User:23skidoo/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page.
If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here.
Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Contents

[edit] dispute

I had edited the Jinnah article and included this persons religion because Jinnah founded Pakistan as a homeland for muslims from India solely based on religion. omerlives deleted my reference to Jinnah's religion which is not considered to be muslim by majority of Pakistanis, thus they hid his religion.

I than put this question on the discussion page and one person answered and he than disappeared now noone cares to answers. I want to know whether a persons religion is relevant to his biography when his creation of a new country solely based on religion caused the deaths of 10 million human beings.

trueblood 18:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Trueblood786

[edit] Unlicensed media on talk pages

I replaced the unlicensed image on your talk page with a plain link. Please do not use, or allow the use of, unlicensed media in your user space, as per the "fair use" policy ("They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion."). Kelly Martin (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to my talk page has been noted but I am a little annoyed at the tone of your message. Please note that the image was placed there as an example of an infobox which I was in the process of assisting in creating. 23skidoo 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
For sample infoboxes, use sample images. We have tens of thousands of freely available images that can be used for that purpose. Using unlicensed media for that purpose, or for any other purpose other than to illustrate an article about the topic of the unlicensed media, is a violation of both Wikipedia policy and copyright law. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Removers

Okie, I'll upload what I have. I wish I did have a first edition of Death of a Citizen and I think that I did have one years ago but that it fell apart at some point. The one I have now has the same cover as you used. Hayford Peirce 00:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that all these old books are called Gold Medal Originals. I wonder if that should be used rather than Fawcett, or maybe in conjuction with it? I think that sometimes I used to read "A Fawcett Gold Medal Original" or some such.... Hayford Peirce 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just checked my two big reference books. The majesterial Crime Fiction by Allen J. Hubin (there ought to be an article about him, by the way), shows GM, for Gold Medal, throughout for the Helm books. The only slightly less majesterial Twentieth Century Crime and Mystery Writers shows Fawcett throughout. So it appears to be a wash. Well, lemme see what Penzler's Encyl. of Mystery & Dectection says. Hmmm, he has a long article about Helm and the books but never mentions the publisher. However, he has a nice quote from Boucher that I'll stick in here and there. Ah! There's another source, another encyl. called Who Done It? by Ordean A. Hagen -- I never use it since it has about 10 factual errors per page. However it has about 800 pages of listings. He uses GM throughout for the Helm books. So it appears to be 2-1 for GM as far as the encyl. and bibliographies are concerned.... Hayford Peirce 16:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. But then which would you use for the primary articles about the books, Fawcett or GM? Hayford Peirce 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno who George Clooney is, although I suppose I could click on the link to find out, hehe.... If so, then he's the guy to play Helm in the movies! Hayford Peirce 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've become noticeably eccentric, I guess, never going to movies or watching TV, since, I guess, the disappearance of John Wayne. I've vaguely heard of a few people like Brad Pitt (?) but that's about it.... I did click on the Clooney link, and that pic does look a lot like the illustration. And, as you say, his age is just right. Hayford Peirce 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Octopussy

Ok, the story never specifically states that he has no daughter, but as his adult life -- from marriage through the move to Jamaica and his health problems -- is summarized without any mention of one, I think it can safely be assumed that there is no daughter. I've never seen the movie though, so can't help with that; I only wanted to clarify the original sentence, which made it look like Octopussy, in the story, was his daughter. -- hibou 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me!!!

OK, I tried to log in as Thefreakshow, my regular user, but it said my password was incorrect. I'm temporarily using my other user account JimmyCow. I would like to get a new password or retrieve my old one, but I don't know how. Help Me Out!!! JimmyCow 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never Mind

Never mind. I figured it out and I'm Thefreakshow again. Thefreakshow 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reclassing as FA

I noted you added an FA designation to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I assume that any novel article that reaches FA status is eligible for this so I went ahead and added the designation to Thunderball. If this is incorrect, please feel free to change it back. 23skidoo 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting to get geared up to have a proper assessment department going to fit in twith the WP:1.0 team and their approach to this. Watch this space. Yes such a change is fine, the article could do with being split between novel and film though. Her Pegship is the one to organise that. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

I created a page called Top 99 of... and it basically was the page for the top 99 songs as counted down by Power 99FM in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan every New Years and it got deleted and I never got any notification that it was up for deletion. I was wondering if you could undelete it? There was nothing wrong with that article. I was going to finish adding all the rest of the lists. If there is any steps I need to take then please advise me. Thanks Mr. C.C. 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderball

Well, I completely disagree with breaking the article up. It's a good article as is and by splitting it, it would void its FA status. Not to mention be a nightmare to disambiguate - where does the comic book adaptation go? what about the controversy over the novel that lead to the long legal battles that we have a good summary on - has to do with both the novel and the film. Breaking all that up would be ridiculous. K1Bond007 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Can you...

Delete User: Conservative Joe since no one is using the account? Thanks.

63.23.50.162 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb Land

nice edits/additions on Dumb Land! it was the first ever Wiki article that i 'founded' and i am glad to see that someone else has added to it--it had sat idle for quite a while! Good feelings all around and nice ameliorations! --Frenkmelk 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: hen fap idiot

found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_Paid_To

[edit] Delete this category

Can you please delete this category Category:Treehouse TV shows? The reason I am asking is because I didn't know another similar category existed. Mr. C.C. 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New books

Hey, great news! I envy you reading some of the old Matt Helms for the first time! I was just on the phone with someone a few minutes ago in which we were saying what a great city Vancouver is! All the best, and if you still need any covers in the future, just holler.... Hayford Peirce 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver sounds the way Los Angeles used to be 40 or 50 years ago when I was first collecting old Astounding Science Fiction mags and mystery stuff. There were dozens of funky old stores, particularly up around run-down old Hollywood -- all gone now, I suppose. And the prices at the time were sure right! The Removers is a pretty good one, not quite up to the first two Helms but better, probably, than any of the next five or six. Glad you changed the Saint Errant cover -- mine was from that horrible cheap series of the 60s in which they obviously didn't pay more than 50 cents per cover to the designer and producer. I would also think that as a general principle with any book articles in Wiki the earlier the cover edition the more priority it takes -- unless the reproduction is obviously of lousy quality.... Hayford Peirce 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a definite improvement. I'll go through my own books and see what I have.... Hayford Peirce 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Welcome back. I've just been cutting back on my work here at Wikipedia because I'm trying to not stay so ... invested in specific articles. I cut a large amount of articles from my watchlist (down to 400 now - still huge). I checked out that rant at CR06. Funny stuff. Didn't really read it though. :P K1Bond007 07:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Saint Cover

Yes, that's a much better one. A lot of the covers are really strange. For instance, the one that leads the Simon Templar article is totally confusing to me -- *which* one of the two guys is the Saint?! Neither of them looks particularly Saintish to me, although I could make an argument pro or con for either of them. I wonder if there isn't a better cover somewhere in which his Saintly features are clearly discernible -- it could be a repeat from one of the individual books.... As a matter of fact, the one you just put in is a fairly good one. Hayford Peirce 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkoneko...

Is he still sticking his nose :-). Ha ha ha! Sniff, anyway Stephan KŒNIG 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox redux

If you haven't noticed apparently the Bond film infobox is disrupting in some way and up on TFD again. I don't see the problem, honestly - I mean we have TV episode series infoboxes and character infoboxes tailored for individual series. What harm are we doing? Anyway, remember a while back I discussed about adding the Bond girl and the villain to the infobox. Do you think that's a bad idea? I know it may be somewhat spoilerish, but for Bond I don't think it's that big of a surprise anymore. To me it's like breaking the news to someone that Vader is Luke's father or something. I can't think of one that would be really that upsetting. Maybe TWINE, but I think that's it. (To be clear I am talking about the character's name not the actor's name)

Anyway, on this subject I think I'm going to dump the 2nd infobox (vertical one) for the novels and just adapt the novel WikiProject one since they finally got their stuff together. The only reason I say this is because I think it would be better to just add a footer template to all the Gardner's with all the links or maybe add them all to one big template. Continuation novels only or something. There are 25 links or so on the film footer one and all of the continuations would only be something like 30-40 (official only). Yay / Nay? Thoughts on something like this? K1Bond007 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, although I can't say I like purple, but it's not a big deal. I fixed some mistakes in it for you. :) K1Bond007 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd place it at the foot of the article, myself. I don't care though. Whatever looks more appealing and so long as it is consistent along all the articles. K1Bond007 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about doing John Gardner. I'll get it. I'm going to put all the continuations on the same template for easier navigation. K1Bond007 22:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I gotta take a break and eat dinner. I'll fix it all later. It's not a big deal. K1Bond007 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I threw together a footer real quick and added it to Gardner. I really didn't put a lot of time into it to be honest. In fact I just copied the list on the Portal and threw it in a basic footer template. We can clean it up as we go. The idea is for it to link to all the continuation novels. One of the problems with specifically having a template for Gardner and Benson and etc is that it only helps in navigating to their novels and really strands Colonel Sun and other notable novels. It also doesn't help navigating from COLD to Zero Minus Ten. This covers it all. A little bulky, but we can clean it up as I said. Two issues though: 1) Novelisations. I'm inclined to just leave those articles without the footer for now. 2) Fleming's novels should probably have the Novel Infobox at the top like all the Gardner's even if the said Fleming book shares the page with the films. oh and 3) when adapting the infobox for Gardner I forgot the novelisations in the precede and following. That's something that needs to be cleaned up too. I don't know, think about it. I'll trying and do the Benson books later or you can do it if you want. I'll do whatever needs to be done later today. K1Bond007 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This year sometime. I don't know. If you can dig up some information then go for it. I know next to nothing about the series except for what I wrote on the first book. It's on my to-read list. I just started reading Death is Forever. I might try and read it after I finished Gardner. We'll see. K1Bond007 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something weird with the novel template

 + If you take a look at Talk:On Her Majesty's Secret Service,
Extremely well spotted - you know what it is you are trying to clean up a few things and along the way you make something else a mess. Anyway should be sorted now. Let me know if you see anything else. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links vs. external link

It looks like you're trying to apply half of a style guideline to suit your argument. Is your rationale that there are five reasons listed for the plural form and three for the single form? I'm not sure why you felt the need in the first place to "fix" this, since the guideline makes it quite clear that there's no preferred style. fbb_fan 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you overlooked the section that says There is currently no consensus on the preferred style. While it's true that there are "many" editors who use the plural in all cases, there are also "many" who prefer the singular. I'm aware of the 3RR rule, and I find it disturbing that an administrator is apparently taking advantage of the rule to gain "control" of the article. fbb_fan 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your appeal for an apology...perhaps a threat wasn't your intention, but look at it from my point of view - an admin reverted my changes twice, then warned me about the 3RR rule. If our roles were reversed (that is, if I were an admin and you were not), how would you have taken it? It sure sounded like a threat to me, and I resent threats, much as you resented my implication. If in fact a threat wasn't your intention, then fine, no hard feelings here, but please consider in the future that as an admin, your remarks may be interpreted differently than the same remarks from "regular" users. fbb_fan 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] splitting headache

I think it would have been nice to have had a discussion about one of them before outright doing it to them all. Now you have 20 something articles based on one decision and I'm rather against it for Thunderball because it is a featured article. If it gets split between the film and the novel and whatever else, I'm going to be forced into nominating it to be taken down from being an FA until it can be improved again. I don't want to do that. I guess it was inevitable. This is fantastic because if it goes through it now doubles my watchlist. :(

Also the Fleming template now, that's pretty silly for 3 measly links all the while making it redundant with the other on the novel articles. And once again 003 1/2 gets the shaft as does Moneypenny Diaries (not to mention that he didn't have the courtesy to move the template that I created). Le sigh. K1Bond007 05:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL :) I'm sure it'll be okay. It's notable. It's coming out. Look at Young Bond 5, although we honestly know a lot about '5' given it won't be released till 2009 :P K1Bond007 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Pushing it because we don't know anything about it. Weinberg is definitely not as talkative about her series as Higson is. Higson is actually doing weekly Q&As and he's constantly in the media - more so that Benson ever was and probably Gardner, although Gardner started off pretty good. We can even speculate (good speculation) about what will happen to Bond in '5' since we know it has to do with his removal from Eton. We don't (especially you and I, who haven't read the first one) know anything about the 'the Diaries'. K1Bond007 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally split Thunderball. The issue is now making sure the right links go to the right article. This is going to be a pain in the ass :( Oh well. K1Bond007 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there we go. Good enough. Amazing some of the articles you find when go through all the links to an article. Look at this one James Bond Pun. I don't even know what to do. Regardless the title needs to be fixed. K1Bond007 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Another editor made a suggestion that the "Bond Battle" bit should be moved to the Thunderball film article. I don't know. I somewhat disagree, but truth is I have no idea. I don't think we need to explain this stuff over and over. So we should probably just pick one and then perhaps create a paragraph with a "for more, see ___" on the others. To be honest, I didn't really do anything with the film article. I just copied and pasted, then rewrote the intro. K1Bond007 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the article on its own only because it needs the background to Thunderball to be understood. You can't move the entire controversy section because it incorporates parts (which I extended on with this draft) on the writing process and in some cases, who came up with what. That section is vital to Thunderball (novel). K1Bond007 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. The novel clearly retains the FA status. The film part on it's own isn't very well written. I'll acknowledge that. It could be fixed up though and put up as a FAC. It's not too far off. Needs more on it's production history though. K1Bond007 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ransack (Transformers) page deletion

I wrote a page called Ransack (Transformers) and it was deleted - it was about several fictional characters named Ransack in the Transformers TV shows over the years, and I can't seem to find any reason why or any talk about it's deletion. Would be nice to know why it was deleted, so I can avoid problems in the future. Can you help? Isn't there supposed to be talk about such things before they are deleted, so I can remove any offensive material? user:mathewignash

I had the article on my watchlist and it was just gone one day. Was there any discuession on why the Ransack page was deleted either? I can't find any. Can I get a copy of the text of my page back?

I checked and Ransack was deleted after ONE person said it voted both voted for it to be deleted, Madchester. The he immediately deleted my replacement page without any talk - a page called Ransack (Transformers), which I rewrote the article and expanded it's content. Can we at least get some talk on this among people on the Wikipedia instead of one guy deciding what gets deleted? I'll stand by an honest talk about the page where more than one person votes. user:mathewignash

[edit] Wikibreak

Have a great one! I have to take one about every 6 months of so -- the aggravations just build up until I can't take it any more. If only you, me, Dbjsmith, and couple of others were the only ones allowed to contribute anything and/or edit it would be a much nicer world! Have fun with your books and relax.... See you when you come back! Hayford Peirce 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint book

Sorry it's somewhat disappointing -- that's the problem with a lot of non-major publisher books: there's a reason they haven't been bought. That said, I'm glad there's some useful info it. I hope you'll be able to get some of it into various articles: the more info the better! Did you read the New Yorker article about Wiki? I thought it was interesting -- but that one of the old NY writers from 30 or 40 years ago would have done a better job. Particular with Ross yelling at him to put in more hard facts.... Hayford Peirce 15:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPECTRE

I believe I'm going to move S.P.E.C.T.R.E. to SPECTRE. Most uses I see is SPECTRE and I'm pretty sure that is how Fleming used it. I only used S.P.E.C.T.R.E. as more of a symmetrical one-use only kind of thing (i.e., so it's not sometimes SPECTRE and sometimes S.P.E.C.T.R.E.). Anyway, do you oppose this? I think I'm just going to use AWB and go through all the related articles that may use it. K1Bond007 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD again for "Entertainers by age upon death"

They are trying to delete this group of categories for the 4th time. Closing soon. --Blainster 10:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helm hardbacks

Naw, none of them were ever published in hardback. Some character made a comment in one of the Discussion areas that *some* of the pre-Helm books by Hamilton were originally hardbacks. I *think* that this is true. Lemme check. Yes, Hubin says that "Date with Darkness" was published by Rinehart in 1947. Murder Twice Told, ditto, 1950. And there are two others that were probably originally hardbacks. I'll go correct the Helm entries -- I dunno who did it.... Hayford Peirce 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just fixed the first 5 books. Hayford Peirce 17:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The bearded Saint

For a couple of years while I was going to prep school I got the old New York Herald Tribune delivered. It featured the Saint comic strip, which I remember as being very well drawn. I well remember the bearded Saint and thought that he was actually very dashing -- it was a sharp, pointed, van Dyke (?), sort of what Bob Silverberg probably had before it went gray. I wish we could find an illustration of the bearded Saint for the article.  :( Hayford Peirce 17:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was definitely piratical looking. And, as you say, Vincent Price around that time must have looked about like that. I wonder if you could lift your scanner onto something like the edge of a table so that you could then just open the book halfway, like an L, and lay the picture on the scanner with the other part hanging over the side. My understanding is that the scanner scans what is actually on its surface and you don't need to worry about light around the edges of, say, a flat-lying book. As for Hamilton's hardbacks, you were partially right in that some of his earlier stuff had indeed been in hardback. Hayford Peirce 21:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the Dominators article. Good for you. I just wish we could get it to the attention of Hamilton for some sort of comment from him. Or get it to the dumb publishers. As an out-of-work writer myself, I know from the struggles of some of my friends who were previously published writers and now are unable to get their books sold, what kind of a terrible market it is for the mid-list authors. Hard to think of someone as successful (and good) as Hamilton as being a failure, but essentially, right now, I suppose, he's unsaleable goods.... If I ever come across any info on this book I'll of course stick it in. Hayford Peirce 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It could be a terrible book but thousands of people would buy it anyway. That's what baffles me about the publishing business over the last 20 years -- they stop publishing writers who actually make a *little* money for them. Not much, but some, and regularly. They want to concentrate exclusively on the big bucks. It's absolutely weird, and a business aberration. Maybe it will eventually be replaced by new models: e-books, print-on-demand, who knows? But something. I KNOW there are people out there would would buy reprints of Jack Vance, say, of Hamilton, of Charteris. Then why aren't they being printed? There are even a *few* people who would buy MY stuff, for goodness sake, if it were cheap enough and distributed so that it was available. The whole publishing world is completely goofy.... Hayford Peirce 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As I think I told you earlier, we have this *enormous* used book store here in Tucson. Ten years ago you could go to either their "mystery" section, or their "adventure" or "action" (I think) section, or both, and there would be 200 copies of the first 20 Helm books. When I went back a couple of years ago to get some of them for a friend there were none! Not one. I called their two other branches, each just as large, and was told the same thing. Three stores, with maybe a million paperbacks between them, didn't have a single Matt Helm! This is crazy. Hayford Peirce 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)