User talk:Serpent's Choice/Archive 4

Shared Universe FAC

Just saw that you're withdrawing; I think that's the right choice. I am delighted to hear you're going to work on expanding and improving it though; this kind of interaction is not a failure -- that's how article editors discover more material to put into articles. I'd be happy to take a look at a major revision of the article when you get there, if that would be useful. Good luck with the research and have fun with it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In January you proposed the following language at: Talk:MFD

"longstanding essays, guidelines, policies, and projects are typically marked historical and deprecated in lieu of actually literal deletion" (or something like that...

What does "deprecated" mean in this context? I've asked at WikiProject Council where we've been discussing inactivity in projects generally - but nobody seems to know, at least if they do they're not saying so.

Please respond on my talk page. Thank you. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, since my post above I did review deprecation and got an inkling for the concept. The referenced discussion has now been centralized (see {{cent}} for the location) as it was going on in four or five different places at once, including MfD and the WikiProject Council. If you are interested, your comments would be appreciated.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review

I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. Flyer22 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crossgen Chronicles promo poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crossgen Chronicles promo poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LakeRegionHSLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:LakeRegionHSLogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:AFD comments

I see you were a contributor to this AFD about 2 hours ago. I've revamped the page, but I fear it still may be deleted. Best regards, Rudget. 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I know most users wouldn't. Rudget. 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do what I can; that's what I'm here for. I'm still not 100% sure what I think of that article. I'm reasonably certain that some, if not all, of those sources are in fact reprinted press releases and thus invalid for sourcing, but we'll see. I'm too far out of my field of expertise to help more -- this time. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugène Belgrand, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Redirect-acronym

Template:Redirect-acronym has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode arbcom - talk page tagging

Regarding your evidence at that arbcom case, it is possible for WikiProjects to index and sort redirects. See Category:Middle-earth redirects for examples (try to ignore how many there are...). You are correct though, that edit warring over articles tends to miss out the talk page, which may end up with a missing tag. Good point. By the way, it seems that Category:Episode redirects to lists has caught on - well, at least TTN is using it. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, an even better reason not to completely strip wikiproject tags from redirectified content, in my opinion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Sotis

Thanks for fixing the close--this was my first attempt at closing something! JJL (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I think I botched my first one too. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law in Star Trek (second nomination)

Thanks for the input, there is also the option of converting the article to a stub, could you comment on that? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and cut the article down to a stub. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UnearthedOld.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UnearthedOld.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Serpent, I am more than happy that you are bringing your efforts to the Gold Plates article. Do not interpret anything I say to the contrary; however, being an active editor for a while I have grown a bit short with editors that are not interested in improving Wikipedia, but rather pushing their own religious views. I would hope that even you can see that some of the editors are anything but objective and are motivated by their personal ax to grind.

There is some surprise that an article that has already become a FA is now deemed so bad as to need significant improvement. What is the goal afterward? How does it become "better" and who judges this improvement?

The application of balance appears to be both arbitrary and highly subjective. In a religious topic what is a balanced approach? Is this policy only applied when someone disagrees with a specific religion or is it only applied to wherever topic is a minority position? I still have not heard of the value, in the context of a religious topic, of saying that others don't believe it. Isn't this obvious? It seems like I am beating this horse into the dirt, but no one seems to answer. I'll let it go. Regardless, I look forward to working with you. You may want to review some of the other LDS articles; you will find a plethora of resources. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the conversation. I knew when I FAR'ed golden plates that I was entering into sensitive territory. I've tried to read through some of the article and talk histories, and I'll certainly agree that not everyone who has participated has been pleasant -- and this doesn't even seem like one of the "visible" topics! But, as to the need for significant improvement, that's what got me involved. The FA process isn't perfect. Sometimes things get promoted with a bit more or a bit less rigorous examination. That's one of the important aspects of FAR, cleaning up articles that got promoted ... but probably had a little more work to do. In this case, the article really stuck out for me when it hit the main page. Simply put, I don't think its FA quality right now. These things, sadly, sometimes happen, and the FAC for golden plates only had something like 3 comments, making it more likely here. I was initially struck by stylistic problems: repeated quotes, quote density in general, overuse of certain words and phrases. The dependence on primary sources is also a concern; there are other FAs that are very primary source-heavy, but its far from encouraged, doubly so when secondary sources exist.

And that's what got me concerned about the NPOV aspects. The plates are very unusual for a religious topic both because they are very recent (for a religious document of their impact) and because they are described as physical objects with a very long ascribed history, recovered from a real-world physical location, transported between several real-world locations, and witnessed (to varying degrees, and with varying plausibility) by a not-insignificant number of people. As a result, quite a bit has been written about them by scholars who do not believe they exist. Obviously, some didn't have much to say other than to write Smith off as a fraud and Mormonism as his followers' delusion ... but, especially in the last twenty to thirty years, the topic has been treated with increasing complexity outside the faith. But, under other circumstances, you'd be right. In another article, for example, we wouldn't reference someone who said, "Well, actually, I don't think he killed a demon with an unstoppable bow and then flew home on a magic airplane." But authors in peer-reviewed journals aren't writing that kind of tripe here; they are making legitimate observations about, and, often based on the nonexistence of the plates. In an article about them, that's important. Serpent's Choice (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, white nose syndrome, was selected for DYK!

On February 18, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article white nose syndrome, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kerafyrm AfD

I found dead trees that talk about it so you may want to change your opinion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dance Mixes

Surely if the information is "wholly incorrect" then it can be fixed rather than speedily deleted? I didn't see anything there that was "nonsense", copyvio, or any other reason that qualifies for speedy. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PublicNetbaseLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:PublicNetbaseLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)