![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the literary punk genres should be moved to their own category altogether. Just my two cents... Piecraft 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone up to the challenge of browsing the articles listed in the Literary Genres section and adding and correcting them? I've been trying to find more info but am not as familiar with some of the other genres as I am with dieselpunk or transistorpunk. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Piecraft 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
And I'm sorry but I do find this to be a personal attack, simply because the authors or editors of Dark City did not agree with me they had to orchestrate this witch hunt and bash down my published work and efforts to add content to other articles which were less expanded before I added insight into them (the fact being that I am a follower of cyberpunk and its spin-off sub-genres). I have also contributed extensively in the steampunk and cyberpunk articles in aiding the association with relevant works. I do feel personally attacked and targeted because everyone from the Dark City article is ganging-up on me. Not that I care, because I find it cowardly. EurekaLott probably has something against me, what I do not know - but he was proven wrong when he put the category of dieselpunk up for deletion and supporters testified that such a term and genre was notable as well as the category. Although I must say Ccranium you seem to be more civilised in your apporach of debating this. I don't minf people questioning the authenticity or content of an article, that is to be expected after all, especially if it is involving a topic to which you don't know much about or have never heard of. However, I do regret in saying I find it annoying that certain editors on here must always strive to delete anything as their only option. It reminds me almost of the days of the Inquisition or the Nazi Regime, where anything that was outside of the realm of understanding to the authority or those imposing that authority in their self-righteous manner would burn and destroy every document and article that went against their views. Just because dieselpunk is a relatively new term (as new as steampunk believe it or not) does not make it unverifiable. The term was coined by Lewis Pollak, it has also been adopted by followers of the cyberpunk, steampunk culture. The term for dieselpunk has often been exchanged as atomicpunk. Is it too hard to believe that I was not the originator of all the article you supposedly believe I created out of a magical hat? Stonepunk, Bronzepunk, Sandalpunk, Middlepunk and Clockpunk have been referred to on the steampunk page. I gave those sub-genres decent-sized articles. I expanded them slightly with the little information given and sourced from around the Net as well as what I knew of it from magazines. Dieselpunk on the other was written by myself along with the added help of other editors, there was another editor who contributed an article for atmoicpunk which was later merged. The term has existed longer than my presence in making the article, therefore you cannot tell me that I wrote this up all in vain. Which is not the same as what I can say for the others on here attempting to tarnish it with ill-refutable claims. I provided enoguh proof, perhaps not a tantamount as can be excercised for Cyberpunk in comparison, however Steampunk's external links provide little claim for it's existence as well - but we're not talking about whether it exists or not are we? Oh no, it has to be dieselpunk simply because it is a genre that is lesser known in terms of the mainstream. I would reccomend perusing the Steampunk talk page as well for further insight on other users who contributed and discussed it there. Again I thank you for your interest and civility with this matter Ccranium, I cannot say the same for your peers however. Piecraft 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think the literary punk genres should be moved to their own category altogether. Just my two cents... Piecraft 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone up to the challenge of browsing the articles listed in the Literary Genres section and adding and correcting them? I've been trying to find more info but am not as familiar with some of the other genres as I am with dieselpunk or transistorpunk. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Piecraft 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
And I'm sorry but I do find this to be a personal attack, simply because the authors or editors of Dark City did not agree with me they had to orchestrate this witch hunt and bash down my published work and efforts to add content to other articles which were less expanded before I added insight into them (the fact being that I am a follower of cyberpunk and its spin-off sub-genres). I have also contributed extensively in the steampunk and cyberpunk articles in aiding the association with relevant works. I do feel personally attacked and targeted because everyone from the Dark City article is ganging-up on me. Not that I care, because I find it cowardly. EurekaLott probably has something against me, what I do not know - but he was proven wrong when he put the category of dieselpunk up for deletion and supporters testified that such a term and genre was notable as well as the category. Although I must say Ccranium you seem to be more civilised in your apporach of debating this. I don't minf people questioning the authenticity or content of an article, that is to be expected after all, especially if it is involving a topic to which you don't know much about or have never heard of. However, I do regret in saying I find it annoying that certain editors on here must always strive to delete anything as their only option. It reminds me almost of the days of the Inquisition or the Nazi Regime, where anything that was outside of the realm of understanding to the authority or those imposing that authority in their self-righteous manner would burn and destroy every document and article that went against their views. Just because dieselpunk is a relatively new term (as new as steampunk believe it or not) does not make it unverifiable. The term was coined by Lewis Pollak, it has also been adopted by followers of the cyberpunk, steampunk culture. The term for dieselpunk has often been exchanged as atomicpunk. Is it too hard to believe that I was not the originator of all the article you supposedly believe I created out of a magical hat? Stonepunk, Bronzepunk, Sandalpunk, Middlepunk and Clockpunk have been referred to on the steampunk page. I gave those sub-genres decent-sized articles. I expanded them slightly with the little information given and sourced from around the Net as well as what I knew of it from magazines. Dieselpunk on the other was written by myself along with the added help of other editors, there was another editor who contributed an article for atmoicpunk which was later merged. The term has existed longer than my presence in making the article, therefore you cannot tell me that I wrote this up all in vain. Which is not the same as what I can say for the others on here attempting to tarnish it with ill-refutable claims. I provided enoguh proof, perhaps not a tantamount as can be excercised for Cyberpunk in comparison, however Steampunk's external links provide little claim for it's existence as well - but we're not talking about whether it exists or not are we? Oh no, it has to be dieselpunk simply because it is a genre that is lesser known in terms of the mainstream. I would reccomend perusing the Steampunk talk page as well for further insight on other users who contributed and discussed it there. Again I thank you for your interest and civility with this matter Ccranium, I cannot say the same for your peers however. Piecraft 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)