User talk:Ppint.pinto

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Ppint.pinto, 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!.--Dirk P Broer 15:37, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

The Rat Race

When data is not in the pub, the source of the data needs to be specified in the notes. This is especially true for pubs that have been primary verified. For your earlier Stowe covers, the artist name was on the cover. For this one, that is not the case so since our only source is the website, it needs to be stated in the notes. In addition, since the name is not on the pub, we would enter it with the canonical name (which in this case is D. A. Stowe). I've rejected your edit and re-submitted based on the above. You can find the final at The Rat Race. We do appreciate you finding these. ISFDB has some conventions that need learning, but everything should be in the help links in the welcome message above. We hope you will continue to contribute. And please let us know if you have any questions (ISFDB:Help desk is a good resource for asking). -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2019 (EDT)

re: credits to cover artist, derek a. stowe; thanks

hi, j; thank-you for explaining the absence of signature on the cover art over-rules/takes priority over the statement by the artist on the website in question - and thanks even more for working out how to link to the correct part of the website!

love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 08:22, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

Unknown [UK], August 1940

You are right here - something does look odd. Let me see what I can find out.

In the future, when you find things like that, you can post in The Community Portal -- that way more people can see it (as opposed to just the moderator who happen to catch your submission). If you know how to fix it, a submission is fine. If not - a note is better :) Thanks for finding this problem :) Annie 23:22, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

Fixed. Annie 14:12, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

anniemod|Annie: my apologies, both for taking so long to respond, and for quite possibly not replying in the right way: the right way to do something isn't necessarily as obvious to a "new bug" like myself, as it may be to long-time contributors - and to mods. and thank-you for pointing out the community_portal - i'd no idea of its existence, never mind what its purpose(s) might be. love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 11:20, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

No worries at all. :) we will fix them no matter how you report them - it just makes it easier if it is up in the talk pages. Which is why I pointed it out . :) Annie 12:27, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Strange Doings

Hello. Just an FYI. You have updated the publication date of Strange Doings, but have buried the source of the publication date into the notes to moderator where it is not visible for the casual browser. It is always better to add this kind of interesting piece of information to the notes directly. I've done that for you. Have a look and let me know if it's ok like this. Regards, MagicUnk 14:13, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

hi, magicunk: yes, that's fine. i've not seen an instance of a publisher's review slip date of publication being given, so didn't know that i should, nor how best to phrase it, and i did. love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 17:04, 9 June 2020 (EDT)

Hello again. I have a follow-up question. What was the source of this information regarding review copy slip as source for pub date? If you own this book, including the review slip, I'd encourage you to primary-verify this record (see menu on the left if you have this pub record open). Thanks! MagicUnk 16:39, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

hi, magicunk: thank-you: i have now done so, after working out (eventually!) how to do so; i didn't think of even possibly claiming i was a "primary verifier" as it seemed to suggest i was claiming some kind of priority regarding the isfdbification of the book/edition of the book. (if it does, some way of limiting this to just the noting of the charles scribner's sons inlaid review copy slip text would be completely acceptable.) love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 08:53, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Five Star

Thanks for finding that. I merged the two publishers together. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

On Basilisk Station hardcover vs. paperback

Hi. I have you submissions (looks like your browser might have double-submitted on you) on hold that would change the format of On Basilisk Station from paperback to hardcover. In a case like this, where there is a Primary Verifier, you should confirm any substantial change with the verifier(s), as differences may indicate separate editions. Unfortunately, Don has not been active for a couple of months, so I don't expect we would get a quick answer from him.

Given that pb vs. hc is an unlikely mistake and that his note also mentions "probable 4th printing" (I do wish the note said why that seems probable), I think it would be safer if you Cloned that publication and made a new hc record with your notes about the physical binding and removing the mention of the printing unless you have some reason to suspect it's a 4th printing (or any other nth printing). Once that has been submitted and accepted, then you could leave a note on Don's talk page pointing him at both records -- his and yours -- and ask him to check his binding info and other details. He will be able to figure it out and can combine them if appropriate.

It's better to risk possible duplicate in favor of deleting something we should have kept. Let me know if you disagree or need any help with this. I've left the submissions on hold for reference. If you do a Clone, you can cancel them when you do not need them anymore. Thanks. --MartyD 11:11, 21 June 2020 (EDT)

hi, martyd (no, tablettything, *not* "martyr"!): thank-you. umm, i'm uncertain as to how best to proceed: i stocked the copy in IMT, my shop, sourced from a uk wholesaler who did not give a fair $:£ conversion on either of the two special low priced, film-covered boards h/cvrs, and i did not stock nor receive and return an otherwise identical tp/b edition (which would be difficult to produce as a film-covered p/b book with essentially the same process, as the film - which is what _appeared_ to be printed, presumably on the under-side, examined non-destructively - was covered by glued end-papers on the in-sides of the boards; this would not happen with the normal card covers of p/bs.

however, i do not have access to my former shop's remaining stock, which is in storage; i doubt i have a copy of the lower-cover priced special edition (unless i kept a copy for myself, in which case it should be somewhere in this mostly-chaos here at home, but i've not seen it in the last three years (cancer & treatment distracted me a bit)): so i cannot currently pick up a copy and confirm the information.

so: "i'm absolutely certain - but i *could* be wrong!"

- is there any good way of recording this as a query, or should it simply be deleted and left for someone in the future to send in a correction if/when a copy of it eventually turns up?

- love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 09:15, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Ok, I think what I will do is let the change through and tell Don about it. If he finds they're different, we can split the records then. Please make yourself a verifier of it, so someone in the future can find that it's you who has the book. Thanks! --MartyD 06:58, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

- hi, martyd: ok, have puzzled out (again) how to, and done so. (eventually i'll remember...) and remember to check any copy i find in here, or whenever i come across it elsewhere. - love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 19:22, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Your 'Note to Moderator'

Hello. You submitted an update for The Left Hand of Darkness without actually updating anything but the Note to Moderator. That is not a good way to communicate with editors nor with moderators. Instead, you should either post your note on the talk page(s) of the primary verifiers to ask them if they agree with your statement (Rtrace and Willem H. are active, so they will likely respond quickly - bar holiday shenanigans of course :), or post a question/comment on one of the Noticeboards - community portal would be a good choice. I've therefore rejected your submission.

Here are your notes for reference: pub note: year date of "1978" in the last sentence is inconsistent with almost all of the above dating information, and should probably read "1971" (or possibly "1970") as it *must* be after the dates the two awards were made, and *must* be before the november 1972 date of the third printing. - love, ppint.) Regarsd, MagicUnk 07:30, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

magicunk: ok, have tried resubmitting it to community portal, but am not at all sure i've done this correctly. pp. Ppint.pinto 12:05, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
You've done allright posting on the communtiy portal :). Concerning your question, you may want to follow up there and check if Annie queried the other editors. By the way, if you reply, precede your answer with one or more colons. That will indent your reply. Cheers ! MagicUnk 14:08, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

New Writings in S-F 18

Hello.I have your submission on hold as New Writings in S-F 18 is primary verified by Dirk P. Boer. Policy is to ask PV's first before you make these kind of changes. Can you therefore ask him first if he agrees with your changes? (note that Dirk may be on holidays atm, but he is otherwise a regular, so you definitely will get an answer from him. Cheers! MagicUnk 14:03, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for reaching out to Dirk. As to your question if you did it right: almost :) If you want to start a new topic on a user's talk page, go to the very top of the talk page, and press the '+' sign next to 'edit'. That will allow you to create a message with proper title and body. Cheers! MagicUnk 13:42, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
thank-you. (this was actually the third time i searched to find how to ask him about this, and the first time i found what looked like the, or at least a, possible right place to ask him: i don't know whether most people find it obvious / more obvious how to do things here...

- love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 15:57, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

It is over two months without clear resolution to the matter, and without further response, so I've rejected your submission. If you want to pick up this edit again, seek clear approval from Dirk, and then a moderator can resurrect your submission - or alternatively, you can re-submit. Regards MagicUnk 16:03, 27 October 2020 (EDT)
dirk appeared to accept my submission on 23/9/2020.

- love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 04:39, 30 October 2020 (EDT)

Right... I totally missed Dirk's latest message. Now approved. Regards, MagicUnk 08:16, 2 November 2020 (EST)

Dead sites

When you find a dead site, the best course of action is to try to find an available snapshot (as late as possible but do not obsess over that). I've done that here. :) Annie 13:12, 30 October 2020 (EDT)

The Land Leviathan

I've placed this submission on hold because it appears you are changing a verified publication to match what you have. This is not the way to do this. As two people have verified that publication (Unapersson and Don Erikson), you should check with them to make sure the copy you have matches what they have. If it does not, you need to clone their version of the publication and make a new one. I'll be posting a note on their talk pages so they can come here and discuss this, and so the discussion remains in one location. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:22, 8 December 2020 (EST)

if you read the publisher notes for uk publisher quartet books, and for the change in the distributors of their general paperbacks from the book service ltd. to futura publications ltd, you may appreciate that the attribution of this edition of the land leviathan to orbit books, rather than to quartet books, was an error.

it is an easily-makeable error, but an error nonetheless.

- there is no obvious direction to how to make the correction necessary, other than as an edit:

i respectfully suggest that if there is only one correct way to make such an edit on isfdb, it should be clearly stated *and* signposted.

- love, ppint. Ppint.pinto 17:59, 8 December 2020 (EST)

OCLC also says Quartet and Orbit as a series. And looking at the Orbit ISBNs for this year, I can see only 3 "0-7043" ones which usually signifies that there is something off (at least back in the 70s) while all Quarter Books ones from that year are "0-7043". So definitely looks like a Quarter Books to me... together with a few more in Orbit's list. Although the edit will need to be reedited (to use the correct form of the publisher). Annie 18:15, 3 February 2021 (EST)
Thanks, Annie. I've approved it and corrected it. Ppint.pinto, please make sure you use the correct publisher name ("Quartet Books", not "Quartet") in the future. You can always do a search for the publisher to make sure you're using the correct name. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:31, 3 February 2021 (EST)