Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Collaboration of the fortnight

Comment Hey I'm glad you think so Vikrant. Shame you won't respond to him then isn't it!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that Shame thing? Vikrant Phadkay 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean its a pity you can't talk with other users - not just myself but the rest of the group despite their hard efforts for you to "join in" the group and personal discussion rather than doing what you want. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) This is going to be enjoyable. Vikrant Phadkay 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)(THIS VOTE CANNOT BE COUNTED, YOU CANNOT VOTE TWICE) (ONLY 5 VOTES FOR OCTOPUSSY)Tovojolo 16:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When did I vote before? Youre half asleep, I guess. Vikrant Phadkay 15:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing, I nominated Blofeld OK? So better remove that comment. Vikrant Phadkay 15:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You know you won't make any friends making wise ass remarks, no wonder you've already antagonised so many people. You voted for Blofeld, OK ? Duh.

Look, what's happened to all your edits on the project page, every single one has been deleted, just click on the History tab, that's what happens when you antagonise everyone, as you have.

Nobody likes you.

lol

Tovojolo 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

How nasty comments you make! I have given this project Four GAs in three fortnights and one FA and GA are expected. It will be ages before you are able to do this. Vikrant Phadkay 16:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not. It is a collaboration. We have all worked on it. That's what being a Project is. You cannot claim individual credit in a Project. As for comments, don't make snide, wise ass comments then, in other words, don't dish it out if you can't take it. Tovojolo 18:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hah, you think it's a collaboration? Think again! There is no planned effort whatsoever, just voting and misunderstood quarreling. Everything else is individual work, which I have done more than anyone else. Check all edit-hists for evidence. I am of course allowed to take the credits Vikrant Phadkay 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I mainly throw light on your edits. What are they? Just childish work and excess love for the annoying Vehicles and gadgets sections! Learn how to avoid attacks first. Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Vikrant. I haven't made any edits to any Vehicle & Gadget sections. You're confusing me with yet another member of the Project you've annoyed. As for my edits, I have won an award for my contributions to the Project, I see, (ahem) you haven't.

You have received repeated, multiple Warnings because you don't do Edit Summaries or you describe your edits as Minor when they are not.

As for childishness, everyone can judge the level of your tone

Tovojolo 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you said is all changing fast, understood? By the way, getting an award doesn't mean you can lie - you have of course favoured V&G sections; the edit-hist of FRWL is proof enough. And I haven't annoyed anyone by in-merging these sections. Vikrant Phadkay 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, you'd just go on and on. I suppose you mean reverting your deletions of Vehicles and Gadgets and you have annoyed a lot of people. If anyone "lies" it is you.

However, one of us has to be the adult here and I have no intention of letting this go on and on.

Remember this is the Project Talk Page and every Project Member can see and judge your attitude, tone and language.

I refer you, once again, to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Failure to comply with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL will lead to you being blocked which would be a serious block in your case, as you have already been blocked once before.


 * This "discussion" is now at an end.

Tovojolo 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominations
It seems there is confusion on the way the nomination process is held. Twice the old nominations (of Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Casino Royale (1967 film)) have been removed. However I (SpecialWindler) was under the impression that the way was to keep those. It's unfair for all the users who voted for Casino Royale to get their votes pushed away. Please give your comments.  SpecialWindler   talk  12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind changing it, I'd just like a bit of conseusus.  SpecialWindler   talk  12:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, existing system, as it would be fair to all the people who've already voted for Casino Royale. However, the rules should be made bold and crystal clear so that everyone can understand them. Tovojolo 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What are the nomination rules/guidelines anyway? El Greco (talk · contribs) 16:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I have no problem if everybody wants to do Casino Royale next -but what if there are users who want to change their vote after the two week period? I beleive the length of voting should correspond to the two week collaboration period. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 12:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale is already at GA quality. We could quickly propose this and then work on another. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 12:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose Casino Royale next and then a Novel as we shall all get bored if we keep on doing films all the time. Tovojolo 13:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the old votes should be erased because the collaboration needs people who are currently active and willing to work on that specific article. —AldeBaer 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2008 Series
I'm glad the collaboration's back but wouldn't it be better to keep going forever until all the articles are FA or good rather than just doing 10? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 12:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be extremly tiresome to do it repeatitively on and on. I've kept it to 10 as it will be only 5 months (20 weeks) and at least some involvement during that time. There would also be an end in sight to finish. If its forever I would think, "I'm sick of this, why do it at all". I thinks its good to have breaks, even between years. Thats may not be very convincing but its my perspective.   The Windler      talk   10:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this collaboraton even exist anymore
Does it? Spongefrog,  (talk to me, or else)  15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because of lack of interest by persons doing anything on the articles. You'll notice that the last articles of the 08 collaboration, don't have any of their articles succeeding at GA level, so I closed it. I doubt I will redo it this year, because of that lack of interest.    The Windler      talk   22:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, I've been adding citations to The Man With the Golden Gun for the past three days. Somebody should really remove that from the project page. Spongefrog,   (talk to me, or else)  12:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)