Talk:Lesbian pulp fiction/Archive 1

copyright problem?
This verbiage: In 1935, Gale Wilhelm published We Too Are Drifting with Random House. A tale of drama and damnation, loathing and loss, We Too Are Drifting explored woodcut artist Jan Morales' life as she falls out of love with a first female lover and into a tortured situation with another woman, whom she loses in the end. Not a happy ending, which was apparently a result that lesbian readers expected.

is essentially identical to the verbiage here: http://www.lorillake.com/AfterTheWell.html

I'm thinking it's not really encyclopedia language anyway, so I'm going to try to fix. valereee (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

non-neutral POV
This entire paragraph is not in NPOV:

The latest technological innovation, electronic E-books, has made it possible for out-of-print books to be made available for the reading public to enjoy. Many of the old pulp novels have been reissued in e-book form, and most print books published today are also issued as e-books.[18] Still-living authors of early lesbian pulp fiction who wisely copyrighted their works and trademarked their pen names, such as Artemis Smith, are also being victimized by phantom publishers with no address to their imprints who are reissuing old editions either with new covers or with counterfeit covers in violation of both copyright and trademark laws. These pirate editions are cutting into sales of legitimate titles and often are advertised as collectibles at extreme markups. When buying such "collectibles" it is best to first contact the living author for authentication. Artemis Smith, whose underground best selling titles have been pirated for more than 50 years, suggests fighting back by making posters of infringing material reissued inside new covers, identifying them as pirated material, and selling the posters on eBay and Amazon for a price that benefits the legitimate author/copyright holder. This media campaign is proving effective in discouraging patronage of pirate publishers.[19]

I'm going to try to fix. valereee (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lesbian pulp fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928062316/http://www.frontlist.com/detail/155861494X to http://www.frontlist.com/detail/155861494X

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

refnames automatically assigned by vis ed
Hey,, those useless refnames are automatically assigned by Visual Editor. Before I started using Vis Ed, that used to frustrate me, too. Now what frustrates me is there's no unfiddly way to fix it. Thanks for fixing it, though. —valereee (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can fix everything in Source screen. Don't let the wiki code scare you. ;-) Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't scare me; I edited for over a decade with source code. I switch back and forth depending on what I'm doing. It's more that it frustrates me to be working in VisEd and have to switch back to source, search on and find the citation, and insert a refname before I can use a source twice (or search and replace if I forgot to do it the second time I used it), then switch back to VisEd. It's fiddly. I often try to remember to do that, especially on articles I create myself, but after requesting the developers fix it, I was told it wasn't a priority, and frankly I'm sick of jumping through that particular hoop because developers don't think it's a problem. I was just telling you that I didn't insert those useless refnames, as I thought from your edit summary that maybe you didn't realize those were inserted by VisEd. —valereee (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm strictly a Source editor. For me, Source is to-the-point and the editor has total control of the results without jumping through hoops. VisualEditor fucks up edits way too much, and with the lists on my watchlist I'm constantly cleaning up after elephants because VE isn't compatible with editing tables correctly. So, yeah, if you use VE you'll have to go back and fix annoyances with Source edit. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 02:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I first started using VE because it made editing a large table so much easier, and I ended up liking that it remembers what templates are called, gives me drop downs for wikilinks, and does a fair job of creating refs. I still use source for probably 10% of my editing for the same reason you prefer source -- you can figure out what's causing a problem, and for some things it's superior. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)