|
|
 |
 |
|
Current number of entries:
9,987
|
 |
|
 
|
User talk:JohnRDouglas <span class="SFPTagline"> From SCIFIPEDIA </span> Hello, John. I'm not sure if the "Today's Featured Article" is selected by choice or at random. If the latter then forget I mentioned it. If the former then please know how completely honored I am you would select one of my articles for the position. Means a lot to me. Many thanks. It really made my day. Fraggenaught 17:24, 11 July 2006 (EDT) Hello John, I received an email regarding the firefly tv series page and am not quite sure what it means and why I received it. Have I done something wrong? Itzhakts. Itzhakts: I posted an answer a few days ago directly to the Talk page under your name. I hope you got the information and the question. I also posted a more general comment on the discussion page for the article. --JohnRDouglas 11:28, 4 May 2006 (EDT) DisambiguationAlas, that was an errant redirect to correct an errant template. A few more articles and no one will even notice. Fantasy of MannersThanks for your kind note; been mentally composing an article on Fantasy of Manners since SCIFIPEDIA started (actually, since before that; it was comments in blog-that-shall-remain-nameless about the then-Mannerpunk article on Wikipedia that first got me into wiki-ing - and digging out the second-hand attribution of "mannerpunk" to Greg Cox from a 199x post on Genie). The cat is responsible for any drool remaining on the keyboard, and all typos. - Paulakate 12:52, 7 May 2006 (EDT) KudosKudos on Unexplained Mysteries getting wikified and imaged in record time!-- CG
GotchaHopefully, this'll make life easier! --Jointhesaga Hi John, I didn't mean to cause any confusion with the disambig templates but I really did read the directions. I guess I'm still confused as to how it works. DisambiguationI think it's probably easiest to address what I'm doing wrong. With the X-Files template was it the title that was the issue or was there another step I missed? Is "moving" an article synonymous with renaming it? I think this may be where I went wrong. I just took a look at it and I guess the key is to move the existing article to a new title so each listing in the disambiguation page has a clear specific link. Is this right? John, Thanks for letting me know about protecting images. I'll do that from now on, and will keep an eye out for previous images that still need it. --Cashanundudyub 16:51, 12 June 2006 (EDT) Question about ImagingDo you know have I can become and Admin to add pictures, or when picture adding will become available? DivineShadow218 22:07, 13 June 2006 (EDT) Problem with an editorHopefully you can help me out with this. As you might have known, I have been editing the lexx article and adding on to the internal links to it. I also added a list of external links. Mayaxiong has also addes some links and keeps on unorganizeing the ones that I put and putting her fansites at the very top of the list. I put all my links after only 2 of her links were added, I also catagorized them. This user keep reverting my work to her work. This user also keeps on sending me harassing emails which I can let you read if you want. My question is, Is there anything you can do to make her stop? perhaps lock the article from beeing edited until this user agrees to stop vandilizing my work. I whoul rather the article locked b/c Mayaxiong and discoKai both have been undoing my work, but mostly Mayaxiong. Thanks--DivineShadow218 15:17, 14 June 2006 (EDT)
From RadiationAngels>I've just done a fairly extensive edit on your bio of John Ross and on the related novel Article and I've converted your additional pointer to a proper redirect. Hi, I'm James Daniel Ross. Nice to meet you. >Wikipedia, which is the best-known model for big public wikis, discourages people centrally involved in a subject from direct contributions for fear of letting bias and personal agenda slip into what is supposed to be an objective compilation of information. I can see that. OTOH, as I am the author, and one of only a handful of people with information on me, or the novel, I figured it might be understandable in this case. >We're not quite so worried about that sort of thing but we intend SCIFIPEDIA to be an objective, encylopedic online resource for all things SCI FI and I've changed your pieces to shape them toward that end. So I see. >*You included a commercial plug -- the sales website. That is not permitted. Fair Enough. >*You included what amount to personal opinions. Sure. >*Your plot description read like cover copy hype and was likely an import from another source rather than original work (check our Submission Guidelines, linked at the bottom of every page). Um. I'm the author. It's what I had available, so you could say I was impoting my own work. Did not think this would be an issue, and I apologise. >*Short Articles require a stub indicating that expansion could be done. Not really on sure footing wit the 'wiki' 'lingo', but I'll trust you on this. >*Plot summaries that give away story points require a spoiler warning. I'm not sure how a plot summary could ever not contain story points, and I tried to be sufficiently vague, but again I bow to your wisdom. >We're happy to have your entries but we don't plan to be regarded and used as a direct sales tool. Fair enough. To be honest, I'm just a first time author trying to find ways to reach people with the $1.25 in my pocket. I think if you only want bibliographies (instead of a biography) it might be good to say so. Still, I appreciate your input, and hope to not cause you any more trouble in the future. clarificationJust curious: would it be possible to put up the author and ISBN on The Radiation Angels page? You removed it and I am still kind of scratching my head as to why. Thanks -- JDR The Lexx articleI have tryed my best rewording the Lexx article, as well as Deleting some sections. If it still needs to be redone, please let me know and I will try to do that. I do have a question though, is there an easy way to link articles from Wikipedia to this site, such as the list of lexx episodes? --DivineShadow218 19:45, 23 June 2006 (EDT) LEXX BannersHey, I'm with you. I just copied the banners over from the original article. Glad to see 'em gone... just wasn't "bold" enough to remove 'em myself. :) --Histrion 08:54, 10 July 2006 (EDT) On Simple ListsI appreciate that there is a strategy behind the structure, and I'm happy that you took the time to let me know about it. My intent was to create a sub-category for Paranormal Authors. I figured that there wasn't much to say about that (since it is fairly obvious), so the thought occurred to me to put a list in as sort of a directory and placeholder. I have not reviewed the Portal portion carefully, and it sounds like it is more appropriate there. I'll wipe the list out of the Paranormal Authors topic. Thanks! --Bufocalvin 00:21, 12 July 2006 (EDT) Thanks, John.It does sometimes feel like we're pioneers crossing the wiki prairie, doesn't it? Thanks for your note of encouragement and offer of help. Next time, I'll call you or write you! Regards,
Thanks for the addvice--Xfilesstargate 20:44, 19 July 2006 (EDT) On the Role of Categories...and VisionThank you for your guidance on the role of categories in Scifipedia. I appreciate that you take the time to mentor contributors in style and structure. While a wiki is ultimately an example of collective wisdom, such a system always needs a method of aggregation. It is clear that there is more than just a vision of the appearance of Scifipedia, but one of the technique by which the best results can be obtained from a challenging but rewarding non-traditional collaboration. I also wanted to mention to you that I find Candy's editing of my articles very satisfying. While she maintains the feel of the material, she does what an editor should. It's clear she reads every word, as well as maintaining an overview of the article. Her tweaks have improved the articles, by streamlining the language and massaging the grammar. My plan is to change my approach somewhat. My thought was to get a number of accurate, but embryonic articles up on the site. I expected that I would return to them to polish and expand them, and that other people would expand them as well. However, I think my articles have been at a less developed stage than is appropriate. They have become featured articles, for example, in too preliminary a state. Since my work on Scifipedia is on a "catch-as-catch-can" basis, that will slow down the flow, but should fit in better with the way they are used. Thanks again! --Bufocalvin 22:08, 19 July 2006 (EDT) Music to my ears!John, Thank you for letting me know about the nice words from Bufocalvin. It's wonderful when writers don't take editing tweaks personally. Even though it's only about bringing out the information more clearly for the benefit of all, a lot of people don't have enough distance from their work, and so editing feels to them as though the editor doesn't like their work or, worse, thinks they didn't do a good job. Which is not at all the case! The fact is that everyone needs to be edited, even editors themselves, because it takes time for writers to get a more distant perspective on their work. I enjoy the chance to help make a piece really shine, and it's all the sweeter to get a tip o' the hat for doing it! Cheers,
Heirarchical Category LinkingFirst, thanks for the shout-out! I look forward to seeing Scifipedia grow, and to contributing to that process. On my discussion page, you had said, "I've put the Article in the category of the same name but not in the higher-level category as well. Unless there's a compelling reason for including both a higher-level category and a sub-category of that higher-level category, the preferred method is to list only the lower-level category for an Article." I would suggest that Articles will be more easily found (and duplicate Articles less likely to be created) if all Articles are linked one of the fourteen main categories. Whereas the main category names are very clear as to what they will contain, sub-categories may be less obvious to people just developing an interest in the topic. For example, a casual user could probably guess that the Loch Ness Monster would be under Paranormal. However, they might not realize that the Loch Ness Monster is filed under Cryptozoology. I don't think the LNM needs be under both Lake Monsters and Cryptozoology: I think Lake Monsters and Paranormal linkings would make it optimal for people to find it when browsing. This allows both top-down and bottom-up flow: from the highest level to the most specific, and from the most specific to the highest level with no need for intermediate knowledge. Just my opinion... --Bufocalvin 12:51, 23 July 2006 (EDT) Hi John, thanks for the note. I truly enjoy all the work there is to do around here. Changing the dates won't be a problem at all. Since I used Excel to help with the formatting, changing them to the correct format will be easy enough. It's a good program for managing the repetitious elements in a list. --MarshAngel 09:32, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
Link Checking and General ReferenceTwo suggestions: 1. One way to quickly create a list of desired articles might be to run a link-checker on the site. Since those show broken links, that might allow you to develop a list of orphan references easily, which could be posted in the Articles Wanted category. That way, the links would also match up when the articles were created. 2. Many articles create internal links to non-SF topics, such as the names of countries. I was wondering if it would be advantageous to create a new Main Topic for non-SF things (maybe something like General Reference). For example, there might be a brief article describing Sweden as a European country. Users could than use the "What Links Here" tool to find things connected to that topic. Just a couple of ideas...I'm enjoying reading and contributing to the Scifipedia. --Bufocalvin 17:46, 31 July 2006 (EDT) Hi John, Is there an email address I could send my information to so I don't have to post it here? Thanks. --MarshAngel 19:13, 9 August 2006 (EDT) Thanks for the shout-out!I'm very honored to be chosen for today's shout-out! There are still plenty more Farscape and Dark Angel articles to be written, so hopefully I can get some others on the bandwagon, too! Thanks again. --cai 12:58, 11 August 2006 (EDT) ThanksAppreciate the shout out today. I don't often get the time to respond to these pats on the back by you and Candy, but I do see them and appreciate them a great deal. Stilltim Appreciation and Questions (Heading Link and Removing)Thanks again for the recognition, and for encouraging other people to participate. I've let some of the other experts in the area know about Scifipedia, and that they could contribute. I'm hoping that bears fruit in the future. I'm not sure if you are the right place to address these technical questions: if not, please direct me to the right person. 1. Is it possible to link to a heading in an article? For example, could I put a link directly to the ETH heading in the Paranormal Terminology article? If so, what's the syntax? 2. How do I remove an article? I created an article which would more logically be incorporated into another article. I've seen indications that it could be done, but I don't know how. Thanks again! --Bufocalvin 20:55, 16 August 2006 (EDT) Commercial LinksWhat is your feeling on external links that go directly to a site that allows someone to purchase something? For example, someone might link to a book or DVD on Amazon. If that person is an Amazon Associate, they might benefit if a Scifipedia user purchases the item. If it doesn't sway the neutrality of the article, I don't see a problem with it, but I thought I'd ask for an official opinion. Thanks! --Bufocalvin 12:08, 26 August 2006 (EDT) QuoteI love todays quote about the green zone. --Xfilesstargate 13:21, 30 August 2006 (EDT) More on Commercial LinksYou asked for some clarification on my question above about commercial links, so here it is. :) The question originally came up for me in The Chinese Roswell article. Before I added a summary of the book, the article consisted of just a link to a site that was selling the book. However, I thought it was just a distributor, but it was actually the publisher's site, which seems more acceptable to me. If distributors were putting up links, one might think there would be some competition where either multiple links would be posted, or someone might replace someone else's link with theirs. The Amazon issue is that someone who is an Associate (like me) could post a link which would credit them on some items if the reader clicked on that link and then purchased the book, dvd, etc.. My personal feeling is that either there should be a blanket prohibition or acceptance. I lean towards acceptance, provided that it doesn't prejudice the article or move it away from neutrality. It could provide a minor compensation for the work on the article, even though the main motivation would be to just get the information out there. Although, I could see again how there could be some replacing of the link, even though the reward is small. Whatever decision is announced is fine with me. :) --Bufocalvin 15:58, 2 September 2006 (EDT) MacGuyver as a VerbI was amused by your comment on MacGuyvering something. I believe the word was added to one of the Webster's dictionaries in about 2003...but it may have been spelled incorrectly (as McGuyver). Of course, that could also be a way of avoiding intellectual property issues. They used as it as an in-joke on Stargate SG-1: Richard Dean Anderson's character is told that it took them a lengthy period of time to MacGuyver something together... --Bufocalvin 22:56, 10 September 2006 (EDT)
Mention 2006 Article?Just wanted to suggest that you mention the 2006 article in your Editor's Journal or maybe Did You Know. This weekend in particular, there are a lot of things listed there: live events, movies, books, videogame releases, and so on. If people realize that this article (and 2007, etc.) list current and future things, that might up the visitation rate and attract more Creator activity. --Bufocalvin 16:02, 14 September 2006 (EDT) Request for DeletetionI think that you should delete the Article Doctor Who Actors. I think that this article should be deleted because Dr. Who has a sub-category that severs the purpose of this article Thanks for hearing me out --Xfilesstargate 23:25, 6 October 2006 (EDT) Thank YouHi John, I am just messaging you to let you know that I got the T-Shirt you offered me today. I wanna tell you Thank you so much and everyone at Scifipedia. I really like the shirt. Thanks again --Xfilesstargate 14:43, 13 October 2006 (EDT) Oz Factor FeatureThanks for featuring the Oz Factor article! I assume you pick the Featured Article. I was glad I did that one. It was in response to specific interest, and it does bring in the paranormal, but I think it has crossover value with the tie-in to a major fantasy film. --Bufocalvin 10:19, 1 January 2007 (EST)
2008, SCI FI. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
