User:23skidoo/Archive5

Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page.

If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here.

Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

James Bond

Brosnan

No. I saw that report, another "insider" claiming to know what they're talking about. It was first posted on CBn, then was apparently copied to DarkHorizons. The entire report is based on Roger Moore and Connery both walking away before returning and a feeling that Brosnan never really left. I'd take this with a whole lot of salt. K1Bond007 16:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Any and all speculation regardless of how credible, on who will play the next James Bond should be reverted from the main James Bond article anyway. Leave all that BS to the Casino Royale page. This would, IMO, include actors stepping up and saying "I've been hired for the role" (theres been a few of these too). If it's not reported by EON I wouldn't bother. K1Bond007 17:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

New Bond

Nah you can't set a requirement for a page (speaking of CNN/BBC comment), unfortunately anyway. I wouldn't change the MGM thing either. It says MGM/Sony and according to many sources the Bond franchise will continue to have the MGM logo. Either way we won't know till the film is released. It's best at this point to keep MGM/Sony instead of optioning either way.

The whole reverting thing is starting to upset me. I've done it so much that I'm starting to feel kind of like a Nazi. Everytime I come to Wikipedia someone has changed a Bond page saying so-and-so was announced or this person is favored as James Bond over everyone else etc. No even knows one way or the other. The power of the media. Not one of these reports over the past year+ has ever had any sort of credibility except the ones with actual interviews from people involved in the film, including Brosnan. Yet everyday it's a new person. Never saw the Orlando Bloom one coming. That.... well wow.. thats all I can say, espeically after the past week in which he's denied knowing anything at all about it. Sometimes, for whatever reason, I get the feeling that people are adding these things to Wikipedia just so they can be the "first one to add it". Remember the guy who changed the name of the page from "James Bond 21" to "Casino Royale (2006 film)"? He just straight copied and pasted (to be frank yours and my work - majority of which anyway) and then on his user page he added that he created the page. This is when I started to realise this sort of trend. It's kind of sad really. Since then he's changed it to "moved most of the content from" - but all he did was copy/paste and change the title to Casino Royale. Oh well. K1Bond007 04:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pic

Yeah.. now that you mention it, you're right. It's from the beginning of Thunderball when he's at the health club. I just didn't think it was very tasteful. The resolution or something isn't that great either. I was wondering if I should delete it because it's an orphan. Wikipedia has a ton of pictures for Connery anyway. K1Bond007 23:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oh I delete images all the time, I know how its done. I'll guess I do it. K1Bond007 23:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm apparently it is from Goldfinger, it's right before he makes Goldfinger lose at cards. Still I stand by deleting it. There are enough Connery images on Wikipedia and most of them are from Goldfinger alone anyway. K1Bond007 00:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

007 in New York

I ordered SilverFin from Amazon the other day and since I'm still planning on reading all the Bonds before it, I decided to purchase Octopussy and The Living Daylights (the latest ed) because it has "007 in New York". I've been reading the books from the library and they certainly wouldn't have the latest edition. So..anyway I got the book today and did a skim of the book just to see if there was any forwards or whatever and before 007 in New York theres a foreword by Peter-Janson Smith (see Ian Fleming Publications) which lists all the publications and history of the story. Included in Smith's foreword is an actual foreword from Fleming that he included with the American version of Thrilling Cities before 007 in New York. It essentially says -I didn't like New York, but heres James Bond who had sometimes similar, but different tastes than my own-. Apparently the American publishers of Thrilling Cities asked him to do it because they feared a backlash from Americans, more specifically New Yorkers, over Fleming's "evaluation" of the city in Thrilling Cities. All of the information I added was from these two sources. -- Speaking of which, you might want to clarify this line: "editions published since the mid-1990s have the collection's full title." I'm not really sure what it means, but with the added information, specifically the part of the short story being originally titled "Agent 007 in New York", it might come off as confusing. K1Bond007 22:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Hey I'm currently thinking that some of the trivia sections are getting too long. In fact sometimes I think that some of the entries really aren't "trivial" at all, but rather good information that could be merged together to form actual overviews (paragraphs of some sort) or history of—of the book and/or film. See GoldenEye. I'm hoping to start with On Her Majesty's Secret Service given the size of its section. I just wanted to see if you thought this was a good idea. Also the plot summary section still needs to be heavily trimmed. I hate how virtually every step of the film is written. It's one thing to write a detailed summary giving a reader a good —summary— of the film, but what we have is something much more so than we need. K1Bond007 21:01, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re. A paragraph? Well I totally disagree with that. Personally I think what GoldenEye has is perfect or The Man with the Golden Gun for an example with both a Fleming novel and film. K1Bond007 02:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Re2. I was hesitant to add additional info about YJB. The news I read said only "SilverFin has been sold to 15 countries and a graphic novel based on Higson’s character will follow at the end of 2006.". That could mean SilverFin, but it also reads like it could be something new. I'd say no about the animated series—besides that was MGM's thing not IFP/GP. K1Bond007 04:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Re3. I honestly don't think IFP has the right to authorize a tv series. All screen versions of James Bond reside with MGM/EON/Danjaq/UA. This is why a lot of those "SilverFin" film rumors are BS because only EON and MGM can actually make a James Bond film. Thats the deal Broccoli/Saltzman had with Fleming. I do, however, believe that a second series of Bond books is on the way though from what Higson has said. Speculating only, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if the series picked up from where TMWTGG left off - in the same timeframe. I just finished OHMSS today and I'll be starting YOLT probably tonight. My SilverFin order from Amazon was sent today (4 days before release), but I still want to finish YOLT and TMWTGG before I read it. I haven't decided if I'll read Octopussy and TLD yet before SilverFin. Its not really required. I dunno. K1Bond007 04:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Brosnan

Its that first to post thing again. People just want to be the first so they can say they were first. Its ridiculous. No one cares. Anyway, so I finished You Only Live Twice and I really didn't like it. I guess I'd place this probably around Diamonds Are Forever, which IMO is his weakest Bond book. I thought the beginning was a huge cop-out from where OHMSS left off (Bond rarely even talks about it) and I thought Fleming's writing style changed. The book felt lengthy with a lot of BS that didn't need to be there. All that stuff that Bond learned from Tiger and Kissy etc was never used at all. It felt like a major waste of time. Just give Bond a gun and parachute him to the castle. He'll take care of it. The only real scenes I enjoyed was when Blofeld was in it or referenced (Shatterhand). Thats when it was actually good. I also didn't like how the obit made "self-references" to Ian Fleming as if he based Bond on a real person. It was just 'weak'. - I'm not saying overall the book was bad, but it wasn't very good on the Fleming level. All of his books from probably From Russia With Love up to this one were excellent (even TSpyWLM wasn't that bad). I've yet to start TMWTGG, but I feel a huge cop-out coming here too. No doubt I'll open the book and everything will probably be back to normal and Bond will know he's Bond and everything will be just as it was. I guess I could be wrong. K1Bond007 02:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Re I hear its 50/50. Some say its his worst and others say its one of his best. Out of curiosity whats your favorite and is this one a yay or nay? I'm thinking about purchasing Colonel Sun if I can find a copy. Ebay, Half.com and Amazon have a bunch of used ones, but I don't want one new or next to new. Hope I can find a good one. K1Bond007 03:04, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Re Ahh.. I'll have to check on that I guess (Colonel Sun). Good call. My favorite is FRWL, I don't think theres going to be anything that can top that. I wrote the rest of my likings and dislikings down on my user page. I haven't gone into much detail, about it though. Essentially fav least fav actor and fav book / movie. K1Bond007 03:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thunderball

I'm hoping you can do a peer edit of Thunderball whenever you get a chance. I made major changes to it today for readability in addition to expanding sections. I think it looks pretty good and am hoping to put it up as a candidate for a featured article soon. I might prior to that, however, put it up for peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review) so that I can take care of the problems that might prevent it from becoming featured. Attention largely needs to be given to the film plot summary. I tried to actually finish it (our summary was only for maybe 2/3 of the film), but I don't know if it reads that well. I tried to keep it simple (just the facts) without going into too many details. Anyway, see what you can do. K1Bond007 00:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Update

Hey I finally went ahead and nominated Thunderball for FAC. I'd say go there and support it, but you're a major contributor to the article so thats probably not a good idea :) Anyway, I finished SilverFin, as upset about the whole Young Bond thing as I was, it was a good read. I enjoyed it although "Part 1" of the book I find to be seriously lacking as far as writing about any character at a school. I won't spoil anything. Anyway, so like you said I went to some local stores to try and find Colonel Sun and I didn't find it, but I did find a whole bunch of Gardner's. Most of them have a cover similar to whats at For Special Services. I ended up getting: Licence Renewed, Role of Honour, Nobody Lives Forever, and Scorpius. I ordered Colonel Sun online from Amazon as well as The Spy Who Loved Me + Moonraker (both Wood), and every Bond book by Gardner that I didn't have up to Scorpius. :) Went on a little buying frenzy. Most of them were under a two bucks and I did score a brand new hardcover of No Deals, Mr. Bond for only a few bucks. These should keep me set for a while :) K1Bond007 20:38, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Roger that. K1Bond007 03:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thunderball FA

I know, I'm majorly peeved that there was no consensus at all on the article. It would be one thing if it failed outright, but to fail it because one person objected (an honest objection, but very minor considering I fixed it within a couple of hours of posting) is just BS. I plan to renominate the article as is after a week, which is probably the appropriate amount of time to wait.

As for your computer problems have you tried using standard programs such as Ad-aware, Spybot S&D, etc? Alternatively, you can convert to Firefox, which is a 100x better browser IMO (tabbed browsing makes Wikipedia so much easier to edit). website K1Bond007 22:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah save a copy of them just in case, but FireFox without you telling it will import them. Then you can just move them about like you would in IE or you can make a row of categorized "folders" above your tabs. See [1] for an example of how I have it setup. (note I considerably reduced image quality for filesize) K1Bond007 04:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm going to nominate this again. IMHO, it's a great article. I added a little to it earlier in the week from what I read in James Bond: The Legacy by John Cork, which is a fascinating book about Bond's impact on culture etc. I got it from the Library of all places, but wouldn't mind purchasing the oversized (and I mean oversized) hardback edition for myself. Is there anything at Thunderball, you feel needs to be added, reworded, removed or whatever? I don't want to go through this all again and have it fail because perhaps it's not as good as I think it is. For Wikipedia I believe it to be about as comprehensive as it can get without being too fanboyish (which it probably is - although it's definitely not my favorite). K1Bond007 05:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The list thing from the James Bond FAC was why I tidied up the book section a few months ago and added those boxes. I think they look a lot better than just a straight list, plus their surrounded by actual paragraphs of information. Before it was just a list with a small blurb of who Gardner and Benson were. It's also why I converted the list in the vehicles and gadget section on some articles to prose. Thunderball and FYEO were easy to do that to.

About me becoming an admin, thank you. I was asked last year if I wanted to be one and I said no, but this time around I decided there wasn't really any reason not to. All I really do is rollback vandalism and possibly block those offenders (who prior to this usually vandalise my user page - 7 times in the past week) and delete speedied articles from time to time. If you're interested in becoming an admin, let me know. I'd definitely support your RFA. K1Bond007 03:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

FYI, I listed it for FAC again. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thunderball. K1Bond007 20:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, vote, but list that you have made big contributions in the past. K1Bond007 16:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The only thing that got changed was the note about "in later editions," which I removed because the information about when the book was published had not yet been stated and therefore kind of read funny. I also don't think it would be right to get into the technicalities in the intro. Yes, in later editions it was credited to "...based on a screen..." etc, but the way I wrote it (at least IMHO) is simple, less confusing, and isn't decieving or untrue. I don't know, I kind of wanted the publishing year to be farther up - I had initially written the "controversy" sentence to be something to the effect of since 1961 to as recent as 2001, which would show that it is still an ongoing controversy within the universe of James Bond, but with the publishing information farther down, it didn't make much sense. Moving "1961" kind of took away from the line of it standing as a novelisation. I think what we have works. If you think otherwise, try something different. K1Bond007 20:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

W00000! Thunderball passed. It's an FA now! :D K1Bond007 20:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know when yet. Maybe next month or November. Depends on how big the queue is. About the James Bond FAC, I'm not so sure. I still don't think it's ready. The guy who was going to nominate it, never did anyway. I'm gonna clean that all up. K1Bond007 16:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Will be on the main page October 3, 2005. View K1Bond007 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Character pages

I've yet to really hear anything from you on the matter, but I'm starting to feel like some of the character pages are getting out of control. The number of them anyway. I've always thought that the main villains were fine to have or characters of major popularity such as Oddjob and Pussy Galore, but today, I began to notice a bunch of Die Another Day character pages that I don't think are really notable in their stub-like form to exist on their own? What do you think about this? About two weeks ago I tried to limit some of Bond's allies from getting their own pages by expanding the List of James Bond allies to give a brief paragraph on all the recurring characters, but I don't really know how to go about doing this for other characters. Should we do like a "Characters from Die Another Day" type of thing? All the villains won't fit on a single page even if broke up by henchmen and major villains. It's too much. Maybe "List of" henchmen and Bond girls are required? I don't know, but I do know that if these landed on VFD, my vote would not be for keep - most likely merge or perhaps given the character delete. K1Bond007 02:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

What about recurring characters like Zukovsky from GE and TWINE? Keep on List of allies and link there or? K1Bond007 05:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather expand what we do have and let them after getting big enough move into their own articles. Trench has her own article actually. Pepper's article was a waste so I merged it with recurring. As said some of them really don't necessitate their own articles. Smithers? Pepper? No. If they're big enough to have their own, like Wade or Jaws who are both semi-popular enough (semi for Wade anyway) then thats fine, but otherwise I'm thinking just merge with their respective article lists. K1Bond007 05:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Royale list

I'm hoping it cuts down on a lot of the nonsensical ones like "<insert ridiculous tabloid> claims that <insert ridiculous actor that has next to no chance> of being the next James Bond." I figure for the smaller ones we just throw them in the list and then link to it. Rory McCann will probably be thrown up in that list soon, I don't see much of a reason to single him out over every other joe that's been named. The entire section needs to be cleaned up a bit. I tried to give it more structure and organization by breaking up the young actors, 30-40 actors, and Pierce Brosnan. K1Bond007 06:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

SilverFin

Some child trying to either promote himself as a "young James Bond" or stating that he had been approached or something. It was nonsense. I didn't even try to make heads or tails of it. K1Bond007 22:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of James Bond allies

I somewhat removed your last two edits from the James Bond article as you'll probably see. The section is designed to be an overview due to the page being very long as it is and there being 3 -main- articles devoted to Bond characters (Allies, Villains, and Girls). For Tanner, there was already a small bio at Bill Tanner, so I merged the info there and just stuck his name in the Bond characters section as being a notable recurring character. I did the same with the secretaries although I left most of that in (removed the spoiler) and moved it to the Bond character section. It was kind of out of place in the overview section on the character. K1Bond007 02:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, I just wanted you to know what I did. I was able to use what you wrote to expand their already existing bios, although what I added to "May"'s bio might not be true. I know she's Scottish and a housekeeper, so the SilverFin bit might be correct. Could be just a coincidence, but I honestly doubt it. Did you ever finish it by the way? I was reading Colonel Sun for a while, but I just didn't get into it. It had some great parts, but the common things Bond does was just bland - drinking, eating, women etc, the action parts including M's abduction was really cool though. It's also, I'm afraid, more of a period-type piece than Fleming's came off to me (meaning sometimes I didn't understand what the hell Amis was saying, 50-60's era lingo + British etc), maybe I just got used to Fleming. I don't know, but I kinda stopped reading it. I think I might skip it and just go to either Wood or jump straight to Gardner and come back later. K1Bond007 03:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've considered removing Dr. Molly Warmflash too. In fact, I believe she should be. She is after all a Bond girl and is listed there. The characters of Bond are kind of getting out of hand really. It seems like every so often I find a new article on a Bond character that really shouldn't have their own article, but I've yet to come up with a way in which to merge them. K1Bond007 22:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

LTK VFD

It was archived on a subpage of the talk page for "Licence to kill" (Talk:Licence to kill/delete). I moved all the pages around and added redirects because I thought it was stupid to have information on the movie at "Licence to Kill", but at "Licence to kill" it was a page on the concept (or redirects to). I did the same with "GoldenEye" and "Goldeneye". I don't believe a concensus was ever reached either. K1Bond007 16:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The latest Casino Royale edit about the source of Felix Leiters funds. Is that true? I just remember it being from the CIA. I'm doubtful right now, but I can't remember much about it and I can't double check because I don't own a copy of the novel. K1Bond007 19:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bond marries twice?

This is news to me. What book is this? I know in the films he falsely (as cover) marries Kissy Suzuki, but in the book he never marries her. She wants to get married, but he leaves prior to that ever happening. What book are you talking about? And what part in GoldenEye does it subtly refer to Bond being previously married? I can't think of this. These should probably be explained in a little detail. K1Bond007 17:51, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

00s and comic

Looks good. Do all the comic strip collection reprints from Titan have something like that in them? Thats kind of cool. Theres a book coming out this year from IFP, I don't know much about it, but its kind of been announced as Benson's bedside companion redux, although entirely rewritten by a different author. I'm hoping to scoop this up. I think it's called "The Man and his World." U.S. release in October, I think (later this year in anycase). I'm hoping its going to cover Fleming - Higson, but I really don't know. It could be like Benson's and do film too, but I'd like it to cover the literary and comic stuff more so than the films. Theres hundreds of books on the films. K1Bond007 05:18, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

[2] Third paragraph. The comic stuff about Colonel Sun has only been speculated since the latest release, The Spy Who Loved Me, includes the non-Fleming strip "The Harpies." K1Bond007 06:27, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comic strip/books

I initially intended to cover comic books, but decided that comic strip had entirely too much history and information. So if we were to ever do comic books it'd probably be on a different article. K1Bond007 22:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

LOL, what do you mean by "good revisions"? :) K1Bond007 03:59, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

No sir. It was a revert technically. :) Some guy made a bunch of edits and took out sentences or reworded a bunch of stuff. Most of the stuff I read didn't read too good so.. K1Bond007 05:07, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The guy is back and doing it again. Perhaps you should read it and decide whether to revert. I personally like the older version, but now I'm being accused of acting as if this is my own personal page. So.. I'll let you decide. K1Bond007 20:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

No one really does (besides obvious grammatical errors or typos). I mean honestly, you don't, I don't, he doesn't, but you hit the nail on the head with your latest reply on the discussion page about working together to create a better article. That's just how it goes really. K1Bond007 22:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Spy Who Loved Me

No I haven't finished it, I probably should have waited longer till I did to make sure things don't change or are explained etc. I'm roughly only a 1/3 of the way through so I suspect I'll probably end up making revisions later to fix whatever I assumed or thought at the time. Oh well. That's what you're for anyway. To fix my stupidity and hastiness. heh :) K1Bond007 00:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I just got around to finally finishing it. I wrote up some stuff on Jaws, but even after reading it I am unsure if he actually survived. It seemed to me that Bond lowers him in the water and the shark kills him, but it's written so.... poorly that I really can't tell. If I didn't already know he comes back in Moonraker, I'd tell you he died. :/ For the overall book, I thought it was ok, but it has numerous problems that not only conflict with Fleming, but also with Wood himself. There was to my recollection a sentence in the first half of the book where Bond apparently thinks that he knows he killed Anya's lover, but later he didn't know at all. There many little things like this throughout the book that just don't flow, most likely due to all the draft revisions of the screenplay. On it's own the book isn't that good, as a novelization, it's not bad. I'll probably read James Bond and Moonraker soon. K1Bond007 21:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template

Just a thought on the Bond book template. Do you think it should be redesigned to be more like the movie template. Can you think of any pages where that would be a problem as far as formatting goes? The bad news is we'd most likely have to go through every book article and merge the book image into the infobox. I only bring it up because pages such as SilverFin and Licence Renewed bother me somewhat since the infobox is much farther down the page and in a way that makes the infobox kind of useless since it's not at the top of the section or page to give a short overview of the book. If you're actually reading the page, finding out the publisher, the release dates and the author that far down is somewhat useless. The concept of the infobox you see today was because when we started it most if not all the pages/sections about the books were horribly thin (an example being Never Dream of Dying). Just a thought, it's not something I'm planning on doing in the near future at this point regardless. :/ K1Bond007 04:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I'll give this some thought, possible make a second infobox just for Gardner, Benson, Higson etc.. K1Bond007 18:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at User:K1Bond007/Temp. I just made it up real quick. I don't know when I'll get around to making the changes to the continuation novels, but I wanted to run it by you first anyway. Is there anything that we don't need or would be good to have on the infobox that isn't currently there? I'd like to iron this out so that when and if I do make the change it'll be done properly the first time. K1Bond007 04:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well I created the template and I added it to the 2 Higson pages and Colonel Sun. I had to shorten "James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007" to simply "The Authorized Biography of 007" because the former was so wide (the infobox is still wide on that page). Should we still count that book in the preceeding and following fields? Additionally what about short stories, novelizations, and 003-Junior? At some point for 003 1/2 I'd like to actually read it and make an actual page about it instead of having it merged where it's at now. Ideally, since it was published by Glidrose it should be listed if the others are. ?? K1Bond007 22:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should only list those that the main character (with the exception of Fleming's The Spy Who Loved Me) is Bond in the publishing order. So essentially Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Gardner, Benson and Higson count while all others do not (this is actually what we have now, but defined). Maybe in the infobox towards the bottom we can do a "Full list of James Bond books" link somewhat in the style of the IMDB tag on the film infoboxes (see The Terminator for example). However that option would require the creation of a page, like James Bond books or something or perhaps just a link to the Category:James Bond books. I don't know. K1Bond007 01:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

MI6

I replied to the discussion at Talk:James Bond K1Bond007 01:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bullets? I was thinking of reverting the lastest edit to James Bond, but wanted to know what you thought first. I don't really see a point to it, IMO. ?? K1Bond007 June 30, 2005 19:27 (UTC)

My main problem with it is that it makes the lead much longer than it really has to be. We don't really bullet list the authors of the James Bond series and we don't really mention in this list the other people that have portrayed James Bond such as Nelson and Niven. I don't know. Maybe the lead just requires work. I'd still like to strip out the indepth character bio and move it to its own page similar to The Doctor (Doctor Who) and beef up the franchise section. If that could be done then maybe the lead could be streamlined more. I don't know though. Have fun on your Wiki-cation :) K1Bond007 June 30, 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Moneypenny

Yeah, I've known for maybe a month now, but it was speculation and IFP had said that they didn't know anything about it so I never made mention of it on "James Bond". I did make a note of it on Miss Moneypenny later when it was looking more likely (the latest news on it). We should consider merging it with "Other Bond related fiction". The more sections under books, the more I think it may be best to move everything post fleming to something like "James Bond books" (or novels). I don't know though... K1Bond007 19:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Right now I disagree with moving the article, although it may be something we should do in the future. Currently, I'm thinking it -may- be possible to cover all three of the planned "diaries" on The Moneypenny Diaries. In fact I'm going to rewrite the intro to that section to put more emphasis on the fact that it is a trilogy of novels rather than the title of just the first book. Although I don't really question the subtitle "Guardian Angel", I've yet to see it listed anywhere officially (admittingly I don't have the book either)— I suppose I could just ask the author at CBn since she occasionally replies to comments there. Amazon.co.uk subtitled it "Intended for Her Eyes Only"—as seen on the cover. I'm thinking of importing this and James Bond: The Man and His World— the latter author actually emailed me to discuss Fleming's Bond timeline (when books took place etc). K1Bond007 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Right. Hopefully we'll have a plot summary up before the 2nd book. The subtitle might be inside the book, or it might be the subtitle that may be on the U.S. version. Who knows. I probably won't see the book first hand till around Christmas - at the earliest. K1Bond007 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Contenders

I'm not one to allow a lot of crystal ball type stuff, but most of the information on the page was cited so really how can anyone object? Considering the fact that Wikipedia is an ever-evolving database of information and that specific information changes perhaps on a daily basis, I really don't see the big deal here. Yeah, EON will someday say "____ is James Bond" and most of the crap on that page will be removed, but at this moment in time, it is an up-to-date article and informative for anyone wishing to know anything about the search for the next James Bond. I figure after James Bond is chosen we'll bump that down to a new section on "The search for James Bond" and whittle it down to only really notable mentions in the media such as Clive Owen, Eric Bana, and Craig (perhaps with others known to have auditioned) that were at one point "confirmed" in the media as having the role or etc. K1Bond007 20:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's all BS. The list also named a 47 year old. At that point, why? Why not just give in to Brosnan and let him have a go 1 more time. The list is phony. The word is, however, that this is most likely BS and that the real actor may be chosen this week or next and it won't be any of these guys named. K1Bond007 21:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Danjaq-Broccoli-UA-MGM-Sony

So I had a little discussion with John Cork over the ownership of Danjaq. There was something he wrote in an old magazine from 1996 about the Broccoli family buying the 50% of Danjaq back from United Artists (the 50% that was Saltzmans). So I contacted him and he stated he still believes that Cubby bought it back in the mid-1980s. He said: "Danjaq is not co-owned by MGM anymore. BUT, MGM (now NEWCO or SONY - I don't know how that shakes out) owns exclusive distribution rights to the films, and they finance the movies, and they get a financial split on things like merchandising that is far sweeter than when Broccoli and Saltzman owned the shares originally. Again, this is only educated speculation at this point. What this means (I think) is that while Danjaq is independent, they are not as independent as, say Lucasfilm is." — thought you'd find it interesting. A while back I had planned on removing the "who owns Bond" information from the intro of James Bond, but I never got around to it. The point there is that Danjaq owns Bond, but who owns Danjaq, which should be left for it's page. Sony/MGM/UA is still the distributor and would be listed as such so there really wouldn't be much loss of information if I reworded it to work in the case of either side of the argument being right. K1Bond007 21:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it'll be any of the 4 mentioned in the so-called "final four". One guy is in his upper 40s and looks as much like Bond as I look like look Angelina Jolie (note - I'm a dude). I heard a while back that Owen was actually offered the role, but turned it down so they decided at that point to do screentests (which is why it would seem odd they're doing them so late with filming set to begin in January). At least that makes sense, but I don't know if I believe it. I also heard this week, prior to the famed "burning bridges" interview in EW that Brosnan was back in the loop with a possible 2-film deal. I don't think that's true either. Needless to say there aren't too many rumors that I actually believe when it comes to this. I feel we'll either get an unknown or from the people that have been rumored, I think my bet would be on Purefoy. Not to say he's my favorite, just an educated guess that could be as wrong as the next guy. :/ K1Bond007 03:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Casino Royale

You might want to give Casino Royale a good going over. I tried to clean it up the best I can, but it probably needs more input from someone other than myself. Essentially an editor felt the need to break it all up so he turned into a disambig page with the novel, the 2006 film, and the 1967 film at their own pages. I moved the novel back to Casino Royale. (Admittingly, moving the 1967 stuff is for the best). This also means that we need to go through just about every article where "Casino Royale" is linked and dab them all :/ K1Bond007 23:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

Re:
I'll take a look at Bond girls when I get a chance. As for The Tailor of Panama, it's not a parody. I know some people may believe it to be since they hired Brosnan for the role, but it's a serious novel by John le Carre and hardly a parody. Regardless, I don't think it belonged under that bullet (not even sure that bullet should exist at GoldenEye). If you find evidence that it can be considered a parody (because I haven't seen the film in years), it should be at Pierce Brosnan, not GoldenEye. We should consider moving the Thomas Crown Affair tux thing there too since it hardly has to do with GoldenEye, but more his contract. If any film, it should be at TWINE (1999) since they were released in the same year. But I don't think that works either. K1Bond007 19:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

I've been down on this film for quite sometime. I actually don't like any of the replacements that have thus far been offered up as candidates. Owen would be good, but he's out and I've moved on from Brosnan. I'm not so down on Daniel Craig anymore after seeing Layer Cake, to be honest about him. Very talented actor and he could do a good job [3], but he's still risky because he doesn't come off as the conventional Bond-type. According to some insiders, Craig's already got it, but I can't tell you that with any certainty.

The whole Bond "Begins" thing is scaring the crap out of me too, but I'm trying to remain optimistic. I don't really care (for 1 movie) about not having Q. I really want a faithful adaptation of Casino Royale and it looks like we may get one albeit with some "early mission" type stuff. I don't know anymore. I think everything has built up so much that I don't care anymore and I'm trying to stay open minded. K1Bond007 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I don't agree with the doomsday theories, that this is it for the franchise if it fails. Bond has too much muscle left and if it were to die, theres too much money in Bond to call it quits. It'd go on vacation for a couple years, get a new actor and try again. At the worst Casino Royale may be the On Her Majesty's Secret Service of our time. It's just a bump in the series and the next one won't acknowledge it that much, if at all and Bond will be back to being Bond reboot or not in Bond-22. K1Bond007 21:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the Craig rumor is gaining momentum - fast. Wouldn't be surprised if an announcement happens soon. If a signing takes place (or has taken place - who knows) for any actor, I can't imagine the cat staying in the bag for too long. K1Bond007 22:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll never say Brosnan won't play Bond again. Look at Connery, and video games are an excellent media to use older actors. (Fanboy rant: IGN.com has a video released yesterday that has Connery saying Vodka Martini Shaken not Stirred and "Bond, James Bond", from the new game! Can't wait for a Moore and Dalton game - I figure Lazenby will get screwed over as always) - Anyway I think it's time to let Brosnan go. I know a lot of people think he has one more in him, but everything is against him. CBn confirmed today that 3 of their sources say theres no way Brosnan is coming back. MI6.co.uk is looking pretty stupid from that report too. Brosnan says one thing (if that was even the total truth) and they read into it that he was gonna make a comeback all the while every source that is coming in is saying Craig - not to even mention Haggis' "rookie Bond" thing, which as far the "28 year-old" deal goes, I think people are reading into that too much. I think he just meant that Bond is younger and a rookie. Theres no way they'll date Bond after 20 films. K1Bond007 00:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

So get ready for this. Pierce Brosnan is Bond. And Henry Cavill is Bond. This is latest buzz on CR. Essentially the opening has Le Chiffre (played by... Daniel Craig) squaring off against Bond (young 28 Cavill) at the baccarat table. Le Chiffre loses and runs away. I assume all this takes place in the PTS. Flash forward to "today", Bond is Brosnan and Le Chiffre returns for revenge. How does Vesper fit in? Apparently dies early on with the famous line "the bitch is dead" a la 006 in GoldenEye (most likely Cavill) returns later. Latest buzz anyway. Think about all the latest rumors and then put this storyline into perspective. Makes sense doesn't it. - I'm not really sure what to think. K1Bond007 03:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I like the idea because it ages Bond far too much. Bond doesn't age. If you set Cavill as a younger Bond that means that this scene took place in the late 80s maybe early 90s. How do you explain Dr. No - A View to a Kill? I guess considering the 9 month gap in GE and the 14? month gap in DAD, it's not that surprising though, but those were barely anything, we're talking years now. I don't know. Whatever, they're going to do a rookie-Bond anyway. Might as well be like this with Brosnan. Kinda makes you wonder how they'll follow this up in Bond-22. Will it be Cavill, or someone else. K1Bond007 03:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In the event

I discussed it at Casino Royale (2006) that something would have to be done once the search was over and someone was officially announced as Bond. I took the liberty of whittling out all the crap and coming up with a better (at least IMHO) section that should do far better than what we have now. It's written in the perspective that Daniel Craig will be announced (or rather has been announced). See what you think. Regardless if it's not him, I think something along these lines should be used (the article is flexible - we'd tone down Craig and add more on whoever gets the role). Read and feel free to edit/improve here. K1Bond007 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, first it's never been called a prequel. Prequel != reboot. As I've said for a quite sometime, I'm expecting this "reboot" to be very minimal and subtle. I'm talking LTK -> GE or AVTAK -> TLD. I could (Cavill) obviously be wrong. Any improvements you can make will be much appreciated. K1Bond007 23:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe :) Who knows. I think it's funny that so many news outlets are covering this almost as fact based on... pretty much nothing. It was on the CBS Evening news today and all they really said was "smart money would be put on Craig". I have no problems with Craig as Bond ATM - I just want this search to be over. The tabloids, rumors, and speculation have really hurt.

Hows the whole admin thing working out for you, by the way? ;) K1Bond007 05:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I think the images in a row look fine, but if you wanted to do 3x3, you'd have to do this (there could be another method)

[[Image:007Connery.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Sean Connery]]]]
[[Image:007Lazenby.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[George Lazenby]]]]
[[Image:007Moore.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Roger Moore]]]]
<br clear="all" />
[[Image:007Dalton.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Timothy Dalton]]]]
[[Image:007Brosnan.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Pierce Brosnan]]]]
[[Image:007DanielCraig.jpg|110px|thumb|left|[[Daniel Craig]]]]
<br clear="all" />

This will do 3x3. Notice if you do just a one line break the line looks kind of weird. It's because the images are trying to wrap text. You have to do a full clear all to start a new row of images. What should probably be done, however, is a table.

{|
|
[[Image:007Connery.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Sean Connery]]]]
[[Image:007Lazenby.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[George Lazenby]]]]
[[Image:007Moore.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Roger Moore]]]]
|-
|
[[Image:007Dalton.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Timothy Dalton]]]]
[[Image:007Brosnan.jpg|100px|thumb|left|[[Pierce Brosnan]]]]
[[Image:007DanielCraig.jpg|110px|thumb|left|[[Daniel Craig]]]]
|}
<br clear="all" />

There's probably other methods, better methods, but this is off the top of my head. I'd have to look it up or find some examples. Like I said, I think all 6 look fine in a row at that size for now. I'm not too keen on the 3x3 because it creates a ton of white space. K1Bond007 03:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they're all in a row now because someone made the images smaller. That's cool. Better than the alternatives I can come up with right now. K1Bond007 03:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Bond 22

I just didn't want some anon creating the page when everything about Bond-22 has already been mentioned. It's not worth a stub that will most likely be AFD'd shortly after. Campbell already stated that the next one won't be LALD and that after CR they're done with the books. Of course that doesn't mean they won't use similar plots (GF -> AVTAK) or parts of one book for a film (LALD -> LTK). Personally, I'm hoping for a faithful adaptation of Moonraker (obviously different title different characters) and if CR is a success (espeically the card playing aspect) then it would be cool to go for it. Not to mention that it could be relevant... U.S. missile defense 'Star Wars' (Strategic Defense Initiative) type stuff. K1Bond007 18:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See.. Bond 22, someone made it. I redirected it to James Bond though. Far too soon. K1Bond007 03:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Gunbarrel

Do you think the gunbarrel sequence should have it's own page? I'm kind of upset that someone took a perfectly good paragraph on it, moved to it's own page and broke it up into bullets in addition to breaking up the official films section on the main page (now incorrectly sections information that shouldn't be under those sections. At one point or another I've thought that we could move a lot of that information out to a page on the James Bond films where it would include all that information, but I don't think this specific thing needs its own page. What are your thoughts on this? K1Bond007 18:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Potentials

I knew they were never seriously considered. That wasn't a surprise. They were media favorites and the section reveals that information. I say leave it be. If you want to add a sentence about Owen saying he was never approached or seriously considered then that's fine-do that, but the section isn't misleading or anything. Definitely mentions "unconfirmed media reports", "speculation", and "rumors". I don't think we should add names either. According to Wilson (and this is noted) the list was something like 200 names long. We have to draw the line somewhere. K1Bond007 20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

=Bond and religion

The section title "and the Chosen people" was meant to be lighthearted. Respectfully, the religion of these beautiful actresses does qualify as "trivia," and I never argued that it was "relevant" (your revert listed relevancy as the criterion by which you decided the information should be deleted). I'm not sure why you think it is trivia that shouldn't be listed under "trivia." Too trivial? More trivial than the number of times Maud Adams appears as an extra, etc.? Cheers, Kaisershatner 15:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Software update

Some of the code we use for the template "James Bond" (the related articles one) kinda got screwed up in the software update so I attempted to fix it, after a while I ended up making a whole new one because the code was just so ....uhh messed up :) I didn't realize what was causing the problem (I do now), anyway, it looks simiar, but not quite - I could tool with it to make it look like the old, but this looks good enough. I also took the opportunity to get rid of the purple stripe and put in some sort of blue-greenish one. Not sure if I like it so if you have a better color in mind let me know. Purple isn't exactly a "Bond" color :) In related news, an editor decided Bond needed a Wikiportal.. so Wikipedia:Wikiportal/James Bond. K1Bond007 June 28, 2005 07:51 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my article?

Howed you come arcoss it? Whats wrong with it? Help me edit it if you want.

• I do not respond to anonymous messages. Please sign them if you want a response. 23skidoo 18:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha

"I certainly hope you had a 'bot helping you!" Nope, just Firefox. Wikipedia was the thing that finally got me to switch from IE to Firefox. :) Opened all of his diffs in tabs and rolled them back. (I could have just rolled them back from this user page, but I wanted to verify each one first - I'm nice that way) --Golbez 03:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

MI

Sorry for the mistake about Kittridge. I actually surfed into the M.I. page from the page on Bob Johnson, which says his name on MI was Eugene Kittridge. Guess I should be fixing that one instead, huh? I was just about to revert my edit to the previous one (because I know you're pretty knowledgeable on the spy stuff - better than Scott Sanchez, anyway) when I saw you'd already done it. So thanks!

IPA

The IPA thing is preferred, since it offers a purely objective method for pronounciation, rather than have people figure out if the "a" in "Daverna" is long or short, etc. Maybe keep both, but yeah, here we use IPA typically. --Golbez 20:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nah; it does seem more logical, actually, to have to learn a new language, because your language has 20 different ways to pronounce "a" but IPA is designed to fit the exact one. :) And IE should work, they have a font hack in there to force IE to load the correct font. I use Firefox with no problems. --Golbez 20:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kate Bush Images

Certainly, the images on WP:PUI are found here, the sixth bullet point down. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 22:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ms. 45

See talk page. --ThomasK 13:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Anon. vandal

You're very welcome. --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek The Beginning

I don't think AFD is appropriate. Page just needs redirection and perhaps if it keeps getting reverted an admin should step in. Breaking a bit of protocol, but I think this is right. Thanks for notifying me, though. :) -- Soir (say hi) 01:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Replying to comments on my talk page. As for what to do about the now defunct AFD, I'd suggest an admin delete it. I can't do that, so about the next best thing is to close it, which I've done. -- Soir (say hi) 02:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

About a revert war: Hmm? So far, the page is as it was, redirecting. I left a test3 and an explanation at the IP talkpage of the editor, that at the moment seems to have been enough. -- Soir (say hi) 05:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sophia Loren sex symbol deletion

I wish to invite you to visit the talk page for Sophia Loren to explain your rationale for removing Loren from the Sex Symbols category. Although an editior has since added one, there is really no need to cite a source with reference to Loren being a sex symbol. It's a cultural given, just as it's a given with Marilyn Monroe, Gina Lollobridgida, Brigitte Bardot, and others. WP:CITE does not apply. OTOH I do agree with your removal of Loren from the Gay Icons category as I think the criteria for inclusion is far too loose.23skidoo 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Although it may be a given that this figure is a sex symbol to us now, this is meaningless to someone reading this article decades from now, or to someone from another country who is unfamiliar with American pop culture. Consider that what may seem obvious today will not be to an interested reader one hundred years from now. Can any sources be provided which refer to Sophia Loren as a sex symbol? Hall Monitor 17:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No one will be reading this decades from now. Get real - this is the internet! ;-) Seriously, this is not something that will be meaningless because Sophia Loren is considered to be a major figure in cinema. Now if someone wanted to post that Kathy Bates was considered a sex symbol, then I think a citation is necessary. But with Sophia Loren it is just common sense. If you really want me to provide sources, better set aside a server because I can probably give you hundreds. 23skidoo 17:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Two or three would probably be more than sufficient.  ;-) Hall Monitor 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Loren was a major sex symbol of the 60s. If she doesn't belong in this category, then you might as well rip out the others of her age such as Marilyn Monroe. Obviously she's not a sex symbol now, but she was and she's definitely earned her place in the category. This category is also not exclusive to American pop culture. There are a number of Brits and other nationalities in there such as Geri Halliwell and Kylie Minogue (Australia) and even guys from other countries like Jude Law and Colin Farrell. It may be prudent to seperate the ladies from the men, and if the category becomes too large, perhaps by decade (but we would want to limit overlap). K1Bond007 19:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, I was not joking, and my comments were well-intentioned. As 23skidoo will be selecting a few choice references for inclusion, I consider this matter to be resolved. My apologies for being such a stickler for facts, but my interests are vested in the long-term integrity of Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was meant to be sarcastic. I can in fact find any number of sources to support the contention, but I decline to do so on the grounds that it is unnecessary. Besides another editor of the article already did so. 23skidoo 19:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I never meant to have my comment seem like you didn't have good intentions, for that I apologise. This particular case just seemed obvious to me. K1Bond007 20:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the same here. I just feel the issue is unnecessary. 23skidoo 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Antony Balch

Good work on this article - which really needed it ! :) The curate's egg 13:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Issues with images

I doubt it. Most of the James Bond pictures are covered under fairuse and those that may be "iffy" have additional rationale. I've been going through most of them, but they're pretty much all done. Examples: Image:007Thunderball01.jpg, Image:TimeOut battle of bonds.jpg, Image:CasinoRoyaleNovel.jpg. I'm done with all the books Fleming-Higson (although I think I forgot Pearson and Amis - I guess I'll do that soon). All the movie posters are covered. All that's left is really the soundtracks and an image here and there such as the FYEO comic. Bond is good as far as fairuse images are concerned. K1Bond007 20:40, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, it's actually always been part of Wikipedia's image use policy when concerning fairuse images, but not many people really know about it. It is, at least IMHO, (sometimes) pointless and CYA, but I won't even begin to argue it. See Wikipedia:Fair use under justification and rationale. I wouldn't worry about it that much, seriously. The tags should take care of it, but I do agree that it should at least have the original copyright holder listed on the image page. K1Bond007 03:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the book cover, it would be Coronet (I guess depending on the example; Licence Renewed IIRC is Coronet, I believe (the one on Wikipedia anyway). It wouldn't be Ian Fleming Publications though. I'm probably the last person you want to have this sort of thing clarified to you. :) I'm pretty sure on this part though. K1Bond007 05:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was already aware. The news is up at the Admin noticeboard. It's only images with an unknown source and images with an unknown copyright status. They have to been listed in that category for 7 days too. This isn't really anything new. I think this was always a rule, but now it's part of speedy delete (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images). K1Bond007 04:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion is not reversible. I wouldn't know where to begin about this notification deal. I think it is logical they should, but it's doubtful they will. Some images on IFD are tagged to their uploader so they can appeal the process, but since these are speedies now, I'm not sure how that'll play out. K1Bond007 04:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re. Mike Pratt.

Yeah, I caught some possible hoax articles, but had to go to class. Mike Pratt and a few linked articles are probably all hoaxes. If you haven't AFD'ed them yet, I will. I'll give you the links to relevant AFD discussions. Ral315 14:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? Guy Pratt actually is a semi-famous bassist, and Mike Pratt actually was an obscure actor. Vandals can be confusing sometimes... Ral315 14:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for cleaning up those Mike Pratt links. As much as I am a fan of his work in ITC shows, I don't see why the anon needed to add his link to every show he ever appeared as a guest star in! HowardBerry 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't exactly get what you were saying, but as long as everything's been cleaned up, I'm happy :) Ral315 16:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

23Skidooooooooo!!!!

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Working Man's Barnstar for having over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia and keeping them rolling in!

Take care, Molotov (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sissel

Apperently I jumped the gun on that one. The reason was that this IP 67.128.147.202 has been committing vandalism all over the place. I thought I had looked at the revisions, but maybe I didn't. Davidpdx 9/16/05 3:35pm (UTC)

Thanks for the information about IP addresses, I didn't know that. I'll try to keep it in mind in the future. Davidpdx 9/16/05 6:00 (UTC)

Re your comment

Unfortunately it isn't possible to undelete images. If you reupload it giving a source, under a valid license, then that's all good. As for disagreeing with Jimbo, that's of course your right, but given all he has given to this project, I will follow his policies as a matter of course. Pakaran 04:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it was fair use. If so, I'm sorry. However, a lot of us are going throuhg the two categories Jimbo linked on his talk page at fairly high speed, and the point is that these images have been tagged, in some cases for several months, with a tagh stating that they would be deleted. The uploader had time to fix them. Pakaran 04:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

JFK's 10 favorite books

I found JFK's ten favorites. I checked; and FRWL is the only fictional work. I do not think these were in any particular order.

• Montrose by John Buchan
• From Russia With Love by Ian Fleming
• Melbourne by Lord David Cecil
• Marlborough by Sir Winston Churchill
• John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy by Samuel Flagg Bemis
• The Emergence of Abraham Lincoln, vol 2 by Allan Nevins
• The Price of Union by Herbert Agar
• John C. Calhoun, American Portrait by Margaret L. Coit
• Byron in Italy by Peter Quennell
• The Red and the Black by Stendahl

You might be interested to know - I read elsewhere that Kennedy's political advisors helped him put this list together, and FRWL was included because they thought he should have one work of fiction on the list. I don't know if that is true or not; the fact is that JFK's endorsement was a big deal for FRWL and for James Bond. Tonywiki 03:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Jolie images

I did a partial revert of your deletion of images from the Angelina Jolie article. While I am aware that Jimbo has ruled that all unsourced images are to be eradicated (he must have been sued recently or something) there was no need to remove the free use, sourced image of the magazine cover, so I put it back. Cheers 23skidoo 22:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean "fair use", not "free use". In my opinion, it's better to avoid fair use material when possible, since it reduces the freeness of our encyclopedia. Since there's a free picture of her, there's no need for a magazine cover in addition. Wikipedia:Fair use specifically says

"Always use a more free alternative if one is available. ... If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible."

dbenbenn | talk 12:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

TV Naming convention

Hey check out my temp page. I'm planning to propose a naming convention for television shows/series due to the numerous amounts of conflict that I see in disambiguated names. This proposal is essentially the same as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Tell me what you think or if I possibly forgot something or didn't take something into account. Would appreciate this before I actually go about doing this. K1Bond007 20:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, this proposal is only for shows that need to be disambiguated from titles that conflict with books, movies, terms or whatever such as (off the top of my head) Alias and 24. K1Bond007 02:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I changed it again. Give it another read. I also added some stuff. I'm not sure what to do when two television shows have the same name. Initially I proposed years, but apparently some editors feel that using the year of original airing is misleading for shows that go beyond that year. (I don't necessarily agree). In anycase, does this proposal sound good? Just trying to come up with a formal naming convention so you don't see articles titled (TV), (TV series), (television), (television series), (television programme), program, TV program etc etc etc, which is how it is right now. K1Bond007 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Enya album

Ah, nifty. I was disappointed to read it was just a rumor when I went to check if this were true; I see I didn't check carefully enough! (I'm not an active fan now, but I was a member of Everywhere Is, and I am delighted to see that this old post from the Enya mailing list still exsts on the internet.) Then again, I am patient waiting for new artist releases: being a fan of Kate Bush will do that to you... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

IP unblocking

Hello, 23skidoo. Glad you're happily editing again. +sj + 21:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

References

Hi, thanks for dropping me a note. I believe that every article should be fully referenced, which means that every assertion made should be verifiable by reading references which are listed in the article. For example, in the Exterminator! article, several assertions are made which I do not believe could be backed up by reading the book alone. These include

• the original publication date
• the collections stories are among Burrough's most popular
• appearances in previous publications
• Burroughs' previous job as an exterminator

Ideally, these should be sourced and references provided. Until this is done more widely in Wikipedia, we will continue, justifiably, to suffer from the appearance of being unreliable. Lupin|talk|popups 11:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

KOCE-TV

Nice work! I really must remember that Google isn't the only search engine. (Actually I'm partial to A9 myself).

Now I'm going to contact KOCE and find out the circumstances of its airing... was it PBS, or was it a decision by their own programming department, and was it independent or was it a self-publicizing effort by Cruttenden. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been nominated

It was puzzling to see someone such as yourself on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. So much so, that I have taken the initiative to nominate you for adminship, now go do something about it.  ;-) Hall Monitor 21:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you really care to be an admin, otherwise I would have nominated you earlier. Oh well. Good luck. You'll probably easily pass. K1Bond007 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

There you go again with your arrogance.

Jooler 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations, you're and admin! Please read the advice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats :) If you need any help let me know. Here's a good page for most of the questions you might have How-to K1Bond007 21:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, I know you will make an excellent sysop. Hall Monitor 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The leprechauns say welcome to the mop club Dlyons493 Talk 22:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:23skidoo/Archive5/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century

Thanks for your message. I suspected ejaculation _might_ have an alternative meaning. I do think we need to consider the use of this term in light of the (probably) exclusive modern use of the word. Cheers. Robertbrockway 09:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Emily carr

Thanks for that. I didn't even notice the lower case surname. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Bond

Well just a couple of sources would be great, please, SqueakBox 18:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

IP Blocked

Hi Skidoo,

My IP at work is blocked I beleive. I don't know why it would be... Anytime I try to access a wikipedia page it says access denied. The IP address is 216.254.187.82.

Thanks for your help!

John

In response to John, unfortunately I do not know how to handle IP blocks as yet, and you didn't sign your username so there's not much I can do at my end in any event. IP addresses are often shared among many users so presumably someone with the same IP address has been a naughty boy. Due to a bug in the system, having a registered username does not protect you from this as I have discovered on numerous occasions. Blocks against IPs are not supposed to last more than 24 hours. Sorry I can't be more help. 23skidoo 04:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RFA:Sfoskett

Hello 23skidoo. Please be aware that I have recently nominated another major contributor for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett. Hall Monitor 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Re. avengers actors

No problem with the speedy deletion - I actually created the Avengers actors category and meant to link to that from the Avengers article. User:Litefoot 16.52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Pied Piper of Cleveland

Thanks for cleaning up this article. I created it a long time ago, and had come across the alien conspiracy trivia in my research, but wasn't exactly sure how to fit it in or what information I had was reliable. Thanks much. AmishCellPhone 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

So I decided this evening (out of sheer boredom) to look at the admin list and update the inactive/active lists. As it turned out admins using edit summaries seemed to be the more interesting thing to note. You happened to be first alphabetically (and thus are getting my first note). You're about 60% on edit summaries at the moment which seems a little low. Just a thought! Marskell 00:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a page which generates the stat. I've just been manually looking at the last 250 edits. User:Durin may have some method of his own, as he often notes precise stats on RfAs. You're right there's no hard and fast rule. I'm just noticing that it's becoming a touch more important on RfA votes and if we expect it of new admins we should expect it of old ones. Marskell 14:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Lauren Bacall

1) The reason I didn't put John Wayne in after the reference to The Shootist, is, it is mentioned five pargraphs eariler.

2) Also, I did not mention the fact about her being:

"....one of the few actors of the "Golden Age of Hollywood" generation still active in the industry."

Because the "Golden Age of Hollywood" is considered to be: "...the period beginning with the advent of sound until after the end of WWII." Her first film was 1944, marking the end of the Golden Age and the beginning of the post-war rise of the film noir period. Also, she was a generation younger than Bogart, K. Hepburn, Tracy, Wayne, Grant, Chaplin, Pickford, Gable, Welles, Astair, Loy, W. Powell, Valentino, etc. WikiDon 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So, because she acted in ONE film in the "Golden Age" she was a "Golden Age" actor? That is a s.t.r.e.t.c.h.... That does NOT make her of the "Golden Age of Hollywood" generation.

She is in with Doris Day (1924), Eva Marie Saint (1924), Shelley Winters (1920), Tony Randall (1920), Walter Matthau (1920), Ricardo Montalban (1920), Donna Reed (1921), Carol Channing (1921), Cyd Charisse (1921), Gordon MacRae (1921), Simone Signoret (1921), Alexis Smith (1921), Yves Montand (1921), Kathryn Grayson (1922), Richard Kiley (1922), Judy Garland (1922), Barbara Bel Geddes (1922), Veronica Lake (1922), Anne Baxter (1923), Marlon Brando (1924), Paul Newman (1925), Dorothy Malone (1925), Jack Lemmon (1925), Hal Holbrook (1925), Rod Steiger (1925), Jeanne Crain (1925), Tony Curtis (1925), Patricia Neal (1926), Audrey Meadows (1926), Marilyn Monroe (1926), George C. Scott (1927), Richard Crenna (1927), etc.

This is HER generation, her contemporaries. WikiDon 06:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops my mistake

I am figuring out how to best participate, and how wikis works. Good that you caught my mistake.--Tjkphilosofe 07:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You'll find them at Template:TestTemplates. There is quite a range of options. I've added some more to deal with specific problems. The best of luck with the new role. If you need any help, let me know. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently there is some problem with doing that. I'm no expert but those that are tried and seemed to have been unable to. As to signing block notices, I generally don't from experience. I used to but found that those who came back and made amends never got in contact, while vandals used the sig to target my pages with abuse, threats and vandalism, forcing me to protect it. If someone wants to know who it was it is clearly stated on their page history. People who only do a few blocks may not have experienced this. I have done quite a lot and got fed up having to protect my pages from the aftermath of signing a block notice. Given that you are acting on behalf of Wikipedia in blocking someone it makes sense for the message to be generic. Personally I believe all the templates should contain a blocked by the WP community or blocked by x on behalf of the WP community. Just a sig alone makes it sound as though it is you alone doing it because the mood took you, when in fact you are enforcing WP rules, using WP powers, and a WP template. You are just the vehicle for enforcing community rules and so IMHO the template alone is enough. But many admins (usually those who have never had to mob up the vandalism to user pages afterwards) disagree and expect a sig. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)