User talk:Jtomlin1uk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Jtomlin1uk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Belovedfreak 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Regarding your edits to The Labours of Hercules:

Your recent edit to The Labours of Hercules (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Rather than continue this on the Agatha Christie talk page in "public", I thought I'd give you this reference here. If you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources you will find a fairly good guide to what is expected. (When I first started with Wikipedia I was pointed there a number of times by patient editors because I had essentially made up my own citation methodology <grin>.) I recommend the Harvard style but there are simplified styles there that might also suit your purposes. There are also citation templates available through that page which, I must confess, I've never learned how to use but, if you learn how to use them, you cannot go wrong as long as you have the book in front of you -- you're prompted for every single relevant detail. By the way, you'd also be welcome on the Crime Task Force -- you can find a way there through the infobox on my talk page. I'll have to see if I can find a way to get you a scan of the back cover of my copy of The Secret of Chimneys, which is the mapback edition and features a map of Chimneys -- you could compare it with your book showing Abney Hall. Accounting4Taste 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I didn't realise that you'd put a comment on this page - I told you I was new to editing this site! I'd very much welcome a scan of the back of your copy, particularly as I've never heard of a mapback edition before. My UK first edition of the book contains no maps and, truth to tell, neither does the Christie companion, just lots of photographs and a map of the overall estate. However, I am in Manchester (my home city) in a couple of weeks time visiting my sister who lives two miles from Abney Hall and I might pop round there and compare your map on the spot if nothing else is available on the web!!

Could you help me with something else? Do you know how to update the table which appears at the bottom of each Christie page. It is out of order with some items missing but I cannot for the life of me find how to update it.

Best wishes--Jtomlin1uk 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you've baffled me with the table -- I can see it, but I can't find a way to affect it. I'll look further into this and let you know. (I'm pretty new at this myself.) Cheers, Accounting4Taste 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about how to affect that table -- that will come in handy, I'm sure. I tried to set up my scanner but for some reason the driver won't work, so I can't scan my map of Chimneys in the very near future, sorry. May I add that I'm very jealous :-) of your collection of Christie firsts and hope that you will add scans of the jackets to the appropriate pages for us all to see? I used to manage a mystery bookstore and have quite a collection, but you've beaten me hollow. Must have been a huge and expensive task -- well done! Accounting4Taste 22:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments but if you read the summary I've put in against each image, they are scans of facsimiles that I have. I do own the true first edition books in each case but the dustjackets pre-1943(ish) are either very expensive or very rare (or both - two London dealers said that if they ever had a copy of Styles in jacket they would be asking over £100,000 but they've never even seen a copy despite years of trading). Each book I have after 1939 (starting with Sad Cypress) is a true original and I will hopefully be scanning and uploading the 1940's this weekend. The only originals I have pre-1940 are Road of Dreams, 2 New Crime Stories from 1929 and Hound of Death, so don't feel too jealous!

Regards--Jtomlin1uk 07:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the cover scan of the 1st edition of "Ten Little Niggers" in the infobox has been replaced by a paperback cover as "And Then There Were None". It was done by an experienced editor, so I asked him why -- the exchange can be found on my talk page FYI. Anyway, I looked up the policy and he has some degree of right on his side, because the title has been changed. However, I do hope you will post the first edition cover further down the page -- I believe we can't be hiding the past even though we may not like it. Please let me know your thoughts. Accounting4Taste 04:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this change to my attention. For some reason, although I had the page on my 'watch' list, it did not appear in my watchlist of changes for 10th September. Is Mr Palpatine some sort of "superuser" whereby he can make 'silent' changes?

I've read his comments very carefully. I can see some of what he is saying but my honest thoughts are that despite his protestations of wanting not to confuse readers (e.g. "The title on the first edition does not agree with the article, which may on first glance both confuse AND anger some readers" as well as "Some people might even mistake the image for vandalism.") his real underlying reason is given away in sentences such as "the N word in the original title is ranked among the top 10 most offensive words in the english language" and "In this day in age, such things should be noted further on and not placed right up front". In my opinion, Mr Palpatine has taken a politically-motivated point of view and then used some of the more nebulous guidelines to achieve his ends. Would he similarly try to delete or amend this page or this one? I would contend that he is not taking sufficient view of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

It is my experience that it is useless in trying to argue or debate an issue of this nature as a conclusion is never reached so I don't intend to revert the changes or make an issue of this matter. I note that he has already re-positioned the image of the 1939 jacket further down the page next to the section entitled "Publication History" so a user wanting to see the book in a historical context is not being deprived. I would, however, join you in reacting strongly to anyone who attempted to remove all references whatsoever to the 1939 title.

Being a contrary person, I'm more annoyed that the look and style of this page will be different to the remaining Christie book pages where I'm trying hard to standardise the tables, images and sections. The page which looks closest to what I eventually want to achieve is "The Man in the Brown Suit" and even that one has some work to be done on it. I note that Mr Palpatine has removed the reference to the original UK price of the first edition and that I do find annoying as no reason is given. It is now out of synch with the other Christie book pages that I'm standardising and I do think that being able to view publication price changes from 1921 to the present day is of historical interest. (I think I've found a source of info on the US editions so I was going to put this on each of the pages) I will revert this one change he had made and fight my corner on this one.

I know that Wikipedia is a "all welcome" website (to one degree or another) but quite honestly, if people are going to dip in and out of some of the more noticable pages, make unnecessary changes but quite happily leave people like me to create pages or make meaningful some of the more obscure ones like "Road of Dreams" or "Hound of Death" with information that I've found out by hours spent in the British Library and the like (for example, you will not find in ANY reference work the 'correct' title of the serialisation of "Man in the Brown Suit" - you will only see the incorrect title Christie put in her autobiography when a 70-year old lady was relying on her memory of half a century earlier), then I feel like pulling out!

Rant over! I'm calm and staying for now!

Regards--Jtomlin1uk 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] And Then There Were None

You wrote: Added back first edtion price. Mr Palpatine, a price does not offend and is of historical interest. Leave it alone.

I am not concerned with the orginal PRICE of the book when it was first published. The matter I am dealing with is the insistence by some others to use the original different titled first edition cover as to illustrate the book. The title does not agree with the article and contains a word that is among the top 10 most offensive in the english language. At first glance, readers would probable take this as an act of vandalism because of the title difference. That is why I reverted the changes to display the cover with the matching title and put the first edition cover in the historical section of the article further on. -- Jason Palpatine 14:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we seem to be in 'some' agreement. The price details (which I have put on every Christie page) is a reference just to the first edition publication and is irrespective of what the book was actually called at the time. For the record, I do agree that the 1939 title is offensive but Wikipedia has a contect disclaimer policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer) which accepts that such things are sometimes the case and people just have to accept them. I can accept to a degree that some people would find an image with a different title to be confusing so I think having the image located to the section regarding first publication is a suitable compromise, (I suppose that putting price details there wouldn't hurt either), but I am firmly in the camp of those people who say that just because something done 68 years ago is unacceptable now doesn't mean that a historical record of an event should be changed to accomodate modern sensibilities. I note that you are a member of something called "Wikipedia against censorship" so I can only presume that you agree with me.

Agree 110%. -- Jason Palpatine 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Moot point now. The cover image I had uploaded has now been deleted. We went through all that effort for nothing it would seem. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Credit where credit is due

Hi there: Just a note to point you to Template talk:Nero Wolfe because, frankly, you did get me thinking about these templates, I learned how to use them and I have to give you the credit for starting me down that path. Now it's made me anxious to get all the Ellery Queen pages done so I can make a navbox for THAT, and then Perry Mason ... you've created a monster! LOL And while I'm on the topic, thanks for sticking out the recent events with respect to the first edition covers, especially And Then There Were None. For obvious reasons, that particular book is always going to be a bone of contention for newbies and experienced editors alike, and I appreciate your willingness to work through the contention. Accounting4Taste 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have you considered joining the Crime Task Force? You can find a box that takes you to the relevant page on my user page. You're doing so much work on Christie, I think you are already an honorary member, but you might like to make it official. Accounting4Taste 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments. To join do I just put in the four tildes? I did that but the preview pane showed slightly different text to the other eight contributors - sorry for being a bit thick!--Jtomlin1uk 16:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star over Bethlehem

Responded to your question here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Invite to join Novels WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.
As you have shown an interest in Agatha Christie we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.
You might like to take an extra interest in our Crime task force
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 172.202.149.190

I see that you have reverted several edits by this anonymous user. I want to bring to your attention the very real possibility that this is the same anonymous editor blocked yesterday for a very similar pattern of vandalism: 172.209.182.227. At any rate, if they are not one and the same person, they certainly have a very similar edit pattern, including Bertolt Brecht and Agatha Christie novels, and a similar MO (deleting cleanup templates and plot summaries). This anonymous editor needs to be watched closely. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DYK: Agatha Christie: An Autobiography

Updated DYK query On 10 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agatha Christie: An Autobiography, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 07:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome aboard

Welcome aboard the crime task force -- I'm happy to have pointed you in our direction some time ago, but in the meantime you've accomplished an awful lot, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Your work here so far has been a great contribution and, if there's anything I can do to help, just let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And you can swipe the appropriate box from my talk page, or I could add it for you myself with your permission. Cheers, Accounting4Taste:talk 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure what you meant but I think I've made the relevant changes to my user page. Tell me if I got it wrong!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

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:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Everything you should need can be found aat or from WP:Vandlism. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb Witness

All I can say after reading your recent work on this article, you are clearly not the subject of the title. Keep up the good work with the articles on the works of Christie, you are doing sterling work! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 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. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christie

Hi John - I was just going thought he list of unassessed WikiProject Theatre articles, and I happened to land on a number of the Agatha Christie plays. Thanks in no small part to you, they're among the best Play-specific articles I've seen. In my comment regarding Alibi, I should emphasize the word "may" - I was working through the Unassessed list pretty quickly (there are many hundreds of articles that have yet to be reviewed), and I didn't give the synopsis a thorough reading. My basis for comparison is the small collection of "GA" and better articles on plays. I was in a community theater staging of The Hollow a few months ago, which gave me a solid enough understanding to take a stab at the synopsis - I doubt I'll do the same for anything I don't perform, but I'll try to stick around and help get that article and some others into GA-shape. See you on the change history pages--Dereksmootz (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, my mistake. I completely agree with your logic that Alibi doesn't belong there, as it wasn't penned by her. I just had it in my head that it was "a Christie play", and was surprised that I couldn't navigate to it via the Christie template, so decided to remdedy the situation.--Dereksmootz (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock

{{136.8.152.13|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jonnogibbo". The reason given for Jonnogibbo's block is: "Spam / advertising-only account".|Hu12|911947}}

Hello. You don't seem to be blocked as I think you've edited since you put this request up. Can it be marked as completed? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I cleared the autoblock for you. SQLQuery me! 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 136.8.152.13 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: SQLQuery me! 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for correcting my post regarding the Dr Who episode on the Death in the Clouds page. I am rather new to Wikipedia. Ian Pettifer92.232.173.44 (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Thank you

You're welcome. As for the changes I made to the article, I had my reasons: the "Character" section heading does not need to state the title of the novel as it's redundant; obviously the characters are from the novel that the article is about. I take the Novels WikiProject template as a grain of salt since every novel (and therefore their article) is different from the next, but if you want true direction, I suggest you look at current Good and Featured Articles. I do not feel that the original price of the book is important enough to be listed in the lead, but you should know that WP:LEAD states that the lead section is meant to be a summary of the entire article, meaning that there should be no new information listed there The price is not listed anywhere else in the article, so if it's truly pertinent information, it needs to be written into the article somewhere. This article needs quite a bit of work (formatting issues, for example, remain despite my fixing them in the plot section; the </br> tag should not be used) but with dedication I'm sure it can improve. Good luck, María (habla conmigo) 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Didn't They Ask Evans?

Hi, I removed the blurb again from the article. The blurb is copyrighted (unless proven different) so the hidden warning there is false. Since copyrighted the material has to pass all the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria before it can be added the the article. It fails criteria 1, probably criteria 5 and criteria 8. Garion96 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the author is not unknown. The author (actually the copyright holder) is Collins Crime Club. The person who wrote the blurb was, pretty likely, an employee of the company and all work written by him in the course of his employment is owned by Collins Crime Club, by now News Corporation. That's besides the fact that inclusion of the dust jacket blurb in the article is not that encyclopedic (IMO of course). Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, the last part is "in my opinion". I really can't imagine why my opinion on that would make it hard for you not to be rude. Regarding the rest. You said a company can not be an author, but it can be a copyright holder/owner. See for instance here. However I just saw that in the UK the case is then 70 years after publication, see Work for hire#Copyright duration, so it is indeed not copyrighted. For blurbs from books after 1938 they are still copyrighted however, and for the USA the duration is even longer. Just in case you added any blurbs from American books or books published after 1938. Garion96 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
As I've continued assessing plays, I've noticed that at least half the edits on any given Agatha Christie play are yours. A quick investigation into the edit histories of her novels, short stories, etc., demonstrate quite clearly that you've earned this Dereksmootz (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agatha Christie revisions and reversions

Hi. As you're doubtless aware, the Agatha Christie article gets lots of vandalism, so I'm probably quicker to revert than I ought to be, especially when it comes to unregistered editors who don't use the edit summary. (Why don't they?) Anyway, thanks for explaining why you reverted my reversion, and thanks for using your considerable knowledge of the subject to improve the article. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)