User talk:ColdFusion650/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bond 22

The decision on British English for Bond 22 wasn't a unilateral one on my part. It has been a long standing attribute of all James Bond articles to use British English and apply one of the points stated in WP:VARENG , that articles of a specific importance to a specific country should use that country's version of English. - X201 14:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

CR headers

You didn't have to remove them now. I had no intention of removing them until we had more feedback from other editors. If the consensus was going to be to leave them then I would have just dealt with it.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

Image:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as
Casino Royale (2006 film).
Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just about ready for an FA now with some slight rewording in places. It now has a coherent stucture and is very well written. I also took out that word grittier from the begining!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry in places I did preview but I am so intent on concentration on the writing that I forgot that I was pressing the save button rather than preview. The article now looks like a feature rathr than a GA I think. I am going to propose it tomorrow I think. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restructured sentencing and phrasing considerably with more professional wording throughout the article now removing a few sentences and words which affect the integrity of the article, the release section was repetitive before also and 3/4 of the US section before was about the UK -it should appear more readible now it has been rewritten. I also hope you like the Special effects section, which I see as the missing gap in info and having watched the doucmentary several times on behind the scenes I can confirm it sumarizes all the important information fully and I beleive it is a very useful asset in learning about the film. I would like to add a final image of the venice rig set used at Pinewood whilst filming though but I have mostly finished my work and appreciate that you all allowed me to improve it where I was intially reverted within seconds!!! I hope you and everyone is happy with the developments and won't re edit it too much. ALl the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 17:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have briefed the fan protest ordeal over "James Blond" summarized in the intro which is the best place for background to the film. I don't think the casting section should cover it - this section should focus on the actual decision making processa and then move straight onto production. I addressed it as User:Filmmaker opposed the nomination ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the novel and film are meant to be on the origins article. The film is based on a book, so the differences go on the books page. If a novel was based on a film, like the Superman Returns novel, Spider-Man 3 novel, X-Men 3 novel, then you would include those (in prose form) on the film article's page. Otherwise you'd have redundant information on both pages, especially since WikiProject Books (or Novel, can't remember which) actually has a section for that type of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Some" is also a weasel word. To determine these types of words, the page gives you examples of them, and questions to ask if you think that maybe that is the case with another word.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't a big issue with it, then it probably isn't that notable anyway. It's something that appears to be more of a SONY problem, than a Casino Royale problem. What I read, they have had less than 1/1000 complaints, compared to how many DVDs they have sold, and it has affected 20 titles. 20 titles isn't a special occurance for Casino Royale, that's something that should be listed on Sony's page, not here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Best to use a "See also" section at the bottom, since there is nothing in the V&G section but the link. Bignole 17:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld comment

Hi. I read your comment about editcountitis/previewing edits. I have no problem with your message per se, there was nothing incorrect or offensive. I just wanted to say that in my opinion how a user goes about editing an article in terms of big or small edits is far less important than the actual improvements they make. i.e. if they find they can work better making many small edits rather than a few large edits, so be it. Best regards. Mark83 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Welcome I've been expecting you. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Die Another Day Vandalism

Hi, just want you to know that I had no part in vandalising the article, what I changed was the previous editor had put in "NOT TOMB RAIDER", emphasising it. I felt that was more trying to make some sort of point and removed it for reasons of neatness. I'm unaware of how Tomb Raider II did at the box office, so I wasn't trying to vandalise the entire article. Douglasnicol 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bond films

I am glad to see you have begun cleaning up on other articles. Good job on World s Not enough but you can't remove the details on filming - soon I'd like the locations to be written into a full paragraph. I like this type of layout like Casino Royale which I'd like to see on every film. What do you think of my work on The Man with the Golden Gun (film) -it was quite poor several days ago.? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 13:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You're doing well but please don't remove details on locations. THese can be written into paragraphs in production on due course also on Die Another Day ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The development of the last films is just stunning -soon enough we should have 22 featured articles hopefully!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

THanks hey have a look at developments working backwards from License to Kill to Moonraker today each article is beginning to look great. cHeck it out quickly and tell if you think it is the right way to go on all of them . I have been completely intergrating trivia etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did this today!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note though that the list of shooting locations should and will written into decent paragraphs as soon as we can. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed I forgot to intergrate trivia on lcense to kill which i will do soon but i have done it to the others. I have also made some changes to all the Pierce Brosnan films which I think compliment it -I hope you agree -I rmeoved an image of boris from goldeye as it looked too bloated etc. For instance on View to a Kill I have added some great images and a new section on the airship. (although this is not one of the best films in fact one if not the worst in my view). Keep up the great development also -nice working with you ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that sections saying how the movie is different from the book belong on the novel's page? This makes no sense to me. Unless the movie was made first, it makes more sense to tell how the movie is different from the original novel rather than how the original novel is different from the book. Emperor001

Me again. Thanks for the explanation, but please, next time rather than delete, could you please move the article to where you deem it appropriate. This would have saved me the time of putting it on the novels page. Emperor001 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Frigate La Fayette in JB GoldenEye

Hi ColdFusion650, thanks for adding the info into the article. By the way try to check the article GoldenEye from time to time for the ongoing discussion about Frigate La Fayette in GoldenEye. Cheers! --T-9000 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

List of actors

Nononono. Not a good idea. Why do we need a page for list of actors who portrayed James Bond the other pages do this more than adequately. Its not as if there have been hundred different actors. Very bad layout and Serious Serious!! copywright that cannot possibly qualify for an article. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see you didn't create it but I saw you edited it. With agreement with John I have redirected it appropriately where it has the combined image of all the actors and the list. What about an article List of actors who have appeared in the James Bond series????

Another useful article which would have more merit would be one which focuses on the casting of all the James Bonds throughout the whole series -you know the information that regularly appears in the beginning of many of the film articles. A useful article would be Casting of James Bond summarizing all of this information on not only all the actors but the casting of the character from Flemings desire to cast David Niven to the 200 or so names for Casino Royale 2006. This would be an article dedicated to the casting of the character through the entire series which has more encyclopedic potential. What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK but what do you think about the article Casting of James Bond? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldeneye

I'm glad that you are willing to improve the Goldeney article, but I'd appreciate it if you did not revert my edits, only to re-make many of my changes later yourself. And this reversion that you made had nothing to do with my already-corrected mistake wth it being the second film not based on the book... - • The Giant Puffin • 17:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This was caused by me clicking twice on "save page", which was my mistake - • The Giant Puffin • 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

GoldenEye plot

Please stop reverting my edits. Read WP:AAGF. The article has criticised for not being comprehensive enough and I am simply trying to extend the plot. Some of your previous "major edits" wiped out big chunks of the plot, and for no good reason. The plot section is, frankly, too short and needs extending. I am going to restore the plot section, as it needs extending. I dont want to get into an edit war, but I want this article to be as comprehensive as possible. If you really dont like the way I am extending the section, bring it up on the article's talk page or on WP:BOND's talk page and put it up for discussion. Unless you want to re-watch the film and extend the plotline yourself, I suggest you let me do it. After that, you can make your little cut-backs to improve me writing, as it is so obviously flawed, as as been highlighted countless times in the past couple of days - • The Giant Puffin • 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Today's my day off - • The Giant Puffin • 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep degrading all the James Bond pages? You persist on removing information rather than intergrating it. You remove nearly every image that helps create the look of the film even of key villains or locations. You rearrange sections so they look even more peculiar. You have shortened many of the articles so many look quite basic. Since the last time I looked most of the Bond films seem considerably shorter. I appreciate your efforts at turning every article into Casino Royale but I have put a lot of work into establishing the "look" of articles which I beleived were beginning to take shape- its pretty disappointing on some articles you have edited that detials have been wiped out. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You Only Live Twice (film) is looking considerably worse than the last time I looked. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry I overreacted. It just frustrates me when I put work into something including adding images which I beleive help the article and it now seems like it has changed considerably. I know you have done some excellent work -forgive my haste - its just what with the time wasters restarting the Casino Royale nomination again disregadring all the support comments by everyone its got me fed up with the whole Bond situation on wikipedia!!! Because User:Sandy Georgia made out as if nominations were deleted wfrom the original (when all that was removed was the corrected referencing suggestion) it has begun I again. Its now over a month. and we are at zero again ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

You seem to have hacked up the Indiana Jones article quite a bit. Some of the changes I agree with, and are reasonable editorial alterations - some I don't, and seem to be just random deletions of perfectly viable material. It is much more productive to attempt to find some way to improve material, rather than just removing it wholesale. For example, the information regarding Peter Coyote etc. auditioning for the role - this is well known, and even referenced on the Jones DVDs, therefore rather than just hitting the delete key I'd rather we switch to another citation.

Are you willing to discuss these changes? If not, some of them will be reverted, but hopefully if we can discuss them we can reach a concensus. thanks Mikejstevenson 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means - go right ahead, and I'll respond. Mikejstevenson 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who made the changes.... but fine. I'll play along, and make some comments in the discussion page for the article when I get a moment. Mikejstevenson 13:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately right now I don't have the free time on my hands to edit your changes, and I'm certainly not going to enter into a discussion with you - you've made it clear you're not interested. So for now you have free rein to continue flushing the article down the toilet. Once I have the time to review it, this will change.Mikejstevenson 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that Club Obi Wan was mentioned elsewhere in the article - I was trying to draw attention to the fact that it was a nice homage/easter egg toward Lucas's more famous works. I'd like to keep that effort if we can find an agreeable way to present it without the repetition you're pointing out. --Ozraven 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Article format

It isn't convention. Sometimes the article can flow better that way, sometimes it can't. Star Wars does it that way, but Jaws and Halloween don't. Actually none of the horror FA film do. It's kind of a personal preference thing (one I share), but not mandatory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like describing the film first, for a full context for the production section. Alientraveller 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bignole is like my Sallah. Anyway, great you found time to watch the DVD and use the info offered, whilst we all wait for the fourth film. Alientraveller 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm an active read of several talk pages:Erik's, Alien's, Arcayne's, even yours. If I interact with other users often then it usually means that we have like interests and questions that are brought to them might be able to be answered by me, if they aren't around. Likewise for Alien, Arc, and Erik (they watch my page as well). It also helps incase someone vandalizes your user page when you are away. So yeah, I'm like his "Sallah"....minus the baratone, and the weight. Although, I wonder whey Alien gets to be Indy..lol. If he's Indy, does that make Erik "Shortround"? Anyway, you're right, the other pages should conform to the best page (so if Raiders is the most far along, then I'd make the rest look like Raiders).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Scorry

Scorry about that thing with Lara Croft. I cant figerout how to do that on the sand box. `Anubiz 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

list of politicians and leaders who were Catholic

Why did you remove my edit ? I think Hitler being a Catholic is a very important fact, it throws light on the origin of his antisemitism ie. as Hitler's biographer John Toland says "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. . .."the Christian/Catholic belief that the Jews killed the son of god". Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography ISBN-10: 0385420536

His Chancellery statement on his beliefs: "Adolf Hitler was born a Catholic, baptized a Catholic and is still a Catholic".

In a 1938 Reichstag speech: "By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work".

In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

There is a body of work which claims Hitler spewed a lot of anti Catholic venom, especially in the later stages of the war. There are also quotes in which he claims to be a Pagan and that a Christian cannot be a German etc.

He may not have been a "good catholic" in either sense of the expression but I believe there is little doubt he was one when he became German leader in 1934 even if he may not have been one by the end of the war.

JohnShep 02:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert to Tomb Raider: Anniversary

Why? As I stated in the edit summary, TRL page is Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend and the Eidos homepage for TRA reads LARA CROFT TOMB RAIDER: ANNIVERSARY. rohith 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why that's a new one on me. I always thought that this was how you move articles. Could you explain the other method. IAC, I did not create the other page, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Anniversary, it had already existed as a redirect page. rohith 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, I'll do that from now on. ^_^ rohith 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No trivia sections?

I just did a little search and the word trivia appears on Wikipedia no less than 71,509 times. That probably means there are quite a few trivia sections. Cheers. --Maarten1963 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me resolve a 404 not found error to an XPI file you linked to once?

Hey. I found this link while browsing through the MozillaZine forums. Do you know where I can get the file? It looks like some high school student uploaded the extension, though there's little if any contact information that I can find on the website. miavsd.servehttp.com/rubicon/extension/tabxbackwards0.1.xpi Thank you. -- kanzure 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)