User talk:Jason Palpatine/Archive 2

Filmed but unused scenes references

Thanks for adding those references so fast! I fixed the markup, just remember that the end tag has to be closed with a "/" as in <ref>Some reference</ref>.

Editing of your user page

Actually no we haven't, you had a link to European Classical music under the old way (just plain classical music) recently it had been changed to a disambiguation page, and I being a rather lifeless person (right now at any rate) am taking the time to slowly redirect all such to the new page [european classical music]. I do like your page layout though :D --Atechi 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter edit

I noticed that [1] edit by you was reverted as vandalism. On the one hand it looks almost like a practical joke, but on the other hand... your edit really wasn't constructive. I am confused and curious. Crazynas ^t 09:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't revert you, and wouldn't have reverted as Vandalism if I had (AGF). But since I saw someone else had reverted as vandalism, I thought I'd look into it. No harm no foul. Cheers. Crazynas ^t 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Atlas of middle earth

Great idea with that map at Numenor. I have the same book -- do you think its a good idea to put similar maps of the battles and other locations like Ered Gorgoroth, etc.? I can help with scanning as well. atanamir 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider it a good idea. The maps contain detail not included in other, more grafic maps. -- Jason Palpatine 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

Fair use

The thing is, this map was produced by a secondary source, so that weakens our claim. An analogy here is our use of screen captures on articles. We could have a screen capture of an episode of a TV show on an article about that TV show. We might even use the screen capture to illustrate an article about an actor from that TV show. What we couldn't do, is crop the screen capture so that it shows only the tree visible in the right hand side, and use it to illustrate a tree.

A better example - imagine a diagram in a science schoolbook, depicting the water cycle. We could possibly use it to illustrate an article about the book. We certainly couldn't use it in our article about the water cycle.

Basically, there's no reason why we can't redraw that map ourselves, and since it isn't a primary source for Numenor, we don't get a justification for it on those grounds. There's a stronger case for using Tolkien's actual map from Unfinished Tales on Numenor, but even then I'd be reluctant to use it without text actually describing the map.

This sort of issue is quite subtle and hard to get your head round. Have a look at Wikipedia:Fair use, in the counterexamples section, where it says "A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use." (I discover it addresses this directly only after writing the above text). So, see what I mean? Morwen - Talk 00:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox text size

I've reverted several of your edits to some of the Ancestry userboxes. I reverted changes that you made to increase the font sizes to 10pt, seeing as nearly every userbox's text is of size 8 it would probably be best to keep with the standard (IMHO).

In any case it should be said that I have no problem whatsoever with the text size of the user boxes one your userpage. You can easily change the default template font for most info boxes by passing the 'info-s' parameter to the template which, for the template:User Welsh ancestry template would be {{User Welsh ancestry|info-s=10}}. — Mobius 08:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried your suggestion -- here's what happened:

{{User Welsh ancestry|info-s=10}}

{{User:Digitalme/Box/User Irish Ancestry|info-s=10}}

{{user German|info-s=10}}

What do I do now? -- Jason Palpatine 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

Oh, don't include those <nowiki> tags, I used those so that I could keep the wiki from drawing a userbox there. — Mobius 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2001 A Space Odyssey

Hi, glad to talk.

You said: "change back to first edition cover - leave or improve 1st quality"

I did say that - the last section was badly phrased though - what I meant was "leave this image or improve the 1st edition image quality - i.e. by finding a better 1st edition cover image", badly put I know.

As this is an encyclopedia, part of the record being created is where the subject came from i.e. it's history. The artwork of "2001 A Space Odyssey" is very much "of the period" as with many novels. Maybe with "2001" even more so. We tend therefore to prefer a 1st edition cover if one can be found.

What's the problem? the aniversery cover is a clear and straight good quality image

True

not to mention better artwork.

Matter of opinion, one on which I personally am undecided.

The quality of the other cover pic just isn't the same level.

On the first criteria only - I quite agree.

The picture of Dullea on the cover isn't as awe inspiring -- it never was.

Also agree, but "awe" shouldn't be the aim of the use of cover art here, just to illustrate the history of the novel. The 100% most significant edition, has to be the 1st of any book.

The 2 book covers are redundant. - Jason Palpatine 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, 2 covers are not redundant. that would only be true if they did the same thing; as you point out they don't. In fact one records the state of art and image at the time of the novel and film, the other how we see the work today. Both have significance, however as the novel and film are of a period, that period should have precedence. I trust you are ok with all this. This subject matter deserves the best so you are quite right to question. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just curious ...

... what was the problem with how I had my info boxes formatted on my user page? Were they too wide for your browser? — franl | talk ✤ 16:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to be helpfull. No offense intended. Looked like {-----} on my monitor here. Sorry. --Jason Palpatine 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm not sure what you mean by "Looked like {-----}". Were the images not rendering? Or were they just too wide across the page? Or something else? — franl | talk ✤ 17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not A Matter of Life and Death yet...

Before we get into an edit war, can we discuss the ending? Both SteveCrook and I prefer the other version. IMO, the quotation is rather clumsy and not particularly memorable.

By the way, have you seen what somebody's done to the synopsis for 2001? It looks like I'm going to have to take my scalpel and do a little pruning. Clarityfiend 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Beneath the PotA intro

I'll have to check the movie again to be sure, but I believe that the "sheet of ice" scene is in Nova's flashbacks while Brent interrogates her, not in the scenes after Nova and Taylor are riding through the Forbidden Zone after the Statue of Liberty scene.

198.144.201.12 06:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What "sheet of ice" are you talking about. I belive it was a crack in the earth and a shear rock wall. -- Jason Palpatine 19:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Hi. Sorry if my comment sounded harsh, I didn't intend it that way. By "useless" I meant the link didn't go to the story you intended, I think [2] is what you wanted.

As far as removing it from the article, I still stand by that. The opposition to Harry Potter on the basis of witchcraft etc. is already mentioned in the article, and the specific instance you cite isn't notable by itself - the article says it was only attended by 30 people, and only was covered in a local newspaper, definitely not on a "national" level. If you wanted to put it back you could use it as a footnote to support the sentence "Rowling has had to contend with considerable backlash, particularly from Fundamentalist Christian groups who believe the series’ pagan imagery is dangerous to their children." but i really don't think it's notable enough to deserve a whole paragraph. GrahameS 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"A footnote? Uh, how do we go about doing that. The lady was using some pretty strong words. Like the Presedent of Venezuala calling President Bush Satan himself. Sheshhhhhhhhhhh"

Yeah but to continue your analogy, this lady calling Harry Potter witchcraft is like some Democratic congressman calling George Bush a warmonger. May be a common opinion, but the congressman doesn't deserve a mention in Bush's article.GrahameS 01:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Brainiac (comics) - Revision as of 11:55, 1 October 2006

Yesterday, you deleted from the above cited article/revision an image originally uploaded by me. Your reason stated was "Pictures from Who's Who are not fair-use". What I want to know is WHY I wasn't notified in any way, means, shape, or form -- or time for that matter -- about the matter?! There is nothing on my talk page! NOTHING! The change in policy (a little outlandish IMHO, but sei-la-vee!) is something you never notified me of. No word -- no notice -- nothing. Just summary deletion. Yes, the decision was made -- but why wasn't I told? -- Jason Palpatine 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

I apologize. That's the first time I've speedy deleted something, and I didn't think to tell you. I've had images I've uploaded speedy deleted without my knowledge several times once they were orphaned and I had no idea, so I understand how you must feel. Again, I apologize. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

BSG season 3 main story arcs

Hello Jason - I'd very much appreciate if you could offer your opinion on why the list of plot arcs should be expanded on the Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) page. Debivort 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interrobamf / Proposed Deletion of 2001 Trivia:

Adding this identical message to Jason Palpatine and Bungopolis' User talk:

Hi guys -- what do we do to get this Interrobamf guy off our backs WRT futzing with the 2001 film entry, and, more importantly, attempting to have the triva list deleted? If you look at his user talk, you'll see he's been written up bunch of times already for being a major asshole.

(Jason, do you want to add your voice/vote to keep the trivia page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2001: A Space Odyssey trivia? )

Since Wiki discourages trivia articles, do we "de-trivialize" the article and/or roll its content back into the main film article?

P.S. is there any efficient way to talk here as a group without having to post to multiple user talk pages?

Regards, Sailorlula 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken titles

Even if Comcast does screw up the title, the majority have corrected their mistake. One typo is not a notable distinction nor does it cause much confusion on the viewer's part. Now, if it were a consistent error on the part of a large number of providers, it would be something worth noting. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey Revision as of 02:53, 9 December 2006

Sailorlula (Talk | contribs) (Changed 'Russian' --> 'Soviet.' Although they're probably Russian as well, they are definitely Soviet.)

Uh, pardon me, but how, exactly, do you know them to be Soviets as opposed to Russian? Although the the breakup of the USSR was still a quarter century in the future when the film was made, that dose not validate of invalidate the point one way or the other. There is no mention of the Soviet Union by name at any point during the film. The only county ever mentioned by name was the United States.

Just curious. -- Jason Palpatine 07:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jason:

They're carrying Aeroflot flight bags, which feature a Soviet hammer and sickle within the Aeroflot logo. Also, I believe the Soviet Union is visually mentioned in the film -- I believe one of the satellites has a CCCP (aka USSR) livery on it, if memory serves; it's too small to see on the DVD version. If the Soviet Union exists and they're Russian, then they're Soviet.

My main reason for this change is I'm guessing that it never even occurs to younger, newbie 2001 viewers that Kubrick was imagining that the Soviet Union was still around -- this serves as a gentle reminder.

Regards, Sailorlula 07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The sattelite you are refering to only displayed the red star. No CCCP. Sorry. Aeroflot still exists today (unlike Pan-Am) and its logo still sports the Hammer and sickle emblem. -- Jason Palpatine 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How are you sure about red star vs. CCCP -- have you seen it on a big screen recently? That the Aeroflot logo today still incorporates the hammer and sickle is irrelevant. Its inclusion in the film clearly demonstrates that Kubrick was imagining that the Soviet Union still existed. What's the alternative, that he was imagining that the USSR would be gone, but that nevertheless Aeroflot would lamely continue to use an obsolete visual icon in its logo?

Sailorlula 07:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing. I will not argue. It is a matternot even pointed out in the film one way or the other. So I will not say either or. It doesn't matter. I mearly replied to you as is proper in any conversation. Is that so wrong. I am not sying you are wrong. I am not saying you are right.

If you really want hard proof of your claim being valid, you might want to address the fact that the existence of the USSR is clearly stated in Clarke's sequel novel and Hyams' film adaptation of it. So in one regard -- you are 110% correct. I am mearly conversing with you; a fellow 2001 enthusiest. When I saw your edit, I actually thought at fist that you may have been refering to the conversation they were having before they started talking in english.. IE -- I thought that maybe you speak/understand russian. Enjoy, and thank-you for the insight. TTFN -- Jason Palpatine 08:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey guy, I wasn't arguing either. I was editor-in-chief of two magazines for a decade, during which I developed a terse writing style. I guess it can end up sounding combative, which was not at all my intention, sorry Jason.

I have always wanted to know exactly what they're saying before and after Floyd's visit. I had a Russian guy working for me a while ago, but I never thought of asking him to translate for me!

Regards, Sailorlula 08:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hrgigeralien.jpg Tags reply

Heh, no problem man ;) I know how hard it is to find the right tags sometimes.

On a related issue, as you probably know, the original painting which to great extent inspired Ridley Scott to make the movie in the first place, and which Giger based his final design on (as seen in the image you uploaded) was this one: Necronom IV. I was kind of wondering if this could somehow be incorporated into the Xenomorph (Alien) page, perhaps in a "design" section or something. Your thoughts? -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, but with the varying opinions about fair use images here -- I don't know. Jason Palpatine 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pigs Is Pigs (1937 film)

I deleted that trivia because I don't think "goofs" belong in WP. H Bruthzoo 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Animated Series

Hi. I see you made an edit to Star Trek: The Animated Series [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series&diff=95162587&oldid=95088444 reverted my removal of some stuff.

Now, one of the things you (re)introduced here was a claim that the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology says that the Enterprise is brought back for a SLEP after year 3. I can find no such claim on the Spaceflight Chronology. The Spaceflight Chronology ends with the launch of the USS Enterprise. Perhaps I missed something: if you can tell me what page to look on that would be good. Morwen - Talk 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I have both books and am rather unlikely to get them mixed up, especially considering the massive amount of work I've done at timeline of Star Trek. And as I noted, Spaceflight Chronology's timeline ends circa 2200, just after the launch of Enterprise. Morwen - Talk 07:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I appear to have a different edition of the Spaceflight Chronology, which doesn't have a page 180. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, I shall see what I can do to source it. Nontheless, the section is still godawful and improperly sourced in many many other ways and you should revert yourself forthwith to remove it againI have removed it again. A list of things that the article claims now that are not correct

• the statements on startrek.com are an editorial opinion by a website and do not represent official policy by Paramount/CBS/Abrams.
• it compares stardates on episodes of TAS vs TOS, without any sourcing for this comparison. this is original research. also, it's absurd, because stardates in the TOS era are meaningless
• there is also no sourcing regarding a theory that TAS was a "second five-year mission". the only sources here for this paragraph are about the length of the mission depicted in TOS. for us to have this, we'd need to have some reliable source speculating that TAS was a second five-year mission. we don't have this. this paragraph is therefore speculation or original research, and should not be on Wikipedia.

Please check our policies about WP:V and WP:NOR. I removed this section for good reasons, and superficially adding sources doesn't fix its fundamental brokenness.

I replaced the section with the one at Star Trek: The Animated Series#Canon issues, so additionally, having 2 sections, both talking about whether TAS is canon or not, and where it is dated, is pretty non-optimal. If there are any specific points in the text deleted that you think can be adequately sourced to Wikipedia standards then please feel free to put these in this section, with appropriate wording : or maybe point out things to me and I will do them. but please don't revert this big wodge of text back there. Morwen - Talk 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If it falls outside verifiability, it shoudln't be there, simple as that. This is a core Wikipedia policy. Morwen - Talk 13:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Snail Talk

So it's been months since you last posted on my talk page, but I figured I'd answer it anyways. I sincerely apologize for neglecting to for so long. You can go to it right here. Cheers and happy editing. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek userboxes

Hi, I see that you coded the original Star Trek userboxes. I had a quick look at User:UBX/Star Trek series but have no idea how parsing works, so I give up trying anything for myself just now... Would you mind adding a userbox for Star Trek: New Frontier? I like all the TV series but, for me, Peter David's crew beat them all! Cheers, Fayenatic london (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry -- I figured it out! - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dinar-25000.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinar-25000.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I happened to see your post at Rebelguys2's talk page.[3] I hope you don't mind if I intrude in the conversation. The reason for him just now getting to an image that you long-ago uploading is probably just because he stumbled upon it. We don't have a human review whenever an image is first uploaded to a site. People just review images as they come across them. If you have uploaded other fair use images without providing a specififc rational for why they should be used, then you should definitely add such explanations immediately. Eventually they will get questioned and possible deleted. Please keep in mind that the explanation for fair use is specific to the article where the image appears. If the image is in 3 articles, it will need 3 justifications. Johntex\^talk 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Last night, I happened to go through a number of images from the Sri Lanka Army, Finnish Defence Forces, and Iraqi government. Your image just happened to fall into one of these categories. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The "webcomic" section of Pigs Is Pigs (1937 film)

I deleted this section because this webcomic does not appear to meet our web notability guidelines; I can't find any sources that vouch for its notability, and it reads like a review or advertisement for "Willix," whose work is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, suggesting his work may not meet our notability standards. Also, Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, and this large section was basically just a retelling of the comic. Krimpet 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Chimes of Big Ben" as "Prisoner" pilot

I just noticed a "Trivia" note on the article The Chimes of Big Ben stating it, rather than Arrival, was the pilot episode for the TV series The Prisoner. A check of that article's "History" showed that you revised it to that point on 28 March. I had submitted that theory on the discussion page there on 24 March, and can't help but wonder if my note had inspired your revision. Just for future reference, I feel that this was too much a change of factual information to be considered a "Minor Edit" as is indicated. Don't misunderstand me, I am certainly no administrator here; indeed, I first entered Wiki just this past February, a relative newcomer, so this is just my opinion about such things. But anyway, is it a coincidence, or did my note lead to your revision? I'd really like to know. Ted Watson 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know someone else is aware of this. But, sorry no, I was unaware of your post. I had The Prisoner originally in VHS and later, the A&E DVD collection. I did not purchase the original CoBB tape whaen I saw the alternate tape was available. The production note insert specified that it was the original series pilot; not ARRIVAL. --Jason Palpatine 04:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All clear, we came to this conclusion independently. One question: This "production note insert" you mention, is it with the DVD set? I've got the old MPI label's tape--I recorded the regular 17 episodes off my PBS affiliate (no commercials, no cuts, just voice-over promos during the closing titles)--and the word "pilot" is not there, and "Alt. Chimes" wasn't part of A&E's VHS release, just the basic 17. Just curious about the specifics, not doubting you. Ted Watson 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. It was with the original VHS release I purchsed back in the early '90s. Sorry, but I sold it after I got the DVD set from A&E. --Jason Palpatine 07:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

Thanks man, you were right, sorry for the mistake in editing. I guess I just wasn't thinking, it was pretty late, and I just halfway got confused. Glad there was someone who knew the right information, apparently I didn't! Thanks again! Mastrchf91 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bbc19842.jpg

Just noticed you've deleted the original version of this image and replaced it with one from the film. If you wanted to upload a picture from the film, you should have done it under a different name, as you've now inserted your image into several articles where it doesn't belong. (Roy Oxley, Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme), etc. I have now put the original version back online. Please be more careful in future. Angmering 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AndThenThereWereNoneBookCover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AndThenThereWereNoneBookCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that you'd reverted to the above cover instead of the first edition cover. I went and looked up the Novel Project's policy at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate and it's a little ambiguous -- it suggests that the first edition is preferable, but it seems to want the first edition that bears the specific title of the article. I didn't want to revert an experienced editor like yourself without asking about your reasoning, but I can say that, as a mystery collector, I had never seen the cover of the first edition and found it of more interest than the cover of a paperback. May I hear your thoughts on this? Accounting4Taste 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this "This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency." statement you made when arguing this cover. Exactly how is seeking factual accuracy of the situation falling foul of this. I can't stand the opinions of the dictator's of the mid 20thC however that can't mean we never include them to illustrate the nature of the problem they brought to the world. I can say quite categorically I am not pushing a particular word. All I am seeking to do is accurately record history. "political correctness" in my view appears to be a euphemism for historical revisionism. What happened happened! Any encyclopaedia should be a record of it. If we "must" have another edition then the first US edition would be the next most preferable. Particularly in that it illustrates the dispute at the time. Also I would agree with Accounting4Taste the students of the controversy should at least have access to the visual information to see what the problem was. So again as a secondary solution the appearance of the cover (which is clearly borderline in content) later in the article would be helpful. Otherwise we get close to suppression of the truth rather than education, information and debate on the facts. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah Ha, so now I get it, this statement is part of your user signature. And I thought you we saying it of me. Duh! My apologies. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If we could find a 1940 edition cover for "And Then There Were None" that would I think be preferable. I have had a bit of a scout round but not been able to come up with one myself though. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And Then There Were None

Please see my talk page for response to "And Then There Were None" issue--Jtomlin1uk 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)