Talk:Steampunk

Mary Shelley?

How is she a precursor for Steampunk? The reference number 7 has no mention of her. She was earlier, not Victorian. She wrote Gothic fiction such as Frankenstein, which did have some science fiction elements. It does not have the technology focus that Wells and especially Verne have. She wrote Frankenstein ten years before Verne was born! Maybe she influenced indirectly via the early Frankenstein movies, but they are very different from her novel.109.57.15.220 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Because multiple, independent secondary sources have made the comparison between Shelley and Steampunk. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta Vandal

Two months ago there was a vandalism: The blanking of 5k characters of extremely well referenced content from a long established Wiki editor, committed by a random user without prior edits. (First vandalism) It was immediately recognized as obvious vandalism and quickly reverted by a moderator. (First automatic moderator reversion) The vandal, given the explanation that more explanation was required, returned with demonstrably false reasoning and blanked again. (second blanking) The original author, noticing the events later, explained the personal vendetta nature of this vandalism to the moderator and the moderator subsequently RedWarned the page. (moderator correction and RedWarn)

Now, two months later, the vandal has returned using VPN and one single prior edit in an attempt to hide their intent, but they were so focused upon vandalism in their written reason, they revealed their own deception:

Recent Vandalism of exact same section: Revert. As mentioned by someone else already, this section is not only poorly written and sourced, but overall unencyclopedic and doesn't have its place in a WP article. Full stop. The rules on WP are clear: in case of recurrent edit conflicts, the original version takes precedence. So either move on, or take it to the talk page. Thank you

Unfortunately for them, the single-minded focus on only this one exact same edit/vandalism and their very knowledge of their 2 month old vandalism, combined with expectation of reversion, makes their deception and intent transparent. However, given a 2 month wait and return, this level of obsessive behavior indicates they will likely continue to update their deception methods over coming months. I suggest that the section be watched closely over a longer period of time by leaving this section on the talk page even after the vandalism has been resolved again. (My apologies for accidentally revealing my identity to a personal enemy and the subsequent trouble it has caused. It won't happen again.) Nemesis75 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nemesis75, if they return, report IP to WP:AIV and ask for page semi-protection (if the page is constantly vandalized) at WP:RFPP Ed6767 talk! 16:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, thanks a bunch for your help! I don't know all these arbitration systems well, so your assistance has been indispensable. Nemesis75 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Nemesis75, no problem - btw, you might just want to enable Twinkle or my tool RedWarn which makes reporting, reverting and warning much easier in the odd case you run across bad edits or vandals. As a rule of thumb, if it's a blatant vandal, go to WP:AIV, if it's somebody who's messing around in a way that is a bit more specific and might require discussion go to WP:ANI, and if a page is constantly being vandalised, go to WP:RFPP Ed6767 talk! 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Original research and reliable sources

Can we remove the maintenance warning at the top of the page yet? The entry was said to contain original research in April 2016 and unreliable sources in July 2017. There have been many edits since. Everything seems properly sourced, so I think the point on original research is moot. If there are still unreliable sources, let's delete (or better yet: replace) them, so we can get rid of the message. Ottens (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic COVID and quantum physics pseudoscience section

The section titled "The Steampunk Physics Surge of 2020" does not fit at all. I don't understand what it's trying to say, but it rambles on about copper surfaces, quantum physics, and what looks like pseudoscience. The section was written all at once by a single contributor.

I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, so I don't know what's specifically wrong with it. Sentences like "it appears our world is rapidly becoming more 'Steampunked.'" and "in the vein of Jules Verne's prescient writings" just sound too subjective. It's not clear what the article is talking about.

This section has been removed multiple times, but the original contributor keeps replacing it. Further down the talk page, they said one user keeps vandalizing their section with a VPN, but I think it's more likely that multiple users are trying to remove it. I have not edited the article, but it is very out of place and looks like spam. It does have many citations, but the section is still not relevant to the article in its current form.

It was most recently re-instated by the original contributor in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Steampunk&diff=prev&oldid=1002487351

Whatever this section is trying to say, it should either be completely rewritten or more likely just removed.

edit: additionally, User:Ed6767, I do not think this page is being vandalized. I did not edit the article to remove "The Steampunk Physics Surge of 2020" myself because I do not want to be reported as a vandal or be IP-banned by the original contributor. I think this section is being removed by multiple, independent contributors. It does not fit the rest of the article whatsoever.

73.174.187.176 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@48Pills and Nemesis75: This article is about a subgenre of science fiction. "Steampunk physics" is just a cute name for a certain scientist's synthesis of thermodynamics and information theory. It may or may not deserve coverage in WP, but it certainly doesn't deserve coverage in this article (except eventually as a "see also" if the topic is covered elsewhere).

As for the COVID/brass business, that's something else again, and still doesn't belong in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis Please explain why you mentioned my username in your edit 48Pills (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

48Pills You removed the same section last month, so I thought you'd want to be notified that it was being discussed again. --Macrakis (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@MacRakis and Ed6767: First, see the "Personal Vendetta Vandal" section above. I've been undergoing very taxing and repeated obsessive attack for a very long time now from someone I never interact with. They are a stalker.

Now, please look carefully at the obvious tells here. There is repeated full section blanking of prolifically sourced content from reputable peer reviewed journals for almost a year now. They tried to use the word "pseudoscience" above regardless of the irrefutable scientific legitimacy. They are just updating their tactics and will continue to because they are mentally ill and obsessive about trying to hurt me personally. They keep doing the same thing over and over: Full section blanking of only my edits and no other edits of any kind. Now it's become a personal crusade to see if they can con their way into getting people to support their effort to personally attack me. It's always the same section, always a full blank, not edits. Unfortunately, they will now update their con game even more since we are discussing it and they are eagerly reading it planning their next obsessive attack. They are ill and apparently cannot stop themselves so count on them coming back to do it again via another proxy. Please do not feed the duper's delight of this particularly insidious manipulator. Notice, for instance, that they say they "don't know what's wrong with it" but feel it's necessary to blank the whole thing (and nothing else) while hiding behind anonymity. Then they also make the extra effort to defend their section blanking even though they are "not an editor." Yeah... makes perfect sense. Nothing fishy at all. Their one and only edit from a month ago gets reverted and they immediately come back to defend it because they are not an editor. That's normal behavior for an anonymous non editor... Like all con artists and manipulators, they genuinely believe everyone else is stupid and can't see through their manipulation.

The name of this section is CULTURE AND COMMUNITY. The section is clearly for the purpose of chronicling the impact of steampunk upon culture.

In it there are statements like "Some have proposed a steampunk philosophy that incorporates punk-inspired anti-establishment sentiments" or "Eric Renderking Fisk announced in 2017 that steampunk was no longer punk" The recent focus upon the word "steampunked" is another transparent gotcha tactic since they made no effort to "clean up" or complain about any of the other various generalized statements about steampunk and its impact on culture. They made no attempt whatsoever, time and time again to do anything other than attempt to erase my edit or come up with some wording to convince people it's about the content when it clearly is not. It's deadly clear if you look closely.

As for the content of the section in question: This enormous impact on real physics is NOT of little note and the fact that this movement is mainly driven by a female researcher (with many hundreds of papers produced by other science authors) is of no small import. It factually ties into the main themes of this section which is about counter-culture and anti-establishment sentiment, of which feminist ideals and accomplishments in science are a MAJOR part of our shifting culture. This whole article is about culture!

After the mildest examination of the evidence, this should be obvious to a drunken gnome with a broken loop ;) The fact that MacRakis did a full section blank, unfortunately, also suggests to me the possibility that they have upped their efforts and perhaps duped one of their stream viewers (they are a streamer) into helping them wage a personal war on me. However, I suppose it could have been a strange mistake for him to have paid NO attention to the rest of the topic and only focused upon what the con-artist attacking me wanted him to focus on. At least one of his criticisms was far more cogent than all the rest of the excuses they have used over the past year. The most recent addition to the section shows that there is now an official academically recognized research organization based on Quantum Steampunk which should have dissuaded him from saying it was just some "cute" thing if he had genuinely put effort into the decision to blank. He obviously did no research and that has a smell of influenced behavior. Note they say above "I did not remove [it] myself because..." indicating they were the cause of the removal via proxy, yet they also link themselves to the anonymous section blanker from Dec 3 by again mentioning the word "steampunked" as the main offense worthy of total section blanking. Please note they also are sure to mention that it was added by a single user, further identifying them as interested in the person not actually the content. (sorry for going overboard on evidence of the obvious but, you know, this is getting old)

As for covid, the original steampunk era culture was influenced by disease and many of the largest impacts made on science were during isolations caused by disease that led to focus. This has now happened again in a repetition of old. It is an anachronism coming to life. How could anything be more retrofuturism than to see history repeat itself and steampunk become real science just like Jules Verne and other sci fi authors influenced science. This entire section is intricately woven into the page's structure and subject matter and sourced far more than adequately and authoritatively. (more than other areas of the article as well) This section showing steampunk culture now repeating what Jules Verne did before (now with a woman leading the way) is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL to specifically the steampunk article.

Please pay attention to the obvious tactics this con artist is employing. Edits of wording etc is justifiable. Small changes are welcome. (I'm willing to help with small rewording efforts too) Full section blanking is OBVIOUS VANDALISM Nemesis75 (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, these most recent comments happened specifically today because my partner is also a streamer (competitive with the stalker) who was asked about her association with the stalker (from a year ago) just a few hours ago and I also specifically mentioned wikipedia by chance in the background of her stream (thus reminding the stalker to check for reversions) Nemesis75 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nemesis75, I don't recall editing this page recently, if I did it was probably part of my standard counter vandalism patrol work, so I cannot comment further on this issue ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 10:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ed6767, sorry if that tag specifically intimates that. I mentioned you because you were part of my recurring problem with a stalker from months ago. It's above in the "personal vendetta vandal" section. They haven't stopped but now they are back putting more effort into their personal attack. Is there really no way to deal with an persistent and obsessive vandal using different IPs? Sorry I don't know Wikipedia tools well. Nemesis75 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nemesis75, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP, persistent sock puppetry/vandalism is a valid reason. You can also try WP:ANI if the issue persists, they may be able to block an IP range. Otherwise, keep reverting, reporting immediately to WP:AIV and remember WP:DENY. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 11:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you all figure out this section, but it does seem, from looking at the sources that the Nicole Yunger Halpern article makes sense, but I think the section could be stronger. I mean the link to Google Scholar is ok, but I think these sources would improve the section:

• https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32209316/quantum-steampunk-physics/

• https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolutionising-frontiers-heralding-in-era-quantum/id1541526934?i=1000504191775 (podcast interview)

• https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quantum-steampunk%3A-Quantum-information%2C-their-and-Halpern/a484e661fab3cb3909213e2e768f0d9641c636c3 (this is Halpern's dissertation)

Whatever happens to this section, I'll support the consensus on here and I'll try to update the "Art, entertainment, and media" section of the main page in the days to come.Historyday01 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ed, I have to reiterate that I am just a random passerby. I have no idea who Nemesis75 is and I'm not a sock puppet. I think it's more likely that many independent contributors are removing their Quantum Steam Punk section, and the original writer is attributing all of these removals to one person. I really doubt one person would remove the article a couple times a year from different IPs; it's almost certainly different people who think the article doesn't fit.

They said I've been stalking their partner's streams. Again, I have no clue who they are. We shouldn't be directing them to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. The issue is with the article, not the users who are removing it.

I don't think this article is being vandalized and trying to ban these random contributors (including me) is not going to help. The article has many problems that User:Macrakis has explained much better than me down below.

73.174.187.176 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nemesis75, Ed6767, and Historyday01: I removed this section simply because it is not relevant to the topic. I did not say that the content was incorrect or unsourced or pseudoscience. I also did not criticize Dr. Yunger Halpern's work in any way. The choice of the name "quantum steampunk" for her research program is whimsical, but there's nothing wrong with that. After all, Gell-Mann borrowed the equally whimsical "quark" from James Joyce.

As I said in explaining my edit, this article is "about a subgenre of science fiction". It is not about physics. Please keep in mind that WP articles focus on a topic, not on a name. Along the same lines, the article on the tropics does not include a discussion of the mathematical field which happens to be called tropical geometry. There may well be a place for a discussion of Yunger Halpern's work on WP, but it isn't here. Also, for now, I don't see "hundreds of papers" taking up Yunger Halpern's work: according to Google Scholar, she and Meucci are the only one who've used that term, and her paper has only been cited twice. So the work may not even be notable (yet!) by WP's standards. Interviews with Yunger Halpern in Popular Mechanics and on an Apple podcast don't show that the concept is being taken up by other scientists -- and again, even if they did, the physics discussion doesn't belong on this page.

Then I'm sorry you happened to get involved at such an oddly perfect timing. The idea that it's not relevant, however, is clearly incorrect. As you have said, this is not a physics article. (which is why the scientific viability is just a distraction) It's a culture article and the fact that steampunk culture touches other sections of life is what is discussed here. It is not well placed elsewhere since this is about the impact of one area of culture upon another. Specifically steampunk's impact. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the innuendo in "oddly perfect timing". A retraction would be more appropriate.

I was giving a reason for my initial innuendo, which generally is an ask that you understand the accident of circumstance. It's not a furthering of the intimation but an "explain yourself" acquiescence. I can fully agree that should be retracted if you can fully agree to the fact that this section has all the normal earmarks of sock-puppet vandalism. Can you at least admit that compromise? Can you just look around at the behavior of those you are (accidentally) helping for just a moment? Look at the last comment in this section. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine for talking about the impact of steampunk on other areas, including physics. But that needs reliable sources, not your own reasoning. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I linked articles in which Nicole Halpern, who has nearly 1000 citations (also in my references) on the subject she calls Quantum steampunk. Keyword search is irrelevant here because she's given the name of her work this but her work has gone by other names in the past. However, the vast majority of the citations are based on this work by this name. In her various presentations and writings she repeatedly states that she was inspired by steampunk. (as made obvious by her use of the term) Are you looking for a journal entry in which she explicitly states the connection to steampunk??? She gives it in plenty of other places including those things I linked. There is now a funded lab with he name steampunk in the title associated with many top-level academic organizations. Please tell me how better evidence could literally exist? I'm serious here. I don't understand what literally COULD exist that you are asking for. Please explain to me a way in which the evidence you ask for can *actually exist* and then I can perhaps provide it for you. Right now it seems like you've created infinitely unreachable goalposts. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When I first came across this section, I thought I could improve it by removing some of the hyperbolic and unencyclopedic language (starting with the melodramatic section title), but as I read it closely, I realized that the first paragraph, about Dr. Yunger Halpern's work, is only connected to steampunk by its name. And the rest of the section has no connection at all to steampunk, either by name or by content -- it is pure original research to connect the work of Einstein, Lakes (Cosserat Elasticity), Majumdar, or Bush to steampunk.

No connection? That is patently false and honestly... strange. Let's be clear this article is about fiction and genre is about epic circumstance. If the editing style is somehow wrong, please chalk it up to my involvement in this "melodramatic" subject matter, and suggest a change to wording. Einstein's work represents the deviation point where the steampunk era ostensibly ended/deviated. (ULTRA relevant) Cosserat's were the last aether theory and their math is still used in modern physics(obviously relevant as part of steampunk influence) Majumdar developed a new legitimate physics theory based on Kelvin's aether theories (You literally cannot get more steampunk without the outfit), Bush's hydrodynamics is simply another example of extending 19th century physics into the modern age. (references also provided for how that historical linkage works) Perhaps the problem is that you do not know the genre's fiction nor the history because you are not an enthusiast? Is that a possibility, that you are now editing a subject with which you are not familiar? Do you read steampunk or participate in the functions? I do. I'm sorry but I don't see steampunk in your editing history. Do you edit physics topics perhaps? You will find however long-standing physics articles in my edit history as well as the large amount of work I put in to create this informative new section. If you happen to edit technical articles please consider that culture and fiction is very different from technical subject matter. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You are connecting the dots without any sources. There are lots of places to publish synthetic essays with your own thoughts. WP is not one of them. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Re "I'm sorry but I don't see steampunk in your editing history." My first edit to this article was five years ago, actually, and I commented on this Talk page fifteen years ago, when steampunk was in its infancy. But that really doesn't matter. I'm as capable of noticing WP:SYNTH in this article as in articles on other topics. --Macrakis (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, first can we establish if you do indeed agree with the concept that it is possible to create infinitely unreachable goals with the mere criticisms of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? Aside from this example, please tell me you do at least understand that is possible. Surely you've seen it done by now, accidentally and otherwise. Criticism can be infinite when the goal is poorly defined. So, again, what evidence could factually exist that would satisfy you? Asking me to link to her specifically saying the keyword "steampunk" is absurd. You haven't asked anyone in the rest of this text to hold themselves to such factually unreachable standards. All throughout this article there are references to things being steampunk that are not factually labeled that and you have not tried to delete their work. The fact remains that a whole area of scientific study inspired by her work which she has the right to say is steampunk as the originator of a new field. I've given valid scientific references backing up my statements. Do you truly believe this is reasonable to pit your opinion against these hundreds of scientific references to work labeled "steampunk" by the originator of the field being cited? Do you even dispute that it is a field given that she now has an official lab? Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is one tidbit that probably belongs in this "Culture and community" section, namely, the use of steampunk in HCI. But that might better refer to Tanenbaum's paper "Steampunk as design fiction" than the generic Jordan paper.

The part about the antiviral properties of copper is similarly pure WP:OR. None of the sources mention steampunk, and it would be silly to connect every modern use of copper to steampunk.

It's well sourced. If each source must also mention the connection to steampunk you need to go blank about 90% of the rest of this page, and honestly every page on wikipedia. One cannot write or create content on an article only by copy-pasting other people's words, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. The papers I gave show how much of the original use of brass and copper specifically was for medical reason and again, this is retrofuturism. It's about anachronism. The relevance is blatantly obvious to people knowledgeable in this subject matter. You have not yet claimed to be knowledgeable in this subject matter, so your ignorance would be understandable and legitimate, correct? Nemesis75 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, you seem to misunderstand how WP works. It is not about "copy-pasting other people's words", but about finding reliable sources for one's claims. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And again, all the statements were backed up by reliable sources. Please stop saying there weren't reliable sources without saying what line and what statement was not reliably sourced. With the prolific sourcing there's no way to say the section blanking is supported by poor sourcing. So please try to be specific and I think you may rethink your position. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As for the rest of the wall of text above, I don't know you or any of the other editors involved in this, and I have no idea what a "streamer" is. Also, as WP:AVOIDYOU says, "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

I find the fact that you don't know what a streamer is, very unfamiliar. I suppose some people just don't use the internet very much, though, and I shouldn't expect you to share my culture. I will try to avoid using overly specialized or obscure terms in the future. A "streamer" is an internet personality who uses platforms like twitch or youtube to broadcast to a live audience. They often have large enough following to use social "dogpiling" tactics to attack people they dislike or have personal disputes with. In this particular case there is actually a group, with one particular individual who has been the most obsessive in attempting to attack me personally here and elsewhere because I called them a manipulator. They now wield a group of friends and fans against me personally. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. I have been using the Internet and the Arpanet before it heavily, for decades. That doesn't mean I use every application on it.

You'll need to address your issues with that particular individual elsewhere. I am focused strictly on the particular content on this page, and you would do well to focus your remarks as well. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And when that issue spills over here, should I not mention it? Is it not relevant that I know I have a stalker specifically and obsessively trying to find any way to hurt me for nearly a year after breaking all contact with them? When they obviously vandalize my wikipedia entries, that's not relevant to wikipedia? Does that really make sense to you? Again, perhaps I owe you an apology for inferences, but it seems you are completely ignoring a very relevant situation. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

PS Nemesis75, kindly spell my user name correctly; otherwise I won't see your pings. --Macrakis (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nemesis75, your edit summary reverting my edit reads "So how do you know the personal vendetta vandal? Section blanking is a dead giveaway...". Characterizing the person who earlier deleted the section as a "personal vendetta vandal" is a personal attack and is not tolerated on WP. Suggesting that I know that person is casting aspersions. Please assume good faith. --Macrakis (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I see clearly you are trying to build a case against my personal behavior and honestly, you have a better standing on wikipedia so you automatically win anyway. No need to build a case. You have more power and can choose to use it however you like; that's your personal choice. Please remember that. I have to ask you to consider that I have a stalker attacking me on other mediums simultaneously. Please excuse me for questioning the timing of your appearance in this dispute but can you at least understand that you've said nothing about the strange concordance of your edit with a long historically established sockpuppet vandal of this section who, still talking behind yet another sockpuppet account, has inferred that they got you to do this edit? Can you excuse my frustration over new powerful people suddenly jumping in on the side of the actions of my long established stalker? You have overwhelming clout, you win. Period. It's your choice to act without bias, honestly, and justly (or not) with your power, and given your history I trust you have the ability to step back, release emotional involvement, reassess, and act justly. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Instead of resenting my experience on WP, perhaps you could benefit from it. I have no special "power" on WP other than the power of persuasion. My advice to you is to stop talking about your stalker and focus on the merits of the particular content under discussion. I also strongly recommend that you review WP's policies on reliable sources, original research, and verifiability. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not and do resent your experience, I have professional interests elsewhere and do not aspire to be a Wikipedia editing professional like you. I do, however resent systems of power that can be easily influenced by manipulative people. The power of persuasion includes group dynamics and given that sort of thing is currently ripping the US apart, all while I'm being attacked personally by a group being manipulated.... you are right to detect resentment. You'd be surprised the new perspective you get from having an obsessive manipulator come after you. I strongly recommend you understand and recognize the signs of gaslighting and the effects of a manipulator on those around them. They can be quite successful. 11 warning signs of Gaslighting How to spot and stop manipulators

A quick read might help you and those around you against an ever more common behavior and, who knows, maybe save you from a toxic person in your life right now.

My resentment was only associated with you because of the absurdly misleading timing of your edits and the deceptive wording of the sock puppet attempting to implicate you as their tool. Maybe they somehow brought it to your attention by some means I did not consider. Regardless, I should have known better than to believe anything they wrote. And I apologize for that aspersion but again, I hope you'll think through what I've said, look at these people carefully, and reassess. I'm removing my watch on these pages. Not sure I'll notice a ping because I won't be back since there's just no value for me to invest work here. That's not resentment for you, that's disgust at so many failing systems being so easily exploited by manipulators. And it's also just good practice as outlined in the articles linked above. Good luck! Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I once reverted a blanking of the section, then deleted it again following a closer review. You claim it has "irrefutable scientific legitimacy", in what field is that?. In general, it was poorly written, used far too much of its own pretentious language and seemed overly satisfied as if having become a member of a newly discovered clique. I plan to review the section again when I have more time. Nemesis75 Please refrain from using terms like "mentally ill" when describing someone with whom you are in dispute, given that it is you who appears obsessive and psychotic. 48Pills (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It has irrefutable scientific legitimacy in physics. That really doesn't matter in a culture article about fiction that literally uses pseudoscience as a vehicle for the genre's development, does it? As for mental illness, I'm referring to a stalker and stating that the anonymous user is very obviously that person. It's about a wider circumstance than the dispute. Is "mentally ill," not the correct term for a stalker? It seems you do you believe I am correct about who it is and that speaking about my stalker where they can hear is is too harsh? I suppose you might be right. Calling me psychotic as a response to my use of the term "mentally ill," however, in defense of this internet personality in what looks like attempted dogpiling behavior, doesn't seem like the appropriate response, somehow. Could I be incorrect about the identity of some anonymous person at some point? Absolutely! That happens to people who have stalkers messing with them. You begin to expect their interference when an anonymous person messes with you and on rare occasion you're wrong. It's an unavoidable consequence of being the target of a stalker. The question is if you think my response to repeated full section blanking by an anonymous user (corresponding with actions elsewhere by my stalker) for nearly a year now (and no one else until just recently) is "psychotic" or paranoid given that I know I had just given them info about this wiki edit just before a giant social blow up and they immediately began the section blanking during the blow up. Do you genuinely believe I am really being unreasonable? I will try to better suppress my frustration in my language, though. Nemesis75 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been warned before about our no personal attacks policy. Do not characterize people as "mentally ill", "vandals", "stalkers", "con artists", "manipulators", and so on. @48Pills: I'd advise you against characterizing Nemesis75 as "obsessive and psychotic". Let their behavior speak for itself.

If you have a problem with another user's behavior, don't try to litigate it on this Talk page. As User:Ed6767 said above, there are other forums for that, where you can present evidence that you are being stalked.

In the meantime, it seems that we've established a clear consensus on this Talk page that the "Steampunk Physics Surge of 2020" section does not belong on this page. 48Pills and I, and at least one IP user all agree that this section does not belong in this article, and have given good arguments both in edit summaries and in this Talk section. You seem to be alone in believing it does. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis, hmm, after reading this whole conversation and not wanting to enter into the interpersonal disputes between various users, I will come in here and say that I don't think the section is strong enough to be part of this article (I implied that somewhat in my previous comment, where I said "it does seem...[that] the section could be stronger"). Perhaps parts of it can be added somewhere on Wikipedia (I doubt it though), but I don't think there is enough of a basis in existing sources to include it. I can agree with Macrakis, 48Pills, and 73.174.187.176 on that. And I will try to update other parts of the main page when I have time and when they intersect with other pages I'm usually editing. That's all I have to say about this and I hope that discussion ends soon, and comes to a close, so we can all work on the more important work of improving the page, which needs to be improved in order to remove existing notices for various sections. Historyday01 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised you haven't noticed that this constant blanking of my one section by sock-puppets for nearly a year left all the other needed work untouched somehow. That doesn't seem fishy? Maybe a year of being screwed with made me respond stronger than was appropriate but I give up. Nicole actually tweeted this page out and was proud of it, but I suppose letting the sock-puppeting repeated vandal just win will save me the headache. Sorry that these people who were so incredibly invested for so long in destroying specifically my work (and nothing else) will continue to ignore helping you do any actual work. Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Nemesis75, I have only been watching this page since the beginning of this year (adding in information about the steampunk city in Disenchantment), and I haven't been watching it very closely, so I just joined this discussion recently. Historyday01 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, given the completely clear consensus, I have removed the section, but kept the two things that are arguably relevant. Frankly, I think they're too isolated to be considered notable enough to mention, but I'll be interested to hear what others think. --Macrakis (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis My apologies for the character assassination, no need to kick a dog when its down. 48Pills (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're part of the winners who defeated this "dog" yet again. Can you leave me the hell alone now? Nemesis75 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that comparing you to a dog is inappropriate -- see Wikipedia:Civility. --Macrakis (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I can also agree with that as well and calling Nemesis75 a dog is definitely wrong and violates existing Wikipedia rules. Historyday01 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested insertions

I'd like to suggest two news insertions.

Under Film there should be an entry for ["Mutant Chronicles"] which has obvious steampunk elements.

Under games I would insert ["Iron Harvest"] which has a diesel/steampunk style and look.