User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 2022
Recent Additions
Thank you! I'm trying to follow the guidelines, and hope I will get better with time.
Jamesmclellan 13:09, 1 January 2022 (EST)
- No problem. We don't expect new users to understand everything right away. ISFDB has some conventions that need learning so please check out the help links in the welcome message on your talk page. And please let us know if you have any questions (ISFDB:Help desk is a good resource for asking). By the way, you can just respond to the posts on your talk page. We like to keep discussions collocated and people will watch a page they posted on for responses. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2022 (EST)
Strangest of All
Not a change to the pub itself, but I've changed the weblink on our verified Strangest of All to Julie Novakova's site, which still hosts the various formats to the digital pub. The European Astrobiology Institute appears to be no longer hosting it. Cheers. PeteYoung 04:16, 10 January 2022 (EST)
Swfritter's application for self-approver status
When you have a moment, could you please review Swfritter's application for self-approver status? TIA! Ahasuerus 09:20, 26 January 2022 (EST)
Friend
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?17664; I left a message about this book months ago somewhere on these boards and ran across the book again recently; what I believe is that the printings are for Friend while the 1986 date is the first for Deadly Friend because that's when the Wes Craven movie came out with the same title, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Friend, and so the book was retitled to match. --Username 09:34, 5 February 2022 (EST)
- Your submissions have been unrejected & approved. I have added additional notes to provide context. Using the moderator notes in these cases would save a lot of time. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2022 (EST)
- Great; also, while I was on Google Books' Deadly Friend page I searched for cover art and there's a credit on the copyright page but it's hidden from view. So if someone knows how to get it or can find a copy online with a photo of that page then the artist can be entered. --Username 11:06, 5 February 2022 (EST)
Callander titles
For Aquamancer, would you mind if I changed the page count to [8]+289 and add the map title on page [6]?
For Dragon Companion, would you mind if I change the page count to [10]+321 and add the map title on page [8]?
For Dragon Rescue, would you mind if I change the page count to [10]+225 and add the map title on page [8]?
Thanks! Phil 10:16, 10 March 2022 (EST)
- I'm fine with that except that Aquamancer should be [10]+289 and Dragon Rescue should be [12]+225. If the unnumbered pages are going to be added, then they all should be included. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (EST)
- Thanks for the clarification of the unnumbered pages count. I think I've generally been doing it right but the location of the half title page in these two pubs threw me off for some reason. Phil 22:10, 10 March 2022 (EST)
Frankenstein and the Whiz Kid
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?887914; ISBN is 0315039485 on Amazon.com; is that usable? --Username 18:34, 15 March 2022 (EDT)
- Yes, just add a pub note that source of ISBN is Amazon.com. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (EDT)
sorry for not responding
Hello, sorry for not responding to the edits I posted. I have no clue how to use wiki stuff. :-( I'm not even sure if this is going to work?
John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpirish (talk • contribs) .
- No problem. We like to keep discussions collocated so if someone makes a post on your talk page, you can just respond to it (click the "edit" link on the same line as the post title). You should also sign your posts by clicking the signature button (the second to the right in the butttons above the edit window) which will insert "--~~~~" (when saved this will automatically add your signature). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2022 (EDT)
Re: All Work and No Play
Re: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5272061 Hi JLaTondre, thanks for looking over my submission; while I agree that the "novel" itself is not speculative fiction, I've written a rather extensive foreword in the book that I think should qualify which is the main reason I submitted the title here.
I'll be happy to start a discussion on the community portal though if you think the decision is best made by a larger consensus. I'm fairly inexperienced here. Do I just post it as a question there and let people chime in?
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thuff2000 (talk • contribs) .
- I have gone ahead and made the post for you. See here. You are welcome to add additional information or otherwise contribute to the discussion. But yes, it is just a matter of posting a question there and letting people chime in. A couple of wiki items: We like to keep discussions collocated so if someone makes a post on your talk page, you can just respond to it (click the "edit" link on the same line as the post title). You should also sign your posts by clicking the signature button (the second to the right in the butttons above the edit window) which will insert "--~~~~" (when saved this will automatically add your signature). -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2022 (EDT)
Casperl
I've made an edit changing "unknown" to Leon Moran; https://books.google.com/books?id=TCtCAQAAMAAJ. Don't know what that mark over the "e" is, because he was an American. --Username 19:58, 11 April 2022 (EDT)
Squad D
After adding links from that old Netherlands Stephen King page recently I saw "Squad D" was approved by you so I checked WorldCat and saw that my note from last May needed updating because since then a couple of other libraries got copies of Shivers VIII, for a total of 3. However, just as I was about to complete the edit I noticed the Amazon link I provided back then is gone, and that you apparently deleted it some time after my edit was approved. Not that it matters much now because the story is more easily readable (and printable) from that King page, but what was the reason for doing that? Have I forgotten that you let me know you were deleting it or did you never inform me at all? If I'd have known I probably would have searched and found that King page much sooner; I'd hate to think that people paid money to buy that over-priced Shivers book just to read King's story, incorrectly thinking it wasn't available anywhere else, because that claim was widely proclaimed all over the internet. I'm going to just delete my note now because there's no reason for it to be there anymore. --Username 20:05, 20 April 2022 (EDT)
- Publication specific links belong at the publication level, not the title level. It is also redundant with the Amazon links the s/w creates automatically. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2022 (EDT)
Slewfoot
I added interior art credit in one bulk item to Slewfoot by Brom Susan O'Fearna 00:36, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
- Not sure how I missed that especially given I added the pub note regarding the interior art. Thanks for catching that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2022 (EDT)
Master and Fool
For Master and Fool, would it be OK if I make the following changes?
1. Change the page count to [10]+645+16
2. Change the start page number for "The Barbed Coil (excerpt)" to 3 and add the note "The book ends on page 645. The page numbers restart from 1 for "The Barbed Coil" excerpt."
3. Add title "Master and Fool (map)" by uncredited on page [8]
Thanks! Phil 07:51, 12 May 2022 (EDT)
Hexagon SF Magazine
Before I add the missing issues, any objection to changing the series name to 'Hexagon' (You are a PV and moderated the first few issues)? John Scifibones 09:21, 12 May 2022 (EDT)
- And while you're at it: is this really a piece of fiction? Christian Stonecreek 11:36, 12 May 2022 (EDT)
- There is already a Hexagon series. I don't have any objections to simplifying, but it would need to be something different than just Hexagon. I fixed the letter. Thank you for finding that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2022 (EDT)
- I see now. My mistake, I only checked magazines. I should have known there was a reason for the disambiguation. I'll leave it as is. Thanks John Scifibones 18:05, 12 May 2022 (EDT)
- There is already a Hexagon series. I don't have any objections to simplifying, but it would need to be something different than just Hexagon. I fixed the letter. Thank you for finding that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2022 (EDT)
Science Fiction Science Fact - Asimov
You didn't verify, but the history for this indicates you have provided the cover artist as a supposition. Checking the two interior illustrations he is credited with shows them to be the two different covers. So you were right. I've updated the Notes to indicate such. ../Doug H 16:43, 12 June 2022 (EDT)
The Restless Dead: Ten Original Stories of the Supermatural
Hi! My best guess is that there's a typo in the last word. I don't know if you can still lay a hand on it, but if so: could you check it? Christian Stonecreek 09:07, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
- I don't remember where that came from. I am comfortable that it was a typo given it has a "n" on the cover. I updated it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2022 (EDT)
Gehm
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?292220; MLB added cover artist in 2019 to Blood Ruby but misread Gehm as Gehn; covers where signature is visible say Gehm, so it should be that name as the variant, not Gehn: https://hauntedhearts.wordpress.com/category/cover-art-charles-gehm/. --Username 19:37, 21 June 2022 (EDT)
Devil's Dreamer
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?2552496; I replaced Brennan's Candace cover, and noticed her other book's info was confused; I moved Ziel's credit over to the PV copy along with the note about where artist info came from, so non-PV copy is probably unneeded now. PV hasn't responded to anything in 2 years so they're probably not editing anymore. --Username 13:46, 25 June 2022 (EDT)
The Brown Owl: A Fairy Story
I think this title s/b a novella and the publications changed to chapbooks. I noticed it when approving Username's link to an archive scan. What do you think? John Scifibones 12:04, 2 July 2022 (EDT)
- Yes, per the Project Gutenberg transcription, it is 26k words long. I have updated it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2022 (EDT)
Non-ISFDB Author Photo Links
I saw there were several dozen cleanup report author photos with non-ISFDB friendly links so I replaced a handful until I reached Frank Baker, who had so much missing/wrong info for his books that I got sidetracked fixing those. However, I see you rejected 2 of my photo replacements, Dianna Sanchez and G. Kilworth, so why is there a report for author links that need replacing if the replacements from ISFDB-friendly sites are going to be rejected? EDIT: I just replaced Kilworth photo with one from FantLab that's in color and more recent; Sanchez seems to only have that Amazon photo which was rejected, so she's screwed. --Username 10:37, 10 July 2022 (EDT)
- You didn't provide a moderator note and the moderator screen does not flag the original image as being invalid. As such, had no idea you were working off the clean-up report and not just replacing valid images with new versions as you have done in the past. I unrejected the Sanchez one and approved it. I also approved the new Kilworth one. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2022 (EDT)
- I requested on mod board to add a warning if a non-ISFDB photo link is used; we'll see if Mr. A responds. Also, while the Sanchez rejection is now gone from my list the Kilworth remains even though my new picture has been added. That's odd (*EDIT: Ignore this first part, since I realized a few hours later that of course it wouldn't be un-rejected because I used a different photo for the 2nd edit; duh). EDIT: Also, re: Sanchez, her legal name is also on ISFDB with a bunch of stuff, http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?53101, but the middle name is different; however, searching for www.diannasanchez.com and Bushman found this, https://writersrumpus.com/2017/12/05/interview-dreaming-robot-press/, with that photo taken by Mr. Bushman, so I don't know if any of this is related. --Username 12:52, 10 July 2022 (EDT)
The Regiment's War
I submitted a change for the page count on The Regiment's War to match the last printed page number. Once approved it will match the LCCN and WorldCat data. Phil 08:10, 31 July 2022 (EDT)
Gods of Space and Five More Stories
Analyzing, it looks like the same art inverted horizontally and with some changes, like colors, I couldn't prove it with reverse image search.Hyju (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2022 (EDT)
- Compare the images at full size: here and here. The goggles are missing, there is only one gun vs two, and the guns are different. Repaintings of old covers are common. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2022 (EDT)
Bone Soup
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1111422; You entered the Archive.org copy, so is it deliberate that the title date is a couple of years earlier than the book date because it was published by somebody earlier, or should it be changed to the same date? Copyright page doesn't say 2008 anywhere, although searching for 2008 in the book hits on p. 362 and an illustration that says "scheduled for 2008", so like many Cemetery Dance books it was probably published much later than scheduled. --Username (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (EDT)
- No reason, must have missed it when editing the pub. I have changed the date. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2022 (EDT)
Galactic Warlord
Hi. You verified our record of Galactic Warlord in its 1st ed. P268160. LC record 79-22604 notes "A Margaret K. McElderry book" as well as "An Argo book". Supposing that both are named in the book, is their indication of their relation? We have two publication records as publisher An Argo Book / Margaret K. McElderry / Atheneum beside An Argo Book / Atheneum (75) and Margaret K. McElderry / Atheneum (54, of which one as publication series Argo). --Pwendt|talk 22:23, 6 October 2022 (EDT)
- The publication title page has "A Margaret K. McElderry Book [over] Atheneum 1980 New York [over] An Argo Book". Copyright page has "(An Argo Book) [over] A Margaret K. McElderry Book" with no mention of Atheneum. Dust jacket spine has "An Argo Book [over] Atheneum". Book spine has only "Atheneum". Dust jacket flap has only "An Argo Book". -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2022 (EDT)
- Six weeks later, same work, same jacket flap! Will you double check that flap for spelling of the artist name: Steven Marchesi rather than our prolific Stephen Marchesi?
- If it is 'Steven' with a 'v' then I believe we need make variant and alt-name. Circumstantial evidence is strong. We have a Stephen Marchesi cover in the same fiction series; same publseries/imprint. Indeed, it's the one I mentioned last month above --"(54, of which one as publication series Argo)"-- namely, Young Legionary T1619033.
- Now I have at hand Library of Congress notice that 'steven' and 'steve' have been observed. submission 5486363
- Possibly the other webpage that I newly submit for Marchesi will interest you substantially --an interview with a collector of his original cover art; featuring illustrator, or cover artist, work with editors and publishers around 1980. [quote in small part] STS: Up until a couple of years ago I had always assumed that a publisher bought or owned the art/illustrations that were used in books but obviously this is not the case. SM: Actually you would have been correct if this were the 1950's or even the 60's. ...
- No variant or alt-name submitted. --Pwendt|talk 18:12, 13 November 2022 (EST)
Hauntings (Datlow)
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?409543; Recent Archive.org upload, I just added a link, you PV many years ago, there are different months/days for the title, book, and cover art/interior art/introduction, so if you can find out exactly when it was published they can all be made the same date. --Username (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2022 (EDT)
- I approved your edit & tidied up the dates. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2022 (EDT)
Civil War Fantastic
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?27794; I've been editing for DAW Fantastic anthologies and most of them only need Archive links and minor date fixes and such, but this one's reprint edition wasn't 256 pages but 308 like the original; I fixed that and added the Roman numerals, so you may want to do that for your PV, too. --Username (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2022 (EDT)
Prey Art
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?305261; It took nearly 20 days for my edit to be approved and in the meantime, by coincidence, a self-mod made an edit. It's been so long I can't remember exactly what I did so if you can look it over and decide if my edit you approved today messed with anything the other person did; since there seem to be 2 separate interior art credits now. --Username (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2022 (EST)
Is Anybody Out There? -- number line
My copy of Is Anybody Out There? has a number line 1—8, not 1—9. Yours? --Glenn (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2022 (EST)
- That was a transient verification. I believe it was a library book. There is a linked Internet Archive scan and it has 1-8. It is likely the 9 is a database typo. Go ahead and update. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2022 (EST)
Connell Story
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?234365; I saw you just approved my edit, and I wanted to mention that Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game" has no The in this book (or edition, don't know about the other edition), and I was going to remove it and enter shorter title and shorter author name, but ISFDB saying shorter title appears in The Ghouls with longer name is wrong, at least in the 2 Archive.org Stein and Day editions, as it's the shorter name there, too. There are many other editions, so maybe in some of them they used the longer name. Just drawing your attention to this. --Username (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2022 (EST)
- It was on my list to go back and expand the anthology's notes, etc. based on the Internet Archive scan. I have done that and fixed this title as well as the Walpole author credit. I will look further into the Connell story when I have a chance. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2022 (EST)
Broadview Turn of the Screw
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?319916; You made some edits after I did, but there's no "Broadway" in the book as far as I can see, and I don't think it's a series because it says Broadview Editions in many/all of their books but nobody ever entered that as a pub. series here. --Username (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2022 (EST)
- Broadway Editions is on the front page, title page, copyright page, & rear cover. The front page has "series editor: L. W. Connoly" and the copyright page has "The Broadview Edition series represents...". Checking some of their other books from their website, not all of their books are marked this way so does seem to be a separate series. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2022 (EST)
- I'm looking at the Archive link in the record, https://archive.org/details/turnofscrewother0000jame_j8t3, and it's Broadview in all those places you mentioned, so we seem to be looking at something different. Searching "Broadview" gets 16 hits, "Broadway" gets 0. --Username (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2022 (EST)
Martin
https://www.ebay.com/itm/225000742272; Some time after I entered this here, and then entered the Brit edition, you made a variant, but it turns out it's George Romero, no A., so there's really no variant. What's also odd is the book is copyrighted by Day Books, but Stein & Day are on the title page as usual, while the 1980 American PB is actually published by Day Books, https://www.ebay.com/itm/255773680007, so that's odd. --Username (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2022 (EST)
- Existing pub updated with appropriate notes. You are welcome to add a record for the other edition. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2022 (EST)
A request of approval
Hi! I found this on my talk page:
- Hi. Please, if you have time, to approve this submission (5493926). It's a lot of work. Many thanks. --Florin (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2022 (EST)
Would you be able to do him the favor? Thanks, Christian Stonecreek (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2022 (EST)
The Collected Short Stories of L. P. Hartley
Here ImportExport 5500511 I follow up last fortnight's New Publication Submission [1] which you approved. Anticipated import of the Introduction is not appropriate; the unusually titled essay[*] in the database needs to be a variant. I think it's appropriate to import all paginated contents from 1973 pp. vii to 626 because 1968 page count vii+626 and other evidence show that the 1973 is identical to the 1968 through page 626 (except COLLECTION and ESSAY title changes).
You may know whether the capital letters are correct in short story title "Per Far L'Amore", page 573. Sometimes-helpful Google translate says 'to make love' (Italian) and 'for love' (French). Is that relevant here? The story is English-language.
[*]I haven't seen this collection, but I pursue our unusually titled "Introduction (To The Collected Short Stories of L. P. Hartley, 1968)" to its original publication. --Pwendt|talk 09:44, 2 December 2022 (EST)
- I have approved the edit. As for "Per Far L'Amore", we standardize the case per our ISFDB rules. This is an English story so English title case rules apply. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2022 (EST)
Brunner and Kipling
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?19584; I added LCCN ID in a pending edit; title probably doesn't need subtitle (SF volume by Brunner doesn't have any) and a couple of essays have October instead of November as the month. --Username (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2022 (EST)
- LCCN edit accepted. The subtitle was present on the title page. I cannot speak to the SF version. The essays are dated October as they first appeared in the SF version. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2022 (EST)
- Yeah, they probably just used the exact same essays for both, although fantasy volume isn't on Archive.org so I can't say for sure. I have a pending edit for the SF book but someone ripped out the title page and surprisingly photos online are scarce so it's unclear what the legit title is of that one since PV, Dcarson, didn't add a note about the title like you did. --Username (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2022 (EST)
Dating excerpts
Hi, as you've approved the concerned edits, could you check this, and comment over there? MagicUnk (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2022 (EST)
- Annie beat me to it & quoted the applicable rule. Let me know if there was something else you were referring to. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2022 (EST)
Amazon "01" Dates
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5512391; As I'm sure you know, Amazon just adds "01" to dates when they're not sure of the exact day; 05-01 could be April, May or June (not to mention the dates they get completely wrong that are off by several months or even years). When I add a link to an actual scanned copy and I see the real date (copyright page in this case) I change those "01"'s to "00"'s (or more rarely the exact day if it's available). I've done hundreds/thousands of this type of thing, so I'm not sure why this one was rejected. I was thinking of telling you it should be un-rejected, and if you then wanted to update/change my info with some of your own, as you often do, mentioning where the month came from you could do that, but I see you just made an edit adding the Archive.org link yourself, which makes it look in the edit history like you're the one who found it and decided to enter it. Bad form, but it's happened many times before with other editors, so whatever. --Username (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2022 (EST)
- There were two issues with your edit: 1) The publication has a primary verification with an active verifier. As you have been repeatedly told, you should discuss changes like this with the verifier first. 2) You changed the date without changing / removing the associated pub note. If you change data that has an associate note, you need to update the note. As for adding the Internet Archive link, the ISFDB is a collaborative site where we all work together. No one owns any data or records. The history is for being able to figure what changed and to be able to ask questions if needed. It is not for counting coup. Moderators will regularly make updates based on rejected edits so that the editors do not have to renter the data. -- JLaTondre (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- As I've repeatedly said elsewhere, there are hundreds/thousands of messages from me to PV's all over the boards asking them about changes or telling them I changed this or that, most of which they agree with, with the occasional disagreement that's easily fixed by cancelling my edit, so this weird idea a lot of you seem to have that I refuse to discuss changes is getting really old. Secondly, a link to an actual copy of something with the legitimate date in black-and-white and not the standard Amazon fake date IS the update you mentioned; noting that would just be redundant, and asking PV about that would be pointless. What are they going to say, no please don't change the fake date and replace it with the real one? Lastly, I take some pride in the fact that in only 2 years of editing I, a complete amateur without any of the background in books or collecting that so many editors here proudly trumpet on their talk pages, have one of the highest number of edits of any non-moderator in the 15+years editing has been open to the public, so when someone cancels an edit of mine, especially unnecessarily like this one, and then doesn't ask me to "renter" [sic] it again while leaving out the info they think was wrong but just does it themselves even though they had nothing to do with finding that info, then yes, it does annoy me, as it should. Let's try to be less picky about relatively meaningless stuff like this and try being positive and helping more, as I have helped to fix thousands of mistakes other editors have made here over the years; with the complete slow bot-riddled mess the site has become since the server move you all should be grateful anybody is still editing here. --Username (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- You generally do good work, but occasionally you try to take the easy way out. No wall of text or edit count number is a justification for that. We have a standard about notifying active primary verifiers about substantive changes (and removing a date, even a wrong date, is a substantive change). The fact that the verifier is likely to agree with your change or that you have talked to verifiers about other pubs is irrelevant. You should have talked to GlennMcG about this one. As for leaving in the "Publication date from Amazon as of 2018-08-02" when that would no longer be the case after your edit, it is odd you would defend that while at the same time complain about data quality overall. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- "Generally do good work"? I'd say that's a massive understatement. As for talking to PV's, many of them never respond, often because they left a long time ago but the mods didn't add a "no longer active" to their pages, others were gone for a while but came back and yet the mods didn't remove the "no longer active" from their pages, others respond with complete indifference because they had enough of this site and dealing with the mods/other editors long ago and don't really care if any of their work is changed, others respond with open hostility to anyone daring to question their work and suggesting that something should be changed, etc. So you implying that things run smoothly here and most of the editors/mods respond professionally is comical. Asking this particular PV if the date he got off a site like Amazon should be changed to the date in the actual book makes no sense; Amazon is a seller, not a publisher. They only care about making money, not about providing accurate info. I didn't remove the date, I fixed it. If anyone ever finds a review copy and can fill in the exact day then they can fix it even further. You rejecting this 1 edit doesn't really change anything because I've done countless others that fix incorrect Amazon dates to the date in the book either because I found it and linked it on Archive.org or I saw it in an online eBay or whatever auction (in which case I actually mention that's where I saw it in the notes because we don't link to auction sites). This is all a big waste of time; do you know how many edits I could have done in the time it's taken this morning to respond to this? As for your message just left on my board, at the time I added a philsp.com link it's accurate; any changes that site makes afterwards is not my problem. So it might be a little further down the page now, so what, it's still in the general area and people can find it easily, unlike completely deleting it so now nobody knows where the info came from. Again, as with the Amazon stuff above, I've added countless philsp.com links in the notes for info I've found, so you'd have to go back and double-check a ton of them if you want to make sure they're all still pointing where they originally did. Feel free to do that. --Username (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- For the philsp.com link, no, the Russell entry is not "a little further down the page now, so what, it's still in the general area and people can find it easily". The linked page is now Rouse to Rousseau. Russell is many pages further on. The source is not needed on the title record as you added it to the pub. As for the rest, you can self rationalize however you want, but the ISFDB has standards and moderators will continue to abide by those standards. If you followed the standards, you would have spent a lot less time than you have writing all the above. If you choose to not abide by those standards, then don't expect different results. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- I've left a message on this PV's page asking about this and whether they want me to bother asking their permission whenever I fix an Amazon date; I see I've left PV more than 15 messages previously about various topics and they responded to very few of them (including one you were involved with), so I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, I've left a message on the Portal asking anyone who cares to remove the dead links I've provided to Philsp (I did a search of notes because I write mine in a specific style and so it was easy to find them), as checking a bunch of them has revealed that either they point to something different or get an error page. What a waste of my time finding those links in the first place; well, I shouldn't be surprised because that site won't even update to HTTPS so modernizing and doing things in an orderly fashion with static pages instead of endlessly scrolling lists doesn't seem to interest them. --Username (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- For the philsp.com link, no, the Russell entry is not "a little further down the page now, so what, it's still in the general area and people can find it easily". The linked page is now Rouse to Rousseau. Russell is many pages further on. The source is not needed on the title record as you added it to the pub. As for the rest, you can self rationalize however you want, but the ISFDB has standards and moderators will continue to abide by those standards. If you followed the standards, you would have spent a lot less time than you have writing all the above. If you choose to not abide by those standards, then don't expect different results. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- "Generally do good work"? I'd say that's a massive understatement. As for talking to PV's, many of them never respond, often because they left a long time ago but the mods didn't add a "no longer active" to their pages, others were gone for a while but came back and yet the mods didn't remove the "no longer active" from their pages, others respond with complete indifference because they had enough of this site and dealing with the mods/other editors long ago and don't really care if any of their work is changed, others respond with open hostility to anyone daring to question their work and suggesting that something should be changed, etc. So you implying that things run smoothly here and most of the editors/mods respond professionally is comical. Asking this particular PV if the date he got off a site like Amazon should be changed to the date in the actual book makes no sense; Amazon is a seller, not a publisher. They only care about making money, not about providing accurate info. I didn't remove the date, I fixed it. If anyone ever finds a review copy and can fill in the exact day then they can fix it even further. You rejecting this 1 edit doesn't really change anything because I've done countless others that fix incorrect Amazon dates to the date in the book either because I found it and linked it on Archive.org or I saw it in an online eBay or whatever auction (in which case I actually mention that's where I saw it in the notes because we don't link to auction sites). This is all a big waste of time; do you know how many edits I could have done in the time it's taken this morning to respond to this? As for your message just left on my board, at the time I added a philsp.com link it's accurate; any changes that site makes afterwards is not my problem. So it might be a little further down the page now, so what, it's still in the general area and people can find it easily, unlike completely deleting it so now nobody knows where the info came from. Again, as with the Amazon stuff above, I've added countless philsp.com links in the notes for info I've found, so you'd have to go back and double-check a ton of them if you want to make sure they're all still pointing where they originally did. Feel free to do that. --Username (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- You generally do good work, but occasionally you try to take the easy way out. No wall of text or edit count number is a justification for that. We have a standard about notifying active primary verifiers about substantive changes (and removing a date, even a wrong date, is a substantive change). The fact that the verifier is likely to agree with your change or that you have talked to verifiers about other pubs is irrelevant. You should have talked to GlennMcG about this one. As for leaving in the "Publication date from Amazon as of 2018-08-02" when that would no longer be the case after your edit, it is odd you would defend that while at the same time complain about data quality overall. -- JLaTondre (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- As I've repeatedly said elsewhere, there are hundreds/thousands of messages from me to PV's all over the boards asking them about changes or telling them I changed this or that, most of which they agree with, with the occasional disagreement that's easily fixed by cancelling my edit, so this weird idea a lot of you seem to have that I refuse to discuss changes is getting really old. Secondly, a link to an actual copy of something with the legitimate date in black-and-white and not the standard Amazon fake date IS the update you mentioned; noting that would just be redundant, and asking PV about that would be pointless. What are they going to say, no please don't change the fake date and replace it with the real one? Lastly, I take some pride in the fact that in only 2 years of editing I, a complete amateur without any of the background in books or collecting that so many editors here proudly trumpet on their talk pages, have one of the highest number of edits of any non-moderator in the 15+years editing has been open to the public, so when someone cancels an edit of mine, especially unnecessarily like this one, and then doesn't ask me to "renter" [sic] it again while leaving out the info they think was wrong but just does it themselves even though they had nothing to do with finding that info, then yes, it does annoy me, as it should. Let's try to be less picky about relatively meaningless stuff like this and try being positive and helping more, as I have helped to fix thousands of mistakes other editors have made here over the years; with the complete slow bot-riddled mess the site has become since the server move you all should be grateful anybody is still editing here. --Username (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2022 (EST)
Brian Stableford / The Fountains of Youth - Variant Cover Art
Thank you for creating and varianting the new coverart record after processing my edit to remove the incorrect one. You've saved me the trouble of doing it myself and it makes sure it doesn't get forgotten. I have to admit that when I'm updating a pub that requires multiple edits that have to wait for the previous ones to be approved, it is hard to keep track of where I am, particularly when I have several of these in progress simultaneously for multiple different pubs. I had to set up my own personal system to ensure edits don't get forgotten. Still, now that the pending queue is down from the horrendous 9,000 to a sane few hundred, it should be easier. I have just submitted the pub update for The Fountains of Youth with the explicit statement from the book crediting the cover art to "Donato". Teallach (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2022 (EST)
- No problem. I have processed your pending submissions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2022 (EST)
Fast Ships...
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pub_history.cgi?277132; Edit history shows that you added Archive link today and then very soon after approved my edit from nearly a week ago adding Archive link. That makes no sense; what happened there? --Username (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2022 (EST)
- I forgot about the edit queue backlog. I saw it hadn't been updated since out discussion so I added it. Subsequently I ran across you edit while working the submission queue. I went ahead and approved it anyway since edit count is so important to you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2022 (EST)
- Edit count should be important to everyone, not just me; more edits means more work done. Is there any way to remove my name from the edit history? It makes no sense for my name to be in the history adding the same thing someone else did; someone coming upon it in the future may ask, "Why did this idiot Username add an Archive link when a mod had just done that?" If there is a way, remove my name from the history; if not, hopefully nobody will ever see it, which is very possible since it's only had 3 edits in the last 12+ years. --Username (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2022 (EST)
Rogue Golem
https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/view_submission.cgi?5518194; I assume you mean that another editor added some ID's recently and that somehow interfered with my edit, or vice versa. So is it safe now to re-submit my edit adding the LCCN? --Username (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2022 (EST)
- Correct. This edit was made after your edit, but approved before your edit. Unfortunately, the way the software works, it replaces the external ids entirely with what is the submission. It is not smart enough to add individual records in these cases. It is safe to resubmit. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2022 (EST)