User talk:Vornoff

• Archive of older messages

Possible Typos 30-Dec

The following are possible typos in your verified pubs:

• Cincinatti - The Man from Cincinatti in Magazine of Horror, January 1968

I'm in the process of trying teo correct this. It is misspelled on the title page bu I originally entered it properly spelled so am removing it and reentering the misspelled title and will variant it. The interior art title I have submitted as a variant. Doug / Vornoff 05:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• sieze - Sieze the Night in The Further Adventures of Batman Volume 2: Featuring the Penguin

Existing note for the publication explains the misspelling and is already varianted to the proper title. Is this not right? Doug / Vornoff 05:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, all good. I missed the note on the parent. I added it to the variant as well. Thanks! -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic Stories of the Imagination #19, Spring 2000

When you get a chance, could you please check your verified Fantastic Stories of the Imagination #19, Spring 2000 to see if Gary Jonas's "Death Threat for a Hitman" contains any speculative elements? As far as I can tell, the 5 "Hitman" stories are all non-genre, but I am not 100% sure. TIA! Ahasuerus 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that it's already marked as "non-genre". I just read it and found that besides being awful, has absolutely no speculative elements at all. Doug / Vornoff 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction Chronicle discussion alert

I'm down to my last two issues to enter and it never seems to get any easier. If you've a moment, please check out this discussion regarding a name change in the magazine. Thanks Doug H 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've responded on your page. Doug / Vornoff 07:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Evermist v2 #3

I changed this title + pub (and cover) from Spring 1976 to Summer 1976. It looked like a copy-paste mistake. --MartyD 01:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thanks, Marty. Doug / Vornoff 01:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Filled in missing info for Analog issues

Hi, a few story lengths got overlooked in 2016 issues of Analog (October, November) & I added them from online sources. --Vasha 03:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Doug / Vornoff 03:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The Twilight Zone

Hello. I have approved your recent submission, but meant to put it on hold for the following reason : if you own the book, and can see the price, the reference to Tuck for this particular data becomes pointless, and has to be removed. But if there is no price on the book, and the data comes from Tuck only, then this price has to be deleted, and just mentioned in the notes. Thanks, Linguist 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

I submitted deletion of price and change in the notes. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 16:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My submittal was rejected by Stonecreek. His comment was "We would rely on Tuck on this". So it looks like there are two conflicting viewpoints on this. Doug / Vornoff 17:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that Tuck overall can be considered as a reliable source (unlike book sellers or other certain sources). I'd say a note that there's actually no printed price in or on the book should suffice. But that's my point of view and if you should submit the change again, I'd approve of it. Stonecreek 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave it as is for now and see if Linguist wants to add anything. Either way is ok by me. Doug / Vornoff 06:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as it is made clear that no price is actually printed on the book, no problem. Thanks, Linguist 10:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

OK, thanks for the input. Doug / Vornoff 15:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Author called "untitled"

Hello,

Can you verify in your PV'd Science Fiction Chronicle, #101 February 1988 that the author of "Conventions (Science Fiction Chronicle #101)" is credited as "untitled"? If it is not, then this should really be "uncredited" instead :) Annie 19:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I submitted changes - not only did I have a brainfreeze on "untitled" but got the page wrong! Good one! Doug / Vornoff 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If that helps, you are not the only one with a brainfreeze in this specific way. Thanks for fixing it. :) Annie 21:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Fantast, Vol.1 No.1 April 1939

Hello, I've approved your submission (with its price!) but I wonder about the utility of listing all the letters in the issue, specifically considering that it will create two (out of five) new authors that perhaps will be known to us only because of this particular letter. But It's your call. Hauck 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I usually don't add those in, but I read a note in the moderator column or somewhere where the person argued to enter all the letter writers in case someone finds something they'd eventually written that would make it justified to add them. But I see your point and so I started the process to remove and delete them but added them in as notes. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 15:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

One additional comment about these (I just accepted another one): When we have a stated date, we don't typically include volume number or issue number unless either is a prominent part of the title. We relegate such volume and issue information to the notes. Looking at the cover, where I see BIG TITLE over smaller month + year, separated from trailing volume and issue number, my impression is these are not part of the title, so I would not include them. There are, of course, examples to the contrary, so you are welcome to do with this feedback as you see fit. Thanks. --MartyD 12:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Marty. The main reason I've used issue numbers with the title is that it makes it easier to see on the grid if any issues are missing for those mags with irregular publication. It doesn't look so offensive if the numbers are just sequential without volumes, but can look a little busy when you have to add volume numbers as well as issue nmbers as in this case. I see where some have gotten around this by using V1 #2, for example, as the EDITOR record title, but entering the PUBLICATION record title differently. Something similar to Ad Astra except using the date instead of "Issue One" etc. This allows a way to see if any issues are missing in the SERIES view (you can't nestle the issues by year, though) and still use only the date in the main title. I would think about doing that in this case as an experiment. What do you think? Doug / Vornoff 17:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who did them, but those Editor records with the V1 #1, etc., for Ad Astra are simply wrong (well, non-compliant). It has perfectly good "Issue One", etc., used correctly on the publications that should have been maintained in the Editor records. In your case, at least the Vol. 1, No. 1 is part of the magazine's presentation. If you think it's important and useful to have them, then as I said, there's precedent for including them, and I am not trying to suggest they must be removed. --MartyD 11:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

After looking over the Rules again for magazine titles, I decided to take your advice. They are pretty clear :) So, until there's some sort of change in them, that's good enough for me. I see you approved my initial changes; I just submitted some more for the variants and such and hope I got them all. We'll see. Thanks again, Marty. Doug / Vornoff 15:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it all looked good to me. It would be nice if we had some way to record the information in something more structured than the notes. If we didn't merge the title/editor records, I could see using the series number for recording it -- either the whole issue number or the volume + issue, whichever style the magazine uses. But that's not an option, given the merge practice. --MartyD 02:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I came to more or less that same conclusion. Sometimes I get carried away trying to make everything come out so that everything is shown in a clear, organized way but that doesn't always happen, due to both the site's limitations and my own! Doug / Vornoff 02:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Gorgon (fanzine)

Why the "(fanzine)" on this series? There is no other "Gorgon" series from which it needs to be disambiguated. --MartyD 02:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that the criterion for whether or not to use (fanzine) in a series? If so, no problem. I'll submit a change. I thought that it was just an informational add-on. Doug / Vornoff 04:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review

The edits I made to your 2 verified issues of Science Fiction Review were just to change the capitalization of a preposition. --Vasha 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Gorgon covers

I see some merging of The Gorgon covers has already been approved, but I don't think that is the proper treatment. Coverart has the same title as the publication, and we don't merge things having different titles. Where the artwork is the same, we make variants instead. If the existing three were unmerged, and all four made variants of "The Gorgon, March 1947", I think the result on Roy Hunt's summary would be clear. It would look something like:

• The Gorgon, March 1947 (1947) also appeared as:

• The Gorgon, May 1947 (1947)
• The Gorgon, July 1947 (1947)
• The Gorgon, November 1947 (1947)
• The Gorgon, January 1948 (1948)

which reflects what happened with the artwork -- it was reused on different publications (vs. different editions of the same publication). --MartyD 01:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now :( Unfortunately that distinction, though I should have known better, just escaped me. I've submitted unmerges. Thanks for catching that. Doug / Vornoff 01:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Gorgon Covers

Hello, I've approved your varianting submissions but, to be frank, I'm not sure that this merits an entry as we're here (IMHO) more facing design work (that we do not enter) than "real" cover art. It's quite the same configuration as this other magazine. Hauck 06:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know about that policy, Herve. I have no problem with the covers being deleted, if you want. If this is what should be done, should the "artist" credit be deleted as well? Doug / Vornoff 14:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to delete or change things, I tend to leave data as entered because of respect for the work done. I was just voicing some interrogations. Hauck 15:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for making me aware of the design work policy. Doug / Vornoff 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Arthur C. 'Ego' Clarke

You are correct that double quotes (") in author names get converted to single quotes ('). That is something I found out myself after handling your earlier submission. This is by intent to add some standardization. As such, the record with single quotes should remain as is. I have placed a hold on the edit changing the double quotes to single quotes as Ahasuerus is looking into why the double quotes made it into the database in the first place (see this discussion). Once he's debugged it, we can make the change. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I've posted on Ahasuerus's page. Doug / Vornoff 23:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have recreated the problem on the development server. It happens when certain types of double quotes are copied and pasted from another Web page. A bug report has been created and it's now safe to process Doug's submission. Thanks! Ahasuerus 01:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks perfect! Thanks to you both. Doug / Vornoff 02:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Chamber of horrors

Hello, I've approved your submissions for this title. As it seems a "recurring" illustration like a kind of masthead (we list four of them) I was wondering if 1) it should even be included or 2) it should be given a "generic" title like Chamber of Horrors saving you all the varianting and lessening the clutter of the artist's page or 3) left as it is. As our specialist of this magazine, it's your call. Hauck 02:33, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

I'm leaning toward #2 to eliminate the variants and still provide the information. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. Even with that there could conceivably be a long list of merged titles for that piece of art. How is that generally handled? In the morning I can ask the two other verifiers of that art for their input. It'll be good for a consensus should the issue arise again. Thanks, Hervé. Doug / Vornoff 03:17, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Option 2 This may looks a bit like this. IMHO (but just IMHO), entering such pieces of art (that illustrate regular features) is a bit of an overkill. Hauck 03:34, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, Hervé. I left notes on Rtrace and MLB pages asking them for their input as they have verified what I think is this same piece of art. I guess it's the manic completist in me that wants to enter the info but I could easily be persuaded to just drop the masthead art entirely. Let's see what the others say. Doug / Vornoff 10:59, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

I also believe I've found that the artist "Costanza" is Peter Costanza whose art and signature can be found on pulpartists.com. The signatures match exactly. Any objection to adding his data to the "Costanza" name? Doug / Vornoff 11:12, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Please proceed. Hauck 12:56, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Leaves, Winter 1938

Can you check the content of your Leaves, Winter 1938 again. Initially you had added the collection The Demons of the Upper Air on page 113 which I removed after approving the import of the rest of the titles because it is obviously incorrect. The poem with the same name is not published until 30 years after this issue. Can you check what exactly you were trying to import and send the import for that one title? Thanks! Annie 16:56, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Hi. Thanks for catching that. First, I incorrectly imported the collection instead of the poem, so that was wrong. Looking at it again, the poem in Leaves seems to be the original publication (also borne out, I think, by the fact that it is authored to Fritz Leiber, Jr.). I think I should just add this as another title in leaves and then variant it to Leiber's official name. Does that sound right? Doug / Vornoff 17:05, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

If that is the original publication, it is 31 years before what the current note says: "First published as a booklet by Roy A. Squires (1969)". If you feel sure that this is the same poem, then yes, add it and variant to the existing title (and the existing title needs to have its date changed and its note changed). If you think it can be a different one, then still add it but variant to a new one to bring it to the main name page and someone will need to do some analysis to see if these are the same. Annie 17:18, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I found a Google Books site which shows the whole poem as published in Leaves (1938). It's done in short parts I thru VIII of around 25 lines each. The ISFDB entry for the collection shows it as being 8 poems, each with its own page number, noting that the poems are untitled with only Roman numerals for them. The title for each one is the starting line for each part of the 1938 version, so I think it's really just one poem, the same one as in 1938. But I will ask Biomassbob, the verifier and see if we can straighten this out, so I won't add anything for a bit. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 18:03, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Have fun chasing it down. You are probably right though. :) Annie 18:20, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I've left a note on Bob's discussion page here if you're interested. Doug / Vornoff 18:34, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

The Little Corpuscle, 1951

Hello again,

Did you mean to add the title as The "Little Corpuscle V1 #2, 1951" instead of The Little Corpuscle, 1951? You are using the longer version for the disambiguation but not on the EDITOR title, the cover or on the publication. Annie 17:00, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

The source says that "Notes by a Newsstand Hound" is a column so I thought I would disambiguate it in case other issues are entered later. In the case that there are other issues in 1951 I put the "V1 #2" in there to further disambiguate. I didn't put it in as part of the title because I've been advised against adding numbers to titles unless they are prominent on the covers and, not having a cover, couldn't tell if they were numbered or not. I will be happy to take your advice on this, Annie. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 17:11, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I am not arguing the disambiguation at all :) In my view just adding the year to a magazine/fanzine title is not a good idea (unless if it is a yearly magazine and it does not have other numbers). Otherwise if they manage to publish 2 issues in 1951, we end up with two magazines that look the same in the contents and the table. So I would have used the notation you used for the disambiguation across the board - prominent or not. Now, if we have a Summer 1951 AND "V1 #2", I would be fine with just Summer up there. But with the year being the only "number", I'd add whatever else you have. If someone disagrees, they can edit later on - but as it is, it opens the door for confusion and painstakingly deleted issues (if someone does not pay attention and decide that the 1951 one is added twice (if no other string differentiates them)). Plus I like disambiguation strings to match the title - makes it so much neater and clearer :) Annie 17:24, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I agree with you about the year only problem so I will keep that in mind. I've submitted changes that should even them all up. The EDITOR record will have to be disambiguated to the editor's official name but that's later. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 17:47, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Did the varianting for you so this is all set for now. Annie 18:20, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Thank you very much. Doug / Vornoff 18:34, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Macrocosm, Easter 1972

Hello, I've approved your submission but, to be sure, can you confirm that there are credits both to "Rob Holdstock" and "Robert P. Holdstock" and if the former is given as editor, shouldn't he be also the given publisher? Thanks. Hauck 02:19, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Hi. Apparently, he is credited as editor on #1 as "Robert P. Holdstock" (which I've varianted to his "Robert Holdstock" canonic name. Likewise, he seems to be credited as "Rob Holdstock" on #2 and #3 (not entered yet) and I was planning on varianting that to his canonic name as well. As far as the publisher, which he is, I wasn't quite sure which name to use - should I have used his canonic name "Robert Holdstock"? If so, no problem - I will fix if you say so. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 02:34, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

IMHO and to simplify, I'd go for "Robert Holdstock" as publisher (as it does not correspond to any real statement), but it's your call. Hauck 02:50, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Good enough for me. I will submit it. Doug / Vornoff 02:52, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Temple of the Black One: An Homage to Robert E. Howard's Conan

Hello Doug, as this book shows in one of our cleanup reports and as you're its PV, can you precise its binding/format? Thanks. Hauck 04:11, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Hi Herve. I wasn't sure what it falls under so I listed it as paper in the note. It's like a paperback with a very thin spine, about 3mm, but somewhat larger than a regular paperback in width and height, also as noted. From this, feel free to enter the appropriate binding - I've always been a little confused by the descriptions of the book bindings. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 11:59, 20 August 2017 (EDT)

Deleting Publications

To delete a book from the database, you need to do to the publication page and use the "Delete This Pub" link. Once the publication deletion has been approved, the title record can then be deleted by going to the title record and using the "Delete This Title" link. The unmerge function is unrelated to deleting (it is for separating a single title record into multiple ones). I have deleted this pub for you. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the clear explanation for deleting pubs/titles. And also for deleting that record for me. Doug / Vornoff 21:27, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Victor Valla

Please see this discussion. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Typo: The Pulpster

In this verfied issue of The Pulpster there seems to be a typo in the essay and interiorart "I Read Terefore I Am ...": can you check/fix? Thanks --Vasha 19:34, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for finding. I've submitted a change. Doug / Vornoff 19:51, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Krazy Kat

In Venture Science Fiction Magazine, May 1970, the review on page 111 is of George Herriman's Krazy Kat. Krazy Kat is a newspaper comic strip[1]. Is that (or a book collecting the comics) what is being reviewed? If so, this should be converted to a essay as this it would not be a genre work. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I've left a request for the 1st verifier to check in here for his take on this. I agree with you, however, and if we don't hear from Mike Christie, I'll go ahead and submit changes unless you want to. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:00, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Christie hasn't been active in 4 months and this is straightforward from a standards perspective. I've made the changes. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2017 (EST)

Thank you, Doug / Vornoff 02:32, 22 November 2017 (EST)

Sam Youd

Hi, I've rejected all your proposals to make Sam Youd a variant of John Carpenter, as it should be John Christopher instead.--Dirk P Broer 11:10, 11 December 2017 (EST)

Thank you. Wow, talk about a major brain malfunction! Doug / Vornoff 00:14, 12 December 2017 (EST)

Corpse-Physician

Hello Doug, as you entered it, have you any way to determine the "real" author of this text? For now it's only credited to Emerson Graves which is, for us, a pseudonym of either Cummings or Ernst. So this story will have to be varianted to one of them, the two of them or to our mysterious "unknown". The sources that I have (from Contento to this one) do not offer any hints. Can you have a look at this problem? Thanks. Hauck 04:10, 9 February 2018 (EST)

Hi, Herve. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to definitively find this out. The reason these house names were used, of course, was they didn't overuse any author's name in the same magazine. I don't see any collaborations between Ernst or Cummings so I think we can rule that out. Ernst did not have a story in this issue but Cummings did, but under another house name. So why was the house name used at all in this case? It could be that the house name was popular and drew readers; it could be another author was assigned it as well. I don't see any way out of this other than "unknown", unless you want to make "Emerson Graves (1)" or something similar. What do you think? Doug / Vornoff 19:30, 9 February 2018 (EST)

I took the "unknown" route.Hauck 11:24, 10 February 2018 (EST)

Cover of Astounding Science Fiction, February 1956 (UK)

Hello Doug, I've put your submission on hold. As this cover is already varianted, I don't understand what you're trying to do (in fact I have a suspicion). If it's because you found that the cover are not exactly alike, you're perfectly right. As for many magazines of the period in the whole of Europe (such cases are also known in France and Germany), the cover of the british Astounding has been redrawn by a local artist, usually with less details (just for fun compare this original with that copy) as has been done here, so in this case, the british cover art should be uncredited as it's likely that the artist is not credited at all in the UK magazine. We've got, IMHO, still lots of such "false" variants in the db because it takes quite a lot of time to compare a set of covers and it's best done with both issues at hand (that's how I first stumbled on this by putting aside on my desk two issues of different nationality), at random this cover and that one are also copies (the study of the cracks in the wall is quite telling). Hauck 04:06, 6 March 2018 (EST)

Hi Herve. I see what you're saying. Your two examples are definitely different. I had determined that "Pattee" and "D. Pattee" (actually his name is "David Pattee") were the same person and varianted the Astounding cover to "D. Pattee", and had pseudonymed "Pattee" to "D. Pattee" (who had more credits and the more complete name). I thought the next thing to do would be to variant "Pettee" in the UK edition as well and I've probably messed that up somehow. Maybe it was unnecessary. I confess I hadn't even checked to see if the covers were actually the same piece of art. It looks like the UK edition is different, especially in the clouds, though it's a little hard to tell. Both are credited on the cover, however, to Pattee. That makes an odd situation. The Pattee in the US edition would be correctly varianted to his parent name D. Pattee, as I see it. So what happens to the fake Pattee credit in the UK? Does it become a differently-named "Pattee", like "Pattee (fake)" or something, and just left alone in the UK edition? Hope you have a better answer for this. Also here's the page with the "David Pattee" credit for that cover. Would it be right to add "David Pattee" as D. Pattee's more complete name on his bio? Thanks for bringing this up. Doug / Vornoff 15:09, 6 March 2018 (EST)

So my suspicions were wrong... In your case, I agree with the pseudonymistic linking, as for the cover themselves, I'd let things stay as they are (both "Pattee" covers varianted to the same "D. Pattee" parent), I've added a note at parent title level and rejected your submission. Hope you're OK with this solution. Hauck 02:41, 7 March 2018 (EST)

That's fine. Looks good to me. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 19:04, 7 March 2018 (EST)

Tales of Magic and Mystery, December 1927

About the note about the Howard Thurston story in the newly approved. If it is credited to Howard Thurston in the magazine itself, we usually will keep it this way and add variants/explanations to differentiate. The separate author records usually signify separate authors altogether with the same name (think John Smith) and not about splitting the data for one author in different places. SO I would say that we should leave it under his real name and then variant and/or add notes. What do you think? Annie 01:49, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Thanks for checking in, Annie. Yes, I just wasn't sure about how to handle a ghost writer situation. So if I understand you right, we should delete the (I) appendix I put onto Thurston's name, then variant that title and change the name from 'Howard Thurston' to 'Walter B. Gibson' in the variant form without creating a pseudonym. That way, as I see it, Gibson gets author credit and we don't have to add another duplicate author with the (I) to the db. Would you have time to do that? That way I don't have to explain to another editor what we're doing. If you'd rather I do it, just let me know.

Also, I'll go ahead and submit pseudonym for 'Jack Hazlitt' as this is a case of an actual pseudonym (a made-up name by Gibson, from what I can tell) Thanks again, Doug / Vornoff 13:33, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

Let me go and do some more checking before we start changing the ghost authors (they are tricky). Do you have a definitive prove on the ghost writing? Annie 13:37, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

That's fine - be interesting to see what you come up with. I took my info from philsp.com as well as this Wikipedia article (search for 'Thurston' to find the particular reference. Doug / Vornoff 14:27, 23 April 2018 (EDT)

The dates

When importing a 1973 story into a 1928 publication, please do not forget to submit a date change for the story as well - we may be a SF DB but we are still in the real world and time traveling miscreants are not supported :) I've changed the date here. Annie 17:50, 26 April 2018 (EDT)

In my defense I actually thought about that at some point and then it just flew out of my head like everything else seems to do these days :) BTW, did you ever come up with anything on the pseudonyming of ghost writing authors. Should I change the Howard Thurston (I) in this mag back to plain Howard Thurston. There was another story where he was the nominal author but ghost written by Gibson here where I just entered him as Howard Thurston. Thanks, Doug / Vornoff 00:07, 27 April 2018 (EDT)