h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A13269486 - Rupert Bear

Ah.

Now I'm confused.

Opti is a girl, and when you said "he was being asked" I thought you meant pailaway.

This is pailaway - a him - who didn't know what Blighty was until reading further to discover that it was probably a publication of some kind.

That was Opti - a her - who I asked for a link so that other uninformed readers like myself could know what Blighty was.

However, now that I know that Blighty was also an old nickname for Britain (thanks GB), a link AND a footnote (as GB suggests) might be in order to fully appreciate the possible humour in this.

For some, not immediately apparent, reason I was struggling under the belief that Opti was 40 something year old Belgian male.

I think that's Poirot, not Opti.

Or Toy box.

*sigh* I hate doing this, but it's important.

There are sections of this Entry that bear (no pun intended) a striking (if not identical), resemblance to information found here:

http://www.teddy-bear-uk.com/learning/famous/rupert/bestall.htm

If the Entry is to include this it needs to be rewritten, or the original source credited.

for your comments

>>In footnote 16 there is a misplaced period at the beginning of the sentence.

what does 'period' mean?

'period' = 'full stop'


W

well done, verry interestering.
by the way, who writes the stories now, 'cause i don't think it's John Harrold.

great entry

SP

Matt's comment in post 26 needs addressing urgently, or this Entry can't go forward.

I have put links into the entry from that site

It's all very well linking through, but if you're going to reproduce sections of the text word for word, you either need to a) re-write or b) credit the author or website in the actual Entry.

Although I looked at these articles I didn't set out to reproduce sections of the text word for word! Therefore, I have no idea what needs changing and what doesn't!

Very well, I will take your word for it. I'm not going to go through the Entry pointing it out, because as far as I have read there are, or have been, numerous indications of 'cut and paste'. Cut and paste does not necessarly mean purely using those editing tools available, but writing something from a book or website that is to all intense and purposes merely copying verbatim what you read.

I only inform you of this because I have been caught out myself in the past by submitting work that I had not properly rewritten to be my own for the EG, and it is not a pleasant situation to be in. The BBC will not want to employ their lawyers over something like this, and does not take it lighty. It is very explicit in the Writing-Guidelines (Do Not Copy Wholesale From Other Sources) and herehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/Writing-Copyright - about plagiarism, and it is definitely not something to think you can be blaise about.

Actually, there's no 'either / or' here. There must be no copying from other websites - it must all be rewritten into your own words. As Matt notes, if there's any suspicion of plagiarism, we won't rewrite the entry, we'll just remove it, so it's in your best interest to go through this thoroughly because it'd be a shame to lose it.

While you're working on that, Opti, in the 'History' section, I'm guessing 'In the 1930s' should read 'In the 1920s' as that's when the bear was created.

There also needs to be a subheader immediately before the blockquote in the television section, so that the old series is separate from the new. How about '21st Century Bear' as a Subheader?

I'd suggest removing the link to the production company because there's absolutely nothing about Rupert on that site.

Going over the section now ... I assume its one particular part thats the problem right? Been wondering whether it really is necessary to have all the stuff in about the authors for its Rupert that is our main love right. Waffling opti.

hey Fruitilicious there's a freebie dvd in the Mirror Saturday Rupert the Bear
Nother

Not sure if this is relevant to your entry Opti..

but in the 1970's the underground magazine OZ published some err.. rather explicit images involving Rupert. which lead to OZ's creators being arrested and put on trial.

here's a link to details:

http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/rupage.html

WARNING: the link does contain adult images from OZ magazine.

I don't think you'd get away with that in the entry Opti but it's certainly interesting, thanks Ged

you know what i was thinking exactly the same GB