User talk:Serpent-A

Subconscious Cruelty

Thanks for the edit to Subconscious Cruelty. I was hoping some other contributors would come and add to the article. Are you familiar with the film? I created the article because it was a long-standing article request. Aguerriero (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't actually seen the film, though I would like to. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be available much up here in Canada. I added the "transgressive art" category cause, based on the things I've read about the movie, it seemed most fitting. Serpent-A 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Canadian' Spelling

Hello. I just saw your change to the Avril Lavigne article and thought it necessary to point out that 'favour' isn't a Canadian spelling, it's British English. Snowflake Sans Crainte 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back! Speaking as a Canadian, I can assure you that favour is the correct spelling, and has been for quite some time. According to many online sites that deal with the history and use of Canadian spelling, favour is spelt with the 'our' rather than just 'or'. I would encourage you to look at some canadian news articles online, and you will see that the our spelling always takes precedence in words like favour, humour, colour, and honour. In addition, the most recent version of the Gage Canadian Dictionary, which I happen to have in front of me, also declares favour to be correct over favor. Serpent-A 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duvall

I appreciate your attempts to clean up the duvall article. These allegations seemed a little too detailed to be unsourced. I had to remove intense POV problems from it beforehand. Thanks again--Bairdso66 04:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Laughton

Thanks for adding the category of "British World War I veterans"... Having done research on the subject myself (see the links there) I should have added it myself! So thanks ;) (again)Gloria Porta 12:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LonelyGirl15

Thanks for helping out on LG15. I find the whole thing fascinating, potentially a new art form, but there are so many people who are spouting off the weirdest, wildest theories. JFK all over again. --TallulahBelle 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kaplowitz prod? AfD?

Hi Serpent-A, I was wondering if you saw that both of our prod tags on Josh Kaplowitz have been removed? I know that I could, and probably will, just put them back, but I'm wondering now whether to nominate the article for deletion since a merge hasn't been suggested? I'm relatively new at this and don't want to step on toes... any ideas? H0n0r 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the removal of the tags, since the person who removed them didn't add anything to the article to address the issues of notability and importance. The only merge I can think of would be to add a sentence or two into the Teach For America article, but I'm not sure it's really worth it. Perhaps a nomination for deletion would make the most sense. Serpent-A 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza aid shipment

Check the talk section of the article. There has been a major discussion on this section and we are close to consensus ... I am removing your changes but you are welcome to join in the discussion. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of (Let's Get Movin') Into Action

The article (Let's Get Movin') Into Action has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Fails WP:NSONG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Serpent-A. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]