Talk:My Living Doll

Cummings departure
I just reformatted a crudely formatted addition that replaced the information I had put in earlier. Daily Variety - which hardly had a 100% accuracy record may have said one thing, but we have the word of 2 sources - Newmar and the show's producer - in the 2012 DVD release documentary which says otherwise. Both views must be included per WP: BLP because Newmar is one of two surviving parties of this so-called conflict, and therefore her statement must be included for fairness and NPOV. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture & Star Trek: Voyager
On or about 7 November 2014 Drbogdan reverted an edit linking to Star Trek: Voyager and the 7 of 9 character. I don't care whether this line:
 * The assignation AF 709 may be the inspiration for the "7 of 9" character in the series Star Trek Voyager.

is in the article or not, but if it is, then the name of the TV show should be correct (that is, include the colon) and it might as well be linked to the Wikipedia page for the show. That was my edit and I believe that edit was correct. If Drbogdan wants to challenge unsourced material that's fine... but reverting this edit does not do so. Mikek999 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Living Doll. 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/20071023011909/http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109c&L=ads-l&D=1&F=&S=&P=1166 to http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109c&L=ads-l&D=1&F=&S=&P=1166

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) 06:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My Living Doll "when additional prints are found" ... fact or speculation?
, you reverted my edit in which I changed "As a result, the rest of the series can be released on DVD when additional prints are found." to "The rest of the series can only be released on DVD if prints of the missing episodes are found." I disagree with your reversion. The source doesn't make the discovery of prints of the missing episodes a "when" matter, but rather an "if" one. From the source: "Unfortunately, some film collectors refuse to provide existing prints so that they can be properly scanned for preservation", "I know the episodes are out there, but they aren’t doing any good sitting in a closet or a basement.", and "I really hope that the remaining fifteen episodes of this series are one day recovered...". This points to the non-inevitability of the missing episodes being discovered. I think it's not entirely in keeping with the facts the source reports to say "when additional prints are found", which makes them being found sound likely or inevitable. They may never be found, at least not by anyone in a position to release the episodes on DVD, or may no longer exist at all if the person the source quotes is mistaken. Can we come to some kind of compromise on this? Vadder (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

, Perhaps: "The rest of the series can only be released on DVD if (when?) existing prints of the missing episodes are made available by private collectors." According to my re-reading of the source, the prints do exist and have already been found in private collections, and additonally the copyright owner has already commited to releasing them on DVD when they are made available by those collectors. My reading of the source is that this is a 'when' not an 'if' situation. Because the prints have been found, it would only be fair to say "IF (and when) the collectors make available...". You might argue that the phrase "I know the episodes are out there" is speculative, but the statement must be taken literally, and is a statement by the copyright holder who is in a position to know these facts. You might argue that "one day recovered" means they have not been found but this actually refers to restoring the prints and not to finding them, as in: " These [existing] films need to be preserved and restored " I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that a REVERT was a minor edit, especially in the case of vandalism (which your change was not) and will defer to your judgement that a REVERT is not always a minor edit. jmonti824 Jmonti824 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my years of following the saga of the Doctor Who missing episodes (the real-world saga, not anything about the Wikipedia page) has jaded me. I've often heard that some or all of the missing Doctor Who episodes exist in the hands of private collectors, but to date there have been to my knowledge no cases of a collector revealing their long-term possession of a missing Who episode and allowing the BBC to copy it. (There have been cases of Who collectors who did so relatively quickly after acquiring the missing episode or after learning that their print was a rarity.) It seems more and more likely most or all of the Who episodes still missing no longer exist anywhere, or will be kept hidden indefinitely by those collectors who may have them.
 * Anyway I do still argue that the statement "I know the episodes are out there" is possibly speculative and that we are not bound to state in Wikipedia's voice that it is gospel truth. However, if you continue to disagree, there may still be a way forward. As you conceded in your response, even assuming that all episodes exist in the hands of collectors, it is not certain ("if and when") that the collectors will ever agree to submit the prints for the making of a DVD. How about replacing the disputed edit with, "The rest of the series can only be released on DVD if and when any and all holders of such prints allow those episodes to be copied." Vadder (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

, Yes I like your change. although it seems a bit wordy, but that is only a matter of taste and not of content. Reflecting the source, I would perhaps word it this way: "The rest of the series can only be released on DVD if and when some film collectors any and all holders of such prints allow those episodes to be scanned for preservation copied . BUT I accept your proposed wording is accurate: "The rest of the series can only be released on DVD if and when any and all holders of such prints allow those episodes to be copied." I don't see another way to interpret this except that in this particular case, the copyright holder knows of existing prints held by specific collectors, and that they are not yet released for other reasons: "Unfortunately, some film collectors refuse to provide existing prints so that they can be properly scanned for preservation. “There are rumors that I am demanding the films for free, which couldn’t be further from the truth,” Peter tells me. “I am willing to pay for access to these films because I want this show to be restored, and I want to make it available. I don’t make money from this project; In fact, the first Living Doll DVD set has yet to break even. This is absolutely a passion project.” What makes finding this show even more difficult is that it never went into wide-run syndication, leaving few original prints. “I know the episodes are out there, but they aren’t doing any good sitting in a closet or a basement. These films need to be preserved and restored before they degrade completely and are lost from the world.” Jmonti824 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your last proposed version was pretty good and flows better than my proposal. I removed one word, "some" (seemed unnecessary, but you can put it back if you prefer it there), and made the edit. What do you think?

"The rest of the series can be released on DVD if and when film collectors allow those episodes to be scanned for preservation."
 * Vadder (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jmonti824 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)