User talk:K1Bond007
| Welcome to my talk page! |
| Feel free to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever. |
| Archive: 1 |
James Bond
Age
Interesting stuff! I last read Moonraker about 3 years ago (when I started my multi-year project to read the entire Bond canon from Casino Royale to Man with the Red Tattoo) so little details like that were forgotten. Then again I wasn't reading the books at the time with a mind to writing about them! Good job! As far as the difference in ages, it's possible that Fleming wanted to keep Bond at a set age. Peter O'Donnell had the same attitude regarding Modesty Blaise. He wrote comic strips and novels about her for close to 40 years yet she never got much older than 26 except in the very last story. 23skidoo 06:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd
I have no objection to merging the two articles. As you so aptly put it, you really can't mention one without the other! :) Dale Arnett 06:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Casino Royale
Well that's cool, indeed. I noticed when the other user redirected everything he/she deleted a number of sections from Bond 21 including the still-topical speculation over Bond, as well as discussion of what the plot might be like. I went ahead and put them back, tweaked slightly where required. 23skidoo 22:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Followup. I agree that just doing that sort of redirect was a bit much. I've done a few of those myself, but usually just with articles that were duplicates and had a minimum of information. I also think that the new article should be merged with the book article, since we've done that with the other films. Maybe for the time being the two can stay separate until details about the movie firm up. Re: Enterprise. It's a bummer. Too bad you stopped watching when you did. It became an excellent show in its third season and one of the best Treks ever in its fourth. Problem was, a lot of people were tired of Trek by 2001 and ENT had a very small window to grab people, but it took awhile to get going just like the other shows.23skidoo 22:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Q's first appearance
Are you sure Q doesn't appear in the books until Dr. No? I'm pretty certain it's Boothroyd who goes through the trick briefcase in FRWL and Boothroyd is Q. I'll have to check my copy again. 23skidoo 20:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Book covers, etc.
Just FYI I got my hands on some good scans of the remaining 2002-2003 Penguin reissues that someone else had started to add to the book pages earlier but stopped. All the Fleming book articles now have the new covers featured, including Octopussy/Living Daylights which I reorganized. I also found a possible reason for why Moonraker was renamed. 23skidoo 23:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re: America's Army
Ugh. I see that "While the game primarily fits the definition of a playable and subliminal piece of video game propaganda and recruiting tool, a lot of players do not believe it is." has snuck in there. Hmm. I guess I'll try to take a crack at the article again, but I probably won't have a chance until after midterms end - this weekend. Alternately, you could start an RfC on the offending user - I'd certify it in an instant, and probably others who have dealt with him will as well. Andre (talk) 02:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- K1Bond007, thanks for your help in dealing with <whatever his name is>. He sure is a whack-o. He acts as if adding in the reference that AA is a serious game is some sort of sinister brainwashing plot. What should we do about the single sentence reference? Should we just add it and hopes he misses it or wait until he is banned? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Yawn. Some people need to act their age here. Do you actually think you could make me afraid of getting banned? Lol. Not everyone can be controlled by fear that easily. Oh help me! I'm getting banned for requesting the truth! Oh what a reason for banning! User:62.52.37.185 12:42, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, but mediation is usually a 1:1 user matter. I recommend you start an RfC on Nightbeast himself to address his behavior. Andre (talk) 19:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
K1Bond007, sorry that whole America's Army/serious game thing went sour. I don't understand those user's objections to the info. They really muddied the waters, didn't they? Wikipedia will suffer for it. Mentioning the world's most successful serious game is some sort of sinister plot? What's that all about? Anyway, thanks for your help in trying to resolve the matter. I'm sorry we weren't successful, but we sure tried! Thanks again, — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
GCOTW
I'm giving you this message because you have been active on Gaming Collaboration of the week in the past. The collaboration had a bit of a hiatus, but it's now active again. A new article will be chosen this Sunday. It would be greatly appreciated if you visited the page to vote and/or make new nominations and worked on next week's GCOTW. Thanks. --Slowking Man 08:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)