User talk:LordofMoonSpawn

Not the same genre?
While I thank you for cautioning me against getting into an edit war, I don't know what you mean that space opera is somehow not science fiction? You pointed to a dictionary and dictionary does define it as science fiction. The encyclopedia of science fiction definition of space opera. WHat are you trying to say? That a subgenre of science fiction is somehow not science fiction? I even mentioned on the talk page against repeating the same genre twice and nobody bothers responding.

Do you even read the articles? This is like saying high-fantasy and fantasy are "not the same genre". Please explain yourself on the talk page and please explain how the heck we are going to have the same genre repeated twice in the lead and in the description table. We can also bring this up on the science fiction page so people confused about this can ask what they need. Thanks again.--Taeyebar 20:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, are you confusing space opera with soap opera? Well we can take the discussion to the talk page. Until then, I'll be away but will respond as soon as I can. Thanks.--Taeyebar 20:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is my exact response: ❌: Science fiction and space opera are not the same genre. In other words, science fiction encompasses much more than space opera. Quoting something someone else said, since it seems pretty accurate: while all space opera IS science fiction, the same isn't true for the opposite, i.e. not all science fiction is space opera.
 * And no, High or Epic fantasy and Fantasy are also not the same, since the first is a sub genre of the latter.


 * As stated in MOS:TV, Genre classifications should be reliably sourced and comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. As sources are calling it both science fiction and space opera, and as they are from the majority of mainstream reliable sources, and since using one over the other would definitely go against 1) the definition of the words, and 2) WP:WEIGHT, I still am not convinced by your argument, since it's irrelevant.


 * I do however agree that the lead sentence may not need both genres stated there, i.e. soap opera may be removed from the lead, while it may be left in the infobox.


 * pinging for the last sentence (and since I didn't notice your reply on the tv show's talk page until now).
 *  LoMS  talk   04:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Signature length
Hi. I know that you were contacted about this in January, but I just noticed your signature because my !vote was below yours at the open RfA. As it stands your sig is still 387 characters long, well over the 255 character limit specified in WP:SIGLEN. I know that many people like to have a unique signature, but it's distracting when the signature code takes up four lines in the edit box, so perhaps you wouldn't mind paring it back a bit. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for the heads up. Will be amended soon.  LoMS  talk   17:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Screenshot Medici Masters of Florence Netflix Title Sequence.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Screenshot Medici Masters of Florence Netflix Title Sequence.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Evolution of Human Sexuality
Hello, LordofMoonSpawn. On March 16, 2017 you changed the article assessment for The Evolution of Human Sexuality from a B to a C because of the absence of a publication section. For the record, I have now added a publication section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Appologies for the late response. The article is re-assessed.   The Lord of Moon's Spawn   ✉    14:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steven Erikson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gardner ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Steven_Erikson check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Steven_Erikson?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)