Hello, ThaddeusSholto! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
In your recent edits to The List of Seven and The Six Messiahs you removed the category "Sherlock Holmes Pastiche" with the comment "no it isn't because he isn't even in it". I'm not sure if you know what the term "pastiche" means, but it's alright that Holmes doesn't appear in a pastiche novel. Look at one of the most famous Holmes pastiches, Sexton Blake; Holmes doesn't appear in the Blake stories, but it is undoubtly a Holmes Pastiche, e.g.
http://www.schoolandholmes.com/charactersbi.htmlDamiantgordon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blake's authors consciously modeled him on Sherlock Holmes. List of Seven and Six Messiahs use Conan Doyle as a character. He isn't modeled on Sherlock Holmes as he created Sherlock Holmes. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you totally, but I think that the character of Jack Sparks in the two novels is a pastiche of Holmes, he is ascetic, aloof, mentally and physically extraordinary, a violinist. He also uses a magnifying glass, smokes a pipe and play strange music on his violin, characteristics similar to Sherlock Holmes. Damiantgordon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description in the article itself makes him seem more like Doc Savage, but if you really think he is a Holmes pastiche then I guess we should probably add it back into that category. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock series 3
This is really annoying because the anonymous user is correct in that Sue Vertue said on Twitter that The Guardian had misquoted Moffat, and series 3 is unlikely to air in 2012 (but will be in production). But, Vertue's account isn't verified, so we technically can't use that source to correct report! I guess we're just doomed to wait until a RS confirms it. The JPStalk to me21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm TBrandley. Your recent edit to the page Elementary (TV series) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elementary (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MBC 4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Lescroart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book Club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I don't think your rollback of my edit on the article The House of Silk was a good move. To suggest a 2011 British Sherloch Holmes novel coincides with "the first time the Conan Doyle Estate had authorised a new Sherlock Holmes pastiche" means supporting a fringe claim than ignores thousands of sources documenting thousands of pre-2011 SH pastiches, most of which had the appoval of the estate because they were published before 2000, the year the copyright on the character expired in the United Kingdom. It even means we are telling the reader that the 1954 pastiche collection The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes was not athorized by the Doyle estate, even though it was co-written by Doyle's own son! When it comes to outlandish assertions, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines don't put all sources on the same level: there are reliable sources and unreliable sources. The former can be used in Wikipedia articles, the latter cannot be used. It's not always easy to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, however in this case there is only one source and I'd say this is a textbook example of unreliable source: an article written in a generalist newspaper by a person who is not a SH scholar or expert and obviously has no idea of what she is talking about, and full of nonsense like "Doyle's last 13 stories were published as The Return of Sherlock Holmes in 1905". There has to be a reason why Wikipedia distinguishes between reliable and unreliable sources. What do you think? --Newblackwhite (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source as is Publishers Weekly which also said "The hype surrounding what’s being billed as the first pastiche ever officially approved by the Conan Doyle estate..." [1] So is the Financial Times "Now the Doyle estate has, for the first time, officially sanctioned the continuation of the great saga" [2]
Whether you like it or agree the fact is the book was advertised as the first authorized continuation and that was a major part of the promotional campaign. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read your second link since I am not registered, while I can read your first link. Still, if there are multiple sources, it's better to add them in the article so that it is clear the claim was reported by many newspapers and not just in that single article.
Anyway, I think you are missing the point when you write "The Guardian is a reliable source". A newspaper is not necessary always 100% reliable or always 100% unreliable as a source: many of them are regarded as reliable for everyday subjects but unreliable for specialized subjects if not written by people who are experts on the subject itself. And I serously don't see how you can call reliable an article saying Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905. If we don't remove the claim, we should at least replace the source, maybe using the Publishers Weekly article you linked above.
At any rate, I think it is a violation of WP:NPOV to simply register the claim that it was the first pastiche approved by the Doyle estate without also informing the reader that the claim is false accoring to countless reliable sources. --Newblackwhite (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are running in circles... if you are seriously convinced that an article saying Doyle published his last SH story in 1905 is a reliable source just because it was published by The Guardian, then I guess nothing I could say can convince you of the opposite. Which is sad, because I think these kind of misunderstandings between editors are one of the reasons that are driving many Wikipedia contributors away these days.
Also, why do you say that "there is nothing not neutral about it"? It is fair to say the claim was made as part of the promotion of the book, but it is not neutral to imply the claim may be true, because we have reliable sources saying it's not. Again, I don't see why we should have a disagreement over such a simple fact.
I won't do complex edits for the time being to avoid an edit war, so I'll start by simply replacing the Guardian source with the Publishers Weekly source you mentioned. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The book was promoted with the claim..." so Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral. The Guardian article is one of the first that appears on google when searching review for the book and it is a reliable source so it belongs in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I will follow the rule that we must assume good faith, but if it weren't for that rule I would almost think that you are trolling. You reverted my edit while writing in the summary that "The Guardian is a reliable source". I have asked you before, and I'll ask you again, since you never answered: how can an article claiming Doyle stopped writing Holmes stories in 1905 be regarded as a reliable source? Hopefully I'll get a real answer this time. You obviously are an expert on Sherlock Holmes, so you know that Doyle wrote 19 SH short stories and one SH novel between 1908 and 1927, as certified by millions of sources. Just because the Guardian published the article it doesn't mean what's written in it is reliable.
But the most puzzling thing is that for some reason it seems to be of vital importance to you that the Guardian article keeps staying in the page, even now that you have found other articles that say the same thing without inflicting readers with that Doyle stopped in 1905 nonsense.
"Wikipedia is not making any claims of truth about the claim and therefore it is perfectly neutral": on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia neither supports nor rejects the claim. However, the fact that the claim is not rejected will lead many people to assume that it is true, even though it is shown by reliable sources to be wrong. What's the point of confusing people if we can avoid that? Plus, it is not neutral to give undue weight to the claim made during the promotion of the book while totally ignoring the overwhelming consensus among the reliable sources that the claim is wrong.
I will reply but then any further comments from you will be deleted because you just seem to want to argue your own point of view. The Guardian is a reliable source as it meets all the criteria at WP:RS regardless of whether or not you think the author is enough of an expert. Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. Please read that last sentence once again: Wikipedia is about verifiablility and not truth. The Guardian article is not being used as a reference to support the claim that Doyle's last Holmes collection was published in 1905 so it doesn't matter whether or not that one aspect of the Guardian article is untrue. It is being used to support the true and verifiable claim that The House of Silk was advertised as the first non-Doyle work to be officially authorized by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, I haven't examined the sources in detail but there's validity to what Nbw says. Sources are not 100% reliable or unreliable, but have to be evaluated for their reliability on individual points, in context. The Independent is certainly reliable in general, but on a specialized topic of literary history like this, it may not be so, and that's especially true when the same article contains such a glaring error (1905 etc.). You're right, TS, that WP is about V and not T, but the V relies on evaluation of sources in context, like I said; the 1905 error pretty much disqualifies that author as not having first idea what he or she is talking about. Anyway, surely by now there is scholarly commentary on the work itself that can be used in place of either 2011 source. EEng21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one error in a source that doesn't disqualify the source otherwise any book with a typo would be thrown out. It isn't being used as a source for any claim about the dates of Doyle publications so that error is not relevant to what it is being used to reference which it is accurate about. Newblackwhite initially tried to throw out the whole thing because they don't agree that House of Silk should be seen as an authorized sequel which you can see from this edit they made with an edit summary that makes no note of that removal. Now they are trying to impugn the source for a different reason which is still a workaround to eliminate the claim that the book was advertised as an officially recognized work by the Doyle estate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TS, anyone who calls himself Thaddeus Sholto is OK in my book, and I'm looking forward to working with you on Saga-related stuff for a long time to come, but your approach to source evaluation is oversimplified. I don't know the history of the specific content dispute, so I can't take a position on just what the article should say, but I suggest you take it from me as an experienced editor: a source that says Henry VIII enjoyed Shakespeare, or that the last Holmes stories were published in 1905, is pretty much out of the running as anything but a source on itself. Now please, both of you, there must be authoritative sources on this that will avoid this problem altogether. EEng02:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the statement that the book is promoted as the first authorized etc etc belongs in the article, and from what I've seen it looks like it really is authorized. Whether it's the first seems to be the sticking point. I can't get into this right now, though. EEng02:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, ThaddeusSholto. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Kia Ora Thaddeus.
You seem like a sensible Wikipedia. I'm just wondering why when I put in when the film was released in New Zealand, you reverted it? Makes very little sense. If it was put in the wrong part of the article can't you have just moved it? Please please remember to do that in future, it's so annoying if you just delete the whole thing. Okay? Thanks man. Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great work on Sherlock Holmes related stuff! I'm really happy to see you that you are using From Holmes to Sherlock as a source. If you ever need help finding a reliable source on any Holmes or Conan Doyle related matter, feel free to contact me (even if I have noticed that you seem to have a good knowledge about these things yourself). You can email me at mattias221b@gmail.com. And I hope that you or someone else in the WikiProject can create a Wikipedia page on Edith Meiser. She certainly deserves it. Best regards, Mattias Boström MattiasB (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I join Mattias in thanking you for your fine work with regard to the world of Sherlock Holmes. I have another suggestion: a page for I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere[3]], the first podcast dedicated to Sherlock Holmes, which has been in existence since 2007 (the site since 2005, when it began as The Baker Street Blog). Happy to take questions if you have any. Scottmonty (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliments of my work. I have thought of authoring an article for IHOSE but I have thus far been unable to corral enough secondary sources to begin. It is on my every growing list of things to attend to though so when I see reference material which meets the criteria it squirrel it away for later use. I'm certain it will happen someday even if it is not me who begins the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (The Whole Art of Detection) has been reviewed!
@Rosguill: Wouldn't reviews require actually quoting their content? I have replaced some of the quotes but I worry that interpreting someone else's words isn't as reliable as simply quoting them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of an art than a science, and you can definitely use quotes, but avoid scenarios where the entire section just reads "Critic X said "quote", Critic Y said "quote"". Generally, I try to summarize the key points of the review (whether it's positive or negative, other overarching themes), and then include a quotation if there's any particularly noteworthy turn of phrase that is worth including but that would be inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. Crit McCriticson recommended the book, praising its "breathtaking descriptive imagery", while also criticizing the character development as "unrealistic" and "lacking depth".). signed, Rosguilltalk22:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I notice you removed the links to the individual character names as the primary subject. I appreciate that this doesn't quite fit into the standard dab page format, but the pairing of Holmes and Watson- or the characters- *is* likely to be the "primary" use most people are looking for, even if there's not a specific article for it. IMHO this is one of those cases where (knowingly) overriding a guideline because it's likely to be useful is warranted.
If you can suggest a more appropriate solution, I'd definitely welcome it.
@Ubcule: I don't understand why you felt the need to make Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). There is only one article with that title, Holmes & Watson. Technically Holmes & Watson. Madrid Days has that phrase in it but that isn't the title. As Help:Disambiguation says "Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." This disabugation has one article with that title and three vaguely similar titles that would never be confused for "Holmes and Watson". To add such a long header that refers to something that is not the title of the disambugation page doesn't clear up confusion. It creates it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation ("dab") pages aren't solely for literal, exactly-the-same names or terms.
As noted in the disambiguation guidelines notes, "a single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." [Emphasis mine]. It goes on to mention that (relevant here) this includes "variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith."
Sorry, but I'm not trying to Wikilawyer the wording of the guidelines here, quite the opposite- they say that for good reason, which I agree with. Dab pages are navigation aids intended to help people who don't necessarily know exactly what they're looking for.
There's a good chance that someone looking for (e.g.) that forty year old television series may probably remember it had Holmes and Watson in the title, but not necessarily which variant (e.g. full names or not) it included, and spreading the dab across multiple pages for minor variations (or not providing it at all) would be less useful.
@Ubcule: It is a navigation page to help people find the specific article they were looking for with that term. It is not a directory page for people to use to find every single possible iteration of two terms. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't what it claimed to be.
Please re-read what I said above, assuming you read it in the first place:-
As noted in the disambiguation guidelines notes, "a single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." [Emphasis mine]. It goes on to mention that (relevant here) this includes "variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith."
As I said, this wasn't originally intended as Wikilawyering, but if you want to argue (your own idea of) what dab pages are for, this is what they (not I) say. Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to be paying attention to what I am saying or you just like fighting. Disambiguation pages aren't for listing every single possible iteration of two terms but are to alleviate confusion or ambiguity over similar terms. Putting a note that says "Holmes and Watson, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson and similar combinations of the characters' names may also refer to:" doesn't achieve this as the disambiguation page is titled Holmes and Watson not Holmes, Watson, and other possible combinations. There are already links to this disambiguation page from similar articles such as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson so if someone erroneously went there looking for Holmes & Watson they will still find it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Variants of the same characters' names are similar- note "similar" and not "identical"- phrases and should- as per the guidelines I quoted- be more usefully grouped together in a single place rather than relying on a rat's nest of links.
If you think this is "fighting"- when I've tried to clearly explain my reasoning in good faith- this may say more about your feelings and approach than it does mine.
However, it's clear that continuing this discussion between the two of us alone is unlikely to be productive, and as I don't intend getting into a revert war, I will seek third party input. Ubcule (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be organising things the way you wanted in the first place (i.e. *not* having similar but non-identical versions of the names grouped together).
I'm not sure why you think I'd consider it a "solution" (quite the opposite) as our disagreement on that was essentially the main basis of the entire dispute...!
@Ubcule: It is a solution in that two disamb pages for two different sets of terms will actually aid in helping people find the article they were wanting. You seem to have a personal issue with correcting confusion that nobody except for you would ever have (examples [4] and [[5].) 'Holmes and Watson refers to two articles and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to two different articles. There would never be confusion requiring one disamb page when two more specific ones are clearer. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under other circumstances, I'd be happy to explain why I feel other people *might* confuse "Peter Hewitt" (an English film director) with "Peter Howitt" (an English film director). Or why "It's the way you make me feel" is likely to be confused with the other song's title.
But the truth is you aren't interested in that and this isn't relevant. You weren't going through my post history in good faith- you did so in an attempt to find something to use against me and bolster your own argument in this case, rather than addressing the guidelines I'd used to explain my side. In short, you're trying to make it personal.
As for the rest, you don't say anything above that you haven't said already.
"'Holmes and Watson refers to two articles and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to two different articles."
Means nothing beyond that being the way you want them organised (and have done so).
Anyway, as I already said, I think it would be more productive if we wait until there is some third party input into this matter. Ubcule (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Sherlock Holmes (Stoll film series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm TBrandley. Your recent edit to the page Elementary (TV series) appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
_(14752756965).jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sherlock Holmes (1965 TV series) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)