User:K1Bond007/Archive11

---

I don't get why some people get all upset over little things like infoboxes. Then again there are a large number of wikipedia editors who would like nothing better than for all pop culture topics to be banned and for Wikipedia to be nothing but a bunch of scholarly essays on quantum physics and American Revolutionary War history (I'm not exaggerating very much - I've seen that more or less stated on AFD from time to time). Anyway, I've cast my vote. In terms of Bond villain/girl I agree it probably isn't much of a spoiler except for TWINE but that film's 7 years old now. The only problem I see is there are some films in which it is debatable who the main Bond girl is. LTK is a good example as there were two main Bond girls in that film although only one actually ended up with James at the end (even though the other stated she was in love with him, too). As far as the book infobox goes, I agree I think we should just use the novel box. There really isn't that much additional information and the succession list can become cumbersome. Best to just go with "Preceded by" and "Followed by" and perhaps create an Ian Fleming Books template (like the one used for William S. Burroughs) which would allow us to list not only all his Bonds, but his non-Bond work as well, most of which has articles. Similarly templates could be created for Gardner (who has a number of notable non-Bond novels) and Benson. Amis was rather prolific so doing a template list for him might be a bit cumbersome. 23skidoo 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The revised infoboxes look good. I am in the process of making a sample template for Ian Fleming (as mentioned above) and I'll post a link shortly. 23skidoo 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the TFD for the Bond film template and man it's getting hard not to get snarky with some of the comments being made there. I sincerely hope the Stargate fan's vote is discounted as trolling. 23skidoo 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I basically adapted the William Burroughs template: Template:Ian Fleming. What do you think? I can create ones pretty easily for Gardner and Benson as well (probably no need to do ones for Amis, Pearson or Wood). 23skidoo 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oopsie! Just for the record, Queer is a Burroughs novel. I can just imagine someone trying to make a Bond movie out of it! I'm going to drop it onto Casino Royale and let's see how it works. I think as long as the book/film combinations remain the best thing is to probably place the template after the book discussion. Thoughts? 23skidoo 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be purple. I have no idea how to change the color, but if you can do it, please feel free. 23skidoo 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it at the bottom for now. We can always move it later if it doesn't work. 23skidoo 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK that's done. Next up I will create a template for John Gardner, however what I think I'll do is just create a template called Template:John Gardner Bond and only list his Bond novels, since it doesn't appear as if any of his other works have articles. I'll do the same with Benson. 23skidoo 22:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I was already adding the template but only got to Role of Honour so if you want to delete the template and replace the tag on the few Gardners I got to, feel free. I'll delete the template myself and revert my edits (there were only a couple). 23skidoo 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon -- I'd forgotten all about that footer! Looks good. When is the second Moneypenny book coming out? Maybe we can create a prelimary stub so that the redlink disappears. 23skidoo 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I saw the watchlist go crazy too. I think I'm in the mood for a Wikibreak as well. I just had a guy jump down my throat because I changed a header from "External link" to "External links". The monkeys are taking over the zoo. 23skidoo 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the Bond books template to include Pearson and the others. After that I think I'm going away for awhile. I just caught s*it from a guy for citing the 3RR as a courtesy so he wouldn't get banned for violating it. That and a few other things have soured me on Wikipedia in the last few days. I'm not quitting or anything, but I'm definitely taking a timeout for awhile. 23skidoo 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK it's done. The 007 continuation template will probably be considered orphaned now, but at least the "main" template now has the spin-off books (though I'm waiting for someone to take exception to including them). I also placed objections on the talk pages for Thunderball and any of the articles with novelisations. I can understand the logic in splitting the film/movie articles up (though I don't agree with it), but there's no need for the novelisations to have their own articles, otherwise they'll just be repeats of film plot summary, etc. Whoever suggested it didn't even take time to notice that the Wood books carried slightly different titles, too! If someone pulls a "be bold" and creates novelisation articles, they'll need to be moved to the proper titles (which already exist as redirect pages anyway). Anyhow, that's it for me for awhile. I'm taking a time-out before I start swearing at people. 23skidoo 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK so my willpower is shot. I am going on that wikibreak soon, I swear. In the meantime I decided that since it's been officially announced and other announced novels have their own articles (and we had one for SilverFin for nearly a year before it came out) I thought it would be safe to create Secret Servant: The Moneypenny Diaries. There isn't much there -- if you can add to it it might stave off a premature AFD. 23skidoo 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't get away! (Doesn't help that I'm in a "hurry up and wait" holding patten at my home-based job today). Anyway, since we do have a Young Bond 5 article, etc., do you think there's enough information around to justify a Moneypenny Diaries 3 article yet -- or is that pushing it? 23skidoo 19:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your revert regarding the Kemsley newspapers link. You've hit on another of the growing number of things making me annoyed with Wikipedia -- the movement (and I'd describe it as a movement) to basically ban redlinks -- no link if there's no article. That makes absolutely no sense to me since I personally have probably created close to 100 articles after discovering their redlinks. I'm sure I'm not alone. 23skidoo 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem there. It's a lot easier to type it without all the periods, too. Got your e-mail re:Thunderball. I'm not going to have much time to check it out till later today but I'll let you know. 23skidoo 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally had a chance to check out the two articles and they look good. I only made one minor change to the intro of the film article (a link to the novel article was missing). I might remove the dab statement as it's unlikely someone typing "Thunderball (film)" is likely to be looking for the book. Thoughts?

In terms of content, the only question mark I have is over the "Bond battle royale" section which I think might actually be better placed at Never Say Never Again, with maybe a brief mention in the novel article. There should probably be something also included in the film article. Again, thoughts? 23skidoo 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean - park the section somewhere appropriate and then basically link to it from the other two articles. Alternately it is long enough to be an article on its own, however it might be seen as too "crufty". 23skidoo 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment over that the FA Review discussion page that I'd like to toss your way either as ammo for discussions/debate with others, or for your own interest. I asked 2 questions of the people over there -- one was, now that the articles have been split, which article retains the FA status? Can two articles share the same FA or do they both lose it as a result of the split? And second -- if this was such a big deal to people, how did Thunderball get approved for FA status in the first place? I remember the discussion when you nominated it, and I don't recall anyone suggesting the article be split. It's a bit of an annoying turn-around of opinion, I think. 23skidoo 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for disagreeing with you on the Red Tattoo rumor, but as I stated on the talk page if we delete that item them IMO we need to take out all the bogus reports and denied rumors at Casino Royale, etc. We can't pick and choose what to include. If the Enquirer had reported that EON was filming Red Tattoo that's easy enough to discount. But this is the Daily Record that was reporting it. 23skidoo 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That thumping sound you hear is me pounding me head on the desk as I read the edit that you had to revert at the CR2006 film article. Of course some of the films take place during the cold war -- they were filmed 30-40 years ago! I find it hard to believe some people don't actually know this. Then again I was in a toy store a couple of years ago and I clearly heard a 10-year-old-ish kid ask his dad "Dad, what's Star Wars?" Maybe the youngsters don't honestly realize the Bond films have been made for 40 years. That or there's a case of serious WP:OSTRICH (possibly my favorite wiki-abbreviation of all) going on. 23skidoo 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a note to the talk page to make it clear that I agreed with the deletion of the "Worst Bond ever" thread. (It's easy to push people's buttons isn't it?) I put it there to defuse anyone who might take umbrage at the deletion ... and hopefully deter similar threads starting. 23skidoo 20:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I had reverted that handler addition once before (but obviously missed it's reappearance). Note how the anon claims it's factually accurate. In what universe? (Correction: I got my articles mixed up: I caught the use of handler in GoldenEye, not the main Bond article.23skidoo 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered you asked this question and I never got back to you. Yes, I think a James Bond Wikiproject is well overdue. Doctor Who, Star Trek and even Firefly has one, after all. Any idea how to go about starting one? 23skidoo 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related issue, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the change I made to the article quality assessment on Casino Royale (1967 film). I personally have a major issue with such assessments (and don't get me started on the blatantly POV "importance scale" which shouldn't be allowed here at all), but looking over the scale, I think the film article has more information than a "Start class" so I moved it up a notch. Let's see the reaction, if any. 23skidoo 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been intentionally staying hands-off with the splitting, partly because it yanks my chain a bit that we have to do this, but also I thought it would be easier for you to keep your head around all the changes if you didn't have me butting in. At least we already had a split done for Octopussy and OATLD! Once the sawdust clears I plan to spend some time going through all the articles and helping to tweak things. 23skidoo 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I did some minor tweaking this evening, reducing the sizes of book images on infoboxes to 200px as that appears to be the consensus size for the infoboxes (I don't mind the smaller images as that allows more of the text in the infobox to be seen on the first screen). I also played around with the Bond Book template, including a few "interim" tweaks regarding the Wood books pending their splitting off later. I also, just for the sake of completeness, added a link to Benson's Heart of Ezulie to the template. I also made a change to Colonel Sun in that I realized we should have at least the first paperback edition illustrated (in lieu of a hardback cover scan); I never really liked the version with the girl on the cover, though I've left it at the Robert Markham article. 23skidoo 05:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All I can say about the original cover for Colonel Sun is that it came out in 1968, at the height of the hippie era. Maybe someone was "tuning in, turning on and dropping out" when they commissioned the cover. Thankfully Pan Books' staff were a bit more sober when they designed the paperback, which I actually consider one of the more striking of that series, perhaps because of it being the only real photographic cover of that series. The cover for the hardcover is weird enough that it might warrant discussion in the article, though. 23skidoo 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully my jumping in to support you hasn't muddied the waters over at Casino Royale! If you want to see something neat, check out the new issue of Entertainment Weekly, which has Craig on the cover. If you open the magazine you'll see that they've made 4 fake covers showing how their magazine might have covered the signing of the other Bond actors. Pretty cool. 23skidoo 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI I've created an article on Pan Books. It was previously a redirect to the publishing house that oversaw the company. I didn't realize Pan was still in operation -- I thought they shut down in the 1980s -- but I guess they are still around according to their website. I'm using the image of the 1961 Goldfinger paperback to illustrate the article. 23skidoo 01:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out the recent edit-reversion on Licence to Kill. Sometimes I have to wonder if these anons even bother to read the articles before they submit edits! There, rant over. I feel better now. 23skidoo 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes that's the best thing to do is take a break. I've done it a few times and it helps prevent Wikiburnout which is worse. Enjoy the rest! 23skidoo 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just making it official I'm on a full Wikibreak until at least July 17 as I'm on holidays. Later! 23skidoo 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think user 24.186.220.44 is the same user as Almeidaisgod and RicardoTubbs and many other sockpuppets that have been banned. AriGold 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, should've been more specific. This person constantly removes anything that could be considered negative from Univeristy of Miami or their University of Miami Hurricanes articles. Thet are also known to edit Miami players and Sopranos articles extensively. I thought the connection should be looked into and the mod who used to handle all of this persons edits retired. Sorry. AriGold 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo! What the heck, dude? What happened to discussing things before flying off the handle? You undid all my work without even conselting me first. ACS (Wikipedian) 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m sending you this message because I am the one who keeps trying to add information that you keep removing. I am also a Splinter Cell Promotion person as well as forum moderator for Ubisoft.

I don’t know why you insist on having misinformation on your site, but as someone who works only with the Splinter Cell series, I can tell you that a good amount of information I have found on the Splinter Cell pages on Wikipedia is wrong. I have even sat down with video game scriptwriter JT Petty and SC novel author Raymond Benson and combed through Wikipedia’s pages on Splinter Cell in an attempt to fix the mistakes. There was also an attempt to add important information that was missing. After fixing all the mistakes lately you see fit to remove any and all information that I add.

Right now, Wikipeia has information posted that the current novel author is “unknown”. Well as of yesterday he is not unknown as I interviewed him. I tried to place the info on Wikipedia and you removed it…again. The website that I linked to is mine so I know the information on it is accurate. My website is not officially endorsed by Ubisoft as I want it to remain my property, but because of my position with Ubi, most of the info from it comes from the game company, or the novel author’s themselves.

If you don’t want my help, that’s fine. If the information on Wikipedia is incorrect, it won’t reflect badly on myself, Ubisoft or David Michaels. But in the future I would advise you to change where and how you are gathering your information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.226.147 (talk • contribs) .

See your discussion page. K1Bond007 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I intend to edit anymore isn't in question, because I dont.

Never once did I state that I thought my website was more importat than the official site. But what I was trying to do was get info out to the fans that I have. I can get it out quicker due to lack of red tape. Interviews with devs that release info about the games, trailers Ubi has allowed my site to debut, as well as info on the plot of the upcoming book. And, on that subject, I never said the interview revealed anything about his identity as it is kept under wraps for a reason. I simply posted that he gave an interview.

And maybe you should look at my edits again. On the Splinter Cell characters page, you had all kinds of mistakes about, for example, the character of Anna Grimsdottir being married and enjoying reading and skiing. As well as the character of Irving Lambert being married and info on the character of Frances Coen and others. I ran all that info by the series creator and none of it was true. There was alot of info that was also left out on the books that I corrected with Raymond Benson. And did you look at the info about the movie? All of that was incorrect as well. You guys didn't even have the movie trailer until I added it, which uses my bandwith..which will be coming down now. I also attempted to add a page on Splinter Cell: Checkmate after talking to the author, and I guess now I know why it hasn't posted yet.

I always thought idle threats were something that we grew out of when we hit 10. My continuing to contribute here is something you need not worry about. If you are going to threaten a ban for trying to help, I don't care if your website is flooded with misinformation and I will remove my contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.226.147 (talk • contribs) .

---

Im almost positive that this is not the place I'm supposed to be responding, but there is no reply link at your message.

Part of the reason for my "offense" is that I think your being unfair in referring to it as spam.

If I was just posting "Hey! Come visit my site," without any contribution, that would be one thing. But, when I posted anything from my own site, I had news attached to it. You didn't have a problem when I posted the news of the departure of the producers and writers of the movie and linked to RopesOfSilicon.com, and you also didn't have a problem when I posted the purchase of Dreamworks by Paramount and linked to Yahoo! News, but when the news happened to come from my site, even if it is legitimate news, it's spam. I happen to be in a position that I have connections and can make alot more news than other sites. But that shouldn't make the news any less relivant in getting it to people. BTW, I checked my sites stats for the last month, and one person came to my site via the link from Wikipedia, so this is not done for my benefit.

When I take the time and care enough to try to make sure the info is correct, only to have it removed and replaced by the same wrong information, it's very frustrating, and it does come back to us at Ubisoft. For example, someone came to the official forums and said they saw on Wikipedia that Tom Cruise had accept the role of Sam Fisher in the movie. Well that is not true. So I had to correct him and that has happened a few times with a few wrong pieces of information. Which is why I went to the extent to find the correct info. But, if you are not in control of the other pages...and judging by the fact that the incorrect info that I removed has been replaced, it seems those who are in charge seem to perfer having incorrect information posted, so my hands are tied.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of trying to help and getting railed back for what I see as petty reasons everytime.

Also the back and forth with you removing my fan page from the list and the two other sites to the bottom, only to have me move them back was something I did because I have problems with an owner of another fansite following me around and well..not being nice. I was thinking it was him that was removing the info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.226.147 (talk • contribs) .

I've adressed your objections on the templates Deleition nomination. You may want to take another look. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to inform you that OrphanBot removed my old box art from GoldenEye 007, as there is no source (I don't know where I got it.) I did a Google image search, but most of them are low-res. I would imagine that you have the N64 box, and could scan it and be properly sourced, or know of a better website. Thunderbrand 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I went and uploaded the one you suggested to me. Seems good enough. Thunderbrand 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you made a map of AIDS distribution. Which software/application did you use? I want to make another map of the "happy planet index" http://www.happyplanetindex.org/list.htm Diego Torquemada 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I'll help you if you want. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost sure its "The Albert R. Broccoli 007 Stage", as opposed to "Albert R. Broccoli's 007 Stage". A minor point perhaps, but we should attempt 100% accuracy. I've done a search, but the two seem to be used. I'll try to find reliable information and then update if necessary. Mark83 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a problem, and I actually did an article split of my own recently (I split a couple of Matt Helm ones into separate film and novel articles). The only thing I can think of is the split articles somehow fell off the watchlist. Maybe check to make sure both MWTGG, etc. articles are on the list? That said, yesterday (Tuesday) Wikipedia was acting up quite a bit -- virtually every edit I did needed two attempts before it would be saved properly. So maybe this was a symptom of that. My watchlist shows a couple of TMWGG edits, but of course I'll need to physically add the new split to my watchlist. 23skidoo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The right source is jamesbond007.net. As you , I'm a huge fan of bond films but I strongly DO NOT support Daniel Craig as Bond, the man looks bizarre, is blonde and short. lol Machocarioca 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca

Sorry, I don't agree with you, please stop change my work. There is no precedent (where is it written?) and I don´t think character articles should be to the original Fleming name, but to the more popular and known names. And Carole Bouquet was never Judy Havelock, just Melina, and it's her image so it cannot be Judy/Melina with Carole's photograph. So Carole's image with the label Judy/Melina is wrong. Machocarioca 07:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca

I beg your pardon, you want me to start a discussion on the talk page?? I’m sorry, you’re the wrong one here. You changed, based in your own point of view, the name of the article and the writting, which was originally done before as Melina Havelock, which is the right way to name it. This article -and the others - was clearly done for the films , do one yourself for the book caracters.

You did it again now with Jill Masterson, Tilly Masterson and Domino, based in your opinion and you can’t do that without a discussion with other users, nobody can. You, not me, discuss it there, before change the original article’s names, which are, obviously, the right names. I’m just reverting what you did.

Billions of people wolrwide know these characters by their film's names (just huge and constant fans know it by their book’s names), the photographs shows the film characters, not the book caracters, but you can´t understand it and insist with your point of view changing the labels and the names. Ok, then discuss it on the talk page before to change the original labels and the original names, ok? Don’t do this, please, you’re the wrong guy here on both things. Thank you. Machocarioca 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca

Excuse me but they will stay as they were BEFORE you changed it, by your own, you couldn't did do that before the discussion, right? And you changed the writtings too, right? All right about the consensus then I ask you to resist making changes , as you did without consensus, until the consensus can be make. Thank you for the two cents.

I do not do changes just for sake, that's ridiculous, I changed the old photos for better ones and all of them are under fair use rules, probably I'm a costumer here before before you ever heard about wikipedia. The photo that shows Alec Trevalian really isn't a promotional one, I made a mistake, just that, clearly is a screenshot. I improved very much the quality of the pictures here. It looks like you think you're the owner of bond's articles and nobody can touch that,only you, you have the last voice. Are you kidding? This is the Wikkipedia. Sorry. Thanks.Machocarioca 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca

Hey man - just thought I should own up that I was the one that did the cropping on the "Renardcard" image - Machocarioca has a problem with the text on those character-specific posters, so I was seeing if I could get it by him that way. He's still very annoying, but your beef in that particular case is with me! I've left it as the screenshot again though - having been snooping on your argument. The main pages are all pretty impressive by the way - I've been browsing a lot since my initial OHMSS question. Cheers, Cardinal Wurzel 10:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, man. Well, the cropped image was uploaded by Cardinal, as he said above and for me is better than the old one, is just fine, as Gustav Graves. If you don't care with images, for me it's essential, and the reason for the changes are just a better quality. This is the reason. Coolest images. Under wiki rules.

The problem with DVD's images is the size, small to the infobox design. I think it sould be bigger to fit coolest. Not BIGGER, just a little, as I did. And the quality of DVD's images are very poor too(with exceptions like, for example, Dr.No). Be honest, DVD's images in the articles Alec Travalian and Elliot Carver are far from nice pictures, right? Ok, the photo I uploaded before (Carver) was not that good, I agree, but now there's one very nice.

Alec Trevalian is almost dark, man! Of course mine is coolest. Both of us love Bond, I just want improve the things. Nevermind.

The question about the the articles' names and the labels under the images in the infobox are not about "popular" characters, you know that, hã? The question is that the articles are, originally, about film characters. Just that.

I know you love the books, I've readen the article about Thunderball, is brilliant, congratulations for that, you helped a lot that great job. Book and Film together. Great.

But the characters articles are, basically, about the films. It's cool talk about the book's characters there, but it's not cool change the name or insert two names in the label under the image of the film's character.

Sorry for my poor english, we're both on the same side. Machocarioca 07:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC) machocarioca

Hello again. You starting to get restless yet? I personally can't wait for Casino Royale's release. It's the first Bond film release which I've read the novel for, and given your D.O.B. I'm guessing you too? Btw, I don't think I've offered my services before, however if you have any Bond related disputes, rest assured I will vote with the best interests of the character in mind! Best regards, Mark83 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

At first upon being blocked I must say that a good supply of anger did wash over me; and I certainly believed that this was an unjust move on your part. I read about my being blocked, and I read also some call me a Wikipedia "vandal". Curious, I did some research curtousy Wikipedia itself, concerning vandals and editors and even administators, such as yourself. Still being a novice wikipedian, I was reading of these things for the first time, and that I was considered a vandal because it was believed by others that I was subtracting from the integrity of Wikipedia. This fact alone set me a bit aback, never thinking that my edits were in any fashion detrimental. It made me bitter to think that I was considered an enemy of a much-admired website which I have benefited GREATLY from in terms of information and so much more. Your move in fact turned out a blessing, because while blocked I had time to think and to read, and to discover. I disovered not only how hard it must be to become an administrator, but how much more difficult it must be to endure all of the inummerable attacks from brainless vandalism, seeking attention and little more. Now however, I know what side I'm on. I came at a conclusion before my block time expired, and that conclusion was this: while I still firmly aknowledge the fact that Boris Grishenko survived the film Goldeneye, I will leave his page to you on the matter of his condition, for it is blatant to me now that your knowledge of this site far outstretches mine. Consequently, such a page is clearly in better position in your hands than in my hands, which are editing fingers of a mere ameteur. What's that in comparison to an administrator? Subsequently I will do all that I can to aide you in your quest to run the Bond pages in ideal fahion. My first decision as an unblocked editor will be to add the 'Janus Syndicate' on the villainous organizations of your 'Bond Villains' page. This will be a mere beginning step in my rebirth as an editor, which will be an ambitious pursuit in which I will only be contributing edits of sound benevolence to this ever-growing site. I will use the 'talk pages' to come at consensus for any ambiguities or controversies I encounter. I will repect administration at the fine site from now forth, and the decisions they make. They are administrators for a reason, after all! I hope you will accept this new path I have chosen, and at the same time forgive me of my previous problem-making. It was embarrassing on my part, and I dearly long for it to be forgotten. Please consider granting me this fresh start. For the betterment of this vast site- IAN

Yeah I think that what you suggest is a good idea. I think that the confirmed/unconfirmed reports is becoming a bit redundant, as most details are confirmed by now, and that a new layout is needed. Are you hoping to eventually bring CASINO ROYALE into the same format as the pages for the previous Bond movies? I would imagine that would be tough because of all the different topics of discussion for this movie - the reboot, new Bond, etc. I'm happy to assist with this; if you want to put down the basic framework for the new page, I'll follow it. One thing you may wish to consider when planning it out is that I have quite a lot of information about the specific movie locations portrayed by the filming locations (similar to what you may see on the DIE ANOTHER DAY page). I suppose that could be fitted into the article in this "Production" section you mentioned. Overall - yeah, liking the idea. MrMagoo 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A new movement is afoot to remove screen captures and similar images from articles, again citing the Fair Use doctrine. While I was doing some research on this, I came across a statement by Jimbo Wales here on the subject of publicity photos. I don't know about you, but in my opinion I think this spells the death knell for images of any type on Wikipedia. What do you think? I mean, it's one thing to have a blatant copyvio, but we can't use magazine covers anymore, publicity photos are out according to Jimbo unless you want to spend far more time than it's worth to go hunting for permissions, screencaptures are being removed and I fully expect book covers to be the next targets. 23skidoo 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Jimbo, he does say that outlawing images is an "extreme" case. But I guess my point is once the idea is floated out there someone might pick it up. And I have seen some people trying (not successfully, thankfully) to make the case that things like book covers should not be used. But that's probably over-the-top paranoia. What annoys me is publicity photos are exactly that - intended for publicity. And lots of people use Wikipedia to find out more about an actor or actress. And what gets me is that Wikipedia is needlessly concerned regarding actual publicity shots. If I owned a newspaper or magazine I could take an officially released publicity photo of Angelina Jolie and use it to my heart's content. And charge people 50 cents or a dollar or $5 and make money off it. (A prime example -- albeit one that sparked controversy -- was earlier this year when Playboy magazine used a publicity photo of Jessica Alba on its cover; they didn't get into trouble for using the photo, only for implying that she was nude inside.) So why then can't we as a free access site be allowed to use publicity shots, as long as they're properly credited, etc. As I stated in one of the discussions, the only other option is to hope someone uploads a photo they took with their cellphone or something, or maybe draws a picture (which was the case with the Milla Jovovich article for awhile) ... it lowers the quality of the encyclopedia and makes it seem amateurish. In terms of screenshots, the problem I have there is people are ignoring the fact that the rule is that the screenshot can be used in discussion of "a film's contents." Well, actors are contents ... and so are, for example, those fantastic opening credits shots from GoldenEye you uploaded long ago. As far as magazines, well I think it's still silly to not allow an article on a fashion model to include an example of her work. Again, it lessens the encyclopedia, in my view. 23skidoo 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As a James Bond fan I am amazed that you don't think I've been expecting you Mister Bond isn't a famous quote? James Janderson 10:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)