User talk:Seresin/Archive 34

publishing next week
I'll be in the middle of a move next week. Can you be in charge of Signpost publishing for the upcoming issue?--ragesoss (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. ÷seresin 19:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid
Hey Seresin, I wanted to let you know that I deleted Your argument is invalid after someone came for my thoughts on it. In the end I deleted it based on notability/search-ability but if you would like to send it through MfD I'm more then happy to do so: feel free to undelete it yourself if you wish and let me know and I'll open it up. Just so you know part of my decision making was the MfD discussion that to me says that the Disamg idea was brought up and not accepted. As I said I am more then welcome to bring it back to MfD but from what I can see it this idea was already discussed there.  James  ( T   C )  02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And nevermind... I restored myself, after rereading the deletion discussion I think there is enough consensus to keep it up.  James  ( T   C )  02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delighted it's resolved. ÷seresin 04:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Your argument is invalid
Your argument is invalid, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Miscellany for deletion/Your argument is invalid and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Your argument is invalid during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Your argument is invalid
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Your argument is invalid. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Your argument is invalid. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

CU/OS Election Votes
My Checkuser/Oversight Election votes, noted here for public record.


 * Support: Amalthea CU; Lankiveil OS.
 * Oppose: Jamesofur CU; Tiptoety CU; LessHeard vanU OS; Ryan Postlethwaite OS.
 * Neutral: MuZemike CU; Arbitrarily0 OS; Beeblebrox OS; Closedmouth OS; Someguy1221 OS; Valley2city OS.

÷seresin 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
what did i done wrong ? Jean de Parthenay (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit because it's not appropriate for the main article. You've since put it on the talk page, which is fine. (Though I'm not sure the picture there is.) ÷seresin 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Don't like the picture ? Jacques Lacan get it from Sylvia Bataille, who inherited it from Georges Bataille.He hided it all his life ! It is art... but as you see here, the difference between art and pornography seems to be very thin... Good luck ! Jean de Parthenay (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you?
Who are you? How do you know an hour after I change it back? What is your deal? Besides, I can always make another wikipedia page and keep changing it, now can't I? Orangutansmlia (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you could do that, I suppose. But you have a page which lists all your edits. So it's not like nobody could find it. ÷seresin 05:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Prestige nominations
Regarding two sourced captions for images used in The Prestige (film), you recently made the outrageous and bizarre claim that "commentary written in the caption appears to be original research". I am curious how you came to this strange conclusion. Could you elaborate? I'm assuming, of course, that you actually checked the sources first, right? Beacuse I have those sources in front of me right now, and the text, although paraphrased, matches the original in intent. Are you using the term "original research" differently than the way Wikipedia uses it? May I point you over to WP:OR for your personal reference and elucidation? Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct place to have posted this, of course, would be the FfD. To your point, the citation for the analysis given is ^ Nolan, Christopher (Director). (October 17, 2006). The Prestige. [Motion picture]. USA: Touchstone Pictures. Event occurs at "Conjuring the Past" bonus feature. http://video.movies.go.com/theprestige/. If you're citing the film itself, then it is patently original research to have such analysis. If you're citing the website, you need a more specific target than the entire website. "Event occurs at 'Conjuring the Past' bonus feature" means to me that the still used is taken from that location. So, yes, it seems to be OR. ÷seresin 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. I see your confusion now and I hope to correct it with this reply.  Here is the reference you are referring to above:
 * Nolan, Christopher (Director). (October 17, 2006). The Prestige. [Motion picture]. USA: Touchstone Pictures. Event occurs at "Conjuring the Past" bonus feature. http://video.movies.go.com/theprestige/.
 * That reference is cited to a documentary film, namely a "featurette" on the DVD called "Conjuring the Past". Could you explain how this reference to a documentary is "original research"? Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are citing content from the documentary, then it's not OR. However, for someone who doesn't already know, it's impossible to discern what you're citing from that citation. Who was responsible for the documentary? ÷seresin 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you familiar with DVD featurettes?  They are usually produced by the studio.  You can read about this type of production in the article, Making-of. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I would suggest changing the citation, though, because as it stands it is totally unclear what you are citing. ÷seresin 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable suggestion. I see that the link no longer goes directly to the featurette.  I was under the impression that it did at one time (almost certain of it) so that could be fixed as well.  Would you be happy with a partial transcript as a footnote?  I think I was intending to do that at one point, but forgot. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary, we just need to know that you're citing the featurette itself, rather than the film, the director, or the website. ÷seresin 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think the original citation note (Event occurs at "Conjuring the Past" bonus feature) isn't clear? Can you fix it? Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)