User:K1Bond007/Archive10

Villains box
Unless Fleming and the movies were consistent in providing the ages of the villains (and I'm pretty sure they weren't), this sort of thing will just attract speculation and guesswork. I agree - this field should be deleted. Incidentally I'm not going to be online much for the next little bit. My machine picked up a virus that's causing all sorts of havoc and I'm spending a lot of time trying to find help that doesn't require me to have three degrees in advanced computer science to understand. So I'm only going to be on sporadically for the next bit. 23skidoo 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

James Bond has Krabs
Keep an eye out for any further edits by Krabs - it's a vandal sockpuppet. You may not have noticed but it actually listed Casino Royale for speedy deletion as a hoax at one point, then tried to list the film as a World Wrestling Federation production! 23skidoo 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh!
My head is reeling at the notion of splitting YOLT. (I actually reverted the guy's edit at the exact same time you did, incidentally). Unfortunately there is precedent as the film version of Mary Poppins was split off from the main article. When Thunderball was up for FA, did anyone actually suggest doing this? Oh well -- I guess we'll have to keep an eye on things. 23skidoo 21:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What annoys me more is the high-handed wording of the guy's edit summary. That's taking "be bold" a bit too far. My edit summary (cancelled out by your edit beating me to the punch) would have requested the guy seek consensus before making such a major move. 23skidoo 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Travolta
Guess I'm not going away quite yet. Check out this new thread at the Village Pump. Seems there's some hoaxing going around regarding Rikki Lee Travolta. 23skidoo 01:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
The new infobox looks good, though I don't think that it's necessary to specify "adult continuation". For one thing, that doesn't mean a lot to people, and also the authors list at the bottom and the series list basically indicates the same information. Other than that, it looks good and the new box stands less chance of being replaced by the Novels WikiProject infobox. 23skidoo 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the line saying "Adult continuation". Perhaps a better way to go about it if you want a line there is to say "Fleming series", "Benson series", etc. (Suggest "Post-Fleming series) to refer to Per Fine Ounce, Col. Sun, and the Pearson bio, and maybe "Novelisation series" for the movie-based books which would cover off Wood). I think the infobox format as you have it now makes it pretty clear who comes next; fortunately there has only been one author at a time. That said, what should be done regarding the Moneypenny Diaries? 23skidoo 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Checked the portal. Looks OK to me, though maybe "Glidrose-sanctioned" or "IFP-sanctioned" might work a little better otherwise we might find some users doing the same sort of "hair-splitting" that occurred when we defined NSNA and the 67 Casino Royale as "unofficial". 23skidoo 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - much better. Re the term sanctioned ... I think let's just wait and see if anyone makes an issue of it. I don't think it's a big deal. 23skidoo 04:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Characters box
Why did you remove the data I have added to the characters box (Apperences and Friend or foe) ? Did i post it wrong? I think its usefull to have in a characters box where we meet the character and if he/she is a friend or foe to Bond. gram123

Categories
Welcome back (just in time for ME to take a bit of a Wikibreak, it seems! ;-) ). Just a quick note regarding the categories. The Novels WikiProject has apparently done some category juggling, so many books that had previously been listed under "Category:YEAR books" are now under "Category:Year novels". Personally I think it's nitpicky but anyway there are a few folks going around making the changes as we speak (I've suggested creating a bot for this). I haven't gone through the Bonds yet to make the changes. Something like Thrilling Cities (which you were knocking around with earlier) would probably remain a "book" since it's mostly essays, even though it includes 007 in NY. Apparently the Novels WikiProject considers short story collections to be "novels" as well so I guess O&LD and FYEO would fall into that category... 23skidoo 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was bored so I went ahead and made the changes, since a few Bonds had already been changed from Book -> Novel anyway so may as well be consistent. I noted, however, that short story collections are still categorized as "Books" so I left FYEO and O&LD where they were for now. I also added the "British novels" category to most, but not all, of the Bonds. The reason I didn't do all of them is Ray Benson is American -- so by rights, I guess his Bonds couldn't be considered British books. Yet they were published in the UK first. What's your call -- should I still put them in the British category? 23skidoo 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I realized I could have made James Bond books a subcat of British novels at around SeaFire at which point I decided I might as well finish the job. For that reason I'll go and add the category to the Bensons because I agree with your logic (and it's also a "who'll care" thing too). I believe there was some discussion over whether to do British or English novels and I think the WikiProject came to a consensus to go with British novels for anything from the UK (personally I think a better term might be United Kingdom novels in that event). As for the infobox fields, I actually wouldn't recommend adding the Girl and Villain boxes because one thing that Gardner seemed to do quite a few times is misdirect the reader, and if we put, say, Blofeld's daughter in the For Special Services box, that actually might count as an unlabelled spoiler. Similarly there are a couple of books where it is open to question who the main Bond girl is. BTW are you planning to add the infobox to the Bensons and Flemings and the others as well? I think the way to handle Markham, Pearson and Wood's books is to call the "era" the Interregnum since that's basically what it was between Fleming and Gardner. 23skidoo 16:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of categories, I just did something that may or may not be allowed but unless someone complains I can't see the problem. I actually categorized the redirect pages for James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me and James Bond and Moonraker so that they appear on the James Bond books (and the other) categories. The only problem is the redirect link won't go directly to the novelisation sections (this appears also to be the case with a few of the infobox links to the novelisations) so that might confuse people who wonder why we have extra links going to Moonraker and Spy Who Loved Me. Awhile back I was thinking about spinning-off the novelisations into their own articles. What are your thoughts on this? 23skidoo 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Books
I agree Gardner was rather ... dull. Not that all his books were that way. I'd rank a couple of them up there with Fleming's including the much-maligned (it seems) Icebreaker. I do get the feeling he became bored with the character and after a point was just writing them because he was contracted to. I still don't get why Barbarossa is his favorite -- I consider it the worst of the Bonds he wrote. I only got to the first few chapters of Never Send Flowers last summer before I was distracted by other matters. I still plan to read the remaining Gardners as well as the Bensons but right now I'm in a Simon Templar mood so have been reading the old Saint stories from the beginning. I'm glad to hear YB isn't being kiddified; then again, so-called "youth books" these days are actually more mature than some adult books. I flipped through a young adult novel based on Alias and you had Sydney Bristow going around killing people, and there's apparently a series of books called Sugar Rush which is basically L Word with teens. So if YB had turned to be, well, another James Bond Jr. it probably wouldn't have worked these days. It is annoying to hear the US edition of SilverFin was censored (IIRC), but luckily we only get the UK version here in Canada. 23skidoo 20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Sanctioned Novels box works for me and I like the fact it includes the Moneypenny Diaries because it's quite possible there are people out there who aren't aware they exist. (Incidentally has the first book been published in North America yet? I haven't seen it anywhere). I think some sort of box should be used for Fleming's books, for consistency -- and also I'm half expecting to see someone add the stock infobox being used by the Novels WikiProject and I know you'd rather use a Bond-specific box. 23skidoo 03:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Boll?
Oh great. Some anon is convinced that Uwe Boll has been signed to direct Bond 22 and has done a TON of edits to this effect. I'm trying to undo the damage now. It isn't helped by the fact that apparently some of these edits are connected with goatse. I've blocked the anon for 24 hours so we can sort it out. 23skidoo 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Here it comes
A couple of things are in the making that aren't really surprising but I should give you the heads up. One of the main people behind the NovelsWikiProject has placed a request for an infobox on the Thunderball article (and will probably do the same on the other Flemings) so that may force the issue regarding whether to do one for the Fleming series. Also, the same user indicated to me just now his desire that the Fleming articles be split up into separate novel and film articles. I was sort of expecting that to come from somewhere but it's going to be a bit of a nightmare, I think. Unfortunately all this comes as I am entering a Wikibreak because I'm going on holidays for the next couple weeks. 23skidoo 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The comic strip adaptation would be included in the article on the novel is how I'd approach it, but in any event I agree with you. Although I am a member of the NovelsWikiproject I have no intention of messing around with the Bonds. Incidentally it's my turn to take a full Wikibreak. I just read something at Deletion review/Log/2006 June 29 that made my blood boil. Basically I'm against this phobia people have against creating shortcuts and redirects to things like Articles for Deletion. Although a few people are supporting my view, others are making statements that have to be honest put me off Wikipedia. One of the best is to the effect that too many of us are trying to make things easy for the editors. WTF??? Why should we make it difficult for people to contribute? Too many people are being elitist and IMO stupid about this place and I'm not in the mood to get into confrontations with people right now, so better to step away for a bit for a cool down. Later! 23skidoo 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Obsession with race
Hi - I'm back from my holiday and my wikibreak, though to be honest I'm tempted to disappear again. Get a load of the rant that was posted at Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film) over the most innocuous of statements. I'm so flabbergasted at the guy's logic that I don't even know if the reply I posted makes sense. How can stating the fact that Colin Salmon, a black actor who played Charles Robinson in a few previous Bonds, was once held in such high regard by Brosnan that he suggested he be considered for Bond, be considered a stupid and childish statement? Some people need to lay off the weed before editing, I tell ya. With best regards, your friendly neighborhood bigot (I guess), 23skidoo 05:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Back online
I've been off-Wiki for the past week due to extremely heavy workload. I'm still going to be off-and-on probably for the next month as things are getting really busy at my end, so apologies if I don't reply right away to messages (anything urgent you can always e-mail me direct). Apologies for sounding snarky on that Moonraker music thing; it had been a bad few days on Wikipedia for me (which is another reason I decided to give myself a voluntary time-out). Now I'm off to see what damage has been done to some of "my" articles. ;) 23skidoo 16:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Long, long, long, long, long, overdue barnstar!!
Of course no single barnstar can do justice to the amount of effort you have put into this project. But at least you'll know that we're aware of your contributions!!

Perfect Dark
I liked the screenshot you took for the Perfect Dark article. Right now, that article is going through a pretty tough FA debate, and one of the requests is for a screenshot of the 4-player split screen setup. I don't have the technology to take a screenshot for myself, so I wondered if you could help out? Also if you feel like weighing in on the FA debate then please feel free. Thanks for your time, Soo 19:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume that means you're using an emulator. Thanks anyway, hopefully I'll be able to find one elsewhere. Soo 19:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fleming007impression.jpg
Hi, you uploaded Image:Fleming007impression.jpg and tagged it as PD using a template that is now deprecated. Would you be able to go back, change it to an up-to-date copyright tag and include source information, to explain why it is PD? At the moment it looks like a copyvio, but I am holding fire in case there is some reason it is PD. In general, work does not become PD for Wikipedia purposes unless it was published in the USA before 1923, or the creator has been dead for 70 years, neither of which are possible in this case. Another alternative is that the copyright owner has released rights for it, which seems unlikely. Would you be able to sort it out before it gets tagged as a copyvio? TheGrappler 14:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

James Bond Proposal
Actually, Harry Potter has an article about the franchise and a seperate one on the character. Trosk 00:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Word "removal"
Thanks for catching that. I'd only woken up 20 minutes beforehand, perhaps that's why I missed it.--Drat (Talk) 03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
I read the article about Goldfinger and I stand corrected. But why did you also remove my contribution regarding the Bond Family Motto? I just want to know why. That's all

Thanks for the corrections!!!!

The stuff about Bond not being a true gentleman is totally true (and very interesting) I strongly believe that this info ought to be included in the James Bond entry. Friends of Fleming have often said this. Have a look at the vintages he orders, they are always bad years of wine or champers. Fleming was a famously snobbish man, and he shows it in his books.

Do you know about this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market#Recorded_Music_Interim_Physical_Retail_Sales_in_2005

I'm looking for the sources of the charts listed??? You can email me at kellijeannebrown@yahoo.com.

Thanks!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.228.198 (talk • contribs).
 * I dont' know anything about that, however, I did request from the editor who added the information to please cite a source so that other readers and editors can verify the information. K1Bond007 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Travolta/Bond
Hey K1Bond007

I'm not going to get into a back and forth thing on the Casino Royale page about Travolta being up for Bond. I appreciate that you posted that link but it was a blog with one guy in a basement hypothesizing that Travolta wasn't really up for Bond. I'm more inclined to trust all the established news sources that verified that he was. Especially since the blogger got so many facts wrong like saying he only had one IMDB credit but when I check it although there weren't many, there wasn't just one; or that he isn't related to John when it is well know he's his nephew, etc - that kind of thing. Like I said, it's not a big deal to me so I'm not going to do a repost. According to the verifiable news sources he was definitely in the running and I have a source at Pinewood who confirmed that to me (but you have no reason to trust me on that so I don't expect you to - I just know for my piece of mind). You can repost the info on the Casino Royale article if you want the article to be accurate but I'm leaving that decision to you, I'm not going to repost it just to get you mad. Not a big thing for me. Not like I would have liked him to do the part (sorry I was rooting for Hugh Jackman myself). Thanks JBond5 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey K1Bond007

Thanks for swinging back at me. I think it's clear we can agree to disagree and be respectful. I think that's cool. I'll go ahead and repost since you said it won't turn into a revert war. I'm a big Bond fan so I'm sure we'll run across each other a lot. Best to you. JBond5 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bond Film Template
Please do not go around reverting that Bond Film Template back: I have made the change to conform with the Film Infobox. I know Bond Films a great, I'm a huge fan, but they are films just the same. I fact, I think that you're lucky that Bond films have got their own Template. .... 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ....and yet most other films happen to list the IMDb rating....strange. .... 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the IMDb rating should not be there, but the rottentomatoes.com meter should..... 03:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about being a pest...
but lots of people were putting up the IMDB rating in a films caption box, and I was just trying to clean things up. Again, sorry, but I think that the Rotten Tomato thing should be in there. .... 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

New poster
Hi, I believe I've seen your handle on CBn, so I'm willing to bet you've seen the new poster! What do you think of it? Bhumiya (said/done) 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it too. EON is bound to release a high-res version soon, now that everyone has seen it. What sense would it make for them to wait? Bhumiya (said/done) 05:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the producers will move up the poster release date now that the Finns have blown their cover. Or perhaps not. It's difficult to predict how EON will react to these sort of things. I just can't imagine them waiting several days or weeks and then "releasing" a poster everyone has already seen. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Although I completely disagree with your saying that the Bond continuity is "loose at best" and have been reverting your edits (which I tried to find a compromise continuing to include your off-topic "YOLT"/"OHMSS" content), I should warn you that should note the rule of WP:3RR. I have no idea how many we're both up to and as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter, however, it is the rule and you should take note. I don't plan to revert my latest one any time soon in accordance with that rule, but I will restore it, if not done by someone else by tomorrow.

It would also be nice if you didn't try to force your POV onto the "Casino Royale" page. I informed you that the pre-"Casino Royale" series had continuity. This is complete fact that we don't even have to argue and the point about YOLT and OHMSS should also be removed because we shouldn't have to explain to people why the error is there. It is there and as such it is a continuity error.GuruAskew 07:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes
Please join us in discussing a topic concerning a Rotten Tomatoes % in the Wikifilm infobox. Your opinions would be appreciated.

Template_talk:Infobox_Film--P-Chan 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I've seen everything
Here's a new twist. I just slapped a 48-hour block on an anon IP (I know that's pretty long for an IP but follow my reasoning) because he was posting complete scripts on talk pages! Take a look at the history for Talk:Million Dollar Baby for example (see, though if you're on a slow connection allow about 15 minutes for the page to load). I haven't seen anything so clueless, well, ever ... unless the guy is a vandal whose gameplan is to gum up the works... 23skidoo 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be checking out that link for sure! Yeah, I checked to see if anyone else was using that IP and it looked like all the guys edits were either the copyvio stuff or flat out vandalism. So I don't feel too guilty. Sadly I also came across a vandal that deserved banning for a good while, but not only was he an anonymous IP he was one of those AOL IPs that we aren't supposed to block for more than 15 minutes! Broke my heart, I tell ya... 23skidoo 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: James Bond character template
Tough one, but it seems to be guesswork based on the age of the actors playing these characters, and that's not always enough to go on. I could see it being especially confusing with Le Chiffre and Blofeld. So I suppose it could probably go.

You also work on the 24 pages right? I find the "Jobs Held" section of that template quesionable, characters like Christopher Henderson, James Heller, and Nina Myers all have detailed pre-series history (though only availble on the official site bios, not mentioned on th show) but for characters like Kate Warner, Keith Palmer, and Vladimir Bierko, the entry seems kind of pointless and redundant. Simon Beavis

Koenig
Just for the record, I have just blocked User:Stephan KŒNIG for one week for continually adding blog material to the Bill Haley talk page. He also keeps being warned about uploading personal images. I don't know if it'll do any good since as you know he's now hopping around anon IP addresses, but maybe this will get his attention. Feel free to add any comments to his talk page. Next block on him will be indefinite. He's had enough warnings. 23skidoo 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just blocked him for a month as he outright vandalized the Bill Haley article after his one-week block expired. I'd forgotten that I'd said above I'd block him indefinitely. Oh well -- that'll be next, I'm sure. Unfortunately as noted above he knows how to play the IP game. Guess he isn't the "clueless newbie" he's made himself out to be, huh... 23skidoo 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sean Connery succession boxes
Hello! This is regarding a succession box in the Sean Connery article, specifically, the Academy Award. To quote: "about the placement of the succession boxes... it depends on what the "succession" is. If it's more specific, like a specfic award, it generally goes after the specific section describing what the succession is. If it's something more general, put it after the "external links". Its an aesthetic choice as well, as they look somewhat strange on these small bios to have the succession box anywhere but after the "external links". Hope this helps :) PageantUpdater 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)". And it is widely agreed upon that awards-related succession boxes should be placed in the Awards section, or if there is no such section, in the filmography section. As for the James Bond succession box, you're the one more familiar with that, so it's your call. Thanks!Joey80 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

shopping
Fine, so the 23rd is the FIFTH busiest shopping day of the year. Nitpicker. :P Daniel Davis 03:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Magazine covers
The attack on using images in Wikipedia continues. I've just had a run-in with a user who is embarking on a plan to remove all magazine covers from Wikipedia -- unless the covers are explicitly used in articles about said magazines. No illustrations of fashion models, or subject matter on the covers. I've just about had it with this place --people are so damn paranoid about copyright that they basically want this place to be nothing but text. Anyway, just a heads up in case you have any magazine covers in your articles. I imagine we'll end up losing the book covers soon, too. 23skidoo 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah Wikipedia has gone totally anal on this. All those TV Guide covers that Ben King added to dozens of articles got canned (I notice he has quit the Wikipedia community, possibly in response). I know there are some magazine covers in the Bond articles so I would expect the "Fairusebot" that's going around decimating articles will hit it eventually. 23skidoo 11:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that if it's just decorative there's little rationale - for example even though a case could be made for the TV Guide covers to be included, a response case against them could also be made (it's only a shame a barnstar-receiving editor quit as result). But when we're losing magazine covers for magazine models, etc. it's going a bit far. What annoys me the most is no one is bothering to actually prove to me that such use violates the copyright. Everyone seems to be looking at the image tag wording as an expression of law when it may very well be a misinterpretation or a simple omission. In any event, you might want to jump ahead and remove that magazine cover from Thunderball since it'll probably get bot-ted out before long anyway. 23skidoo 14:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will support you if you find yourself in a revert situation on this. Let me know if 3RR ever becomes an issue. 23skidoo 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And so it begins (ref. today's removal of the Thunderball magazine cover). I will let you revert it to start as I am too connected to this argument. 23skidoo 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will set precedent that will allow other magazine images to be kept. Unfortunately many of them have now been physically deleted from Wikipedia and are lost. I'm taking a Wikibreak for the next week due to workload and a short vacation I have planned. I'll be back online next Wednesday. 23skidoo 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Young Bond pages...
Hey K1. Great work on keeping the Young Bond pages clean and up-to-date. :) Zencato

You only Live twice
It would be better that we move he section The Film from the Article You only live twice to a separate article:

You only live twice (film) This is because the film section is way too large and crowds the article up. Then you could add a disambiguation link at the top so that will link the person to the Film article. As I said, by making a separate article for You Only Live Twice (film) you can have a clearer article and make the book article less crowded.

Jean-Paul 08:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean the article is crowded in KB size. I mean that the film section crowds the article visually. Which is why I think it should be moved to a seperate article

Jean-Paul 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Brosnan on Daily Show
Hi. I thought I'd flag the following link, Pierce Brosnan on The Daily Show – if you saw it, sorry to waste your time. If not, it's an interesting take on the whole Brosnan gettting "axed" situation. Best regards --Mark83 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

unicode
Hi, could you tell me if I messed up the unicode stuff at the bottom for "ja:" as I did in another article that I think you noticed? Wild_Bill_Hickok. Thanks!--Paraphelion 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks bunches!--Paraphelion 05:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 FAC
I think you already know, but Half-Life 2 is under FAC once again. You helped me out last time I tried, so I was wondering if you wanted to share any input or vote. Thunderbrand 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We passed! The long road to FA is over. Thanks for your vote! Thunderbrand 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cell CPU
Hey its me again, and i was wondering if you could explain to me the important things for the PS3's CPU: the Cell. some things i wanna know are how exactly the 7 SPE's work together, is an SPE like a core on normal CPU's? Why is using all of the SPE's so hard for developers? what if 8 SPE's on somebody's PS3 were to work? im Xing my fingers hoping you know- the main article on it is too complex for me.KittenKiller 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you the guy that used to have the MaxPages site?
Are you the k1bond007 who used to hang around on AOL, and had the MaxPages site?

I used to go there all the time! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JLAPROY (talk • contribs).
 * haha well...I remember it! I was a big fan, I loved that site!
 * I just saw your name on here and I was wondering if you were THAT k1bond007! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JLAPROY (talk • contribs).

Philip H. Melanson topic edit
I'm wondering why you took the categories out of the Philip H. Melanson topic Philip_H._Melanson I started? He has been involved with the MLK, RFK, and JFK cases so I thought that the category made sense. I may be wrong - this is the first topic I've created from scratch.

Rob --RFlynn1000 12:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bond007 taglines
Hi, did you ever consider making an artile on James Bond taglines? I was looking for such an article but couldn't find it. I was looking for it but couldn't find it. jaco ♫ plane 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting vandalism and nonsense
Hi, I know you're busy, but I'd like to thank you for blocking an annoying vandal. Thank you for helping to keep order in Wikipedia. Cheers. --Starionwolf 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)