Talk:Philip K. Dick bibliography/Archive 1

message: Emmanuel Carrère's book is a novel whose protagonist is Philip K. Dick, but it is not a biography. Many episodes in it are totally and deliberately fictional. I don't think it should be kept in the Biography section, though it should be mentioned in the entry (maybe in the main PKD entry).--213.140.21.227 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Biography

message: I would like to discuss the appropriate bibliographic format for this page, if one exists. —Viriditas | Talk 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the further reading section with this article and changed the title to Bibliography of Philip K. Dick.  We should use a standard bibliographic format. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: "Voices From the Street (forthcoming 2006)" - Can someone tell me who will be publishing this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.226.246 (talk • contribs) 
:A quick check of the official page gives no release date or publisher.  Oh, and sign your messages. ---Charles 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book 

message: :Image:The Crack in Space.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Crack in Space.jpg

message: While you are busy trying to support your claims with evidence, I'll be rewriting this entire lead section, so you may not see a reply from me for a few hours.  I look forward to seeing you support your claims about edits made by User:Roogroog, as you have accused this editor of plagiarizing material and inserting POV without any evidence.  I would hope that when you smear editors, you actually would have the decency to support your accusations with evidence.  Please do so while I compose the new lead section.  I'll look for your reply when I'm done updating this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made no such claim of plagiarism. Those are entirely your words. And I could put a "fact" tag on nearly every line of that essay. Meanwhile, you continue to refuse to answer my one question. Classic trolling behavior. You've been on here longer than I have. Your behavior should be better than it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, you have made the claim six times and you have taken it one step further, accusing me of using sock puppets.  I await your immediate retraction below.  I think it is pretty clear who is "trolling" here.  Viriditas (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the six items you cite did I claim it was plagiarized. I merely said it looked like it was lifted from somewhere. Maybe my wording was unclear to you. What I meant was that the tone of the writing was unencyclopedic, it read like sales hype or like a typical opinion-laden review by a professional critic. Meanwhile, the changes you've made are a vast improvement. Seems like you could have been doing that from the beginning, instead of expending so much energy defending that essay. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I have spent years defending material from anonymous editors who aren't around to defend it themselves.  In fact, I spent yesterday doing just that on Talk:Chocolate. Viriditas (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aren't around"? The guy takes the trouble to create a user ID, with the sole purpose of dropping that essay in here, and then disappears permanently? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to submit a checkuser request immediately.  Even though they frown upon self-requests, tell them I give full permission for them to investigate the account and compare it to my own.  It could very well turn out to be a regular editor, but I guarantee you, it won't be me.  The account appears to have been created to post the essay and nothing more.  You find this unusual, however I run into this on a daily basis, especially in the Hawaii project, where graduate students will create a new account and drop their work into Wikipedia, never to return.  Sugar plantations in Hawaii is a good example of this. User:Charityk was created specifically for a period of two-days, resulting in that article and related links.  So, I see SPA dropping essays into Wikipedia all the time, and I see it as a normal occurrence. Viriditas (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a funny guy. SPA's are usually up to no good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my experience.  Perhaps that's true, in let's say baseball-related articles, however, I see SPA's adding good content to Wikipedia on a daily basis, not just in Hawaii-related articles, but also ecology, environment, nutrition, etc.  This kind of anon SPA bias is exactly what I am fighting.  It's the content, not the editor. Viriditas (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IP addresses and red-links, most of the time, are vandals, spammers, and POV-pushers (the latter, as with the red-link that posted to this article). Some of their content is useful, sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have to disagree on that point, and obviously, the core ethic of Wikipedia is based on the opposite scenario: it assumes that anyone can edit and that editors are here to improve the site, not damage it. Viriditas (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anyone can edit, but that doesn't make their edits valid or worthwhile. I spend a good portion of my editing time undoing damage caused by IP's and red-links. When I see one that isn't vandalism or otherwise useless, it's a cause for some minor celebration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see the world completely differently than you.  Everyone started out as an IP or a red link.  Perhaps you forget this. Viriditas (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started as an IP address, soon created a user ID, and was a sincere editor from the beginning. And not having been born yesterday, I can usually tell fairly quickly what the intent of a user's editing is: vandalism, spamming, POV-pushing, or sincere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Then, you must either be a new user or have a very low edit count, because the AGF rule exists solely because we cannot tell such things.  I can think of dozens of recent incidents that illustrate this point, from Wmperl to user KAVEBEAR.  Both of these editors created accounts that made strange edits and refused to engage in any dialogue.  KAVEBEAR himself has used dozens of IPs, blanked many pages, added unsourced content, and was unresponsive to repeated requests.  In the final analysis, both editors were new, weren't aware of house rules, and to the average editor, some of their edits appeared to be vandalism or an outright disregard for certain policies, like copyright.  But, their contributions have all been good faith, constructive edits.  I'm afraid that no editor can "tell fairly quiclly" what an editor's motivation is, which is why we stress AGF until it has run out.  BITE and other guidleines tie into this.  I think this goes back to what I was originally saying about your allegations about new editors (and old).  Because you did not assume good faith, you labeled a new editor a plagiarist without any evidence, and you accused a long-term editor of using sock puppets.  Neither of your claims bore fruit, and what we are left with is a more negative, unwelcoming atmosphere.  This is precisely why we are not confident as you claim, and relinquish our first impressions and AGF.  We do this because new editors are the soul and lifeblood of this website, and any negative reaction to their presence, has the effect of spreading like wildfire to established editors like a virus.  So we overprotect newcomers, not just to guide and nurture them, but also to defend the collegial nature of collaborative editing in particular, and to preserve its spirit. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a current example on the AN board.  You cannot quickly identify what users like this are doing, and place them into a neat category.  You can see examples of this everywhere once you start looking for them.  This is why we AGF. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, but let me try to explain.  Plagiarism is commonly defined as "taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own" and/or "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work". (Datamuse)  You said that User:Roogroog's material was "reading like it was lifted from someplace" else", "looks like it was lifted from somewhere", "could be from a book", "a possible clue to where an essay could have come from, i.e. from a book rather than an online source", "reading like it was lifted from somewhere else", and you said "I merely say it reads like it was lifted from somewhere else".  All of these descriptions of User:Roogroog's material  connotes plagiarism. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At no time did I make an accusation of plagiarism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just proved above that you made the accusation six separate times.  If you don't understand what I have written, have someone explain it to you. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never "accused" anyone of plagiarism. I raised the question. Take your own advice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the wording of it looked fishy. I still think that. And it is you that is guilty of wikilawyering, continuing to mischaracterize what I said. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you were asked for evidence.  Your bias is based on the fact that the editor is a new user.  I explained to you that new editors add content to Wikipedia every day.  You've been wikilawyering on this issue - "superficially [judging] other editors and their actions by jumping at conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other wikipedian rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution."  That's a description of exactly what you've been doing.  You have failed to address every single question asked of you in regards to your "jumping at conclusions" about a new editor, accusing them of  plagiarism, and accusing them of being a sock puppet, and you've used Wikipedia policies (sourcing, POV) to try and skirt the issue.  I hope this helps you understand your behavior so you don't do it again. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my reaction to that essay, was based on the way it read. I raised questions about the writing style. That essay read like a professional review, full of points-of-view and superlatives. I never once "accused" anyone of plagiarism, I merely raised questions. Your continual accusation, that I accused someone of plagiarism, is false. Meanwhile, you've written a new section in your own words, and it looks good. Be done with this already. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out a single POV not supported by sources in the current biography article that was offered by User:Roogroog.  The essay does read like a professional review, and many writers often create accounts on Wikipedia, upload their work, and leave.  I explained that to you several times.  You seem to have trouble with WP:AGF and instead automatically assume that Roogroog plagiarized the material.  So again, I will ask you for evidence.  Where is the POV and where is the material that you claim it was plagiarized from?  If you cannot support your claims, then do not persist in making them. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never once claimed it was "plagiarized". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You claimed it six times without evidence.  I believe we have already been over this. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim in that regard is false, and I believe we have already been over that as well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My claim is true, and I've supported it with evidence above several times.  On the other hand, you have made a false claim about your false claim.  Congratulations.  That is quite an achievement.  And, I'm not going to let you get away with it.  You cannot just come waltzing in here making false accusations.  Put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never at any time claimed that that essay was plagiarized. And your tone is becoming increasingly uncivil. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How ironic.  I suggest you read WP:CIV, as you've violated just about every aspect of the policy, here. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Message for Baseball Bugs

message: it says 36 novels, but lists 48. change to 48?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.84.69 (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has been re-written since you posted this, I apologize, but it now says "36 novels published within his lifetime", which I believe is correct.  The other 12 were either published post-humously or lost entirely.  ThatGuamGuy (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of novels 

message: The Titans cover image does not meet Wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines for copyrighted book covers. The article would need to contian specific discussion about Titan. If someone has a cover of any of the titles that are actually discussed in hte article, those can be used under WP:FU. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I see you've left a message on Ed's page, so hopefully he will see it and act upon it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image 

message: I remember watching as a kid a movie about a computer-controlled house.  A guy lived in the house, and I think he was a computer programmer.  When I fell in love with some girl, the house got jealous.  The computer graphics were all ancient white-on-black 80's style.  I would love to track this movie down, and it should be tracked down as it is missing in the movies section.  I remember distinctly that the ending credited androids/sheep because it was the first time I had ever seen the question posed and it struck me as a great question! -Ayeroxor (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check list of fictional computers.  The film you are looking for should be listed there.  Let me know if it isn't. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be referring to the film Dream House?  If so, it's not based on a story of Dick's.  Elsewhere, I've read that the basic storyline comes from a c.1950 short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "Epicac". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1998 sounds a bit too late for what Ayeroxor describes.  Looking at the list of fictional computers, it sounds more like Homewrecker (1992): Lucy, jealous AI home automation system who falls in love with her owner. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly possible, they have basically the same plot. Homewrecker at IMDB Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they all seem to be derivative of Demon Seed (1977).  :) Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, looking at the descriptions of the two films on their TCM database pages, Dream House - Homewrecker, I'd say that yours fits the bill better, and is more likely to be the film that Ayeroxor is looking for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be too sure; it could be even earlier than 1992.  I bet the computer-run-amok theme was very popular in the wake of 1983's WarGames, so there were probably a lot of copycats. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yes, well I didn't say it was likely to be the film, I said that of the two films mentioned, yours is "more likely" to be it, based on its description matching more closely than mine. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took another look at the list of fictional computers.  I'll bet you Ayeroxor is referring to Electric Dreams (1984).  It's got '80s written all over it and the crazy credits listed on IMDB  could lead one to believe that PKD was involved if you squint your eyes real tight. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be it as well.  (Champagne as the elixir of life -- sounds like the Me Decade.)  The more relevant point is that whatever the film is, it's unlikely that there's a PKD connection, so it's most probable that there's no movie "missing" from the bibliography. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing movie 

message: I think there should be more references explaining the nature of the edits for the books.  Currently, several novels are marked with a "+", but there is no further information (even in the links for the specific novels, such as 'Vulcan's Hammer').  It seems like this information should be (1) better explained and (2) referenced, so that a curious party could find more information if they wanted.  ThatGuamGuy (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: Since the correspondences between the various editions of the short story collection are far from obvious (e.g., both the Gollancz and the Citadel Twilight have a volume with the title "Second Variety", but the stories in each are completely different), I added a table that summarizes the correspondences and the more important changes (The order of the stories seems also to have changed in some volumes; these changes were omitted). I hope I added at the correct place; if it should be anywhere else, please tell me, or feel free to move it... David Mihola (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's very useful. I also think the novels and the short stories should be put into a sortable table, with dates of composition and publication (and perhaps another column for notes). Jmj713 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Just to confuse matters, the current Gollancz volumes of the short stories have Volume 4 as Minority Report and Volume 5 as We Can Remember It For You Wholesale. Vol. 1 - 3 are named as they were originally. This suggests that they each have their original complement of stories rather than having been moved around like some of the other editions. It does make everything very confusing though. Unfortunately, I don't have them on hand to check, but they're currently being sold on Amazon.co.uk. eyeball226 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Added table: Overview of various short story collections

message: Does the 5-volume series contain every short story he wrote?  brain (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry --- "These five volumes include all of Philip K. Dick’s short fiction, with the exception of short novels later published as or included in novels, childhood writings, and unpublished writings for which manuscripts have not been found." Idontcareanymore (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master collection? 

message: I have one volume at hand because I was going to use it for a KSMO reference citation. The information doesn't match what is in the list here. I haven't checked the others yet.
The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick, 1938-1971. Grass Valley, California : Underwood Books, 1996 (Trade Edition)  is the info from my physical copy. It also states  is Slipcased Edition. 1996 is copyright date not printing date; perhaps that is the source of the date difference. Does anyone know the source for the information in the article here or why there might be discrepanies? My copy does refer to:
:Library Of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
:(Revised for volumes 1 and 2)
I can't see any good reason to cite differently than the info in the copy or copies I'm using but don't know whether to make changes in the article listings. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the entire set, some slipcased, some trade editions and have tried to update the ISBNs and pub dates based on the actual books I have in hand. The bibliographic information is often at odds with how many of these were cataloged and I can verify it's a mess. In trying to get various volumes via Interlibrary Loan (before I completed my personal set of all volumes) I constantly ran into discrepancies and often received a volume that was not the one I requested. I think the only way to do an airtight ISBN listing and pub dates here would be to have all versions on hand (wishful thinking). In any case, I could have made errors and will revisit this if warranted. I think only the hard core bibliophile (or about to retire reference librarian) will care. In any case, when one is buying a volume, you'll get the correct letter/year range as specified. It's in the details of specific editions and printings that people can get tripped up. Note that these were not published chronologically, nor were they published by exactly the same publisher (I sense Underwood and Miller and the Dick estate were in some kind of flux over time). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correspondence. Publication and ISBN discrepancies. 

message: I intend to edit the Speculative fiction author navigational box for Philip K. Dick so the novels appear in order of publication with publication dates rather than composition order and dates there. That's how the other sections are ordered and what I believe the casual reader assumes a date refers to. I thought it wise to give a heads up here where interested editors are likely to see the heads up before beginning what may be a temporarily confusing process with potential appearance of vandalism. Please make any comments or objections at Template talk:Philip K. Dick. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative fiction author navigational box 

message: Hi all.  Where's the information coming from?  In particular I'm wondering where the dates of composition came from.
Cheers MotleyPhule 03:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it comes from various introductions and forewords (not all by Dick himself), and the five-volume set of collected short works has notes for most stories on the date when it was received by Dick's literary agent, etc. Idontcareanymore (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's all this information coming from? 

message: Hi there.  I realized that this essay is not listed on his bibliography and although it is listed as an external link, i felt like it should be posted somewhere in the actual article, maybe even linked to "I hope I Shall Arrive Soon".  Hemlock850 07:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay: How to build a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later 

message: I don't really know how to edit it, but the current wikisource link points to "Philip K. Dick" --- this fails, because wikisource uses his full name, "Philip Kindred Dick". Could someone better skilled than me sort that out, maybe? Idontcareanymore (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikisource