Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page. |
If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here. |
Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
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!
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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".
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Because you have made Wikipedia a better place, and have been of valued assisstance to me. Martial Law |
You're welcome. Martial Law 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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".
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)
I just changed the image to the 1972, first-edition cover. Hayford Peirce 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I just added a little editorial content about the edition and his long hair.... Hayford Peirce 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've just gone through all my Saintly covers and have the following info and/or questions:
What do you think I should do with these various covers? Hayford Peirce 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
...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
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'd forgotten that. Thanks for adding it :-). --Storkk 15:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
response on my talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, go ahead and delete it. Thanks. -- Steven Fisher 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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!
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)