David Gerard (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 116:
:I'm just flagging this at [[WP:RSN]], given you're opting for edit-wars and personal attacks - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::'''You''' are the one who breached BRD and STATUSQUO by edit warring, so you feel free to raise it where you please. If you actually bothered to read what I read, you will have noticed that I’ve said I will replace the source, but if you want to keep pushing matters into more disruptive territory, that speaks volumes. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::[[WP:BURDEN]] is policy, [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] is strong consensus that has been ratified twice. Please desist in the personal attacks. Using unreliable sources in Wikipedia is a violation of policy - there is no "status quo" ''policy'' that says that bad sources need to be kept in, or even that they have some sort of grace period. I removed them, you edit-warred them back in with no justification per the ''policy'' [[WP:BURDEN]]. I look forward to your usable sources for the material. Please desist in the personal attacks - [[WP:NPA]] is also policy - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 23:21, 8 May 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) is part of the Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and stories series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Copyedit
I have made the following changes in my copy edit:
- Given the strong national ties between James Bond and Britain, I have standardised the article on British English spellings and date conventions.
- I have revised the names of all short stories to be in quotation marks, not italics, consistent with MOS:ITALICS and MOS:TITLE. I have also corrected other variances from MOS:ITALICS throughout.
- I have removed the "Publication History" section per the guidance in WP:MOS-NOVELS. That section of the MoS states that "you should briefly outline the publication history of the novel ONLY if there is interesting information to relate." There was no such information in this section, which was a bare recounting of the publication history of the book.
// ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Improving the article
Ah, Wikipedia, paradise for people with a certain special psychology. I'd love to know why "a bow and arrow" is better than "a hunting bow". In the story, Bond says: "Put away your bow and arrow, Robina." Native speakers of English will know he's using childish language as a joke. IOW, "bow and arrow" is not suitable for an encyclopedia. There are other changes I'd like to make to improve the article, but if they're going to be reverted (again) there seems little point. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is no need to start a talk page thread with a personal attack on others. I willl discuss the substance of your point later. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was not an attack: it was an observation based on experience. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
After finding and killing the Hildebrand Rarity, the Wavekrest sets sail for port... -- Educated speakers of English, native and otherwise, will recognize that as a hanging participle. I corrected it and improved the article. It has been reverted and the article has been unimproved. Wikipedia, as I said, is paradise for people with a certain special psychology. It is not paradise for educated speakers of English. Bond finds that Krest has been murdered—apparently by having the rare fish stuffed down his throat. Could someone explain what was "apparent" about the death of Milton Krest? Could someone explain how Fleming's description -- "To pick the small fish out of its formalin bath and slip it into Mr Krest's gaping mouth" -- gets turned into the crude, inaccurate and unencyclopedic "stuffed down his throat"? I don't expect so. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- You've been asked to remain civil. If you can't manage that then don't be surprised if people won't discuss things with you, or if you get a solid blast of base Anglo Saxon in return. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Paris
SchroCat is contending that the first reel of the film View to A Kill is not set in Paris as per its namesake short story From A View To A Kill. I contend that it is, and that this is verifiable by watching the film and reading the short story. Anyone else have a view (not necessarily one to a kill)?--feline1 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have said nothing of the sort, so please do not misrepresent me again. I have said that you need a reliable secondary source that the Paris element in the film is taken from the book. If you do not have a source that makes the connection (as we have done with all the other plot elements listed) then it's simply original research, and it has no place in an encyclopaedic article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is not WP:OR as it is not drawing any conclusion. It is simply stating a fact. The reference for that fact *is* the film itself. I mean at this rate you'll be saying it would be "original research" to note that both the film and the short story contain a character called "James Bond". Which they do.--feline1 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is OR. Although both book and film have a connection with Paris (very, very small in the case of the book), that provides no proof that the film's writers decided to base the film in the city because of the book. In order to make that connection, you have to provide a reliable secondary source. As to the connection between book and film having Bond: there are ample sources that state this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Contrary to your claim,(as we have done with all the other plot elements listed) there are no sources cited whatsoever in the paragraph that I added mention of Paris to!
- Contrary to your claim "(very, very small in the case of the book", the mention of Paris in the short story goes on for several pages, with Bond opining on what Paris is like (restaurants, women, blah blah).
- I am not making any "claims" about the psychology and choices of the film's screenplay writers. I am just noting the obvious fact that both the short story and the book feature the setting of Paris. This is a perfectly useful and interesting thing for the article to note. I'm at a loss to understand your attitude, really, but I can see you have history of trolling behavior on this talk page.--feline1 (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting into ridiculous, uncivil, mindless and false accusations of trolling. If you can't be bothered to remain civil, then it's probably best not to post anything; I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL. If you're that poor at getting sources, and have to revert to insults without even bothering to look at policies, and understanding what decent standards are, then you have little place on Wikipedia (again I suggest you read WP:OR, rather than just trying to cite it back to me. As to the rest of your lies above, there are sources listed: they are in the body of the text, where they should be, and not in the lead, which should only ever reflect the body (see WP:LEAD, as you seem not to be able to understand this properly) Paris is a tiny part of the plot, with Bond moving out of Paris fairly quickly, so yes, it's small. You have absolutely no idea if the writers consciously chose Paris, and have lazily made an assumption which needs to be backed up by sources. I am at a loss as to understand your attitude: this is not an unsourced fansite or blog, but it looks like you're trying to turn it into one, if you are unwilling to use sources to back up your personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's clear to me that you are peremptory dick and you can congratulate yourself that you have succeeded in driving away yet another editor from bothering to contributing to the article. Well done.--feline1 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Er...pot-kettle-black. Regardless of who's being a dick, you still need a reliable source that says there's a connection between the Paris scenes in a collection of short stories and the Paris scenes in a movie. There's scenes set in Paris in one story in a short story collection: fact. There's scenes set in Paris at the beginning of a movie: fact. Saying that there's some connection between the two is original research. This is all explained in WP:OR...or a university level course that involves writing term papers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've already said twice above that I wasn't saying "there's some connection between" (although, by Occam's Razor, this remarkable coincidence would be most easily explained by, er, there being some connection). Doubtless our redoubtable Fleming scholar SchroCat could provide exemplary references for the connection, but is more interested in disruptive snarking. I certainly can't be bothered looking up a reference, because it might take me hours and I'm sure SchroCat would then gleefully revert it with a bitchy sarcastic comment 5 minutes later. This is why people like him ruin Wikipedia by discouraging editors to participate. --feline1 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Er...pot-kettle-black. Regardless of who's being a dick, you still need a reliable source that says there's a connection between the Paris scenes in a collection of short stories and the Paris scenes in a movie. There's scenes set in Paris in one story in a short story collection: fact. There's scenes set in Paris at the beginning of a movie: fact. Saying that there's some connection between the two is original research. This is all explained in WP:OR...or a university level course that involves writing term papers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's clear to me that you are peremptory dick and you can congratulate yourself that you have succeeded in driving away yet another editor from bothering to contributing to the article. Well done.--feline1 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could I ask you to assume good faith in your discussion, rather than attacking others yet again? If you had added the information supported by a reliable source it would not have been removed: I would have had no grounds to do so, and would have welcomed the addition. Despite your comment, I do not enjoy having to spend my time educating editors who should know better in the merits of using these sources. In future, perhaps you could use a source up front, rather then whine about "disruptive snarking" and "bitchy sarcastic comment"[s] when someone asks you to try and keep a level of good editing practice? - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't possible to assume good faith with you, as you immediately start making sarcastic editorial comments rather than behaving in a constructive manner, and the previous entry on the Talk page shows you doing exactly the same thing to another editor. So you clearly behave like this a lot.--feline1 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, on the basis of insults from a previously disruptive editor you thought you'd just start off by being offensive? I am going to step away from this conversation now, as I don't think that there is anything constructive that can be added: I suggest you do the same. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, on the basis of the way you have behaved from the start. And no, there isn't anything further constructive that can be added. You've poisoned the well most successfully. Even if I later found dozens of helpful references for the article, I wouldn't bother adding them now, as I am sure you would just remove them out of spite. This is the way you make other people feel. --feline1 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, on the basis of insults from a previously disruptive editor you thought you'd just start off by being offensive? I am going to step away from this conversation now, as I don't think that there is anything constructive that can be added: I suggest you do the same. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't possible to assume good faith with you, as you immediately start making sarcastic editorial comments rather than behaving in a constructive manner, and the previous entry on the Talk page shows you doing exactly the same thing to another editor. So you clearly behave like this a lot.--feline1 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could I ask you to assume good faith in your discussion, rather than attacking others yet again? If you had added the information supported by a reliable source it would not have been removed: I would have had no grounds to do so, and would have welcomed the addition. Despite your comment, I do not enjoy having to spend my time educating editors who should know better in the merits of using these sources. In future, perhaps you could use a source up front, rather then whine about "disruptive snarking" and "bitchy sarcastic comment"[s] when someone asks you to try and keep a level of good editing practice? - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- '"From a View to a Kill" also gave part of its title and the location of Paris.'
- That right there says that the movie's location of Paris was based on the book's location of Paris. That's saying that there's a connection between the two. That's original research which requires verification by a reliable source. Your inability or unwillingness to understand this is what's causing the friction. Please study WP:OR.
- And I'm sorry that if trying to keep all editors within the rules of writing for an encyclopaedia is discouraging you to participate, but that's your problem which you need to get over. We can help you by explaining such things as original research, reliable source, writing about fiction, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and employing Occam's Razor is an act of original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're not "sorry if...": you're being sarcastic. Being sarcastic to other editors discourages them from participating.--feline1 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm really sorry that you can't or won't understand that an encyclopaedia is not a publisher of original research and that that's the reason that you're discouraged. And the truth of the matter is that understanding this is something only you can change. So it's your problem and your responsibility. The most the rest of us can do is help you to understand, while at the same time keeping original research out of encyclopaedia articles. Basically, encyclopaedias and textbooks are not publishers of original research; they're citers and quoters of original research from reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've already explained about 4 times now that I wasn't conducting original research, but you continue to misunderstand both my explanation and my edit and also continue to be sarcastic and patronising while claiming not to be, in a transparently insincere fashion. This is most likely because you are an unpleasant personal who enjoys goading strangers on the internet. There's little I can do in response other than be a little bit sick in my mouth.--feline1 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm really sorry that you can't or won't understand that an encyclopaedia is not a publisher of original research and that that's the reason that you're discouraged. And the truth of the matter is that understanding this is something only you can change. So it's your problem and your responsibility. The most the rest of us can do is help you to understand, while at the same time keeping original research out of encyclopaedia articles. Basically, encyclopaedias and textbooks are not publishers of original research; they're citers and quoters of original research from reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're not "sorry if...": you're being sarcastic. Being sarcastic to other editors discourages them from participating.--feline1 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and employing Occam's Razor is an act of original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
|}
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on For Your Eyes Only (short story collection). 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/20080201092205/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/847/847944p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/847/847944p1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
How to pronounce ‘Risico’
Can someone add the correct IPA spelling for ‘Risico’. Given that it has not been used in film, only in the books, it would be nice to know how to correctly pronounce this word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.119.162 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Removal of WP:DAILYMAIL
Per broad general consensus - an RFC in 2017, ratified in 2019 - the Daily Mail literally cannot be trusted for any factual claim about anything. Recent WP:RSN discussion shows that - surprising as it may be - we literally cannot rely on the Daily Mail as a reliable source for what is printed in the Daily Mail. (Go and have a look!)
The material I removed would be excellent to have in the article. However, it needs a WP:RS before it can go in Wikipedia. Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The Daily Mail is not an RS. Before restoring it, do we have an RS for this material? @SchroCat: - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Don't be a tiresome little edit warrior. Just like last time when you were disruptive, a replacement was found. It will be here too, but not just because you are edit warring to make it to your own timetable. - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You appear to be reverting the material without discussing it in talk, or satisfying WP:BURDEN. There aren't many hard policies at Wikipedia, but that's one of them. Could you please address the issues, rather than appealing to non-policies?
- I'm just flagging this at WP:RSN, given you're opting for edit-wars and personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are the one who breached BRD and STATUSQUO by edit warring, so you feel free to raise it where you please. If you actually bothered to read what I read, you will have noticed that I’ve said I will replace the source, but if you want to keep pushing matters into more disruptive territory, that speaks volumes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN is policy, WP:DAILYMAIL is strong consensus that has been ratified twice. Please desist in the personal attacks. Using unreliable sources in Wikipedia is a violation of policy - there is no "status quo" policy that says that bad sources need to be kept in, or even that they have some sort of grace period. I removed them, you edit-warred them back in with no justification per the policy WP:BURDEN. I look forward to your usable sources for the material. Please desist in the personal attacks - WP:NPA is also policy - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are the one who breached BRD and STATUSQUO by edit warring, so you feel free to raise it where you please. If you actually bothered to read what I read, you will have noticed that I’ve said I will replace the source, but if you want to keep pushing matters into more disruptive territory, that speaks volumes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)