+ |
|||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
:::Sandy, the problem is that Gimme came to ''my'' talk page on a matter about a page [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Bond_girl I have edited 56 times] and he edited for the first time; all our interaction took place on those two talk pages. That's not hounding under any stretch of the imagination. The discussion on those two pages were nothing to do with harassment: Gimme could have stopped posting threats and accusations on my talk page at any time and concentrated on the substantive issue on the talk page of the article, which would have been far more appropriate (indeed, I asked him to do so '''six times'''). I suspect that he lost sight of the bigger picture here and this lack of perspective has led him to overstep the boundaries of reasonable interaction. I was in the process of writing out a possible approach to ANI over the double censorship issue when the now-withdrawn SP accusations came in; even without those now-withdrawn accusations there is a pretty good chance the ANI would have gone ahead because of everything that preceeded it. I have never come across Gimme before (that I know of) and came with no baggage of assumption at all: my thoughts are based entirely on what happened on this page and the article talk page. That said, yes, Br'er was a pain in backside and anyone who suffered form harrassment from him would not have had a happy time at all; you can see from the interaction I had with him that I was no fan of him or his approach. All the best - [[User:Schrodinger's cat is alive|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive#top|talk]]) 11:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::Sandy, the problem is that Gimme came to ''my'' talk page on a matter about a page [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Bond_girl I have edited 56 times] and he edited for the first time; all our interaction took place on those two talk pages. That's not hounding under any stretch of the imagination. The discussion on those two pages were nothing to do with harassment: Gimme could have stopped posting threats and accusations on my talk page at any time and concentrated on the substantive issue on the talk page of the article, which would have been far more appropriate (indeed, I asked him to do so '''six times'''). I suspect that he lost sight of the bigger picture here and this lack of perspective has led him to overstep the boundaries of reasonable interaction. I was in the process of writing out a possible approach to ANI over the double censorship issue when the now-withdrawn SP accusations came in; even without those now-withdrawn accusations there is a pretty good chance the ANI would have gone ahead because of everything that preceeded it. I have never come across Gimme before (that I know of) and came with no baggage of assumption at all: my thoughts are based entirely on what happened on this page and the article talk page. That said, yes, Br'er was a pain in backside and anyone who suffered form harrassment from him would not have had a happy time at all; you can see from the interaction I had with him that I was no fan of him or his approach. All the best - [[User:Schrodinger's cat is alive|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive#top|talk]]) 11:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::: You could have stopped removing the fixes I made. You made two undos that left the article with an inconsistent style for the date formats. You say you edited the page 56 times, but you had not made the formats consistent, so why did you repeatedly undo the work of someone else? You could have addressed the issue of ''your'' behavior here as I asked multiple times. Nor have you yet answered a direct question I have asked now 4 times: Is it possible, just perhaps, I might have a better idea what the guideline means than you do? And if me saying you're edit warring, after you had twice undone my edits while discussion was ongoing, is uncivil [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bond_girl&diff=prev&oldid=531222660 6:10], then your undo of my edits with an edit summary accusing me of edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bond_girl&diff=next&oldid=531220959 6:05] was equally or more uncivil. [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) 12:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::: You could have stopped removing the fixes I made. You made two undos that left the article with an inconsistent style for the date formats. You say you edited the page 56 times, but you had not made the formats consistent, so why did you repeatedly undo the work of someone else? You could have addressed the issue of ''your'' behavior here as I asked multiple times. Nor have you yet answered a direct question I have asked now 4 times: Is it possible, just perhaps, I might have a better idea what the guideline means than you do? And if me saying you're edit warring, after you had twice undone my edits while discussion was ongoing, is uncivil [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bond_girl&diff=prev&oldid=531222660 6:10], then your undo of my edits with an edit summary accusing me of edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bond_girl&diff=next&oldid=531220959 6:05] was equally or more uncivil. [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) 12:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::Maybe it was a mistake to continue discussing this here, rather than at ANI, as you are simply repeating what has already been said and that is not likely to get us anywhere. I will spin the question round on you: is it possible, just perhaps, that the guidelines are open to a different interpretation than the one are sticking to? Admins do not have a monopoly of understanding or interpretation of the guidelines—some of us plebs outside the ivory towers are capable of reading and independent thought too! While I have admitted on more than one ocassion that your interpretation is ''possible'', I have also explained that other interpretations are equally possible. Rather than continue this circular nonsense further, I suggest that we both contain our comments to the ANI page. - [[User:Schrodinger's cat is alive|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive#top|talk]]) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== For Your Eyes Only == |
== For Your Eyes Only == |
Revision as of 12:43, 7 January 2013
Good Article promotion
Happy Holidays!
Hope you're having a great Christmas Schrod. I'm ploughing through OHMSS novel. Loved the description of Draco's face when Bond mentions Blofeld, like Blofeld is the epitome of all evil who robbed The Union of its henchmen!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld Amazing lazenby was only 28 when they shot the film. Looks more like 38!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Harry PotterThanks again for reviewing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Could you review Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 for me too? Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
OHMSS grossHi. The figure used is incorrect. I did tons of research for writing a book on Bond, and I listed the correct gross. Now, there are hundreds of websites listing both grosses, the one that is wrong and the one that is right. I think there should be a discussion, and not just a universal approach of simply accepting a wrong figure because it is on some sites. That is all. I am just trying to put the correct gross there. I have done so before, and it almost immediately gets reverted. If you list a source, it gets reverted. Always the current source is touted as being the only reliable one. So there is really no point in bothering with that. There should be a discussion. I am not sure where we should have it though, because the talk page of that article isn't visited by many. Suggestions?173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
SkyfallHey, seeing as the IP user re added the content again after being asked not too and deciding not to come to the talk page to discuss the content further, I added a 3RR notice on his talk page. He was sufficiently warned by yourself unofficially and I for one feel that he will be continuing with editing in this manner. So I leave it up to the great and wonderful oz who monitors such notices to deal with it. Sound ok? MisterShiney ✉ 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Which Bond film...Question for you, if you don't mind: Which Bond film involves a contest between Bond and the antagonist and takes the form of a video game where they battle for (initially) control of the USA, and later the world? They have cruise missiles they can launch, and the controls incrementally shock the players as well. Naturally, Bond wins, but I can't remember which film it is and can find no mention of it in any of the plot sections. ISTR it's a Roger Moore film. Searching for "James bond video game plot" or similar on Google is worse than useless. Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad I could help.... ;) SchroCat (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Le MI've copyedited a couple of sections, also trimmed down a bit on what reads as unnecessary detail. I have a problem in the 1946–59 section in which we read: "The same year, Tony Hancock joined Le Mesurier's wife, Hattie Jacques in the series Educating Archie...". In the previous section Le M was married to June Melville; what happened to her, and when did Le M & Jacques marry? While I'm at it, can you give the year that the fmily moved to Bury St Edmunds, and also where and when Gielgud's production of Ham;et was staged? (Please ping my talk when you've picked these up) Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I did raise some concerns about the cutting to Brian. Anyway, have a great 2013. here's Bigglesworth doing his best Burt Kwouk SPECTRE volcano agent impression.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Oscar for Skyfall?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think User:Red White Blue and Yellow hit upon a great title for James Bond (film character) in his page moves earlier today. It wasn't the correct title for James Bond in film as he quickly realized, because a filmography is basically a film 'cv' for a particular person. That is a essentially what we have at James Bond (film character), the article comprises a filmography for the actors in the role. What do you think? Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
spoilers in cast listsHi, it doesn't make sense to have spoilers in the cast lists, if you hadn't noticed wikipedia articles have a contents page which allows users to skip directly to the cast list without reading the plot synopsis. It is entirely conceivable that someone who hadn't seen a movie would like to know briefly about the actors and characters in a work without wanting to have twists or the film's ending spoiled. If someone does want this information it is as you say readily available in the plot synopsis. In fact it is probably more likely that someone who hadn't seen the film would be interested in the cast list than someone who had, as they would already be familiar with the characters in the film. Again, It really adds nothing to have spoilers in the cast list as it is, as you say, merely repeating information present in the plot synopsis. So it adds nothing and will achieve nothing but spoiling those who haven't seen this film. Despite this for some reason wikipedia editors seem to insist on it and it probably won't change because many wikipedia editors are rather stubborn as you are no doubt aware of. That will be all, have a nice day! 122.57.205.144 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
H. C. McNeileI see you're doing some work on Sapper, and I saw you changed the Writer-Infobox to a Person-Infobox. I was all set to change it back, but I figured it'd be more sensible and more civil to ask about it first. BTW... your style of laying out comments in the source-text looks quite sensible.Catsmeat (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Filming of James BondFilming of James Bond. Had an inspiration to start this off. An overview of production of the films by decade, like proper film studies material. I've just started them off with existing material combined but given time I think we could add all production info and text connecting each film which would make it feasible to either move to Production of James Bond (to include details on cast and script development) or simply to History of James Bond. Either way I think something very productive could come of this even if the scope is a scary one. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Well. it could turn into a more detailed history by decade I guess. We can decide what to do with them and whether or not we really want to do than in due course. It is a big task but it would be nice to have a detailed history of James Bond.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) File:Blofelds.jpg. Is it me or does the Pleasance Blofeld look like Gail Porter?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
FYII merged your SPI report on 007Fan1 to the first SPI case. As new socks are discovered, they are added to the original report to group them all together. The form is smart enough to append new cases to the original report. I blocked the 007Fan1 account as an obvious duck. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
ApologyCat, please accept my sincere apologies for the concern that you were a Merridew sock. It's an unfortunate consequence of years of hounding that is even more unfortunate when it is visited upon the innocent. I hope you all resolve that conflict. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I have also left my apology in the ANI thread. I'm sorry for bringing up socking. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
SchroCat, your editing first came to my attention via a dicussion with Blofeld at DYK. When I saw the comment from Blofeld, it struck me as somewhat strange, as you were the primary editor on that FA, and he was a Supporter on the FAC yet was taking credit for the FA in that discussion, so I looked into your work in greater detail trying to sort out what was up there. Your username was highly suggestive of a Merridew sock (can't help that), as were some content and style issues and editor overlap, and those things stuck in my mind. When I said I had "encountered problems", it was a poorly worded talk page entry; there was enough for concern. Shortly after typing that, I saw the ANI notice on Gimme's talk, which I have had watchlisted, well, forever, since we developed the articlehistories on FAs and FFAs back in 2007-ish. I am, still and again, sorry for the socking concern, and hope you can work out the dispute. I've nothing but good experiences with Gimmetrow, and know how it feels to be hounded for years by socks as he has been. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
For Your Eyes OnlyJust wanted to run this past you and get your opinion or thoughts. I watched For Your Eyes Only at home last night and came to the conclusion that Bibi Dahl does not really fit the criteria of a Bond girl. At no time during the movie does Bond show any love interest towards her - it is her that shows interest in Bond, with no reciprocation. In the opening first sentence of the Bond girls article, it states that a Bond girl "is a character (or the actress portraying a character) who is a love interest of James Bond in a film, novel, or video game". Other than the film, Bibi Dahl does not appear in any books or video games. As such - in my opinion - she does not fit the criteria. I didn't want to amend the article without consulting you first. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Bibi is a Bond girl sure. In the Jimmy Savile James Bond DVD collection. Its a joke Lerd before you get off your high horse at me again, you flamin nerd you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I apologised a few minutes ago! No need to get huffy! I made an assumption and im sorry!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hoagy Carmichael resembling James BondNot speculative, Fleming mentions in one of the novels that Bond resembles Hoagy Carmichael, which particularly intrigues readers since Carmichael so closely resembled Fleming himself. Accubam (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Skyfall DVDLOL! Looks like we were both adding the same info at the same time! Didn't mean to overwrite — when I saw the "edit conflict" window I though it was conflict with the bot adding cite-req dates. As I said on the article's talk page, great minds think alike! I've also added a comment on the talk page re: GA. I think you're right, given just the edits I myself felt necessary to make today — I'm sure other editors will have more, so waiting for GA review might not be a bad idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hoagy Carmichael imageAs I noted in my revert, the image of Carmichael that I inserted is part of Wikipedia Commons and as a result should be exempt from Fair Use restrictions, provided it relates to the article itself, which it obviously does. If I'm wrong about this, it wouldn't stun me into speechlessness, so let me know if that's the case. BTW, your revert of my mentioning the resemblance between Fleming and Carmichael did go into the wrong place, to the left of the Kingsley Amis citation (I can't recall whether Amis mentioned the resemblance or not but I imagine he did; it's been part of the Fleming/Bond lore ever since Fleming's original sentence in his novel but obviously what I imagine shouldn't and doesn't count, so you're certainly right on that one). Accubam (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC) A slot opened up, so I stuck your nomination back in. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
More Hoagy CarmichaelActually, Carmichael's too young in this photo to bear out the resemblance to Bond. The first one is perfect, even closely resembling Fleming's sketch on the other side of the page, except for the presence of George Gobel, of all people, sitting there. Ideally, that same picture should be cropped but unfortunately I don't know how to do that offhand. Accubam (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |