User talk:Serpent's Choice/Archive 1

Thanks for the TSA rewrite
Hey, thanks for doing all that work on the Transformation Story Archive page. I've always held off of doing any major editing there out of conflict of interest, but you dug up references for it that I'd completely forgotten about and did a way better job than I could have. Even if it still gets deleted I'm definitely saving a history dump of it, hooray GFDL! :) Bryan 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated, Bryan. Ironically, I'd never been a reader, and knew of the site only by reputation via college friends a decade ago.  I've taken this article's rewrite and hopefully recovery as an ostrich-busting challenge!  Serpent&#39;s Choice 07:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add my thanks to Bryan's -- that's a major improvement, a good job both of research and writing. --Jim Henry 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To show my appreciation at somehow managing to make the TSA article good enough to warrant a straight-out "keep" from an AfD I was initially pretty sure would wind up delete, and in the process for digging up facts and references for it that even I wasn't aware of, I figured I should give you this Barnstar. Thanks again! :) I don't know who wrote Serpent's choice, but I've never read such an arrogant and poor article. You have know idea what you are talking about in reference to my writing. My wife is a degreed journalist and I have a Ph.D. in English common Law. So, how have you the audacity to say my work is poor and should be deleted. I am an expert grammatist and writer.

Fixing 2nd nom. links
Thank you very much. I was having a spot of bother trying to get it right. Cheers. L0b0t 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Au revoir, les enfants merge
I merged the information from the screenplay page's infobox as it was unique. Good idea for the merge, though...

RFD Closures
If you ever have an occasion to close another RFD in the future, please remember that you need to remove the rfd from the redirect. I've taken care of the one on William weasley. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. There can be a lot of details to remember with some tasks. -- JLaTondre 12:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go
User:Serpent's Choice/Public Netbase Guy (Help!) 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Book of Vile Darkness images need fair use rationale.
The article will fail automatically if this is not fixed. --SeizureDog 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

re: your request on Deletion review/Content review
The last version of that page has been temporarily restored to user:Serpent's Choice/The Blind Pig (fiction). Please leave all categories nowiki'd while it is in the userspace. And please remember to tag the subpage with db-userreq as soon as you no longer need it. Rossami (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re : Submitting recreation/rebuild effort for comment
Now this is very interesting. I'll have a look later and give you a reply. Remind me if I don't. ;) - Mailer Diablo 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My answers
Hey there Serpent's Choice. I'm currently in the process of answering the questions on my page, and hope to wrap things up this morning over the next few hours as time permits. I just wanted to let you know that I have every intention of answering them, and will understand if you wish to keep your oppose in light of this personal delay. Thanks, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Meher Baba
Hi Serpent's Choice, I just wanted you to know that the new stub Cott12 started on Perfect Master (Meher Baba) was meant to cover an issue that the peer reviewer of the Meher Baba article mentioned, i.e. that the link to Perfect Master leads to a disambiguation. So we were trying to resolve this problem by offering in the disambiguation a link to the specific topic as used in Meher Baba's philosophy. We have also experimented to put explanations as a note after the first mention of the term Perfect Master, but it looked like a footnote in the middle of the article. Can you please explain (I mean beyond the short notice you gave in the edit summary) why you think a redirect should send one back to the article? I mean one will click on Perfect Master and will be given the very article he is clicking from... ? Hoverfish 07:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the main article doesn't give any explanations on the definition of Perfect Master, which is why we were advised to do so. I have also looked in satguru for linking directly there, but one would have to read through a lot and still not be sure of the precise definition (as used by Baba). Qutub would also be a possibility, but articles on Sufism are closely related to Islam, where Baba's definition is not generally accepted and might be even ferverently disputed. So we decided for this arternative. You can also look here, if you wish to know more about our related discussion: User talk:Cott12. What seems to have happened is that it Cott12 started the stub for me to expand, when I had already logged out for the night. Given some time we would add the necessary verifiable content to the new stub and yes, there are references we can give. I know what you mean with stubs. I am quite active in Film WikiProject and we have tons of stubs to deal with. No problem with BRD. Hoverfish 08:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the tip on stub sorting! I didn't even know such cats existed. Will let you know when we have it ready, glad you find it of interest. Hoverfish 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you may have a watch on it, but since you asked me, I note here that we have now something worth a page and the "under work" template was removed. Hoverfish 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Blind Pig
The article fails to explain why this fictional universe is a useful inclusion to an encyclopedia. --Peta 03:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw through the list of sources, I'm somewhat concerned with the quality of it. Ursa Major Awards is itself tossed on AfD. We may rely on Transformation Story Archive in this case, unfortunately I'm not an expert in this field to determine how reputable it is, so it'd be great if you are able to continue looking for more sources (perhaps the news media?). You may stand a reasonable chance for the article to stand on re-creation, but I'd best recommend that you go through deletion review to establish your case. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bookofvile.jpg
I see you orphaned the image I added. The problem is that the one from WOTC that you added is not the actual cover that the book came out with. All print editions of the book came out with the "mature content" warning on the cover and that's not in the pic from the website. --Energman 14:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality
Well done on the greatly improved new rewrite that you carried out. You should message everyone in the afd about your rewrite - if not enough people take notice, it's probably a candidate for WP:DRV anyway if not kept. Season's Greetings, Bwithh 18:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

DRV
Fyi, regarding your comment that you could not see the prior version of the alleged attack or RFC prep page, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Argyriou/SirNicholas&action=history. The history has now been restored by another admin Bwithh 23:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
You'd make an excellent administrator. Are you interested? —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 12:16Z 


 * Deeply and honestly appreciated, but as they say over at RFA, too soon. I've only got 6 months (including a month with a staggering 1 edit) under my belt, and not quite 2k edits yet.  Give me another month to put another 1k-1500 on that (I've got a lot planned for January around here!), and I think I might find myself ready to reconsider.  In any case, thank you very much for the offer.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, glad you're cognizant of the editcountitis zeitgeist. I believe I could argue out of your low editcount (compared to the average RFA candidate) but if you're going for a clean unanimous RFA then more experience would help.  You have a standing offer of nomination from me.  Cheers. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 12:33Z 
 * Hey, that's funny, I came here with exactly the same idea as Quarl. I've been voting on RFA for a couple of weeks now, and when I saw you do a non-admin closure at Afd, I said to myself, I'll keep an eye on that guy.  So while I'm not too experienced myself, I'll lend my full support to your nomination when it comes, if I'm still around to notice. YechielMan 07:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Public Netbase
The article Public Netbase you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Public Netbase for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Supercausality
Hi, would you mind taking a look at my note on the talkpage of this article? I don't think this is the same stuff as previously, going by the deletion discussion. Anyway, it might not hurt for you to contact him (a bit rude to drop the tag on the page without contacting him, actually) and ask him about it. Perhaps a redirect to something fitting would be a good idea. That generally discourages re-creation, doesn't it? Reverse Gear 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Under more typical circumstances, I'd not drop a CSD tag on something not blatantly violating without notification. I've got reason to believe these aren't usual circumstances.  Supercausality has been part of an expansive effort to insert dubious unsourced content into quite a few articles, centering around Luigi Fantappiè (see this version).  The supercausality article is, barring a userspace edit, the first edit by its author.  The timing, at the barest minimum, leaves me suspicious, without even addressing the content or its lack of sourcing.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's understandable, but I can't quite see that this article is in the same vein. It seems a little less concerned with the whole backwards in time thing ;-) Also, the author has bothered to put up a whole essay type of thing on his user page, which is a lot of effort for a sock. What I'm suggesting is allowing the newbie to make account of himself if he wants to. Ultimately, we have to AGF someone like this, although your concerns are obviously understandable. Reverse Gear 11:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The deleted text (via mirror sites) certainly seems similar to my eyes, but I've offered some discussion to the creator just in case it was an unfortunate coincidence by a new editor. I've also provided what answers.com mirrored from the old vesion to the article talk page.  To my eyes, it is similar, but I may be biased due to the amount of dubious, unsourced content that these topics have left behind in other articles.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I totally understand your frustration with having to remove stuff over and again, but I appreciate that you AGFd with this guy. If we always go the extra yard, they can't then whine that they were mistreated by us. Reverse Gear 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Terdiman
Hi,

You might want to revisit Daniel Terdiman, where you suggested delete in the AfD. The article was poorly written and the nomination was thus off-base and confusing. This guy is a widely published journalist which should be the claim to notability. He has been the co-author of one book, but that is a realm of lesser notability.

I look through AfD to find articles worth saving and I thought this was worth the time for some research and rewrite efforts. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 02:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks/Proposal
Saw your posting on Radiant!'s page. As someone who contributed a bit to your proposal, I share your frustration. But looking at WP:NPA, I think I understand why it didn't get more traction - it was a bit too radical a rewrite. Would you be interested in taking a more piecemeal approach to revising the policy - refactoring the page in a series of steps, if you will, rather than trying for the whole thing?

And please record one strong vote against the suggestion (not yours, I understand), to MfD the current policy. It would be a nightmare if that passed, and I'm not convinced that the discussion would generate much light at all, as opposed to heat, even if it failed (most likely outcome). John Broughton  | ♫ 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been difficult to determine what ideas have consensus because of the small number of participants in the discussion. Nevertheless, after resolving through private communication at least some of the issues that had been raised, I pushed a slightly tweaked version of my proposal live to WP:NPA on 11 Jan in an effort to determine if I was correct in finding consensus for the changes.  So far, there have been no objections raised; non-vandalistic edits since that time have been solely copyediting and title formatting (I'll admit, I've been pleasantly surprised!).  However, if there are still remaining concerns, or especially if you have further ideas for improving the policy, I'd love to continue discussion.  I don't have any delusions that my first real effort at policy authorship here would be flawless.


 * And while I don't think that suggestion about an MFD of NPA was serious, I wouldn't support one in any case. What so many of the policy pages need is cleanup and editing, not deletion. Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. I missed the revision completely - shows how focused (or not) I am, I guess.  I may take a look at the old one and see if anything that I think might be useful got lost in the transfer, but other than that, I'm pleased that the changeover seems to be going so well.  I'll plan on quoting more from the (revised) policy.  (Wow - a policy rewrite without a huge battle?!)  John Broughton  |  ♫ 14:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands
Consider yourseld fully kudzu-ed. - brenneman  11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Therianthropy
Hi.

About nine days ago you asked me if I could remember where I first encountered the term "therianthropy". Sorry to be so long in replying. I've checked, and can't find the book that I think I saw it in. I believe I saw it in a book probably published in the 1930s by the Society for Psychical Research, though I can't be sure. I have a very vague memory that the author may have been called Broad - possibly C.D. Broad. I rather think the word would have come up in discussion of feral children - conceivably Amala and Kamala, going on the estimated publication date and my faded memories. Sorry not to be more specific, but it was a long time ago: I haven't done any substantial reading in this area since the early 1970s.

I have, however, taken the simple course of checking www.dictionary.com. Although "therianthropy" doesn't appear, there is an entry for "therianthropic" ( via the Random House Dictionary ) suggesting that that word was in use between 1885 and 1890. This should be enough to support the claim that this isn't a neologism. It would also be sensible to check the complete OED, but so far as I know this isn't available online ( though I believe it may be available via Bloomberg terminals, though it's been a while since I checked ).

Hope this is of some help.

WMMartin 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Book of Exalted Deeds
Did you know that BoED didn't have a talk page, much less tagged with Project D&D? Thought I'd mention that. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to drop by and take a look at the article's current condition later today. I'm not sure that enough happened in conjuction with BOED to make as strong an article as BOVD ... but I usually surprise myself when I go a-hunting sources.  Thanks for reminding me to get back to work on the book pages.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's always nice to somewhat mirror the two books, in terms of the article structure. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr (2nd nomination)
Good call. Would've done it myself (was waiting to see if admins would do it properly) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I just wanted to say goodluck with the RfA. It's once in a blue moon that I support an RfA and I really wanted to with yours. I couldn't bring myself to support it but I gave you, as a person, a vote of confidence as I think you're a great editor. If it doesn't go through this time I might be inclined to nom you myself in a few months. Cheers. NeoFreak 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Curling's ulcers
Thank you for taking care of the AfD for me. I'm embarassed that I didn't even consider a redirect. I'll try to be a little more careful next time I come across something like that. --Mdwyer 16:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I wouldn't have even known about the 2nd article under the wrong name if I hadn't found it in Google while looking for references.  In the end, the encyclopedia's better for the process, which is what matters. Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
On this occasion, your request for adminship did not achieve consensus. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, the majority of editors who commented supported your request, and many of those who opposed simply want to see more of your work! Warofdreams talk 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity I overlooked your RfA, I would have supported you too. Please do stick around, and better luck next time - you do good work and I'm sure you'll overcome Wikipedia's inertia eventually. Bryan Derksen 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's appreciated. I'm not going anywhere; I knew that with ~1500 edits, this was not an unlikely outcome.  With some time off from work coming up, I'll work on a little more task diversity, see if I can't push something to FA, and make up the edit count needed for a better showing in a few months.  I hope to see you then. =)  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Serpent's, sorry I wasn't around - I would have written a strong recommendation, and things might have turned out differently. We'll do RFA again in a few months. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 08:23Z 

Your closure of Articles for deletion/Slipped disc
I wonder if you would revisit this on one simple basis, please: That of the large number of opinions lodged for protection of the redirect page because of the recreation this time of the original article. Since you are not an admin you are unable to enable the protection, and it is not clear from your closure synopsis that you considered the element of protection. It would be suficient to state the rationale for lack of protection, for example. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a page available to request protection or semi-protection for pages that warrant it. However, this is generally a temporary measure used to combat vandalism or to halt extensive edit warring until a resolution can be reached.  While it is true that I am not an admin, I do not think it is likely that a request for protection for this redirect would be granted.  Conflict at this page seems to have been fairly limited and the page will be on my watchlist (and I imagine on others' as well) in case things change.  This also allows the page to remain editable in case a need arises to convert it to a disambiguation page in future (there are some wholly non-medical uses of the phrase that may develop articles).  Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you say, but fear that you have missed the point. That point is that I believe it was a significant element that you needed to address in your closure statement. I am not about to request protection, though my opinion was in favour of it.  I am suggesting that you should simply revisit your closure statement and address the topic, otherwise it appears that you have ignored a large population of opinion.  I know from your answer here that you have not, but I feel it should be stated there. Fiddle Faddle 09:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand your concern. Protection is so rarely the result of the AFD process (notwithstanding delete-and-salt cases) that I don't really feel there is any need to elaborate in the AFD archive.  Also, slipped disc may very well be destined for a future as a disambiguation page anyway.  In addition to its semi-medical use, it is apparently a Benny Goodman song, a minor Dallas-area record label, and the title of episodes of The Donna Reed Show and Snoops (in France, anyway).  Under a slightly different spelling, it is a pseudonym of Jason Scott Sadofsky.  All things considered, I wouldn't worry too much about its future.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

With all those other uses, then how about making a disambiguation page immediately? Is there any reason not to do so? -- Fyslee (First law) 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just seeing what else might be out there. There's been no disambiguation of the topic before, so a few more hours of research time won't hurt.  Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. =)  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Letting slipped disc stay as a redirect. That's clearly the primary use of the term.  Created a disambiguation page for the other topics, and a hatlink back to it via template from spinal disc herniation.  Barring anything substantive I've overlooked, I think everything should be good now.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 13:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Found: Slipped disc (disambiguation). Good work. -- -- Fyslee (First law) 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Survival notification
Wouldn't it be good to place a survival notification on the Spinal disc herniation talk page, reaffirming it's right to exist? -- Fyslee (First law) 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The template is generally only placed on talk pages of articles that "survived" an AFD.  Spinal disc herniation was never up for deletion.  Dropping a template on the talk page of every article that had a competing article deleted or merged as a content or POV fork would get out of hand for some articles (marriage, for example).  Everything redirects to there; that's generally affirmation enough.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. I must say your handling of this matter is exemplary. Wikipedia is better for it. We now have a good redirect, a disambiguation page, and the new article retains its rightful place because it uses the correct terminology, instead of a misleading and informal term. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Cat
Hi. I've been referred to you by NeoFreak. I'm new to editing Wikipedia. As practice, I'm trying to document the notability of Mark E. Rogers' Samurai Cat series. I'm having trouble finding much either way. NeoFreak said you might be interested and able to help. Relevant stuff: User:RichM90071, User talk:NeoFreak. Thanks, RichM90071 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)