User talk:Guarddog2

Hello, Guarddog2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Caution: Editing Gilgamesh in the Outback

Hello. This is not any sort of warning from anyone official on Wikipedia. I'm just another regular editor with some advice. You've noted on the talk page for Heroes in Hell that you are Janet Morris. You have also been making edits related to your own works. This is a generally discouraged practice on Wikipedia, which you can read more on here. If you can improve your own work in a neutral way that most editors would agree with, by all means, please do so. However, your current edits do appear to do so.

I realize you are trying to contend with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's claims that it was first published in the Heroes in Hell series before it was reprinted in the magazine. I read over your edits on Gilgamesh in the Outback, and it seems you provided a source to address this. However, that link was faulty (I tried to follow the address, but it didn't lead me to anything). Therefore, like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, I could not verify your claim about where the story was first published. Could you provide that source and ensure that the link is proper? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

Jethrobot, I have made no edits on my own works, if you take the stance that Gilgamesh in the Outback is a reprint. If you take the stance that Gilgamesh in the Outback is "my" work, then I suppose I did, but fixing a factual error seemed appropriate, whoever did it. I have no interest in becoming a Wikipedia editor so my understanding of your process is cursory. I set up that account at Guarddog2 specifically and only to deal with this confusion over the wording on Gilgamesh in the Outback but these people are very unpleasant. I have been monitoring the other bad behavior by OrangeMike and his cronies for some time and I don't need an account to do so; I'm just building a file.

It is possible to refute someone and be polite. People who use terms such as "skanky" and "low rent series" are surely in violation of your conflict of interest and neutral point of view rules, one thinks. Now Wolfowitz has decided I am not me. So be it. I assure you I will not touch Gilgamesh in the Outback again, and I will not do anything else on the Hell books -- as a matter of fact, have never done anything on them, even though someone just wiped the Rebels in Hell page without bothering to save its information, as you did on the other pages.

I found that link to the Locus on line review with just a minute or two search. I'll try to find it again when I have time. The lack of civility of these proceedings has, frankly, shocked me, so I doubt I'll do much more.

Here is some fact for you, if you want it: a "reprint" is not a "first serial." These Silverberg stories, and at least one of the Benford stories, were allowed by me/Baen to appear in magazines as first serials. If the wording was changed to "first serialized," I wouldn't have a problem with it. Wolfowitz IS correct that there was a third Sberg story. When he finished the third story and said he was going to sell a novelization outside the franchise, I almost did not publish the third story, which in my opinion was not up to the standard of the other two in any case. I had forgotten that we did in the end accept that story.

I have little or no idea how to function on Wikipedia and don't have the time or inclination to learn. If you think it inappropriate that I tried to fix the inaccuracies -- and that is what they are -- on the Gilgamesh in the Outback Piece, then I apologize. Wolfowitz has decided that Guarddog2 is not me, in any case. So I may either let him continue to aver that position, in which case Guarddog2 is not me, and there is no problem, or once again say I am me and try again to explain that that a first serial is not a reprint. The fact that non-professionals intermingle these terms doesn't change the reality.

Thank you for being civil, it's a rare quality on Wikipedia, evidently. And if WP wants to kill the Guarddog2 account, they are welcome to do so.

jem Guarddog2 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to Locus Online review as requested

Jethrobot, Locus Online Reviews including comment citing Heroes in Hell as the original source for two SILverberg stories in "To The Land of the Living." As I said I would, I found another link to the Locus Online Review that includes the citation to Heroes in Hell as the original source of the first two Silverberg Heroes in Hell Stories, including Gilgamesh in the Outback and Fascination of the Abomination. http://www.locusmag.com/2001/Reviews/Lalumiere12.html. I am also including the entire relevant portion of the quotation here for your use, since posting the entire review would violate Lalumiere's copyright: Given the synopsis Lalumiere relates, there is no question that first of these two stories (actually, there were three Silverberg HIH stories incorporated into this novel) mentioned by Lalumiere is "Gilgamesh in the Outback."

Quote:

Gilgamesh, by Robert Silverberg [....] To the Land of the Living, a mosaic adapted from two novellas that originally appeared in the Heroes in Hell anthology series, is a much lighter affair, but thoroughly enjoyable. Dead, Gilgamesh roams the underworld in search of Enkidu, the friend he loves more than life. Along the way, he encounters Robert E. Howard, the creator of Conan the Barbarian, who mistakes the Sumerian king for the hero of his repressed homoerotic fantasies.

Although I doubt providing this quote will solve any problems, you know have both the entire quote and what I believe is a working link to New Worlds of Epic Fantasy by Claude Lalumière, where the entire review appears among reviews of other books (scroll down until you find it). JEM98.23.59.186 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Golly, a reviewer writing fifteen years after the story's first appearance makes a mistake, and despite the fact that the review includes another, undeniable error, that quite a few reliable sources, including the bibliography authorized by Robert Silverberg himself, to say nothing of the plainly dated original publications and the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, contradict, you're insistent that the obvious error be treated as fact, What next? Will Ms. Morris and her coterie, citing the original version of this New York Times commentary [1], insist that our article on Hamlet be revised to assert that the Prince of Denmark was the product of an incestuous brother-sister royal marriage?

If that review is accurate, Ms. Morris, there are two Silverberg stories which "originally appeared" in your anthology series. Even if on was to admit that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was not first published elsewhere, what's the second? Is it "Gilgamesh in Uruk", which appeared in IASFM six months before the relevantanthology appeared [2]? Or "The Fascination of the Abomination", which ran in IASFM merely three months earlier than the anthology [3]?

And as long as I'm here, do you really claim to "flat own the copyrights" to "Newton Sleep" and Gilgamesh in the Outback", as your associate Julie Cochrane indicates you do? If so, why do the copyrights permissions pages for the subsequent reprint appearances of those stories, including SFWA's Nebula anthology, say otherwise, and cit the magazine publications rather than the anthology appearances? See my post here [4] for citations, including Google scans of the relevant texts. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

* * *

I will assume good faith and try to answer your questions about my creation, the Heroes in Hell(TM) (HIH) series.

I do not claim and have never claimed to "flat own the copyrights to Newton Sleep, Gods of the Gap, Gilgamesh in the Outback, the Fascination of the Abomination, or Gilgamesh in Uruk." (see below) Julie Cocherane means well but her familiarity with the Heroes in Hell(TM) (HIH) series does not extend to the details of the series volumes produced in the 20th century. She is not my "associate" in that we have no current fiduciary relationship; I have never bought a story from her; I have met her once; I don't believe I even have her phone number, though I may. She was recommended to me and she asked and was allowed to prepare a story for submission and consideration for an upcoming volume of my HIH series. I have yet to receive a finished story from her. As is my requirement, she submitted a synopsis and character list, had that synopsis and character list approved by me. She accepted the general terms and conditions I provide each writer hoping to have a story published in the 21st century volumes of the Heroes in Hell(TM) series; if she writes a story that I accept, she will be provided a contract that details those terms and conditions for writing in my HIH series and milieu. She is currently part of a working group of over forty writers hoping to have a story selected for an upcoming HIH volume. All writers in the working group will not have their stories accepted by me. Her understanding of the HIH contracts, though she has never signed one, is based on the 21st Century HIH contract requirements: in the new 21st century HIH volumes, I do own all rights in perpetuity to all the works selected for each volume. Julie is correct about the terms and conditions for participation in the 21st Century volumes of HIH.

In both the 20th century and the 21st century HIH volumes, I own the Heroes in Hell(TM) franchise and the milieu in which the Heroes in Hell series was/is set. The basic premise and storyline and character list for all stories for Heroes in Hell were/are developed by me in conjunction with each writer IN ADVANCE of the story being written. Each story is based on my milieu, time line, general plot lines and concept, and participation in my HIH universe is by invitation only. In the 20th Century HIH volumes, I discussed each story with each writer, provided context and guidance and background (milieu), approved character and storyline proposed by each writer, and each acceptable story was created and purchased by me as an "original" for each HIH volume. I own the copyright to each volume (see front matter copyright page of any volume). In order to allow writers to secure first serials, in the 20th Century volumes I ran an individual copyright line on the first page of each author's story.

When a story or book is nominated for an award such as the Nebula and there is more than one publication of that work, the author can specify which publication to list with the work's nomination. Sometimes this is done because of publication dates, sometimes for other reasons individual to each author. The Heroes in Hell series volumes up to and including Prophets in Hell have a different contract than do the new HIH volumes of the 21st century. This new contract does not allow individual authors to control any rights to works created for my HIH series.

In the 20th century, the magazines running the various first serials for the HIH series may have indicated that the works were first serials by putting on the copyright line for each work that each work would be published in whatever volume of the Heroes in Hell series. I don't have the first serializations on my bookshelf. However, not to have this or some similar attribution would have been necessary for the magazine to be compliant with practice and law; not to do so would have violated my book copyright and ownership of milieu and franchise for each/any volume in question, since the milieu used in these stories was created and specified by me and then used by each author in their creation of each work. This holds true whether or not the main character of any story had been used outside the HIH universe by the author in question. Both Silverberg and Benford asked and were allowed to bring to my HIH universe characters they had previously created. If any works appearing in any volume of Heroes in Hell(TM) had been independently created by the author and not created as a commissioned work under my guidance and oversight in a 'shared universe' series where the milieu belongs to me, then I, Baen Books, and by extension Simon & Schuster would have been required by law to seek and print on that copyright page in the front matter of any volume a permission for the use of any independently and previously-created work, stating that said work had been "previously published in X, and is used by permission." Such permission citations are not on the copyright page of any Heroes in Hell(TM) volume's front matter because no independently-created work by any author (that is, no work not specifically commissioned by me from each author in advance of the work's creation for the HIH series) has ever been "reprinted" in Heroes in Hell(TM).

One hopes this clarifies matters.

Janet Morris

Jethrobot, I saw your latest position, as of 10PM EDT on 11 09 15. Since I cannot participate in this debate but seem too often to be the subject of it, I suggest that this site: http://www.asja.org/pubtips/wmfh01.php may be helpful. I can find several more reputable on-line publishing language tutorials, or you can find any number of them: type "first serial rights in publishing" into the web and take your pick. Also, an "anthology" is not a "collection." See ASJA site (above) for definitions, since mine will be suspect. Heroes in Hell(TM) is a "shared universe" and the first book, Heroes in Hell(TM) is referred to on its cover by the publisher as "The Greatest Braided Meganovel Of Them All." WP considers me a compromised source because of self-interest, yet self-interest requires me to go on record when accusations or statements are made on WP that may damage me or my work. I object to many of Wolfowitz's characterizations, assertions, and speculations. How could giving WP any additional documentation such as business-proprietary contracts be useful if that documentation comes from me and you are discounting primary sources such as myself as inadmissible? Is there a precedent for such information being provided or being deemed acceptable? Even if possible, I will not provide a legal contract to laymen not materially involved. Wolfowitz's comments about what my contract is, contains, can assure, and how and whether it may hold are inappropriate, objectionable and necessarily speculative. I am disappointed that you changed your earlier position. By the way, WP labels "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as science fiction and Rebels in Hell/Gilgamesh in the Outback as fantasy: which is it? WP also says Janet Morris is series editor. This is incorrect: Janet Morris and Chris Morris are both 'series editors' on Lawyers in Hell. JEM

• You are allowed to participate in the debate, and I encourage you to. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Jethrobot, I can participate? Won't Wolfowitz and the others discount anything I say based on self-interest. Perhaps I will post a couple references that define first serial, collection, anthology. And as for the comment saying you've referred to first-serials as being 'reprinted' later, are you telling me the WP rule is "We've always been wrong, so now wrong is right. Consistency is more important than correctness"? You seem quite reasonable. Thank you for clarifying matters. I will consider what you've said. JEM
    • Wanted to add something else. Looking at these definitions, both on the page you provided and the page that Wolfowitz has provided, I'm still not seeing a problem with the current wording on the page that states that the stories were originally published in those magazines. Here is what FIRST NORTH AMERICAN SERIAL RIGHTS reads on your page:

Under a FNASR contract, the publisher licenses a one-time right to publish the article first in the North American market. The author retains all other rights to his work, including the right to re-license its use as a reprint...

If we avoid the usage of "reprint," (which the Heroes in Hell article does currently) and merely state that the story was initially published in IASFM, I think that avoids the issues of the copyright status or the issue of detailing first serial rights to everyday users. The current language only serves to convey the temporal order in which the story was published. If there is some other concern, then you can call me confused, and let me know what your stance is to clarify this.

About your other concerns, discussion pages are not "off-limits," and neither are articles pages about yourself or your work provided the changes you are making are not controversial. Your disappointment in my "change in position" is understood, but I only do so because Wolfowitz has gone through the effort of following the general Wikipedia policy that claims must be verifiable. Again, I do not say this because I do not believe you, but because there are no independent sources that have directly addressed the claims about the copyright status of the story and its relation to the book from you or other editors. The contract would be one such source. This case is exceptional, and if you would want the wording changed (though I don't think this is necessary as I said above), the contract would no doubt help your case. Sources not available online or that come from someone in your position are not inherently invalid (see WP:OFFLINE about how we use offline sources). We can invite other editors besides the ones involved to look the contract over to reach a fair consensus. Finally, rectifying science fiction and fantasy categorizations of the novels is an entirely separate issue here. I would say, leave this in the hands of other editors who are more familiar with your work. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jethrobot. I still have concerns about participating, due to the notice I got when opening this page from a senior WP official about not getting involved in contentious issues related to my work. I will monitor the debate and if I think it necessary I will try to clarify. Looking at the synopsis of the situation as you detailed it, I see that some confusion does exist. I own the volume copyrights to Heroes and Rebels, and bought certain rights from each author. It may be that the intricacies of publishing do not need to be detailed here, but I do not believe that WP should be involving itself in evaluating contractual relationships or the rights owned by a book's copyright holder or creator. The edits you made to the HIH page and the GITO page improved the situation. Perhaps asking F&SF to explain why they listed the copyright attribution as they did in the front matter of the volume containing the Benford story will solve this for you, if WP continues to insist that it must intrude into copyright-related issues. Thank you for your prodigious efforts to resolve this situation. JEM

• Jethrobot, can you possibly reinstate the page for Rebels in Hell, which survived the candidate for deletion debate and was present on the page until Wolfowitz or someone else wiped it or hid it or redirected it(with no warning and no discussion), but the Rebels in Hell page never got the "merger" treatment that you gave the other volumes, because it was not discussed as a candidate for deletion. Not only is the cover on that page, but all the information that was on the page relevant to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" story, copyright discussion, and any reviews are no longer available to any WP newbie such as myself. I would like the page, at worst, permanently counted among the "merger" volumes and treated as the others you saved the information for when you merged. Someone familiar with WP says that such information as the cover cannot be deleted based on WP: Move, but this disappearance of the Rebels in Hell page was unheralded and based on no notification of which I am aware. Immediately, I would like access to the information on the Rebels in Hell page. My assumption is that Wolfowitz did this when he changed the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page, but I can't tell.

Additionally: how much time do I have to respond to the copyright discussion on Gilgamesh in the Outback before the discussion is closed or the page disappears?

Thank you for your evenhandedness and your patience. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Jethrobot, what a brilliant fix on Gilgamesh in the Outback. If your edit stands, it avoids all the complex problems that have concerned me, except whether or not the Rebels in Hell page will come back (Grin). Thank you for figuring out a solution. JEMGuarddog2 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I've tried really hard to find something that works for everyone here. If you are content with those changes, I encourage you to say so at the dispute resolution page.

You can find the edit history and original content for Rebels here. I completely understand that it is hard to find-- I actually do not know how to search for those pages myself. As for the amount of time you have to respond before it is closed, you have time until consensus has been achieved. Likely there will be some neutral clerk who will ask questions and propose solutions to the issue(s) at hand. The discussion will be open until the clerk has achieved some consensus for all parties involved. If no consensus is achieved, this problem may go into mediation.

Also, keep in mind that decisions made on dispute resolutions are not "the final say" on what goes or doesn't go into the article. They are recommendations from neutral parties based on presented sources, editor opinions, and Wikipedia policy. Clerks are also not a position of any particular authority (and to be clear, I am also not any particular authority on Wikipedia). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting me

If you need to let me know of something directly, it's generally easier for me if you leave a comment on my talk page rather than here. That being said, I am watching your page, so if you leave something here, that's fine too. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While I have your attention...

Ms Morris:

Firstly, let me say that I enjoyed the Heroes in Hell series (and if it wasn't for this imbroglio, I wouldn't have learned of the existence of Book #13, so at least some good came out of it!).

Secondly, I think that the problem may have originated with an incorrect-or-ambiguous document having been published at some point in the past twenty-five years. As to which document was incorrect and/or ambiguous, I couldn't venture to guess, but I think the mess begins to resolve once considered from that angle.

On behalf of everyone here, I do apologize for the hurt feelings that were caused; please accept that we are sincerely trying to do our best. DS (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've approached HW and asked him to read the comment you left on my talk page, specifically so that he can see what you are saying when you're in a non-hostile situation. That said, however, I would like to address your comment about how HW 'has some agenda'. Attributing "some agenda" to another person is never wise unless you are a telepath, and can lead to miscommunications and feelings of hostility. With that in mind, I politely but strongly suggest that you redact the 16 words beginning with "but this Wolfowitz"; this can be done by enclosing them within <s> </s>, which is causes them to be struck through. DS (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that on your page. Perhaps you can mediate. I am also concerned about the characterization of my company M2, and wondered if there were citations for Mr. Wolfowitz's characterization of M2's motives from tertiary sources for those comments, or those comments were assumptions by Wikipedians.

Oops, I guess I didn't explain that quite as clearly as I could have! The thing is, the 'nowiki' tag turns off wikicode for all text that follows, until a "/nowiki" code is added. That way, you can mention wikicode (like the strikethrough tag) without activating it. DS (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DS, thanks for the clarification. I eventually did learn how to do the strikeout, as I hope you saw on your page. If a new and more collegial attitude could prevail in the WP discussions, I would be relieved. So many have come to my defense, I feel responsible to see this matter throguh to an acceptable conclusion despite the fact that it is taking far too much time. I so appreciate your polite, even friendly, comments and any assistance you might provide in reaching an equitable solution. Thank you again. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that today review copies of books must be received by reviewing entities such as Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, at least 3 months prior to publication date. (I have somthing from PW that says this requirement.) I don't know if this exact lead time was the practice in the 1980s, but I suspect the reviewing entities then also needed the book in advance by at least that long. It might be possible to check with any reviewing entities of RIH to find out what their current, and perhaps their 1980s requirement was for lead-time that publishers had to follow in hopes of reviews. I believe some of the individual books (and I think Rebels in Hell, with GITO included) had Locus reviews and/or other reviews, but the RIH page has been redirected so it is difficult to check: (I would have to find I, Jethrobot's generous guidance as to how to find the missing page). My point being that, if we MUST continue to try to identify first publication, this could be a valid line of investigation. I went today to the Robert Silverberg web page and looked at how he listed the IASFM and Rebels in Hell publications. I must have misundestood what Mr. Wolfowitz said, because both titles are there and listed alphabetically without any differentiation between "first" or second publication. It simply lists each, in alphabtical order for the first two published in the same year, and the publication dates (both July, 1986), and also does this for subsequent publications of this story and the other Silverberg stories published in hell volumes.

http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=377 Gilgamesh in Uruk http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=378

Since Mr. Wolfowitz has cited SLiverberg's website previously in the discussions, perhaps he will accept this simple solution used on that site as precedent. Thus the two titles, IASFM and RIH, both with July pub dates, can be treated simply and are on the website of Silverberg treated thus. Thank you for opening a communications channel, DS. Guarddog2 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=377

Gilgamesh in Uruk http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=378 Guarddog2 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation notice

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1, I have opened the old Harmonia1 case with your username listed as a possible sockpuppet of Harmonia1. Please feel free to give your viewpoint on the matter. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be misunderstanding the sock-puppetry case, allow me to simplify: there are basically two separate questions. The first is whether or not you are the same editor as User:Harmonia1. In other words, did you previously edit under that user name? The other question, which is basically dependent on the first, is, if you in fact edited as Harmonia1, did you substantially organize the activities of other people off-wiki to obtain a particular result on certain articles? So, perhaps that's the first question is the best place to start--have you ever previously edited Wikipedia under a different user name? If not, what did you mean when you said, "The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia"? In what way were you connected to that issue? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, am I supposed to answer here? I will assume so. I am going on travel and my time and facilities will be very limited; I will be unavailable after the end of this evening except for a few minutes tomorrow. If you want long discussion, please wait until next week. Your question one: no. Your question three: "The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia" were that my husband and others others were involved in that dispute that I acknowledge did occur. You ask "in what way were you connected to that issue." I answer: by marriage. I will not comment on whether I think the dispute resolution was equitable or on specifics of the dispute. I acknowledged that WP made its decision; there is a record of what occurred, one assumes. I don't want to comment further on a subject of which I have a very hazy recollection. What I was really saying (repeatedly) is "I don't want to comment further." I think it better not to reopen old arguments on which I am not qualified to comment and that are closed, beyond acknowledging that WP made its decision and that decision is available to anyone who wanted to look at it. I think if you do your "check" procedure you will find that I am who I say I am, and no more. Thank you again for trying to clarify. All these kinds of puppets and socks and meats are quite beyond me. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is fine. So are you saying that you never edited Wikipedia before, but simply had a family member who did? Basically, the underlying question is whether or not you have ever edited Wikipedia under any other username--if you could answer that, it would be helpful. I should say, that's the first "underlying question"; the other one (about meat-puppetry, which means organizing a group of editors to make articles read a certain way) is probably going to be out of the scope of the SPI. Qwyrxian (talk)

Yes I am saying that my husband has edited WP previously. Answer to your "underlying question" query, Qwyrxian, is "no." Thank you for trying to help clarify. Do run your check-thingy if you wish, to corroborate. Got to run. I appreciate your efforts. JEMGuarddog2 (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will relay that message to the SPI page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Just remember what Heinlein might have said: Don't let the bastards get you down. This woeful discussion I was canvassed into inspecting, is exactly the kind of Sh_T that made me stop contributing regularly here several years ago. So shrug it off, and if the muse moves ya, make the fiddle-diddle doodles as needed. You can hardly do worst than someone like your accuser! When in doubt, remember WP:IAR, which is POLICY, not just wimpy rules and which far too many (especially YOUNG) editors don't understand! You were ambushed by one. Consider the source, and go on.

Perhaps YOU could write the experience up- 'Being Roasted on a Rail because I was Married to one guy in a debate on Wikipedia... (OK, not so good a title, but did i at least get a smile? You can readily perceive, I hope, why I'm NOT a professional writer! <bseg>)

Best regards // FrankB 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Page histories for Heroes in Hell merged books

I remember you had requested these a few days back, and I had forgotten. They are tough to get to, but if you look at the merger list on the Heroes in Hell discussion page, there are links to the original talk pages for the merged books. Below are the page histories for each merged book; you can see the page in all of its previous states before they were merged by clicking on the date/time or "diff" for any given revision:

• Heroes in Hell
• Gates of Hell
• Rebels in Hell
• Kings in Hell
• Crusaders in Hell
• Legions of Hell
• Angels in Hell
• Masters in Hell
• The Little Helliad
• War in Hell
• Prophets in Hell
• Explorers in Hell
• Lawyers in Hell

Let me know if you need anything else. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)