User talk:Yobmod/Archive 3

Steampunk

Hi. About the changes I made in the steampunk article. About the Arts et Métiers métro station in Paris Steampunk even if it exists ,is not a colloquial noun in french at all. You'll never find it in any sources. Indeed it's not clearly specified that it's a steampunk design. But it's written in the page and in others that the inspiration is industrial, mechanical, from Jules Verne, from de Fardier de Cugnot etc... etc... It's called "l'univers technique et industriel"

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigil (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

French for Steampunk is steampunk, according to their wikipedia article. You should get consensus to rename their article to "l'univers technique et industriel" if that is truely the correct term. At the moment, we still have only your assertion.Yobmod (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

real world science and science fiction

I invite to discover that there is the word science in science fiction, so it's interesting to show some side of science not only fiction. it would be better to show more of science than more of fiction. because science is real. Do you have any consciouness that you hurt my work? madly and badly. --Despres (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Make a fool of yourself

please make a fool of yourself and delete all the science in the science fiction page and keep only the fiction, the stuff you try to defend. fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despres (talk • contribs) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

??? I haven't edited the Science fiction page to delete anything in ages. Spiritual SF?Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you proove

can you proove that disruptive technology has no connection with science fiction? You dont know science fiction at all then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despres (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive technology is a term from real world economics. It has no special connection to SF.Yobmod (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

proove it is negative

proove it is negative, show where it is negative, give reference, we all know that science fiction is anticipation and that it is related to future technology and that disruptive technology is part of that, you wont won the battle over this with me, I am stronger and more beautiful than you. I cannot add a reference to the see also list, it is not part of the text but only links. You wont win the battle with me, you wont you wont you wont, I will calm down in front of this idiot, do you know the word anticipation, you dont know science fiction at all if not. this is why there is a link between disruptive technologies and science fiction. I cannot put a reference for a link in a see also section, common. You will lost your time on this page, count on me, because I wont allow you to touch my page. --Despres (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You can make links

You can make links between disruptive technologies which contain alot of future science and science fiction. Why do I need to explain to you all this? You dont know it? Please learn it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despres (talk • contribs) 10:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative

You are not collaborative enough with me, trust me disruptive technologies is full of science fiction and will continue to have such, some disruptive technologies have never been invented yet. this is why it is fiction still today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Despres (talk • contribs) 10:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:D. Harlan Wilson

Just keep removing the images and warning the uploaders. If the same account is repeatedly used, it will wind up blocked. If different accounts continue to upload the same copyvio, request that the page is semi-protected so that IPs and new users cannot edit it. You can do that here. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edisonade

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Edisonade, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that a lot of my books are currently in a cardboard box in a storage depot at the moment so definite examples are a problem. I know Jess Nevins has used the term more than once in his books about early science fiction. I think Time Life's "Epic of Flight" has a short section on the topic (although that is possibly not relevant here). Lacking my own references, I have gone with a slightly lazier approach and just used Google Book Search. This gives, for example, Space and Beyond by Gary Westfahl and New Boundaries in Political Science Fiction (specifically the essay Of Starship Troopers and Refuseniks: War and Militarism in U.S. Science Fiction by Darko Suvin which has the subsection The Intertextual Tradition of U.S. Science Fiction: Edisonade in Lieu of History). Both reference Clute, by the way, and both seem to link the genre to Space Opera, which the article does not. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark of the Year

Hi, in regards to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark of the Year, the Youtube video links have been removed. A re-review of the article would be invaluable. Thanks in advance --Flewis^(talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you undoing changes without verifying facts?

?. I changed my vote to neutral - nothing in the article. Unless you are someone else, who doesn't know about creating sections. In that case i probably undid an uncited change. It is not my job to verify fancruft uncited NPOV inserts by a known vandal.Yobmod (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pendulum discography revisit

Could you revisit this nomination on which you opposed please? The nominator seems to have addressed your issues. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Avunculicide

I noted that you removed most of the article for these two reasons:"not even the defiition is cited, and gives no examples of the words use". If you feel that the definition needs to be cited (and I am not arguing this point) you place a request for a citation but you do not have to destroy the article , or - even better - you could look for it (and why did you single out this article when this problem seems to be present in other "-cide" articles??) The use of the word was cited in the article but you removed it, and it has been restored.Ekem (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to know what "cited" means. And the fact that people made other uncited article full of crap is not much of a reason to keep trivial crap in this one. I tagged it.Yobmod (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your actions at Nihilism

Do you have access to Kleiner, Fred S. and Mamiya, Christin J. (2005) . Gardner's Art Through the Ages, 12th edition, Wadsworth Publishing, page 980? If so, can you quote the relevant section so that we can see if it verifies the text? If not, it is not assuming good faith to remove a reference that another editor (not I) asserted verified the text. Regards, Skomorokh 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The text is already quoted in the cite, and doesn't mention Nihilism. My edition doesn'r even have 980 pages!Yobmod (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Req help with Assessment

Hello. I was reviewing Save Our Children for Good Article Status, but the review has since stalled since I asked for a second opinion. I have noticed you are particularly active reviewing WP:LGBT articles and was wondering if you could help out. \ / (⁂) 09:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some comments. From what i understand, it is the first reviewers perogative to decide on the outcome. So you have to decide if the second reviewers comments have been met, or do not need to be met for GA. I think some of the changes suggested would be an improvment (eg, the use of professed/claimed instead of said etc), but that NPOV is not a big enough problem for tagging or stopping GA.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best other work

Hello, I left comments on the above FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just another reminder that my issues stand unresolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, been on holiday. Made the suggested changes now. Many thanks!Yobmod (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One more issue, then I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx for your help with Nihilism and a further question

Hello. Thanks for you help with editing the Art section in Nihilism. I agree with you! It looks list-ish... I left some comments on the talk page, thank you so much. LombrizFeliz (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Quatermass book.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Quatermass book.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Laurell K. Hamilton discussion page

Hi. Could I get a clue as to what's going on with the Laurell K. Hamilton discussion page? It was at one point 53K, and now it's been edited down to 1.3 K. Perhaps a little too much has been archived? Now, it's so brief, a "newbie" to the discussion might assume that not much has been said here. Thoughts about this? Piano non troppo (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply archived everything, as no substantive contributions had been made to any of the discussions in a while, the only new additions being off-wiki flame-war continuations. Feel free to pull any discussion about improving the page from the archive and add to it. Although the page has had a stable consensus since i added all those cites and archived the talk (just from looking at the edit history), which i think would make starting new discusions more fruitful. 3 months after archiving and this is the only comment, so i think it is fair to say the old non-constructive arguements are dead.Yobmod (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I only got to her article because someone had vandalized it. Then, wondering why all the fur was flying, I picked up one of her books and read a little. I won't say she instantly became one of my favorite authors, but the tone of the criticism leveled at her bothers me, and seems inappropriate for Wiki. I.e., I'm not a Hamilton fan, but that doesn't mean people can trash her. It's not mob rule. If you are quelling the flames, more power to you. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only read one too, and neither hated nor loved it. But the criticisms are what most often gets said, about the later books at least. If the seem undue, then maybe more positive opinion of the earlier books might be found (I assume that the first books must have had some positive press, but all i found was "best-selling" and "sold xxx number of copies", both of which i added and cited. Unfortunately, all he "fans" wanted to do was argue - none ever made any effort to improve the article in any way.Yobmod (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed the first few Anita Blake books, but as they became more and more sexual sturm und drang and less and less examples of interesting fantasy exploring a rather unusual (at the time the series started) premise, I abandoned them entirely and no longer recommend her to anybody. My experience is by no means unique among readers of SF & fantasy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind so much if factual information were being applied to the criticism. E.g., The "Nancy Drew" books were rewritten in the late 50s and early 60s because the publishers thought the originals had vocabulary that was too difficult for modern teens (!) I got my hands on an original, and a rewrite. Objective comparisons could be made: the books are shorter, the vocabulary more limited. If that kind of analysis could be done on Hamilton, say, that an algorithm establishing "reading level" shows she's now writing for 5th graders...well, at least that would be objective and factual. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Themes in science fiction

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Themes in science fiction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• I put a warning in User talk:AKR619#List of science fiction themes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping out. I guess this must be the most annoying part of admin responsibilities! But did you see his last edits? He cited everything with a wikilink to the general Star Trek and Doctor Who page and with "If you need a reference for this one, you must have only just heard of science fiction" (and this was after you had reverted once already). This may not count as obvious vandelism, but it definitely intended to be distuptive - there is no way that he doesn't know that this would never be reliable sources.

And the edit summaries continue to be ponty and unincivil: "Once upon a time this article had all these things with no complaints, then Yobmod fucked it all up, well now I'm fucking it the way it was used to be". "I'm pulling a Yobmod, when most of the previous users agreed to one format, he insisted on changing it back and wouldn't slide".Yobmod (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be honest, I didn't catch it from the noticeboard, I just saw it in recent changes and took a look. As for refactoring his talk page, I figure there's a difference between him just sticking that at the end and completely wiping everything and just leaving that little gem there. It was a pretty clear message he was sending, and one that didn't really need to be sent.

Anyway, keep up the good work there! Let me know if you have any other issues, okay? :) Mo0[talk] 10:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re User Behavior

I can't say I am surprised at that news. It was probably inevitable. - Mark 15:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs (2nd nomination). Thank you. Rogerb67 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Military SF Bibliography

Well, I started going through my books and encyclopedias about SF - but you will not like the list, as it lists some of it MSF that I personally would not... but we have references, if this is any criteria. I have most of it in an electronic form, so you can check them out and I have a second opinion... Cheers, --Gego (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Military SF Bibliography.

Ok, finished my list of 73 books where I could find references. I used:

• Clute, J. and P. Nicholls (1995). The Encyclopedia of science fiction. New York, St. Martin's Griffin.
• D'Ammassa, D. (2004). Encyclopedia of science fiction. N.Y., Facts On File.
• James, E. and F. Mendlesohn (2003). The Cambridge companion to science fiction. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press.

I will put up the list in the next days, as there are now references which have to be wikified and I think that some of the choises will sure be controversal. When they are posted, people can put up other references for proving that they are not considered MSF. Cheers, --Gego (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SF themes

Hey, could you comment on the last section of the talk:List of science fiction themes, even if just to agree/disagree with my analysis. Every move i make to sort this list (so i can start adding more citations) gets reverted to a very old badly formatted version, which is the same problem the article had when you semi-protected it (the IP user at least started using his account again, but still will not discuss). With only me working on it, i'd like to form a consensus at least on the way forward, so i point out this consensus when my improvments get removed.

Any request to admins is replied to with "discuss any changes", which is pretty difficult as the only opposing viewpoint is from a "retired" editor who will not discuss, and deletes msges to his talk page. Thanks for any input you can give, even if only to disagree with me :-).Yobmod (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the late response, but I've commented there. Hope it helps : ) - jc37 03:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re List of US words not widely used in the UK

Hi Yobmod. Thanks for commenting on my talk page :)

Re that page: Does look like it will be kept.

There aren't any reliable sources for "Not widely used..." words, of course. Linguists aren't stupid :D

There are sources for regional variation, but heaven knows how the page will be maintained.

I think with a proviso, but I can't think of a non-silly one, given the page name.

eg "There is no evidence that any of these words are not used by British speakers, nor that they are not now widely used."

Anyway, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Steel and cooler heads

I appreciate your comments and cooperation in the Steampunk thread. I realize that some of the young overzealous fans in Dr. Steel's fan club have rather "poisoned the well" over here and prejudiced most of the mods toward having any mention of him anywhere within your wiki, with their "Operation Wikipedia"; I understand there are a lot of fires to put out.

I am not one of those sorts of people. While I am a fan of his music and creative talent, I am not some kiddie or /b/tard. I am a 48 year old professional gentleman in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and as a professional musician, I am also a colleague and peer and merely wish to see that he gets the credit he is due, without being negatively slanted and prejudice by the more fanatical of his fan base (although that's where the word "fan" comes from, isn't it?). Which is why I got a bit irked at the disappearance of his name at a place where I believed he should rightfully appear.

There has been a bit of a sea change among Dr. Steel's fan base in recent months. There are a lot of new, older, "cooler heads" like myself, who are attempting to reign in some of the /b/tard-style behavior of the past (for which I personally apologize). Older professionals and business[wo]men, and musical peers, who just happen to enjoy his music and his humor. Please note that "Operation Wikipedia" has been suspended for quite some time now, and the fan base has been instructed for the most part to leave Wikipedia alone (so most postings on here have been from kiddies that don't pay attention to their elders, haha). In the mean time, the more adult, professional fan base hopes to foster better relations and cooperation in the future and hope to let cooler heads prevail.

And hopefully get the well-researched and annotated version of the Dr. Steel entry (not the "viral marketing" version; as a fellow web content editor I don't blame you for striking that one) reinstated sometime in the future.

Thanks for your understanding; hopefully we can work together better in the future. And feel free to share this personal note with the other moderators.

Regards, --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

I agree with you regarding the list. Will you give me some time so that i can figure out a list? I can develop it in user page and themn move it. Please reply back. "Legolas" (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to do it, when the GA happened. I will do it in a day or two. "Legolas" (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to do the GAR nom. Unfortunately I hadn't read your post carefully enough and I missed that part - I've gone ahead and opened the GAR. Apologies for that :P However, we can continue with the article development on the GAR page, where your input will be very welcome; there's no rush and I believe we can validate the GA pass. EyeSerene^talk 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)