User talk:WFinch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, WFinch, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad 20:31, 6 January 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 Nero Wolfe we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nero Wolfe articles

I have left some responses betwen your comments on my talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch, Kevin -- I've replied to your replies on your talk page. Thank you, too, for your invitation to the novels project. I'll consider that. -- WFinch 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The NA is to enable us to search for articles that have missing ISBNs (where such are available) and also point out to people that ISBN are truely not applicable. The section in the ArticleTemplate you needs it the "Release details" on which can be used to give the various editions. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Doorbell Rang

Hi Walter -- I just took a quick look at The Doorbell Rang -- rather, its page. (I can't believe that it's the first time I've seen it, but I believe it is.) I took a peek at the edit history and note that you've done quite a bit of editing to the page. I didn't take the time to see who has contributed what, but it does look as though you've adopted it as a sort of pet sub-project.

I write because I do think that the text needs considerable cleanup. There are errors of diction (for example, MV uses the term "syntax" when she means "diction" -- a distinction that any true believer would make), of fact (as to what the book says, as distinct from what the article now says the book says), genuine POV/OR (the comment about what the FBI would prefer to keep private), and so on. Most of the text that I find problematic appears to have been contributed by ModusVivendi, but, again, I haven't pored over the edit history.

I intend to clean it up, and to focus on the text -- not the matter on adaptations, references, infoboxes and so on. (I do think that the initial quote was well chosen.) I just wanted you to know that I'm going to start on this and to solicit your thoughts -- again, I know you must have spent a lot of time on this page already. TurnerHodges 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's good to read. Yes, it's come a long way, but the article needs so much help. I haven't edited much of the Plot summary. In the Introduction, I did add the quote and some content about Fred Cook, but that section is still pretty choppy. I wish I could have kept the book cover for The FBI Nobody Knows, which I had added; but I removed it after discovering that a book cover may only be used on its own article. I may still create an article for that book; I find that people are surprised it was real.
The Epilogue was a pet project, since that was information I found that could be related without editorializing. (If you haven't come across it yet, see Where There's a Will for another story about the FBI and Stout. Incredible, as Mrs. Bruner would say.) But if you see the neutrality of the article being lost anywhere, go for it. Thanks for improving this article, it's another important one. — WFinch 04:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, yes — "the parts it would prefer to keep private," which is in the "Of further interest" section. I named that section, but I kept looking at that wording... just as I've tried to fiddle with editing in the Plot summary before I've given up. Minor edits aren't going to do it. Good. — WFinch 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm continuing this here rather than on the Doorbell discussion page because heaven knows how long it would take to get a broader response. I'll probably post there after you and I kick this around a little.

I've done an extensive rewrite of the plot summary but don't wish to put it up before I know what should be done about other matters. My principal issue is that the Doorbell page should be about the book, not about Cook. The information about Cook, and about Stout's problems with the FBI, is important, no doubt about that, and I certainly don't wish to hide it. (In fact, I confess to considerable anti-Hoover bias and I hope it doesn't show.)

I would recommend putting the material that's presently in the section titled Epilogue on a separate page, linked from both the Doorbell page and from Rex Stout's page. The information in Epilogue is only tangentially related to Doorbell.

I have also rewritten the Introduction and the Of Further Interest sections to make them npov. Again, that can go up after it's clear what will happen to the Epilogue. BTW, the formatting of the Epilogue material does not make it clear what is from a contributor, what is from Mitgang, and whether the M. A. Jones material is from the Freedom of Information files directly or as quoted by Mitgang. If it's all Mitgang, then I'm not sure that it fits within the fair use guidelines -- it would be a very long quote. At any rate, that needs cleanup and it should probably be done by the contributor who provided it (MV?).

Your thoughts?

Regards, TurnerHodges 21:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this part of the discussion may as well stay right here. I'm not certain the original contributor(s) are even active here these days, and this essentially concerns the Epilogue (not MV, ME).
I've taken your point about the Epilogue, and about Mr. Mitgang, too, who would certainly be one who would not appreciate too lengthy a quote. I've ruthlessly cut out material more suitable for the Fred Cook article, and information already on the Rex Stout page.
I hope what remains relates specifically enough to Doorbell to stay with the article. As a "tail," I'd like to see the FBI response to the book stay here. I'm looking forward to seeing how you've incorporated the Cook information, and you should just put up your rewrite whenever you're ready.
Thanks for your consideration, by the way. There could be a lot more of it here, I've found. — WFinch 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's up. The changes for neutrality that I made in the Introduction -- which I renamed Prologue, BTW, to parallel the Epilogue -- and in the Of further interest sections are very minor: just some softening, really. I did add a note referring the reader to the Rex Stout page, where the Mitgang material now figures prominently. I do think that it belongs there as part of Stout's real life rather than of Wolfe's imaginary one, in particular because of the echoes from the past in the way that today's administration runs its own Star Chambers, drumhead courts martial, phone taps without warrants and signing statements.
I hope the new plot summary meets with readers' approval, and yours. As I was editing the old one (a project I gave up -- I decided I had to start from scratch) I kept notes on the reasons I was deleting and changing, and I halfway expect to need them later on.
As to "consideration," yes, there's a certain coarseness to the nature of the communications on Wikipedia, and what I read as acting out behavior. I find that I miss CompuServe's old moderated forums, where sysops enforced civility and encouraged courtesy. The administrators could do more of that themselves, but as I read their comments, some of them seem to be working out their own personal issues in this relatively anonymous medium. TurnerHodges 15:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd struggled with editing the existing plot summary, too, and got depressed at the prospect. Now, it's — well, it's remarkable. I don't believe there's a single Wolfe book article more important to have done well here. And now I see that poor Clifton Fadiman needs to be taken under somebody's wing; splendid... Well, if that wants to haunt me it'll have to take a number.
Heaven knows where the term Epilogue came from (not the novels project template, I can tell you) but I like there being a Prologue to go with it. It occurred to me that every episode of the old Efrem Zimbalist TV show, "The FBI," would end with an Epilogue, so maybe that burrowed its way out of my subconscious. In any case, that device brackets off the Cook/FBI material nicely and puts the emphasis where it belongs, on the book. I can't believe you'll have to defend your changes. Thank you for the exceptional work you put into this one. — WFinch 20:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meet Nero Wolfe

[Hi there — Would you revisit the article for the film Meet Nero Wolfe and reevaluate your tagging it as a stub? Although this is a relatively new film article, I don't believe it's a stub. There's also a template visible at the bottom of the article that's redlinked. Thanks, WFinch 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)]

The major thing that is lacking (see templates on talk page) is the "film image" - a poster or DVD cover for the infobox. Once that's added, it can easily be upgraded to start. SkierRMH 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see your talk page; it's easier for me to keep the discussion together in one place, so I've replied there. — WFinch 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC) [Done. All of the template requirements are now fulfilled, I believe. Will you edit the article and talk page to reflect that? Thanks, WFinch 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)]

I updated the article page, but left a note on the talk page thereof. The "filmimage" is not a screen shot, but the film poster, or DVD or VHS cover scan. SkierRMH 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[Thanks for removing the template from the article page. You're right, the "filmimage" I've put in the infobox is not a screenshot — it's a scan of an original, vintage promotional photo, as described in the fair use rationale on the image page. This is a little-seen 1936 film that, among a great many other titles, has never seen a legitimate release from the studio. It's never been issued on DVD or VHS, so there is no cover to scan and no screen to shoot. Perhaps, though, the note you've left on the talk page will draw the attention of an editor who has a copy of the film poster, although I would think this image is adequate. I expect this happens from time to time with old, obscure films. Thanks for your attention. — WFinch 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Nero Wolfe novellas

Just letting you know that, following our discussion on my talk page, the "Nero Wolfe novellas" category has met its doom. (Yes! It was me! In the library, with the candlestick!! And I'm not sorry, you hear me?!! ... *ahem*) --Paul A 08:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No tears will be shed. The category title "Nero Wolfe short story collections" matches what's been done for Sherlock Holmes, and that's just as it should be. I also see that Murder Is Corny (detective story) zips over so nicely to Trio for Blunt Instruments — clean as a whistle. Thank you. — WFinch 16:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stout-ABAV-2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stout-ABAV-2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The image has been placed in the article And Be a Villain. — WFinch 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Stout-TDR-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stout-TDR-2.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one fast bot. I've added the rationale, removed the tag and placed the image. WFinch (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piping

Hi. Re piping in disambig pages, we do use pipes for things like italics for proper titles. See that, and the other exceptions, at WP:PIPING. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry — I got carried away. I got one "Once" right, anyway, and I'll restrain myself from here on. Thank you. — WFinch (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)