Talk:MI7

Contradiction

This article states that MI7 is still in operation, yet on the list of military intelligence departments, MI7 is listed as defunct. I'm not even an English citizen so I couldn't tell you which one was correct, but perhaps someone who could would be able to fix the contradiction?

It is a defunct agency, an anonymous editor added that it was without any evidence. « Keith ^t/_e» 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We must be encyclopedic, so it was quite correct to remove unsupported claims that MI7 still operates. However, even though this claim is without evidence, there is plenty of evidence that many people hold a belief that MI7 still operates - this fact (that many people believe the organisation to be active) IS part of the story, and should be recorded in the encyclopedia entry - which I have done. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gamers

What is the basis for claiming "online gamers" believe MI7 is still in operation? Its a pretty random generalisation and seems pretty out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.188.8 (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is nothing "random" about the statement. It is referenced in-line, so you are quite able to check the citation yourself (in the particular case cited it is a group of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" role-players, although a quick Google will doubtless produce other options for you). Secondly, it is not a "generalisation". This is a logic breakdown on your part! The article does not claim that all on-line games players believe in the existence of MI7 (which certainly would be a generalisation, and quite unwarranted, not to mention impossible to prove); the article merely refers to those gamers cited, and others like them. Thirdly, the article does not, in any case, claim that ANY on-line gamers believe in the existence of MI7! It merely cites certain of their websites as being behind the confusion in the minds of some third-party observers. As encyclopeadia editors we do not have sufficient evidence from the citations to know what the gamers believe in this regard - we are merely citing their references to MI7 (most probably in a purely fictional manner) which are sufficiently well-written to be a cause of confusion to the casual observer of such websites, when simply 'surfing through'. In short, I think you need to read the article and its references again, as you have misunderstood what is written there. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 05:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bond Movie

• This discussion, started by Sparkstersfury is being moved here from the article itself. It is also shown on the MI8 talk page for the same reason.

NOTE: FOR SOME REASON, IN THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE ON 'MI8' (WHICH ALSO MENTIONS Dr.No), IT SAY'S THAT THE "MI6" LINE WAS DUBBED OVER WITH "MI8" AND NOT "MI7" AS NOTED ABOVE. WHICH ORGANISATION WAS IT DUBBED WITH, 'MI7' OR 'MI8'? (Originally posted, as shown, by User:Sparkstersfury in the article mainspace.)

Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A brief internet search quickly reveals multiple sources for this incident. The original words "MI6" were dubbed with the words "MI7" at this point in the film, even though an earlier reference to "MI6" was left unmolested - thus creating a continuity issue within the film. It also created a continuity issue within the series of films, as Bond's agency is clearly identified as "MI6" in many other Bond movies. There is no sign of any reference to "MI8". I have replaced the CN tag with two citations to references, including the IMDb. There are many more available for those who fancy looking themselves! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

I think the following needs to be deleted. It doesn't add anything to the entry surely. I am not even sure it counts as trivia:

In St. Trinian's II: The Legend of Fritton's Gold, ex-head girl Kelly Jones mentions to Talulah Riley's character, on the question of "what she does now", that she is involved in MI7.[4] Other examples include: ChuckleVision - comedy television series; Clone - comedy television series; MI High - Childrens TV series.[citation needed]

Also, no citations. Septemberfourth476 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Good edit. The more substantial references (well cited) are good, but these little "passing references" didn't add anything. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is behind the vandalism on this article? Timothy Titus, did you previously edit out this vandalism? (my comment clarified Mar 25)

Mahyar AMiri MI8 . Fuck you monib English, be koon to konom yak kilish hahaha

Abraxas42 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Abraxas42. Firstly, I have moved your comment and query to the bottom of the talk page. Do please remember that new comments should always be added at the bottom of a talk page or of a section, not at the top. Secondly, it is always difficult to know what is behind vandalism, particularly when (as in this case) the vandal concerned is repeatedly targetting the same page with random obscenities, and not going near any other page. Thirdly, no it is certainly not my edit. You can check the full edit history of this or any other page by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top. If you do so, and compare the edits, you will find that all of the vandlism of the past few days has been perpetrated by User:John.steveparker. I am an established editor of six and a half years' standing, with five and a half thousand edits in my history, and not a single example of vandalism ever, I assure you! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, I didn't mean to imply that you put the comment, but I believe that you had previously deleted it? and that you had the last (pre-vandalism) edit? I was just wondering if any legitimate content had been deleted by the vandal, that I had missed with my deletion. Can another user who is repeatedly vandalizing a page be blocked? Abraxas42 (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Abraxas42. Thanks very much for clarifying, and for making your original comment clearer. It did come (in its original form) as a bit of a shock, but all is clear now! Except, of course, why User:John.steveparker has decided to repeatedly vandalise this page and add obscene comments. Yes, he can be blocked from editing if it carries on, and I have posted a warning on his edit page. We'll keep an eye open. He is a determined vandal, who hides multiple examples of his work, in the hope that not all will get reverted. If he comes back again we can involve an Administrator, and have User:John.steveparker blocked temporarily - and ultimately, if it proves necessary, blocked permanently. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Article about MI7B

The Telegraph published an article by the novelist Alan Judd about the MI7B. --DelftUser (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to BBC in intro

Surely this should be in the references? 157.211.1.20 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have moved it. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)