User talk:Davhorn

Welcome!

Hello, Davhorn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tim! 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Original Series[edit]

though your entry regarding picture format may be accurate, this entry is specifically for television format. check out Template talk:Infobox Television for clarification. --emerson7 | Talk 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the format from the original run of the show? The talk page says "released" which is pretty vague. Davhorn 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Unearthly Child[edit]

Hello Davhorn, I added a bit in to the production section informing readers where they could go for further reading on the plot (something that I would like to know). However, you reverted the page back saying that the ‘The Fact of Fiction’ in not valid here. I am a little confused and would like to know (to prevent me doing it again) why this is not applicable?

Thanks for your time, Haroldjclements (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem was really that it doesn't bring any info itself, except mentioning that there's info somewhere else. A possible alternative would be to include relevant info in the An Unearthly Child article itself and just cite the fact of fiction article. I've also seen that some Wikipedia articles, like the one about Narnia, has its own Further Reading section. I think any sources that aren't cited in the article should be put into a section like that just above the external links section. That way information about further sources is separated from the article prose. Davhorn (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Davhorn. I can see your point about not bring any information the the article (and agree). Thank you very much for your time. Haroldjclements (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Hello there. The reviews that I've posted were mostly obtained from visiting the British Newspaper Library in Colindale, London and, either by accessing published indexes (which sometimes exist for books, but which I've never seen for television programmes) and then getting out the microfilms of past issues. There are a few exceptions however. Both The Guardian and The Observer have a digital archive at http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Default/Skins/DigitalArchive/Client.asp?Skin=DigitalArchive&enter=true&AppName=2&AW=1221723705751 but you do have to pay for this. I paid £7.95 for a 24 hour pass and then went through every single review I could and printed them, making the Wikipedia entries at my leisure. One other recent archive is The Daily Mirror at http://www.arcitext.com/ which has free access from within British Library premises and which I accessed there. (In getting this info for you, I've also come across the news on the latter site that The Daily Express will soon be available there as well which for me with Christie is wonderful news as the Express was a real source of Christie material in the 1930's and so far I've only found it by plodding through every single issue on microfilm!!) A final source would be The Times at http://www.galeuk.com/times/ but again I access this at the British Library and outside access looks as if it might be limited to non-personal use. Hope this helps--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the information! I doubt I'll be checking out the newspaper library since I don't live in England, but I'll have a look at the digital archives. :) Davhorn (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Gorrie (director)[edit]

The article John Gorrie (director) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP, no evidence of notability at all via online sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]