User talk:Yobmod/Archive 2

Transhumanism Arts and culture

Hello Yobmod. Thank you again for the great work you've done on the Science fiction genre section of the Biopunk article. Would you be interested in doing the same thing for the Arts and culture section of the Transhumanism article? --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll work on the Transhumanism article since I am familiar with some of sources that need to be cited so I think we should focus on the Postcyberpunk article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ofter a first look, i realised that the "arts and culture section" is actually a precis of a TH in literature and the TH arts articles. So you're right - it is these articles that need to be worked on.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Sturgeon

Hello, Yobmod! Thanks for wanting to tidy up the Theodore Sturgeon article, but I do think the explanation regarding his name change is necessary. While there are some cases of an "Edward" getting the nickname "Ted" (i.e., Teddy Kennedy), it's a far more logical and common contraction of the name "Theodore". I reverted. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any explanation, must have been someone else. I added the fact tag, cos i think the explanation given was made up by an editor here. People don't generally change their names to fit better with a nick-name that is already associated with their given name.

If my name was frederick and people called me 'Rick, i could change my name to Richard to match, but i've never met anyone who has done such a thing, and an article about me would need a cite if it stated that as my reason to changeYobmod (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Comics and homosexuality

I guess you've seen the homosexuality section in Batman#Homosexual interpretations, but you may want to look at bits of that and see if it can be added to the Homosexuality in speculative fiction. Also, you should be able to find a fair bit of online writing regarding Ayla and Vi of the LSH after Giffen rebooted the series. Although never acknowledged in the comics, it was speculated the pair were lovers. Oddly, the website you linked to for Firebrand lists Matter Eater Lad as potentially homosexual, whilst in the series he was quite heavily portrayed as a womaniser, I think he eventually married Calorie Queen, although I may have that wrong. What I am concerned with is stating that a character is definitively homosexual. We should be citing the people who state it. That's the approach we took at Batman, and one that I feel is in keeping with our policy on original research. Hiding T 08:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oki doke. I removed the offendeing sentence, after being unable to find much discusion of it on online sources. Unreliable sources abound calling him gay, but nothing more official. I only included him as an early example, but if he is so non-notable, he doesn't need much eplanation, just a note. It's a shame, cos now we have no proof of any censorship from DC on this.

You might want to look at the LGBT characters in comics article - this section is eventually intended to be a summary of that, but it is currently not much more than an uncited list. And i only read Marvel :-D. Batman is on the to do list, as are sidekicks, but other than that this section should only discuss very major characters or milestone events, summary style.

Thanks for helping improve the article!Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit request

Sorry for the delay in response. I am a teacher, and all this week we have been getting our classes ready for the first day of school on Monday. If you would still like me to give the article a copy-edit, I will this weekend. Let me know. And yes, I did change my username from Silverwolf85 to Pax85. :)

Take care,

Pax85 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I was actually going to suggest that I hold off for a bit anyway, since I noticed that there was still a lot of change happening in the article. Once the edits slow down a bit, let me know. The only reason that I say this, is that when an article goes through a copy-edit while it is still under heavy revision, the copy-edit tends to do no good, and has to be completed again... Take care, and I look forward to working on the article. Pax85 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tiptree Award

I'm a little puzzled as to why you removed the historical note "(which predates all of these)" from the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was untrue. The lambda awards are 3 years older according to the wikipages.
2. It seemed irrelevant. This isn't an article about the award, so how does this information add to the articles topic?
3. It made the award seem more important, whereas the some of winners have nothing to to with LGBT themes, so is actually less important than the other awards.

I also noticed you didn't give a citation for the claim that the winners touch on LGBT themes. It is true from looking at the list, but i wouldn't be suprised if it gets tagged during peer review as OR. Yobmod (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT navbox

Love your new navbox, I've eliminated mine as a result. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanism in fiction

So you deleted most of the page, didn't add anything to it, or try to find citations for the material that was there. And hell! since the article is basically just a stub, you might as well go ahead and nominate it for AfD..... Is this what you do, on wikipedia? destory articles?

I'm not saying the article is great, in fact, I'd even go as far as saying as it sucks... but you deleted a lot of peoples good faith edits in trying to make the article more complete. Why don't you try educating the editors of transhumanism in fiction to add citations to their additions? Explain to them why it's important to cite their additions?

I don't really have a problem with you deleting uncited additions, but in this case I don't really think your making the article better, or helping wikipedia.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tags were there for weeks, and the article was uncited forever. Not only were no citations added, no-one made any indication on the talk page that references existed or that they intended to find them. Deleting original research, fan musings and lies improves wikipedia in my opinion.Yobmod (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFF

Hey, I left a response at WP:RFF#Homosexuality in SF. Definitely let me know if you need any clarification or help with that, and I'm also glad to give you feedback on whatever else you need. Peace, delldot talk 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, replied on my talk. Peace, delldot ∇. 05:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield

Thanks for the useful feedback! --DarTar (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first i though this was sarcasm about something i deleted, but then remembered mooching around at peer review. Guess i should watch pages i review! You're welcome, hope it helped :-D.Yobmod (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to comment in AFD discussion.

Dear Yobmod, I am writing to inform that your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (6th nomination) has been responded to. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i'm convinced, --> no keep. Get that schlampet off wikipedia! (or not, i'm neutral :-) ).Yobmod (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass (TV serial)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've added a bunch of references to the unsourced statements. However, I don't know how to upload and use images at all. I have a book cover here that would add to the last section quite well (as another aspect of the show). Could you direct me to instructions on how to use it or to someone who'll do it for me? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image you found, feel free to change the placement & size (i forced thumbnail size, which may/may not annoy the FAC people, but it looks better imo). Uploading can be done from the "Upload file" link in the toolbox to the left - they've just revamped the page, so it is very simple, justz choose cover (book) whenever it asks for input :-).Yobmod (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you so much for your help. I'll give it a final look over and then post it to WP:GAN. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Would you happen to have an email address I could discuss a confidential issue regarding Steampunk using? If you do, my email is dbwiki[at]gmail.com (if you could, just send me an email and we'd be good to go). Regards, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I want to thank you for what you said about my article Quad (relationship). Unfortunately most of the others are right, I cannot find many (if any) references for this topic. I am a bisexual man, and my wife and I are both polyamorous, so writing this article was an interest for me. It, and Triad (relationship) can be merged into Polyamory, but that article is far to large already. Hence the quandary. Why is it that certain subjects, like human sexuality, raise such ire in people? Again thank you sir.Lord Balin (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G. D. Falksen?

I was just doing some editing on the steampunk article, and was wondering if you know anything about this G. D. Falksen person. I have never heard of him, but the ref. is good, and he is mentioned in the article, so I let it stand. However, the edits are slightly hinky, for the following reasons: Falksen seems to be a very new, and little known, author, associated with this magazine The Willows; doing some checking, I find his Myspace page, where I see that he is friends with a user named Jaborwhalky, the same name as the editor who added the information to the steampunk article; doing a little more looking, I find that said individual (according to her Myspace page, is the "head of promotions and advertising for the Willows." Anytime I see someone adding information to Wikipedia that seems intended to benefit a friend or comrade, an alarm is raised, if only in my mind. In this case, the ref. is legit, so the edit stands. But, in future, we have to be wary of these sorts of edits. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Seems to be good faith, and the source is ok, but i see no reason for it to be in this article rather than in the list, as it doesn't help readers to better understand Steampunk, and is too recent to be influential. So i moved it to the linked List of... article, keeping the descriptions. I just wish there was a way to make the few cited entries in that list more prominent, so they are not drowned out by the unverfied cruft.Yobmod (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your action. Actually, I wish I had thought of it. This user Jaborwhalky, though, has proved herself a menace, insisting upon adding inappropriate content, while removing sourced content. I am going to leave her a warning message now, 'cause my patience has run out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer an explanation and a correction here. I understand that you may not be completely familiar with the present steampunk trend. Most people aren't, although I have been working very hard to increase the mainstream news coverage of the trend to help bring people into contact with it. I worked with Ruth La Ferla on the New York Times article, I was interviewed and provided information for the San Francisco Chronicle, I provided information for the Hartford Courant, I have been working with MTV on their upcoming coverage of the trend, and I am in contact with most of the big names in the subculture. All of the modifications I have made to the steampunk entry are accurate. The previous information about the steampunk subculture and steampunk fashion represent common misconceptions which are clearly disproved by the subculture itself. As for G. D. Falksen, he is one of the key figures in the trend, both in terms of his writing and in terms of his social role. He has a significant presence on the steamfashion livejournal community, which is the largest online resource for steampunk fan interaction, and he has lectured about steampunk to the largest group of people so far, at Saloncon, the longest running steampunk convention in the country. His writing has been in every issue of Steampunk Magazine to date, as well as much of The Willows magazine which is truthfully the only regularly published steampunk fiction magazine. Falksen has been in both of the major publications covering steampunk; he was quoted extensively in the San Francisco Chronicle, and if you look at the outdoor photoshoot image in the New York Times article you can clearly see him, the tall man in the red coat. Again, I can understand if you were not aware of this, because outside of the subculture very few people are. However, it is only right that the view of steampunk from within and without, including on wikipedia, be as close as possible. I have been attempting to make sure of that. Also, if you were responsible for removing the other current steampunk literary references on the page, please understand that doing so ignores the fact that the genre has had a resurgence recently. Perhaps that demands its own section in the article, but it should be recognized. Authors like Jay Lake and G. D. Falksen are revitalizing the literary side of steampunk, which goes hand in hand with the trend that I am helping to build. Jaborwhalky (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the edits that keep getting reverted don't have sources. the sources for the book i moved just say it exists and is steampunk, hence there is no need for it to have more representation than the list offers. The article isn't interested in truth, but in verfiability. Find sources stating that these authors are revitalising the genre. revitalising a small online comminity is not the same thing - all i see is authors writing mostly-ignored books without much innovation. Weve spent 6 months removing unsourced ideas from internet pundits from this page, and you re-add more than there ever was with no sources. Do sources exist beyond fan published magazines? Where is the New York Times review of this resurgence? We have national newpapers for other additions.Yobmod (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to remind you that G. D. Falksen was quoted extensively as a reliable and informed source in the San Francisco Chronicle article, which is the second article by a major newspaper covering the trend? I understand your wish to ensure proper citation, but frankly some of the existing material in the subculture section of the steampunk entry is not only inaccurate, it is entirely unrelated to the sources that are supposed to support it. The newspaper articles that are cited there support the modifications that I made, rather than the older entries that have been replaced; in fact, the newspapers contradict what is currently stated in the fashion and subculture section. In addition, fan-run magazines and blogs are being cited as reliable sources, which seems contrary to the complaints you have just raised. You have Steampunk Magazine, a small fan-run zine, cited as a reliable source, while you dismiss The Willows, which is a professional literature magazine, as being irrelevant to the subject. I will certainly speak to Ruth about having someone cover the resurgence of steampunk fiction in the trend, but she is the fashion editor of the New York Times, not the literature editor, and she is extremely busy at the moment study the neo-vintage subculture of New York. If you want the steampunk page to cover the subculture, which is only right, you are going to run into this problem. Coverage is going to come slowly and erratically from reputable sources, and there is only so much that I can do about it. And I feel I should also point out that a trend which is enjoyed by thousands of people internationally is hardly a "small online community." Jaborwhalky (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1000's of people sounds pretty small to me - more people live in my appartment block :-). If you have sources, why not try adding one fact at a time, so editors can come to a consensus: or even better, putting them on the articles talk first. Being reverted 2/3 times (neither time by me by the way, so i've not looked at the sources) means that there is disagreement, so editors must discus the changes first. Itz is the only way to move forward!Yobmod (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Homosexuality in speculative fiction

I'm partway through a GA review of the article; you can take a look here if you'd like to see what I have so far. (The article talk page is not refreshing the template, so you may have to look at the subpage directly if you have the same issue.) I'll try to get to the images and sources tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say I've fixed the indents on the review page. I thought you might not be aware of how indents work -- it's about the least intuitive part of Wiki markup -- so I wanted to give a quick explanation. Basically, if you want to indent under someone else's comment, you reproduce exactly what they used, and then add an additional colon (for indent) or asterisk (for a bullet). Take a look and you'll see what I did.

I also think a couple of your answers are after the wrong bullets, so I'll move those; please revert me if I misunderstood. And in reply to your thank you note at the end: you're welcome! It's a fine article, and it's a pleasure to read and work with dedicated editors. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I though using 2 asterisks would auto indent, but it seems only to be the case if i'm replying to an asterisked list, d'oh.Yobmod (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. Let me know when you've had a chance to go through and respond; I'll watchlist and may comment as you go. I am unlikely to have much time to edit tomorrow (work and air travel) but may have a bit of time over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also be away this weekend, so will start with the major changes on Monday. Some minor suggestions already acted upon.Yobmod (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise‎

Please do not edit my comments as you did here --Nate 14 81 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for editing your comment! I was copying the hash symbol (german keyboards don't have one) and must have done something bizarre with copy/paste.Yobmod (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Elevator

Yobmod, I did explain why the article is not too long on its talk page. This edit here. The article contains less than 10,000 words of actual text (ie. not stuff like image captions and footnotes) which per WP:LENGTH is a good and reasonable length for an article. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, must have been an edit conflict. that wan't there when i checked! Discussion on article talk, didn't revert a second time (although WP:Length agrees with me, 51 Kb is too long).Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borges and Magic Realism

Please do not be presumptuous in removing uncited material. Checking out the truth of the statement by trying to find a source that either supports or disproves the assertion is more constructive. Before removing something, check to see if you can find a citation yourself. And anyway, it's obvious that you cannot be even moderately knowledgeable about magic realism in literature, or you would know that Jose Luis Borges was a leading (and according to many sources, the leading) writer in the genre. In fact, it's almost impossible to graduate from high school (at least in the USA) without learning this at some point.

I know, I know: it's better if all statements in an article are accompanied by citations, but, lord, how can you not know that Borges was a leading magic realist? If you don't know even that, what business do you have removing mention of him from an article about magic realism? If you know so little on the subject, why do you presume to go slashing and burning through the article? Please have a little humility and tread more lightly.

I put Borges back in, and in support of this, I provided a link to one of the zillion possible supporting citations instantly available to anyone who bothers to do a simple Google search (Google book searches are particularly helpful, FYO). MdArtLover (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? Borges was still in there. And he is not a "leading magic realist", his work pre-dates the movement, and the invention of the term. And i didn't delete it as first resort, the article was tagged for months. And the sentence refers to the Latin American Boom ("With the success of the Boom, the work of a previous generation of writers gained access to a new and expanded public. These precursors include Jorge Luis Borges..." is therein) not magic realism. And you formatted the citation wrongly. And i have had to remove it as you linked to a search engine, the only mention of magic realism on the page being the search term you typed. Please review WP:Verify and WP:RS. moved this to apporpriate talk page.Yobmod (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to an image of a page a book. The link takes one directly to the scanned image of the page. And the fact that the term "magic realism" may have come later then the earliest Borges works that are now universally considered to be quintessential examples of magic realism in no way detracts from the fact that Borges WAS a magic realist.

Was Bach not a "baroque" composer because he didn't call his music "baroque music"? Your reasoning is ridiculous. But in fact your reasoning is so ridiculous that I see there is no point in arguing with you. Bye. MdArtLover (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing, just pointing out your source was not a reliable source according to policy: you linked here [[1]], which is the cover of a non-fiction book about doctors. There are sources for borges being a precursor and influence on magic realism and the Latin american boom, which is why that is where he is listed.Yobmod (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an odd thing has happened, according to my research. "Magic [or magical] realism", with reference to these Latin American writers, apparently entered lit crit with the publication of a very influential 1955 essay by critic Angel Flores. Flores himself held up Borges as the prime example of what he was calling magic realism. But a funny thing has happened (apparently in the years since I was in school - here I'm dating myself, I know). Subsequent critical convention has adopted Flores's term, but disagreed with his designation of Borges as an example of it, much less as the prime example of it. I confess I was not aware of this, and it conflicts with my own apparently antiquated education. Here is an essay that describes the critical situation:

"While 'magic realism' and 'marvellous realism' refer to somewhat different phenomena, a new term 'magical realism' emerged in literary criticism in the 1950s, influenced by a 1955 essay by the critic Angel Flores. ... Flores emphasised the European precursors of what he termed the modern Latin American 'magical realists' such as Jorge Luis Borges', Rubén Darío and Julio Cortázar, who all combined fantastic and realist elements in their work..... Flores suggested that Borges ...was the pathfinder and moving spirit of this new Latin American magical realism. However, while Borges is recognised as a founding father of modern Latin American literature, his work is now seen as a precursor to magical realism rather than magical realist itself...." [2]

OK, so I wasn't aware of this redesignation. But here's what I propose: shouldn't the article at least mention that the term M. R. as a literary designation originated with the Flores essay, and that Flores considered Borges to be the prime example of it? After all, Flores is the one came up with the very notion of a Latin American literary "magic realism". Or is my source inaccurate on this matter? MdArtLover (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that Borges has many similarities with magic realism, and depending how the term is used he can be within the set, or a precursor to the set. Last time i heard about MR in an academic sense was in a thesis about postcolonial literature, which said that application of the term to disparate works without links to Latin america has made the term useless as a rigorous definition. It is only a marketing term now. The essay isn't the best source for an acedemic subject, but is better than most the article has, so i'd be happy with it's inclusion :-). It's more important for the origin of the term than the authors listed, imo. A paragraph about precursors would also be interesting anyway (better than the small sentence now therein)Yobmod (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'll do (when I get a round twit, so to speak): I'll try to get two or three sources for this material on Flores. If I can get it decently sourced, I'll add a summary account of it to the article. MdArtLover (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great :-). When i find time, i'll try to look up some of the criticism of the terms vague boundaries; i know at least one quote that "MR is fantasy written in spanish".Yobmod (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

DOB and The Ladder

Where did the discussion and edits you reference take place? The longest mention of this matter, fully sourced, is in the article on The Ladder. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Yobmod, you've done a lot of work on Homosexuality in speculative fiction, and if you think you're going to behttp://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobmod&action=edit&section=31 able to address the remaining issues in the next couple of weeks I'd be happy to leave it on hold. I just wanted to check in with you and see what your plans are -- if you think it will take longer, it might be best to mark it as a fail for now, and resubmit it when you're ready. If you do that, and ping me when you do it, I'd be glad to do the review immediately if I have time -- or of course you can just let it run through the system and let someone else pick it up. Any of those options is fine with me. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some final changed. I think everything you pointed out has been changed. Only one para i've not gotten around to re-writing/sourcing, which is the Bella books, non-genre thing. If that is the only barrier to GA, i'll take it out until i can source it. So please review it again whenever you have time :-D. Any sources is add fro now will be ubrelated to the GAN comments.Yobmod (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look and left a few comments; I struck out most things. The remaining items for GA are the sourcing for when Delany & Disch were out professionally (as opposed to socially); the quote about "frank treatment of sexuality", which I think you should just cut; and a supporting source for Delany blurring the line between sf and gay pornography. The other comments are just suggestions. Great work so far; I look forward to passing this as GA shortly. Mike Christie (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think the cover image with Dumbledore is a bit of a stretch for fair use; it's not necessary to an understanding of the issue. It's borderline, and I won't hold up GA for it, but I think you may need to defend it at FAC if you go there. Mike Christie (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the source about that image, waiting to see if they will licence it as something we can use. Delany and porn is easy, i've read that he calls some of them that (eg Hogg). I don't know what you mean by "came out proffesionally" - presumably if the source says they were out, this included to their publishers. The article doesn't make any claims about what type of outing they had, it just mirrors the sources. I don't think anyone would comparmentalise between "out" and "out to SF fandom", out is out.

The "frank treatment" sentence has been moved, and i think it doesn't imply anything untrue; i wont cry if it's removed, but think it helps put the article into context: a long list of editors and writers who ignore gay issues is less damning in the context that no sexuality was explored at all. Without it, the genres seem even more homophobic than they really were.Yobmod (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add reamining sources tomorrow thought. Thanks!Yobmod (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought some more about the issue of being "out" and I'm going to go ahead and strike my objection. You've convinced me the issue is one of content, not sourcing, so it's not necessary for GA. Briefly, I think the relevance is the implications for acceptability of gayness in the publishing world. I don't think it's all that relevant when some author is out privately. But that's something reasonable people can disagree over, and as you say you're reflecting the sources, so I'm striking my comment.

I also struck the objection about "frank treatment"; I did change it to "pre-nineteenth century" since that's definitely Nicholls' point. I hope that's OK. If not, let me know and we can figure out a better way to include the information.

That just leaves the "blurring the distinction" item to source. Mike Christie (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oki, will post sources to talk page first. Done, cited delany calling his work "Pornutopic fantasy".07:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Passed; congratulations. Re your question on cites: take a look at WP:FACR; there is no requirement for any particular style, but you should be consistent.

I'd recommend taking this article to WP:PR next. Good luck with it! Mike Christie (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woooo, great! I'm going to do some expanding next (looking into the most important horror authors and discussion of important modern authors) to ensure it passes "broad in coverage", then back to Peer review. Many thanks for all your help.11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If I Was a Drinkin' Man

Regarding your comments in the AfD: the chart position can indeed be verified here, but there is nothing else verifiable about the song, so it's better off deleted IMO. The other artist who cut it didn't co-write it, and is unlikely to even have a page. As I've said, I've tried three or four times to redirect it to Neal McCoy or his album, but User:Wikibones thinks they own the article and keeps undoing my redirect no matter how many times I explain that WP:MUSIC dictates redirects to artists in cases like this, and that Neal is more closely associated with the song than Charlie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a redirect to the writer not be the best? He seems to be more notable than either anyway!Yobmod (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not PR

I see you actually took Homosexuality in speculative fiction to PR already. I hadn't realized that when I recommended PR. You could try it again, but I think it might be better to go directly to either an interested Wikiproject, if there's an active one, or else ask other editors directly. The SF wikiproject isn't particularly active, but you could try it. I believe the LGBT project is a bit more active. You could also try asking Moni3 if she'd be interested in taking a look; she's worked on LGBT and fiction topics and has FA experience. I don't know if this is her sort of article but she's a fine editor and worth approaching. Mike Christie (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the advice. I did peer review before GAN, hence i was suprised at the number of changes you suggested :-). I'll look into the project peer reviews (Literature and Novels-task forces too).Yobmod (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR is very variable; sometimes you get really terrific reviews; other times you get almost nothing. Ruhrfisch is always reliable and accurate, but is spread too thin to give lots of detail on every article. I should also say that I'm probably more thorough than most GA reviewers; I mostly work at FA and it's hard for me to drop those standards, though I try to indicate in a review which things are necessary for GA and which aren't. Plus I happen to know a lot about sf history so it was easy to be specific. Good luck with the article; I'm keeping it on my watchlist and look forward to seeing what you do with it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beware the Gray Ghost

Hi, just letting you know that the !vote you made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beware the Gray Ghost has been reverted as the discussion was closed and archived at the time of your vote. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, i noticed the edit conflict (you closed it while i was commenting). Didn't you think the anon keep vote was a joke? (not ridiculous, but literally: he was joking), and another gave no reason at all.Yobmod (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

Thanks for the help at the Bates method talk page. My feeling is that Ronz is misapplying rules. He previously attempted to completely delete the "Shifting and Swinging" subsection despite the independent sources. I then cut down the detail a bit.

In response to your parenthetical question, the Bates method is not strictly a U.S. thing, see this international list of Bates teachers. However, it is probably not generally well-known anywhere, which itself is often used as an argument against it, as discussed in the "Dead-end" subsection near the end of the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you think that if the warning template at the top were instead on one particular section, that would be less likely to result in a quick fail for a Good Article assessment? As discussed here, the Treatments section will in all probability be the hardest to come to an agreement with Ronz on, but if we could agree on the rest of the article, the tags could be moved there, and perhaps a Good Article review could help us further. Of course I am being optimistic in thinking we could agree on the other five sections. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, i think any such warning templates would result in a fail. I'm not sure how they managed FA status for politicians (who always have people claiming NPOV). But in their case i think the editors do want the page to be improved and reach a higher status. I think the opponents of fringe science would prefer this article doesn't get any exposure, rather than actually wanting to improve it.Yobmod (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting discouraged, see here. If the article remains stable for a while and is then nominated for a Good Article, maybe a reviewer will understand what is going on and not quick-fail it. And if it doesn't remain stable, at least that will mean the issues are being worked on. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Ronz indicated an impasse, I nominated it for a Good Article, and as you expected, it was quick-failed. I have requested a reassessment of the quick-fail, attempting to illuminate the situation. I'm not quite sure if that is a legitimate use of WP:GAR, but I decided to be bold and do it. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has finally reviewed the article and placed it on hold (I had renominated it after replacing the tags and making a few other changes.) I'm hoping to discuss this more with the reviewer. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Hi -- saw you'd nominated Homosexuality in speculative fiction for LGBT peer review; don't forget to add it here -- instructions are on that page. Mike Christie (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was getting there, slowly :-).Yobmod (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-class checklist

First of all, is there a reason why you are being so hostile? Second, if you would expand the project banner, there is clearly a checklist, which was added to the banner and the assessment process upon project consensus, and has been there for quite some time now. We've even recently undergone a comprehensive perusal of over a thousand articles claimed as B-class to resolve any checklist issues. As you can see, the banner itself includes the code needed for B-class, and requires no more effort than a copy-paste action, followed by five parameter values that require a "yes" or "no". I'm sorry if that strikes you as excessive bureaucracy, but as you can see, it's very easy to complete. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because i actually worked to improve the article, whereas you are only interested in reverting the recognition of actual contributing editors work? If it is easy, why didn't you do it instead of reverting. The film project has a whole category for B class that are awaiting these assessments, why are you only targeting this one?Yobmod (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I target all B-class articles which don't fill out the checklist - we have a whole category that the coordinators watchlist. Please don't feel you're being persecuted here - this is a regular occurrence. I understand that you may have a personal attachment to the article because of your work, but you shouldn't look at this as a slap on the wrist or judgement of your work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if i fill in all the fields as yes, it is ok? I'll do it then, but how can you not see this is needless bureaucracy? If it is B according to the requirments, it is B.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. If, for example, you filled them in for the sake of getting the B, then it's fundamentally dishonest and is an editorial issue, not a procedural one. The point is to explicitly show editors what specifics are needed for the B-class. (Btw, I'm having some difficulty being convinced that it meets checklist points 1 or 2 - to wit: there are numerous places that lack necessary citations, and there are substantial gaps in the topic's coverage. But that's your call.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i have no problem if you reduce the rating cos you disagree on the tlka page :-). For B class i usually think that uncontroversial points can pass uncited, and i don't think anything in there was likely to be challanged, and many require simple primary source cites. So, it's not cited that he was on celebrity squares, but the citation would just be to the programm, so is uncontroversial imo :-).Yobmod (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking a look at the List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters page for me. Your input was very helpful. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio

I inform you that I requested move for the article at J. M. G. Le Clézio to go back to the original title. Since you were involved in the dispute, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion again. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yobmod, in reference to your email to me (attached), yes, the three new names were from the Levy article, which I obtained directly from an academic journal (accessed through a subscription service online). Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. [Hi, I noticed your (cited!) addition to Space Opera. It messed up the grammar slightly (McAuley still reffered to "himself"), so i wanted to recast it slightly. But i don't have the reference, so can you tell me if the 3 newly added authors are mentioned in the Levy article? If so i'll split the sentence up to McAuley named xxx(c) and yyy(c), while Levy included zzz(c) and aaa.(c) Using the citation for each author dissuades drive by additions of peoples favourite authors, which would otherwise look like they came from the already-present cite. Let me know, and i'll make the changes.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)[reply]

Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet

By strange and remarkable coincidence, at almost exactly the same time you rated this article, I was sitting in the Bodleian reading the subject's autobiography to try and solve the lacunae you noticed :-) The problem isn't that there's no more to them than the weird legal issue, it's just that that's the only stuff that made it online.

The book was mainly a series of unconnected (and quite elliptically written, knowing the context) childhood anecdotes, but there's a decent chunk of biographical material in there and I'm working on incorporating it in. After that, it'll be down to dredging through the Times looking for stuff, and for a rural Scottish landowner I wouldn't hope for much there.

Thanks for leaving the comments - I'll let you know when it's up to scratch with the new stuff! Shimgray | talk | 19:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and done. Mostly on the early life; he just wrote incidental anecdotes about later life, so there's not much of a narrative there. Still, it's an improvement. Any comments would be appreciated :-) Shimgray | talk

Woah, that was a quick improvment! I've re-rated it to B, which it clearly is now. GA beckons, although a portrait would make that a much easier pass imo (maybe a scan of the biogrpahy cover would make fair-use?). Great job1 Yobmod (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SF themes

Don't you think that protecting the Themes in science fiction page with no discussion was a bit overboard? Now the version is stuck at the disorganised original research version that the vandal wanted. I've tried discussing on the talk page, but neither the other editors nor you ever responded. Reverting damage to article from IP addresses that leave edit summaries like that and ignore talk pages is not a content dispute. Assuming a dispute from looking at edit summaries instread of what is actually being changed is not a good method imo - the previous edits were the addition of citation needed tags, removing them was vandalism, which you have now enforced.Yobmod (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are issues that need addressing, then at this point, note them specifically on the talk page. The goal here should be to foster discussion. If there is consensus (or no opposition) to what you suggest then my hope is that the protection will be lifted sooner rather than later. - jc37 13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed it on the talk page - there is no response (did you not check for discussion before protecting?). I also left msges on the accounts that are using the IP addresses to avoid blocks for incivility, also with no reply. As the only discusion is from me, there is talk page consensus of one, being ignored by sockpuppet vandals. There is no way to force them to engage in discusion, so what do you suggest? The cirteria above (no opposition on talk) was already met.Yobmod (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your efforts at the talk page. (Note that I previously commented out the categories from your paste.)

Let's not rush this. Let's be fair and give others a chance to respond. If there is no response after several days (the length of an XfD discussion), then we can revisit this. And appropriately. - jc37 14:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i wrote some more on talk to outline my position on the article, to give them something to respond to.Yobmod (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptree Award

I'm a little puzzled as to why you removed the historical note "(which predates all of these)" from the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was untrue. The lambda awards are 3 years older according to the wikipages.
2. It seemed irrelevant. This isn't an article about the award, so how does this information add to the articles topic?
3. It made the award seem more important, whereas the some of winners have nothing to to with LGBT themes, so is actually less important than the other awards.

I also noticed you didn't give a citation for the claim that the winners touch on LGBT themes. It is true from looking at the list, but i wouldn't be suprised if it gets tagged during peer review as OR. Yobmod (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT navbox

Love your new navbox, I've eliminated mine as a result. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanism in fiction

So you deleted most of the page, didn't add anything to it, or try to find citations for the material that was there. And hell! since the article is basically just a stub, you might as well go ahead and nominate it for AfD..... Is this what you do, on wikipedia? destory articles?

I'm not saying the article is great, in fact, I'd even go as far as saying as it sucks... but you deleted a lot of peoples good faith edits in trying to make the article more complete. Why don't you try educating the editors of transhumanism in fiction to add citations to their additions? Explain to them why it's important to cite their additions?

I don't really have a problem with you deleting uncited additions, but in this case I don't really think your making the article better, or helping wikipedia.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation tags were there for weeks, and the article was uncited forever. Not only were no citations added, no-one made any indication on the talk page that references existed or that they intended to find them. Deleting original research, fan musings and lies improves wikipedia in my opinion.Yobmod (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on all the work on LKH article

I've just noticed that you've been the one re-shaping the article into a well-referenced set of facts instead of just back and forth BS on the "Negative-fan" issue. I thank you heartily for being so bold. I gave up responding to that anon editor on the talk pages and pretty much gave up on the article. You've really made a difference and that's encouraging to all editors who've thrown their hands up in disgust over contentious topics. BTW, I wasn't trying to needle you with that fact tag on the #1 Bestseller issue, it just read strangely and I put it there more as a reminder to myself to go and find the exact date it appeared but you saved me the trouble. You seem to have things rolling along so I'll leave you to it, but if you get tired or need a break, let me know! Seriously, it's so good to see somebody just jump in and start adding good sourcing. Have a cookie!LiPollis (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Express

I have re-closed the AfD as No Consensus, and therefore the DRV is pointless, so I have closed that too. Black Kite 11:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks. I'll add the sources i found to the article too. Yobmod (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryTopics

He was blocked indefinitely as of this morning. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious bigotry

In the talk page for list of NRM's, you had mentioned several instances of racial stereotyping in the Bible. Could you give me some references, I'd love to have them. Will come in handy later. Thanks :) Groupsisxty (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast drawing sharpshooter ;-)

Hi Yobmod! You delete entries at Mil-SF faster than I can find references for them. If they are plausible, given them a chance. Another question, of course, is of Buettner is notable enough as an example. I did not know him, but he seems to sell well enough... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to find references, the entries are all still in the history. The SF project is going nowhere, when 50% is adding uncited lists and 49% is removing them. This is not supposed to be a list article!Yobmod (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spectrumawardlogo.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Spectrumawardlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Arizona

I've fixed what was in your comment, please reevaluate your vote. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead

Hey there, I've replied to your concerns. Anything else? Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Warning Don't mess with Sexism in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.221.134 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Rio discography

Yes, the albums tables are kind of weird, but that's actually the recommended format per MOS:DISCOG. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug 16085

I notice you commented on the table being useless at the Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season FLC. This was caused by a bug, and I invite you to contribute to a discussion here about the validity of opposes based on a bug. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]