User talk:SchroCat/Archive 4

MOMA Brochure
Do you have access to that MOMA brochure? Chrisrus (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't, do you. That's ok. We won't delete the section, we'll use one of those external links to simply state that buff was a color he wore. Don't worry or conflate it with your undoing of the previous consensus to allow another English variety in the US sections.  This has nothing to do with that.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have it, no. I presume the original editor who put the informaiton had it, and we have to trust his judgement in putting it on there. I would strongly advise against its removal. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those external links to pictures of him wearing buff can substitute for the brochure to cite that he has worn the color, but beyond that we can't cite the other claims with them. Are you ascribing authorship of all that text as it stands to the original editor?  You didn't add a few words of your own?  Can we track this "orignal editor" down and ask what he meant by the incoherent last part? It has to either be edited or deleted as it makes no sense there at the end.  Chrisrus (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the text from the original editor. From memory I think I have added 2 words only. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think I found it.  It seems to have been this edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buff_(colour)&diff=next&oldid=459752488 .  Is that correct?  It said:

"John Bull, the character representing England who was created by John Arbuthnot in 1712, is almost always depicted in a buff colored waistcoat and a simple frock coat (in the past Navy blue, but more recently with the Union Jack colors)."AngloMania: Tradition and Transgression in British Fashion," Metropolitan Museum of Art (2006), exhibition brochure, p. 2."
 * So that last part, where did it come from? Chrisrus (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea. I know I didn't add it originally, and it'll be somewhere in the edit history, but that's a bugger of a job to find. Unfortunately the Google Books version of the brochure is only a snippet view, so we can't get any further on there. I'll see if I can find out any other details elsewhere. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also looked at that Google book by the same title, but Bearian seems not to be referring to it but rather to a brochure from the Moma exhibition, all three of which had exactly the same name.  We confused the brochure and the book.  There's no sign that User:Bearian even knew about that book there. Chrisrus (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers in your sandbox
Thanks for your message and for the heads-up. I'm sorry that I did not take note of your recent renovations in your SB. I look forward to your new changes, and will hold off until you made them. I trust the entry will become stable enough for the FAC review.Malljaja (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your message. I've made more changes on the revised version, as you have probably already noticed. The newer version was definitely an improvement, but there are still a number of things that concern me. I won't have time to address them all and least of all do I want to give the impression that I don't value your immense work you have put into the entry. But I do not think that the entry is at FA level yet. One major concern that has come up for me is the use of sources—I do not think that newspapers are good sources, unless they have been thoroughly vetted, for example, for authors who have the reputation for solid journalistic work. Along the same lines, the chronological structure of the entry does not work. Removing some overly detailed content might help a little, but really only a little. I know that this has come up before, but having now had more time to review the revised entry, I feel that it reads more like an enumeration than a carefully built narrative. Sellers' career achievements and personality largely disappear behind a wall of letters. One way to address this could be to focus on the highlights (and low points) of his career within each time period as they are currently sectioned. I suggest then to break out his private life as led during his later career in a succinct section that focuses on his marriages, personal problems with some behavioural evidence, and how he presented himself, for example, in interviews, talk shows, etc. I hear your argument that it his professional and private lives are intertwined. However, this is one case where one size fits all cannot be applied without seriously undermining the quality of the article. These are my thoughts—because I'm unable to follow and get involved in extensive discussions, I'd rather voice my concerns here than at the FAC. Thanks for your hard work! Malljaja (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not impressed at your reversion of the Wilder quote. WP:BRD should be remembered and the issue raised on the talk page first to flag up that I need to provide even more context than was already there. I won't edit war over it, however, despite your action. And, despite your edit summary, I don't find your action "respectful" at all, quite the reverse. "Respectful" would have been to go to the talk page. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to reverse the burden of proof here. The question may rightly be asked whether this quote (and many others) is worthy of inclusion in the first place. The quote lacks context, because there is no prior information about the relationship between Sellers and Wilder—just adding that Wilder was the film's director adds little additional context. And it trivializes a serious event, which is unencyclopaedic. I've re-inserted the quote in question, and I will recuse myself from making further contributions to the entry. I do not see it heading into a direction that I would feel comfortable with. Malljaja (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to remove the burden of proof at all. I'm asking that you follow a perfectly reasonable procedure to flag up an issue to give an editor a chance to redress it. Thank you for your self-revert, I do appreciate it and I will try and frame the preceding passage to provide adequate context for the quote. I think it's an important one—it shows the reactions of a well-known and respected director towards Sellers's behaviour on set. I hope that, once I have re-framed the section you will be happy with the result. If not, I'd be delighted to talk it over to see how it could be improved. I am sorry that you feel you should recuse yourself, and I hope that you reconsider your position.
 * To deal with the two substantive points you raised above; I partially agree with you concerning the newspapers and the vast majority of references in the article are from the established biographies—Sikov, Lewis, Welker and Evans to name the four mains ones. The majority of newspaper references deal with contemporary reviews (which is appropriate) and very few deal with anything significant. A brief look at other FAs sees that Brad Pitt, Reese Witherspoon, Emma Watson, Nancy Cartwright Eric Bana, Diane Keaton and Angelina Jolie have all managed to get through the rigours of FAC despite being around 90% newspaper sources only. Even long-dead stars like Judy Garland still have a mix of newspaper sources along with the established biographies and Sellers has about the same balance as Garland, so I am broadly happy on that score. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the question of the chronology vs separate private life section as I believe the two can—and do—run together quite adequately. I appreciate that it is a matter of opinion, but I think it is appropriate in the case. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Things are looking tense at the moment. Some light relief.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * PMSL - thanks for that - just what I needed! I'm just hoping that another FAC isn't ruined by idiotic infobox nonsense! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, Brilliant! --  Cassianto Talk   08:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Schro'cat. I stand corrected in so far that you have addressed my earlier issue with the Wilder's quote. It's in good context now, thank you. My main issue is with the structure of the entry. Its current organisation really forces the reader to sift through all of the content, to find, for example, details of Sellers' private life. This, combined with the conversational narrative (which has also improved, but could still be toned more neutral and to the point), makes it read more like a short bio than a encyclopaedic reference. I also find recently added quotes like "the ultimate orgasm" a bit artless, irrespective of the fact that it's sourced to Sikov. I enjoyed reading his take on Sellers, but I couldn't help noticing that he treated him with a good dose of irony that almost bordered on disdain. I know that Lewis apparently was even worse, and I have not read Evans' account. Sellers surely took the cake when it came to eccentricities, but he also had to battle more demons than the average person. Either this should be mentioned (with proper sources) or else some of his apparently egregious behaviours (e.g., his initial attempts at seducing Ekland) be toned down—as a deceased person, he has no way to give his side of these (true, confabulated, or embellished) stories. Lastly, I'd be more open to changes of the infobox, photo, etc.—sometimes it's a good strategy to hand the other side a win every once a while. It frees up valuable energy to focus on more important things. Malljaja (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Malljaja, thanks for your note and your comment about the Wilder quote. You were right about it not sitting in an adequate context before and I'm glad that we've managed to get to something appropriate in the end. The structure is an interesting question. I can hold up a good number of FAs which run chronologically without pulling out a private lives section; I can hold up a similar number which do break it down. There are some very good arguments for and against both approaches and there really is no right or wrong, it's purely a matter of taste. I appreciate your concerns on things like the orgasm quote, but the fact that he took amyl nitrates in order to aim for it, and that was a factor in his heart attack, means that is really has to be mentioned. In terms of the biographies, Sikov is the one who tends to remain most neutral; Lewis takes an odious approach to his work, with more bile than balance (Sellers had serious problems, was unpleasant to some—especially two of his wives—and could probably have been sectioned at some points in his life, but evil? Not at all—too many people will defend him to the hilt for that to be a valid accusation). Evans (and Alexander Walker) both wrote rather sympathetic biographies and it's ironic that for all WW1's complaints about my approach, the version I submitted to FAC was broadly in line with them. Walker and Evans both knew Sellers and liked him, but knew of his darker side too—as all his friends did. (Just for the record, Walker also covers Sellers's use of nitrates to heighten orgasm). Riglesford skates over too much to be reliable
 * I am open to some changes, but things like the photo are problematic: the old photo (the signed one) was flagged at Peer Review as being a potential problem, which is why it was removed. I asked WW1 a couple of times to address the problem, (see Talk:Peter_Sellers for the full thread) but he hasn't done that. The image was subsequently added into the article lower down by Dr. Blofeld and the FAC image review today again noted that it was a problem and it's been removed again. I had nothing against the picture per se, and would have happily left it there if it hadn't been for the problems raised.
 * There has been a huge amount of effort on this, and quite a large part of the blame for that has to come down onto the shoulders of, who has been one of the most obstructive and uncooperative editors I've had the misfortune to come across. Even as I type this I notice yet another comment (rather inappropriately in FAC) by him complaining about the article. I am sorry that the most recent string on the talk page also seems to be turning sour (the previous ranking of the article against where it is now), but I think this is a response by some to WW1's constant belittling of the efforts of the others and his unceasing and rather bizarre and immature comments that the article is in worse shape now than it was when I started editing! Either way I'm not going to join in what is becoming another increasingly rancorous talk thread, despite the barbs aimed at me, unless his actions start to threaten the FAC process. Cheers! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld's voice in "Eyes Only"
Hi SchroCat. I see you reverted this edit. I've started a talk page discussion. I strongly believe the Smith book is incorrect. The authors do not seem to qualify as "primary source Bond experts." The book contains numerous errors. Further, it's clear to my ears that whoever did Tiger Tanaka's voice did Blofeld's. Listen to the first minute of the documentary "The Man with A Thousand Voices. Part 1". Then listen to this "Eyes Only" clip. This is what Peter Marinker sounds like starting at 0:01:32. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Very true, although it did take some finding in the sources - I went through google books and then 7 or 8 of my books before I could find it! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I did it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Desmond Skirrow
Time permitting, while you're at the BL, can you also pull any obituaries of British spy author Desmond Skirrow (a.k.a. "John Desmond Skirrow)? He died in 1976 at the relatively young age of 53. Everything about him is now shrouded in mystery. Apparently he lived in Hove Sussex. Fanthrillers (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems, I'll see what I can find. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On a different note, you may want to add List of actors considered for the James Bond character to your watchlist. It makes truly painful reading. Fairly unsourced and most certainly not credible. Too many citations rely on fansites. The one for David Warbeck doesn't even confirm the claim that his acting was too "wooden". I removed the entry that claimed Sid James of Carry On fame had screentested for the role in 1961. Fanthrillers (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Urgh... Horrible! I'm not even going to watch it, let alone play around with it: it's one of those of very limited interest pages which at times just doesn't appeal to me. When you add that it is too problematic to get confirmed reliable information, rather than spurious gossip from fansites, agents press releases and lazy journalists, then I'd rather not even bother! Sorry, but you'll have to tidy it up witout me! If you need any names checking in the reference books I have, then please let me know and I'll see if I can come up with a reliable source where I can. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! A real pain to bring together as it's from snippets of info from all over the place! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Great job! Hey check out this, that's a Bond villain's lair if ever I've seen one! Naturally the water would be filled with piranha or sharks!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Gardner (British writer)
The article John Gardner (British writer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:John Gardner (British writer) for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 09:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers GOP. All now sorted, I hope, but please let me know if there is anything else you'd like me to do. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Gardner (British writer)
The article John Gardner (British writer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Gardner (British writer) for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! I wonder if Wikiwatcher and Mallaja will try to get it delisted now for being such a dreadful article!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that WW will act abominably on the article, but plus ça change! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, shame on us! Bayonets and big sticks at the ready... :-D --  Cassianto Talk   18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars for you!

 * LOL - I promise I'll get round to re-reading it again sometime soon to see if I can bring myself round to seeing it as a novel. Thanks for all the above - it's very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Schrodinger.
I'm sorry about your edit I undid. I'm very new to the process of Wikipedia, and how it works. When I was looking in the RecentChanges section, it appeared that your edit was vandalism. After undoing it, I noticed that it wasn't vandalism, but you quickly and swiftly reverted my error before I could click 'undo'. I'll make sure that mistake never happens again! --Flying Lambs (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

David G. Wilson
Hey there. I came across this Bond-related BLP in danger of being deleted, and thought you might be able to help it (given the great work you've done in the past on the topic). I'm on holiday otherwise I might have tried to source it. No obligation of course. Regards,  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. When you recently edited John Le Mesurier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brothers in Law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Max Geldray
The article Max Geldray you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 5 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Max Geldray for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 13:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Max Geldray
The article Max Geldray you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Max Geldray for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Schrocat! --  Cassianto Talk   16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta very much! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Q
The image is of Ben Whishaw as Q, not of the actor out of character. It is a screenshot from the Skyfall trailer.Crumpled Fire (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you thought you'd just edit the photo, without any discussion and without bothering to update the source copyright? Mind-numbing.... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Brian Moore
Many thanks! - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure entirely! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Le Mesurier
Looking good! Will resume my work on it either tomorrow or the weekend. Been busy with Alcatraz stuff! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's slowly getting there. As he was the perpetual support actor there is very little in the way of reviews for his 100+ film roles, let alone much of his other stuff. If you find any reviews that fit in then that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was up at the BL today...nothing! --  Cassianto Talk   19:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in the Olympic stadium. It was unhelpful for this, but good fun (and bloody hot!!) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP James Bond in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject James Bond for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Goodbye, Mr. Bond. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond film character
For what it's worth I believe the article should exist, but if it fails an AfD it might be much harder to bring it into existence at a later point, since there will be a 'consensus' that it shouldn't exist. Editors aren't appreciating the divergent paths of the literary and film creations, so I think it might be wise to move the article into your userspace and close the afd. Once it has reached a point of substantial development it can be copied back over; once you have a 50k page and a ton of book references it will be impossible to argue against its notability. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm staggered by the ignorance that's been shown so far on this, not least by the individual who tagged it in the first place and who was too closed-minded to have the obvious shown to them. I've dropped it in my userspace. Any idea how to close the AfD without looking like I've conceded the point? Cheers, as always: your advice is as invaluable as always! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't word it without taking the hit i.e. the nominator wins the day, but the important thing is the afd doesn't close with a consensus that the subject is not notable, or that the content should reside elsewhere. It would give editors a mandate to revert you at a later point if you transfer in the finished article. It will be their prerogative to nominate it for deletion at a later point, but it would have to go through the afd process again and a developed article would obviously be in a stronger position. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done what I can - it's a shame that ignorance and idiocy wins the day, but we'll see what the future holds for it. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've formally closed it, although I'm not sure if I'm allowed to. The important thing though is that it hasn't been found not notable as a topic which is the main thing. You're going to have to anticipate another afd though I think, which means you should try to minimise overlap as much as possible. For instance, the casting information in James Bond in film would perhaps be better transferred to James Bond (film character), which would strengthen the new article and solidify James Bond in film as just the film series article. A clear distinction is obviously needed between the two articles. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll get the article done up, which will show the differences clearly, and then cut out the James Bond in film info at the same point I launch it. It's not too difficult to separate the two topics - they are different enough to ensure there will be no overlap. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Dr. No
Of course I'll help with that, even if getting a star by the anniversary is improbable. Also, try and get Blofeld to answer to the Signpost (there are interviews with just 2, but as this proves, a third always improves things). igordebraga ≠ 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ian Fleming.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Ian Fleming.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Charl6
We seem to be having similar problems with Charl6. (Me at Talk:Prequel.) Since the Wikiquette assistance board has been closed I don't know where to go with this, he's clearly being uncivil but probably not serious enough for ANI. But I'm getting very tired of his namecalling and accusations. He misreads things and then goes off half cocked. Any suggestions? (And you may recall we had a run in a few months ago, but I like to think despite losing my temper briefly I made a bit more sense and was less gratuitously offensive than Charl6). Barsoomian (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL - you did make more sense, were a lot less offenmsive and the fault was partly mine (for which I think I even offered an apology)! I don't know what to do, except keep reminding him that there are "play nice" rules here. Wikiquette would have been good, but it was a bit of a toothless tiger, while ANI is a bit too strong (and although he moves away from WP:CIVIL from time to time and indulges in petty namecalling, he's not really abusive enough for that). Apart from the reminders, I'm not sure what else we can do really. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond grosses
I have acquired George Lucas' Blockbusting this week and noticed it has a section on the performance of the James Bond films. While much of it is consistent with the data at List of James Bond films, there are some notable discrepencies, especially with Live and Let Die (which has always looked a bit dodgy to me), On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and You Only Live Twice. In addition it also provides inflation adjustment to 2005 levels (which while slightly dated might be a more valid approach than using Wikipedia's inflation adjuster—Skyfall could always be deflated to the 2005 level as they do themselves with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, and that way we are just adjusting one figure ourselves rather than 22!). Anyway, it's only 3-4 pages, do you want me to scan it in and email it to you through the Wikipedia messaging system? Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Betty, that would be fantastic - I agree with the figures looking slightly questionable, although I am always rather suspicious of turnover figures, how they are put together etc. However, if they are all worked out using the same metrics (as they would be in the book) then at least we can standardise the approach as best we can. Very kind of you to offer and it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't let me send files through the emailer so I've uploaded them to http://postimage.org/gallery/hzo1czi/. After looking at the Wiki page I noticed that the inflated amounts were adjusted by the original year of release, which doesn't really work for the 60s and 70s films because of the reissues, so the book will take care of that issue for us. There are two ways to approach updating the list for future films: deflate all subsequent films to 2005 level (which is the method I prefer because it involves less manipulation of figures by Wikipedia), but if it starts to get too dated we'll be able to inflate all the 2005 adjusted figures by the 2005 index, which should be ok because the reissues won't factor into it now they have all been adjusted to a single base year. The pages include other figures too, such as budgets and interestingly, the actor's salary in each role. I have also included a page on 1960s salaries which may be useful on the Peter Sellers article (according to that he was the second actor to receive a million dollar salary). The bib details are the same as in the Google link, including the ISBN. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Betty—Much appreciated! I'll take a spin through them shortly and start updating where necessary. (And the Sellers article too!). Now I have got Fleming out of the way at last, and finished what I can on John le Mesurier, I can now concentrate on the "JB in film" in my sandbox. Could you keep an eye on my progress and let me know where I'm straying too far from the point? I think I'll probably leave a note on the James Bond in film page to let people know that a stack of information will be removed in the medium term, which will cause all sorts of dispution, I'm sure! Thanks again for the figures. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be smoother to construct a duplicate James Bond in film in your sandbox, and then copy in both new versions of both article within minutes of each other to avoid the chicken and egg scenario. If you pre-empt on either article, you know there is an editor waiting to jump on you. If you cull from James Bond in film it will be reverted; if you transfer in the film character article that duplicates content from James Bond in film it will be AFD'd for duplication. The new versions of both articles ideally need to go out simultaneously. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll get the JB character article all ready to go first and then re-jig the JB in film in a separate page before they both go over. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the scans and think we should use the "Blockbusting" figures. Betty's suggestion that we use 2005 as the base year and deflate the Craig films makes sense. Yes, Live and Let Die's numbers in the Wiki article look dodgy. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * May I began changing the budget & box-office figures or would either of you prefer to do it? - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell, if you want to do it I'm sure Schro wouldn't object to that. I would have done it myself, but I wanted to see what Schro thought of the source before effectively overhauling all the figure. Live and Let Die is curious: according to the Block book the worldwide take is 126.4, wheras The Numbers has this down as the foreign figure, with another 35m domestic. It is pretty clear what has happened here: in the US "international" usually refers to foreign grosses, whereas in Britain it usually means worldwide. Clearly, the 126.4m figure has been published as "international", and it has been misinterpreted as either being the worldwide gross or the non-US gross, depending on the terminology of the original source. We could really do with some independent corroboration on that figure, since we can't really automatically assume either source is correct given how the error has come about. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't object - you carry on if you want to! I'm happy with the $126.4m for LALD: it is corroborated by this book, which I was given a week or so ago and have only just looked at. Most of the other figures also tally, with the exception of: Moonraker (202.7); GoldenEye (350.7); YOLT (111.6); TND (335.3); TWINE (352) and TMWTGG (97.6). -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've begun work in my sandbox. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's looking good. Basically the Block figures for Live and Let Die, Moonraker, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and The Man With the Golden Gun are all corroborated by either Schro's book or The Numbers within 1%. The only figure that isn't corroborated is You Only Live Twice, which Schro's book and The Numbers have down as 111m. I think it's extremely likely that the Block book has missed out a reissue in this case (it had an initial world rental of 44m, but IMDB says it recorded 50m in total so there has been reissue at some point—6m rental will be roughly 12m gross), but we can't really inflate the errant 10m without knowing which year it came from. I think in the interim we should go with the Block figure because we can at least still source the inflated figure for the initial release, and see if can trace the re-release year and adjust the additional 10m by the index for that year). Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty good at the moment. I've dropped in the biblios and the refs—updated with our two new info sources—so both parts of those can be transferred over later too when we do the main transfer. I suggest that we footnote one or two of the very different figures to mention the discrepancy between the two reliable sources we are using and The Numbers. Interesting Barnes & Hearn also back up the same figure for LALD, so we can pile on more evidence later if required. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should list the synopses separately. As per Accessibility the table should be viewable at 1024x768 resoultion, and the extra columns make the table huge, with each row practically taking up half a screen at 1024x768 resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Finished. I still need to doublecheck the numbers. I like the synopses. I suggest removing the "Rotten Tomatoes" ratings which, frankly, are so arbitrary as to be pointless. I'll leave it to either of you to insert the revised table into the article. You both may want to scan the table to make sure the numbers look right. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks very good and, just from a quick glance at the figures, looks as if it is all correct. I'm not sure how is best to split the table: it's obviously too wide at the moment, and losing only the RT scores would not be enough to reduce it. How about two tables: one with just the figures and one with a combination of synopsis and RT score? There is obviously a fair amount of overlap in terms of names etc, but the important information is kept in both. The only other suggestion would be to remove actor and director details from one of the tables...

 ==Reception== 

 ===Critical reaction=== 

 ===Box office performance=== 

Any thoughts? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that would work, but what do you make of the structure at Harry Potter (film series)? I like their tiered approach: they have a section with the plot descriptions, they have tables for the critical reception and awards/nominations (which could be combined) and then the financial data. It keeps the data homogeneous. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC) PS. BTW I support retaining the Bond actor in both/every table(s) since it will be natural for readers to want to see how the data relates to each actor. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Something along these lines? It still needs a fair bit of work in getting the table formatting right and adding in supporting text, but what do you both think, overall?- SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks great. It's better than trying to stuffy everything into a single table. Since the list has its own dedicated article page we may as well utilise the layout. Betty Logan (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest that we cover the non-Eon films? With only two films, it looks a bit odd trying to cover the same format with them, but without using that format there is no real way to compare and contrast the films. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What data exactly will we be including for the non-Eon films. Will we be dropping the inflation adjustments or retaining the DIY numbers? Will there be a salary column? Awards? We really need to see what we have first. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of it is there, although there are some patches:
 * NSNA
 * Connery was paid $3 million for NSNA. Golden Globe nomination for Barbara Carrera


 * Casino Royale
 * Academy Award nomination for Best Song - "The Look of Love" plus BAFTA noms


 * I'll see what else I can dig up on some of the other bits and pieces. Does the Block & Autrey Wilson book help out at all on the Niven salary or any other numbers? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, rather condescendingly it adds Note: Excludes Never Say Never Again (1983), not considered an "official" Bond film; it doesn't even acknowledge Casino Royale. So we're on our own with those two as far as the book is concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

New project
I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. I realize you've got your hands full at the moment but I thought I'd drop you the link anyway. If you are not interested then no worries, I fully appreciate why someone wouldn't want to become involved in such a project. Basically I'm just the touting the idea at the moment, and if I get a dozen or more sign-ups I'm going to formally propose it as a Wikiproject. If you're not interested in participating but still have any suggestions those would be welcome too. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Never Say Never Again title song
re: this edit. Jon Burlingame's book "The Music of James Bond" mentions Phyllis Hyman's rejected title song on page 264. The song appears to have been an unsolicited submission. Nothing more. No RS for the alleged claim that Legrand threatened to sue if he did not write the song. In fact Burlingame's book seemingly disputes it. The same paragraph you deleted also appears in the Phyllis Hyman article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was all very wrong! Betty, Igor and I wrote the original para for the NSNA article and all the sources we had went into it—none of which referred to Hyman's song! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Bond, film character
On a slightly separate point, can I ask both our advice on the Connery section of the film analysis? There are a couple of questions: The Literary section is pretty much done too, but I need to read through again and see what else it misses out, so any comments you have there would also be appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)#
 * 1) Will this be sufficient to get pass the rather thin arguments put forward at the previous AfD?
 * 2) Do you think this is complete as it stands, and if not, what else would you hope to see in there/
 * 3) Is there anything superfluous there that we could / should take out?
 * 4) Any other comments?
 * I think the Connery section is bang on. I have reservations about the need for the literary characterisation section though, which doesn't seem to gel with the article. I appreciate why you have included it, so that the actor sections are anchored to something, but maybe it would be better to combine this with the lede and make that a bit more substantial: briefly summarise the essence of Fleming's character and then briefly describe the actors' takes on that, all in the lede. It's hard to get across what I mean, but if you would like I can draft out an example: you may like it, or you may not but be able to find some inspiration from it. Also, if this is an article about the character on film are you scrubbing Barry Nelson? I guess there are two approaches: James Bond (film character) which would just include the depiction of the character on film, or an Intepretations of James Bond which would include Nelson and also the radio plays. I guess most of the sources probably cover the Eon series, and I don't mind either way, but I'd like to be clear about the scope of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've knocked out a draft at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft2, where I have combined the literary character section with the lede. Anyway, it's your call, you can use as much as you want or stick with what you've got, but at least you can see what I'm getting at. Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good, although I think it could also stand alongside a separate literary section too. Let's sleep on it while the article develops further and see what it looks like when the screen Bonds are all covered. The only change I would make is to take out the homophobic comment, largely on grounds of WP:WEIGHT: Fleming only touched upon his views once (Goldfinger, from memory) and said that Bond felt "sorry for them" or something along those lines. Although not very sympathetic or supportive, it's not too negative and there are more fundamental traits about Bond which should probably go in (misogyny, racism etc being two of his more charming characteristics!)
 * I'm in two minds about the literary character, but it is largely in there as the origin of all the film Bonds—the source on which they are all based. It's also a response to Smokey Joe's reasonable response: "The two articles should have many points of similarity, and each should contain brief summaries and cross references to the other". I may leave it in there for a while and see what it looks like when the other Bonds are sorted and then think about whether to move the substantive aspects into the lead or not. As to Barry Nelson, again I'm in two minds. I probably won't cover him (unless I open the title to James Bond (screen character). The "Interpretations" title would have a problem with the radio adaptations: I've not seen anything about the portrayal in the modern BBC productions, and some of the earlier ones (Bob Holness on SA radio) were live broadcasts which no-one has heard for over 60 years. Either way, the section would only be fairly short—probably in line with the Felix Leiter equivalent. Again, I think I'll leave it to the end and see what the article looks like with the film Bond's covered properly and then make a decision. Thanks for your thoughts: I think I'll also ask Smokey Joe about his thoughts on the overall feeling he has about Connery, as I think he takes a fair and balanced view and if I can persuade him towards the right pathway, then I suyspect others will follow. We'll see! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * lol - Cheers! I always need one of those at this time of the week! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I bought a copy of Roger's new book today - it's good and there's a few nice lines about the actors that I'll drop in there. I've added the one about Connery already as it's a good one. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks a good book! I'm creating a Bibliography of encyclopedias at the moment, created film and TV earlier. It occurred to me that we should have a Bibliography of James Bond, all reference books and materials associated with?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can think of any more books or find any more books, simply paste the url into the google ref maker, I think I showed you that previously.
 * Sorry - missed this bit until today. I've dropped a number of new ones in, but I'll add a few others as time goes on. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Roald Dahl
I think you should ask for semi-protection again. This is beyond ridiculous. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right: it is. I've requested not just protection, but indefinite semi-protection to ensure that they don't return in a couple of weeks. We'll see, as I don't have much faith in the decision makers of that process as they seem to think that a high level of vandalism is acceptable, even if it means that no editors will want to develop the article further, which I think is the case with Dahl. I've been asked to help develop it before, but I won't because of the vandals (and the requestor of help also didn't develop it for the same reason). - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankfully it's now been semi-protected indefinitely; I hope this means that it will be a much more stable article from now on. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Living Daylights plot summary
I don't like this edit. But before I revert it in its entirety I want to know your opinion. The final revised sentence is especially glaring: "Then, seeing an opportunity to help Shah and his men, Bond then re-activates the bomb and drops it out of the plane, blowing it up a bridge and blocking Soviet troops' pursuit." - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree—and I've done a partial reversion on it. The whole thing is a little clunky and could do with a re-write, to be honest, but it suits the article, which is a bit poor all round! It's one of those things that's on a long list of things I must get round to sometime! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Popmatters.com
I've read your & Betty Logan's above comments about this website. May as well start a new discussion. Neptune's Trident keeps adding popmatters.com citations to Bond-related articles. The Battle for Bond, Richard Maibaum and Kevin McClory. I'd like to revert him, but want to sound you out first. I note that the user keeps blanking his own talk page which makes assessing his own credibility needlessly difficult. He's gotten many warnings, deletion notices, etc in the year-and-a-half that he's been here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted a stack yesterday, saying "questionable reliability" - it should cover the point! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I may begin reverting the user? If so, thanks. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're not sure or happy with a source then it's always worth a quick revert - if it's a valid source then it can always be decided on the talk page afterwards. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bond kills
Is this article any use? Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly is - I'll drop bits of that one into the JB (screen character) article shortly. Thanks for the ref! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Honey Rider image
Hi, I noticed you uploaded File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg today. No real problem but I don't know if you aware that all pre-1978 theatrical trailers without a copyright notice are in the US public domain; in relation to Bond this applies to the trailers for the first three films (Dr No, Russia, Goldfinger). That means you can can upload anything from these trailers to Commons, similar to what I did with File:Dr No trailer.jpg. The upshot of this is that there are free images of Honey Rider emerging from the ocean in the Dr No trailer. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I always forget about that! I'll have a look later for something suitable. BTW, do you have any thoughts on whether www.popmatters.com is considered reliable? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a classic "case by case" source; the site seems to be professionally run and has been sourced in other RS sources (the acid test as far as reliability goes). On the other hand the fact that it solicits user submitted content is a real problem because it suggests a relaxed editorial oversight. In such cases I would say if the author of the piece being sourced is an acknowledged expert in the field then it is borderline acceptable, if the author isn't then it really shouldn't be cited. Either way I would recommend finding a better source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: your trailer point, it seems that the "mural" (hideous tho it was) has been deleted because of the Andress image, with the trailer questioned. - See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dr. No Bikini. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They have misunderstood the licence; we already went through this with the gun barrel cap. Trailers prior to 1978 require their own copyright notice (because they are published before the film), regardless of whether the film is copyrighted or not. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the deletor, "US copyright is irrelevant if the stuff is still protected in the country of origin (UK)." I'm not entirely sure about this, as it should be the copyright laws as applied to the Wiki servers (in California), isn't it? (See the talk thread here) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the law that applies is that of the country of the servers. However, what they are not appreciating is that the trailers are not copyrighted even though the film is. They deleted the images after checking the copyright of Dr No, and determined that the trailers must also be copyrighted. However, prior to 1978 the trailers had to be separately copyrighted. All the Bond trailers from Thunderball onwards are copyrighted so they can't be used, but the trailers for Dr No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are public domain; since they are released prior to the film they are legally considered separate pieces of work, since the copyright on the films doesn't come into effect until they are released. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought so. I've pointed this out to them and I'll keep you posted. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Commons files have to be free in both USA and country of origin - fails #2 and was therefore deleted"... apparently. I'm not sure they are correct on this interpretation, but am not enough of a copyright expert to know why! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've asked for a deletion review at, so we'll see how that goes. The deletion admin seems to be having trouble separating the fact that the film and the trailer exist as two separate copyrightable entities; if copyright transferred directly from the film to the trailer then that would be true of US films too, since they usually use the film's footage, and all trailers would be automatically copyrighted regradless of the country of origin. If they uphold the decision then we simply keep the one you uploaded with the FUR. It doesn't really affect us either way, but I'd like it cleared up one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be nice to be able to use a firm decision as a precedent for anything else that comes up in the future. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Having just had my watchlist fill up with his mis-spelled idiocy, it seems as if Denniss is being a petty little pain in the backside over this, doesn't it! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just dropped the Danjaq ownership into your little discussion. I'm hoping it may help things to a speedy recovery...! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole thing seems to be very bizarre: all the admins over there seem to be German! It's more hassle than it's worth really. It's pretty obvious they aren't going to go against their man, so I've just wasted the day following it up. Hardly anything gets deleted over here if it has a reasonable FUR and usage isn't indulgent, so that's clearly the way to go now. Although that said, in theory there is nothing to stop us uploading them to here with the appropriate PD licences. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. No images on Commons
I've temporarily undeleted the four Dr. No trailer images so that you can move them over to Wikipedia, at least while the discussion continues over at Commons. Since you're not active on that project, and temporary deletion only lasts 48 hours, I figured I'd let you know here.

On a related note, please be civil. Even if the people you're dealing with are being less than cooperative or less than civil, name calling isn't an acceptable method of conducting an undeletion discussion.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  23:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sven, it's much appreciated. I acknowledge your point about being civil, but should point out that I am not guilty of name calling. The closest I have come is to point out that the admin who deleted the images incorrectly because they were ill-informed was "ill-informed and incorrect". That's not name calling: that's pointing out his actions were, well, incorrect and ill-informed. As a further point, I and others have had to spend considerable time and effort trying to sort out a problem because he acted without establishing the correct facts behind the images, working from poor advice and an ignorance of the situation. He could have checked with others to see what the situation actually was before he acted, but he didn't: he rashly deleted. I think it is entirely appropriate to point this out to someone with power so that they can act differently next time they wield that power without thinking of the ramifications. Thanks again for the heads up and for your always-welcome help. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

novelisation/novelization - which is U.K. spelling?
I shouldn't have to ask, but I must. This edit is the culprit. In the U.K., an author novelises a script, and issues a novelization, correct? I've gotten a headache trying to find an authority to support this. Please help. :) - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The OED has novelize/novelization as the primary form and novelise/novelisation as variant form. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The ~ize suffix is entirely proper when used with words that have come down from Greek: the dominant use of ~ise in BrEng is a modern practice. I should also add that the primary form in the OED tends to be the UK form, and as the word originated in the US, with their practice of turning a noun into a verb, then ~ize is the first and correct varient. I suspect that the secondary ~ise form has come about because of the knee-jerk use of "~ise over ~ize in all circumstances, regardless". - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bond
Yes, it's nice to get our work there and warrant a popularity spike. Would be nice to have a TFA on Skyfall's release too (though I don't know if you're that interested in putting Ian Fleming against the ropes...). Anyway, let's keep on getting our Bond articles better (this book appeared and might stimulate me to improve the music articles...). igordebraga ≠ 03:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

BRD enforcer
I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The formal proposal is up and running at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interesedt in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers - I'll head over there now. I've been away for a few days and only been able to sort out a few bits via mobile, but I saw this pop up, but couldn't do much on my phone. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall
The BBC source also cites the 10 hours so I'll copy that and drop it in next to the Daily Mail source. I'm concerned Daily Mail may not be acceptable for a DYK hook as some people tend to view it less favourably. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - there are enough question marks over DM references in various RfCs to make it an obvious one for people to pick up on! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael G. Wilson photo?
This user talk page thread may interest you. I don't think it's Wilson, but an extra set of eyes never hurts. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that one had gone ages ago! I've dropped a note to one of the Commons admins about how to go about the deletion process, as I have no idea how to go about that: he'll be able to advise very easily. I've also uploaded one of the promo images from the studios and dropped it on the article. It's a much better image and has the advantage of being about the person we are interested in! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletion process is under way here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)