User talk:Einheit947

To@Juanpumpchump - Look, I'm not having an argument with you here. Screengrabs don't lie - your plot summation states that Bond is "killed" and this is simply not born out in the movie. Yes, his death is strongly inferred - Q's Smartblood monitor on board the C-17 strongly suggests that Bond is dead - however his death itself is never depicted, thus we cannot state that Bond is killed by the missile barrage because that is not depicted in the scene.

Please refer to screen grabs - - as you can see there are three primary missiles followed by a barrage of smaller missiles hitting the ground bellow Bonds position. Missile One goes down the furthest open Silo opening, Missile Two the next closest and Missile three goes down the nearest Silo directly beneath Bonds tower position.

AS the radiant intensity of the exploding missiles barrage increases Bond becomes obscured visually however - you will notice - at no point is he blown away from any explosions, he is not struck by any explosions, he remains standing the entire sequence until a strike somewhere behind his possession between the camera and him obscures everything.

Bond is never seen to die on screen.

This is Wikipedia we deal with facts not fan suppositions, not assumptions. Based on the actual evidence you can't state that Bond is killed.

Please stick with facts. Amend the entry to "leaving everyone to assume Bond is Dead" or I'll continue to do it for you. You are not conveying fact, simply conjecture.

Einheit947 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947

November 2021

Your recent editing history at No Time to Die shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Masem (t) 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on No Time to Die. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DonQuixote (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Einheit947, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Einheit947! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1072:7EE8:D50F:6D69 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I actually have no idea what that means. All I'm trying to do is edit the plot summery for the movie No Time To Die so that, instead of it reading "The missiles hit the island, destroying the nanobot factory and killing Bond" it reads instead "The missiles hit the island, destroying the nanobot factory leaving everyone to assume Bond is dead."

At no point in this movie is Bond shown to be dead. We don't see him die. A the point this original conclusion was made no one had access to the movie to playback direct however, since last week the films been released On Demand across a number of platforms and it's clear from actually looking at the frame-by-frame footage of the scene described that Bond is not shown to die on screen - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc

What actually happens is that Bonds death is strongly suggested, but never on-screen depicted. The only thing that does suggest he's dead is actually Q's Smartblood monitor onboard the C-17 Hercules which reads zero.

Other than the most ludicrous of reasons, ranging from "the video footage contains special effects work therefore its not real" and "It's not a documentary, its footage of an actor" - if it is Wikipedia's contention that James Bond dies in this movie, by rights that assertion demands a citation. It's not backed up by what the viewer can see on screen and it isn't backed up in any of Ian Fleming's source material from which the scene is adapted.

Other than - he's dead because we say he is - no such citation is provided. Since being released On Demand everyone is now able to frame-forward frame-at-a-time - the presumption of Bonds death is not born out as narrative fact therefore, respectfully, I move the current plot outline be amended to read appropriately.

Bonds death is not depicted on-screen - it is merely suggested. People upset by the rumor of the characters death turn to Wikipedia to be definitive - currently they are apprised only of a fallacious supposition pass-off as fact.

I'm not trying to start an "edit-war" whatever that is, I'm simply trying to edit the passage to convey the facts. If my method of approaching that is in error, I sincerely applogise, however communication around here isn't exactly intuitive.

Please accept my presentation as genuine and accept my word as to my intent - however, screen grabs simply don't lie - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc - there is no question in the fact Bonds death is not depicted on screen and this the plot summery in conclusion should relfect this or else provide citation from eon Productions Bonds death is officially the case.

I can run this past Eon Productions if you require.

Einheit947 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947- 21:15 - 15/11/21

The problem is that you're currently engaging in what we call original research. The film states that he's dead, and unless a significant number of reliable sources say otherwise, that's what we go with. We don't speculate. — Czello 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Czello - I do hope I'm doing this right....

Thank you for getting back to me. Please let me be very clear - I'm not speculating, I'm merely relaying what's depicted on screen. Okay, I understand that the material can't be used for citation however - currently the page says Bond is killed and there's actually no citation for that - simply a consensus of opinion formed before anyone had the means to do a thorough analysis of the scene. The means now do exist to all viewing the movie at home On Demand - frame-by-frame analysis proves incontrovertibly, despite all impression to the contrary, Bonds death is not depicted.

The narrative doesn't state Bond is dead - it's a presumption. No body is recovered, no funeral takes place - exactly as in the novel You Only Live Twice, Bonds death is an assumption.

You say yourself, Wikipedia doesn't peddle speculation. Thus, if this is the case the need to modify the conclusion of the plot summery increases, not decreases: as I endevour to point out, Bonds death is not given as a narrative fact, simply speculation.

As too the consensus previously given. Now the movie is available on line anyone with the means to view can satiate their curiosity about this and discern the fact them-self - Bonds death is suggested, never depicted.

At the very least some form of citation should be required if maintaining as fact that Bond is killed. Otherwise it's pure supposition. If true, shouldn't be that hard to find a citation for, surely...?

Einheit947 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 22:14 - 15/11/2011

It’s not supposition. It’s what 99.9 per cent of people understood when they saw the film. If you want citations to support it, there are a number in the ‘Bond is dead’ thread on the article talk page. Those sources are from what we describe as WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, which is what Wikipedia’s content is based on. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The narrative does say that he's dead. All the characters say it, and as you yourself said, his monitor even registers him as dead. Again, suggesting otherwise is WP:OR. — Czello 22:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Czello - "It’s not supposition."

Yes, actually it is. M quoting Jack London is circumstantial evidence. Screengrabs on the otherhand really don't lie - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc - Bond is not killed in the scene depicting the missile bombardment. He remains standing on his feet the entire scene. There is no speculation there. Cold, hard fact. Rent a copy, go through it frame-by-frame, anyone doing so will reach the same conclusion.

When Tony Stark dies in Avengers:Endgane, it's not supposition. We see the characters narrative death. It's an incontrovertible narrative fact.

Bonds death in No Time To Die provides no such certainty or proof, simply the indication his Smartblood reads zero. That doesn't prove death, it suggests it.

Please provide a citation that Bond is dead for the description as it is currently given or modify the description so as it acknowledges the fact Bond appears to die.

There is currently no citation at all, so literally what is currently written is speculation - speculation no backed up by the facts - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc.

Einheit947 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 22:46 - 15/11/2011

No citation is needed, and there is zero speculation in the plot section. Bond dies, and pretty much the everyone who has seen the film accepts that fact. The death is dealt with in the film; you see it happen and it’s discussed on screen. You kicking against reality isn’t going to change that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly you've confused me and the IP there, but to be clear: M quoting Jack London is circumstantial evidence. Screengrabs on the otherhand really don't lie - this is, once again, sheer WP:OR. We don't analyse screen grabs on Wikipedia. If the film states he's dead (which it does), he's dead. — Czello 08:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800 - Okay, if you find yourself incapable of making a valid point without casting aspersions on the character of the other person - and suggesting not agreeing with you is "kicking against reality" is casting a *large* and really uncalled for aspersion - you lost the discussion.

Prove Bond dies or find a grown-up who can. I've got pictures - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc - other than "I'm right because everyone else says I am" you have no valid argument here.

Prove Bond is dead.

Einheit947 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Einheit947 - 23:01 - 15/11/2021

I have cast no aspersions (and you telling me to “find a grown-up” is useful or constructive how?)

I have told you where the sources are. They are in the thread I opened at the talk page where I left seven reliable sources that say so. I could have left another 20 or so that say the same thing.

All this is back to front: the sources say he died, the film shows he died and the consensus from 99.9 per cent of people who saw the film is he died. You have shown no reliable sources that categorically state he survived (the silly pictures you keep posting don’t say he survived, don’t demonstrate how he could have survived, and are no-where near being considered “reliable”).

Nothing needs “proving”. We rely on the sources, not whatever pictures you think you are relying on. If you can’t work out that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not what you think you do or do not know, I suggest you go edit Wikia or some fan page somewhere, because you’ll get no-where here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 - "I have cast no aspersions"

Wrong: you have - "You kicking against reality isn’t going to change that." - you also make the assertion that "Bond dies, and pretty much the everyone who has seen the film accepts that fact." - acquainted with everyone who's seen the movie, are you...?

It is patently clear you make no case here. Unless there's an adult back there, like I say - this discussion is over.

Prove Bond dies or get off the pot. If it's as clear cut as you say, a citation should be easy. Provide one or fetch a grown-up.

Einheit947 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 23:32 15/11/2021

You’ve made this nice and easy for me. I’ve pointed you to where I posted SEVEN reliable sources that categorically state that Bond dies, but you seem unable to take that on board or look them up or even open your mind to the possibility you’re going about this the wrong way.

As you seem to be unable to click on the link I provided, I’ll drop these here for you, but note: these are from reliable sources, which is what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia, not rely on simplistic childish pictures pulled together by someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about: at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7].

You’ve continually been obstreperous and insulting for zero reason (less than zero: I’ve tried to help by explaining where the sources are and what you need to do), and I can happily step away knowing you’ll very likely be blocked for the WP:BATTLEFIELD approach you’re demonstrating and the disruption from edit warring. Bye bye. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 - I see. So not only are you personally acquainted with everyone who saw the movie, you've posted links to to what, here...? 7 Movie reviews. Wow. Those are certainly ... opinions. As inferred by the nature of the material - movie review.

No actual proof.

Einheit947 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 23:44 15/11/2011

TO:DonQuixote

@Einheit947: Seriously, dude, this isn't a documentary, it's a work of fiction. All those screen grabs show is that the cgi missiles didn't kill the actor Daniel Craig. *eyeroll* DonQuixote (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate the assumption demonstrated that the person you're talking at is of normal intelligence - reading this I don't get that impression.

The VFX breakdown - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc - is a frame-by-frame breakdown of what is depicted on screen. Please leave the asinine insinuation made here at home. If you can't discuss the matter with respectfully, don't discuss the matter period.

Your response is, at best, antagonistic and somewhat patronising. Kindly don't take this approach.

Einheit947 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947

You have been told that analyzing screenshots like that is original research, which we as editors cannot do. We cannot make that type of interpretation from a film at the level of Zaprudizing frame by frame, but only what a normal viewer would interpret, in addition to what nearly all major reliable sources state, which is that Bond dies from the missile strikes. You're not participating in the discussions on the talk page which is also a problem but instead continue to edit war. You will be blocked if you revert to your preferred version again. --Masem (t) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem - I don't know how. Besides, given the reply from DonQuixote, why would I? The man makes the assumption I can't distinguish between a movie and a documentary -

As to your response - anyone streaming the movie can forward the scene frame-by-frame and come to the same conclusion - Bonds death is simply not depicted, it is only ever inferred by the readings of his smartblood monitor on board teh C-17.

This is a matter of principal - if 1000 people all claim black is white, just because they insist on it doesn't mean they're right. Teh current edit peddles a conclusion that simply is not born out by what the movie depicts and - since the movie is now available on steaming services - anyone can make this determination. They can forward frame-by-frame. Bond is never directly depicted as being killed.

Wilipedia's description needs to describe what happens, not what people assume to be the case. Since becoming available to hire everyone now has teh ability to "Zaprudizing" the footage,as you put it - thus the entry needs to reflect what the movie actually conveys, which is that Bonds death is assumed.

Otherwise, it needs to be proved he dies. A dozen film reviews all claiming he dies isn't proof, its just a dozen wrong opinions. I'm not proffering an opinion here, simply the facts.

This entry needs to be accurate, not assumption. I note, the assumption he is killed isn't actually cited. Surely, if the possition you posit is corect, then it should be,shouldn't it?

Einheit947 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947

You performed image analyses on computer generated images as if they were documenting a real event, and you expect a tertiary source to take you seriously. Good luck with that. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote These are not "computer generated images" they are stills from the movie presented in order they occur. Any person watching the movie on demand can forward frame-by-frame and come to the same conclusion. Tracking information has been added to keep track of the position of certain objects and the distances involved - the frames themselves haven't been altered.

We do not see Bond die on screen. The "fact" of his death is conveyed by his Smartblood monitor reading zero on board the C-17 only. Death is inferred, not depicted.

Einheit947 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947

Again, a frame-by-frame interpretation is considered original research for Wikipedia's purposes, unless of course that was actually documented in reliable sources (which I can't find at all). And given more reliable sources say "Bond died", you need a fair number of good quality reliable sources to challenge that at all. --Masem (t) 17:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

These are not "computer generated images" they are stills from the movie

They're literally computer generated images of missiles and explosions. It's called "special effects". DonQuixote (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - Kindly stop talking to me like I'm an idiot please, I shouldn't have had to ask in the first time and I'm not asking you now.

Einheit947 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947

I'm sorry that you're taking it personally, but 1) not being a documentary means that any sort of frame-by-frame analysis is meaningless for a tertiary source and 2) especially if the frames in question involve computer generated images (which, to be honest, emphasises the fact that it's not a documentary). DonQuixote (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And to be a little clearer, it's about as meaningless as tracing the bullets frame-by-frame that "supposedly" killed Safin. DonQuixote (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - Quite literally nothing you said there made the smallest sense. On the one hand you're stating that we can't review individual frames from the movie as evidence of what takes place on screen because they contain unreal elements - yet, at the same time as saying that you can point to watching the movie as it being proof that Bond is seen to die on screen...

In all my years of living I honestly don't think I've ever read anything quite so unironically idiotic said with such conviction.

Einheit947 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 01:35 16/11/2021

When we summarize fiction on Wikipedia, we can go with an interpretation that is obvious to the everyday viewer. This is not going to be someone that pauses and analyzes each frame, this is the person that sits and watches a film. That means details that require slo-mo or frame-by-frame we cannot consider, unless we have reliable sources telling us these exist. And I think what DonQuixote is trying to say that as a work of fiction, we cannot expect the rules of reality to be consistent, because it is an art form over an exercise in physics. Maybe they didn't feel like showing Bond being blasted back by the last missile and standing stoicly to accept his fate as an artistic choice. We don't know their intent and we certainly cannot read so far into it to say that Bond wasn't killed. --Masem (t) 01:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masco - I see so, once again - we can't examine the individual frames of a movie sequentially frame-by-frame because we can't trust the source of where those individual frames come from and, equally, what they depict constitutes an artistic representation - a directorial choice in what is or isn't depicted which defies our ability to clinically and rationally understand what actually happenssimply by looking at them...

But we can see them played in a cinema and leave the building absolutely certain that we see James Bond die on screen with such high certainty we can claim it a fact on Wikipedia.

I need you to go away and either properly think this through or, I swear, I am going to print the ...grabs of these replies off as T-shirts because they are hilarious. You hear it said, Oh, y'know litterally anyone can write thoes Wikipedia pages" but you don't actually realise until you get here how actually true it is.

You do not see Bond die on screen. You are left with the impression he must have, but you do not actually see it and - because of that - you cannot claim to an entire planet Bond is killed."

You *dont* know that, it's just something you think. Exactly the same as the book. The world believes Bond couldn't have survNed, so they presume him dead.

That plot summary needs to reflect the truth. You didn't see Bond die. I didn't see Bond die. Nobody actually does, they just assume they did.

And if you can base any interpretation to that effect based on what you saw in the cinema, than you can accept the screen grabs as evidence because what you saw at the cinema is thoes sequential frames in motion.

It's how cinemas work.

Einheit947 (talk) 03:04,16 November 2021 (UTC)Einheit947 03:0316/11/2021

Seriously, those missiles literally don't exist in real life--they're completely made up. Any sort of real-world analysis of those images is meaningless. As a work of fiction, the filmmakers can have their made-up things do whatever they want. DonQuixote (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - So, again. I can't base any frame-by-frame analysis of what happens in that scene on that footage, because it contains elements that aren't real...

But YOU can watch the exact same frames play in a cinema and allow them to inform you that Bond gets killed by thoese self same missiles. Even though they're not real.

Are you dropping acid or are you simply doing what I really should be doing and not reading your posts?

Einheit947 (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Einheit947 03:17 16/11/2021

Dude, I'm not the one doing any sort of analysis--you're the one doing the analysis. DonQuixote (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - Yes. That much at least is patently obvious.

Einheit947 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 03:31 16/11/2021

Seriously, dude, you're the one performing the analysis and thus the original research, and that's why everyone's saying you shouldn't be doing that. No one's telling me that I shouldn't be doing original reserach because I'm not doing any analysis at all. Trying to force your personal analysis into an article is a no-no (let alone a completely faulty analysis that can't tell the difference between fiction and reality). DonQuixote (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - but you can watch the same material in a cinema, forming *your* opinion on it, and that's fine.

Which part of this inherent problem are you not understanding?

Einheit947 (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 - 03:50 16/11/2021

The way we summarize films is to try to summarize them as the "lowest common denominator" would take it - that being the average film goer. We can admit we're probably more intelligent and savvy and can do this frame by frame, but the interpretation aspect I've spoken towards is not what the average viewer is going to see. And by staying to that view, we avoid any analysis or interpretation or our own opinion on the work. --Masem (t) 03:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem - I see. So, it's just coincidence everyone else's opinion happens to confirm to yours in this scenario, yes? Like I said the last time round, if you can watch the material in a cinema and accept the conclusions you draw from that, you can accept the same material viewed frame-by-frame - there is not quantafive difference between either version - it's exactly the same footage.The only difference is, with the frame-by-frame version doesn't allow your head to fill in the blanks and instead shows you what you are actually seeing. No interpretation required.

Einheit947 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)einhiet947 05:01 16/11/2021

(edit conflict) As long as I don't try to force my opinion (ie original research) into a Wikipedia article, it's all fine. Seriously, dude, you're projecting. Out of the two of us, you're the only one trying to get your analysis into the article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - "As long as I don't try to force my opinion (ie original research) into a Wikipedia article"

But that is precisely what you have been doing. You've seen the film and your basing the movies plot summary in what you think you've seen. The entire point is, you haven't seen what you think you have. You have not seen Bond die. But you are forcing your impression that you have on everyone else.

That is forcing original research into a Wikipedia article, unless your claiming you watched the movie with your eyes shut...

You're not, are you? Then you're forcing original research into the plot summary and I'm going to get some kip. Sweet dreams.

Einheit947 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)einhiet947 05:01 16/11/2021

Whatever yours or DonQuixote's opinion is on whether Bond died or not is irrelevant. If there's disagreement over something factual, we turn to secondary reliable sources, we don't turn to analyzing a film frame by frame ourselves—pretty much as far as original research can get—, which in this case doesn't even show anything that isn't seen by just watching the film normally. What we see is a missile explode right beside Bond, the screen fades to white, and the monitor then confirms Bond's death. If you think there's any ambiguity to this, you just have to check what secondary reliable sources say. So far, you haven't even attempted to present a secondary reliable source on this matter, and there have been multiple secondary reliable sources presented which all agree this is a death. Until you can find a significant amount of secondary reliable sources that think this isn't a death and that this incarnation of Bond has somehow survived, there's no discussion to have. —El Millo (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo "What we see is a missile explode right beside Bond, the screen fades to white, and the monitor then confirms Bond's death"

Actually, you don't see a missile explode right beside Bond. There are three open Silos doors in the scene, Missile 1 is tracked going down the furthest away, Missile 2 enters the second - mid ground of the scene - and Missile 3 (the missile you see as landing next to Bond) actually enters Silo opening 3, which is beneith Bonds possition on top of the tower, at the same level as the other two openings bellow.

Bond is on a high possition, overlooking the bombardment.

As you can see from the persistence of the Millies contrail, no explosive effect is in fact placed there next to Bond on the right - instead, radiant intensity from the bombardment happening in the mid distance reaches such intensity that Bonds figure becomes obscured.

You can however still see Bonds figure remains standing through to the last frame before subsequent debris effects are overlayed behind Bonds possition between him and the camera.

I'm quite happy to provide higher resolution footage should you require confirmation of any of that. Moving objects were tracked in aftereffects and we can even determine the relative distance between Bond and any object you like in the scene via an camera solve. This is the method used to extract a cameras possition from live action footage so as the shot can be imported and set up in 3d software for CGI inintegrstion.

VFX work relies on an accurate position solve. Have a mooch around, there's bound to be a Wikipedia entry on the subject, if you need one.

Einheit947 (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 22:48 17/11/2021

You've seen the film and your basing the movies plot summary in what you think you've seen...etc.

Nope, that wasn't me. I haven't touched that at all. All I have done is prevent you from using your analysis in the article[8], point out that it was original research[9], and point out that it was shoddy analysis at that. DonQuixote (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote - they're stills from the movie. How difficult is this for you to comprehend that? (Please, the question is quite rhetorical, the answer - all too unfortunately - is self apparent. We're done talking here)

Einheit947 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947

A few things. First, see WP:INDENT for how to properly indent responses in a talk page discussion. Second, just writing @Facu-el Millo won't notify me, you need to use the {{ping}} template in order for editors to get notifications when you mention them. Third, now regarding the discussion, your breakdown of the stills has no bearing whatsoever, it isn't valid because we can't publish original research made by editors, so please stop bringing it up. It was already explained that, if there's any doubt to be had, we go to secondary reliable source, and they don't see any doubt at all that Bond died, so the matter is settled. —El Millo (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo - "Third, now regarding the discussion, your breakdown of the stills has no bearing whatsoever, it isn't valid because we can't publish original research made by editors, so please stop bringing it up"

I didn't bring it up. You did, and I quote: "What we see is a missile explode right beside Bond, the screen fades to white, and the monitor then confirms Bond's death." - you are directly referring to the frame-by-frame sequence. I haven't talked to you prior to this that I remain aware. If you're going to critique, please at least be consistent. When you believe the discussion favors your position - then, apparently, it's okay for you to bring the sequence up and what you think it discloses. The instant counterpoint is proffered pointing out you're mistaken, - Oh, we can't talk about that anymore, that's just *wrong*...

Boys - one of you - make a cogent argument. Have a little conflab between yourselves or whatever it is you do with each other back there, pick a champion and have them do the arguing - it's more efficient and, let's face facts - individually so far you're doing a piss poor job it. My 11 year nephew you tie you all up in knots and, did I mention? He's 11.

Oh, and while you're at it - how do I block receiving messages from DonQuixote? They don't help - anyone as far as I can discern.

2A00:23C6:7998:1301:65AD:4172:7B8A:E18D (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 00:10 18/11/2021

First, no personal attacks, so that thing you said about your nephew is out of line. Now, I just described the scene to state what was seen, it wasn't part of the argument. The argument came later: If you think there's any ambiguity to this, you just have to check what secondary reliable sources say. Analyzing the stills has no substance, because it's original research, only what reliable secondary sources say matters if there's disagreement over what's happening onscreen. How can you honestly say that I brought the breakdown before you did, when you started with the breakdown in your first comment here? And it's not that we can't talk about that anymore, the argument of the stills was never valid in comparison to secondary reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo - "no personal attacks, so that thing you said about your nephew is out of line."

Right. So my comment toward the *group* regarding my nephew's ability to argue better than the collective whole - constitutes a personal attack. But DonQuixote's comments logged on the topics talk page - and reiterated here further up - accusing me of being unable to distinguish between a documentary and a movie, thereby calling into question my intelligence as a human being - that doesn't pull any sancture at all, even though the purpose is to clearly insult and a colleague of his actually joins in.

Cute.

Milo, difficult as these things invariably are to follow - your appraisal of your own conduct here I can't help but observe to be, somewhat, self serving. Nobody raised the topic of the frame-by-frame stills to you, you seized upon commenting on it because you believed you saw something that invalidated the position put forth that Bond doesn't die on screen. Wrongly, as it turns out.

You can pout about how nothing of the sort being the case, if you like - but the fact of the matter is - despite the apparent inadmissibility of the material - you thought it proved Bond died on screen and posted only to say that.

This whole arguement about the inaproriateness of reviewing the material frame-by-frame is a tautological nonsense. If you can watch the movie in a cinema and, from that material and that material exclusively conclude that Bond is depicted to die on screen - viewing the stills of that same motion picture is viewing the same material - there is no difference in content.

These "secondary reliable sources" you point to - how did they reach their assessment that Bond dies in the movie - was it by reviewing the film, by any chance...?

The sequential stills of that motion picture are intact what that motion picture consists of - it's how motion pictures work. Individual frames shown at 24 frames p/s sequentially.

Look it up, there's a Wikipedia page about it somewhere.....

Let's put a pin on the footage thing for just one moment and examine the reasons why there is resistance here to the notion of simply changing the entry to "presumed dead" instead of "killed".

Has Eon Pictures issued a statement categorically stating the James Bond has died? No. Has the director said this? No. Has Daniel Craig? Again, no. Nobody actually associated with the production of the movie has actually, definitively stated that, in NTTD James Bond is killed.

Does Ian Fleming kill Bond in the corresponding scene in the novel you Only Live Twice? Bond is certainly caught in the blast of an explosion the world believes Bond couldn't possibly have survived.

He does though.

Now, at this point you might argue that the movies aren't direct adaptations of the novels, of course they're not - but consider here how Eon handled a secondary character, Madeline Swan.

Madeline is a composite character made out of Tracy Draco, from OHMSS and Kissy Susuki, from You Only Live Twice (the woman who bears Bond a child in the novel) - introduced in the previous movie, SPECTRE Madeline is th daughter of a crime boss who asks Bond to look after her and protect her, Bond accepts the request, they fall in love - he quite the service and they leave together - the bones of OHMSS essentially. NTTD picks up shortly after SPECTRE ends, essentially the honeymoon in the book where Tracy Draconends up murdered by Blofeld - but here NTTD changes that outcome.

Blofeld no less effectively ensures Bond looses Madeline no less permanently, but more cruelly gets Bond to do it by his own hand, and with horribly little persuasion...

So, instead of murdered Bond "wife" survives - only actually Eon haven't altered what Ian Fleming wrote, they've kept the spirit of the idea of Bond being broken by loosing the second love of his life but taken it in a new direction via a composite character they created based on material created by Ian Fleming.

So they haven't contradicted or changed Fleming, they've kept Flemings ideas just used them a little differently...

Why go to all the bother creating a composite of Tracy Draco when, they could have just used the character of Tracy Draco as Fleming wrote her, updated of course, but still the same character and just not killed her? Have Bond chuck her on a train instead...

Because it wouldn't be true to Fleming. Call them old fashioned, but Eon are curiously sticklers for that kind of thing. Especially these days. Craig's whole tenure has been founded on bringing Bond back to its litterary roots.

So how come they killed Bond, then? If it doesn't happen in the source material Eon are happy to do that but create a composite character rather than have a literarily accurate character experience a different fate than the one Fleming mapped out for her...

Doesn't make a whole heap of sense really, does it?

If Bond dies in this movie, then attach a citation to that backing it up - otherwise it's an assumption. It's not backed up in the litterature, it's not backed up by a single quote from either the production company or the actors involved.

Yes,the movie leaves an impression. But impressions are not facts. Bond *appears* to have died. Anything else litterally is simply opinion.

Back it up with a citation or loose it.

Einheit947 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 way-past-my-bedtime 03:15 18/11/2021

You clearly have no understanding of how verifiability works, and you haven't bothered to check all the sources both me and an IP presented at Talk:No Time to Die#Bond dies. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which by your comments you still haven't read, to really understand what constitutes a reliable sources, why there's no need for "official" primary sources but actually secondary sources are preferred, and why whatever editors investigate or conclude by themselves can't be used. Let yourself fall into the rabbit hole of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and you'll understand this much better. —El Millo (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

they're stills from the movie

Thats. The. Point.

Doing the type of analysis on a special effects shot like you're trying to do is as pointless as doing the same analysis on a Road Runner cartoon. How hard is it to understand that computer generated images aren't images of real things? DonQuixote (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: the problem isn't that it's CGI, it's the analysis itself. Whether it's CGI or reality, the analysis is invalid because it is WP:OR. The discussion on CGI is pointless. —El Millo (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Yep, guess I shouldn't have gone off on a tangent like that. My bad on that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit warring at No Time To Die

Hello Einheit947. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at WP:AN3. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston - Thank you for the warning. My apologies for any disruption caused, I had no idea how to participate in the entries talk pages at the time - communication s on this platform aren't exactly intuitive. I have, subsequently been made aware of the need to gain concensus.

I'm sorry the person who reported this matter couldn't have taken the time or trouble to explain what these terms entail or point to instructions necessary in order to understand first. It would at least have been constructive and prevented the matter going as far as it unfortunately did.

Ideas concerning the end as reported concerning this movie appear hugely fixed based on no real evidence other than opinion. I did introduce frame-by-frame frame footage of the scene in question proving that Bond is not shown to actually die on screen, hence the move to change the entry from "killing Bond" to "presumed dead" - however this was rejected, even though it's the same footage seen by the editors on screen which gives them the impression Bond is actually killed.

I have to be honest, I find the distinction about acceptable evidence a little odd. Evidence proffered for the opposite conclusion, that Bond isn't seen to die on screen, is the footage actually shown in the cinema, just presented in such a way what actually takes place can be clearly seen.

For your refference - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc

Once again, my apologies for my conduct, thank you for taking the view it wasn't malicious in intent. I shall endeavour not to give anyone cause to regret not punishing me further. Like I say though, a simple "word to the wise" on the part of the person reporting would have resolved the issue immediately. I genuinely had no idea correcting an error would cause quite this much fuss.

Thank you for the notification, won't happen again.

D

Einheit947 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Einheit947 22:31 17/11/2021

You were asked several times to use the talk page to discuss - and that's very easy to find and use (you were even pinged on several occasions to where the conversation took place), so to claim someone didn't take the time to explain anything is false.

You have corrected no "error". The only error is you thinking you know more than everyone else here. You have been directed to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, both of which are core to this site. Your "analysis" is childish in the extreme and goes against both our core policies and the vast weight of what all the Wikipedia:reliable sources categorically state. Until you read through those three key policies you should avoid thinking things are "errors", particularly when everyone tells you otherwise. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:50F5:ADFA:E981:296 (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Einheit947! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Talk pages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo page and BLP

Hi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_%22conspiracy_theorist%22_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked

Good luck, seems to be a mess. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)