User talk:Yobmod/Archive 4

Jim Cara deleted

The initial content of this article Jim Cara 2nd nomination for deletion grew as so did my profile and place in the musical instrument world. In order to make the article of more length, I agree that it was padded with Fat. However recently I was selected in the top 5 guitar builders by the respected Premier Guitar Magazine, and my work is recognized globally. Please see the direct link to this article at Premier Guitar Magazine in print and online link title

Yaoi GAN

No, I haven't really considered GAN for yaoi, as there are prose problems (thank you for the offer of a copy-edit!), if not content problems. (e.g. no information on Original June, which describes a non-parodic independent publishing effort.) My main goal was to recoup B-class. I'd prefer to clear a GAN with User:Matt Thorn and if possible User:Timothy Perper (I think he's retired from WP) first, as they have been a big help to me in getting the article to its current level of quality. I'm not sure they would agree that the yaoi article is "decent" - Matt recently described it as having "serious problems". --Malkinann (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message with Matt about the GA nomination. I'm also expecting a paper on Western yaoi fandom soon, as well as a book by the same person out in 2009, and a special edition of the journal Intersections in April 2009 which will contain multiple papers focussed on the subject. It's an active field of research, and getting a GA too soon might cause the article to become static. Both graphic novel and Swedish literature were promoted in 2006 and so probably should be reassessed - they can't be used as an adequate comparison to current GAs. Do you think a peer review would yield any insights in yaoi's GA case? (instead of "rar, use {{cite web}}" etc.?) --Malkinann (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... Something's come up, and I won't have internet access until at least mid-Feb. I've heard back from Matt - he's said he trusts my judgement. x_X As it is, the article needs a good copyedit, and the split discussion taking care of. It'd probably be best if a GAN waited until I was around because I could answer questions. --Malkinann (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method tags - again

Hi Yobmod. We've gotten some help with stylistic issues at Bates method. Unfortunately the tags remain a problem. I recently tried to move the custom template (which I crafted, based on discussions, just so we could have a more informative tag, even though I didn't agree with its message) from the top down to the only section which it seemed like it could still remotely apply to. Observe what happened then. I feel that the conduct is becoming disruptive, but I'm not sure what to do. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit of Sexuality in SF

Hello,

I did a bit of copyediting as you requested. Because my Wikipedia skills are rusty, I left some questions in bold text on the page; I wasn't sure how to insert them invisibly--I hope that's OK.

In general, I would suggest that you shorten the article by shifting to a less academic style. You are very careful to outline every step in your argument, even when it really isn't necessary. I think you can preserve all the rigor and careful thought you have invested while making the style briefer and easier to read.

I was just looking at Dhalgren in the bookstore the other day; one day I'll dare to tackle it.

Best,

DiderotWasRight (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was you :-). I moved the comments to the talk page and replied there. Is useful to see what comments reviewers might make, so thanks! Dhalgren is pretty much unique for SF, but great!Yobmod (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry about how I've put this up here, but I really don't understand how to do anything with Wikipedia but look stuff up. I am trying to bring attention to the people doing the copy edit of the article on "Homosexuality in Speculative Fiction" that there are a couple of things to be added to this article (I was looking at how to edit it until I noticed the thing asking people to NOT edit the article until the copy edit was finished).

The edit I wanted to make to the article was going to be in the section about Robert A. Heinlein's dealing with these issues. First thing that should be added is a reference to Heinlein's book "I Will Fear No Evil" in which he explores a form of transgenderism (through brain transplant). Also, Heinlein deals with transgenderism in a very unique way in the novel "Time Enough For Love" in which two clones of Lazarus Long are made, but their Y-chromosones were switched to X-chromosones. Then in a bizarre scene, Long has sex with these two clones, raising the question if that was incest or masturbation.

I couldn't figure out any other way to bring this to somebody's attention, so I did it this way. Apologize if I violated some rules or anything, please forgive my ignorance. Thank you for your time and patience, and I hope somebody more familiar with the Wiki process can edit this article for me.

imladolen (imladolen@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imladolen (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know i read this, i think these works would be interesting additions to Gender in science fiction, and i'll incorperate them there. thanks! Sex-changed characters are discussed at the homosexuality article as they were often used as metaphors (or regarded as such). More direct explorations of transgenderism are better discussed under gender, imo.Yob Mod 15:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gaylactic Spectrum Awards nom

Hi, I am not very familiar w/ Featured lists/articles criteria at the moment (and might be biased anyway, as a WP:LGBT member lol), so i'll limit my input to any minor copyedits or other observations. Some possible ideas to kick around (putting them here instead of wreaking havoc on the candidate article)

Photos: a photo in the first paragraph of the Winners section would help liven up the prose some. Nicola Griffith would be the most obvious choice, but her photo is b&w ... and started to add the Bear guy photo, but it isn't very high resolution when zoomed (neither of these issues might matter, but not sure which author would fit best). Several of the other authors also have photos in their articles' infoboxes.
Regulations: maybe consider rewording section name to "Awards process" or some other wording that is less official sounding/more engaging.
Notes column: table 1 has one, table 2 doesn't. Most of the data in table 1's notes column could be put in ( )'s in the Title column, but will defer to your judgement as to whether that's a good idea or not since you're more familiar w/ the table.
The awards are awarded to works (not creators), right? (at least that is what the lede suggests). Having the works column appear before the authors column in the tables would make this more obvious/intuitive to readers. Having the creators listed first gives the opposite impression (that the awards are for creators), unless i'm missing something here. (If you want to swap them, I could even do it for you -- didn't want to wreak such havoc without advance warning though lol)

btw, you might be confusing me w/ anothr editor on the list of LGBT themed TV articles thing... most of my edits in these awards/lists were additions of portal links (literature, scifi, etc) about a month ago.. there is another WP:LGBT editor that has been doing some great work sorting the American TV episode lists into decade-specific articles but can't remember his name at the moment.. anyhow, good luck on the FLC. I will scan for any copy-edit work but doubt much needs done. Outsider80 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no worries on the confusion, honestly I had to go to the article histories to figure out what I had contributed lol. If I was more familair w/ the FLC criteria I would put on my impartial observer hat & vote, but as is now I am not familiar w/ the criteria (so would be only going on team loyalty) have been focusing more on featured portal criteria/peer reviews for other portals, to edge Portal:LGBT up to featured status - which is not too far from happening i think. some of the other portals' peer reviews have suggested featured content boxes on the portal, that would be a good place for featured lists & articles like the various awards lists. Outsider80 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just dropping a note that the featured content box is up on the portal -- tried it above the DYK box like you suggested, but it is so large I ended up having to put it below in the full-width bottom part of the portal. if you notice any errors in the awards listings (had to abbreviate some), feel free to fix. thx, Outsider80 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the abbreviations in the featured content box aren't to imply any lesser importance (actually come to think of it, the LGBT SF stuff might be more important than celesbians... but i digress, heh). The featured lists (all of them) just have such long names (the people list actually is also abbreviated).

Thanks for the note about the background on the SF article lede. I changed some of the SF's to "speculative fiction", or other wording ("the genre", etc,) (contrary to the lede I think some of the SF's in the top 1/4th-1/3rd of the article actually might be Science Fiction even..., left those abbreviated for now) I understand that "speculative fiction" could get repetitive, but SF is kind of jargonistic (kind of like the TNG's, etc in the sex in star trek article, if it still has those) Outsider80 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Thanks for the offer, but 1) I'm not much of a collaborationist and 2) recent experiences with FL and peer review have finally crushed my spirit to the point that I have no intention of going through the process of getting any content to featured status again. It is not worth dealing with the nit-pickers and the image fascists and the people who oppose because they think there a comma out of place. I've come to the conclusion that many of them re in it to gratify their own petty egos and not to benefit the project and I'm done enabling their borderline personalities. Otto4711 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pages open

Been there, done that... Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Amy Winehouse list of awards and nominations

While I am sorry to see you do not prefer the list having many smaller sections, I do hope you understand that this is the format used by almost all of the featured lists relating to awards and nominations received by a musician (additional examples can be found here under the "Awards won by artists" section). I hope you will reconsider your objection, and return support for the article having FL status. Thanks! -Whataworld06 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it is such a commonly used format is why i initially supported, but i don't think precedent should overide having an easier to read article. If it stay as it is, i'll be neutral (and i'll clarify that on the review page).Yobmod (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I've been taking a look at several of your recent comments at WP:ANI and I've noticed that you are not quite aware of any of the history regarding the items being discussed. It appears (to me) that you are getting in over your head and generally not contributing much to improve the situations being reported. I believe that it would be in your best interest to cease discussing these things unless you are directly involved with the incident.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think it is the people that are overly involved in the history of the complaints that cause all the wikidrama there. I comment on what i find on the articles and talk pages, and always avoid personal comments, which is why there has never been an ANI report about me. Aren't noticeboards there specifically to gauge reaction from uninvolved editors?

But thanks for the advice - was there a particular comment you thought out of place? Advising people to discuss and seek consensus at less combatative places than ANI is mostly what i aim for.Yobmod (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC revisits needed

I checked them again, thanks. But not to worry, they are watchlisted.Yob Mod 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of writers of LGBT literature

Yobmod, your change of title of the List of LGBT writers is not accurate. I went to great pains to only include people who are LGBT or same-sex loving in the list and not to include non-LGBT, non-same-sex authors who write on LGBT topics. Your new title does not reflect this at all. I would request that you undo your change. Thanks. --Lawrlafo (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(continued on tarticle talk)...

		The Original Barnstar
		magnius (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Samuel R. Delaney and cat:Gay novels

Thanks for the tip.. I added Dhalgren to the category, but it doesn't seem right to call the category Gay novels when (I assume based on skim of the article) it is basically a Sci-fi novel with a gay theme. (& I assume the other gay SF novels are the same way) ... "Gay novels" kind of gives the impression that it is for novels kind of like the book cover in gay male pulp fiction.. some guy in a leopard skin posing strap laying in a lounge chair :-D) I CfD'ed the cat for possible renaming... btw, congrats on gaylactic reaching FL -- Outsider80 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid i think this is a case of categories not being subtle enough. I think a list would work, where inclusion can be explained, but categories don't allow this. Eg. Dhalgren has a bisexual protagonist, his girlfriend, his boyfriend (who will also sleep with women), various gay and lesbian secondary characters, and lots of group sex and eroticism between characters of undisclosed orientation. I'm not sure any change in title would help compartmentalise it :-/ YobMod 12:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... Maybe it would be overkill to include every novel that only marginally has a gay theme. I guess the question would be at what treshhold to include such novels in the cat ( maybe threshhold being any novel likely to have religious people wanting to ban it for gay reasons :-P :-) ) If you haven't gotten the cat thing to work yet, you are asking how to create cats? (unless i'm mis-reading this, if so sorry). Basically, in this case you would add the name of the category you want to create to the categories of article you mentioned and save. Then just click on the category redlink at the bottom of the article to create it like any other page (except that the only required content for a category is the parent cats -- in this case [[Category:Science fiction awards]] and [[Category:Fantasy awards]]. Outsider80 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slash

Yeah, my "holiday" was okay, thanks. Hope you've been well too. I don't really care about the picture getting deleted - it's very difficult to properly illustrate slash fiction on WP, as the hallmark is that it's derivative. To borrow a phrase, it's "girls playing with dolls". What's this I hear about slash fiction possibly being in a Good Topic? For some reason, I find the prospect of improving slash fiction to be a bit intimidating - for some reason it's more weighty than yaoi. --Malkinann (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about intimidating - even after clearing out uncited non-obvious assertions and merging stubby subarticles, coverage of the subject is still sprawling. But i think GA is at least feasible. Do you have strong feelings about merging the main slash with femslash at some point? I think getting a decent broad article will be easier, and separate small articles that cannot become GA would prevent any future good topic. But maybe both can become GA, if there are the sources for it.Yob Mod 08:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of burned out on yaoi at the moment. I think a merge of femslash into slash fiction should be a last resort. I believe that first a look into the literature is needed, developing both articles as called for, and when there's no more literature or burnout occurs, then revisiting the idea and starting a merge discussion if the situation calls for it. If I were to provide some web-accessible "Further readings" for slash, (non-passworded) could you look into them? --Malkinann (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jepp, i'm working on it now. Agreed with last resort, just something to consider. If you drop any sources on the talk page, i'll take a look.Yob Mod 09:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mkay, I'll see what I can rustle up. On a similar topic, I find I keep on missing when people reply to me on their own user talk pages - I'll get your message sooner if you ping me on my user talk page. --Malkinann (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you merge things, or port information from one article to another, as you did with slash fiction's brand-new femslash section, you need to link to the old article that you got the information from in your edit summary to comply with the GFDL. You can read more about this in WP:MERGE. I've compiled a list of some free sources in Talk:Slash fiction, I hope they are of use to you in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm still working on it though, not merging yet - will wait to see if femslash grows. I saw the source, thanks! Started adding something, but will go slowly.Yob Mod 11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MERGE carefully - an explicit wiki-link is required to maintain the terms of the GFDL. I have provided you with sources, hopefully you can use some of them to "grow" femslash or slash fiction.--Malkinann (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge say "page name", not link: Save both, and note the merger (including the page names) in the edit summaries. (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it or omit the page names.)YobMod 11:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use your common sense - if you are trying to follow the history of the words, which is more useful, a wikilink or just a page name (which may be mis-spelt or otherwise inaccurate) ? I do not appreciate that you had me working on finding you sources for your good topic while you performed this sneak merger in pursuit of your good topic. --Malkinann (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to follow a history of the words, and have no interest in helping others do so. If GDFL wants a link, the guideline should say so. There is no merger, and it is not needed for the topic: Slash fiction is sufficient, as serious sources treat it to include male and female relationships.Yob Mod 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to follow the history of the words helps us to attribute them correctly to the people who wrote them, which is what that GFDL requirement is. Having a wikilink helps us to follow exactly where they came from and when. --Malkinann (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your copy edit request

That's not my cup of tea really, but I'll try to give it a go at some point—maybe on the weekend. I, too, find myself fading on the longer articles and I feel I'm not really that versed in the Manual of Style yet. I scanned the article quickly and it looks like great work and very interesting. I may have to read it as well as copy edit it ;) LilHelpa (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flava Works

Thanks for looking at the Flava Works article. Unfortunately, the piece has recently been completely revised by someone who is (I assume) associated with the company. Thus, my attempt to present a balanced account has been replaced with something that reads like an advertising piece. The Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes! GBataille (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to Deface the flava works page, many wikipedia members have spent time on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.127.10 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are vandalising it with advertising spam? I know who did most of the work, they requested my input and rating, which is how i know the addition of advertising has no consensus.Yob Mod 07:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the idea of reverting the article to its version of February 17, before NPOV was violated and the current edit war started? GBataille (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I didn't revert as too many edits has happened to see what all the changes were, so i just removed the obvious problems i found. If there is nothing of benefit apart from the rearranging of paragraphs, then reverting would be good.Yob Mod 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I have reverted the article. Let's hope that this brings the edit war to an end. GBataille (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few days, an IP editor as well as a new editor whose account was created exclusively for that purpose have been reverting the Flava Works article back to its "advertising" version: instead of documented facts, there is a long quotation from the CEO from the company's own website, there is a long list of awards (most of which Flava Works never received), etc. I have called for discussion on the Talk page, but to no avail. Although I must say that I am losing interest in the article, I resent the fact that a relatively decent piece has been replaced by rubbish. Do you think there is anything that can be done?GBataille (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions were undone by an editor whose account shows only activities relating to the Flava Works article, but I just reinstated them. I would suggest blocking edits for a while. Do you know how this can be accomplished?GBataille (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks : Bahinabai GAR

Will surely contact you for a copy edit soon. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis B virus

I closed the community GAR, somewhat out of process, since the article has been unsplit; if you feel like reviewing it in more detail (you voted weak delist), I hope you don't mind opening an individual reassessment. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT open tasks template

hey, i was poking around in there & noticed you were doing some tweaks at the same time... was going to try to add an alerts transclusion, but don't want to get in your way. If you'd like to try it yourself, here is the code (stolen from the former article requests collapsable box) <table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; border: 1px black solid;"><th><big>Article alerts</big> (Click "show" to expand)</th><tr><td>{{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts}}</td></tr></table> I tried doing it without a collapsable box, which would be more visible, but the listing is just too long. anyhow, whatever you think works. (reply here is fine) Outsider80 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was approaching it from the other direction - simplifying the rest of the format so that the article alerts stand out more. My template skills are pretty terrible (i've used the preview button a thousand times today to see what adding an extra } would do!) So if you see any improvments to be made, or want to completely overhaul, then be my guest :-).

I'm generally thinking that the project page is overall far too fussy, and overlong, so i'll be gradually trying to reduce the sub-headings and floating bits of code, pointing people directly to the appropriate subpages. But going slowly to see if anyone objects.Yob Mod 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am kind of with you on simple being best (& the Open Tasks template actually is a lot more simplified now than it was a month or 2 ago, with the Wolterbot & Articlealert bot links replacing items which were formerly human-maintained). Not sure what else could be simplified, though the announcement about the #'s of FL's we have maybe could go (?), seeing as it isn't an open task. btw, I added the transclusion - feel free to tweak if needed. -- Outsider80 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured lists number is what is left after i trimmed away the out of date info. I didn't want to remove everytinhg, in case something should be written there in future.Yob Mod 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Yobmod, hello! I saw your reply on the Preity Zinta talk page and I would like you to see my reply.

Black Kite mispresented the situation. The article got promoted after he already changed to oppose again.[1] If you see the FAC, his oppose still stands. Many editors disagreed with what he said and this was even simultaneously discussed in another noticeboard, and Raul decided to promote it despite the oppose. And SandyGeorgia saw this too. I can turn to both of them.

But it's not the problem. I worked too hard on the rationales to make them well written, elaborated and clear as to why the images are acceptable; I consulted other editors on how to write it better, I chose specific images which can provide both a critical commentary and can increase the reader's understanding of the topic.

And that's too not the problem. The problem is that this issue still remains open on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no problems removing the images if they still violate something, but I want to see a broader view from editors discussing the problem. The Preity Zinta article is not the problem; the use of FU images in BLPs, especially on actors, is the real problem. Many FAs, from Diane Keaton to Cillian Murphy use FU images. These articles were promoted with the images being included and the Zinta article was featured on the main page with the images being included. And too many editors support the inclusion of FUs in BLPs. So what are we gonna do?

I want this to be resolved once and for all. I want to know if the images are permitted or not. And to have this all made, it will have to be discussed thoroughly somewhere. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied. My interest is in knowing if such fair-use images are considered acceptable by the general community and for FA. I don't want this article to be demoted, just find out what consensus is (using fair-use shots of living people could make a big difference for getting images for BLPs, so if they are being supported at FA, that will help a lot of editors.) RfC maybe less drama, but i think a FAR is more likely to get input from a wider variety of people. I found this article from the Tolkien FAR, which has similar issues, and seems to be being opposed based on the images.

Either such images are fair use, or not, but the current situation is inconsistant, and confusing!YobMod 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words right out of my mouth. That's exactly what I want, consistency. FAR is by no means a place to discuss these issues though. An admin referred me once to RfC and I think it is the right place to discuss it. Additionally, if an FA is added to FAR based on one sole problem such as this, it will be instantly removed by either Sandy or Raul. Furthermore, there are too many articles using FUs. The Diane Keaton one has much more FUs. It will be literally silly to take them all to FAR to get a broader view. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Could you please explain what you actually suggest to do? To start a RfC discussion? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free images of Tolkien

I'm confused by what you said at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. R. Tolkien. My reply is here, but dropping off a note here, as I want to make sure this gets addressed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Steampunk games and Warmachine

Hi,

Out of interest, what was the rationale for this removal? I'm aware that the publishers don't like the term, but they appear to be distinctly in the minority here. I've yet to come across a review of either the game or the miniatures which doesn't use it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The same also applies to this edit. The first line of the article is "Gear Antique (ギア・アンティーク ?) is one of the earliest steampunk role-playing game". Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. I have nothing against the term, i was cleaning out the category of all games that had no citation for this genre. If there are reviews calling it Steampunk, simply adding one as a citation to the article would protect it from any future cleanups (and make the article better!). From my understanding, categories should only reflect what is in the article, not be a way to bypass verfiability, so each article in the cat should have a source. If there is no citation, how do you know it is true?YobMod 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have a point, but one of the main functions of categories is to allow editors to find articles they'd like to work on - in cases where there is an obvious appeal to the subject belonging in a category it seems prudent to add the cat and then let people find references as they please. If the category seemed dubious then I wouldn't have a problem with it, but in these cases (and possibly others recently removed) there seems to be an obvious appeal to the subject belonging in the cat in question. Unfortunately Google isn't great for finding reliable sources for things like this, what with the first ~10 pages all being links to blogs or YouTube videos... :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the main function of articles is to inform the reader, that doesn't mean we allow uncited speculation because it seems informative. I don't see how it useful if it is not verified. If no-one calls them steampunk, then in what sense are they steampunk? Just an editors opinion? And if the editor has a COI and wants his game in as many categories as possible? I cited the entire List of steampunk works, so finding citations is only difficult if the game is not actually steampunk at all.Yob Mod 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, in both these examples it would appear trivial from a Google search (here's Warmachine's) that plenty of people refer to them as steampunk - it's just that I'm not keen on adding references from unreliable sources. Common sense would seem to indicate that if something can be verified from multitudes of unreliable sources that reliable sources probably exist. We should probably leave the category on to encourage editors who like steampunk to visit the article and improve it, such as by adding reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ignoring the fundemental verifiability policy should not be undertaken because fans have all day to add uncited info to wikipedia, but cannot be bothered to find sources. If the editor cannot find a source, that means he just made it up himself or copied from a blogger who made it up, no? If you prefer, i can add fact tags instead and wait, but am certin that editors will not repond by by adding sources, they never do. A category is useful for directing people to verified information, not for pointing them to OR: the articles themselves should not be making unsourced claims, but it is too much work to clean them all up, OR is added faster than i can add citation tags!

If we have both searched for sources, i still don't understand in what way these are steampunk games: the verbal diarrhea of the bloggosphere is not considered reliable for a reason!

Ah, i find that there is a specific template for this:

Would it be better to add this to them all? You don't think most editors would prefer to lose the cat than have the template? According to the talk page, simply removing the category is prefferable, unless there is a reason. YobMod 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes - that's an excellent suggestion. As I say, it's just in this particular case that there seems to be no shortage of sources but it's going to take a while to find one with more authority than someone's blog. Adding that tag would be a great solution; if no sources are forthcoming, the cat can be removed in future. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Btw, i hadn't noticed your initial addition of the category - cleanup is just something i do once a month or so. So i'm fine with leaving things in there for a month or so while waiting for sources. I'll use the tag in future for the first passes.Yob Mod 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Thanks for letting me know. :) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

slash picture

I just had a thought - Woledge's Kirk/Spock paper discusses some "slashy moments" in the canon with screencaps included. Would it be a good idea to include such a screencap (taken from Woledge's paper) and say "this scene from X has been interpreted by slash fans as a "slashy moment" between Kirk and Spock"?? --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is discussed in a paper, then i think the claim for fair use is strong enough, so it would be a great addition. Images from less reputable sources would not be good enough imo, so a paper is ideal. Good find!YobMod 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My google-fu fails me, otherwise I'd show you the images themselves... We've got a choice between a screenie of Kirk and Spock plotting, with their heads bent *just so*, from Star Trek VI. We've also got a screenie of K/S maintaining eye contact for too long, apparently how men look at other men is the most "salient" way of telling if they're gay... as well as a series of shots 7-8-9 from this sequence. That has the least commentary, though. Apparently the framing of this scene is that Kirk gazes at Spock the same way that men gaze at women, (women only steal glances). There's also a scene from Star Trek The Motion Picture where Spock is sick and is lying on a sickbay bed, and tells Kirk that "V'ger will never understand this feeling..." and clasps Kirk's hand. This scene gets two paragraphs of commentary. Do you have a preference of any of the images from my description? --Malkinann (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort at WPLGBT

Gonzonoir (talk) has given you a fist bump ! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fist bump ! Enjoy! I never know how to make these things not sound sarcastic, but... this is sincere :)

Spread the goodness of by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=darkblue|bg=skyblue|image=PACE-flag.svg|article=a fist bump|item= }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Barrows Bennett

Did I address your concerns raised in the Gertrude Barrows Bennett GAR? When I first saw your GAR, I must admit to being irritated. However, as I dove into the article I realized updating those references was a good thing since I was able to bring better citations to the article--along with more info, especially in the influences section. I also corrected some of the style issues other editors had entered in over the last year. Unfortunately, there's not much more information I can add to the article, since this is a rather obscure subject. But I think the article once again meets good article criteria. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. It was a hard article to create b/c of the lack of good sources on her. So yes, please add any additional info you find. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close merge discussion

Could you please close the merge discussion on Kirk/Spock? The discussion has petered out. --Malkinann (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Eudaimonia & Eudaimonism

Hello, Yobmod. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abortion

Inserting a picture against consensus is not a good way to edit, particularly for such a controversial article. I apologize if, by allowing that "tally" to linger long past the formation of a consensus, we gave you the false impression that this is an open issue, but even then your actions are not justified. I have reverted your good-faith change and archived the tally so that it does not continue to exist as an attractive nuisance. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What tally? The RfC was on a different subject. I reverted you removal based on the discussion here: Talk:Abortion#Picture, in which the majority did not consider it a shock picture and supported it's inclusion. Reverting was at least as "justified" as your removal, which also did not have consensus. RHow does removing perfectly valid educational pictures help inform the reader, instead of furthering your POV?YobMod 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USAD FLRC

Hello, Yobmod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/United States Academic Decathlon National Championship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have 4 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy metal music in El Salvador

Seriously, what's there to merge? The article already had those citations when I nominated it for deletion but as I mentioned, all those citations are to unreliable sources including blogs and user-edited sites. The entire article is filled with nothing more than original research and I suspect the three editors who voted for merge simply did not pay any attention to the quality of the sources. Can you re-consider your decision, re-listing the AFD if nothing more? --Bardin (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think sites like [2] are reliable enough as sources from the interview section, even if they don't show notability for the topic overall. If there is nothing to merge, just a redirect would be left behind, which is essentially the same as deletion in this case, no?

The only other possible closure would be "no consensus - default to keep". I'm fine if you wanted to take to to deletion review (I don't think i'm allowed change it without input there), but the only change would for it to be kept, hence all my deletions from the page and merging should be undone. I doubt any later AfD would result in a delete (considering the number of merge !voters this time, and a quick source search: i have found multiple sources for Chente Sibrian being a Salvadoran "rock legend), and i don't see any benefit to deleting it rather than leaving a redirect, but that is just my opinion.

The other option is to nominate the redirect for deletion, but why bother? Note, GDFL forces us to keep the redirect if any of the writing is kept in the merged article.Yob Mod 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really think you made the wrong decision here in closing the AFD. There was no consensus to merge. There were three editors who argued for deletion and with myself as nominator, that's four against the three who voted merge. I always thought AFDs should be based on the strength of the arguments rather than the number of people who voted this way or that. I don't think those who voted merge had any strong arguments. If you had closed the AFD as no consensus, I can always wait some time and re-nominate the article for deletion again to find consensus. Right now, that option is no longer available to me. You have moved a small chunk of original research from one article to another and I cannot selectively nominate a subsection of an article for deletion. One of the band names that you moved is Berzerk, a group whose wiki article has been speedy deleted three times because they are clearly not notable. As for Chente Sibrian, a "rock legend" is not the same thing as "heavy metal music in El Salvador". A redirect is also not the same thing as deletion since a redirect indicates a certain level of notability as a plausible search item. Furthermore, the article's history remains in place, ready to be re-activated anytime an editor choose to. Such re-activations will not be scrutinised the way that newly created articles are. As far as I know, there is no need for me to go to deletion review. As the closing admin, you can re-open the AFD and re-list it to generate further comments from other editors. See, for instance, this AFD that was originally closed as no consensus (but kept as default) by one admin who responded to a request on their talk page by relisting the AFD. A second admin then close it later as merge. I'm willing to bring this to deletion review if need be. --Bardin (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~As the merge was already done, i think a review is best. If you let me know when you've listed it, i'll start undoing the merge.Yob Mod 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)~~ Actually, it is recent enough to not make much difference, so i undid my merge, and reopened the AfDYob Mod 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Much appreciated. --Bardin (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL Violation Letter

I've responded to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Standard GFDL violation letter#Copyvios in books. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]