User:23skidoo/Archive11

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, User:23skidoo/Archive10, 11

Moulder has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Contents

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 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) 11:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist?

Have you heard about anyone having a problem with their watchlist? I just split The Man with the Golden Gun and sorted all the links and when I got done my watchlist didn't have any changes on it. (Impossible). So I checked a couple articles. Ones that are for sure on my list like Live and Let Die and it wasn't on there anymore! ??? I lost maybe 40 or so articles. A lot of articles I created or was a huge contributor too (like LALD). Just kinda messed up. K1Bond007 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the heads up about my revert to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. It's a long time since I touched the books at all so my knowledge of the plot is sketchy at best, though I suspected vandalism by the last line in the edit "Other stuff happens, etc etc etc". Sorry for the inconveniance to all involved. Canadian-Bacon 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't hold any objection I'm going to back the page up to his edit, minus the closing remark, clear everything up nicely Canadian-Bacon 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing templates

You have a template at the bottom of the Saint page with lots of info in it. When I look at the page through the "edit this page", however, all I see is a {xthe saint}} or something similar. If I wanted to edit a template, for instance, that on the Robert A. Heinlein page, how do I get into it to do so? So far I'm baffled.... Grazie! Hayford Peirce 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Many thanks. Like most mysterious things, it's simple once you know the trick.... Hayford Peirce 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Holm

Yes, I always wondered as a kid why she suddenly disappeared without (as far as I recall) a single mention of her thereafter, as if she had never existed. If *I* had been writing the Saint, I wouldn't have handled it that way. Which is probably why Charteris was a much more successful author than your obedient servant, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 22:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okie, thanks for the info. Yes, I vaguely recall that she disappeared for a while, then popped up again, then vanished forever. But, given the realities of 1940ish fiction, I doubt if Charteris at the time was considering an out-of-wedlock Saintly baby.... Hayford Peirce 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I gotta say that as a teenager, and even into my 20s, I mostly thought the Saintly/Holms banter tedious and boring. I never believed in her as a real person rather than just a literary creation thrown in -- from my point of view -- just to slow things down. I do recall the old Avengers with pleasure, one of the few shows I used to watch if I were in the States (also occasionally in French, where it was called "Chapeau Melon et Bottes de Cuire", I think), but I dunno if its dialogue is Saintly or not. What about Nick and Nora Charles? I never saw any of those movies, but they're known for their repartee. Maybe it was a 30s thing? A Bright Young Things thingee? Hayford Peirce 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, v. interesting commentary. I'll have to reread all of the Saintly canon one of these days and will try to bear your remarks in mind. I wonder, though, if maybe Charteris wasn't simply learning to be a writer? Very few genius set out on a 40-year series with everything perfectly imagined and realized from Day One. He was just a guy trying to make a buck (or a pound) and fast sales were probably more important than 100% consistency. I always tried to make sure that there was consistency in my stuff, but I was writing, at most, 3 or 4 stories a year, probably not even that, and Charteris was pretty prolific, plus doing scripts etc. etc. And he didn't have his earlier words stored on a computer, either, where it's easier to look up what you've done earlier.... Hayford Peirce 02:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
From my life as a semi-writer I know that publishers definitely want novels, NOT shorts, no matter how many people may read the shorts and relish them in magazine form. In the science-fiction and mystery fields there are VERY few writers, no matter how prominent, who can get collections of their stories published. EQ, Rex Stout, Christie, Charteris, Heinlein, Asimov, Niven, a couple of others. At least in the last 40 years, maybe even the last 50 years. I used to LOVE shorts to read, then at some point preferred to read novels. I'd buy a FEW short collections, but only by my favorites. So I can see that Charteris must have been under commercial pressures.... Hayford Peirce 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Glad to see that another expert has joined in! Hope that he can contribute some new stuff.... Hayford Peirce 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I never thought of Holm as being a sociopath, just boring most of the time. I'm sure you're on to something, though. The problem is, we read books one way when we're 15 to 20, say, which is when I read most of the Saintly stuff, and another way when we're 55 or 60. As I've said before, I never cared all that much of the novels (although I have read all of them at least twice, I imagine) and I haven't read them for years. My image of Patricia is therefore pretty blurry. I'd have to reread them all to see what I think of her now. Is it original research to quote stuff directly from the books, though? If you quoted 7 instances, say, of "Holm said coldly," "Holm said bleakly," "Holm said dispassionately, absently kicking the corpse in the ribs as she lighted another cigarette," etc., how is that different from quoting a Matt Helm sentence to show that Hamilton writes with a deadpan humor? Speaking of Helm, I'm about half through The Interlopers, a pretty good one, and will expand the article on it within the next couple of days probably. Hayford Peirce 22:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Biography 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. plange 01:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The Saint

Could I ask you to please put at least one parent category back on the above category? You just orphaned it by removing the Char in Written Fiction cat. If that category is not appropriate, so be it, but categories should really not be left without any parent categories except in the most extreme cases. - TexasAndroid 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. As a category gnome, that's been just an operating assumption for as long as I've worked in categories. There's even a special page for finding orphan categories so that they can be parented. Your question made me go hunting for it, and the best I can find easily is here. Second line in the section says that every page (article namespace) should be in a category, and the best I can say is that this is generally used as applying equally to categories. Other comments on the same page appear to simply assume that all categories will have parents, but I don't see any place else on the page that explicitly states it. While the category system is technically not a tree-structure, it generally operates as one, and works best when all categories are together in the structure, interlinked by more and more general parent categories.
As for how to organize it when both an article and it's parent category are in the same, 2nd category, generally it's the 1st category that is left in the 2nd category, and the article that is removed from the 2nd category. That way articles generally go in the most specific categories that apply, and the categories themselves are left to chain up throughy their parents to more and more general topics. Here is some information on the subject. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the possibility of creating a parallel category to Category:Categories named after people for fictional characters. Otherwise I'm not sure where else one could put him. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] handler

I just don't think s/he understands what a handler is. Bond is clearly a field agent. K1Bond007 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help

Hi, 23 -- you may remember me from the articles on The Prisoner, although it's been some time since I've been able to contribute to them. I'm having a problem with Potters house (talk · contribs), the same guy who, less than two weeks ago, spammed thirty different user pages with preposterous allegations that I was recommending deletion for some of his articles because I was a "covert racist" or because I was a John Kerry supporter and the article's subject was a Republican (rather than that those articles were either direct recreations of deleted content, or attempts to sneak deleted content in the back door.)

Now, because he's still angry that he's not allowed to include a smear article written anonymously by a friend of his, he's both opened a Mediation Cabal case against me in which one of his allegations is that I am "wikistalking" him, and he's started wikistalking me. I tagged two of his articles, biographical articles which provide absolutely no sources or references besides the subjects' own websites (and thus no evidence of notability, which is one of the concerns that got Johnny Lee Clary, a deleted article he has tried to recreate at least three times, deleted in AfD), as {{unreferenced}}. In retaliation, he has put the same tag on the articles for two Prisoner episodes -- which are, of course, articles about primary sources. Can you please help? I frankly -- and I don't say this often, lest it encourage exactly this behavior -- I don't have the time or patience or energy for this crap and if Potters house (talk · contribs) is just allowed to waltz around and pull this kind of crap without consequences then maybe it's time I withdraw my efforts from Wikipedia and leave it to its own fate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock and Roll Music

I noticed your comments on the talk page of the Rock and Roll Music article. I was wondering what you think a reasonable solution might be. The Beach Boys version of the song was released as a single and therefore was a reasonably important song for that era of the beach boys career. But as you say, it is first and foremost a Chuck Berry song. Do you think that it would be suitable to move the Beach Boys information to the title "Rock and Roll Music (Beach Boys version)" or "...(Beach Boys song)" and then just say in that new article, "Rock and Roll Music is a song originally written by Chuck Berry etc.."? Please let me know what you think. Many thanks --Sahafan 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Jones stuff

I had been meaning to ask you about this. Whether a guy who has already been warned and blocked a couple of times, and who had done big-time plagarism here, should be examined more carefully for stuff he has done on other (mostly country music) pages. I don't wanna be a stoolie, but I don't want him messing up Wikipedia, either.... Hayford Peirce 01:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking the Helm

Great! I'll take a look at them in a moment and then add whatever covers are needed. And any off-the-top-of-my-head info if it comes to me.... Hayford Peirce 18:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty good source, of course, a real labor of love. I was amused that he seems to be even more annoyed than I had been over the years by the incessant "Darlings!" that were thrown about by the female characters. Maybe a brief mention of that could be worked into either the Helm article or the Hamilton article under "writing style", "idiosyncracies", "triva", or some such.... Hayford Peirce 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"Darling" to the guys? I seem to have a *vague* recollection of him saying "Old darling," which, in Brit context, undoubtedly gives it a completely different meaning. Did he ever say just plain "Darling" and NOT in an obviously sardonic context?
It ought to be easy enough to source two or three "Darlings!" in the Helm books, so that they could be worked into a section on style. I know that Hamilton's deadpan underlying humor has been noted here and there. And Boucher used to mention his style as being harsh and Hammett-like. Even when Hamilton got extremely long-winded in the latter books I think he's the best of the stylists after Chandler, even better than J.D. MacDonald, although I suppose that could be argued over. Hayford Peirce 18:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Okie, all the Helm covers are there now, I think. And I put all the captions into the "19xx paperback edition" format. I'll take a look at The Interlopers and straighten out the plot summary if necessary -- I may be misremembering the book.... 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just written a lengthy something or other about The Interlopers. It isn't so much a plot summary, per se, as comments I thought interesting. Feel free to edit.... Hayford Peirce 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the non-essay requirement and have inveighed against particularly egregious examples myself in, let's see, the Heinlein, Vance, Philly Cheesesteaks, and other articles. So I tried my best to skirt it here with the various info I put in. I think if the names of other books were added, say, as showing his tendancy to end his books with "It worked", "We did", "She agreed", etc., then it's not an essay, just fact-gathering and reporting. I'll be curious to see, once you've finished the whole Saint series if you don't come around to the view that the shorts are superior to the novels. I hadn't considered the novellas. I know that a number of people considered Rex Stout to have done his best work with Nero Wolfe in the novellas as opposed to the novels -- I don't think he ever wrote a pure short.... 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

I agree the assessment thing is ridiculous and clearly POV. We already identify them by featured, good, and stub. I think that was all that was needed. --- About getting a Wikiproject going, I don't know. I'll look into it, but I still have to split every article LALD - DN + FYEO. :( Splitting them isn't the problem. It's sorting through about 200 links. I started the (film) articles for the ones that haven't been split yet, so if you see any links that clearly should be disambiguated go for it. It'll happen eventually. K1Bond007 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not really against splitting. I don't know. Being together was fine and there are advantages to that, but as some raised, the film sections totally overshadowed the novels, the articles became messy and hard to edit, and for people that skim and don't really read: confusing. So, split. It'll work itself out. Yeah.. at least I didn't have to do O&TLD or Casino Royale. What's becoming a pain in the ass is the character articles. They're horribly written, there are several issues (one of which I raised on Talk:James Bond), and they're more or less film centric. Some of those characters don't even deserve their own article. This is why a Wikiproject would be good. K1Bond007 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't find a good scan of Colonel Sun as a hardback. I don't even understand that cover. Maybe I missed something. The girl (clearly) with the ear and the nose, and then the sun is an eye. The dragon as a steam cloud coming out of a volcano. The melted stretched out gun. The eyes on stakes in the sand. ?? Weird. It's probably a parody or ?? of this, but I still don't get it. K1Bond007 06:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of screenshots -- Demi Moore / Hester Prynne and Kate Winslet

Hi, I've just read your message to Abu badali. As I've been having the same discussion with him recently (see two messages above yours), could I ask you to refer me to any discussion here at Wikipedia where his matter has been dealt with? (You mention that in your message to Abu badali.)

Thanks in advance, and all the best, <KF> 16:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! <KF> 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict identification and resolution on Wikipedia as an administrator we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 01:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

[edit] Leslie Charteris bio rating

Of course rating articles is quite subjective. This article has no references, no subheadings, no pictures, and would benefit from reorganization.... But you are right, it does have quite a bit of information. I have upgraded it to start class. Thanks for the feedback. Rewster 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotspur23: RE SWORD

I added the group S.W.O.R.D. because it is absent from WIKIPEDIA.

The title "S.W.O.R.D. (The Saint Novels)" was used to differentiate it from "S.W.O.R.D. (Marvel Comics)". I hope you haven't eliminated it, as it would muddle them up. I have placed both on a Disambiguation Page to help speed their assimilation.

I have also added its existance as a fictional organization in the novels of Amos Klein and noted it in my modification of the article on "The Fiction Makers".

[edit] Hotspur23: Claud Eustace Teal

There doesn't seem to be an entry for Inspector Teal. I was wondering if you wanted to write one? The question would be whether to put "Inspector" in the title.

[edit] re: Craig

I don't know why the editor at CR06 was trying to censor craignotbond. It'd be one thing if it wasn't that notable, but come on. It's laughable to make a case that it isn't. Everyone that cares about the subject has heard of it. It's been reported by just about every source.

As for fair use, well I agree that we should limit fair use. I've never been against that, but there are certain topics which can't be done without a fair use picture. He even mentions screenshots from movies, album covers, book covers. I think it's sensible to use the least amount as possible. I don't agree with getting rid of them altogether, which is not what he is proposing. It's never going to happen for this reason alone. Outlawing publicity photos or whatever because we should be able to get alternatives.. I don't really have a problem with that. It's tough to do, but it can be done. At least for people that are not deceased. K1Bond007 03:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of it is paranoia. I'm not really concerned about it. They're going to tighten up, but in the end, I think it's going to pretty much stay the same for the articles that virtually-require a fair use image. Also, noticed the update you just did to MI for DVD - I was all excited for it to be released this September, then it got delayed. Now I guess I gotta wait till Dec 5. Bummer, but at least I know it's coming this year. Been waiting awhile to see these again. I really want to see.. I think it's called "Mercenaries" and I believe it's from season 3. Awesome episode. Been way too long. K1Bond007 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Acronym question

I noticed you have a bot fixing some acronyms (particularly changing U.K. to UK). Is the Wikistyle to present acronyms without periods? I have a couple of new articles on my watchlist that use acronyms quite extensively but I wanted to make sure we have the correct format. (One example is S.W.O.R.D. (The Saint). Thanks. 23skidoo 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid there's no hard and fast rules, but you might want to take a look at [Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)] and the [WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations|Manual of Style]. The reason I'm doing the U.K.->UK conversion is because that's the accepted usage for that acronym. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 14:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Films by actor

Here it is ... Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Films_by_actor. The problem is that the current system doesn't work well with more then a few categories per article. If this were to grow most every popular movie would be in dozens of categories. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Martin Lewis

How did you manage to move "Martin Lewis (humorist/writer/producer/TV" onto "Martin Lewis"? The latter (it was a redirect) had several lines of edit history (some of them mine), and I thought that would stop a move? I tried to repoint the redirect at "Martin Lewis" from "Martin Lewis (diambiguation)" to the current guy (too many incoming links were broken), but failed (something odd happened). If I could have reverted the move, that would have been easier, but those edits in the history ... Just curious for the future. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying but your message got bypassed by other incoming messages yesterday and I didn't see it was until just now. I don't recall exactly what I did. If you mean what happened in terms of just moving the page, of course I was given the option of deleting/overwriting the target location since it already existed as a redirect. To my knowledge there isn't really anything stopping an admin from moving X to Y in any circumstance. I could move Simon Templar to Elvis Presley if I wanted to and just by clicking "Yes, delete" would overwrite the Elvis article. I have no idea what happens to the history and archives of the article in question at that point and I certainly wouldn't want to experiment with major articles like that to find out! 23skidoo 13:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. For some reason I had it in my head that you weren't an admin. All is clear now. Mr Stephen 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlopers, Etc.

I'd be astonished if anyone (other than you) bothered to change very much -- I think it's pretty much an either/or article. Either you leave it alone, or you remove most of it. A tricky bit of writing, hehe. As for the Saints, I might well agree with you if I ever reread them all someday. Shorts obviously have very little room for development -- you've got the main character, whom you already know, and then a new adventure, in which the story is the main element. That, I suppose is their charm. I still run into people (rarely, but occasionally) who say, "When are you gonna write some more Chap Foey Rider stories!?" -- the last one was probably around 1980.... Hayford Peirce 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LotR and Ace Books

Hi -- thanks for the addition to Ace. I'm currently trying to get it through the featured article process, so I thought I'd ask if you had a copy of one of the Ballantine editions of LotR. If so, could you let me have enough information on the book to be able to cite it as a reference? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes -- I should be able to find one of those sources. Mike Christie (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The da Vinci Barnstar
Because you have made Wikipedia a better place, and have been of valued assisstance to me. Martial Law



from Martial Law 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks

You're welcome. Martial Law 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

I just wrote a comment about the Teal article. As for Daredevil, I was never able to find a copy, even when I was in England 40 years ago -- although I didn't really make a major search for it. As for Saintly covers (and Helm covers) I checked a while ago and I don't have any Saint covers that are either earlier and/or an improvement on what you've put in. I'll check again, though, just to make sure. I do have a better Helm cover for at least one of them -- I think you used a British edition. I've got the standard Gold Medal one.... I've been meaning to scan it and upload it. Hayford Peirce 18:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of images

Could I get your opinion of whether, say, an old Time Magazine cover of Joan Baez is permitted in the Joan Baez article or not? I put one in several months ago. Now an officious busybody is going around removing images from various articles. I went to his user-talk page and found the following dialogue between him (her?) and another upset editor. I'll paste it in below. And I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts on this subject -- it seems to me that there are *gazillions* of mag. covers being used and no one else seems to object as long as the pertinent copyright info is given, along with the appropriate fair-use tag.... Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

xxRemoval of imagesxx Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Fair use and the policy described in the copyright tag for those images more carefully. As my edit summaries accurately quoted, "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." In each case you cited, the article use did not conform to this requirement. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:FU and note that it is in fact a guideline, not a policy. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. fbb_fan 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Please review WP:FU more carefully. The template you mention refers only to sections 1-4 of the page. Sections 5-8 are formal Wikipedia policy. They are labelled as formal policy by the template preceding section 5. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
...and I believe the section you are citing as the reason for removing images is not in the section marked as "policy".
Incidentally, since you seem to be quite a stickler for policy and such, please note the following from WP:SIG: Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive. fbb_fan 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez! Grazie for all the explanation. I sure gotta say that I'm on *your* side in this! I'm sure that there's some deep reasoning behind this: ie, Time Mag.'s beancounters say: "There are 10 million hits a day on Wikipedia. Of this, maybe 2,000 go to Joan Baez, or 10,000 to Julia Child. So we ought to be able to *license*, for MONEY, the right to use our covers to illustrate those articles. And even if Wiki refuses to pay us a single red cent, that's better than the free publicity we get every time one of those thousands of people see our cover in those articles." Idiots carrés! as Tahitians used to say a long time ago.... Hayford Peirce 23:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, nutz! So it goes.... At least I won't bother to try putting the Joan Baez cover back in, not if Jimbo himself is donna descend on me with a fiery sword! In the meantime, I'll scan the Intimidators cover and put it in. And I'll maybe tweak some of the other Helms from time to time -- basically brighten them a bit and maybe straighten them a degree or so.... Hayford Peirce 23:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Intimidators and The Intriguers

I've just uploaded and inserted the 1st edition GM cover of The Intimidators -- it's a pretty lousy drawing, I think. I then clicked onto the next one, The Intriguers. I have the 1972 cover, you put in the 1975. Your image is a better one (different), but the Matt Helm image in yours is that horrible 1970s one with the bushy sideburns. I'll put in mine tomorrow. Hayford Peirce 04:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Lewis on the move again

The Martin Lewis article has been moved again. I don't think there was any consensus for the move, was there? User:Danrees this time, "moved Martin Lewis to Martin Lewis (humorist/writer/producer/TV): The financial journalist is probably the most famous".

I think it is simply well-meaning people trying to push "their" Martin to the fore, but they should follow process (IMHO). Mr Stephen 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Get consensus, put in the dab page, tidy up all the incoming links, and everything's peachy. Mr Stephen 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tummies and unmussed hair

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that the Saint used to make fun of Claud's "tummy", not his "belly". You mention in the rewrite that he can come out of a fight with unmussed hair. I recall one of the early novels, set in London, I think, the Saint is awakened in the middle of the night by a noise in his flat. He gets out of bed silently and "unbelievably for anyone but the Saint, took a moment to carefully comb his hair", then goes into the living room to beat up the burglar. Or something pretty similar to that. I remember that even as a teenager I thought that was a trifle over-the-top.... Hayford Peirce 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Intriguers

I just changed the image to the 1972, first-edition cover. Hayford Peirce 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Terminators

I just added a little editorial content about the edition and his long hair.... Hayford Peirce 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birds of Prey

I put Birds of Prey under the umbrella catagory of Batman television series. That particular show seems to be known more for its Batman-related backstory than it beng an individual comic. TMC1982 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminatus Hardcover

Hi, glad I can help. The edition I have is an omnibus, it was published by MJF Books, in New York, although the book also states that it was published by arrangement with Dell Publishing. It's Copyright 1975, that's the only publish date mentioned. ISBN: 1-56731-237-3. Good luck with the search, I hope your friend can track it down. Darquefaerie 19:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Haha. It's sadly true. I'm editing less and less. I'm about one step shy from getting a new job which will force me to move to a suburb of Chicago so my time here is going to drop considerably even more. I'm also at a point right now where I don't care - similar to my earlier Wikibreak. It's not that I don't like editing, it's that I spend all my time on cleaning up and reverting nonsense that I never have time to actually improve articles. It's all status quo and that's no fun. We'll see how this goes though. Who knows. I still have like 5 or so articles to split. :( Ooh on a related note I just started collecting Benson novels. I haven't finished reading Gardner (stuck on DiF) - in fact I think I'm gonna call it a day for now on Gardner and read the rest of his later. I get about 100 pages into his books then .. stop caring. They're just not that good. K1Bond007 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So that job thing probably won't work out, but I'm still going to cut back on my editing. It appears Thunderball is about to lose it's FA-status too. I've done all I can with that article for now. I don't want to do anymore. Additionally, it would appear that they're planning to make Thunderball a disambig article. I don't agree with that, but whatever - I don't care anymore. K1Bond007 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One? I was under the impression it was a general rule of thumb to not be excessive with fair use images. Keyword: excessive. There is no rule that says only one to my knowledge. There are circumstances where fair use should be even more limited, such as having access to free images. This is probably possible with Audrey Hepburn given her celebrity status, though they may be hard to come by. Check www.flickr.com They usually have a sizable collection of free use images - on the right side it usually says what the copyright status is. There are some topics, however, that require a fair use image though IMHO. For instance, if you're talking about Daniel Craig as James Bond, wouldn't an image of Daniel Craig as James Bond be better suited for the article? That's just people. It's kind of hard to talk about films without a couple fair use screenshots showcasing what is being discussed e.g., underwater sequences in Thunderball - which is a notable and main aspect of the film - we include this and note these reasons in the rationale on the image page. Your images regardless should have rationale for why Wikipedia can use them. I've stated to you that there's a lot of fair use paranoia going on, but so long as you're not excessive, use images properly (i.e., within context, proper rationale, and not using for the sake of making the article pretty) then it's gravy; no big deal. K1Bond007 06:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really not that big of a deal. I haven't done much of anything with my admin powers in the last few months beyond fighting basic vandalism. Just cut back. K1Bond007 20:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can any of the 1000 thousand administrators in the Wikipedia enforce an ArbCom decision? A user isn't respecting a block blatantly

SqueakBox was blocked in August 22 until September 28, 2006. It can be found in his block log. As can be seen here, SqueakBox is accessing the Wikipedia after his ban from the address 63.245.13.229, that he claimed to be his real IP address before being blocked (here The 'SB' there means SqueakBox as it's easy to see). Hagiographer 06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it's been already solved. Hagiographer 07:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Winslet article

I reverted your deletion of the lead image from this article on the grounds that the uploading/fair use criteria says screenshots may be used for identification of a film and/or its contents. Kate Winslet was part of the film, therefore under the strictest definition, she is a content. Also, if you are going to delete the lead image from an article, I think it's just common courtesy to provide a replacement image. 23skidoo 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, I don't have a usable image to depict Miss Winslet. I dispute your rationale that the screenshot, placed at the top of the article on Kate Winslet, is being used for identification of movie contents. --Abu Badali 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've posted the question on the Fair use talk. I've quotted you, so, feel free to correct-me if I misrepresented you. --Abu Badali 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status

Moot point, however it does tend to highlight the possibility that the "novel" element of the original article was not truely "up to scratch". Anyway lets move forward. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

redlinks due to to the basic article having been name changed - for no true reason as far as I understand the WP:MOS naming guidelines. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
the discussion - such as it is is here - Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Thunderball. And having just found it. The FA relevant bit is pitiful. This looks rather like de-listing by default. If you seperate out the split issue there is very little here that relates to the FA-status. Some of the poinst are valid but how do we get a concensus across 2 or 3 editors!. As mystified as you!  :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
got close to giving up myself once. Unfortunately Wiki brings out all the good and bad aspects of human nature. At present I am trying to roll with it and learn the subtle art of negotiation. I can see the value of both aspects of culture, high and low, literary and pop. My view is we should try and put ourselves in the shoes of all types of reader and understand that things become of "note" at both ends of these spectrums. Don't give in too easily or the very things you are able to add will be lost not only to the editor community, but more importantly to the reader community. I don't always agree with everything you suggest or want to do - however I do value the subjects (like the "Saint" novels) that you know more about than me and the helpful correctives you can offer. If you need to - take a break for a while and then come back refreshed. Anyway you are appreciated here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Whole Slew of Saintly Covers

I've just gone through all my Saintly covers and have the following info and/or questions:

  • For The Saint in England (The Misfortunes of Mr. Teal) I have an apparently early 60s or late 50s American paperback with a debonair Saint (painted) smoking a cigarette -- the image in the article doesn't show up, so I don't know what you put there.
  • For The Saint and Mr. Teal (Once More the Saint) I have a 1963 Hodder with a stylized painted cover -- no great improvement on yours. But it *may* be slightly earlier.
  • For The Saint's Getaway (Getaway) I have a nice painted 1965 Hodder cover that *may* be earlier than yours.
  • For The Saint Meets His Match (She Was a Lady) I have a 1960s Roger Moore cover
  • For Call for the Saint I have a painted 1964 Hodder cover that *may* be an improvement on yours.
  • For Alias the Saint I have a dumb 1963 Hodder painted cover that's earlier but no improvement on yours.
  • For The Brighter Buccaneer I have a 1953 Pan Books cover that is certainly an improvement on yours.
  • For Follow the Saint I have a 1966 painted Hodder cover that may or may not be an improvement on yours.
  • For The Saint Steps In I have an undated but probably mid-1950s 25-cent Avon painted paperback cover that is probably an improvement on yours.
  • For The Saint on Guard I have a stylized 1958 Hodder painted cover that is no great improvement on yours. But I think you're wrong to call yours a 1940s Avon edition -- the painting is clearly a 1960s sort of art, the dress etc., don't look 1940s at all to me.

What do you think I should do with these various covers? Hayford Peirce 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've scanned the other 7 and will probably be putting most of them in. Glad you like the first three. Hayford Peirce 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I put in three more covers, all of which are either more pertinent to the story or clearly improvements over the earlier covers. That leaves 4 other scans. None of these are clearly improvements on the others. Different, yes. And I *think* some of them are earlier. Don't any of the Roger Moore cover editions have dates on them? Or is there a way to find out their publication dates? I'll definitely replace any where I *know* mine are earlier, otherwise I dunno. One dumb cover for another? Hayford Peirce 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, tomorrow, I'll take a fresh look at the 4 remaining books and try to decide if any of them should replace the existing ones. As you say, I dunno why the Roger Moore cover ones should only have the original copyright dates in them -- verra weird. Hayford Peirce 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sort of a wimpy-looking Saint, I would say, but the overall cover is definitely an improvement. Hayford Peirce 21:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen one in over 40 years, but my recollection of the Saint cartoon character with the rakish beard is my ideal image of the Saint. Perhaps I'd change my mind if I actually saw one of them again though. I think Roger Moore was a trifle "soft"-looking, maybe, but otherwise he was a pretty good choice. Hayford Peirce 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yo dude

im A-Micael who puts amateur mindless stuffs in the discussion page of "heather marks", am i allowed to do that? sorry though, just tryin to get messages out so 'she' could read it. i had to use public sites u know. How does she confirms her birthday anyway? dude email me if u can. better that way. Bandpointk@yahoo.com

[edit] So and so

"So and so" is often named as being up for the role or better yet the inspiration of James Bond. That's always a tough one to tackle because as every "secret agent" from WW2 passes on, the media labels them as Fleming's inspiration when there is no truth to it - but hey guess what, the media says it so we can cite that as a reference, and now all of a sudden it's true. It's hard to debate it because the author is dead. We have no idea. This guy you're talking about: it's crap or even if he was (and I'm prepared to believe, "maybe", seeing as there were 200 on the list) he isn't notable - 200 and we'll never know as we'll never get that list. On a side note, what's frustrating is getting a consensus on how to do something and then having others totally undermine that. Remember when we decided to split the film articles? Ok. I caved. What's happening now though, Thunderball is delisted from FA - okay, but not only that but now Thunderball is moved to (book) and others are now starting to get moved to (novel) - here's a big WTF. So I spent all that time disambiguating the other articles and in a moment someone decides to change it all to something else. Not just that, but they do a half-assed job. Take DAF for instance. Someone did it there. Good intentions, but it was very sloppy (copy and paste) etc. It's frustrating because here we are with all these James Bond articles that are split all over hell. And not just that, but we have soundtrack now being split - some are on the film articles, some have been moved entirely to their own page. It's a mess, frankly and so is the actual information/writing in the articles. Fancruft/fanon/fanwankery, poor writing, opinionated, lack of sources, overwhelming trivia, bullet lists where they shouldn't be, fair use image problems, etc etc etc. You talk about driving a man to drink, I think I'm already in AA. K1Bond007 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to believe that the qualifications for FA evolved to the point where Thunderball got left behind. It happened to Star Trek if you remember, and I supported that because in comparison to a lot of other FAs, Star Trek was really bad (at the time), it's been improved greatly since then, however - I don't know if it is FA material. Same happened to Doom. Was an FA, got de-listed, was greatly improved on, and now it's a FA again. It's not that these articles got depreciated, it's just that the qualifications went up. Now at a minimum it seems you need about 20 references. I think Thunderball had just barely over 10. It's also just different people. 5 people can support your article for FA status and it takes only 5 different people to have it de-listed. There is no solution to this problem. K1Bond007 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, any article I may say is mine or yours, is not meant to be taken literally as mine or yours, as in possession, but rather as an article that you or I work on extensively or champion - so to speak. You are right though, it's not worth it. It's why I didn't defend Thunderball and it's why I have absolutely no plans to nominate it for FA status at some point in the future. It's pointless. K1Bond007 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First refusals

Based on my own limited experiences with Tor Books, it works the way the old baseball reserve clause used: As long as Tor keeps buying your books, the contract always says that they have the right of first refusal for the *next* work that you write. If they reject the work, then you're free to peddle it elsewhere. (They retain the rights to the earlier works for a stated period of time. Apparently Hemingway wrote "Torrents of Spring" so badly just in order to have it rejected, so that he could change publishing houses.) What might have happened with Charteris is that they rejected his new work -- BUT then he couldn't sell it anywhere else. And Doubleday was still interested enough to start up another relationship with him. Years after I broke up with Tor, I tried to sell them some other works. If they had accepted one of them, we would have been right back to the right of first refusal again. I imagine that a Tom Clancy or Stephen King could probably negotiate a contract without a first refusal but not many authors could.... Hayford Peirce 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Glenn Ford image

I didn't upload the Glenn Ford image. I just added it to that particular article. It was uploaded by someone over a year ago, and is currently linked to three articles and a user page. The user Postdlf might have more information on the actual image.--Esprit15d 17:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright paranoia sucks. Anyhoo, thanks for working to save the pic. I think it deserves to stay.--Esprit15d 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Williams pic

Oh, well. If you can find a pic of him and can find the copyright holder of that image, sure, why not. I mean, the image got deleted because it had no source. If you find an image of him with a reliable source (i.e. not answers.com). The soldier image is from commons, but you can always use new name for new photo. BTW, I am not sure what you mean by "new rules regarding biography photos." Renata 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I am utterly confused. So let's dissect the issue, shall we?
  • On 9 December 2004 user:Mikerussell uploaded the image, saying it's out of copyright. But 20 days later he added fair use template explaining that it was a historically significant photo.
  • On 13 January 2006 User:Fatal exception uploaded a new version of the same picture. This time it was not cropped that severly. However, it's clear it's the same thing.
  • On 4 September 2006 User:Shizhao nominates the pic for deletion because it has no source. Where the image came from? Who made it? Who owns the copyright? No info about that.
  • On 10 September 2006 I delete the image because it does not have the source and you cannot claim fair use with out it. Acrually, it chould have gone through {{nsd}} process rather than WP:IFD.
  • The EN Wikipedia image is deleted, but one from commons (one showing soldier Manuel Antonio Caro) is there and is transcluded.
  • Could you drop a link to the new biography photo rules? Renata 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you are confusing something. The soldier pic is on commons, right here: commons:image:williams2.jpg. It has absolutely nothing to do with balck & white writer image that I deleted. Since you are an admin, you can see Special:Undelete/Image:Williams2.jpg. See also the two files that were uploaded: 1st uploaded on Dec. 9, 2004 and 2nd uploaded on Jan 13, 2006. These are the two that I deleted because they did not provide the source and because it was listed on the WP:IFD. Now, if you find and provide source and copyright holder, you can use that image. Renata 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel your stress. Really. I do. Before Wikimania, I used to think: why? But Wikimania explained many different things. The most important one: freedom. Everyone talks about it here, but I doubt they really realize what that means and why that's important. Free encyclopedia sounds cool, but it has a deeper meaning. If you haven't seen (or been to Wikimania), you should really see this speech. I can easily say, it's the best speach I heard in my life. It makes you hate everything copyrighted :) It also drives to the point that we are changing the world. One edit at a time, but we are. And it all starts with copyrights (weird, huh?) because we here are "liberating the world from copyright dictatorship."
And If that means sacrificing 1 or 100 fair use images, let it be. I have sacrificed a lot more for Wikipedia. And I will sacrife much more in the future. Renata 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Otheruses template

The templates (the whole slew at {{Otheruses templates}}) serve to standarize wording and formatting; with Laurie Anderson it happened to conform already, but there are some wildly non-standard messages in existence. (Also, lists of articles with such messages are then generated with What links here; presumably somebody finds those useful.) As for me, I just put them in when I see an article that can be converted in such a way, at the cost of looking redundant sometimes. –Unint 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography 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. plange 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Movieland Directory

You left me a message/warning about links I'm leaving at various sites which link to our website. You refer to it as spam. Did you actually go to our site? It's a very well researched reference site. We, in fact, have a 500 page book directory published, and have taken the database and put it on-line. We're not adding editorial content. We're adding TO the editorial content. So, for example, if you are reading about the Black Dahlia, you come to the link which I put there (http://www.movielanddirectory.com/category-stars.cfm?category=34), you have lists of people and places, descriptions and links which pass those addresses to every major mapping engine. How is that spam? This directory, as well as my brother's other books - one of which is noted under Eddie Mannix (another link someone deleted) represents years of work. Scouring ancestry.com, reading virtually every book worth reading about Hollywood and the history of the movies. Certainly we're happy if we generate traffic to our site. But...we have no pop-up ads. No flashing banners. Nothing like that. And yet, I can point to many links in Wikipedia, on content tied to Hollywood and the movies, that are of this cheesier variety. Go take a look, and please help me understand.

Thank you.

Tony Fleming The Movieland Directory

I hope I'm communicating with you properly. I'm not completely fluent in Wikipedia admininstration. Here's the note I sent to the other fellow who slammed me with that warning, characterizing our content as spam:
Gentlemen (I'll send 23skidoo over here, also.) I read the spam rules. I did

not interpret my healthy interest in having people come and visit our reference and travel site as "promotion" of some huckster-like variety. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to read through this and check my logic.

So, if someone ELSE posts a link to content on our site, you're OK with that. Is that right? But, you assume some sort of disingenuousness if we volunteer it. Right? I read the policy. I understand where the appearance of impropriety is an issue. Please take two minutes to inspect our site. Our information is an outstanding example of an excrutiatingly well researched database of Hollywood addresses dating back to the very dawn of the industry. E.J. Fleming, who compiled this information, has also written a Hollywood tour book, wrote the first biography of Carole Landis, was on the phone with New York Newsday film critic John Anderson two weeks ago discussing the film "Hollywoodland" as E.J. wrote "The Fixers" about Eddie Mannix and MGM's PR department. And, in December, his next book will be published, the first biography of Wally Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Reid). And, we're continuing to build on the Movieland Directory. It's roughly twice the size as when the Directory was first printed...the Internet lets us update it daily...like Wikipedia! It's an incredible resource for anyone wanting to either travel to that area, or simply to get a feel for what these famous places look like, today. Using the power of the Internet. We are continuing to chip away at including CAREFULLY VETTED sites tied to people and places. We know that's going to be a multi-year effort. But, we've started. This is not spam, even by Wikipedia's definition.

As I inspect links ALL OVER Wikipedia, there are links to sites which are OBVIOUSLY "promotion" - flat out e-commerce sites. Let's stick to the Hollywood page, for instance. I'll try and constrast with ours. A quick and easy run down of those links:

http://www.seeing-stars.com/ He's done a fine job with seeing-stars, and has obviously put in much work. We share a mutual friend in Scott Michaels at Find-A-Death, who links to both our sites. Note Scott's description of our site at http://www.findadeath.com/. Click on "Links", where Scott - a bit of a legend in LA touring and history circles - refers to our "STUNNING RESOURCE" (my emphasis added) Anyway, for all of Gary's fine work which went into seeing-stars, be sure and enable your pop-up blocker before opening. It's riddled with the worst sorts of advertising and promotion.

Moving on...http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=showcat&catid=31 ...Dead link http://www.nrbooks.com/hollywoodtour.htm. You've got Bill Gordon selling his book. Nice guy. Promoting his book. I did not put in any links to pages on our site that have EJ's books. In fact, we don't even HAVE them. We have small Amazon ads and some images. http://www.hollywoodmuseum.com/home/home_main.html ... This is ONLY a promotional site. http://www.hollywoodphotographs.com/ ... I love this guy's business. I've bookmarked this page long ago.. But, this is PURELY an ecommerce site! http://www.hollywoodtickets.com/ ... You're kidding, right? http://hollywoodimage.us/ ... More of the same, right?

I think I've made my point. Please don't block us. We are an excellent reference site, presented modestly - particularly when compared to other links. (And...there are others on other pages).

What do we need to do in order to add content (and, I consider a link to a valuable reference site "adding content"). Do we need to edit paragraphs? Embed links to, e.g., Black Dahlia addresses within paragraphs?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Tony Fleming

[edit] Wasn't sure...

...if I replied correctly in updating my original Movieland Directory post. So, am doubling up here to point you back to that. I look forward to hearing from you. Tony Fleming

[edit] Compound Modifiers and a feckless administrator

Hi, have you had a chance to look over the stuff below? I'd appreciate any comments and/or action. Grazie!

Hi! How do you feel about compound modifiers and the use of hyphens within them? I'm one of those guys who feels that they are both necessary and grammatically correct. A couple of days ago, on my Watchlist, I saw that someone, via a Bot, had removed the hyphen from "science-fiction writer" and "science-fiction novel" on the Arthur C. Clarke page and the Dinosaur Park page. This was annoying enough, but I then saw that she had done the same for literally hundreds of other articles. I sent a curt note to that person's Discussion page, User talk:Fang Aili, and a conversation began. A couple of other people chipped in to tell Fang Aili that she was wrong to make all these changes. She still refuses to admit that she was wrong, grammatically speaking, and also refuses to discuss the problem anymore. In her favor, she says that she will not revert any of the corrections that we, the other editors, make to correct her own errors. But she also refuses to use her Bot to try to clean up the hundreds of errors she caused. In other words, here is an administrator who is clearly in the wrong in a number of ways and yet washes her hands of the whole thing and just ignores it, leaving the corrections for other people to do. Somehow, that doesn't seem right. I am pasting in, below, the whole dialogue on Fang Aili's page for you to take a look at if you're interested. (She has a couple of replies on my own user page.) I would certainly appreciate it if you would take whatever steps you think are necessary. As you can see, one of the other editors considers her to be indulging in disruptive behavior, surely a no-no for an administrator. If you don't want to get involved with this, however, I'd appreciate it if you could tell me in a couple of lines what sort of action I might take about this. Many thanks. Hayford Peirce 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction vs. science-fiction

Why are you ignorantly screwing up so many articles? Don't you understand English grammar? A science-fiction writer writes science fiction. One has a hyphen, the other doesn't. Now I'm going to have to go clean up some of the messes you've made. Please stop doing it NOW! Hayford Peirce 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Hayford Peirce. "Science fiction" when used as a compound modifier is hyphenated. Please revert your bot's grammatically inaccurate changes. -- Tenebrae 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you're even more ignorant than I thought. No one is trying to change the article called "Science Fiction" to "Science-Fiction". We're simply trying to tell you that a compound modifier takes a hyphen. Therefore, in, let's say, the article called "Science Fiction", there could be a sentence that correctly says: "Science fiction is a type of fiction written by science-fiction writers." Don't you understand the difference? If not, how can you possibly be an administrator?! Hayford Peirce 04:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify to other users and possibly to an admin, given User:Fang Aili's defenseive reponses, Hayford Peirce above is responding to Fang Aili's comments at User_talk:Hayford_Peirce#SF.
Fang Aili, I understand English may not be your first language, but your comments there fly in the face of concrete, black-and-white rules of English grammar. Please keep an open mind, please read the article at the compound modifier link, and please cooperate with the rest of the Wiki community. You made 500 or so bot changes that need to be reversed.
There's no reason for this to escalate. I can tell you that no mediator or admin is going to be on the side of bad grammar.-- Tenebrae 17:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
CC of Fang Aili response on Tenebrae talk page
Actually English is my first language. And as this is a wiki, you may go ahead and change things as you wish; I will not reverse my edits, but I won't edit war with you either. My opinion is that "science fiction" does not have to be hyphenated, and I also don't agree that this is a "black and white" rule of English grammar. (Why don't we see "military-fiction" and "crime-fiction" and the like?) Additionally there seemed to be a consensus towards non-hyphenation, as the instances of "science fiction" far outnumbered "science-fiction", even when used as modifiers. As I said to Hayford, I don't wish to argue about this, so this will be my last message. Cheers. --Fang Aili talk 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to your comment on my talk page: There is no consensus on "science fiction", used as a compound modifier, being Ok with no hyphen — that's just incorrect grammar elsewhere that would eventually be cleaned up, as generally happens with grammar on Wikipedia. Secondly, yes, a phrase such as "military-fiction authors" would indeed have a hyphen.
Finally, you made some 500 grammatically incorrect chanages to Wikipedia, and you expet your fellow editors to have to go in and one-by-one clean-up after you? That is the kind of disruptive behavior that is considered a major breach of Wikipedia etiquette. If you refuse to clean up your own mess I'll have no choice but to seek an Admin intervene. A 500-edit mess that one refuses to address sounds like grounds for banning. --Tenebrae 18:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You wonder why "crime fiction" isn't written "crime-fiction"? It is, correctly, if you write "John Dickson Carr was a crime-fiction writer." Also, if you do, for instance, a search of The New York Times you will find that that august institution uses the phrase "science-fiction writer." For instance, in the March, 2006, obituary of a noted Polish author we have: Stanislaw Lem, a Polish science-fiction writer who, in novels like Solaris and His Master's Voice, contemplated man's place in the universe in sardonic and sometimes bleak terms, died yesterday in Krakow, Poland. He was 84. There are dozens of other examples. Hayford Peirce 18:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Fang Aili, they're right: compound adjectives get hyphens. Guys, if you want community concensus on this, it would help to have Fang Aili's responses here. When you respond to him here, please copy his response on your talk page and paste it before your next response. Either that, or the discussion needs to take place in a centralized location. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said to both Hayford and Tenebrae, I have made all the arguments I wish to make on their talk pages. Please do not leave any more comments here. Thank you. --Fang Aili talk 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, are you going to clean up all the incorrect edits you've made? If so, then we'll stop leaving messages. If not, then one of us (or more) will report you to some other administrator. No one, including me, likes to admit that he/she was wrong about something. In some cases, however, we have to. Please clean up your edits and the matter will be closed. Hayford Peirce 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Your Name

I looked through your user page last week, to finally figure out what your name meant. I was interested to learn. Two days later, I'm at an old person's home, and, for the first time in my life, someone tells me that "we've got to two-three-skidoo." Fortunately, I was able to respond in an unconfused affirmative, thanks to you. Thought you'd like to know. --BCSWowbagger 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Star Trek/Temp

Hi,

StarTrek/Temp has been in the merge category since Aug. 2005. Normally it should be merged, but this page seems like an exception. I tagged it Nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek/temp. --Ling.Nut 04:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Print on Demand

Sorry you couldn't find anything new. It still baffles me why writers like Hamilton, their agents, or the agents for the estates of writers like Charteris, won't swallow their pride and sign contracts with reputable print-on-demand publishers like Wildside Press. Their books would be back in print (in a sense) AND they WOULD BE MAKING MONEY! As it is, they are now forgotten writers. If both the Charteris Estate and Hamilton had their full list of books available at Wildside (or one of its offshoots) I'm certain that each writer would probably pull in a couple thousand bucks a year from the royalties, which would probably include e-books as well. For doing absolutely nothing. I'm truly, truly baffled. The #2 guy at Wildside told me a couple of years ago that he would cut off his arm to sign up Hamilton.... Some FAMOUS SF writers have put some of their early, out-of-print stuff into POD and they're surely pulling in semi-important bucks by doing so.... Thanks for taking a look at the Sci-Fi tempest in a teapot when you have a moment. I shouldn't have been so brusque in my opening remarks -- but it looked to me like a runaway bot was on the loose. I've got to learn to be calmer when I deal with Wiki issues that intensely displease me. Cheerio, and glad you're back! Hayford Peirce 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll get a punch in the nose, hehe, from far more prominent writers than me, Alan Dean Foster, for example, if you tell them that their POD books are put out by vanity press people -- two TOTALLY different things. The writer pays vanity presses -- POD publishers pay the writer. But I realize that many people, even very sophistocated ones, confuse the two. In time it will all become clear -- especially as, 10 years from, most publishing may well be POD in one form or another.... A science-fiction prediction that may or may not come true.... Hayford Peirce 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you from sad experience (and so can all of my writer friends) that there is nothing more mysterious than the book publishing world -- it could be science fiction, or fantasy, but definitely not something run by the normal rules of business or of common sense.... Hayford Peirce 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV Films Categories

It is redundant, but you may have noticed those two categories don't exist. I was looking for the title of the category by trying different variations of the Categories. I must have accidentally forgotten to remove the wrong ones. I have been doing a lot of tagging and added a lot of categories (with the class assessment of film articles) and fogot to change it then. I removed it. Cbrown1023 00:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Vida Guerra

There's also the content dispute about the birthdate, which I thought I had mentioned in the log but now I realize I didn't. Will mention that in the talk page as you ask. Most of the people pushing for the fair use removal are admins, so protection won't be an issue. If you ever need to edit a protected page you can always place an {{editprotected}} tag on the talk page. Regards, -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 07:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fernando Poo trivia

I'd forgotten that. Thanks for adding it :-). --Storkk 15:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fang and the great hyphen clash

Thanks much for your comments. I will indeed counsel Teneb. to wait a while longer. My own feeling is that Fang is just going to wash her hands of the whole affair and ignore it. That said, she *did* stop (apparently) her busy bot as soon as I started yapping at her. So the result is that there are many articles where a couple of hyphens have been stripped away -- no big deal, of course -- but that the list isn't growing. In spite of the NYT and several style books supporting my position, the biggest argument against my hyphen position is the SFWA -- the Science Fiction Writers of America. *They* don't use a hyphen, hehe.... Thanks again and cheers! Hayford Peirce 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I'll back you up -- and try to be polite about, hehe.... (Actually, I see this happening a lot in various articles, and, I gotta say, sometimes it's pretty hard to decide what is a legitimate link and what isn't -- a lot of them are pretty close calls. Hayford Peirce 15:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

I apologize for my disrespectful edit summary. Though there is no good excuse for it, it was admitedly because I was a little suprised by your edit. If it is done elsewhere in Wikipedia, then I think it is totally ridiculous and inane. I don't see how adding conflicting categories could do anything but add unnecessary confusion and I whole heartedly stand by my response in the Market Mall talk page. Nevertheless, I am sorry. --Arch26 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short story question

response on my talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Fowler

Hello. If you have a moment to take a look at this article, you will see that a well-intended (I assume) editor has split the article to include information about two separate people who happen to share the same name. I am trying to sort this out right now, by creating a separate article about the 2nd Tom Fowler. However, in order to avoid further confusion, there will need to be a disambiguation page, which I have never created before. Furthermore, should the original Tom Fowler page be redirected to Tom Fowler (musician), while I tag the new article Tom Fowler (artist)? As you can see, I have some questions, and I want to do this right, so I would appreciate your advice. Thanks, as always, for your time and attention. ---Charles 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of series connected to the Tommy Westphall Universe

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the article noted above is currently listed for AfD. I thought you might like to make your opinion known on the matter, since you had expressed an opinion on it previously. ---Charles 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corner Gas PROD notification

Yes, go ahead and delete it. Thanks. -- Steven Fisher 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offer for Film Project - List of Films

Hi, good that up top of the film members' list is an administrator, since you may be able to help me. I have posted my suggestions and work offer in Talk:Lists_of_films, section "The Layman's Blues". I would like to know if what I am offering to do is generally welcome, or if I may start arguments. I am talking about merely going through the past years' listings and create for each year a complete list of films (add all top grossing and awards in the "other films released" and rename the latter in "Films released in 19--"). Until somewhere in the 1930s it is so. I give my reasons in the Talk page. About changing the order of the lists, that's just a suggestion. I wouldn't do that if I hadn't a broader consensus, plus it's not the most important. Please, take a look and let me know your opinion, or at least where I should post it, so it can be seen, before I start doing things that may displease others. Where I posted it, it might be completely out of reach. Hoverfish 11:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did work on the list by years from the first years to 2000, where I have to figure out a new system that an unsigned user is introducing. This facilitates now another hard-working member on the list by letter, which I see easier being the one to incorporate all. You have some history on Categories, which also makes a parallel attempt to listings. Could you, please, give me your lights on the matter? Is it a more selected filmography? Is there any thoughts of trying to merge in a more complete database? I would be greatful to hear from you on this. Hoverfish 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another image copyright paranoid

Hi, this has just been sent to me via the Casey Stengel page. I know that this issue makes you (rightly) grind your teeth. Have you got a boilplate answer I can copy and send back to him? Thanks!

  • Hello. In order for this image to qualify as fair use, the article would have to actually discuss/describe that issue of the magazine. The usage of Image:BSpearsRstone99.jpg in the Britney Spears article is an example of this. As it is now, it's being used solely for decorative purposes, which is not within the boundaries of fair use. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hayford Peirce 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Geez, that's hard to believe! No wonder you're fiu of being an Adminstrator and fighting this battle! Fiu is a great, all-purpose Tahitian word meaning "fed up, disgusted, tired of, worn down by, weary of, had it up to here, etc. etc." -- it's used many times per day by the average resident of Tahiti. And I gotta say that I feel that way fairly often when it comes to the antics I see in Wikipedia. But, having said that, I sure hope that you don't give up your Administrative duties! Hayford Peirce 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm really tired of this subject too, but suppose on the Stengel page I wrote something like: "Stengel was a master publicist and promoter, especially for his teams. He was an enthralling raconteur and had the New York press eating out of his hand. He was as much of a public figure as many of his star players such as DiMaggio and Mantle, and he appeared on the cover of national, non-sports, magazines such as Time Magazine. Geez, *that* ought to do it! If it doesn't, I'll give up working with Wiki! (Yeah, yeah, I know there's some POV in my sample above, but that's just off the top of my head....) Hayford Peirce 02:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Secret

That image is way better than the one I did anyway, which was a modern print with a much less interesting cover. --Alf melmac 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson covers

Other covers that have gone last time I looked were from

not sure how many are gone now though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Away

I'm sure you've noticed, but I took an extended vacation from Wikipedia. I just don't really care anymore, but I'm hoping to make some edits here and there from time to time. I just wanted to bring a "question" to your attention. You may or may not have heard that there is a new James Bond short story. This is one part of The Moneypenny Diaries. I started a series page hoping that some day it'll be like Young Bond and I added the information on the story there, however, the article James Bond uncollected short stories is broad enough that it could and maybe should be listed there. I don't know. Right now it's dedicated to Benson, but it doesn't have to be. Your thoughts: Leave as is? Move? Cleanup the intro at the uncollected article and add a link to the list there? Or ?? I don't know. Your call. K1Bond007 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from James Bond author Raymond Benson

Hi there-- I'm Raymond Benson, author of the James Bond novels from 1996-2002. I see that you've been putting a 1996 date on the short story "Blast From the Past". The date on the issue of Playboy is January 1997, so that is the official publication date, regardless of when it was available to the public on the newsstand. A book might have a November 21 publication date, for example, but stores might put it on the shelf as soon as they get it in stock--but the pub date is still November 21. I know it's splitting hairs, but it's probably better that it be correct. Cheers, RB

[edit] Template Switch

Hi. I moved the templates on the The Saints Go Marching In Discussion page, and you moved them back. No problem - I understand why. However, I have now reversed their order: The Songs template first, then The Beatles.

The Beatles are only most peripherally related to the subject, whereas Songs is directly related. I hope that this meets with your approval. B00P 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Gracie

Hi, can you tell me where I was talking about Charlie's Belgian LP ? Since 1981, he recorded "An Evening with C.G./Live", Rockstar Recs, Germany, 30th/04/2002; "C. G. and the Jumping Shoes"; "Rockin in Italy: on tour" (studio NOT live recordings); "Rockhouse" (NL), UK, 6th Dec. 2004; "Just hangin around" (rec. in Germany), Rhythm Bomb, 25th April 2006; and the last one' issued last 10th October. "Just hangin around" included a version of "Rock a Beatin' Boogie". No " - ". Stephan KŒNIG 11:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Post

I have a warning from you on my Talk page, As this is a University ISP Address I am hoping you do not ban me, because I have been a positive contributor to the Casino Royale board. Please contact me through my talk page detailing the offense and the person the offense was meant to be against - I will repeat this on the discussion board for Casino Royale. - 194.80.240.66

[edit] Not surprised

Not surprised about Benson reading it. A lot of people do. I've been suspect of a number of anon editors in the past. And lest we forget the legal threat I got from Jack Whittingham's daughter because of something that I wrote (and this is the fun part) that was actually based on something Benson wrote. :P Fun times. K1Bond007 22:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)