User talk:Corrupt one

I am wanting to do some research on some areas, so I hope people will be adding to this section with worthwhile material. If not, I will delete it

Scenes (Sociology)

I am interested in trying to define what a (scene) is. I have found thing on communites of interest, Sub-culture, groups, trends, fashions and many other things. BUT I HAVE YET TO FIND ANY RESEARCH ON SCENES IN OF THEMSELVES! I would welcomes ideas from other people.

From the dictionaries I have found, a scene is a social enviroment, an area of interest and a few other such things

[[[User:Knotwork|Knotwork]] (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)]: scene: "Scene may refer to:" in which among the items was "A subculture or art world". subculture: "In sociology, anthropology and cultural studies, a subculture is a group of people with a culture (whether distinct or hidden) which differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong.". culture: ... Knotwork (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Magehouds

A magehound is a person with an attraction to or for magic. They can't live normal lives as something is always coming up. It is their blessing and their curse. They can see wonderfull thing and change the world around them, but they endanger the people around them. They can't controll it, and most often are unware of what they are.

Being a magehound hides itself between chance of manipulating peoples choices. They are often protagonists in the stories, or are close to them. There is a wide range of possible magehounds.

Examples include Buffy, Anne from Gunnerkrigg court, Ivan from the Wotch, Jen Stone from Zebra Girl, Children of Prophacy in A Magical Roomate, heroes in Beyond Reality, Brandi from Fairview High, Robim from Witch Hunter Robin and many others.

[[[User:Knotwork|Knotwork]] (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)]: 'recently' (hee hee ;)) televisual receptors hereabouts report (urban legend or urban myth? ;)) that Angie of Fx (FX? F/x? Something like that) fame or nonfame has been spotted posing as a private eye (of magnum caliber? or less? or more? ;)) and magehoundality (induced by means of magehoundification? ;)) is besetting her with perils. I love Angie (she is not entirely without proficiency with computers ;)) but in her new position (reminiscent of buff angels? ;)) I think her hot assistant is, well, maybe a little hotter? ;) :P But, they aren't room mates, just office (c o u s e r s ?). It might be well to bear in mind a few aphorisms, such as the famous one about the occupational hazards of working in some field or other, the one about thicknesses of lines being proportional to sanity (or was that genius), and the propensity of at least some mad diagnosticians to diagnose ability to hear what televisualisers are on about... ;) :D :P Knotwork (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have NO idea what you just said, but I think you were just ranting one about something. Corrupt one (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He's some kind of Discordian or pseudo-Discordian vandal; I'm gradually rolling back his gibberish, but there's lots more out there. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hero

I'm interested in getting notes on a few things about heroes

Masked heroes V unmasked heroes

I would like to know what people think about the differences between masked heroes and non masked heroes. Things like how it affects them, the dangers being their friend if they are not masked, them having to lie to their friends if they are masked, and other such things.

Hero or SUPERhero

What is the difference between a superhero and a normal hero? How does it affect the character?

If memory serves, the first superheroes were created in American comics (DC and Marvel specifically) in the depression era. The key difference was that they had 'super powers', abilities that are not (and I would assume COULD not) be possessed by everyday people. In all other respects (mostly character-wise), they were identical to the heroes already in publication.

This is probably all second-nature to you. But I thought a fairly uncontroversial answer might be helpful regardless? --Matthew Proctor 03:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just need an OFFICIAL source stating that. Can you tell me of one? Corrupt one 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gladiator (1930) - one of the main inspirations for Superman and Doc Savage.Nitpyck (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discusion page for Hero

Hey Corrupt One, I see you are a new user, yet no one has welcomed you yet. I'll try and get some good links to you later that will help you understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia. A few i can give to you now, though, are the policies on what Wikipedia is not, the policy on Original Research, and the Neutral point of view policy.

Case in point, your topics on the Hero talk page. While I, myself, would love to discuss these topics, the wikipedia talk page isn't the place for them. It is designed specifically to talk about writing the article itself (and no conclusion we might draw from a discussion on the topic itself can be used because it would all be original research). I'd be happy to discuss these topics with you, if we can find a proper forum for them. CaveatLector^Talk 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in your call for discussion, which is by definition original research. If you want to make a call for research, then you should say 'has anyone studied or conducted research on these subjects?' or 'I think this article needs to be expanded, does anyone know any good sources?' or even going out and doing the research yourself at your local library and then editing the article accordingly. We, as wiki editors, cannot come to any conclusions ourselves without consulting some sources (hence the OR). I was also not suggesting any NPOV on your part, rather your talk page says that you are new to the wiki, so I just thought I'd give you the link for your posterity :) CaveatLector^Talk 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note on my talk page - you are mistaken, as I did not removed any posts other than on off-topic essay about drug dealers as "heroes". If that was you, then you should be aware that the message was not appropriate for an article talk page, and should be placed on your personal user page instead. As for your recent extensive post at Talk:Hero, it has been reverted again, as it was originally by User:CaveatLector. The same rationale applies - it is off-topic for the article page, and belongs on a personal page. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ckatz? Corrupt one, I tried above, several times, and quite politely to point out to you that the talk pages are NOT an open forum for discussion, like you are treating them. CaveatLector^Talk 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT make any referances to drug dealers as heroes. I never would. Terrorists on the other hand, is a matter of which side you are on, and what you believe. Still, I have dropped that in order to keep the information in the other segmenats up there. Same with the rant I had added. next time, delete the segment, and that segment ONLY, not all the more resent stuff!

You are saying it is not an open forum for discussion, but if not there, then WHERE? Also, what is he point of discussion pages if NOT to be an open forum? Corrupt one 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your notes on my talk page, I would appreciate it if - before making accusations - you would take the time to check if those accusations were accurate. My first revert - prior to your note on my talk page - was to revert an anon's rant about drug dealers. In the process of doing that, I actually restored one of your comments. I didn't remove any of your material until later, when I agreed with CaveatLector's assessment. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrupt One...read this carefully:

Talk pages are used to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss the overall topic of the article. The talk page on Hero should not be used to discuss the concept of the 'Hero'. It is to discuss the editing of the article. Anything that comes from an 'open ended' discussion such as the one you have posted is considered original research. Relevance does NOT matter here. What matters is that wikipedia is NOT a forum to discuss these topics. CaveatLector^Talk 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, I saw the comparasion, and I agree that whoever made that drug dealer comment is a wackjob who was probably high themself when they wrote it. It does not even deal with the quetsion being asked!

If I restore the page again, I will make sure that segment is deleted.

CaveatLecotr, the section on heroes does not, as far as I can tell, provide a proper and acceptable definition of what a hero is, or information concerning the matters I have raised. I raised those matters so a proper definition could be found (from a referancable material) and put on the article, as well as information on those other area on discusion I have raised. I hope that solve the objections of both of you. At the very least, let us stop posting and unposting stuff. I think we would all rather it was settled before any of us made changes.

Corrupt one 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, and Ckatz, the part aboutr drug dealers is NOT up there, and that bit you showed me was the only time I had ever seen it.

CaveatLector, I am putting the version you took down up again, but I could not find what the second change you made was in order to add it to the version I am putting up. Corrupt one 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Where to gather to research to make an article?

You might try Wikipedia:Drawing board, but it's not very active. Alternatively, if there is a relevant WikiProject, you might try there. - Jmabel | Talk 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi Corrupt one. I'm currently mediating a case into which you're involved.

Please take a look of the case here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments, including yours, of course ;-).

So, please voice your opinion on the case's page.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The mediation continues after a brief hiatus at [1]. Thanks,

The Rhymesmith 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-hero

Sorry for not objecting sooner, although I think my explanation in my edit summary was quite clear. In future try to put new discussions at the bottom of the talk page where they belong so others don't overlook it. Thanks. --TM 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. My error on the placing of it. Corrupt one 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Science Fantasy and Literature

Jplatt39 added a large section to this page, put I put it where it properly belongs, in the Science fantasy discusion page, in the section labled "At the risk of seeming to horn in on an established conversation/building project--" Please look at it. Corrupt one 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't feel the specifics of this answer are relevant to the Science Fantasy discussion. On my own user page you will read:

He does not believe in objectivity, and contributes reluctantly because he is not comfortable with what is considered a reasonable style.

I believe in the Wikipedia generally, but while [2] the Booz Allen report has some good points in its comparison of Linux and Wikipedia as open source projects, with some problems. [3] Business Week manages to miss the point entirely: Someone a couple of years back revived some studies from the twenties and thirties to show that over time a broad enough collection of individuals will present a truer picture of anything than a given, by definition relatively homogenous, collection of "experts". I'm sorry, I don't remember this person's name or what the name of his book is. The thing is, both Carr and the Business Week reporter miss that we have that sort of time.

I'm constantly on the move between a verbal or prosaic logic, a visual logic, and a logic involving these machines I'm sitting in front of (including the Debian machine I'm writing this on and a new gentoo install trying to recompile glibc). I don't even try to reconcile these versions of logic, and don't see why I should. While they all start from the same premises, if you don't put aside your preconceptions you'll just get slammed in the face. Very little carries over from one to the other in my experience. I started editing and contributing because I got so angry at the Philip Wylie article, which discussed him solely in terms of his contributions to the genre. While Wylie was what we might today call a futurist, he was never a genre figure. Tom Clancy probably owes as much to him as anyone in the field. Others, more knowledgeable, filled in the work I did on that piece. Another early peeve was the Science Fantasy page (near the top of Talk you will find someone dismissing Heinlein -- who used A Dweller on Two Planets 's concept of the Wise Men of Mount Shasta in a story -- as not science fantasy.

I know what Science Fantasy used to be, not what it is. It used to be the product of a relatively homogenous group of people with some engineering training trying to bring it to bear on Fantasy and legendary material. The thing is, that group and its influence grew so large that the people who have adapted their techniques are no longer homogenous and often don't have any engineering training (a contrast between Terry Brooks's Shannara series and Fred Saberhagen's Ardneh novels is instructive. Both are good in different ways. Both use Science Fantasy themes, motifs and techniques. John Campbell would probably dismiss Terry Brooks out of hand while being horrified by what Saberhagen has turned out). With the importance of Movies, TV, Video Games and Comics, a lot of the developments which I've seen are visual, not verbal. I have no problem seeing them discussed in the context of Science Fantasy. I of course would like to see a more incisive discussion of the subject, and believe that over time it will come. I would not like to see a shorter one, however. When I started I felt that the page was too reductionist, specifically excluding the first works which were written as "Science Fantasy". I don't know what Science Fantasy is. I'm asking the Wikipedia that.

That's why I keep coming back to your User Page to write this. I don't believe in Objectivity: I only accept it as a convention which involves so much abstraction from the facts that it has nothing to do with reliability. That's a philosophical difference with the Wikipedia which prevents a simple answer to your question. This is not about Science Fantasy: it's about why I'm arguing on the Science Fantasy Talk Page and monitoring the article (with the fear that reductionism will rear its ugly head again: not that editing's always bad. There was a lively debate on Don Wollheim's page about his politics and his tendency to retitle books which is mostly gone but enough of which remains so his role in the temporary ostracism of Fred Pohl, which is not and probably shouldn't be discussed in the Wikipedia, should certainly be understandable to someone who hears about it and knows Wollheim only from his page here). I believe that over time a given Wikipedia article can become comprehensive. I believe there are facts I can contribute to many of them. That doesn't mean I am, or have to be prepared to judge any subject I have specialized knowledge of. Jplatt39 11:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I wrote the above without looking at the Donald A. Wollheim page. Since I'd last looked, someone had taken out that the revisions to Poul Anderson's War of the Wing Men were in part polemical and apparently politically motivated. With the story of the polymorphous Thomas Burnett Swann novel he got in trouble for being published, this totally removes the context of his political conservatism and social liberalism in which my statement about him publishing William S. Burroughs's first book was contributed. I don't feel up to removing it or starting an edit war there right now, however, the edits on that page have gone too far, and sooner or later I probably shall start one. NPoV and so forth sometimes make good excuses for oversimplifying history by leaving out peoples' passionate beliefs (Someone removed Emil Petaja's Finnish heritage from his page. I put him up there because of his Ottava cycle of novels which Mr. Petaja explicitly asked me to read at the 1972 World Science Fiction Convention. I say he asked me because he was so proud of those books, which retell the Kalevala and he was very proud of his Finnish heritage. Some deletions make no sense). Jplatt39 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying that since Science fantasy as a genre is changing, you do not know what it IS, just what it WAS?

It has been commonly accepted amoung the definitions put forwards in encyclopedias that Science fantasy contains bits of science fiction and fantasy. You will have to admit that.

I guess the main part of the change in meaning and confusion there would be the word Fantasy, wchich originally meant any fantastical world. It included Science Fiction, which was at the time also called Science Fantasy, as well as Speculative Science. However, the word Fantasy has changed its meaning to be the name for the genre of magic stories, leaving the term with TWO possible definitions as I can see it: 1) Science fiction set in fantastical worlds, (which include surrealist stories) h2) Stories that combine Science Fiction and fantasy (By this use of fantasy I mean magic)

I think you are thinking of the first definition, where I am thinking of the second definition. Would this be correct?

Corrupt one 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want definitions, okay. Start with Science Fiction. Science Fiction is a type of fiction which combines storytelling with scientific extrapolation. There is a good explanation for this in Fred Pohl's introduction to Our Best: the best of Fred Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth. A scholar had asked him why there were so many more collaborations in Science Fiction than there were in other forms of literature, and he surprised himself by coming up with an explanation. "It has to do [with]...that sf is more or less a literature of ideas." (I'm going to edit heavily. In part because he explains the "more or less" with a parenthesis I not only disagree with, but I find surprising given the graphic look of his Galaxy Magazine tenure which featured artists as diverse as Virgil Finlay, Vaughn Bode and Gray Morrow).

"The methodology for writing science fiction is simple. (I said "simple", I didn't say "easy.") You think of an idea. You consider what its implications are. You imagine the details and consequences. You conceive of what sorts of characters might exist in this setting and situation; then you embody all this in a story. "

That methodology is similar to or nearly the same as Eugene Sue's well-made play. The implication is that the idea is scientific. What you have to understand about Sue, though, and this is important, is that the plays he wrote were melodramas. This methodology has been taken up by TV and movies, but they remain melodramas, not dramas as they are usually called. Science Fiction was in its origin a pulp genre. There were prototypes in the futurism of Jules Verne and the secular visions of H. G. Wells, but Hugo Gernsback and his progeny owe as much to some stories about Thomas Edison which read like Tom Swift (and inspired them too). I'll accept that yes, Verne, Wells, and Wylie and the British Visionary Olaf Stapledon were Science Fiction. I'll accept that George MacDonald and David Lindsay and Charles Williams were fantasy. I come from a bias of seeing Science Fiction as the homogenous community it was just starting to stop being during my golden age ("The Golden Age of Science Fiction is Twelve." I forgot who said that). Verne, Wells, Wylie and Stapledon should be acknowledged but should not be held to the same standards as DeCamp, Campbell as Don Stewart, Asimov, Poul Anderson or anyone else "within the field". Their understandings of science, for one thing, were substantively different, and they were writing fiction for a different audience that the melodramatic one of the pulps. Fantasy itself includes but is not limited to legendary material. After all, another quote I can't remember the source of is "Literature was born" the first time one of Euripides's plays about the old gods was performed by Christians. Not fantasy was born, Literature was. Another issue is that realism is a product of the Nineteenth Century. Zola, Poe, and so forth were really pioneers. Flaubert wrote Salambo before he wrote Mme. Bovary (and if I got the spelling wrong I'm sorry). (Of course, if you must read Salambo try to read Phillippe Druillet's comic book version. Unlike the original there are worse books out there). More conservative writers, including James Fennimore Cooper, wrote Romances, which sometimes included legendary material. William Morris, MacDonald and other early writers who acknowledged what they wrote was fantasy were consciously refining and continuing that part of the tradition. So was Tolkien. So was Richard Wagner and his impressive Ring Cycle proved so imposing to people in the Middle twentieth Century that it took Tolkien to convince most people Fantasy was safe. Originally Science Fantasy was the application of the methods and processes of science fiction (and sometimes, as in the case of Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore who I was catechized were one writer called Kuttner and Moore) images of science fiction to legendary material. As Science Fiction opened itself up and took more techniques and concepts from different literary disciplines, with the New Wave of the Sixties, so Science Fantasy, and Fantasy broadened. Sorry, gotta go. Jplatt39 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. Now, if you could provide some referances to research done in those areas instead of using your own, we can avoid any OR problems. Corrupt one 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference between sf and fantasy

You asked a question on the Talk page for fantasy about the differences between the two genres. Orson Scott Card's book How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy has a helpful discussion about this very topic. He proposes the following definition: science fiction is about what could be but isn't, whereas fantasy is about what couldn't be.

Card also relates an interesting early experience, where he had a story rejected for publication by a sci-fi magazine, on the grounds that it was fantasy, not sci-fi. He had thought the story was obviously sci-fi, since it involved psychics on a distant planet. The only problem was that the planetary society he depicted was fairly primitive, and he never explained in the story itself that it was supposed to be another planet. Thus, the editor assumed that the setting was medieval earth, and that the psychics were merely sorcerers.

This shows that the difference between the genres may sometimes lie simply in how the writer names things. Star Wars bears this lesson out: it's basically a sword and sorcery tale, but it's dressed up in sci-fi language ("mystical energy field"), and placed in an intergalactic setting with alien creatures and futuristic technology. The story also features ghosts, which some people would claim disqualifies it from being considered science fiction. And yet it is science fiction, according to most classifications. That's because it has the trappings of science fiction, and to most audiences that is enough.

Science fiction is very largely defined by its setting, and that element often takes precedent over individual events within the narrative. A story with a futuristic setting--or at least a strong emphasis on futuristic elements--will usually be called science fiction even if it contains occasional supernatural events. Likewise, a story with only a few sci-fi elements (like some of Tom Clancy's books) may escape the sci-fi designation. A story can even be technically set in the future and still be fantasy: The Sword of Shannara is a prime example.

Card's definition, while useful in the abstract, has problems. Stories dealing with the afterlife are usually called fantasy (I learned of the term bangsian fantasy through Wikipedia), and yet many people today believe in an afterlife, so to them, it isn't "fantasy." (I presume that Card himself, as a devout Mormon, falls in this category.) Most readers avoid this dilemma because the fantasy genre generally centers on things that almost everyone agrees are make-believe, like dragons and wizards. Stories about death and the occult usually end up in the horror genre, and thus the sf/fantasy community is saved the trouble of deciding how these stories are to be classified.

One of my favorite writers is Richard Matheson. Known mostly for his horror, he does defy the sf/fantasy boundary to some extent. His book I Am Legend is about vampires, but then he proposes a scientific explanation for them. What Dreams May Come is about Heaven and Hell, but he based the novel on huge research into near death experiences and mystical visions, and he evidently believes his account of the afterlife is accurate. marbeh raglaim 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree (but not strongly, there's some truth in it) with the characterization of "Star Wars" as "sword & sorcery"; it fits the classic definition of space opera. As for "science fantasy", it's SF that doesn't "play by the rules", so (broadly) could include anything with FTL or time travel, which remain unproven; only "strict constructionists" would list these outside the boundaries (Spinrad, I think, among them). More commonly, it would include things like superheroes & psychics, anything accepted to be physically impossible, but excluding magic, demons, trolls, & such, which is pure fantasy. This puts X-Men or Smallville in SF (subcat sci fan), Harry Dresden & LotR in fantasy . TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (Yeah, this is pretty belated; I just noticed it here.)

A tag has been placed on Scene (sociology), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was quoting Orson Scott Card there, and not putting my own ideas in. Also, I was not putting in in the article, as I agree it is not the place for it. However, it would be good material to discus, so people can get a better understanding of the subject. The material mentions that the difference is often point of view. It just shows that there are NOT set definition. It is opposing definitions! Corrupt one (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new subpage

You can get to your new subpage via this link:

User:Corrupt one/Scene (sociology)

Also, regarding research resources (a question you asked earlier this year), you'll find a fair amount listed in this index.

Finally, please see additional comments at Wikipedia:Drawing board. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrupt one 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Mockery

On May 7th of this year, at 14:37, the user page User:Dr Spam (MD) was created. Within a period of 48 hours, User:Dr Spam (MD) had placed approximately 55 barnstars on user pages and user talk pages. Many recipients doubted the sincerity of the sentiments behind these barnstars, in part because of the comments placed by Dr Spam on the barnstars. A sampling of the reasons that Dr. Spam offered for presenting barnstars to editors:

• Hi - I am putting this here in case there's trouble later. Please accept this tireless barnstar thing for all of your wiki-activity. Thanks. User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:08, 11 May 2007

• nice one! User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi I am leaving you with this barnstar for you to reflect carefully on. I will provide the citation in a few days once you have had the opportunity to consider why I might think that you deserve it. Peace User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well done for all of your fantastic editing / writing: you are obviously a genius of our day, shining like the brightest barnstar against a dark barnnight in these new and difficult wiki-times. I therefore award you the surreal barnstar (I can't get the other barnstars to work properly - my apologies.) Please note that you have no right to remove the barnstar, for it is sacred. LEAVE WELL ALONE! Many thanks.

• awesome contribution to this web site! have a lovely barnstar thing User:Dr Spam (MD) 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• cool editing

• Awesome

• Cool.

• I am awarding you a surreal barnstar because you obviously deserve it! Keep up the good work - don't slacken off, it'll get harder before it gets easier!

• Hy my cat (the fat white one) is awarding you this barnstar of diligence because he doesn't eat fish either. He just likes to eat biscuits - or so he says. But how then does he get so fat????

Occasionally Dr. Spam's comments did appear sincere (if vague), but a review of the record indicates that sincere-appearing comments were generally generated during a massive cut-and-paste session. There were also many barnstars presented with no comments at all, and even more that User:Dr Spam (MD) presented without signing his name to indicate from whom the award was coming.

In response, once this pattern of apparent insincerity was established, a few experienced editors asked Dr. Spam to desist from barnstar spamming, in the belief that randomly awarding barnstars devalues the entire barnstar program. (Indeed, so random was the placement of barnstars, that some were even placed on wiki accounts that had not been active for over a year.) Dr. Spam has now stopped, presumably recognizing that his efforts were not appreciated by the majority of editors.

Most of the barnstars placed by Dr. Spam during his May campaign have been voluntarily removed by the editors on whose pages they were placed. You are receiving this notice because Dr. Spam's barnstar still remains on your page. If you feel that Dr. Spam's barnstar spamming was a form of mockery, you may choose to remove it yourself. But if the way this barnstar was "awarded" does not bother you, you are of course free to keep it on your page. After all, it is your page. This notification was simply for your information. HuskyHuskie 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to admite, he lived up to his name! I think there would be a pattern. An apparent radomness can be generated by posting things to people who put stuff up for one article, regardless of WHEN they put them up. Do this for a few talk pages, and you have a large list of people with apparently nothing in common, who mostly DO. Corrupt one 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Parodies of superheroes

I am asking in different articles talk pages to have people help provide referances for a segment of parodies of the superhero genre. I would appreciate any help I can get. Corrupt one (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)