User:K1Bond007/Archive7

Welcome to the Archive!
If you'd like to leave me a new comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please click here.
Talk archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

James Bond

Rebooting Bond

I don't know about you, but some of the latest comments re Casino Royale haven't filled me with confidence. No Q? A movie like Sum of All Fears (which by all accounts was a terrible film)? I know people have been moaning for 20 years that Bond needs to change, but it looks to me as if it's changing into a clone of Bourne or Jack Ryan. They have to be careful how many Bond trappings are dropped, otherwise people will reject it. 23skidoo 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep an open mind, too, and it's not as if the film is being taken over by completely new hands. My concern is the last time EON tried to do a Bond that was faithful to Fleming, at least in terms of characterization, realistic trappings, etc., was License to Kill and a lot of people hated it. And if EON were to announce that Bond 22 was going to be a remake of Live and Let Die, then I'd say "cool, they're doing the books now" (though I doubt any of LALD would survive in today's political correctness). But odds are that isn't going to happen. I guess a lot will depend on who is cast. Goran Visnic would kill the franchise dead not due to any lack of ability but because British audiences would be in an uproar. I have no opinion on Daniel Craig having never seen any of his work. I had seen Clive Owen as an heir presumptive for some time, but he's too old for what they want to do. Likewise Jackman. Maybe all these concerns are for naught, but I fear Casino Royale is one heck of a gamble that could either reinvigorate the franchise like GoldenEye did or kill it like Man with the Golden Gun nearly did. 23skidoo 21:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that Bond is a sturdy franchise and has survived numerous predictions of its demise. But the death of the Star Trek franchise has shown that you can't really count on a franchise to stay in perpetuity. It could be argued that Nemesis was the OHMSS of the Trek movie series, and Enterprise for the TV series, but people turned their backs on Trek en mass in favor of stuff like Firefly and as a result, at least for the foreseeable future, that franchise dead in the water - and it had a 10-year break, whereas Bond has basically gone non-stop (except for the hiatus after LtK) for 43 years. If Casino Royale does the same thing to longtime Bond fans as Nemesis and ENT did to Trekkies (quality issues aside, a lot of people hated those two projects based on their concept alone), it may be years before we see another Bond movie ... and there's no guarantee it'll resemble the type of film that was so successful in the past. Me, my favorite Bonds are FYEO and From Russia, the two films that probably come closest to what Campbell has planned for Casino Royale. But FYEO was (for a Bond film) a dud at the box office, as was the similarly realistic-based Licence to Kill. I guess we have to cross our fingers that CR2006 becomes a classic like Russia rather than a film considered on the lower echelon (at least in terms of popularity if not quality) such as FYEO and LtK. 23skidoo 02:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

How much do you wanna bet that even after the new actor is announced there will STILL be anons trying to claim that Brosnan is coming back? 23skidoo 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Brosnan is the type of actor who I fully expect to still be working and still considered something of a sex symbol well into his senior years, just as Connery is. So I agree that there's no saying that 10 years from now he won't make another Bond film, or even 5 years from now. But I am not expecting to see him play the role in Casino Royale. Unless Campbell et al pull a fast one it'll probably be Daniel Craig. I actually have seen him before - he co-starred in the first Tomb Raider movie - and I remember he played a somewhat wormy sort in that film... 23skidoo 02:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sony and Casino Royale

I've started a section in the 2006 film article to discuss the reports that Sony may step in and put its foot down. Although I was just speculating when I made my comments re:Brosnan on the Talk page, the fact both ianfleming.org and The Times are reporting this possibility I think gives more credence to the idea than gossip speculation. I made it its own section because I feel the replacement search part was getting too long as it is, but if you can find a better place for it, please feel free. 23skidoo 13:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It hadn't even occurred to me that they might go for some sort of flashback. Question is whether Cavill looks enough like a young Brosnan for it to work. Actually it could make for an interesting story if the film keeps jumping back to the here and now. It also makes sense for Judi Dench to return -- though presumably a male M would appear in the flashback. It sounds a little bit too far-fetched ... but it might make everyone happy and if the fans like the younger Bond I could see further films featuring him in his earlier career. 23skidoo 03:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Bond search

The rewrite looks good. I'll give it a more thorough going over soon but even with some tweaks pending, I think it could be easily cut-and-pasted into the article if Craig (or whomever) is announced. If Craig gets it I wonder if that means the prequel idea is off? 23skidoo 23:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Argh! It's like putting a finger in a dyke to keep the water from flowing in. I'm actually kind of hoping it ends up being Cavill, just cuz. I am still skeptical that it'll be Craig because it'll fly in the face of the whole prequel notion as well as comments made by the screenwriter as recently as this week. I still think it'll be a surprise announcement and we'll end up with Craig playing the villain. 23skidoo 05:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've nothing against Craig either. I've only ever seen him in that Lara Croft movie and I thought he was alright, if a little wormy (but that was the character). If given the choice I'd still go with Clive Owen who I always saw as an heir presumptive, and if they aren't going to do the prequel (Craig being 37) they might as well go with the guy. But Craig has a Christopher Eccleston vibe going and Eccleston did wonders for Doctor Who, so I think he'll be an OK choice. I think everyone wants to be first out of the gate to name the new Bond and as a result people are jumping the gun. Even the talk page thread on the main article reveals some people were "confirming" craig as early as April. And I remember the news stories that Bana had been given the role last summer. I'll be glad when it's over and they can concentrate on making the darn film! Re:adminship -- I actually haven't had time to play around with the new toys yet. I'm editing a book and writing a bunch of newspaper stories, all due Friday, so I've only had time to do some "drive by Wikying" since I got back from a quick holiday earlier this week. Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to test drive a few things. 23skidoo 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Main article images

Do you know what coding to use to get the actor pictures in the main article into a 3x3 pattern? It looks a little lop-sided at present and when I tried to play around with the spacing all I got was some grief with the table below. 23skidoo 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the coding info. On my screen, I see five images on the first row, then Craig all by lonesome on the second row, off to the left which is why I feel it's lopsided. Are you seeing all 6 images on one line on your screen? PS. Looks like someone else tried a different tactic and simply made the images smaller. 23skidoo 03:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing Bond

Y'know, I'm waiting for the day when someone starts asking people to provide sources when they say the earth is round.(See the discussion/revert situation going on at the main Bond article). I ended up deleting one of my articles because a guy kept insisting I provide a source for a book synopsis when the book was the source. 23skidoo 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bond 22

Yeah we don't need a link yet (force of habit), but we should keep an eye open because if the CommanderBond.net article is correct EON might be planning a quick turn-around between Casino Royale and Bond 22 (maybe in hopes of retaining the "early Bond" idea?). If they announce a Bond 22 title even before CR comes out -- or even enters production, at this rate -- an article will be warranted. It'll be very interesting to see if EON decides to do a remake of Live and Let Die next. Although I doubt a "faithful" adaptation of the book is possible today it would be a strong sign that the powers that be are planning to follow the book series. 23skidoo 17:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Gunbarrel

I noticed the change but haven't had time to check it out. I'm concerned that it might be considered too specific and might attract AFD. I certainly don't think it needs to have its own article. Maybe the guy thought the main article was too long - I'm going to have to deal with the decimation of William S. Burroughs by a user who feels Wikipedia articles need to be no longer than print encyclopedia articles... Anyway if you want to undo what the fellow did re:gunbarrel I'm with you, unless the guy plans to add reams of info about the sequence. 23skidoo 18:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cecile de France

I see the rumor mill is moving fast and furious (I noted the thread at Commander Bond on this one). Actually I'm rooting for Cecile to get it. I don't know her work very well but I think she'd make a good choice anyway -- and one that wouldn't overshadow Craig. It would also be a nice return to the series using relatively obscure European actresses which was a hallmark of the films in the 1960s but fell off somewhat in later years. 23skidoo 15:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I decided to add a reference to the Dark Horizons (not IMDb) report to the unconfirmed cast section, before someone else goes and posts that she has already been cast in the part... 23skidoo 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Men who would be Bond

You probably saw the Commander Bond feature in which they "officially" unveil what they believe to be the finalists list for Bond. Aside from having a few names that aren't included in the search timeline, CB's article apparently debunks that the likes of Owen, Jackman, etc. were ever even considered. How much stock do you put in this? If this is accurate, maybe the Search Timeline can be trimmed with the likes of Owen, Jackman, McGregor, etc. reduced to "rumor only". Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Moneypenny

I just added a bit of info to The Moneypenny Diaries article since Weinberg has given a timeline for the second volume. I think the article should be moved to The Moneypenny Diaries: Guardian Angel at some point since that's the full title of the book according to the CB.NET article, though I've yet to see the book myself. 23skidoo 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect to see the book for awhile unless someone imports it. It's possible CB is going by an unofficial title ... or maybe the subtitle was given to it after the fact now that it's been established as being fiction. The subtitle seemed official enough to warrant using, but if it turns out to be incorrect it's easy enough to fix. I think there should be separate articles on the different books eventually, just to be consistent with how we're treating the other books, but I don't see this as being an issue until official information about the second book, such as its title, becomes available (just as we didn't do a separate entry on Blood Fever until it was announced, as well). 23skidoo 21:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with having the movie series determine what's canon or not (regarding Moneypenny's first name). I think the changes should remain. If that means naming Dench's M Barbara Mawdsley I'd support that since odds are slim that the film series will contradict it. There's a difference between this and, say, speculating over the name of the Robert Brown M which has never been confirmed either in print or on film - the physical description of M in Gardner's books is closer to Bernard Lee, so even that can't be a firm indicator one way or the other). I won't lose any sleep over this, but I think once it's in a licenced book it should be considered official -- at least when it comes to something relatively minor like this. I know that opens a can of worms regarding Pearson's book which is contradicted by Higson re: birthplace, etc. but in some respects one could say that Higson was committing a continuity error rather than coming up with a new continuity. Cheers. 23skidoo 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor character wikilinking

I just noticed the wikilinking of minor characters in the FYEO article and elsewhere. I hope someone isn't planning to write a ton of stubs. (PS. You'll be happy to know I finally did an archive on my talk page so it's not the zoo it was yesterday). 23skidoo 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the way around it is to create a minor characters page for the entire series, broken down by film (let's not worry about the books), and then create redirects for every minor character that leads to that page. It's a lot of work but a redirect might discourage someone creating a stub article who isn't aware it's already covered. Any character who appears in more than one movie gets his/her own article, and the rest are included in the minor characters list. I know elements of this already exist. 23skidoo 19:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. We should try and keep character descriptions to no more than a short paragraph since the movie/book articles themselves cover the plotlines. For example, for Tee Hee Johnson (already the subject of a stub), we could just roll the existing text into his entry -- it's about the right length. There's no need to use the infobox on his page for any but recurring characters. 23skidoo 20:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Argh. I just noticed there's now a whackload of character articles for everyone who appeared in World is Not Enough. I guess I spoke too soon. 23skidoo 06:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Book images

We don't need 3 book images. Although I originally did the scans of the mid-60s Pans, I'll be the first to tell you the late 50s-early 60s editions are more attractive (I'm collecting them myself). Where there's a third image, I'd say keep the most recent image as the main pic as is, keep the newly-uploaded earlier edition (presumably those being added by the anon), and delete the later version I scanned. Since the "early Pan" versions only go up to FYEO, I don't suspect this will be an issue for any of the other books. If someone starts scanning the movie editions of Thunderball, etc., then we can move those into the film section. I'd recommend checking the new image files, however, to make sure they are properly marked otherwise they could just end up being delated. If someone uploads the Pan edition of Colonel Sun (I have one but it's too beat up to scan) I'm fine with it replacing the girl-with-gun cover version. 23skidoo 15:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bond 5?

That anon who insists on adding Rikki Lee Travolta to the main Bond article has added a bunch of stuff to other actor articles identifying them as being part of "The Bond 5" who were frontrunners for the role. This is news to me but I wanted a second opinion before I reverted him. See [1] 23skidoo 15:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling the anon is making a run for the 3RR on this. 23skidoo 16:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal fun

What is it with people insisting on putting nonsense names on the main Bond article? Is there any way of locking down parts of the article but not all of it? This is getting nutty. I've actually blocked a few anons today -- including a very troublesome school IP that kept putting nonsense onto a number of pages on my watchlist. Oh for the day when only registered users can edit (then again, look what happened to my userpage -- that wasn't an anon!) 23skidoo 22:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

Looks good to me, and it pretty much conforms with what I've been doing, except that I generally only put (TV series) if a title is likely to need disambiguation. For example, I saw no need to put the (TV series) tag next to Holmes & Yo-Yo. 23skidoo 00:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember what you had put earlier, but I agree like-named series could be problematic. One possible solution to including the date would be to use the dates of production (so Lassie might be Lassie (1954-1972) or whatever). Problem is then you'll have some literal-minded types complaining that it doesn't include foreign broadcasts or something. Alternately you could use the network (Lassie (NBC series)) but that might make things difficult in the case of syndicated or otherwise off-network production (or foreign programs). I think saying case-by-case is probably the best way to go on this one. Incidentally, if you reply check out the comment made by another editor under "References". Although well-intentioned this guy basically says that every statement made in an article needs to be completely sourced - even if you're writing about a book or just tossing in trivia. I don't have time to take on huge research projects every time I want to information I've gathered over my 36+ years. I actually followed his implied advice and removed all non-sourced material from an article I created for a book called Exterminator! and ended up with a substub and a picture. Attractive article now. Maybe it was a bit childish but I think it's unworkable to have to cite every single comment which is what this guy says you have to do. Nothing would get written. Another reason why I mention this is because the guy seems to be on a {{verify}} kick and could start cluttering up the Bond articles with that tag. 23skidoo 13:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Half-Life 2

I was wondering if you could look over Half-Life 2 and comment about it on the article's talk page. A while ago, you did comment on it and its been a few months and I think its a much better article now. I'll probably re-submit it for FAC sometime later (dunno when), but whenever you have time, I would appreciate it. Thunderbrand 02:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up some of the article and listing what needs done. I'll work on it throughout the week as well. Thunderbrand 15:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just about done with fixing the page up. Those images I changed were one of the last things that I wanted to get done. I added a rationale for all the images. I just looked at the images used in Super Mario 64 and Katamari Damacy, since they are both featured articles, so I think the rationales are ok. I dunno what to add to the screenshot of the Steam menu, though. However, I looked at the Windows XP article, which is a FA, and they don't even have rationales. If there is anything else in the article that needs changed or something, feel free to say so. Also, should the article be peer reviewed again? Thunderbrand 23:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on the talk page. Yesterday I was upset that it failed, especially because of a couple of those oppose votes I said about. I'm more interested now in re-applying it for a 3rd time (although not for a little while). The FAC process I think, after trying 2 times, has brought out the ugly side in Wikipedia for me. I mean, jeez, what more do these people want? I was going to make a few "harsh" comments about the oppose votes, but doing that would have hurt the nomination even more. But I won't let it get to me. Thanks again. Thunderbrand 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

History/Merges

In general, I have two principles:

Never discard any edit which actually involved content (as opposed to, say redirects and/or notices such as {rfd}, etc); Wikipedia:Copyright makes this pretty critical.
Keep histories in a usable form (i.e. so that diffs show the actual evolution). This may sometimes involve archiving an article, rather than merging the histories.

I generally only merge histories when there has been a simple cut-and-paste, and it's pretty easy to see a sequence of edits in one history prior to time T (and then unrelated stuff - redirs, etc - afterwards), and another sequences of edits after time T in another history.

I assume you're asking because of Lost (TV series). A bit of a mess! To (mostly) reproduce a comment I stuck in Talk:Lost (2004 television series):

The article now at "Lost (2004 television series)" was started on 20:16, 21 September 2004 (at "Lost (television drama)", I think, and moved from there to "Lost (ABC TV series", and thence to the current location). A duplicate article had already been started on 04:00, 23 August 2004 at "Lost (TV series)", and at 18:52, 5 November 2004 that second article was merged into the first one. The second page was turned then into a disambig.

So I don't think there's any call/need for a history merge here; in fact, I would say it's positively contra-indicated, because doing so would be really confusing because the two edit histories would overlap (and be intermingled) for the time period between 20:16, 21 September 2004 and 18:52, 5 November 2004. I would recommend keeping that history separate, and then putting a notice that material was merged, and a pointer to it, in the talk: page of the article itself (whether at "Talk:Lost (2004 television series)", or wherever it winds up).

That history (of the merged article) could be handled in one of several ways, depending on what's going to happen with the disambiguation page. (I see we already have a disambiguation page at Lost, so there may not be a use for the disambiguation page now at Lost (TV series).)

One is simply to keep it together with the history of the disambiguation page, and archive the whole works somewhere in a separate location (perhaps Talk:Lost (2004 television series)/Merged, or some such similar location - best to let the page location settle first).
If some use if found for the dab page, the history of the merged article could be left there, too.
You could separate the two separate histories (the disambig, and the merged article), and archive that of the merged article in a separate location (as above); the disambig you could then either use, or discard.

If you've never done this last, it's simple: delete the joined article, undelete the versions which belong to the merged article, move the resulting article (and history) wherever you're going to archive them, and then either undelete the dab page page history remaining at the old name, and move it out of there, or just leave it deleted.

Please let me know if I can help in any way. Noel (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'm not sure any of these are simple; they're mostly about this complicated! :-) But anyway, I'd be happy to do it if you want.

Also, I see from a recent comment that in fact maybe it wasn't a merge, but a cut-n-paste after all. Sigh... Have to do some more checking before doing anything. Noel (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, how about I just straighten out the histories, and then you can do any renaming for them? Noel (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh! :-) I'll reply at the article's talk page, since this issue is of general interest. Can I stick a copy of your initial comment there, so it will make sense when I post my reply (or you can do it yourself, if you prefer)? Noel (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, all done. I'll leave the renaming up to you. (And don't forget you're going to have to move Archive0[123] too. My apologies in advance if I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs!)

You're going to have to do something with the history now at Lost (TV series) before you can move Lost (2004 television series) there; rather than simply deleting it, you might want to check to see if you want to move it to Talk:Lost/Old, and leave a pointer to it on Talk:Lost, since I have a sneaky suspicion that the page at Lost was originally a clone of the one at Lost (TV series). (I don't have the energy to check! :-) Still, if you check, and the dab page at Lost pre-dates the one at Lost (TV series), you can probably just delete the latter.

I didn't do anything with the /draft page; as I explained at Talk:Lost (2004 television series), that was just too hairy even for me! Noel (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move: game tester -> game testing

Your participation is requested at Talk:Game tester. Thank you. Adraeus 22:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now it's my turn!

I've been nominated for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/23skidoo. Looks promising so far! I can't believe I've been hanging around here for so long! 23skidoo 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought what the heck. Plus I've pretty much been doing admin-like things lately anyway! (And maybe there's less chance of me becoming collateral damage next time my IP number gets blocked too...). I figured I'd give it a shot. 23skidoo 02:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Then again, I'm not even an admin yet and I have some guy swearing at me and calling me arrogant because I insisted on him sourcing a POV comment he made in, of all places, Mary Poppins (ultimately it resulted in some good material being generated by other users). Oh well, guess you gotta have a thick skin sometimes. If you reply, dig the non-message the guy left me. Seesh. PS. Saw the spotlight on Thunderball - mission accomplished! 23skidoo 21:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't swear at you. It was not POV it was a fact. Jooler 21:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Lost entry

You've reverted my edit to the Lost page (numbers section), noting that you believe my edit/addition was speculatory.

It was not. On the contrary I felt it explained why speculatory entries were not to be included on Wikipedia, yet detailed where they could be found - if wanted. The aim of my edit/entry was to satisfy the curiosity of those searching for 'lost number' theories. I carefully read your discussion pages and decided to word it as I did (including external links) in order to satisfy interested readers, but also to try to avert further edits.

If you don't like my wording that's fine and feel free to change it, but I would recommend saying something similar to the edit I made - or else I suspect you will be forever deleting people's edits.

Kind regards to you Rebecca

Alias page

The image with all the characters was deleted in the infobox. I guess it had a {{nosource}} tag on it. Should there be an image of one of the DVD boxes or a new image? Thunderbrand 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lost revert

Hi K1Bond007, seems that I was mistaken about my revert, so I'll unrevert my revert. :P

I assumed that you were reverting the wrong version (but I noticed the big time gap), but I have to admit your edit summary was somewhat confusing and could've been clearer. The previous edit by an anon was "removing vandalism" and I thought "reverting possible vandalism" referred to the vandalism two edits earlier.

Likewise, an edit summary saying "Reverted edits by 84.246.49.222 to last version by Yamla" or an extra note about "No such Skyplanet 5 Lebanon TV station found through Google" would've eliminated any confusion. Thanks for pointing out my mistake though. Cheers! --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Man who was "M"

Sure, a book that was published last year that dealt in some depth on his life and carrear. I'll look around for it and see what I can come up with. Mind you, I think I may have confused the relevant British security forces. By the way, this is a damm cool page you've got here. Nice one! Fergananim 00:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bond, just to get back to you on the above: the book is "M: MI5's First Spymaster", by Andrew Cook, published 2004; ISBN 0 7524 2896 9. Fergananim 17:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd^(?!?) 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Finest Hour image

I was going to delete Image:Finest hour01.jpg, but i noticed you uploaded it originally, so I'll let you decide if it can go in the article or to be deleted by yourself. Thunderbrand 15:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

English-born James Bond actors

Hi there. What is the significance of the distinction you're making about where the various actors were born, as compared with their nationality? So what if Timothy Dalton was born in Wales? He had English parents, he's spent almost all his life in England, and he is indisputably an English actor. I know this section is about "trivia", but it seems you're making it even more trivial than it needs to be. What if Connery just happened to have been born in Finland, or Lazenby in New Zealand, or Craig in Peru? They'd still be considered Scottish, Australian and English actors respectively. Cheers JackofOz 06:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know about Bond being Scottish in the Ian Fleming novels. They were written well before Connery came on the scene, so I don't see how they could have been written "in hommage" to Connery. I think the point is that Bond is a British secret agent who works for MI5, which is a British organisation. It is not specifically English, just because its headquarters happen to be in London. The relevance of the actors who play Bond being English, as opposed to Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish, escapes me. All of the actors who've played Bond have been British, except for Lazenby, an Australian. The bullet probably deserves a good Christian burial. Cheers JackofOz 06:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're spot on about Pierce Brosnan, thanks. That's something I've learned today about him (and he's not even Irish anymore, he's American). We'll have to agree to disagree about the British/English thing. Cheers JackofOz 07:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

XSoD merge

I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Shannon Rutherford problem

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that there's this new editor at the Shannon Rutherford page who's introducing speculation, which I removed, and which he then returns to the page while claiming I'm not NPOV. His entry, which he also added at the page for Sawyer (and his own edit summary admits is speculation) and mine follow:

His entry: Shannon was shot in the chest by Ana-Lucia in Abandoned while she was chasing Walt with Sayid. She was mistaken by Ana-Lucia as being one of 'the others'. Although it is not known if she is dead or alive, the teasers have said that one person will be lost forever in this episode. However, this could also refer to Sawyer who passed out while travelling through the jungle and had to be carried on a stretcher until his group heard whispers and bolted. Due to the title of the episode and the fact that Sawyer was abandoned by the group, it is very likely that Sawyer is the one who will be lost even though he is among the most popular characters on the show.

My entry: Shannon was shot in the chest by Ana-Lucia in Abandoned while she was chasing Walt with Sayid. She was mistaken by Ana-Lucia as being one of 'the others'. It is not yet known if she will survive her wounds.

As far as I can tell, my entry was both NPoV and non-speculative. I'm not about to start an edit war, but I do feel that being badmouthed in an edit summary (which reads "reverted to previous version due to editor's lack of NPOV"), especially after I've worked very hard to keep the pages NPoV, is an insult and an infringement of the Wikipedia etiquette policy. I'm coming to you, since you're an admin I'm familiar with and trust to provide some advice on how to proceed. Thanks. Baryonyx 08:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: seems to have been resolved. If you have any comments about anything, please feel free to add them. Thanks! Baryonyx 09:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)