User talk:Serendipodous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Traffic report[edit]

@Milowent: I'm working with the WMF for the summer, and we got a press inquiry today about a page view stat from about a year ago. I don't think I'm allowed to be any more specific until the article comes out, but your traffic reports/top 25 made the task really easy. Thank you both for writing it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's great to hear!--Milowenthasspoken 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

collab etc.[edit]

  • I expect my current project to take months, quite seriously. After that... I dunno. Maybe edit. Maybe not. It's all lost the sense of urgency, don'tcha know. But some topics are still interesting, and working on things might be... may be... a possibility. Anyhow, cheers • ArchReader 11:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report discontinued?[edit]

I have noticed the absence of the last two traffic reports. Have they been discontinued?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter & Star Wars[edit]

You are free to discuss your concerns on the talk page, but don´t edit war. I can start a discussion if you like, but I´ll warn you I´m quite busy this summer and won´t be able to respond for days, perhaps weeks on end. There´s plenty of sources online, especially going back many years that cited many borrowings from Star Wars.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I never denied they also both borrow from a common source(s) but they also share common termonologies not found elewhere. The comaprisons between Harry Potter and Star Wars are somewhat WP:DUCK.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to add, it´s not just the heros, but the villains and storyline as well, which is mentioned and cited in the article. You better bring up future concerns on the talk-page to avoid confusions and missed points.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


You might have to change the description of the list, because it clearly implies Harry Potter´s borrowings, or similarities if you prefer, to other forms of literature only. I thing the top description needs to be changed to avoid confusion.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of Gravity Falls characters, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Callmemirela (Talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A Record of Murder[edit]

Just wondering, but the film is in the style of a Found Footage, and im just wondering why you removed it twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Check out The X-Files sources and analogues which I created. It borrows from many movies and TV series, most that I don´t give a darn about, many that I dont even like yet I still noted them as sources, despite being somewhat of an X-Files fan.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that[edit]

Sorry i didnt realise that I might have accidently deleted a comment of yours on th talk page. I checked the history and can seem to find it. You are free to restore it and sorry abotu that, but I still stand by my claims. The sources also claim it to be such. If you can find some valid counter sources that claim the opposite then you may have a good reason to remove it. For the record the other authors are accusing her of takign their ideas, wheras the reference to Star Wars is no different. The soruces claim that Rowling did borrow, but I put possibly to make it seem neutral, though I´m like 99.9% sure it is taken, but I´ll let the sources decide that, which they do.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

i'm on it.[edit]

thanks for the notes, i'll get it up today.--Milowenthasspoken 11:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Red Spot listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Red Spot. Since you had some involvement with the Great Red Spot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DN-boards1 (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Traffic Report[edit]

Hi, Serendipodous,
I saw this week's Traffic Report and wanted to say something before it went live. In the U.S., Frank Gifford is not most well-known for his playing career or his marriages, but for hosting Monday Night Football for 27 years, which is an American institution (or it was when he was a broadcaster). He was a commentator for the Olympics and Evel Knievel's jumps. If it involved sports and the ABC TV network in the 1970s and 1980s, he was the announcer. The fact that he married a morning talk show host only became well-known after he retired when Kathie Lee Gifford got her hosting job and would talk about her family on air. But many, many more people watched Monday Night Football than a 9 am talk show. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Sorry about that (TNO template)[edit]

Thanks for getting that fixed so promptly. --SchutteGod (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Slender Man - As Folklore[edit]

Hi Serendipodous,

I think you've done a wonderful job keeping the Slender Man article in good shape. That said, I want to push back a little bit against some of the reversions you made to my edits on the "As Folklore" section of the article.

In your description of why you reverted my edits, you mentioned that deleting valid material is problematic. I would suggest, however, that the section--as it currently stands--gives prominence to Dr. Chess' work in a way that makes it seem definitive. Indeed, the citation of her work far exceeds that of any other scholar on the page. She should not simply be seen as correct because her information was there first. This ignores the continually developing nature of academic argument and favors quick publication instead of depth or breadth.

Furthermore, validity of the deleted material is indeed an issue. Dr. Chess's work on the topic is quite controversial among academic folklorists. For instance, my own published work would classify the Slender Man as a legend (not a myth). This is a significant distinction. Many of the sub-points I deleted from the paragraph were made by digital folklorists nearly a decade ago, but the current entry makes it seem as though they are new contributions by Dr. Chess. Additionally, the folklore/fakelore distinction has generally fallen out of favor among academic folklorists since the 1970s. Although I could include a few follow-up paragraphs describing Chess's work as controversial and providing arguments against it, I'm leery of substantially lengthening the article to make such points.

My intention here is not to neuter Chess's contributions to scholarship but to provide a more balanced view of scholarship on the topic. To this end, I abridged Chess's part of the section to a couple sentences that presented a condensed version of the highlights of her research. I then asked Jeff Tolbert to contribute a few sentences (of roughly equal length to Dr. Chess's) doing the same. Finally, I added a few of my own based on the key takeaways from my own peer-reviewed published work. The goal was to provide the reader with similar information while also drawing from a variety of different sources. In light of the rapidly developing conversation surrounding the Slender Man in academic circles, this seemed the most egalitarian way to represent the various modes of scholarship on the topic.

If you'd like to discuss this further, please let me know. I'm going to revert my changes (pending your response), but I'm happy to keep editing the new paragraph (that represents several scholars) until we find a compromise we are both content with.

Ampeck (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)ampeck

Hey Serendipodous,

There's actually a good deal of scholarly literature on the topic! In addition to Chess's article (which is cited here) and her book with Eric Newsom, check out Jeff Tolbert's 2013 article in Semiotic Review (free online via and my 2015 article from the Journal of American Folklore (requires membership, let me know if you want me to send you a .pdf Funny thing, my article was actually written before Chess's (2012) came out (Tolbert 2013 cites it), but JAF (which is the highest-impact journal in the field of folklore) has like a two-year wait time for publication. I also know at least a half dozen other folklore scholars with things in the pipeline regarding Slendy.

When I say Chess is controversial, I'm specifically referring to her work on the Slender Man (I really can't speak to her work with games/gaming). The main issue a lot of folklore scholars have with it is that it purports to make an intervention into the study of [digital] folklore without having reviewed or cited a significant body of already-existing literature on the topic. If you read my article of Jeff's, you'll see that significant work has already been done here that Chess has missed. In short, much of what is included in the "as folklore" section of this article disingenuously represents work done on the Slender Man by folklorists. My edits to this section were meant to minimize these omissions.

On the subject of fakelore, your argument seems a bit tautological, as the entire point of the citation is to say it is not fakelore. Indeed, if you go to the fakelore page, the entry (which cites points both Jeff and I make) advocates for seeing the Slender Man as folklore. I feel the edits I made still get to the spirit of this assertion (scholars agree it is folklore) without the baggage of the 'fakelore' citation.

Finally, you wrote that "Over time, this problem will be redressed as newer and more varied sources appear. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and no article exists in its final state." As such, the information in the article needs to change and grow with associated scholarship. This is exactly what I am trying to do here. The article has outdated information that lacks diversity of opinion. If, say, a student were to stumble upon it, then it would give an inaccurate picture of scholarship regarding the Slender Man as folklore.

Ampeck (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Far future[edit]

I have reverted your edits to Far future and Talk:Far future. I found your article edits to be unhelpful and unsupported by any consensus. This is clearly a WP:DABCONCEPT topic, so disambiguation is incorrect. With respect to the talk page edits, please do not delete talk page comments or discussions by other editors. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Far future in religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalpa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


   Thanks the clarification, on my talk, of what you were trying to accomplish at Nibiru. I've responded at talk:Nibiru#Neberu, which facilitates recognition of your thots as a continuation of the prior treatment of this matter there where it belongs.
--Jerzyt 07:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Top 25 Report[edit]

Two points about this week's: One, Jim Webb is a former Virginia senator, not governor. Two (and I realize this is somewhat picayune), Columbus did in fact set foot on what is now American territory. Once. See Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve - not a state, but surely it counts.

I do hate to be a nitpicker, but picking nits is what I do best. :-) Looks good otherwise - keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

About page for Top 25?[edit]

Hey Seren, I was thinking that the Top 25 report has been around long enough that it might help to have an "about" page, see User:Milowent/sandbox4 for a stab at this. If you like (and feel free to edit), consider how we could have a standard link to it from the Top 25 reports; maybe even using a simple template for each report that appears at the top of the page (maybe including the "last week" and "next week" links), sort of like the bottom line of the Signpost page.--Milowenthasspoken 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Plan X[edit]

Just admit that Planet X is real Nreedl (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Black hole![edit]

Its views dropped, right around the time we decided to finally remove it from the Top 25. I feel like the dark web is screwing with us.--Milowenthasspoken 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Top 25 Reports[edit]

Hi, Serendipodous,
I just noticed a lot of edits to Top 25 pages by HalloweenNight and wondered if you were aware of this. I know sometimes you take on other editors to help prepare the lists but they usually aren't edited after the week has passed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should ping Milowent, too. Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)