Talk:Thomas Lourds

Proposing a merger from Michael Cordy to this page
I know that the author does have other novels that aren't listed in the Lourdes series, but he doesn't have any notability outside of his writing and the name would otherwise be deleted. I'm suggesting that we merge what we can (most of which I've done already) and redirect the name to this page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
Strongly oppose. Cannot begin to understand how you thought of this idea.
 * The article title, like any on novels, should carry the name of the author.
 * Michael Cordy, an English author, who is still publishing novels, on average one per year, has no connection with Thomas Lourdes, and certainly does not write under any nom de plume.

PLEASE NOTE: Michael Cordy is an Englishman and lives in London. He is not American. He has a wife, Jenny, and a daughter, Phoebe.

The Novels
He is now the author of six successful novels:


 * The Messiah Code, originally, The Miracle Strain, published 1997.


 * The Crime Code, originally, Crime Zero, published 1999.


 * .The Lucifer Code, originally, Lucifer, published 2001.
 * The Venus Conspiracy, originally, True, published 2004.
 * The Source, published August 2008, involves Abiogenesis. An adventure set mostly in Peru, Warner Bros have bought an option on the film rights.
 * The Colour of Death, the sixth novel, published August 2011. The main character suffers with an unprecedented form of synaesthesia, in which her five senses merge to form a sixth, and her hallucinations appear to be memories, but not her own.


 * His seventh novel is already underway.

Response

 * First of all, I was mistaken in what I had thought because I'd found a link that stated this. I'll try to find it and link it here. Secondly, if the author does not have any connection with the series then you should not be adding Cordy's books to the page. You should instead post about the actual series or just remove Cordy's name. I did that when I initially reverted your edits, so there was absolutely no reason for you to go back and revert back to your previous edits. I will admit that I made a mistake, but that's no reason to be pushy and to try to put your rebuttal in the actual article itself. Keep this sort of thing to the talk pages, please.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your apology is accepted. Please try to understand how upset I was, early this morning – it was 7:00 a.m. here in the UK – to find your proposal to highjack the Michael Cordy article and move it here.  An article that was mainly all my editing.  He is a very private man and it is near impossible to learn any more about him, for example, his date of birth or other interests.
 * Do find the link and then I may be able to understand your motive. By the way, I had put my rebuttal on this talk page too, but you had not seen it, presumably, when you filled in your "edit summary"..?
 * Can I take it that your proposal to merge two entirely different authors is now redundant? I should be grateful if you would confirm that here.
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had and when I initially reverted your edits, I had removed any mention of Cordy from this article. You just didn't read the edits that I had made. Also, I have to warn you that you've got a very posessive tone over Cordy's article. It's a simple mistake. It's not a slight against Cordy or anything else to that nature, and you seem to be taking this rather personally. By the way, this article is not original research, now that the bit about Cordy has been removed and I can't help but feel that this is in response to my putting tags on the Cordy article that state that the article had no sources and currently does not meet notability guidelines. Those are just tags meant to show that items need to be worked on. It's not a slight against you or against Cordy, just a sign that these issues need to be worked on. You need to grow thicker skin if you're going to edit on Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And yes, the merger proposal is closed. Now that we've had confirmation that the two authors are separate, there's no reason to merge. Again, you need to realize that none of this is a personal slight against the author or anything to that nature. It's a simple mistake and you'll find that you'll come across many of these on Wikipedia. You just have to learn how to deal with them with more tact than this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)