User talk:SchroCat/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SchroCat. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Hey, seeing as the IP user re added the content again after being asked not too and deciding not to come to the talk page to discuss the content further, I added a 3RR notice on his talk page. He was sufficiently warned by yourself unofficially and I for one feel that he will be continuing with editing in this manner. So I leave it up to the great and wonderful oz who monitors such notices to deal with it. Sound ok? MisterShiney ✉ 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me - and at least he can't complain that he wasn't warned! - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for you, if you don't mind: Which Bond film involves a contest between Bond and the antagonist and takes the form of a video game where they battle for (initially) control of the USA, and later the world? They have cruise missiles they can launch, and the controls incrementally shock the players as well. Naturally, Bond wins, but I can't remember which film it is and can find no mention of it in any of the plot sections. ISTR it's a Roger Moore film. Searching for "James bond video game plot" or similar on Google is worse than useless. Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the Sean Connery Bond film Never Say Never Again. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That'll be why I couldn't locate it. Many thanks - that's my NetFlix sorted out for the night then... Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help.... ;) SchroCat (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've copyedited a couple of sections, also trimmed down a bit on what reads as unnecessary detail. I have a problem in the 1946–59 section in which we read: "The same year, Tony Hancock joined Le Mesurier's wife, Hattie Jacques in the series Educating Archie...". In the previous section Le M was married to June Melville; what happened to her, and when did Le M & Jacques marry? While I'm at it, can you give the year that the fmily moved to Bury St Edmunds, and also where and when Gielgud's production of Ham;et was staged? (Please ping my talk when you've picked these up) Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did raise some concerns about the cutting to Brian. Anyway, have a great 2013. here's Bigglesworth doing his best Burt Kwouk SPECTRE volcano agent impression.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oscar for Skyfall?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly think Deakins should have his name in there - there's not too many other films that come close this year (Life of Pi or The Master, possibly) and Dench too. After those two who should be dead cert nominations, it gets too political - I'd love to see it nominated for Best film and maybe a few others (original screenplay? stunts? Bardem?) Fingers crossed for next week! - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to the JLM team for my slow progress with the ce. I have unfortunately been distracted by a couple of outsize nuisances which have occupied much of my editing time this last week. I will try and make good progress in the next 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's really not a problem at all Brian: you are doing us the favour, so there is no need for you to apologise or to feel we are suffering! There really is no rush on JLM: the article is not going anywhere and it will get to FAC at some point (and in a much, much better shape because of your attention), and that is all that matters. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise Brian. Your help is obviously much appreciated on this. I did panic somewhat when I read your latest edit summary. It stated "suspended rather than stopped" and I assumed the worst (only to see it was just a minor word change lol). Thanks again :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 11:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have completed the copyedits and have left some notes on the article's talk, for discussion among the main editors. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think User:Red White Blue and Yellow hit upon a great title for James Bond (film character) in his page moves earlier today. It wasn't the correct title for James Bond in film as he quickly realized, because a filmography is basically a film 'cv' for a particular person. That is a essentially what we have at James Bond (film character), the article comprises a filmography for the actors in the role. What do you think? Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I've requested the move already (can't do it myself as the page is in the way, so it's a technical one). Cheers - and a happy new year! - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't make sense to have spoilers in the cast lists, if you hadn't noticed wikipedia articles have a contents page which allows users to skip directly to the cast list without reading the plot synopsis. It is entirely conceivable that someone who hadn't seen a movie would like to know briefly about the actors and characters in a work without wanting to have twists or the film's ending spoiled. If someone does want this information it is as you say readily available in the plot synopsis. In fact it is probably more likely that someone who hadn't seen the film would be interested in the cast list than someone who had, as they would already be familiar with the characters in the film. Again, It really adds nothing to have spoilers in the cast list as it is, as you say, merely repeating information present in the plot synopsis. So it adds nothing and will achieve nothing but spoiling those who haven't seen this film. Despite this for some reason wikipedia editors seem to insist on it and it probably won't change because many wikipedia editors are rather stubborn as you are no doubt aware of. That will be all, have a nice day! 122.57.205.144 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've already indicated to you, please see WP:SPOILERS for the Wikipedia stance on spoilers and the background to that stance. It's not stubbornness, it's they way things happen around here. If you'd like it to change, please go to the appropriate forum to discuss changing the approach so that we do not have spoilers. - SchroCat (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What the IP said makes total sense, and I have posted the same on other pages. WP:SPOILERS does not encourage you or give license to put spoilers where one would not expect to see them. Readers should be able to look at a cast list without having the plot given away. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you only want a cast list go to imdb. According to wikipedia policy, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Including relevant spoilers in the cast list serves an "encyclopedic purpose". - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's quite unnecessary. That's what the plot section is for. If you only want a cast list go to imdb. Seriously? Most people have found ways to discuss the fundamentals of a character without giving the plot away. Again, WP:SPOILERS does not give license to put them anywhere. Did you read the first entry in this section? I don't need to repeat it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion on SchroCat's page is fairly pointless. There also exists a discussion thread about cast list spoilers on Skyfall's talk page. The decision was to include spoilers. As for WP:SPOILERS, it says

3.Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. Therefore, further disclaimers would be redundant and unnecessary.

4.Labeling a plot detail as a spoiler would require editors to use their own subjective opinions to interpret the significance of a plot detail and its likelihood of altering the enjoyment of the work of fiction. This would be a violation of Wikipedia's core policies of no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.

Although the contested sub-section only says "cast", it also clearly contains character descriptions. According to policy #3, this section frequently contains spoilers. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Gothicfilm has started a discussion at WikiProject Film here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Filming of James Bond. Had an inspiration to start this off. An overview of production of the films by decade, like proper film studies material. I've just started them off with existing material combined but given time I think we could add all production info and text connecting each film which would make it feasible to either move to Production of James Bond (to include details on cast and script development) or simply to History of James Bond. Either way I think something very productive could come of this even if the scope is a scary one. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Big job. It seems to be a half-way house between a film's own article and the production history overview at James Bond in film - is that right? - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well. it could turn into a more detailed history by decade I guess. We can decide what to do with them and whether or not we really want to do than in due course. It is a big task but it would be nice to have a detailed history of James Bond.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Blofelds.jpg. Is it me or does the Pleasance Blofeld look like Gail Porter?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blofeld, thats not funny considering she lost her hair to Alopecia--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean the baldness. I mean the head shape and face, the eyes in particular, albeit several hundred times prettier! I've always really liked Gail, so I wouldn't poke fun at her suffering from alopecia... Perhaps the Balderized Taylor Swift is closer to Dr. Evil meh ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok sorry hope I didn't seem accusing, I just made an assumption--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, I'm playing with you, you flamin nerd! No, I'm not making fun of her alopecia, I've seen her interviews and know she suffers from various problems which I feel for her with, I had a big crush on her back in the late 90s. But I'm being honest that when I see that picture of Blofeld I see a resemblance, even if its wrong for me to!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats my nickname now, flamin nerd? ROFLCOPTER!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Alf Stewart school of naming sure, "strike me pink ya flaming gala." ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I merged your SPI report on 007Fan1 to the first SPI case. As new socks are discovered, they are added to the original report to group them all together. The form is smart enough to append new cases to the original report. I blocked the 007Fan1 account as an obvious duck. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks. With the previous investigation archived, I wasn't sure how to go about the new report, so thanks for clearing that bit up. - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to be of help to squish another sock. If (probably more like when) he reappears, just put in Callump90 in place of SOCKMASTER in the form. Somebody did some really slick programming and it figures out that you want to re-open the case with a new report. It is all very fancy. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to run this past you and get your opinion or thoughts. I watched For Your Eyes Only at home last night and came to the conclusion that Bibi Dahl does not really fit the criteria of a Bond girl. At no time during the movie does Bond show any love interest towards her - it is her that shows interest in Bond, with no reciprocation.

In the opening first sentence of the Bond girls article, it states that a Bond girl "is a character (or the actress portraying a character) who is a love interest of James Bond in a film, novel, or video game". Other than the film, Bibi Dahl does not appear in any books or video games. As such - in my opinion - she does not fit the criteria.

I didn't want to amend the article without consulting you first. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree, I watched the film, and Bibi seemed to be too young for Bond, (underaged?) which was why bond seemed fatherly and concerned with her--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On a personal level I'd agree and it's a flaw that is echoed throughout the Bond Girl article with a number of inappropriate female characters listed (people seem to keep wanting to put Madonna in there for some reason)! However, in the case of Dahl, the sources list her as a Bond girl, notably the Graham Rye book The James Bond Girl and Raymond Bendon's Bedside Companion, and as always we need to defer to the sources over our own well-reasoned and correct assertions! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bibi is a Bond girl sure. In the Jimmy Savile James Bond DVD collection. Its a joke Lerd before you get off your high horse at me again, you flamin nerd you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologised a few minutes ago! No need to get huffy! I made an assumption and im sorry!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I'm pulling your leg Lerd, we're good.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not speculative, Fleming mentions in one of the novels that Bond resembles Hoagy Carmichael, which particularly intrigues readers since Carmichael so closely resembled Fleming himself. Accubam (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The speculative apect is the part you added, that Fleming resembles Carmichael. The rest of the information there is all supported by reliable sources and is therefore not our own speculation or our comparing the likenesses. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Looks like we were both adding the same info at the same time! Didn't mean to overwrite — when I saw the "edit conflict" window I though it was conflict with the bot adding cite-req dates. As I said on the article's talk page, great minds think alike! I've also added a comment on the talk page re: GA. I think you're right, given just the edits I myself felt necessary to make today — I'm sure other editors will have more, so waiting for GA review might not be a bad idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they will - and the open nominations on the awards are only one good reason why there is a lack of inherent stability. Another is the dreaded "top ten list" plague, an instance of which I removed earlier, I suspect that there may be a couple of others coming up as people notice them in the run up to the Academy Awards. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in my revert, the image of Carmichael that I inserted is part of Wikipedia Commons and as a result should be exempt from Fair Use restrictions, provided it relates to the article itself, which it obviously does. If I'm wrong about this, it wouldn't stun me into speechlessness, so let me know if that's the case. BTW, your revert of my mentioning the resemblance between Fleming and Carmichael did go into the wrong place, to the left of the Kingsley Amis citation (I can't recall whether Amis mentioned the resemblance or not but I imagine he did; it's been part of the Fleming/Bond lore ever since Fleming's original sentence in his novel but obviously what I imagine shouldn't and doesn't count, so you're certainly right on that one). Accubam (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A slot opened up, so I stuck your nomination back in. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sven: I was planning to do it, but missed the opening, so thanks for getting in there: it's very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Carmichael's too young in this photo to bear out the resemblance to Bond. The first one is perfect, even closely resembling Fleming's sketch on the other side of the page, except for the presence of George Gobel, of all people, sitting there. Ideally, that same picture should be cropped but unfortunately I don't know how to do that offhand. Accubam (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hi Igordebraga. I'm letting you know that on the 26th this month Skyfall's retention will be up and the James Bond topic will be put up on review. Before that can happen, you can place the article up for GAN and get it up to standard. GamerPro64 15:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)"

We need to get it done soon... igordebraga ≠ 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Is there any chance we can get an extension at all - it's not quite ready and is still a little unstable, with various countries who have only just had the film released in their territories and the awards section still very much a "live" field. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, I once managed to improve an article in time to avoid a GT demotion (that came later for other reasons). And then there's this, regarding a film GA only a month after release. It's perfectly possible to reach a satisfatory status by the month's end (the problem might be getting it reviewed, unless you do the tried and true "pestering someone to review the article") igordebraga ≠ 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it's a little unstable at the moment as I don't think it's been released in all territories so far. We'll see, but if we get close, I'll start begging at GamerPro's door to see if we can get an extension. If there are good reasons for a slight delay in extending then we may be okay... - SchroCat (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do I keep getting messages from you about some James Bond page? I haven't changed anything. I don't even really know how to edit wikipedia, but I keep getting blocked by you for something I haven't even done or touched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.114.226 (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

repeated in new style, for your new name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda: you're too kind! - SchroCat (talk)

"kind" - what a nice contrast to "flamerthrower" (above) and "define toxic" (on my talk), - we are looking there for better words for toxic and detrimental, can you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there was a false vandalism message left on my talk page. (Probably by you - you just used your other sock puppet (caught red-handed here) after I reverted your vandalism of a constructive edit.) Yes, you did have me confused there for a moment. It didn't last, and neither will your attempts to make Wikipedia less informative and more parochial & omphaloskeptic in the interest of taking US affiliation for granted. 31.18.250.39 (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, there was no vandalism tag left on your talk page. There was a message left which pointed out that you should not leave vandalism tage on other people's pages unless it is vandalism. Actually, there were two messages from two separate people. Secondly, do not EVER accuse people of being a sock unless you are sure what you are on about. It's bloody rude and guaranteed to get people's backs up from the word go. If you had spent 30 seconds looking you properly you will see that we are different people. I very strongly urge you to read WP:CIVIL before you start throwing round ridiculous and petty accusations without any evidence or basis. Thirdly, there was no "vandalism" involved. The third editor to visit your talk page on this point (MisterShiney (talk · contribs)) pointed you towards Wikipedia:What vandalism is not. Again, I suggest you read that and try and understand what you are talking about before throwing around ridiculous accusations. - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		You know why. Fanthrillers (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I could also give you one for you know why, but you got Precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL - and many thanks for that too! - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You all want to get a room? ;) MisterShiney ✉ 13:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

re: your edit here. The infobox lacks consistency: either we go by what year the actor was hired, what year his first Bond film started filming, or the year his first Bond film premiered. I'm not particular and will defer to you. Instead we use all all three approaches. For example, Eon hired Brosnan in 1994, but we list 1995 when GoldenEye premiered. Eon hired Lazenby in 1968, Moore in 1972 and Craig in 2005 yet we list 1969, 1973 and 2005. Can't remember when Eon hired Connery or his first Bond film began production. BTW, many thanks for fixing my user page re-direct. - Fantr (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right—as normal—and I've tweaked accordingly. I've put them all as film release dates because there is incomplete information on exactly when some signed up for the role (Niven, for example) and Moore was technically out of contract in between his later films when they were done on a film-by-film basis. It does mean a slight disparity between these dates and the section headings, but the two don't have to marry up, so it should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the tidbit on Macnee having been a wartime colleague of Ian Fleming. The missing source is the documentary by John Cork, Ian Fleming: 007's Creator; duration 44 min. Since you are an accomplished Bond fan, I live it up to you if and where to add it, and I have included the Wikipedia template for it. Macknee himself is the narrator of the documentary and appears interviewed with the caption Patrick Macknee - Wartime Colleague. Citation template^[1]--Gciriani (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a question of the source, it's a question of why we would put it in there. If it doesn't contain information about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming, then it probably shouldn't be there. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. I think I've addressed your concerns! ceranthor 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you're doing some work on Sapper, and I saw you changed the Writer-Infobox to a Person-Infobox. I was all set to change it back, but I figured it'd be more sensible and more civil to ask about it first. BTW... your style of laying out comments in the source-text looks quite sensible.Catsmeat (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Catsmeat, Many thanks for coming to discuss the change: I did leave a comment on the talk page as well just in case anyone was wondering. The change to the more general format is something we did at Ian Fleming as it avoids falsely pigeonholing someone who had more than one career. Both Fleming and McNeile were in the military before they became writers and the military part of their lives was important to them and affected their subsequent writing career, so to force them through the infobox away from their double careers and into the single writing careers does not seem appropriate. When the writer infobox is used, there are fields that are misleading given the person's overall life ("active dates", for example) and it is better to have the more general template to cover all aspects of an individual's life, rather than using the sub-set template. I'd actually prefer to do away with the infobox as a whole: I find these summary boxes of trite details inadequate in summing up the life of an person when the very same details are repeated in the lead and in the article text. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood; that makes sense. TBH, I like infoboxes myself, but I've certainly had similar, previous thoughts on the manifest flaws in the system of different infoboxs for different types of person.Catsmeat (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, I'm hugely impressed with what you've now done with this. Sapper's thrillers are something of a guilty pleasure for me, though I prefer his non-Drummond stories, as he's not exactly my cup of tea.Catsmeat (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like it! A couple more books due to arrive shortly, which will involve a little more tweaking and moving an odd point or two, but nothing too major too be added, I think. Apart from that, I'm going to tweak, polish refine and copy edit for a couple of weeks before going through either GA or PR stages. cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in the performing arts area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure. I should be able to make a start later this week. Regards - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

	GA Barnstar
	Thanks for improving the Skyfall article to GA status. Keep up the good work as usual, SchroCat. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're too kind - this, and your review, are much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done! And you and Cass have bollocks of steel answering all of those FAC pointers without blowing a fuse! JLM is finally FA! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 00:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Great to see that while the Academy didn't recognize Eon's work in Skyfall enough, Wikipedia recognized yours! I need to go into more Bond articles later - if only cleaning up the maintenance templates on the rest of the GT. igordebraga ≠ 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless work on both John Le Mesurier and his list of works. Both fine efforts which have certainly paid of with their promotions to FA. CassiantoTalk 07:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent work in passing John Le Mesurier and hard work during the FAC! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Let me hitch a lift on the Doctor's barnstar and add my own congratulations to you and your co-noms. Tim riley (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are all three very kind, and your gesture is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the Widmerpool article, to which you contributed via the peer review, is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments added. I hope you'll find some or all of them useful. You express doubt whether the article is potentially of FA standard. I'd say yes. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Later: I see a discussion above about info-boxes for articles on people who have more than one career. I find myself in some difficulty with David Sheppard (cricketer and bishop) and Alec Douglas-Home (cricketer and prime minister). Any thoughts you have on this would be welcome. (Info-boxes are a damned nuisance and waste of space for many articles, but for cricketers in particular, and politicos to some extent, they serve a useful function.) Tim riley (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

They're great comments: many thanks indeed. I've done something for all but one, and I need to go back to the sources for that.

I abhor the boxes on most biogs, apart from sportsmen, the military and politicians: anyone who has stats or positions/offices which need to be summarised. And in those cases it should only summarise that element of their lives, rather than more generally, when they degenerate into over-simplified nonsense. I'd love to remove it from McNeile, but there's one already there and the one editor who edits the article would prefer that it remains, so I'm leaving it in place: far be it from me to try and stamp my POV on articles, regardless of what anyone else thinks (unlike some of the infobox inclusionists)! In terms of the double career, most of the specialist boxes don't work at all in that respect and the general {{infobox person}} doesn't work well enough. I think there is a way to drop in modules from other infoboxes, but I've no idea how it works and the template documentation is singularly unhelpful and user-unfriendly! - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Marvellous work on the Sheppard info box. I hope you'll copy and paste it into the Sheppard article. Many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very much obliged for this. It is tons better. I'm planning to give Dr Sheppard a thorough overhaul at some point, and this encourages me to get on with it. Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Leighperson and "punctuation errors". Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks for raisiing the whole issue. I'll keep an eye on it all and chip in when needed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another notice, about article history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I finally get round to reading it, and it's closed already! - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A good close! - This is open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

While researching Saltzman's Micronauts project (in pre-production for a decade!) for a forthcoming wiki article, I stumbled across a March 1974 news article reporting that Saltzman was courting Paramount to buy out his 50% share and that the producers were "splitting up". Haber, Joyce (5 March 1974). "Falling Out Among Multimillionaires?". Los Angeles Times. p. C6. abstract link This contradicts reports that say Saltzman's troubles began after Golden Gun's release. How should we rewrite James Bond in film#Albert R. Broccoli .281975.E2.80.9384.29? I'm also not happy with that particular wiki article's claim that "Spy's" production was delayed for three years. Two-and-a-half years elapsed between the release of "Gun" and "Spy"; "Spy" went into production one-and-a-half years after "Gun"'s release. - Fantr (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not ignoring this! (although I'll admit I did forget about it for a bit!) I'll get round to it very shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Tweaked the first part to show he sold in the aftermath of MWTGG, rather than had financial constraints at that point.
• I've tweaked the timeframe of delay by removing the period involved, so it now reads "... delayed production of the next Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me.[133]". As we don't know how long it was delayed, this should be OK now.

Have a read through and let me know if you think it a) reads OK; b) is not misleading; and c) provides enough info. Do you have the full text of the article? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

re: The Killing Zone. I can verify that Hatfield is credited as "Jim" rather than "James" on the cover and title page. The back cover blurb does indeed state "slit-eyed Oriental". Not sure how you want to deal with this but I'll defer to you. - Fantr (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Odd he used a different name for that book, but is called James elsewhere - a semi-pseudonym, I suppose. Having it in speech marks does make a difference. It previously read as straight reportage, rather than the quote it now is. I don't have too much of a problem with it being in there for a quote, but I would for normal text. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:007-TND-UK.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) 04:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, my apologies: I just noticed this. Oddly enough, I didn't get a notification of an edit conflict when I hit "Save". I hope you don't think I did that on purpose. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

lol - no problems: I presumed you hadn't (partly because nothing I said was that contentious!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Metacritic can mathematically call 81 positive reviews out of 100 "universal acclaim", but in any case, you might want to keep an eye on the Critical reception section of Skyfall. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I constantly do! I've seen rubbish on the page that we've all had to keep reverting, and if the IPs continue to tweak it I'm going to again ask for protection. It won't stop the misguided registered ones, but at least it'll avoid a chunk of them! - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat - just wanted to say thanks for tidying up my addition to John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record - that looks far better. Just thought it was a bit of info that was needed for the article. Grutness...wha? 10:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure: thanks very much for adding the info in the first place—it's something I missed when I put the thing together in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but there are so many things wrong with the current page. For starters, Largo WAS pinned down, so there's no way he could have been able to detonate the warhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.139.11 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! But the title confuses me, I expect to see a table of films. I thought James Bond in film was a more suitable title?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

James Bond in film is still there (which is waiting for its review to start sometime): the filmography is the one about the film character! - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's too much conflict and editing to be able to make a proper judegment. The page needs to be stable to be able to make a decent review, let alone stand a chance of getting through FAC. Drop me a line when it's calmed down sufficiently. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you've not yet had the chance and you have the time please read Johanna Harwood. As she's Irish born, can you please check any British databases and news indexes for information about her? She seems to disappear around 1967 only to pop up several years ago.

Also, I've done a draft article about the "ghosted" Bond novel Take Over here. I still need to expand the lede and finish citing the article. Again, if you have time please look it over. I prefer to structure the article this way so that the short story anthology and incomplete Maugham "work" have their own separate sections. I feel this is appropriate as the father-and-daughter team produced these works sequentially; moreover they produced these works after the met Peter Fleming that first time to show him the Bond manuscript. Would like to get a free image of Peter Fleming to round out the article. There must be one somewhere. Thanks! - Fantr (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Give me a day or so, as I have a few pressing work things to attend to over the next day or so, but will try and fit these around it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Harwood: I have found virtually nothing in the databases, except her name in listings of scriptwriters (for the works you've already covered). I searched on Questia too, but nothing came up there either. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Take over: What a very strange tale! It makes sense having the Maugham information in there too - there's nowhere else it would comfortably sit. - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look in at peer review. I've spotted a few points at first glance, and will read it thoroughly over the next few days. I'd make a rude remark about your recent choice of lowbrow subjects were it not that I am up to my elbows in a dozen or so short articles on the Aldwych farces, following on from recent contributions by Ssilvers and Cassianto. I'm nowhere near finished yet, and no I am not old enough to have seen the original productions. How dare you! – Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim, that really is very kind of you, thank you very much. I agree that the highbrow subjects you frequent are very nourishing for the soul, but the Bonds, Drummonds and Flashmans (and indeed even the AFs!) are meat and drink for the earthier half of my tastes! It's a 'dichotomy of man' thing...! - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Do not imagine I have failed to notice Garrick on your to do list. At your service if I can be of help with him in due course. Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am holding things up on that front Tim. Garrick will be a joint venture but real life is getting in the way a bit of late. We are up to the first paragraph in the Drury Lane section. Feel free to have a sneaky peek. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Cassianto has been doing sterling work on that front and it's starting to take shape. Unlike our last joint ventures, we really are spoiled for the sources here, with probably too many sources of information to choose from! It'll get there soon however! Thanks again for the Flashman PR: it was very much appreciated. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lowbrow? I'm plodding away on an article about the Confessions books and films. Yes, the ones with Robin Askwith. Did you know they made several stage play adaptations of the books & films? - Fantr (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A few odds and ends from the TLS are at User:Tim riley/sandbox2. Please copy and paste anything you think of interest. Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat,

why did you Undid the revision of my edit in James Bond without a comment ? i see no reason why that should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zehdeh (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fairly pointless and unneccessary addition. The date of birth discussion is necessary as it gives a firmer indocation of the timeframe of the series and has been given in two separate sources, based on Fleming's works. The place of birth is something Pearson made up: it has no basis in anything Fleming wrote and no one else has written about it. So, we have a "fact" with no context from the original primary sources, and which has no bearing on anything that appears anywhere in the series—book or film. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Further, Higson's books have Bond born in Switzerland. - Fantr (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Schro! Since you've been such a large part of getting our articles on the Bond novels up to snuff, I thought I'd let you know that I would very much like to take Casino Royale (novel), which is really a fantastic article, to FAC in the near future (late next month, possibly). I wonder if you'd be interested in co-nominating? Anyway, thanks for all your great work! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it'll probably need a fair amount of tidying up first, as well as going back to the sources. I took the decision only to go to GA with these, rather than dig extensively through the sources to ensure absolutely every angle was covered for an FA, so it's missing a few bits people will automatically check for—themes is fairly thin. Let me have a little dig around in the sources and see if there is enough information to be able to get something FA standard out of it. It probably needs a bloody good copy edit too, skimming though! - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello - I wonder if you would mind taking a look at Talk:Ian Fleming#Use of Birdwatchers category and commenting. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Already answered. My mistake on that - I was trying to remove other unsourced additions and yours got caught up in the action. - SchroCat (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note. You were (as always) extremely helpful to us in improving the article. Thanks for your generosity in reviewing the article! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Collins a good enough authority for my edit? It's the only online British dictionary that lists the word "outgross". What is your authority for the hyphen? See if you can find one example in Collins, Cambridge or Oxford in which the out- prefix uses a hyphen. Except for Shakespeare's well known usage of "out-Herod Herod", you won't find the hunting good. And by the way, you did revert my other changes. Now I think these three works are a clearer indication of proper British usage than SchroCat. Kelisi (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Does your definition of WP:BRD differ from everyone else's? Do you interpret it as "Bollocks, I'm Reverting because I Don't give a toss about what anyone else thinks or says". Congratulations for edit warring to introduce grammatical errors into the article. I did not blanket revert your edit. I kept the few correct bits in there and reverted the errors, which you have now reverted AGAIN. You do know there are talk pages attached to articles to discuss things? - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Does yours? "If your edit gets reverted, look at the article's talk page and its edit history for an explanation..." it says there. Well, there's sweet F all on the article's Talk page, and nothing in the History to indicate why your chosen misspellings should be considered superior. Now, for my part, I've tried to begin a discussion with that last message, and what do I get by way of a reply? A load of nonsensical ranting about a subject you clearly know little about, and of course no reply to what I actually asked. Now answer my original question why don't you: Isn't Collins a good enough authority for my edit? And if not, why? Kelisi (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna jump in here. If you read WP:BRD slightly further down from the single line you read quoted..."If you have reason to disagree with the explanation given, or you don't see any explanation at all, start a new discussion (section) on the article's talk page to request an explanation for why your edit was reverted, or to present your argument. You may also wish to ask the editor directly on their user talk page. Discussion is a primary method for editors with different ideas to work out solutions."

As for claiming the said user "know's nothing about the topic", Schro Cat is an established editor with an outstanding reputation for making articles in this are Good Articles or Featured, part of which is to make sure that they are grammatically. That is by no way implying that he owns the article, which is why at the beginning he didn't completely reverted your edit, and kept the changes. Now from your page, I can see that you are also an established editor, with a ton of edits under your belt, but that doesn't mean you are correct all the time. Now I strongly urge you to follow BRD and set up a section on the talk page. MisterShiney ✉ 22:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr S, much appreciated. All I will say to add to that is that I am editing on a mobile with a poor signal while abroad at the moment, so don't have access to my full sources, but—and as a first off for the article talk page—I'll lay damned good money on the OED having "pre-arranged" listed as being correct, as prearranged is a mis-spelling. However, I don't need the OED to tell me that Hagia Sophia is now over linked and that a number of your other alterations are just grammatically incorrect. If you'd have bothered to start that discussion on the article talk page, (rather than the backwater of my own page) it would have got the attention of a wider audience who could also have participated and put in their thoughts. I didn't take your initiation of a discussion here as an attempt to begin a discussion, but to try and rant at me. The best place to discuss the article content is on the article's discussion page, not the page of an individual user. - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Schro, you've been blocked for sockpuppetry before now, and since no message of yours appears on MisterShiney's Talk page, I have to wonder what prompted him to come over here. Well, you both talk the same drivel, both skirt the question at hand, both deal with other users belligerently (me and others too, I notice -- you've both been accused of personal attacks) and both write the same dreadful English (I see that, by the way, because I'm an English teacher; that also ought to go a long way to explaining why I think my grammar/usage/syntax might be better than most people's). Given all that, guess what I believe. As for not giving a toss what anyone else thinks, as you so eloquently put it, you're quite wrong. I have the highest respect for the usage laid out by the researchers and academics who compile the dictionaries bearing the names Collins, Oxford and Cambridge (not to mention many others), and any spelling that I put into an article is one that they use. There's one other thing you ought to know: I don't suffer fools gladly. Just saying. Kelisi (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to accuse people of being socks, then stop being gutless: say so and take the consequences. Looked up per-arranged yet? Checked on your overlinking yet? - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of being a sock for SchroCat? If you are serious then I strongly urge you to go over to the admin board and file a report. Because that would not be acceptable and in breach of policy. However if you took 5 minutes to look at both our talk pages and their archives you will see that we have collaborated together in the past on several articles. As a result I have his User Page on my watch list and will occasionally dip into his and other conversation because quite frankly I am nosey git. As for the supposed sock puppet stuff, if you read the conversation you will see that it isn't as clear cut as you think it is, and before bringing up old dirt then I suggest you get your facts right before making accusations and bringing up something that he was acquitted of.

As for you being an English Teacher, that's great. I'm an astronaut. In other words, it's something that's hard to prove and even if it is true, it doesn't make you an expert on the subject. MisterShiney ✉ 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• SchroCat is applying the general rule in British English, that is when "out" is prefixed to a noun or verb it is usually hyphenated, and is correct in the case of "pre-arrange", which is hyphenated in the OED. However, "outgross" is unique because it is of American origin and adopted into British English; in this instance the OED have adopted the American usage of leaving out the hyphen. If the word was not listed in the OED I think it would be justifiable to apply the general British rule of hyphenating, but since the OED has accepted it in its general American form we should probably follow suit. Kelisi, please remember that different English speaking countries have different varieties of English, and we must respect the form the article is written in per WP:RETAIN. Betty Logan (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks Betty: I hadn't realised about the US origins of outgross. "Pre-arranged" is hyphenated, as I know the OED will verify. Brave of you to speak up with snide half-accusations of socking going on here! - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarityfiend persuaded me to begin a draft article in my user space: User:Fantr/List of abandoned and unfinished films. I'm backlogged with articles I'm drafting. I encourage you to work on this draft article. The linked category in the draft article lists other unfinished films that can be added to the first table. Thanks! I've also invited Betty Logan and Erik to contribute. - Fantr (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but I'm not sure just how much stuff I have in my library that would be useful. I will certainly have a hunt round my library and run some searches on the sources I have access to and update what I can! - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another article you may want to add to your watchlist if you haven't already done so: List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States. - Fantr (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Just thought I'd let let you know I (as well as many others, I'm sure) appreciate the hard work you put in on Wikipedia! Tav2244 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You are very kind indeed: thank you for noticing and for saying so - it is much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Friendship Barnstar
		For being nice and approachable :) MisterShiney ✉ 01:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As always, you are very welcome indeed! Many thanks indeed both for stepping up and for the star! - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Split this, can you add some refinements?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No probs. Give me a few days and I'll get it sorted - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Still on the "To do" list. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All done on the formatting side. Needs quite a bit of referencing done at some point. I'll take a spin over the databases and see what I can find to support - and if there's much missing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Some fascinating discoveries. Saltzman's downfall seems to have begun with his misguided science fiction musical Toomorrow starring Olivia Newton-John; I strongly suggest that you add this article to your watchlist because this film seems to have been the beginning of Saltzman's downfall. Saltzman and his company Sweet Music, S.A. didn't have sufficient (possibly any) funds to make the movie. In late 1969 he got Cinerama Releasing Corporation to pay 2.1 million dollars to finance the film. In exchange Cinerama would distribute the film in select markets. The Union Bank of Switzerland covered the loan and advanced Saltzman the money. Cinerama wouldn't have to reimburse the bank until late 1971 according to the contract between all three parties. However as the Toomorrow article explains, director Val Guest claims not to have been paid and so got an injunction presumably in a London court enjoining Saltzman from releasing the film (this was after the world premiere in London). Guest claims that when he examined Sweet Music's books, Saltzman's corporation didn't have a cent. The two court decisions oddly do not address this issue. The bank and Saltzman asked Cinerama to pay up. Cinerama refused and sued both Saltzman and the bank. Saltzman and the bank counter-sued. Saltzman said in his suit that Cinerama had refused to distribute the film. I suspect that if true, they refused to distribute a film that was subject to a British injunction and therefore a hot legal potato. In September 1972 a New York City court dismissed part of Cinerama's claims and awarded the Bank 1.825 million U.S. Dollars plus court costs. The court ordered the money payable forwith though ruled that pre-interest judgment would be the subject of a subsequent order owing to uncertainty whether this interest would be in U.S. dollars or Swiss Francs and further to determine which country's interest rates applied. All other matters in the suits and counter-suits would go to trial. Cinerama appealed claiming the court lacked jurisdiction to make this ruling and that as it was an interim order, not a final order, the court could not order the money payable forwith. Cinerama also claimed that it could not pay this amount into court and so automatically stay the decision because doing so would cause the company to go bankrupt. In the summer of 1973 the appeal court dismissed Cinerama's first argument but granted their second argument and so ordered that the 1.825 million U.S. dollars could not be ordered payable until the court had settled the matter of interest on the judgment, partly to avoid multiple simultaneous appeals by an unsuccessful party from the same cause of action. The court also ordered the bank to pay Cinerama its court costs; Saltzman was not a party to the appeal despite his company's name appearing in the title of proceeding. Cinerama Releasing Corporation soon become defunct. The two court decisions are online here and here.

Whew.

What I've written here should be not taken as fact or legal advice until I can find a film buff with a law degree here on wikipedia who can confirm that my reading is correct.

I don't expect you to answer the following questions. I post them here so that I have a record of them while the matter is fresh in my mind.

• how much were directors paid back then? $100,000? Much less? Apparently none of the parties in in the lawsuits could pay that and preferred to get tied up in multi-national litigation. I wonder how much each spent on legal fees.

• in theory, did the London court injunction barring Saltzman from releasing the film have world standing; i.e. could Saltzman release it outside of Britain?

• circa 1973-1975, did a bankrupt or dissolved corporation have standing to sue or continue a lawsuit in New York federal court?

• also circa 1973-1975, how did a Swiss bank enforce a judgment against a dissolved or bankrupt New York corporation?

• in the event Cinerama defaulted and judgment became uncollectable, did Saltzman or his corporation Sweet Music, S.A. become liable to the bank?

Toomorrow's director Val Guest claims that on this film Saltzman pledged 50% of the Bond shares to the Swiss bank. This is dubious. Guest was not involved in Saltzman's subsequent problems with the bank which Albert R. Broccoli claims were in the neighbourhood of 20 million U.S. dollars. A hidden note questioning Guest's claim appears on Toomorrow's article page. - Fantr (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article H.C. McNeile To SchroCat Congratulations on gaining FA status for H.C. McNeile Great Work! CassiantoTalk 17:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm quite happy with that going through: at one stage I didn't think there was nearly enough material to do it, but I hit a rich vein of information at one stage and it was just the usual slog after that! Thanks very much for your much needed copy edits at various stages! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what you have or know about this but here are several links

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• The Phantom

I may add this to the list of abandoned film projects. - Fantr (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Hidden infoboxes that might interest you. I know you've had some heated debates about this in the past. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

While I am in favour of keeping infoboxes away from certain types of article where they are of no benefit, the thought of having to deal with all that pig swill again just leaves me cold! Hogwash! - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for cheering me up with the barnstar, it was perfect timing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,we have addressed your points in the FAC. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. But I could not understand how to implement using {{sfn}} template for bundled citations. Skyfall uses * and {{cite news}} template, which is a different convention. I have used bundling before in Ganesha, but that is without {{sfn}} template. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No probs - I've left a note about the {{sfnm}} format, which may be of use. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the guidance.Redtiger has bundled the footnotes where appropriate. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great: it looks a lot better for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

...has several reliable sources. Don't know if it's enough to warrant an article. I've begun a draft article at User:Fantr/Gladys Merredew Pitch in if you have the time or inclination. - Fantr (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What you have there already is enough for an article (notable individual, multiple sources etc), so its certainly a runner. I'll see what I can dig up by way of background etc. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the date of her death in the BL article. However the BL article says 30 January but you wrote February in the GM draft. - Fantr (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheer stupidity and an inability to do the most simple things at the moment! - SchroCat (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work on the Bond stuff! I added the Walther 2000 link to Living Daylights because we have a user who keeps trying to add it to the article on the rifle, where it is out of place as well. Do you think there would be much use for an article on "Firearms used by James Bond" or something of that nature? I notice there is no info in the Walther PP article where Bond's influence could rightfully go under the PPK section. I've spent my whole adult life in the Firearms Industry and the only people who seem to want a PPK are those that do so because of Bond or those that do so because it was Hitler's pistol! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thanks very much indeed! It's been a bit of a slog, but worth all the effort to get things to where they are now. There is a List of James Bond firearms (and a slightly less relevant List of James Bond gadgets). I've not even ventured into either of those pages, so I don't know how accurate they are or not, but I suspect they will have a fair amount of unsourced (but vaguely accurate) material in there - such is the path of fancruft! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Lansbury, on which you kindly commented on at PR, has now found his weary way to FAC, if you'd like to look. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll certainly be along there shortly for another run through and further comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I never even noticed the "view history" on pages; sorry! The details about the cut footage of M being in Dr. Noah's prison is from Cinema Retro #6, September, 2006 (UK magazine). It's got "Miss Goodthighs" on the cover. The article is by Lee Pfeiffer and Dave Worrall. It is an excellent article about the movie that covers other cut scenes as well. You can still get a copy of it (I think!) from cinemaretro.com. There's even a photo of M in chains in prison with Bond and Moneypenny. Well worth buying. As for your saying real people in fictional movies don't "count" as being the real people ... I understand what you are saying ... and I half-agree. Yes, Mata Hari was real; no, of course she never had a fictional character's daughter. But how far do we apply this? It is still Mata Hari, and the scene in the spy school does have a character telling Mata Bond that no one has been in a room there since her mother in 1916. There is a dead German soldier there, and he is dressed in WW I garb (not WW II). This lines up with the 1917 death. But my point is, when we see a 'real person' in a fictional movie, aren't we to assume certain details apply? For instance, if President Kennedy is mentioned in a fictional movie, we know who he is -- the president killed in 1963. If the holocaust is mentioned in a 'fictional film', we still know the holocaust really happened. Colonel Hogan (in HOGAN'S HEROES) isn't real, but WW II certainly was real. Is it wrong to guess that WW II ended in a TV series, like HOGAN, or COMBAT, exactly like it did (and when it did) in real life? Is it normal to assume that, in HOGAN, the Germans win WW II? Of course WW II ended in '45 in HOGAN or RAT PATROL or any movie or TV series, because it did end in '45 in reality. Look at ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER. Obviously Abe never fought vampires, but it makes sense to apply everything else we know about him to the movie Abe, including when & how he was killed. I could list a hundred other examples, but my point is Mata Hari died in 1917, in reality and (in my opinion) in any piece of fiction (unless otherwise stated, and it isn't stated otherwise in CASINO). When Bond mentions the Beatles in GOLDFINGER, it just makes sense to think he does mean the 'real' Beatles. Even though GOLDFINGER is fantasy. Mark Cuban recently 'attended' the 'funeral' of J.R. Ewing on the latest episode of DALLAS. A 'real person' attending the funeral of a fictional character ... but he is still Mark Cuban. Likewise, real-life principles of atomic bombs would apply to fantasy stories. Ever see a Civil War movie or TV program? The main characters are fictional (NORTH AND SOUTH, BLUE AND GREY, GONE WITH THE WIND, etc) but the Civil War was real, and is real even in the work of fiction. However, I do see your point; there's no Mata Bond in real life, lke there's no J.R., or no Scarlett O'Hara, etc. So I'm not saying you are wrong; in fact, when viewed this way, you are, of course correct. But real people are real, even in fiction, to a degree, at least. If a character on a fictional TV series lives in New York, it is natural to think that NY is NY, not a 'fictional NY'. If viewers don't go into a movie or TV show with some sense of 'knowing where we are', then every production ever made would have to explain every thing about their 'fictional world'. For instance, if SPIDER MAN is in a 'fictional NY', then maybe 9/11 didn't happen in his 'world' ... and maybe NY isn't in America, or if it is, it's a fictional 'America' with a different history (perhaps founded in 1850 and having only 33 states) ... on a different earth, with an entire different history. If every production had to go explain these things, there'd be no time left to tell a story. I guess my bottom line is this: Mata Hari IS Mata Hari ... in reality or in a work of fiction ... she still IS Mata Hari. So she died in 1917, even in fiction. At least that's my opinion, but I totally see your point and I agree there is enough conflict here not to put the edits back, so I won't. You certainly have made me rethink every movie and TV show ever made! And for that, and your kindness and intelligence, I thank you. My best, Abbythecat (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

As you point out somewhere in there, Mata Hari never had a daughter. Like Bond she is fictional and the "real world" timings do not apply in fiction. Additionally, to try and impose some form of logicality or sense on the madness that is Casino Royale is slightly self-defeating. There are 1,001 historical and scientific anomalies present in the film, which is why it is fictional. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If real world timings don't apply in fiction, then the viewer can assume any movie to be set at any time, is this what you are really saying? So a WW II movie can be set in 1990, or a Civil War movie can be set in 2013, if it is fiction? Thus GONE WITH THE WIND is set in the 1100s or any time? Sorry, I don't see it that way. You say trying to impose logic to this movie is self-defeating. I mean no offense, but isn't this your "opinion"? Haven't you drawn on your own "conclusions"? Did the producers ever say what you have about it? If so, please cite references. I really mean no disrespect, but fictional works can and do blend real-events into them. I believe this to be the case here. A fictional character may be in a fictional story about the holocaust, but the holocaust really happened, and it happened when it happened. If someone made a movie about the son of Hitler, all viewers would know the kid was born before 1945, the year Hitler died. That's just a fact, in non-fiction or fiction. I won't drag this out any longer, but I respect your replies, and thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC) PS: can I at least edit in the info about M being Noah's prisoner by referencing Cinema Retro #6? Or will it just be deleted (again!)?

Of course they can blend real life events, just as much as they can and do ignore reality for their own ends, which is why it is fiction and not a documentary. I tell you what, why don't you find a reliable source that discusses the age of Mata Hari's fictional daughter in this film and it can go in, otherwise it can't. If there is nothing in the reliable sources that discusses it in this film, then it's down to your original research and it shouldn't go in. If there is nothing about the age of the daughter in this film then the point is too minor to be included anyway. And funnily enough I read a book recently where Hitler was celebrating his 75th birthday in 1964: I took this to be fictional and not reality. And yes, of course the bit about M being a prisoner can go in, but please try and ensure a) it goes in the right section (not the plot, but production section) and b) you add the reliable source this time. If you don't cite reliable sources when adding information then things will always be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT, Abby. The point of the synopsis is to just convey the events of the film, not to commentate on the plot. It's not for us to speculate; after all, we don't point out the incongruity of Pierce Brosnan's age in his Bond films, do we? Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you -- I'll not edit the page again. Sorry. Abbythecat (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC). PS - I feel like Bambi at the end of BAMBI MEETS GODZILLA! Abbythecat (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

	The Bernard Lee award
	Where are my manners? A belated congratulations for your excellent work on "M's" filmography. A thorough and informative list on an actor we all knew very little about. Thank you...that's all 007. CassiantoTalk 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You're very kind! And yes, he's an intereting character with too little about him in the public domain: I hope that we spur a little more research into the character with at least the DNB putting something in place for him! - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold your breath. DNB seems to be devoid of all the little known interesting character actors unfortunately. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. - Fantr (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Abroad at the mo with limited access, but will get round to it soon. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this message because you were previously involved in dealing with this user at one of the articles described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Abroad at the mo with limited access, but will get round to it soon. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge! Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on April 8, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/April 8, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)