar/Unsolved puzzles

Actually, I will speedily delete Secrets of the Alchemist Dar/Things worked out so far as having no context (it's also an inappropriate article subpage). If for some reason that speedy deletion is contested, it will have to be AFDed separately, though I doubt it will be. --Core desat 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Serpent's Choice 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for your note. I'm certainly willing to compromise, but not to the point of diluting the meaning of it entirely. The fact is that we already do this, and admins aren't going to stop doing it because a few people who want to link to attack sites say so. (See the latest edit summary about me for an example of the attitudes we're dealing with.) That section is a description of the current policy/best practise, not a prescription (or, at least, not only a prescription). That the ArbCom has supported it is only one factor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be going offline shortly, but I'll see if I work something out. I really can argue both sides of this; there are problems with codifying "site bans" into policy, but by the same token current practice is both going to continue and ought to -- because it is the right thing to do. I'd like to use the 17 April version (plus some revisions) as a baseline, though, if there's no objection with starting there, once the policy fairy strikes me with a way to satisfy both concerns. Serpent's Choice 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree completely with what SlimVirgin has said here. ElinorD (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user page. ElinorD (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal

I've moved this into your user subspace, because you can't run a copy of the policy with your changes. You should make the arguments on the policy talk page so that everyone can see them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. That was the suggested method at the beginning of the year, and I had believed it had been common practice in the past. Regardless of its location, do you have any input on its substance? Serpent's Choice 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where you've addressed the issue of removing links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Serpent's Choice/NPA/Proposal#Removal of text. It has been suggested that a "firmer" version of the acceptance clause may be required, and I am considering suggesting replacing "...absent a specific, compelling benefit..." with "...absent a demonstrated, compelling benefit to the encyclopedia that cannot be achieved without its inclusion...". Serpent's Choice 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about the removal of on-wiki attacks; no one is arguing about that. I'm talking about the removal of links to attack sites, where there are off-wiki attacks and libel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This proposal folds in the removal of external links to the "Removal of text" section (it differs substantially from the 17 April version in this regard). Specifically, beginning "Especially regarding indirect external links...". The case has been made (and I agree) that this passage needs to be strengthened, but do you feel this is an acceptable way to approach the issue in principle? Serpent's Choice 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

song lists

May I ask why are you on a campaign against lists of songs? You're not against lists per se - you have two featured on your user page which to me are pretty obscure, but I wouldn't nominate them for deletion. So if you believe the growth of the encyclopedia is a good thing, why the mania to remove lists of songs that are classified by their titles? These lists aren't harmful to the project - the ones I've looked at that you are nominating for deletion are not ambiguous - it's easy to determine if a song has a person's name in it, etc. - so what's the problem? I mean a list of songs that have the word "the" in it would be useless. But names are inherently interesting to people, and so are some of the other lists you nominated. People collect all kinds of things - the encyclopedia is reflecting that interest. People like to look for things with their names or their occupation. Human nature. We have the space, it's a good thing to expand - so why? I'm not trying to be belligerent here - I really just don't get this expenditure of time, when there are so many articles that desperately need help or deletion because they are so poor, or so unnotable. Tvoz |talk 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No "campaign". I frequently run random page patrol in search of topics to clean up, merge, or nominate for deletion (as appropriate). I located List of songs about telephones, which I don't feel meets the criteria for list inclusion. Since I was there already, I thought I'd poke around in the related category a bit. There are quite a few lists there that I have no problems with at all, and a few more that I'm iffy about, but not to the point where I'd nominate. Serpent's Choice 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoPbN proposal

I see the LoPbN MfD got closed as no consensus. As one of the contributors to that discussion that seemed more interested than others in actually doing something about it (as opposed to giving up and voting delete, or giving up and voting keep), I wonder if you think my bullet-pointed proposal towards the end of that discussion has potential, and where the best place would be to continue the discussion? You might also be interested in the discussion at Template talk:WPBiography#Category with all the articles in it, and in particular the big list that Sherool uploaded as a compressed 3.4MB file. From that list, Sherool got a master-list for the Frys. I haven't checked properly, but it seems like we did miss a few. See here. Carcharoth 00:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work at Fry

I just wanted to thank you for the effort you put into significantly expanding Fry; I edited it to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) by reducing it to one-link-per-line, starting each line with its link, etc, but in the end, your contributions were probably much more meaningful. Great work! PaladinWhite 06:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect5

Ok, thank you for the explainations. 16@r 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Template

Sorry, it slipped through the cracks. It's deleted now. Thanks for the reminder. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 14:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm boldly purple boxing it.

There are very few ways in which Wikipedia is similar to a national navy. An appreciation of bold action is one important way. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I couldn't resist the chance to use "purple box" as a verb, and do a little good at the same time. =) Serpent's Choice 11:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Pratt

Just wanted to pop by and tell you that your work on the Erica Pratt article was fantastic. Well referenced, non-tabloid, and addressed the key issues in one of the best examples of NPOV I have seen on Wikipedia. Thanks. Risker 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Risker! I wish I had more time; there are so many articles that need to be reworked. Serpent's Choice 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Pratt

Nice job. So what's the countdown until it gets speedied out of process? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see how it goes. I think most of the folks involved are reasonable people, and the more I look at the articles under discussion, the more I feel that this is really about the lack of an editoral discretion component to BLP rather than actually about unmaking content in general. Serpent's Choice 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]