This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Any luck? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I see you've discoverd my current project. It should be peer-reviewable by the weekend, and I'll drop you a line then. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why, according to your opinion, he received the title '1ste Marquess of Linlithgow' and not 'Marquess of Linlithgow' (see London Gazette). And, why the title should not be in bold.
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Which part of that manual? If you could tell me that, I would be very thankful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
− *( talk page stalker) - When you come back from your block, see MOS:BOLD, which clearly is against the use you were promoting. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought you may be interested in knowing that Guinness World Records has confirmed that Skyfall has beaten Thunderball, adjusted for inflation. They have Skyfall's gross down as $1.108 bilion and Thunderball down at $1.047 billion. Obviously, different adjustment methods can lead to different estimates but Guinness is usually regarded as authoritative in the matter of world records. I was going to update the articles myself, but there isn't an obvious insertion point in the Skyfall article so I opted to let you integrate the content if you'd prefer. The citation is:
Betty Logan ( talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks Betty! I'll get onto that shortly. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice you've reverted my deletion of the DOB in the main copy 'as per PR'. I don't know what this means. But the DOB is always quoted in the lede, as the natural reference point. So it is unnecessary to quote it elsewhere. It is a purely mechanical detail, not a value judgment. Valetude ( talk) 08:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I have somewhere - equally lost in the heaps of stuff chez Riley as the Horne tape I promised and failed to deliver - a tape of an interview with Sir Ralph and Sir John in which the latter cheerfully admitted that his attempts at accents when playing the disguised Holmes were the subject of impersonations at theatrical parties: "Bring the coals up, matey!" in impeccable Oxford English. Something he and Kenneth Horne had in common. Tim riley ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You've had a bit of a dabble at this – have you time to look in a bit more detail, at the peer review? I'd be very grateful. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll keep that in mind about their relationship. But the reason I changed the thing about her having a small part in the films is because her part in Skyfall seems like more than just a small part since it's a main role. Seems better for it to say "Although she has a small part in most films..." rather than "Although she has a small part in the films..." Would it be acceptable to change just that part back? Survivorfan1995 ( talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
After my most stimulating and comprehensive PR ever, I have Ralph Richardson up at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley ( talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your most helpful edits and your encouragement. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 22:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Schro, I was wondering if you could be so kind as to drop by my PR of Drama dari Krakatau, open here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Ian Fleming. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled " Ian Fleming". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because there is no talk page discussion on the issue as required by DRN. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! ----Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
For the success at Kenneth Horne, an article much worthy of it its new Featured status. Congratulations! Cassianto Talk 00:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there!
In stead of deleted information that just got added merely because references are lacking, could you simply ask for adding the references? Because right now you're being counterproductive.
In the case of the James Bond article, users could simply enter into the full article of the mentioned games to find all the information and references needed, which was why I originally didn't mention the references.
Thank you, Jurjenb ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Jurjenb: In future you need to add references when adding information: that is a rather basic point on Wikipedia. It is just not acceptable to put in unreferenced information into articles: that is counterproductive. It is also unacceptable to expect readers to go to a different page to see references. Furthermore, when you do add references into an article, please retain a consistent approach to the dating format. I now have to go in to ensure this is done properly. Again, that is counterproductive. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! This is a note to inform you that Drama dari Krakatau, which you have previously reviewed at the GA or PR level, has been nominated for featured article status. If you wish to revisit the article, your comments would be welcomed at the nomination page. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
template TFA mercy
| ||
---|---|---|
|
Wholly concur with you, SchroCat, about TFA. Why put oneself through the battering and bullying from the Gotta Have an Idiot Box fanatics? I too, I regret to say, am keeping the articles I have steered to FA hermetically secret, as far as I can, for that very reason. Tim riley ( talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Brief courtesy message to let you know that Profumo is now at FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No no, I didn't know there was a thing about not having an infobox for his page. I saw you remove it the first time but that was when it only had occupation and birth date, I figured if it had more then it could stay. But Dr. Blofeld warned me about adding one back. No edit war, just wasn't aware :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"Sacred music" is a standard term, so is "sacred cantata" (vs. "secular cantata"), - please see Bach cantata and Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. It doesn't say "holy", although some would go that far for Bach ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Schro, I was polishing up our article on the Streatham portrait in preparation for a run at FAC, and was wondering if you could be so kind as to participate in the peer review? No worries if you are too busy. Thanks beforehand. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for rescuing the article from my hamfisted copying and pasting. Phew! Tim riley ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E.W. Hornung may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You Only Live Twice (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsai Chin ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
On 23 February 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article E.W. Hornung, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that E.W. Hornung based his characters A.J. Raffles and Bunny Manders on the partnerships of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, and of Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/E.W. Hornung. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you reverted my edit, I think it would be nice if you weighed-in here with your thoughts. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat! Since u have been a regular contributor to Bond-related articles, I thought I might notify u of an "Articles for deletion" discussion over at the Octopussy (character) article. I'd love to have your input! Survivorfan1995 ( talk) 06:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat! I am SleepwalkerPM. I was wondering why you deleted my addition to High Tension. I watched the movie again hoping to debunk the the criticism I had recently read in both Roger Ebert's review and a subsequent article listing the movie among the top movies with major plot holes. Reviewing the movie confirmed my suspicion that their are no plot holes. My contribution was intended to disabuse potential viewers of Ebert's apocryphal statement. I did not want this to discourage people from watching the movie.
If you will not allow my contribution to will you support my deletion of Ebert's quote. Thank you SleepwalkerPM — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepwalkerPM ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Go off and do something more constructive with your time, these tables are on almost every major actors awards page List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Denzel_Washington, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Leonardo_DiCaprio, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Laurence_Olivier, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Tom_Hanks, , List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Johnny_Depp, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Robert_De_Niro. etc etc etc etc etc why single one out how bloody childish you may as well go on delete about 50 other actor article with the same tables if you feeling that vindictive.-- Navops47 ( talk) 07:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Was this an edit conflict or...? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
this edit is entirely inaproprate. You cannot edit a third party's comments on an editors talk page that is not your own. See WP:TALK "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; " CombatWombat42 ( talk) 23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I reported an unrelated vandal and noticed this odd-looking removal of your entry there. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 09:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
So, writer or actor next, eh? Me? Film... again. I've got Tjioeng Wanara up for PR here, and I would be much obliged if you could drop by and have a look. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been going round the talk pages of long-suffering Wikicolleagues soliciting their comments at the peer review, which I opened this morning. It seems almost impertinent to invite you, as we have been familiar visitors at each other's Gielgudian pages over the past month, but I suspect, and certainly hope, you will want to wade in with comments. Tim riley ( talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone just created this Template, but as I understand it, only one of Jackie Evancho's singles was released officially (maybe I'm wrong, as I don't really understand "singles"). Does the Template make sense? Should it be combined with her main template? You can see it, for example, at the bottom of Prelude to a Dream. Thanks for any advice or help! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I took the portal links out by mistake. ...William 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support. I believe consensus at WP:Ireland makes it clear... Any chance you could give this a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Enid Blyton/archive1? Hoping to get this core article up to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of E. W. Hornung and yes to FA status recently. If you would like to see these (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate them at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the articles may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know.
Having said that, I remember your recent comments at another venue. If you can think of ways to improve the TFA experience, my talk page / inbox is always open. Best wishes, Bencherlite Talk 10:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Considering Deepika Padukone, Weather Machine and Cyclone Rewa this year, and Paul Kagame last year were also affected by these technical issues, this tool is helpful. At least it puts a number rather than an "we don't know". © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your efforts to promote E.W. Hornung to FA. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Nice to get a largely forgotten author up above his more-famous brother-in-law! - SchroCat ( talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ring Cinema chose not to redact the ridiculous accusations of sockpuppetry regarding your account an mine, so I have opened a case at AN/I. You can find it at the following link: [3]. Participate/comment if you'd like. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
My past experience with the dissenting editor is that he is a master baiter and will not back down. The more anyone not on his side talks, the more he will use what you say against you. Consensus is the best course of action. Arguing with him gets you/me/anyone nowhere. He seems to love the back and forth and word-sparring. My opinion is that he seeks to wear his opponent down so he will "win" by default. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Winkelvi's absolutely spot on in his perception of this. He's lost all credibility on here and he's contradicted himself on many occasions. Now he's trying to look as if he's being reasonable and trying to get Aymatth and Erik to sympathise with him as if he's genuinely concerned about themes. Basically I think it really comes down to the fact that he cannot accept that other people want to expand the lead of "his" article not that he really has severe issues with the themes. He's ignored Erik's question three times. Now he's looking for sympathy and apologies which is quite pathetic. He doesn't stand a chance of getting his own way with it and should on the 20 March when it is unlocked he start making a hash of the article it's pretty obvious that either it's going to be locked again or he is blocked. If he's half as intelligent as he thinks he is he'll walk away from this and get on with something useful. I suspect that he won't do so. Honestly Schrod I don't think it's worth even worth responding to him anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. The Observer became the Guardian's sister paper in 1993. You cannot call it that in a prior context, surely... Mezigue ( talk) 22:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel I am being persecuted on the grounds of having a different opinion! That's hardly fair! Jdogno5 ( talk) 00:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope: for not using the talk page and for edit warring. SEVEN reverts on a page against three editors is unacceptable. THAT'S why you've been reports for edit warring. - SchroCat ( talk) 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You mind explaining to me what's wrong with the last revision I created for Space Jam? Jdogno5 ( talk) 10:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " License to Kill". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, although the word may be American in origin, there is still a reasonable amount of info which suggests that British English uses an 's'. Thanks, Mat ty. 007 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Glad (but not the smallest bit surprised) to see Gielgud's roles and awards given their own gold star. It's as fine a piece of work as Wikipedia – or anyone else – has to offer. Tim riley ( talk) 08:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Why would you combine the two when he clearly has enough credits for two separate pages? You said it needs to be discussed properly but I don't see anywhere where you discussed it properly before deciding on your own to combine the two. There are tons of actors who have 3 separate pages, Tom Hanks, Robert Downey Jr, Denzel Washington, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Seth MacFarlane, Vanessa Redgrave, Benedict Cumberbatch, I could go on. The way it was looked sloppy, having 3 separate pages helps reduce the clutter and text size of each article, plus you had a filmography with all the awards ON TOP of an entire awards thing. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've now nominated Imogen at FAC. I will certainly keep an eye out for the Tranby Croft article; all I'll say at the moment is that I don't think Edward was a grandfather at the time of the scandal, though he may have been by the court case the following year – I'm sure you'll monitor the dates. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I know you keep most James Bond articles up to date, but did you notice in Casino Royale (2006 film) there are a few dead links (since long)? And A View to a Kill has a few tags? Kailash29792 ( talk) 06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
To Lord Gavin of SchroCat, some fellows have been beckoned to Sir George's office, where your attendance would be very much appreciated. Sir George does expect some harsh comments, a few home truths, a lot of scandal, and the airing of some consistently controversial views. Don't worry though, he does claim to be the Prime Minister, so it goes with the job! Cassianto talk 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of the tag team ng attacks on everyone who dares to have a different point of view on this: we've all given our thoughts and opinions in the discussion section, but as soon as the name goes in the !vote section, they queue up to berate, bludgeon and attack. My AGF on this is stretched thin (certainly on two of the participants) and it is beginning to look like a co-ordinated attempt to ensure that anyone else would be unwilling to add their name for fear of also receiving such an aggressive response. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite agree. This sort of thing is one of the most annoying things about wikipedia, as well as "pseudo experts" who do bugger all to improve wikipedia and sit around moaning about the efforts of others..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gavin, I'm pleased to meet you. You have most forcefully requested backup of the "rubber stamp" statement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Tephrosia_apollinea, so here I am. You mentioned misquoting, but I believe the quotes were exact, to the letter, and links were provided. Is that not correct? My description was also a very fair one of what actually happened there. No, of course the words "rubber stamp" were not used by the participants (nor did I say they were), but any softer interpretation of that interchange would really be less than honest. Were you aware that they were previously friends, and that Jaguar had reviewed, or had been asked to review seven articles for Dr. B. during the last month? You know that the GA reviewers are supposed to be impartial, and that there is a set arrangement at Wikipedia (imperfect yes) to submit and wait? Did you know about Dr. B. going around that arrangement and even withholding a nomination until the best hour for Jaguar his friend to swoop in and get the review? That doesn't sound a little less than impartial to you??? C'mon man, please consider if your friendship could possibly be clouding your critical thinking. There is no way to actually check references and check for broad coverage in a plant article (unless you were a plant supergenius) in just a few minutes. If someone asks for this kind of review from a friend and says it should only take a few minutes, that is actually asking for a rubber stamp review! That is exactly what happened. He was basically telling Jaguar to trust him that all the sources had been exhausted (although he was mistaken), and Jaguar did just trust him by providing what he described himself as the "world's fastest GA review". I encourage you to look closer. Best wishes, and good editing. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 00:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Tom Hulse: In fact for many articles like Aalborg I've requested reviewers to review them who I know will conduct a vigorous review because a thorough although not excessive review at GAN can put it in better standing later on for a possible FA. Arguing that I couldn't care less about the quality of the review is completely unfair and reveals a lack of understanding in a lot of the work that goes into wikipedia from myself and some of the editors I frequently review for and vice versa. I see GAN as an important process in wikipedia's development and I prefer a decent amount of criticism. I ask for people to review them because as Schro says it can sometimes take half a year before anybody will look at them and I trust most of the people I ask to conduct a fair and constructive review. At the time, yes, my assessment of having found all the sources I could find was true as I didn't have access to JSTOR, and I said that the review shouldn't take too long to do given the length not that he should pass it without a proper review. Stop twisting my words. And I asked Jaguar to review two films articles, one of which he'd expressed earlier interest in reviewing, and only one article on the culture of the Cook islands which had been at GAN for a while and hadn't been picked up aside from the plant article, hardly seven articles in the last month anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You might want to comment on this proposal re infobox length. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've managed to get off my butt and grab the biography I've had sitting on my bookshelf since December. D. Djajakusuma is up for PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/D. Djajakusuma/archive1, and I would be most obliged if you could take a look. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat,
I have noticed that you seem to be the public conscience of British popular performance (and other arts) on Wikipedia and I have not wished to dispute what you would think best for a Wikipedia reading public.
I have today broadened the page to
Albert Parker (director) at this editing mark >
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Albert_Parker_%28director%29&oldid=605571700
It has been completely annulled by an another person.
Could you have a look at what I broadened the article out into ?
The three paragraph quote from the James Mason reference book gives authentic referencing to Al Parker's life in the USA and in England, I think.
I will leave it with you.
regards, -- Laurencebeck ( talk) 08:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Laurence, I think you're right that the paragraphs are pertinent, but unfortunately the way of including the information isn't. We can't just drop in large chunks of text from other sources, even if we do point to the source. We need to rewrite the information in our own words, and then add the citation to show from where it comes. Use the information from the source, by all means, but not the words. I hope this helps. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr. SchroCat - Thank you for your restrained and constructive edits to Bank War. 36hourblock ( talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For a brief while in the late 1970s, the beloved actor J. Le Mez was eclipsed in public attention by an overweight carpet salesman of the same name. He was one of those accused with the politician Jeremy Thorpe of conspiracy to murder, in a cause célèbre that immedeiately preceded the arrival in power of Mrs Thatcher. A rather less appealing Le Mez, I'm bound to say. I've written up the whole tawdry tale as another in my "political scandal" series: the Thorpe affair, now at peer review. Any comments there would be welcome. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Goldeneye scene filmed in the Swiss Alps
I gave two sources imdb and the other one I cant remember off the top of my head but is on my previous edit summary. That should be enough evidence. Since I cannot put a reference on the device I am on I kindly ask you to do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.229.27 ( talk) 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
How will I know if the site I find is reliable. There isnt exactly a lot of information on this scene on the internet btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
Could you check the site out then : http://www.themoviedistrict.com/goldeneye/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.229.27 ( talk) 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly object to this move to a "proper title". There is no consensus for such a move is there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, just a note to let you know of Sir George's FAC which has just been listed. Thanks again for all your help at the PR! Cassianto talk 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Any luck? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I see you've discoverd my current project. It should be peer-reviewable by the weekend, and I'll drop you a line then. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why, according to your opinion, he received the title '1ste Marquess of Linlithgow' and not 'Marquess of Linlithgow' (see London Gazette). And, why the title should not be in bold.
thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Which part of that manual? If you could tell me that, I would be very thankful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecOostmalle ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
− *( talk page stalker) - When you come back from your block, see MOS:BOLD, which clearly is against the use you were promoting. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought you may be interested in knowing that Guinness World Records has confirmed that Skyfall has beaten Thunderball, adjusted for inflation. They have Skyfall's gross down as $1.108 bilion and Thunderball down at $1.047 billion. Obviously, different adjustment methods can lead to different estimates but Guinness is usually regarded as authoritative in the matter of world records. I was going to update the articles myself, but there isn't an obvious insertion point in the Skyfall article so I opted to let you integrate the content if you'd prefer. The citation is:
Betty Logan ( talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks Betty! I'll get onto that shortly. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice you've reverted my deletion of the DOB in the main copy 'as per PR'. I don't know what this means. But the DOB is always quoted in the lede, as the natural reference point. So it is unnecessary to quote it elsewhere. It is a purely mechanical detail, not a value judgment. Valetude ( talk) 08:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I have somewhere - equally lost in the heaps of stuff chez Riley as the Horne tape I promised and failed to deliver - a tape of an interview with Sir Ralph and Sir John in which the latter cheerfully admitted that his attempts at accents when playing the disguised Holmes were the subject of impersonations at theatrical parties: "Bring the coals up, matey!" in impeccable Oxford English. Something he and Kenneth Horne had in common. Tim riley ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You've had a bit of a dabble at this – have you time to look in a bit more detail, at the peer review? I'd be very grateful. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll keep that in mind about their relationship. But the reason I changed the thing about her having a small part in the films is because her part in Skyfall seems like more than just a small part since it's a main role. Seems better for it to say "Although she has a small part in most films..." rather than "Although she has a small part in the films..." Would it be acceptable to change just that part back? Survivorfan1995 ( talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
After my most stimulating and comprehensive PR ever, I have Ralph Richardson up at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley ( talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your most helpful edits and your encouragement. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 22:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Schro, I was wondering if you could be so kind as to drop by my PR of Drama dari Krakatau, open here. Any input would be greatly appreciated. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Ian Fleming. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled " Ian Fleming". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because there is no talk page discussion on the issue as required by DRN. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! ----Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
For the success at Kenneth Horne, an article much worthy of it its new Featured status. Congratulations! Cassianto Talk 00:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there!
In stead of deleted information that just got added merely because references are lacking, could you simply ask for adding the references? Because right now you're being counterproductive.
In the case of the James Bond article, users could simply enter into the full article of the mentioned games to find all the information and references needed, which was why I originally didn't mention the references.
Thank you, Jurjenb ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Jurjenb: In future you need to add references when adding information: that is a rather basic point on Wikipedia. It is just not acceptable to put in unreferenced information into articles: that is counterproductive. It is also unacceptable to expect readers to go to a different page to see references. Furthermore, when you do add references into an article, please retain a consistent approach to the dating format. I now have to go in to ensure this is done properly. Again, that is counterproductive. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! This is a note to inform you that Drama dari Krakatau, which you have previously reviewed at the GA or PR level, has been nominated for featured article status. If you wish to revisit the article, your comments would be welcomed at the nomination page. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
template TFA mercy
| ||
---|---|---|
|
Wholly concur with you, SchroCat, about TFA. Why put oneself through the battering and bullying from the Gotta Have an Idiot Box fanatics? I too, I regret to say, am keeping the articles I have steered to FA hermetically secret, as far as I can, for that very reason. Tim riley ( talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Brief courtesy message to let you know that Profumo is now at FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No no, I didn't know there was a thing about not having an infobox for his page. I saw you remove it the first time but that was when it only had occupation and birth date, I figured if it had more then it could stay. But Dr. Blofeld warned me about adding one back. No edit war, just wasn't aware :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"Sacred music" is a standard term, so is "sacred cantata" (vs. "secular cantata"), - please see Bach cantata and Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. It doesn't say "holy", although some would go that far for Bach ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Schro, I was polishing up our article on the Streatham portrait in preparation for a run at FAC, and was wondering if you could be so kind as to participate in the peer review? No worries if you are too busy. Thanks beforehand. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for rescuing the article from my hamfisted copying and pasting. Phew! Tim riley ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E.W. Hornung may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You Only Live Twice (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsai Chin ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
On 23 February 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article E.W. Hornung, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that E.W. Hornung based his characters A.J. Raffles and Bunny Manders on the partnerships of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, and of Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/E.W. Hornung. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you reverted my edit, I think it would be nice if you weighed-in here with your thoughts. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat! Since u have been a regular contributor to Bond-related articles, I thought I might notify u of an "Articles for deletion" discussion over at the Octopussy (character) article. I'd love to have your input! Survivorfan1995 ( talk) 06:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat! I am SleepwalkerPM. I was wondering why you deleted my addition to High Tension. I watched the movie again hoping to debunk the the criticism I had recently read in both Roger Ebert's review and a subsequent article listing the movie among the top movies with major plot holes. Reviewing the movie confirmed my suspicion that their are no plot holes. My contribution was intended to disabuse potential viewers of Ebert's apocryphal statement. I did not want this to discourage people from watching the movie.
If you will not allow my contribution to will you support my deletion of Ebert's quote. Thank you SleepwalkerPM — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepwalkerPM ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Go off and do something more constructive with your time, these tables are on almost every major actors awards page List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Denzel_Washington, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Leonardo_DiCaprio, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Laurence_Olivier, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Tom_Hanks, , List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Johnny_Depp, List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Robert_De_Niro. etc etc etc etc etc why single one out how bloody childish you may as well go on delete about 50 other actor article with the same tables if you feeling that vindictive.-- Navops47 ( talk) 07:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Was this an edit conflict or...? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
this edit is entirely inaproprate. You cannot edit a third party's comments on an editors talk page that is not your own. See WP:TALK "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; " CombatWombat42 ( talk) 23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I reported an unrelated vandal and noticed this odd-looking removal of your entry there. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 09:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
So, writer or actor next, eh? Me? Film... again. I've got Tjioeng Wanara up for PR here, and I would be much obliged if you could drop by and have a look. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been going round the talk pages of long-suffering Wikicolleagues soliciting their comments at the peer review, which I opened this morning. It seems almost impertinent to invite you, as we have been familiar visitors at each other's Gielgudian pages over the past month, but I suspect, and certainly hope, you will want to wade in with comments. Tim riley ( talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone just created this Template, but as I understand it, only one of Jackie Evancho's singles was released officially (maybe I'm wrong, as I don't really understand "singles"). Does the Template make sense? Should it be combined with her main template? You can see it, for example, at the bottom of Prelude to a Dream. Thanks for any advice or help! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I took the portal links out by mistake. ...William 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support. I believe consensus at WP:Ireland makes it clear... Any chance you could give this a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Enid Blyton/archive1? Hoping to get this core article up to FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of E. W. Hornung and yes to FA status recently. If you would like to see these (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate them at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the articles may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know.
Having said that, I remember your recent comments at another venue. If you can think of ways to improve the TFA experience, my talk page / inbox is always open. Best wishes, Bencherlite Talk 10:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Considering Deepika Padukone, Weather Machine and Cyclone Rewa this year, and Paul Kagame last year were also affected by these technical issues, this tool is helpful. At least it puts a number rather than an "we don't know". © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
For your efforts to promote E.W. Hornung to FA. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
Many thanks! Nice to get a largely forgotten author up above his more-famous brother-in-law! - SchroCat ( talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ring Cinema chose not to redact the ridiculous accusations of sockpuppetry regarding your account an mine, so I have opened a case at AN/I. You can find it at the following link: [3]. Participate/comment if you'd like. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
My past experience with the dissenting editor is that he is a master baiter and will not back down. The more anyone not on his side talks, the more he will use what you say against you. Consensus is the best course of action. Arguing with him gets you/me/anyone nowhere. He seems to love the back and forth and word-sparring. My opinion is that he seeks to wear his opponent down so he will "win" by default. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Winkelvi's absolutely spot on in his perception of this. He's lost all credibility on here and he's contradicted himself on many occasions. Now he's trying to look as if he's being reasonable and trying to get Aymatth and Erik to sympathise with him as if he's genuinely concerned about themes. Basically I think it really comes down to the fact that he cannot accept that other people want to expand the lead of "his" article not that he really has severe issues with the themes. He's ignored Erik's question three times. Now he's looking for sympathy and apologies which is quite pathetic. He doesn't stand a chance of getting his own way with it and should on the 20 March when it is unlocked he start making a hash of the article it's pretty obvious that either it's going to be locked again or he is blocked. If he's half as intelligent as he thinks he is he'll walk away from this and get on with something useful. I suspect that he won't do so. Honestly Schrod I don't think it's worth even worth responding to him anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. The Observer became the Guardian's sister paper in 1993. You cannot call it that in a prior context, surely... Mezigue ( talk) 22:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel I am being persecuted on the grounds of having a different opinion! That's hardly fair! Jdogno5 ( talk) 00:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope: for not using the talk page and for edit warring. SEVEN reverts on a page against three editors is unacceptable. THAT'S why you've been reports for edit warring. - SchroCat ( talk) 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You mind explaining to me what's wrong with the last revision I created for Space Jam? Jdogno5 ( talk) 10:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " License to Kill". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, although the word may be American in origin, there is still a reasonable amount of info which suggests that British English uses an 's'. Thanks, Mat ty. 007 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Glad (but not the smallest bit surprised) to see Gielgud's roles and awards given their own gold star. It's as fine a piece of work as Wikipedia – or anyone else – has to offer. Tim riley ( talk) 08:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Why would you combine the two when he clearly has enough credits for two separate pages? You said it needs to be discussed properly but I don't see anywhere where you discussed it properly before deciding on your own to combine the two. There are tons of actors who have 3 separate pages, Tom Hanks, Robert Downey Jr, Denzel Washington, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Seth MacFarlane, Vanessa Redgrave, Benedict Cumberbatch, I could go on. The way it was looked sloppy, having 3 separate pages helps reduce the clutter and text size of each article, plus you had a filmography with all the awards ON TOP of an entire awards thing. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know I've now nominated Imogen at FAC. I will certainly keep an eye out for the Tranby Croft article; all I'll say at the moment is that I don't think Edward was a grandfather at the time of the scandal, though he may have been by the court case the following year – I'm sure you'll monitor the dates. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I know you keep most James Bond articles up to date, but did you notice in Casino Royale (2006 film) there are a few dead links (since long)? And A View to a Kill has a few tags? Kailash29792 ( talk) 06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
To Lord Gavin of SchroCat, some fellows have been beckoned to Sir George's office, where your attendance would be very much appreciated. Sir George does expect some harsh comments, a few home truths, a lot of scandal, and the airing of some consistently controversial views. Don't worry though, he does claim to be the Prime Minister, so it goes with the job! Cassianto talk 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of the tag team ng attacks on everyone who dares to have a different point of view on this: we've all given our thoughts and opinions in the discussion section, but as soon as the name goes in the !vote section, they queue up to berate, bludgeon and attack. My AGF on this is stretched thin (certainly on two of the participants) and it is beginning to look like a co-ordinated attempt to ensure that anyone else would be unwilling to add their name for fear of also receiving such an aggressive response. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite agree. This sort of thing is one of the most annoying things about wikipedia, as well as "pseudo experts" who do bugger all to improve wikipedia and sit around moaning about the efforts of others..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gavin, I'm pleased to meet you. You have most forcefully requested backup of the "rubber stamp" statement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Tephrosia_apollinea, so here I am. You mentioned misquoting, but I believe the quotes were exact, to the letter, and links were provided. Is that not correct? My description was also a very fair one of what actually happened there. No, of course the words "rubber stamp" were not used by the participants (nor did I say they were), but any softer interpretation of that interchange would really be less than honest. Were you aware that they were previously friends, and that Jaguar had reviewed, or had been asked to review seven articles for Dr. B. during the last month? You know that the GA reviewers are supposed to be impartial, and that there is a set arrangement at Wikipedia (imperfect yes) to submit and wait? Did you know about Dr. B. going around that arrangement and even withholding a nomination until the best hour for Jaguar his friend to swoop in and get the review? That doesn't sound a little less than impartial to you??? C'mon man, please consider if your friendship could possibly be clouding your critical thinking. There is no way to actually check references and check for broad coverage in a plant article (unless you were a plant supergenius) in just a few minutes. If someone asks for this kind of review from a friend and says it should only take a few minutes, that is actually asking for a rubber stamp review! That is exactly what happened. He was basically telling Jaguar to trust him that all the sources had been exhausted (although he was mistaken), and Jaguar did just trust him by providing what he described himself as the "world's fastest GA review". I encourage you to look closer. Best wishes, and good editing. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 00:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Tom Hulse: In fact for many articles like Aalborg I've requested reviewers to review them who I know will conduct a vigorous review because a thorough although not excessive review at GAN can put it in better standing later on for a possible FA. Arguing that I couldn't care less about the quality of the review is completely unfair and reveals a lack of understanding in a lot of the work that goes into wikipedia from myself and some of the editors I frequently review for and vice versa. I see GAN as an important process in wikipedia's development and I prefer a decent amount of criticism. I ask for people to review them because as Schro says it can sometimes take half a year before anybody will look at them and I trust most of the people I ask to conduct a fair and constructive review. At the time, yes, my assessment of having found all the sources I could find was true as I didn't have access to JSTOR, and I said that the review shouldn't take too long to do given the length not that he should pass it without a proper review. Stop twisting my words. And I asked Jaguar to review two films articles, one of which he'd expressed earlier interest in reviewing, and only one article on the culture of the Cook islands which had been at GAN for a while and hadn't been picked up aside from the plant article, hardly seven articles in the last month anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You might want to comment on this proposal re infobox length. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've managed to get off my butt and grab the biography I've had sitting on my bookshelf since December. D. Djajakusuma is up for PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/D. Djajakusuma/archive1, and I would be most obliged if you could take a look. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat,
I have noticed that you seem to be the public conscience of British popular performance (and other arts) on Wikipedia and I have not wished to dispute what you would think best for a Wikipedia reading public.
I have today broadened the page to
Albert Parker (director) at this editing mark >
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Albert_Parker_%28director%29&oldid=605571700
It has been completely annulled by an another person.
Could you have a look at what I broadened the article out into ?
The three paragraph quote from the James Mason reference book gives authentic referencing to Al Parker's life in the USA and in England, I think.
I will leave it with you.
regards, -- Laurencebeck ( talk) 08:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Laurence, I think you're right that the paragraphs are pertinent, but unfortunately the way of including the information isn't. We can't just drop in large chunks of text from other sources, even if we do point to the source. We need to rewrite the information in our own words, and then add the citation to show from where it comes. Use the information from the source, by all means, but not the words. I hope this helps. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr. SchroCat - Thank you for your restrained and constructive edits to Bank War. 36hourblock ( talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For a brief while in the late 1970s, the beloved actor J. Le Mez was eclipsed in public attention by an overweight carpet salesman of the same name. He was one of those accused with the politician Jeremy Thorpe of conspiracy to murder, in a cause célèbre that immedeiately preceded the arrival in power of Mrs Thatcher. A rather less appealing Le Mez, I'm bound to say. I've written up the whole tawdry tale as another in my "political scandal" series: the Thorpe affair, now at peer review. Any comments there would be welcome. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Goldeneye scene filmed in the Swiss Alps
I gave two sources imdb and the other one I cant remember off the top of my head but is on my previous edit summary. That should be enough evidence. Since I cannot put a reference on the device I am on I kindly ask you to do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.229.27 ( talk) 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
How will I know if the site I find is reliable. There isnt exactly a lot of information on this scene on the internet btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address
Could you check the site out then : http://www.themoviedistrict.com/goldeneye/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.229.27 ( talk) 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly object to this move to a "proper title". There is no consensus for such a move is there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, just a note to let you know of Sir George's FAC which has just been listed. Thanks again for all your help at the PR! Cassianto talk 09:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)