User talk:Serendipodous/archive 32

Kirby nonsense

Hi. I agree that we should give more weight to the planetary-geologist use of the term 'planet', rather than bowing to the IAU's political definition, but the Kirby et al article is blatant bullshit. For example, Proteus and Pallas are planets, despite not being round. Vesta is a planet, despite contradicting Stern's position that there is only one planet in the asteroid belt. Haumea, Iapetus, Mimas etc. are not planets, according to the definition (they're not spheroids), but are listed as planets regardless and counted as planets by Stern. Maybe Kirby doesn't know what a 'spheroid' is? And a bunch of bodies are listed despite not being solid and therefore not rounded under there own gravity, contradicting Grundy who's name is also on the article. I wish Stern would put his name on something competent, but meanwhile this isn't it. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 4th millennium in fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 4th millennium in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beland (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Far future in fiction

The article Far future in fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Far future in fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Far future in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found you!

Waiting for the next installment of a favorite YouTube channel of mine, I began going through old ones. I started to look up references to subjects brought up here on Wikipedia. When, this old YouTube video author suddenly starts mentioning having begun an article, I rapidly pause, find article in question: go to history, go early on: and find that your name here is.... Serendipitous?

This is amusing, just in the last week I had an argument with a long time friend of mine, over the value of the word 'serendipity'. He hates it. Likens it to "zip-atee-doo-dah", as worthless and curses Horace Walpole's name for inventing it. This all starts because I say something he said was 'serendipitous', obviously not understanding my meaning he says "what's serendipitous?", knowing the word, or believing he did, he wasn't asking the meaning, he was asking what about what he had just said was so.

I continue that just because it is some neologism, even an onomatopoeic term can certainly be imbued with a preciseness not definitive of any other word, maintaining exacting qualities of meaning, for which no other word could be employed in the circumstance.

Serendipity is more than simply a 'happy coincidence', it is when a sort of happenstance graces your path in suchwise that one finds where providence involves itself with the aligning of the universe to an occasion that you're fleetingly a part of.

Anyway happy to cross ways with you Parallax Nick, Nibiru cataclysm is still well explained in it's origination as a hoax and your Melancholia review is as insightfully interesting to watch as your other videos. The narration has a soothing timbre I've found not anywhere else on more popular videos.

To make this solicitation legitmate, I just in the past few hours put an 'update needed' inline citation in the article for Andromeda galaxy - Early on after claiming sources from 2018 & 2019 that it is comparable to the Milky Way in size. Just a spaced line and a beginning paragraph later it cites a 2014 reference that Andromeda has twice as many stars as the Milky Way galaxy. It's just not parsed well in presenting those two disparate tidbits of information.

All the best regards, _Nagelfar (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC) (i.e. "traverses by 'finger'-nail", the ship from Norse lore)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, I'm LaundryPizza03. I noticed that you recently removed content from 4th millennium without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4th millennium

Please explain why you merged 4th millennium and several other articles into Timeline of the far future. I see no consensus to implement this change. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of converted redirects

I saw that you converted several articles (e.g. 4th millennium) into redirects and that you also converted their talk pages to redirects. Redirects can have standalone talk pages and existing talk pages shouldn’t be converted into talk-redirects.

See WP:PROMERGE for example, where redirects from merged only have their WikiProject tags converted to "redirect" class while keeping the old discussions. There's rarely a reason to delete talk page discussions outside of WP:TPNO and WP:UP#CMT. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I copied and pasted the discussions and posted them in the Talk:Timeline of the far future archive. Serendi^podous 18:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although that doesn't lose the actual comments, I think that’s somewhat inadvisable as it distorts the context of the original comments (e.g. which article the comment was originally intended for, which comments were pre-existing on the talk page at the time, which comments were ongoing discussions, etc.) and also causes complications if the article is recreated / the redirect conversion is contested, as had just happened at 4th millennium. The context distortion is particularly bad for comments that refer to their original articles as "this article needs ...", "the infobox here is ...", etc.

Particularly since someone has already restored one of the articles, I will restore the talk pages to their original context. They should remain in their original context even if they eventually become redirects. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, copy-paste moves of content like here (and whichever edits correspond to the other half of the content move) requires links by Wikipedia's copyright requirements, as described by the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind for future content moves like this!

To be clear, I don't disagree with the actual merges / redirect conversions. These are just some procedural issues with how these particular moves were done. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Far future in religion

The article Far future in religion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:SYNTH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slenderman

I searched google and bing and could not find not one single artie that a group of kids stabbed or sacrificed anther kid. I you have other fact that can be proved I tink you should have to source them. If there were other cases related to Slenderman that would also have been a national news story. Slenderman is a whole myth and story goes you have to give up something you love. Well the kids in Wisconsin gave a attempted murder no other cases are real that have other kids in jail. Frankly kids as young as 15 don't commit brutal murders based on stupid myths. Scott ivlow (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

"The English-speaking world overwhelmingly uses commas to separate thousands, not points. Frankly I'm a bit surprised you do, since you're from New Zealand. Is New Zealand an exception?"

It was me, the Portuguese-speaking world uses points, and my version of the Viewcount tool shows them like that. But that was a quick fix. igordebraga ≠ 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once in 800 years

Serendipodous, could you have a look in here?[1] Exciting, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timelines of modern history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timelines of modern history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timelines of modern history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Interstellarity (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima B

I just heard your discussion on Event Horizon; sorry about the disillusionment you had to suffer but I'm glad to know you're still providing intellectual content to the world. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I'm not disillusioned; I still edit Wikipedia frequently. I simply don't want Wikipedia to be the focus my energy. :) Serendi^podous 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Researching Wikipedia

Hi, I am a PhD student at University College London (UK), researching the collective production of knowledge. Wikipedia is my main case study. I have followed closely the Pluto page, and the WikiProject Solar System is my main observation deck on the activity of Wikipedians at the moment. Would you be able/willing to talk to me about your activity on Wikipedia?

I have submitted my project to the Wikipedia research committee for guidance. You can find the full summary here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Sociotechnical_epistemology:_how_do_we_foster_good_practices_in_collective_knowledge-production%3F

There's more on my user page and you can ask me any questions. We can discuss identification, uses of data and so forth before talking as well. If you're interested, you can contact me via my Talk page, or by emailing me at [e-mail]

Thanks! ElenaFalco (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)ElenaFalco[reply]

Sorry I'm new to this!

I have replied to your message on my talk page, but I don't know if you get a notification for that... Again, many apologies for my newbie ways. ElenaFalco (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)ElenaFalco[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ceres (dwarf planet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juno.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top 25

As "Top 25 writer emeritus", I don't know if you'll ever show up to do another list someday, but you're welcome. In any case, some overtly sensitive person tried to erase what you wrote about the deceased Duke of Edinburgh. igordebraga ≠ 20:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "remove data visualization"? We started to transpose the weekly Reports, but Eliasdabbas still puts the chart in the main Top 25 page, thus whenever I update I need to move the image to the relevant page. But if it's another thing, elaborate. igordebraga ≠ 14:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the regular weekly pages, as I decided to take a suggestion and just start transcluding instead of replacing the whole WP:TOP25 page. (thus, here's where the last chart went) igordebraga ≠ 15:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hello Serendipodous, As Ceres (dwarf planet) is now at GAN, I've archived the peer review. Best wishes, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ceres (dwarf planet)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ceres (dwarf planet) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ceres (dwarf planet)

The article Ceres (dwarf planet) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ceres (dwarf planet)

The article Ceres (dwarf planet) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres reverts

Hi, a quick check of User talk:Daniel.Cardenas/Archive 3 shows this editor has a pattern of edit warring. Hopefully my message on the talk page will help stop his reverts. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just noticed your revert. I appreciate the work you're doing bringing the article back up to GA and FA. I wasn't able to resolve some of the discrepancies in the lit e.g. reg. the composition and internal structure. However, when I catch errors, I should be able to fix them. If you want to put the article on hold while you work on it, please tag it with {{under construction}} so that other editors know to leave it alone for the time being.

As for what I'm doing there, I've been editing this article for years, and am the reason it was up for GA in the first place. I've been fixing grammatical and factual errors, and improving some rather convoluted prose. If you have an issue with what I'm doing, please address them individually, rather than reverting wholesale. If the article includes factual errors, it does not deserve to be a GA. Let's work together to improve it, rather than edit-warring over making it worse, shall we?

As for undoing the work you've done to get it to GA, errors should be corrected. So if at GAR someone asks why there's a hyphen somewhere, you could explain why there's a hyphen, rather than deleting it to create an MOS violation, and then edit-warring over fixing it because the error was introduced during GAR.

I suppose I could list all problems at the FAR, but that would be a waste of effort for everyone. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:JRowling

Template:JRowling has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Moist von Lipwig

The article Moist von Lipwig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Avilich (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of FAR

I have nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you a griffin's claw full of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec21}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi, it has been an interesting few months and I'mnot sure when I'll be returning to the meetup, maybe not till the summer. But in the meantime here are some drinking goblets. ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Serendipodous, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 03:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

21st century

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Yaysmay15. Semi-protection is generally the best option. FDW777 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cinadon36 15:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Second planet (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Second planet (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second planet (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fourth planet (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fourth planet (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth planet (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]