User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, ShelfSkewed/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  BD2412 T 05:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You have questions? We have answers!

With respect to your first question, I'm pretty liberal about wikilinks - the ones you mentioned are fine. Overdoing it would be linking every word in the sentence (most of which, as it turns out, do have articles). Also, don't link years unless the event being described in the year is one that you would expect to see described in an article on that year, or (with respect to Lehane, for example) that year-in-literature.

On to your second point, the Wikipedia:Manual of style chapter on citations says that any format will do so long as you are consistent within the article... I vastly prefer Author, Title, (Year).

Hope this is helpful. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Realm of Morpheus

Hi ShelfSkewed -- if you are interested, you can contact me via my e-mail address (it's public in the Citizendium forums) and I can connect you with Chad W. Post at the Dalkey Archive Press -- he may be able to say something more about the possibility of a re-issue of From The Realm of Morpheus. -- the ghost of Profrap.

Edits to My Friend Flicka

I changed the links to IMDb because the previous links to the IMDb pages were not working properly - i.e. the links were not going to the correct pages (they were actually going to pages titled 'page not found'). This problem, with regard to the earlier edits, can be checked and verified by going to the history page for My Friend Flicka page and viewing the results from the previous links to IMDb. Figaro 05:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It's good that everything is okay now. Figaro 06:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bunting

Thanks for the message in response to my revert on Eve Bunting. Your message made me check my other reverts and I realized I made the same error on another one. I guess that's my official signal to quit vandal fighting and go get some sleep. -Kubigula (ave) 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Ping. --Gwern (contribs) 17:47 10 December 2006 (GMT)

List of novelists from the United States

On Dec 9, author Victor Heck removed from list of novelists as non-notable. Notability has been established for this author per notability rules. Consider re-adding? Thanks. Ungoliant13 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad on the list-specific rules. You are correct, despite meeting most required criteria, Heck is not an award-winner or otherwise trend-setting author with mass-market appeal. Thanks. Ungoliant13 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On Feb 9, authors Eric Flint, Elizabeth Moon, John Ringo, John Scalzi & David Weber were removed from list citing 'non-notable', yet all of the listed authors meet the notability criteria specified on the Talk page. --Cohort 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Offutt

Hi SS - I just want to thank you for watching out for Chris Offutt's entry. Chris was definitely born in 58. He has 2 sons and recently was married to poet and writer Melissa Ginsberg.

WUSTL Project

{{WikiProjectWUSTLinvite}}

--Lmbstl 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

I just noted your re-ordering of the categories on Frank Miller (comics) and was wondering what formatting was being applied.

Thanks... — J Greb 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I see how you broke things down. The separation of the comic boor related categories put me off a bit, but I can see how could break down between "factual" and "personal". Looking at the debate page, it's not really an issue I feel strongly enough about to argue a point on.

Again, thanks — J Greb 21:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

McSweeney's

i should have thought of useing amavon for that. i've been compileing my own hand written copy of the list you did for mcsweeney's and useing amazon to get the isbn's. do you know what an isbn-10, isbn-13 or asin # refers to. i'm a book lover but have never delved into the minutia of them before. i shouldn't have too much trouble ordering the mcsweney publications. i own most of them and i've been watching the company for a long time. i'm not sure where you got the list you posted to me, amazon?, but there was one error. the new sins was just published in the last few months. i'm working on that list and will postor at least consult with you in a few weeks. --Skot65 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave Eggers

Thanks, I didn't even notice that. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Acting Spam

Thankyou for letting me know of this situation. Yes, I shall take more care in looking at this section.

It really is a shame that vandalism is so common on this website; people who think it is funny or 'cool' to undo our hard work.

Once again thankyou for your message. Lradrama 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Empire Falls

Hi, no worries! It's kind of a subjective issue, but it depends what else can be used for the book's title. I'm fixing a mistake I had made a couple months ago when I was just getting started in WP:Novels. I had split the page (both the miniseries and the novel were on the same article, which really bugs me), but I had gone against naming guidelines, which state that "it is usually not commendable to use "(book)" or a similar qualifier in Wikipedia article names, outside what is strictly needed for disambiguation from other *existing* Wikipedia pages." [1] Also, when it comes to films and novels that go by the same name, the novel should take precedence, and the film (since it usually comes after the novel, and it is an adaptation), usually has (film) or something similar tagged on it. I had previously, mostly because of laziness, kept Empire Falls the article for the miniseries, and moved the novel to Empire Falls (novel), which is incorrect. I say I was being lazy because Empire Falls had over 150 articles linked to it and I would have had to change all of that by hand. Yuck! Since I now have AWB, changing those linked pages is a cinch, so I thought it best to make things right. Er, a very long explanation for something so seemingly trivial, but I hope that makes sense? I'm now trying to get Empire Falls (novel) removed so that everything will be as it should be. María: (habla ~ cosas) 12:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought a disambig page may be in the future, since there were a couple links that were meant for the band. Would you think it better to keep the (novel) page as it is and turn Empire Falls into disambig? Not that much work would have to be done; there are only about twenty links or so linking to the article at the moment. María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to close things up, another user pitched in and [[Empire Falls (novel) is now a redirect; in the future, a disambig may be needed, but for now I'm exhuasted, heh. Thanks for taking an interest! María: (habla ~ cosas) 14:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:McSweeneys5bkarm.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:McSweeneys5bkarm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:McSweeneys5bkminot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:McSweeneys5bkminot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a template {{Not orphan}} that needs to be on any image that is wikilinked in that fashion. Can you add that template to any images you are using on that page, or any other? (Use {{Not orphan|article name here}}). Special:Whatlinkshere doesn't always work with images ... also, sometimes bots tag orphaned images and they need the tag to be there. --BigDT (416) 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Moo (I love that title)

I see what you mean, it is rather suspect. Especially this edit, which is two minutes after the first; I certainly cannot type that quickly. I did a little preliminary searching and also didn't come up with anything, so I echo your thought that if it is copied from somewhere, it's probably not online. I do see your concerns about the editors, but because they're not causing any blatant harm, I don't know if an IP check would be warranted - not to say that's what you suggested, of course, but that's what comes to my mind when I think sockpuppets. The original editor (Kaosgrrl) is obviously preoccupied with Jane Smiley; I sense someone had to write a paper, which would also explain the almost Sparknotesian style. I will say, however, that some of the writing is fairly sloppy and unprofessional ("Smiley also helps bring out themes of her life by writing about them in Moo," "The discovery of the machine uplifts everyone’s spirits"), so if it is a copyvio from some source, it's not a very good one. The article isn't in too bad a state, although it's obviously a fixer-upper and in dire need of references. A shame, too, because I loved this book. If you still have your suspicions, perhaps you can bring your concerns to the original editor? Sometimes people don't realize copy and pasting is bad, you know. Assume Good Faith. But like I said, parts are far too unpolished to be from a scholarly or reliable source. I've put it on my wishlist for now, and maybe I'll step in when I've got some time to give it a good doctoring, if someone else doesn't get there first. That's all I've got, though. Hope it was of some help. Later. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I saw the wonderful first edition book cover images you scanned and uploaded for some of Chabon's novels, great work. His articles definitely need the love. María (habla conmigo) 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Query: Images for Vollmann, Rushdie novels

In each case the "True First" edition is the ideal for the information in the infobox and particularly the cover image. Thanks for the question. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks for the extra effort. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

L.A. Confidential

Wow, I can't believe these articles haven't been split before. Anyway, both arguments (1. move novel to (novel) and keep film where it is or 2. move film to (film) and keep novel where it is) have pros and cons, but I think the naming conventions should take precedence. You're correct in that, ideally, the original work should be at the root title (L.A. Confidential) and whatever adaptation that came out of it is supposed to have the annoying, differentiating parentheses after it. As for changing the countless amounts of links, when I first began splitting pages, I relinked one by one by one, but you're right; Confidential has tons. Do you have WP:AWB, or have you looked into it? It makes tedious jobs like link changes and redirects much easier and I'm sure you have enough edits to register for it. I greatly believe in splitting articles, especially when both film and novel are so individually awesome that their awesomeness can barely be contained in one article alone. Good luck, and if you need help with some link changes, just let me know. María (habla conmigo) 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it'll be a piece of cake. And you're very welcome.  :) María (habla conmigo) 12:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Lehane

Hey, thanks for finding a reference for Dennis Lehane's current project and rewording that paragraph. Great work! -- Jonel | Speak 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for showing me how to set up references :) Kweeket 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

IM image

Ok - I'll take your word for it - my research showed different gen' sorry to have been a pain. Is there some web based documentation that give yours are the "true first", thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Stupendous added the reference to the "first edition" element of the entry, thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles are good! and hopefully this one has made your day better. Why not smile at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend? Happy editing!

My New Book

Hey, ShelfSkewed-- Since you're the most recent person to edit the Wikipedia article about me, I thought I'd suggest two additions.

First, I've written a script for the Oscar-winning director Istvan Szabo.

Second, I've published a third book, co-written with Matthew David Brozik: the Government Manual for New Pirates.

I leave it to your judgment whether either or both of these are notable enough to be added to the entry--for obvious reasons, I'm not exactly an objective judge!

Thanks.

Best wishes, --Jacobw 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Books & Movies

...will be, I presume, The Government Manual for New Ninjas? Also, I hope Dave Eggers is stocking your new one at his "pirate store" in SF.

We batted around the idea of a ninja book, actually, but I think [url=http://www.amazon.com/REAL-Ultimate-Power-Official-Ninja/dp/080652569X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3587725-2302063?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180022722&sr=8-1 Real Ultimate Power] has that covered.

We sent off a copy of New Pirates to the pirate supply store, and we're hoping they like it enough to stock it...

Thanks for updating my entry.

Arrrr! --Jacobw 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)-

Fair use rationale

Hey, can you believe this sudden crackdown on book covers? I'm having to scramble to protect all of my uploads, but I wanted to let you know that I've adopted your fair use rationale explanation that is listed on your userpage; I hope that's okay? It's very concise and well written, and it seems to be doing the trick. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for the help. María (habla conmigo) 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that, awesome rationale for book covers. I too will be using it -- thanks! --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your edit to Talk:Anne Tyler

Ok is see what you are saying and i fixed, next time if you see something like that you can fix it. you don't have to tell or the user that made the edit -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I under stand that i made a mistake but what i meant by 'if you see something like that you can fix it' is that if any user makes the edit you can fix it (If you ask me i still will), i did not mean any insult. I also thank you for pointing this out so i don't have to do it another time. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to fix; see this edit i made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnne_Tyler&diff=136501889&oldid=136479092 -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, :) -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 21:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my bad.

You're right it is linked. For some dumb reason I saw it as a redlink. I apologise for misseeing the link. TheBlazikenMaster 17:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Unger

I saw you kinda request the article at your user-page (fine user-page, BTW!), and I just created it. Care to help me with it? It has many usefull external links and refernces so... ...I don't think it'll be a hard job! Randalph P. Williams 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)

User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Oh, and B.T.W.; he has often given User:Mrlob, User:Murlock, and the other sockpuppets, barnstars, for no obvious reason. Can you block him? Randalph P. Williams 13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your edits to Because of You

I made many edits in addition to alphabetization, which are too tedious to enumerate here (and can't be easily seen in history, which is thrown off when the order of things is changed) so a revert would not be appropriate in this case. The crux of your argument (as I understand it) is that (1) the most used links should be at the top, and (2) Submissions like the Covergirl song should be redlinked. In response, putting the most popular ones at the top is fine by me. I would say order them by hits on the "links here" page of the articles. In response to the redlink issue, after re-reading the policy, a redlink is a last resort if these conditions exist (A) the yet uncreated article is linked to by other articles and (B) the editor is confident that the article will definitely be created. Either way, the song doesn't have to be removed; just a wikilink is made from the relevant text in the description. I'm hesitant to add a red link for the Cover Girls song, as they were just barely famous and only one article links there (because I just linked it). But I guess technically, it could be redlinked. I haven't checked the others (ie - 90 degrees), but a bunch of redlinks is of little value unless you really plan on creating the article. Those are my comments on the issue.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to

I did notice that (in your earlier edit) you also added disambiguating parentheticals to the unlinked titles. I don't know if I've seen that before, but it certainly makes sense in that it avoids redlinks while still providing a ready disambiguation for future editors.

That was my though process behind it. I thought it might be helpful. Anyway, happy editing :)--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Maron

Took a shot at the Margaret Maron article for you :) Pity there's not a Category:Southern writers, may have to think about proposing it... --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

I appreciate how committed so many editors seem to be to quality control, maintaining the accuracy and integrity of Wikipedia. However, my recent additions to entires HAVE NOT constituted any threat to the site's integrity.

Did you open the link that I added? It was an excerpt from Sunstein's 2001 book REPUBLIC.COM, not an advertisement and certainly NOT inappropriate. Here is what I posted: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html

Please tell me that this, under any reasonable interpretation of the word is, "inappropriate" for an entry about Cass Sunstein.

Sidenote: why did no one remove the John E. Becker review of Mark Lilla's THE RECKLESS MIND? (Some advertiser from (another nasty NON-PROFIT) the Carnegie Council could very well have put it up there...)

One judicious editor DID take the liberty of removing Selya Benhabib's review -- as well as that same review when entered on Hannah Arendt's page. This is totally inexplicable considering that Benhabib is one of the most important and original thinkers about politics of her generation, and John E. Becker is...?

You are punishing all Wikipedia readers by compromising quality for (some Draconian understanding of) The Rules.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.13.179 (talk • contribs)

When your contributions consist almost exclusively of adding your own external links to articles, you are, perforce, a spammer. Your argument seems to be "My cause is worthy, and my links are appropriate, therefore I'm not a spammer." Wrong. What if every little-journal-that-could added their links to every relevant article? The articles would be overwhelmed by endless lists of undifferentiated links. We'd have a mess. (And pointing out that other possibly spammy links are present is no argument for your own: Two wrongs etc.)

Wikipedia is not a mere repository of links, no matter how appropriate. It's an attempt to create a collaborative encyclopedia, the content of which is produced by continuous discussions and negotiations among contributing editors. So, please, by all means create an account and participate. Offer your links on the talk pages of the relevant articles and join the discussion. But don't drop in here, do nothing but insert your links all over the place, and then get self-righteous when you are told that you are behaving badly. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Choke (Film) - thanks

was wondering why you kept deleting the information from choke (Novel) took a few minutes to find there was already an article about the film - thanks for incorporation my info into this article (just wish you had left me a clue where to find info) - have back page from 1st days shoot to addRichard Deagon 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Olen Butler

Unfortunately, Wikipedia often and frequently updates articles due to news and other public information. That is part and parcel of what an encyclopaedia does: keeps up with the informational flow. As for Mr Butler, one of my favorite writers (I literally teared up when I heard "A Mother in the Trenches" read on a radio program), he is a prominent individual who has now made himself more prominent for an unlikely reason: his marriage and its dissolution. As well as his public writings about said marriage and its demise. He has been interviewed on news channels about it. He continues to address it in public forums. Therefore, it is part of the article. The article itself can grow larger and smaller, based on news happenings. Wikipedia is organic that way. Also, what is being written about Mr Butler is not gossip; the quotes in the Private Life section are his own quotes on the situation, rather than unsubstantiated gossip.Kitchawan 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation per MOS

Please have another look at Giles, which you tagged for cleanup, and let me know if it's OK now. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks for that. I hesitate to submit this as it took over 200 edits to compile this and disambiguate incoming links, but what do you think of Zechariah? It was important to combine all the spellings on one page as people (both ancient and modern) are transliterated inconsistently, from Pope Zacharias/Zachary to Zakaria/Zakariyya (etc) Zubeidi. This is more difficult to bring into conformity with MOS because it includes several Arab people whose names do not follow the Western convention of given name + surname. There's also Zack which I think I can put through the "Giles" treatment, but perhaps Zaks and Zacharys should be combined in the end product on "names" pages.

Here is a draft of how I think the disam article Zechariah should become. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your edit to Giles, and have reverted it and added more info. If you were a Brit of my age you would know the much-loved Giles! See also Giles Family. Best, - Fayenatic (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. I'll do that more in future. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother

How the hell do you think you are?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In23065 (talk • contribs).

"kid" and "kids"

Just a quick note to say thank you for correcting what I started a while ago, with the disambiguation pages for "kid" and "kids"! Given more thought I would have realised the best way to do this - but then I got caught up with stuff at work. So thanks. EuroSong ^talk 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

HP fictional book list AfD

Thanks for the tip on the AfD for the HP book list. I have given my $.02 worth, we shall see what comes of it. I don't see how that could survive given what it would mean for all the other LoFBs, but nuttier things have happened... --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a brief intro to the list to help defend the notability of it. See what you think. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 05:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

HP fictitious books

Thanks (I think) for letting me know about the AfD. Do you think anyone's going to try to justify it with references, or am I wasting my time bringing it up?

Thanks also for the comment on my style tips. I could go on for a long time. My current pet peeve is leaving out the "the" before identifications of people (and even places!), headline-style: "inspired by comic-strip character Dick Tracy", "a rivalry with celebrity slut Britney Spears", "moved to state capital Jefferson City", to make up some examples. Some day Wikipedia will be free of that—or would be, if so many people didn't disagree with me. —JerryFriedman 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Melting Pot (Band)

A tag has been placed on The Melting Pot (Band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne High School Disambiguation

I redirected Melbourne High School to Melbourne High School (Victoria), and created Melbourne High School (disambiguation) instead. Is there any reason why you keep reverting this change? sahanx 09:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Supporting term paper mills

You need to stop your blatant support of term paper mills. Hyperlnking to such treacherous, illegitimate sources does NOT help Wikipedia's reputation, and it helps term paper mills get higher position in Google's search results. 69.181.100.254 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You might notice that I reverted your edits only on Talk pages; changing other peoples comments is bad practice and bad manners. And read your Talk page, where I wrote: "Wikipedia uses no-follow tags, so links here do not affect search-engine rankings."--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning that means NOTHING, considering that what I did is not "vandalism"; it is communicating the truth. Who are YOU, anyway, and why do you follow me around like a lost puppy?69.181.100.254 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rollerball

I thought I had done my research. What is your source for "The Roller Ball Murders"? The reliable sources I've seen all give the title as "Roller Ball Murder", including this news story about the author, Willam Harrison, the story's appearance in The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 7 (1973), an academic essay that mentions the story, this overview of another book by Harrison, Fiction into Film Database, and this book cover. "The Rollerball Murders" and/or "The Roller Ball Murders" will get you 200+ Google hits--none from demonstrably reliable sources, and at least one of which repeats that Pulitzer Prize nonsense that was in the Wikipedia article until I took it out. "Roller Ball Murder" gets 1000+ hits. --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for my credibility, my source is an old hardcopy paperback of a collection of Harrison's short stories, published more than 30 years ago. I had no idea that the "Rollerball Murders"/"Rollerball Murder" schism was so rampant. I haven't seen the book in many years, but my distinct recollection is that that the title was plural. It is entirely possible that it was originally published in Harpers as "Rollerball Murder", and the title was changed to "The Rollerball Murders" when it was later published in the collection. Perhaps it was a means to get through a legal loophole or somesuch. If I ever find my copy of the book, I will scan it and offer a .jpg as evidence. But for now, I suppose I will have to concede. Druff 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for providing a source that mentions Michael Chabon's upcoming essay collection. I had no idea it was coming out, and so soon. Excellent news. One thing I'm curious about, though, is whether Maps and Legends, to be published in 2008 by McSweeney's, has any connection to the non-fiction book Chabon is contracted to publish in 2009 for HarperCollins. (The HarperCollins book was supposed to be about "being a man in all its complexity," while Maps and Legends looks to be more literary in nature.) Any ideas?

Also, this is a bit late, but thank you for the barnstar! I'll treasure it. Hobbesy3 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation Of Titles

How did you change the capitalisation of the titles of Lois Lowry's Anastasia book entries? The errors were bothering me, but I didn't know how to change them, which is why I did the odd links trick. Thanks, though; my only quibble is that 'this' should probably be capitalised (in my writings, I capitalise every word, but that's a personal decision). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwpoe (talk • contribs) 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Robert Stanco . . .

Hi There. I am a college student, doing a paper on one our Alumni who is a writer. His name is Robert Stanco. He also contributed several short fictional stories to "men's magazines" (i.e., Penthouse, etc.), under the pseudonym "J. Trotter." When my paper was completed, I thought it was pretty good and, since there was no information on Mr. Stanco anywhere on the 'net, I decided to create a Wikipedia article for him.

After I submitted the article to Wikipedia, I was so excited with my work that I emailed Mr. Stanco to show him his Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately, he was not happy with the article. He mildly took issue with my portrayal of his work as "a commercial failure", but he was downright furious that I had listed his (numerous) arrests in the article. He asked that I either delete my references to his criminal record, or pull the article entirely.

In the meantime, I had been notified by several Wikipedia staff members that my article was marked for "speedy deletion", due to Mr. Stanco's "lack of notability", whatever that is. I disagreed, and temporarily contested its candidacy for deletion on the grounds that Mr. Stanco is somewhat of a public figure in his hometown of Oceanside, New York. His arrest in 2004 was covered by the local television and print news media on Long Island. In fact, I have, in my possession, a VHS video tape of the news coverage of his arrest for bank robbery in December 2004.

However, based on all the resistance I was getting from the Wikipedia staff and Mr. Stanco himself, I decided to simply pull the entire article, rather than fight on two fronts.

I have saved the text and "Wiki formatting" of my article and fully intend to re-submit it after the publication of his next book. This time I will fight to have it made permanent. Qwerty1001 06:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

I have a question. Do you believe in superstitions or not? Please leave a comment on my talk page. Pokemon Buffy Titan 09:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair to Midland

Both Fair to Midland's official site and Serjical Strike list the album's title as Fables From a Mayfly: What I Tell You Three Times is True, so I feel the page should be kept there. I didn't just move it for the album's cover. SouperAwesome 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why delete pages so quickly?

Why delete my article (Sunshine - Czech Rock Band) so quickly? I only just found out (too late) and could easily have changed the page to Wikipedia's standards now that I know why is was considered sub-standard (the band in question tours internationally and so meets Wikipedia's Notability criterion).

Any chance of you undeleting it?

Zipdude

Jonathan the seagull

From my side, I often ear peoples says to other  : Oh, Jonathan ? ... like Jonathan the seagull !!! ??? In french too (au Québec)

Ulysse

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: External link to Richard Russo interview

I recently posted a link to a video interview with Richard Russo that was done by a public broadcasting station in Washington, DC. However, this link was removed with the explanation that it violated the standards for external links. Admittedly I am new to Wikipedia but, in reviewing the "What should be linked" information on the guidelines for external links, I do not understand why the link I added was viewed as a violation. Interviews are explicitly mentioned as resources that should be linked, and there are several other interviews that apparently did past muster. Can you please clarify your rationale? Thank you. Mjgodzilla 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bets - Lucky 15, Lucky 31, Lucky 63

Please could you explain your comment attached to your revert on the 'Lucky' disambiguation page - (not called "lucky", covered by lookfrom link)? I'm afraid I don't understand it clearly. Thanks. AirdishStraus 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm...I've just searched for Lucky 15, Lucky 31 and Lucky 63 and they all redirect to "Full cover bets" from which you can link directly to "Glossary of bets offered by UK boomakers". This is fine. But I have already merged 4 or 5 "***** (bet)" pages into "Glossary..." so I would like to avoid creating another one. For people knowing that the bet is called 'Lucky something' I feel that a direct link from the dab page would be be appropriate? AirdishStraus 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the restore. AirdishStraus 19:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: dab edits

Although the MOS:DAB guide says:

"Entries should not be pipe linked — refer to the article name in full. See below for several exceptions to this rule."

I am using the following exception:

"Exceptions:

Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page."

Thus it is not forbidden to pipe link in the case we are referring to.

I also think that linking the key word(s), in this case 'Union Jack', emphasises the actual purpose of the link i.e. to link to the anchor point '#Union Jack' rather than linking a series of other more generalised (although pertinent) words. AirdishStraus 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be mis-interpreting the wording present in the URL anchor notation section, part of which says:

"In this case the link may not start the line...". The key word here is 'MAY'. It is NOT a polite way of saying that the link CAN NOT start the line, but it IS intimating that the link POSSIBLY does not start the line as per the 3 examples shown. The 3 examples are just that... examples; they are not a definitive list of what is allowed. Nowhere does it say on the entire page that without exception a piped link can not start a line. My suggestion that the key word(s) form the piped link to emphasise that it is THESE words that are the important ones seems to be the obvious and correct format for this example. I don't want to appear argumentative but I HAVE read the MOS:DAB page carefully and I believe that my original line is correct under the 'several exceptions' rules, as well as logic and aesthetics (both I know are not WP policy). AirdishStraus 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the type of person to engage in an 'edit war'... I guess your interpretation will possibly hold sway with editors over mine until the guidelines are made crystal clear either way. It seems having the link at start of line as per policy, unpiped if possible but piped if anchor point in target article used (as per exception) just isn't good enough. Logic (and aesthetics) lose out to unclear policy. I'm just a little disappointed. AirdishStraus 08:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Timing and Other Stories

Thanks for the pick-up can't believe I missed that.Dan arndt 05:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bloodonthemooncvr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bloodonthemooncvr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

You helped me out 6 months ago when you went through an article I had worked on and added {{fact}} tags, then showed me how to properly cite the references I had neglected to add. Thanks for putting me on the right path early on. --Kweeket ^Talk 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Audio Interview Links for Authors on WFMT

Hello -- curious why you removed the links to the audio interviews on a number of different pages for books and authors I had added. The content of the audio interviews themselves is extremely pertinent to all of the articles where I referenced them, often times much more so than other articles and references listed in the External Links. I also made sure to use the format suggested by WikiPedia for multimedia references. Please let me know how I can format the links to make the acceptable. Thanks! --Joinks (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding external links / not spamming

Apologies if you think we have broken rules but we do not believe we have done so... Does adding author interviews fall under the spam rules (they are Q&As with said authors and do not promote anything but rather allow readers to understand the author and their work)? For example, you have left interviews with other entities under said articles (Guernica, Powells, NPR, etc...) Again, since the magazine is not for profit and posting author interview with the article subjects is not spamming...and after reviewing the guidelines we do not see where published interviews with the subjects violates any rule. Again, we mean no harm but honestly believe that said interviews with these subjects should be included among the links and since the authors are speaking for themselves are valuable for wiki users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your list of novelists from the United States

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure this is the right place to post this question, but here goes: I've been reading your list occasionally with interest. Just curious about a particular author, John Reed. He does not seem to meet the criteria you've listed. I was previously going to ask you the same question about Dale Peck, but then John Reed seemed even less notable (though he seems like an interesting writer), and I was wondering what your rationale was, in accepting him. I noticed he was added by a Wikipedia photographer and I wondered if that made you less likely to reject him than if he'd been added by a regular person.

I enjoy this list you've created!

Sincerely, Stephanie (Stephanie Coleman (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 07:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It did not occur to me (though it should have) that you would remove them from the list because of my question, and now I feel a bit bad for them. I didn't mean to get them off the list, and I don't mind them being on the list, so please don't hesitate to put them back on, if that was your preference. I only asked my question because I was interested in how you make your decisions.

Sincerely, Stephanie ( Stephanie Coleman )

Regarding your Last Exit underground movie contributions

Your contributions seem negative to the point of near vandalism. Our underground movie page is no different in content than the million of Hollywood movies online here. So we find it strange why you focus your energies, soley on our wiki information --- unless your motifs are personal in destroying our wiki information.

The links provided give citations as requested. The rest is copyright by Indiecat myself.

Peace.

sincerely,

Catrina Madsen aka Indiecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiecat (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ren Books

Sales are perkier at the airport branch than downtown; with downtown getting more prosperous, the cost of having those three buildings on the river is higher and higher. As usual, he won't spend anything on publicity or cleanup/beautification. Still, it's one of the best on this continent. I mostly work at the airport branch: the wife and I split the shifts on Saturday. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your Last Exit underground movie contributions

You know you risk getting banned because from what I see your negative contributions have stopped and suddenly a new user comes from nowhere that never edited the article.. and suddenly continues YOUR EXACT edits tones and motivations. This must be personal but I cannot understand why for such a tiny curious item.

It's all a little too obvious.

Please help me understand your gripe you have with this tiny cult wiki entry and so we can all have peace and help each other.

Sincerely,

Catrina Madsen aka Indiecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiecat (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chokecvr.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chokecvr.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 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TOCRight

I've responded on the WP-talk page, here. Bobo. 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Boston Teran

Not my article, but I think perhaps you were a little quick on the trigger finger deleting it. Teran has published four novels with major mainstream publishers, the article referred to (although failed to link to) multiple reviews in legitimate publications, and there was a definite assertion of notability ("award-winning") which is in fact correct.[2] You deleted it so fast I didn't even have chance to see the speedy template and put a {{hangon}} on the Talk page. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd restore it but it's a copyvio too. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe I'll try to put together an article that's not--but it is true that facts about this author are a little thin on the ground. Cheers. --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vojvodina-geo-stub fixed

Hi, I think I fixed the template you were asking about. The tags for the table (like <table>, <td>, <tr>) didn't have the corresponding closing tags (</table>, </td>, </tr>). I'm guessing that with the template by itself on its own page, that didn't matter, but with other text, the page didn't know where the table was supposed to end, causing the weird spacing. I checked a few pages and they seem fine, but let me know if what I did causes any other problems. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Olsen (talk • contribs) 05:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi. Was there discussion somewhere about this edit? ([3]) Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but at the time I cleaned up Invincible, all the entries on the page The Invincibles were also on the former page, so I redirected to avoid duplication. Also, at the time (3 long months ago), I was being bolder in my dab page cleanups than I am now. If you'd like to see The Invincibles restored, with a See also to it on the Invincible page, I have no problem with that. I'll even take care of it myself, if you'd like.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers. I think someone who's typed in "The" before Invincibles should be rewarded with seeing the most appropriate links, with a see also (as you suggest). Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also thought it made sense to change the redirect Invincibles (plural noun) to point to The Invincibles (plural noun) rather than Invincible (adjective, in most uses). Regards, --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great. You're a star. --Dweller (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Brianga (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Adler

Why did you characterize the link you removed (this one)as spam? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it was one of many to the same site added by 72.248.150.10, who did nothing but add these links. Such mass additions of links are by definition spam, even when the links might otherwise be acceptable. If you, as a regular contributor to the article, feel that the link is appropriate, I have no problem if you wish to re-add it. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPAM defines external link spamming as "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product." Since each link added was different and represented material on the individual Jewish female figure in question, do we have evidence that the purpose of adding these links was promoting the Jewish Women's archive website http://jwa.org? I'd imagine a person who repeatedly added links to Jewish Encyclopedia articles on relevant Jewish subjects would probably not be regarded as acting primarily for the purpose of promoting the Jewish Encyclopedia. But perhaps this situation is different? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The JWA site both solicits donations and has an online store, so, yes, there is some reason to suspect that adding all those links could be an effort to promote the site. And I would repeat that all the links were added by the IP I mentioned and one other, that those external links were virtually their only contributions (perhaps one or two exceptions among many edits), and that such external-link-only editing is generally considered unhelpful to building an encyclopedia and is strongly discouraged. In regard to your hypothetical, if an editor's only contributions were additions of external links to The Jewish Encyclopedia website, then it could be regarded as an attempt at promotion. Not all promotion has a financial motive. But if an editor who made many other contributions to Wikipedia also added such links, then those additions would be viewed differently. --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I noticed you're very involved in book pages, so I was wondering if you'd have a moment to help me with this problem: a robot has come along and wants to take down a book cover I put up on a book page (Love Creeps). I thought you might know of a quick and easy way to solve this problem and give the robot what it wants. I'm not sure what it wants and it would probably take me days to figure it out. I noticed lots and lots of book pages contain book covers, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. (GSBeck (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi again. I think I have figured out how to fix the problem, so I think you can disregard my above message. If it turns out there's still a problem, I may ask for your help again! (GSBeck (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your response on my Talk page. Those are very helpful suggestions. I have added the part about the book cover being unique and there being no free alternatives. I found that image by doing a search for that title in Google images and there were dozens of copies of that cover and I chose the one that didn't have the words "search inside the book" written on it, which is what they do at Amazon. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to figure out exactly which image I took from the Google results, so I hope the robot will not mind. If he/she does mind and deletes the image, perhaps I'll have time one day to track down more specifications (though I noticed that lots of book pages give no more details for images than what I provided today after the robot chastised me). In any case thanks so much for your help! (GSBeck (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC))