From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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

Meet the Tiger[edit]

I've checked the site you mention and it's just a review of the book written in 2002! The guy writing it simply made a typo when he put in the date. In my opinion this is not worth saying in the article that "some sources erroneously etc". If the source, say, was a 1928 London newspaper, that would be different....

I myself haven't read the Tiger in nearly 40 years. When I did read it, back around 1968, as I recall, after finally locating a 1952 edition in London, I was not impressed. In fact, I thought it was awful. I still have the book (with possibly the mostly badly drawn cover ever created) but I'll certainly never try to wade through it again. I agree, I think, with whoever wrote that the Saint short stories were, in general, much better than the novels....

The cover really is *so* terrible, I ought to scan it and put it in the Tiger article.... Hayford Peirce 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you handled the latest edits perfectly. I guess I read a lot of Saint shorts before reading any of the novels -- and, at the time, I liked short stories. Even now, I think the Saint shorts are witty and compact and show a lot of imagination. The novels, however, are basically just one fist-fight scene after another, or one hairsbreath escape before the next one. As for the cover, I think that I'll definitely stick it in. You've gotta wonder how a supposedly professional bunch of book publishers could come up with something so awful. Probably they were desperate for a deadline cover and the young neice of one of the editors.... Hayford Peirce 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that your Saint collection is nearly full. I completed mine (reading copies only) about 35 years ago, just about the time I lost interest in reading any new ones because of the knowledge that someone else was writing them. I've just checked my majestrial Twentieth Century Crime and Mystery Writers, which lists the works of all authors chronologically and not alphabetically, and it shows the order of the early Saint books as you have now alter it. Hayford Peirce 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, also there seem to be an extra set of parentheses floating around in it.... "Although the film takes some liberties with the novel (the character of Carn, for example, becomes Templar's regular rival in the film series (and later books), Inspector Teal, and the plot is sparked by a murder on Templar's doorstep, which does not occur in the book), the basic plot remains the same." Hayford Peirce 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the George Jones nut is an illiterate redneck weirdo. He spent months taking thousands of words from a website and putting them into the George Jones article. He finally got caught and I reverted everything to an earlier version, trying carefully to leave in important new info in the article. As you can see, he flipped out. Also on the GJ discussion page. I quoted another long example of his plagarism and he seems to have disappeared. Sigh. Why one takes a Wikivacation from time to time.
As for the above sentence, you seem to be saying that Carn becomes a regular rival in both the film series AND the book series. I don't recall him being in any other books. I didn't rewrite it because I wasn't sure of your intentions, but here is how I would do it: "Although the film takes some liberties with the novel (the character of Carn, for example, becomes Templar's regular rival in the film series, Inspector Teal is also a character, and the plot is sparked by a murder on Templar's doorstep, which does not occur in the book), the basic plot remains the same." At least that makes sense to *me*, although maybe not to you, hehe.... Cheers. Hayford Peirce 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Titles or honorifics[edit]

Is there any Wiki place that clearly spells out Wiki policy on titles such as Mr., Mrs., etc. in articles. I, and some others, were in a semi-reversion war with a guy about the Julia Child article, in which the other (nameless) guy kept putting Mrs. and Mr. in the article. He seemed to be an educated person in his comments but I finally decided he was an upper-grade troll. After a while he gave up, but he did make a valid point: Where does it specifically say in the Wiki guidelines that, except for reasons of clarity, only last names are used? I tried to find it but couldn't. And if it doesn't exist, I'd certainly think that it ought to.... Hayford Peirce 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Danke! I don't know why I couldn't find either of those. I gotta say that over the couple of years that I've fiddled around with Wiki I've found the "Help" section difficult to use. Most times I eventually find what I need, but it's never an easy process. I think that what it primarily lacks is a good indexing/search feature.... By the way, I did point out to the revert warrior the Billie Jean King and Margaret Thatcher articles as examples of my point of view, but he ignored those... Hayford Peirce 22:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think he gave up after the third time. In any case, there were a couple of us reverting him. Most times, if I see if someone is simply absolutely determined to get his way, no matter, how wrong-headed, I just give up and let him. And to stay calm, I "unwatch" that particular article.... Hayford Peirce 22:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I've read the Wiki article on anti-heros and I'm still unhappy with the use of it to describe The Saint. I have a very clear picture of the literary nebbish anti-hero of some years ago and regardless of what it has now apparently come to mean, I just don't think it's right for The Saint. I could be wrong about this, but has anyone else ever referred to him as an anti-hero? I think of him as being a hero who just happens to be on the other side of the law (much of the time). I'm certainly not going to change your usage of it in the articles, but I wonder if you could reconsider it. But, as I said above, I could easily be wrong about the whole thing.... Hayford Peirce 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it can be argued the way you just did. Sigh. I guess I'm thinking of someone like Charlie Muffin in the Brian Freemantle books, who is clearly an anti-hero. Or the ineffectual losers in the "literary"-type novels of 30 or 40 years ago who were called "anti-heros" by the critics. Obviously, while I wasn't paying attention, the word has taken on another sense.... Hayford Peirce 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see clearly that I can't fight it: so, anti-hero The Saint is! Hayford Peirce 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Slacker or loner is much closer to how I see it. The 1992 American Heritage Dictionary of the American Language says: "A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage." Okay, so as of 1992 it would have been wrong to call The Saint an anti-hero. Now I open the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, of 2004. It says: "(1714): a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities." Hmmm. By that definition, The Saint is still not an anti-hero.... It could be that the Wiki article is wrong, although I doubt it -- there are probably 1000s of references (wrongly) to antiheroes....Hayford Peirce 23:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This anti-hero thing has been gnawing at me, so I finally went to the article anti-hero and rewrote the first paragraph. It's pedantic, yes, and probably needs some work on it, but I hate to see a clear misconception be given 100% of the space. Could you maybe do some editing on it if you think it warrants it? Thanks. Hayford Peirce 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask you for help[edit]

User Simishag continuously is claiming Bucsrsafe is me when he is not. Please warn Simishag. I am very upset he is wrongly accusing me. Please tell the other admins about this. It is frustrating. Hganesan 20:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)hganesan

The Saint in New York[edit]

I have a 1935 hardback edition, USA, probably a bookclub one, with a battered but serviceable duskjacket. Shall I scan it? Hayford Peirce 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have one old Avon (I think) in which the cover is grotesquely bad. I'll scan the hardcover Saint in New York and stick it in the article -- it will serve as contrast for the other one. Hayford Peirce 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the blurbs on some of the old Saint paperbacks you may come across a quotation from a reviewer in the 1930s that says something like " times writes as much like Hemingway as he does like Charteris...." This was taken from a review of The Saint in New York. This fascinated me as a kid, since I had intensely disliked The Saint in New York. I then came across an enormous book that was sold in annual editions to libraries and that showed lots of book reviews for the previous year. The 1936 book had a review of The Saint in New York that said something like " times writes as much like Hemingway as he does like Charteris, which makes it just about unreadable. Charteris should go back to writing like Charteris." Hehe. Wish I could come up with the full citation on this -- it would be great to put into the article. Hayford Peirce 21:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion[edit]

Five or six days ago I marked an article with a "proposal for deletion" thingee up at the top and carefully explained my reasons for doing so. So far no one at all has commented one way or another on the proposal or done anything to clear up the article so that it might qualify for retention. I'm in no particular hurry to get rid of it, but if, say, a week from now, it's still as it is, how do I get rid of the article? Can I, in fact? Or do I have to relist it somewhere else? Hayford Peirce 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked the PROD site and found this:
  • Procedure for admins
  • If you are an admin deciding whether or not to delete a PRODded article: Check that the tag has been in place continuously for at least 5 days and no objections have been raised on the talk page. If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason. If you decide not to delete it, optionally edit the article to deal with the concerns that were raised, or nominate the article on AfD. To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the tag on it.
So it looks like you can -- it's just a case of then knowing how to do it, hehe.... At least it's clear that *I* can't delete it. Hayford Peirce 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I just checked and the article in question has disappeared. So maybe, as you suggested, a bot goes through sweeping out these sorts of things. On the other hand, just as a matter of intellectual curiosity, the *discussion* page is still there.... Hayford Peirce 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Help with Heartagram page[edit]

Hello I'm new and I'm afraid of messing anything up but the Heartagram page as a picture of Superman and Kyrpto up and not a heartagram and I was wondering if you could change that for me snice I'm just getting the hang of things and don't want to mess anything up. Thanks. :) DeathsScytheIsLove

Saint novel captions[edit]

They are still there as tooltips which is the stadard for Book infobox captions. However we have had some input on this issue before purhaps you would like to contribute to the debate. I have also been rethinking the issue in favour of seperate caption field. see Template talk:Infobox Book#Image Caption field :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that I do think some of your captions are far too long, concise is better. Much of the information you should refer to in the article. e.g. Knight Templar (The Saint) which you have put back to show. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out The Pirate Saint for trial of "caption" field and more succinct text. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternate titles[edit]

My immediate thought is that is a change too far. The infobox is already fairly full. Mainly my reaction is down to the limited usage this would get. We do have a somewhat similar field for translated works (ie. title_orig) but this is different again. If others wanted this I would imagine it would go in similar location and instructions would ask for it to be used sparingly. Another thought is what to do if there are more than "one" alternate title. This could get messy! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an off the cuff response how about the following:
She Was a Lady
also Angels of Doom
also The Saint Meets His Match
[[Image:AngelsOfDoom.jpg|200px|This early 1980s reprint of She Was a Lady by Ace Charter Books carries the alternate title, Angels of Doom which was used in the first American edition in 1932.]]
Author Leslie Charteris
Country United Kingdom
Language English
Genre Mystery, Novellas
Publisher Hodder and Stoughton
Publication date
Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback)
Preceded by Alias the Saint
Followed by The Holy Terror

I know its is a bit shooting from the hip - but do you think it works. Ticks few other boxes as will I think! See what you think. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't see anything wrong with the infobox, The image itself looks a little strange though, almost as if the picture isn't quite central to the book cover. Oviously I am using a different Pc to yourself so the rendering by the browser (IE 6 in my case) may be different. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Saint article changes[edit]

I think you've cracked it - these revised infobox captions and titles - I think are so much better. Previously the caption was storing too much information. Now the information is still there but in more appropriate places. Top job! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Prelude for War[edit]

Yup, I thought I had the original version but I seem to have replaced it at some point with a paperback Plays with Fire. I'll scan it now and put it in the article. Hayford Peirce 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange. Well, I'll upload it again in about 30 secs. The name of the file is Saint_Plays_With_Fire.jpg Hayford Peirce 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As you say, Verra strange! Well, in any case it looks OK now. I was just looking at the cover of The Saint and the Last Hero. You might try downloading a free program from (I think) Google called Picasa2. It's a fairly easy, fairly intuitive photo-editing program, much easier to use than PhotoShop and in some ways much more useful. The first thing you can do with it when you pop a figure up on the screen is to use a little scrolling bar to *straighten* out the picture. One can do this is Photoshop, of course, but with about 10 times the work.... (Also, I think it is primarily supposed to be a photo storage and scrapbook program. I myself just use it for editing.) Hayford Peirce 18:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I just straighened it out, and brigthened it a little while I was at it. It took about 20 seconds with Picasa. Hayford Peirce 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Saint covers[edit]

I've got a number of these books but in the old days I'd buy a book and throw away the cover. Sigh. I have a vivid memory of, around 1962 or so, sitting down in a big comfortable chair in Los Angeles, picking up Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, and throwing a couple of thousand dollars worth of cover into the wastebasket beside the chair. Double sigh. The only books I have that I can scan are a 1966 paperback of Saint Errant and the first edition (I think) of Vendetta, which has a fairly nondescript dustjacket. Hayford Peirce 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll scan them later today or tomorrow morning. Hayford Peirce 21:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikinovel project[edit]

I just joined after figuring out what you were doing on your new pages. I've suggested that Foreign Editions might be added to the template.... Hayford Peirce 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I think I'm going to take a wikibreak. I might do a couple edits here and there, but honestly, I'm getting tired of Wikipedia. I'm finding it ridiculous how paranoid we are about certain policies yet others of equal importantce - ones just as or more central to the way in which Wikipedia works are becoming increasingly more lax. On top of that I feel that certain articles I work on a lot (James Bond) aren't improving and are actually regressing in not only writing quality, but with the interjection of theories, half-truths, UE info, and uncited information that no one can prove. A user not long ago tried to say Pussy Galore was a nod to Catwoman and he got upset and snapped when I told him that it was original research that couldn't be proved. He's still fighting me about the date for which Goldfinger took place (see Auric Goldfinger). I'm not saying he doesn't have a case, I'm just saying he can't prove it and thus we should leave it out as it goes against WP:NOR IMHO. Whatever. I don't care - this has all been building up for weeks as I told you before. I just need to reduce the amount of work I do around here. Just letting you know. K1Bond007 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've always been rather picky in separating the books from novels, so it's not that big of a deal to me. I don't know if I'm back really. I may just due limited editing when I'm bored. After the first couple of days it was nice having a "don't give a crap" mentality to Wikipedia :) I'm currently reading The Man from Barbarossa and like you I'm having trouble completing it. I'm a little over half way and to be honest I have no idea what's going on. I'm actually having problems reading Gardner, period. He's become a complete bore and his writing... just isn't entertaining - I hate how Bond is always intentionally kept in the dark and thus the reader on stupid things. Higson on the other hand has really pulled through for me. Blood Fever was great. I liked SilverFin, but Blood Fever was hands down the better of the two. If you haven't gotten to the YBs yet, you should. Blood Fever is without a doubt the best continuation novel I've read since .. Colonel Sun (although I do have a soft spot for Nobody Lives Forever) (still yet to read the remaining Gardner and I've yet to touch Benson's). I should also note that Blood Fever is rather mature. For instance, Bond sees tons of death, blood, and is actually tortured in this book. Along the lines of a Fleming novel, really. I'm really excited about YB3/4/5.K1Bond007 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow the Saint[edit]

Is missing it's cover image for some reason - do you know why. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Modesty Blaise[edit]

Good luck with your project! You're already done a tremendous amount of work with the Saint. I'm afraid that I've never even looked at one of the Blaise books.... So many things to do.... Hayford Peirce 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Matt Helm[edit]

Hey, wonderful! I *love* Matt Helm. I read those books over and over. I have a complete set, but a lot of the early covers are pretty battered -- they stuck together when I lived in Tahiti. That scan I took from the first edition Wrecking Crew is still just how I visualize him. Lemme know if you need anything. As far as the last book is concerned, I know no more than you. About two or three years ago I wrote to Hamilton, care of his agent, and told him that Wildside Press, who were putting all of my stuff into print, would DIE to republish all of his books, as well, of course, as the new one. I never heard back from him. His SOB agent probably just threw the letter away, thinking that Print On Demand would be beneath him. Too bad! Hayford Peirce 21:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okie, lemme know when you need a cover or something. I tried, a year or so ago, to get a writer friend interested in the Helm books. I went to a couple of *enormous* used bookstores here in Tucson where they have thousands and thousands of genre books organized alphabetically. I was stunned to discover in the 4 or 5 years since I had last looked that ALL of the Matt Helm books had disappeared. Not a single one! My friend looked through some big Palo Alto stores with the same result. Baffling! I had to lend him some of my creaky old copies, which made him nervous. As for the Saint, I had finished collecting him when it was still very easy to find his books all over the place. Hayford Peirce 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't know if the bookstore simply isn't getting any old Helm books being brought in by customers to sell or swap -- OR if people ARE bringing them in and the bookstore isn't taking them, figuring that no one wants them. It's too bad -- the Helm books used to be all over the place. The first 10 or so were printed in enormous quantities. The last 10 or 12 I think only went through about 1 edition each. I had a devil of a time (about 10 or 12 years ago) finding the last 4 or 5 even though they had only recently been in print.... I think that the more of Helm you read the more you'll like them -- as you say, there's a wonderful hardboiled, deadpan humor just below the surface that I've tried to emulate in my own stuff. Hamilton got pretty garrulous in his last books -- the publisher probably said, "Don, we can't sell 60,000 word books anymore -- they gotta be 120,000." So some of them are somewhat padded, particularly in their beginnings. But once he gets them underway they're terrific. Hayford Peirce 21:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about putting some of the age content that I've just put into the Matt Helm article into the Death of a Citizen and The Wrecking Crew (novel) articles as well? I'm very much FOR separate articles about all the novels in the world, but I'm very much AGAINST having them nothing but puff stuff that could be on the backs of the dustjackets. In other words, I think whatever is written about each specific book should be NPOV and informative rather than the breathless sort of stuff I keep running across (NOT in your articles), such as "Wolfe and Archie run incredible risks as they confront their most baffling case and most dangerous opponent. Etc. etc." This is worthless. I'm not saying we should give the complete plot and reveal the outcome, but any pertinent new info shown in that book ought, I think, to be put into the article. Hayford Peirce 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I agree with what you say. I think that the info I've put into the first two Matt Helm books is about right. These are the formative books of the series and can, I think, take more input than the succeeding ones. The next one up, The Removers, gets him firmly settled into place and could, once again, I think, be a little beefier than the others. By book #4 the formula has been clearly established and I don't think much will be needed to add about Helm's character, family, etc., except as occasional new family info crops up from time to time. For instance, I think that in one of his later books he writes about how he defended himself against hazers at a college, which got him thrown out of school.... Geez, I had no idea there was so much to say about Thunderball! Have a great time on your time off! By the way, I have some scans I did for the Matt Helm website years ago of a couple of covers: Ambushers, Interlopers, Murderers Row, Shadowers, Silencers. They're all about 100K .jpgs.... Hayford Peirce 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tanita Tikaram[edit]

I left a long defense of including Tanita in the Lesbian Musician category unless there's clear evidence that she's not lesbian. I hope my comments were civil. Let me know what you think. Given that I don't feel Wikipedia should practice either hetero- or homonormativity, and given that the available evidence is most easily explained by her being queer, the category should be placed there unless or until there is countervailing evidence. (I like your nick btw)Interlingua 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Request to move category pages[edit]

Hello! I need your help. I need you to move, rename or merge these category pages and their respective talk pages to the correct format following MOSNUM. This is to provide greater consistency and prevent redundancy to these pages. This is also to prevent users from creating the same category pages as well. Some of these categories contain two similiar pages because of this. These are the categories in question:

  • Category:Wikipedians with 3000-4000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 3,000-4,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 4000-5000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 4,000-5,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 5000-6000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 5,000-6,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 6000-7000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 6,000-7,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 7000-8000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 7,000-8,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 8000-9000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 8,000-9,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 9000-10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 9,000-10,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 1000-2000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 1,000-2,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 2000-3000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 2,000-3,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 1000-2500 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 1,000-2,500 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 500-1000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 500-1,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 2500-4000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 2,500-4,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 4000-10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 4,000-10,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 7500-10,000 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 7,500-10,000 edits.
  • Category:Wikipedians with 7000-7,500 edits to Category:Wikipedians with 7,000-7,500 edits.

Notice that the changes in the title pages only require the addition of a comma for 4 and more digit numbers. You should also delete the redundant category pages as well. Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank You once again for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels[edit]

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. As I notice you have been doing. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. You might also like to add our userbox {{User WikiProject Novels}} to your userpage to indicate yourself as a member there. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Saint covers[edit]

Glad to hear you've got them all -- you've sure put a ton of work into your project! I seem to recall hearing about 10 or 15 years ago that someone had written a biography of Charteris -- but either it was withdrawn or it was distributed in very limited quantitites. The guy who ran the only mystery bookstore in San Francisco told me that he had been unable to get a copy. Do you know anything about this? Hayford Peirce 19:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete This Page[edit]

I need you to delete the page Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling roster? I turned it into a category. See: Current Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling roster Thanks in advance. Mr. C.C. 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006[edit]

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 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) 09:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox for Novels membership[edit]

As you have protected you userpage I take it you have a keen interest in keeping your page free of many things. However to assist the Novels project in administering membership editor base we have a userbox {{User WikiProject Novels}} which we encourage members to place on their userpage. If you have reasons why you don't wish to do this could you at lease add Category:WikiProject Novels Participants to your page. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spalding Gray's 'depression'[edit]


Concerning Spalding Gray's 'depression': The problems in this case, as it is with most (if not all) of the persons listed in this Category are the words “diagnosed” & “clinical”. There is a significant difference between a person suffering from the mood of depression, and one who has been properly examined by a mental health professional and found to be ‘clinically depressed.’ With Spalding Gray, while it is stated he experienced periods of depression, there is no evidence he was so “diagnosed” and that the condition was found to be ‘clinical depression’. Therefore the assertion that Spalding Gray had been ‘diagnosed with clinical depression’ is unsubstantiated.

I agree with the idea of the Category. There is a benefit to a person suffering from a particular mental, emotional, or physical illness to be able to read about others who suffer, or have suffered, from the same condition and realize they are not alone. And, in many cases, read about persons who have gotten well. This, I feel, is one of the benefits of the Wiki Category system.

I believe the problem is in the wording of the Category. If it read: “Persons who acknowledged having suffered from depression’ (or something similar) I believe it could work. To label someone as having been ‘clinically diagnosed’ with any disorder without substantiated proof is doing a disservice to the person. It can also be legally tricky.


Michael David 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, maybe you should move to have the category renamed or have its criteria changed. Categories get adjusted all the time and if you make a good case this might happen here, too. Cheers. 23skidoo 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Now you’re asking me to work. Actually, I have considered proposing a change to the Category, but I’m still trying to navigate the howtos of that process. Wikipedia is still fairly uncharted territory for me right now.
I noticed on your User Page that you are a fan of Bill Haley and His Comets. His 45rpm recording of "Rock Around the Clock” was the very first record I bought as a black and white-saddled, then seen as rebellious, surely-damned, teenager.
Before I slide into a depression of my own, thank you for your thoughts.
Be healthy,
Michael David 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello again,
Would you help me with this? I read the section on speedy name changing of Categories. What I would be proposing in the case of the clinical depression one seems to exceed the criteria. Would this, therefore, be considered a Category for Deletion? Also, may I, as a non-administrator in Wiki, add the ‘delete’ or ‘rename’ template at the top of the Category Page? I believe it is time to do this.
Be healthy,
Michael David 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hen fap"[edit]

Reverted a "hen fap" at Russell Brand last night. Jess Cully 12:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deltion Of King Kong II[edit]

I can't believe you think an idea a really good mate of mine thought up is a hoax. I sent him an e-mail this mornin and he was pissed and upset that you thought his idea was a hoax. Domo1234 09:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Burroughs and Spoiler template[edit]

I guess I might have accidentally chopped out a few stub templates on the Burroughs edit. I have another question, and want your opinion- these SPOLIER templates, I really kind of think they are moronic for a lot of 'literature' type articles. I can see for a movie article, or a mystery genre book, but it just violates my idea of what literature is to think you can have a great novel 'spoiled' by reading a wikipedia article of 1000-2000 words. It is kind of a sign of the 'amateurish' of wikipedia on the whole when you get this foolish spoiler warnings, I mean like is The Old Man and the Sea just a fish strory? Is a person going to ruin their experience with that book because of a wikipedia article? Oh crap- the fish gets eaten by sharks- now I cannot read the book properly? Huh, very dumb, and perhaps this is my biggest pet peeve about wikipdedia articles. It is idiotic. I think the spolier tag should be taken off many novels. --Mikerussell 17:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Novels vs. Books[edit]

Reply from

In regards to moving the (category:year book) to (category:year novel), I was just following on from what I noticed User:Kevinalewis was doing. I'll ask the question on the WikiProject Novels page. Grey Shadow 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

ST11 revisions[edit]

/me applauds. I think you did a fantastic job with that. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I must concur. That was a huge, much-needed overhaul. Now, how do I make this machine show smilies? ;) Thanks, BCSWowbagger 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One more Saint[edit]

Looks like you're really putting a tremendous amount of work into this. Don't burn yourself out! Are you preparing Matt Helm stuff, or just waiting until you finish with the Saint? Hayford Peirce 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Death of a Citizen[edit]

That's a nice start. I have all of the other books that you are missing and many of them will have covers that are scannable. Let me know in advance which ones you want scanned and uploaded and I'll do them for you. Glad to see you're eventually going to do this project -- for 46 years now, ever since picking up my first copy of "Wrecking Crew" at the Grand Canyon Hotel on my way to the dining room because of its cover, the Helm series has been, far and away, my favorite 27 books.... Hayford Peirce 05:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wrecking Crew[edit]

Nice. But I do have the first edition. I'll scan the cover and pop it in. If you think yours is better you can revert it. And I'll do the other cover, just to have it available for when you need it. Hayford Peirce 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels v Books[edit]

I'm not sure how to handle FYEO and O&TLD, but Benson's novels are British. They're written by an American, but Bond is inherently a British subject - they're targeted for the British. A more perplexing question is whether they're British or more specifically "English". This brings up kind of a problem. The category James Bond books is already a subcategory of English novels (even though there are about 5 or so in the category that are not novels - by definition). Additionally you could have probably done the same - instead of adding British novels to each article just made the JB books cat a subcat of British novels and possibly either 1) remove the non-novels out to the main JB cat 2) leave them because, who cares or 3) split the cat into JB books and JB novels, which for #3 I think is unnecessary at this point.

On a side note, I'm thinking of adding "Main villain" and a "Bond girl" field to the continuation novel infobox (e.g., Licence Renewed). Do you think that would be a good addition? I still haven't decided whether to do this style for Fleming or leave those with the horizontal one. Right now, it's a "too much work - don't want to think about it right now" kind of thing. K1Bond007 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sanctioned novels: (1967–1979)
--1-- I realize Gardner does the twist thing quite often, but I don't think it really matters. I could cloak it by saying SPECTRE for For Special Services when something like that can be done. I don't find it too spoilerish - not many people really read Gardner anyway (at this stage, I'd recommend against it :P), but whatever - I was just looking for something more to add and figured the only info a casual fan or interested person might care to know is who wrote it, when, who the villain was, and who the Bond girl was. I guess it doesn't matter. --2-- I don't know about the novelisations having their own page. Some info would have to be at their film's article anyway (maybe just in the intro) and those sections really aren't all that big to begin with. I guess if you can expand their sections, then yea, go for it, but if not then I wouldn't waste the time. Let me know either way so that I can help by the time I get to GoldenEye (still on Barbarossa, ugh). --3-- I have not decided whether to do that to all Fleming articles. I was thinking about it. It'll be done at Octopussy and The Living Daylights and "maybe" Casino Royale, but none of the hybrid book/film articles at the moment. I haven't decided on those. Everything else will get it. As far as Amis, Wood, etc goes, I came up with a solution a while back; see right - although I haven't updated it. Originally it didn't include The Moneypenny Diaries, but I felt it was a waste to give them their own: see James Bond adventures era breakdown K1Bond007 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a Fleming one, see O&TLD now. One of the reasons why I wanted to add the villain and girl fields was so that there was another reason to have its own infobox. I thought about doing the same for the films - but I don't know. Some day, perhaps. K1Bond007 05:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh man. Like pulling teeth, but I did it: The Man from Barbarossa. On the plus side, it can't get much worse, right? I'm really tired of Gardner's prose, but I plan to finish them all just to say I read them. 5 to go. :( K1Bond007 06:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)