User talk:Chrisgherr

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Chrisgherr, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.

Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.

I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hauck 07:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Island of Doctor Moreau

Hello, I've approved your submission but had to make some changes as you changed the title of the publication from Dr. to Docteur (unmerge then re-merge it). I've also deleted the part about pagination (we don't evoke pagination in ebooks). I'm also worried that, by simply changing the date at every update of the file, we lost some information. Perhaps such modification warrants a "new" publication. As I'm not an expert on the matter of ebooks, I'll let you present the case on the R&S page here. Thanks for contributing. Hauck 07:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It seemed unimportant, at the time of your original post, but: I did not change the pub title from Dr. to "Docteur." In fact, I changed it from Dr. To "Doctor"; a minor distinction perhaps, but one that now seems less minor, in light of your threatening an editor with suspension, for editing typos, as authorized by the ISFDB Help: Wiki Conventions»»; specifically, section #3»», (General Discussion Conventions).
Perhaps your word "Docteur" above is a typo? If so, it's appropriate, and permitted, for any editor (such as myself), to silently correct said typo.
If, however, your "Docteur" was intentional, it would be most wrong to change it.
So, knowing your outspoken disregard for the ISFDB Wiki Conventions, and also knowing of your recent threat to suspend an editor, for following said conventions, I think it appropriate to call your attention to your word "Docteur."
Possibly you're not following this Talk-Page, so I'll post a reference to it, on your Talk-Page»».
Additionally (as you know), because I strongly believe your ignoring of the ISFDB Help: Wiki Conventions»» is particularly inappropriate for a moderator, I'll be addressing that on the ISFDB:Moderator_noticeboard»».
I argue here and elsewhere, that disliking the ISFDB written conventions, is no excuse for disregarding them!
--Chrisgherr 03:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission to unmerge ...

... was rejected by me. These are not, as you wrote, ' four seperate, unique titles ', they are only ' four seperate, unique publications '. Only publications can have different formats, titles not. The latter are a kind of abstraction that you can't hold in your hand (usually you can do that with publications, unless the publication is an ebook). Stonecreek 11:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

... Oops! I should've approached this edit with more care. The titles are incorrect as currently entered. It may be best to correct the titles first, before unmerging, thereby providing further clarity. I'll proceed in that direction.
cgh 2016 October 31 17:24 (EST)

Astounding Stories of Super-Science, January 1930

Hello, I'm sorry but I had to reject all your submisisons for modifications of copies of this issue. There are multiple reasons involved, I'm going to try to list them:
1) a copy (be it made of electrons or of paper) of a magazine is not itself a MAGAZINE (for us), it's transformed into a COLLECTION.
2) this COLLECTION inherit most of its data from the original magazine, including its normalized title (whence the commas).
3) for us (regardless of what PG does) COLLECTIONs are credited to their editor not jointly to their contained authors.
4) PG's or LV's internal numbering (e.g. "198" or "541" -sic- for the first issue?) is not a pubseries#, and the whole lot ("Astounding Stories Magazines Issues 1-20 ") is not a publication series.
5) we're not allowed to deeplink to PG's site.
6) when modifying a primary verified publication like this one, our etiquette requires that you clear the matter with the PVs (all of them) particularly when you want to enter erroneous data (an ISBN-10 for a 2014 publication) or change such basic things as the format (as it even seem that you didn't own a copy of the physical item).
7) the matter of the use of changing the date of a HTML file have not been discussed.
Please understand that, for your first contributions, it would be better to try first "simple" adjustments or enter new publications instead of embarking of such fundamental changes as changing types, authors (editors) or titles. The learning curve is steep and our idiosyncrasies are many. Hauck 09:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Disappointed! ··· [also, a Caution to Editors, just below]

This topic was first posted on Hauck's Talk-Page (TP) as a new section there. Shortly thereafter, it was posted here, on my own TP, in almost identical form, by myself. This second posting here was done under the mistaken assumption that; if deleted from Hauck's TP, it would be gone forever. The second post here, was in essence a backup, or safety post. In hindsight, I see that having two virtually identical posts made within 20 minutes of each other, made it easy to confuse which was the first one, (where discussion should be centralized). Furthermore, had there been some reason to duplicate my post, a better place would've been my User-Page, not my User-Talk-Page! To further complicate things, (seeing that my original post, on Hauck's TP, had been deleted; and not realizing the confusion possibly caused by my second post here), I then posted the very same topic a third time on the Rules & Standards (R&S) page, q.v. Discussion has now centralized there, on the R&S Discussion Page»».
--cgh 11:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Why must we IGNORE best practices?

It's been said that:

"1) a copy (be it made of electrons or of paper) of a magazine is not itself a MAGAZINE (for us), it's transformed into a COLLECTION." 

Yet our very own Template for Pub Type informs us quite sensibly:
  • COLLECTION. A publication containing two or more works of SHORTFICTION or POEMs by a single author or authors writing in collaboration should be typed as a COLLECTION. The typing of individual publications which contain works with various combinations of author credit should be discussed on the Community Portal on a case-by-case basis. The title page credit should be the major factor in determining the types of these kinds of publications. Excerpts from other works published after a NOVEL for promotional purposes do not make the publication into a COLLECTION.
It's plain to see that our helpful template makes very clear that the typical magazine with several authors writing individually, 
is most definitely not a magazine!  Perhaps we might seek guidance again from a further Template bulleted item:
  • MAGAZINE. It can be difficult in some cases to determine if something should be regarded as a magazine or a book. Some magazines were published in book format; some books were published as series with letter columns and regular dates of publication. Borderline cases should be discussed on the magazine or book wiki pages, but generally a magazine must have a common title from issue to issue, and an enumeration or dating system of some kind. This still leaves anthology series such as New Worlds Quarterly as judgement calls. In these cases, look for a consensus on the publication bibliographic wiki page. If no discussion exists, use your best judgment and document the decision on the wiki page.
So referring back to the above assertion that a reprinted magazine is no longer a magazine, but a collection-

How is this justified without flagrantly disregarding our own guidelines?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrisgherr (talk • contribs) .

Please voice your disappointment on the moderator noticeboard, not on my talk page (if not, note that discussions are usually centralized where they started, that means here). Hauck 11:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of this topic has now become centralized on the R&S Discussion Page»»
--cgh 11:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Formatting other editors' comments

Just in case you haven't seen my response on the Help Desk yet:

I would advise new editors against changing the formatting of other editors' comments. It usually takes time to learn various nuances and understand why things were formatted in a certain way.

It's good to fix unintended formatting errors, but you have also been changing certain intentionally formatted elements like signatures. One of them has already reverted your changes that affected his comments and I plan to do the same. Ahasuerus 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that the formatting changes that you have been making will be reverted, so there is no reason to continue making them. Ahasuerus 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The formatting changes have been reverted. Ahasuerus 17:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It is rude to change someone's words in a Talk page (being it grammatical changes, punctuation or spelling) - if you do not like someone's English or formatting in a DB entry (publications, notes, what's note), go ahead and change it (notifying the verifiers if applicable) -- it is a DB, it needs to be correct. But changing someone's words in a Talk page is rude and unnecessary. It is not a DB entry, it is talk. Just saying. Point out to the editor what you think is wrong but do not go and fix the people's words. This is not a wiki page, this is a Talk page. Anniemod 19:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please stop doing this. If you have a concern about it, bring it up on the editor's talk page. I don't appreciate all the weird little formatting changes you've made to some of my comments. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Complaint

FYI, your post titled "Moderator Misbehavior!" has been moved from Rules and standards discussions‎ to ISFDB:Moderator noticeboard‎. Ahasuerus 00:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for the heads up.
--Chrisgherr 00:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrisgherr&oldid=448345"