User:K1Bond007/Archive12

---

Sorry to hear about the job not working out. I hope if TB gets pushed out of FA status it is clearly stated that it happened as a direct result of people insisting the article be split up. 23skidoo 04:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have grounds for appeal. For one thing I can't seem to find any indication that there was actually any discussion on this. That has to be breaking a rule somewhere. Never mind, I found the discussion in the archive. I actually exchanged PMs with another user on this and he's mystified by some of the comments made here. By rights the entire Thunderball article should never have received FA under their reasoning. There is absolutely zero consistency here. Anyway, I added a protest (for what good it'll do) as I promised I would do. I've also started to make noises that I might resign as an admin, because between this and some absolute nonsense I'm having to deal with regarding images, this place is becoming more frustrating by the day. 23skidoo 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck is Alexis Denisof and where are people getting this idea that he's been signed to play Bond 4 years from now??? This is enough to drive a guy to drink, I tell ya. 23skidoo 20:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya. I think the format is supposed to be (novel) though a case can be made for the original book titles to be undisambiguated (no "novel" qualifier) since they were the original use. Thunderball maybe not as that's a term used in nuclear warfare, but certainly Diamonds Are Forever, the book, doesn't need a qualifier. Speaking of Thunderball and FA, if you scroll up a few threads on my talk page you'll see that Kevinlewis from the Novels Wikiproject is just as puzzled about it as we are, since he points out that the decision to de-FA the article actually seem to be "problems" that have always existed with the un-split article. So why was Thunderball given FA in the first place? It's the lack of consistency that is really turning me off this place (don't get me started again on images, the rules for which seem to be changing about once every 24 hours). 23skidoo 21:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The effect it has on me personally is that I have absolutely no desire to attempt to get one of "my" articles (note the quotations - I know none of us own the articles) nominated for FA. I have several, such as Rock Around the Clock and Simon Templar that I probably should try to get FA'd, but I'm not even bothering. It's not worth the frustration in my opinion, especially with the changing qualifications. They should come up with some firm rules, form a consistent FA committee (like they have with arbitration) and apply the rules consistently. Wikipedia has been around long enough now that they should be able to come up with "hard and fast" rules for FA criteria and stick to them. 23skidoo 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In a somewhat masochistic mood this morning, I took an axe to the Daniel Craig controversy section in Casino Royale. It was really getting out of hand. So let the fireworks begin! 23skidoo 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is cool -- Raymond Benson himself just left me a note on my talk page (a correction regarding the date for Blast from the Past). Too bad he doesn't have an account, just using an anon IP. 23skidoo 21:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As part of my "Wiki-rehab", I followed the advice of a few people and removed most articles from my watchlist except for a bare minimum number of articles that I've been nursemaiding. I removed most of the articles that were causing me headaches, including most of the Bond articles, though I've left the main article on the list. Incidentally, I'm now noticing that the Wiki-police are now starting to target templates so I won't be surprised in the Ian Fleming templates or the ones being messed about with for the main Bond article don't get nominated for TFD. 23skidoo 16:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• The template for Audrey Hepburn movies is being TFD'd and will probably be deleted (you can find a link to the discussion at, for example, Breakfast at Tiffany's. Plus you can see a bit of the discussion on my talk page under Audrey Hepburn. Basically the attitude I'm seeing is that people don't like having templates that repeat information already listed elsewhere. Right now it's a case of them not wanting to have templates for actors because categories are less cluttered (which makes sense for multi-star films but there's a catch-22 because categories for actors have been forbidden). It's the bit about not repeating information already in the main article which makes me think that we could see an attack made on author and series templates as well. After all, in theory anyone wanting to see a list of all the Bond novels and stories just needs to go to James Bond. 23skidoo 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As it happens, no consensus could be reached regarding the Hepburn template so it defaulted to keep (which surprised me as last I looked at the TFD I was virtually the lone voice in the wilderness). I agree that in some cases categories are better, and if I hadn't already been told point blank (during a CFD for a couple of actor categories I created) that they weren't allowed I wouldn't have minded seeing the template go. It's just another example of Wikipedia not having a firm rule on something and people interpreting the rules differently. 23skidoo 13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on the main article as an anon is trying to interject some POV and unnecessary detail regarding the 1967 CR film. On a related note, I see Penguin has reissued all their 2002-2003 reprints in standard paperback form with newly written intros by the likes of Charlie Higson. If I didn't already have the complete 1960s Pan set I might consider picking them up! I wonder if it's worth noting in the 2006 CR article that the film, being the first Bond directly based on a novel in about 32 years (I don't count Spy or Moonraker as they were original stories) has sparked a renewal of interest in the Fleming canon? 23skidoo 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had too much interest in the main article since the FA attempt which resulted in people basically asking that all the interesting stuff be removed (I no longer try to get articles for FA or even GA anymore; it's too arbitrary and relies on other people's POV). But I still keep an eye on it for any obvious vandalism or bonehead edits. I have to confess I haven't really paid much attention to the new format articles for film/novels either. In terms of the reissues, well I can only go by what I've seen and I'm seeing big displays of Bond novels in major bookstores and the like, which is a level of interest in the Fleming Bonds that I've never seen (they never did this when any of the Brosnan Bonds came out). The key is to see what happens on the bestseller lists. Problem there is those lists are extremely hardback-biased so if Casino Royale sells a million paperback copies, I don't know if that would even show up. If CR06 is a success it could really get the novels moving. I guess we'll know in about a week. 23skidoo 03:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Since an article for The James Bond Dossier is now up, I've gone ahead and posted an article on The Book of Bond as well. Please feel free to replace my cover scan with one of a first edition if you happen to have one. I'm not sure whether this book should be added to the books template or not. It is a fictional work set within the Bond universe, sort of... 23skidoo 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Young Bond Book 5 is up for AFD here. So far it's running 50-50 on both sides. 23skidoo 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I finally got to see it today. Wow! I was worried that this film might have been too "anti-Bond formula" for its own good, but I was quite pleasantly surprised. I think Craig is a wonderful Bond -- possibly better than Connery (and that is saying a lot). And I'm not exaggerating when I say CR has the potential to surpass FRWL as my favorite Bond film of all (I have to see it again to make a final determination). It's not a perfect film and there are a few Jaws-sized plot holes that I hope are cleared up by the sequel (which is probably why FRWL will stay at No. 1 with CR at a close No. 2 at the end of the day), but I certainly think it's the best Bond in years and the anti-Craigers (and there are still a few of them) are starting to look mighty ridiculous as they continue to moan about the alleged miscasting. I don't know if you've seen it yet (I'd be interested in your thoughts) but there are several scenes where Craig really does look like Connery. At times the only thing missing was the Scottish accent... 23skidoo 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, hope you are well? The unencyclopedic nature of these sections has bugged me for some time. Recently I tried to improve the writing but decided it was better to remove them for several reasons. The creator of these sections has objected at Talk:GoldenEye and I've explained my reasoning. I was wondering if you had any thoughts as to the suitability or otherwise of them? Best regards Mark83 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The user in question has accepted the removal put appears to be persuing a vendetta now, but that's another issue. Btw, in several of our discussions you lamented the latest Bond films and personally I thought "what is he talking about?" After seeing Casino Royale I know exactly what you were talking about. It puts many of the Bond films to shame, especially TWINE and DAD. I can't understand what's changed though, (fantastic as he was) it can't all be Craig; The producers are the same, Purvis and Wade are still involved in the screen play, but something fundamental was different. It just worked better, it was also a lot smarter - for example the Brosnan era jokes were very schoolboy-ish. The CR jokes were clever and/or less childish. And I don't know whose idea the "Bond, James Bond" ending was, but whoever they were they should be wedded to the Bond movies forever more! Best regards, Mark83 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just realized I never saw this at the end of CR. Mind you I only stayed until the James Bond Theme played and then I had to leave, so maybe it appears at the end of the credits. Did you see it anywhere? If CR doesn't include this statement, that's definitely worth noting... 23skidoo 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it. It's there at the very end of the credits. --Zencato 17:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cool, although I think it would have definitely worked better at the top of the credits, considering how things were presented. I'm hoping to go see it again soon; I'm even starting to warm to the theme song (of which I was very critical as you recall). 23skidoo 09:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been accused of overreacting for predicting that Wikipedia is going to ban image uploads before long. I don't think I can be blamed for feeling this way when Wikipedia keeps changing the rules. According to an editor who did a wholesale removal of images from Audrey Hepburn, the rule is now that articles can have only one screenshot. This is completely news to me (and I can think of a few Bond-related articles that might be impacted). Have you heard this one? I swear if they tighten the rules any further we'll have to resort to drawing stick figures to represent actors and actresses ... 23skidoo 05:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have decided that I will probably resign as an administrator in the near future over this issue. The copyright paranoia is destroying this place and there's no reason for it. I figure that if I don't have the ability to rollback and do other stuff like that, then there's less temptation for me to get all upset about it and I can just focus on a small core of articles and let the rest rot. I'm not resigning yet as there are a few new articles I am helping nurture along and my "special powers" have been needed to prevent vandalism and other stuff, but I thought I'd give you a heads up I'm probably going to be downgrading myself in the next few weeks. 23skidoo 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In my wiki travels I've seen you do some nice work and "keep your cool" in some annoying moments. So hear one voice who has had an occasional casual overlap with you here say "Good job!" Coll7 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can identify with your frustration. The article on the Video Game Crash of 1983 had stabilized in a very informative spot. Then someone with 3 months of Wiki experience came along and said it was awful because it wasn't full of cited sources and personally delisted it from the Good Articles list. Then someone from Europe (for about the 4th time) rewrote it with major inaccuracies trying to get their experience into a North American event. Just holding it at the quality level of 3 months ago is now a chore. Sigh. The best thing about WP is its openness. The worst thing about...  ;-) Anyway, hang in there -- we need editors like you! Coll7 06:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All of a sudden, someone's blaming me for doing something wrong...well, what did I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.246.221.224 (talk • contribs) .

Over a year ago. Hardly all of a sudden. Check the user contributions to understand why the vandalism warning was left on your IP's talk page. K1Bond007 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sony data has been updated/changed.

Dr. No's budget was $1.2 million

Thunderball's was $7 million

you should also add the marketing numbers as well

I emailed the freewebs site and the owner stated the numbers were revised, he is also in the process of posting TV and video figures.

Fair points about reboot/prequel etc. I was just trying to improve a dire edit. Mark83 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i think you should put a frame by frame pic of the sequence on the site

I see someone is trying to nitpick at the main Bond article again and try to assert that NSNA and CR67 are as official as the EON films. I give up trying to convince the guy otherwise. Your turn. ;) (You gotta love that anon IP who tried to add that Leiter appears in GoldenEye, though. Maybe he's in some Outer Mongolian edit of the film I missed!) 23skidoo 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! I know how tempting it is to take a break from Wikipedia ... I'm starting to get a bit discouraged myself, especially when things like image rules get changed (or, rather, interpreted) on the fly. Anyway ... I think the Moneypenny Diaries short story can go on the Uncollected Stories page. All that we need to do is change the intro so that it isn't Benson-specific. I've actually been considering adding the "Your Deal, Mr. Bond" short story from that collection of Bridge-related stories as well; although it appears to have been unauthorized, it definitely features Bond, is rather reminiscent of the Bridge game section of Moonraker, and was published in a mainstream release. Technically it was collected, but not in any Bond collections. 23skidoo 04:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, it does work in the Moneypenny Diaries overview as well ... I think we can get away with having the story listed in both articles. 23skidoo 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to be saying goodbye to Wikipedia for good, right on the heels of that cool post from Benson. Several images I uploaded that I uploaded as fair use biographical images are being deleted as Wikipedia continues to become more draconian and paranoid. I really can't support this place any longer, and so I'm pretty much going to quit at this point. When people start saying with a straight face that we can't post images of people simply to show what they look like, then it's easy to see that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Of course I'm still reachable via e-mail. 23skidoo 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the principle of the thing and a long time in coming. Personally I hope they do ban images and then someone can start a rival Wikipedia that will allow them. Images are necessary with the Internet being a visual medium, but it's not just that. I've been seeing people trying to force the issue that plot synopses might be copyvio, that everything from years of birth to page counts need to have a third party source ... it really hasn't been fun here for awhile. I'm also still a little peeved over the whole splitting of the Bond articles thing, too, and the subsequent loss of status for Thunderball (a few other articles have also suffered similarly). I also started to be disillusioned with this place when I started to see things like rules being interpreted differently by different people -- not just in terms of images. What this place needs is a bit of a shake up, and while I'm hardly a Wikipedia god or anything, the fact is I consider myself to be generally non-controversial (some exceptions, but I haven't been warned for anything in a long time). If enough of us make it known that the project has been spoiled by others, maybe there will be some reevaluation done. I'm also using this as an excuse to quit for personal reasons -- I really spend too much time on Wikipedia when I should either be doing work or getting my butt out of this chair. It really does eat up a lot of my time that could be spent making money or reading a good book. So I've been thinking about this for quite some time, anyway. 23skidoo 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

After having a long telephone chat with a fellow editor, I've calmed down a bit and am calling a wikibreak instead. I'm still going away for awhile but I've taken the EX-WP tag off my home page. Thanks for your thoughts earlier. 23skidoo 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was the article I added about the Splinter Cell film removed?

The Splinter Cell film was overhauled...and is not even a SC film anymore. It will no longer even have anything to do with the character of Sam Fisher. I added an article stating such, from Variety.com, and it was removed.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117951827.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&query=John+Moore%2C+Pilgrim

Sorry, the warning I left on your user page was a mistake. --Benn Newman 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I created this article, and i've been watching it evolve and grow, and I just wanted to tell you that your edit really pushed the article over to where I envisioned it being when I created it, and thank you for making it. I know it was probably nothing special to you because you're an admin and that's probably old hat for you, but it makes me happy to see that it's taking shape, and I thought it might make you happy to know that you helped that happen. Thank you. LLBBooks 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya! Quick question: Image:N64_GoldenEye.jpg looks (I'm going mostly by resolution here) to have been taken in an emulator. If this is indeed the case, what emulator did you use? I've tried several and never been able to get the sky to show. Thanks! Suntiger 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mm, indeed you didn't do that one. Sorry... I must have got to you from one of the two you linked. Thanks anyways! Suntiger 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

when i play crazy taxi on my pc at home is too slow w.r.t my work whic is DELL pc.

wat is the reason an dhow can i fix it..?

Thanks Roza

Thanks for uploading Image:John Cleese.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi . I am having a doozy of a time entering theme music composer to the television infobox. I tried to add it on the syntax section of template:infobox television and my edit did not result in the addition of theme music composer. Any tips? Thanks. Dogru144 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be on vacation (and offline) until January 5 -- I hope you have a terrific holiday season and all the best for 2-007! Cheers! 23skidoo 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:007Moore.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 08:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading you messages left on User talk:Anger (diff diff) I would like to bring the following to your attention:

• Remember to assume good faith.
• You are a sysop, so you should at least be aware of WP:IUP (policy), WP:FUC (policy) and WP:FAIR (guideline).
• I checked the page history for Roger Moore and found the following:
  • The image in question was placed in the article on August 6, 2006 (diff) and moved to the top on August 18, 2006 (diff).
  • This edit shows that you should have been aware that the image was in the infobox on August 28, 2006 (diff). Fair use images are not permitted in infoboxes, this violates WP:FUC criterion 8 since images in the infobox can only serve a decorative purpose illustrating what the person looks or looked like, and if the person is still alive then the image in question fails our first fair use criteria. Images which are not in compliance can be deleted after 48 hours.
  • Yamla placed a hidden message (<!-- Only freely-licensed images are permitted here. Please see [[WP:FUC]] before adding an image. -->) in the article when this fair use image was removed from the article last time (diff on November 8, 2006). The very next day an anonymous editor tried to place a image in the infobox (diff). 12 days later the same image was back in the infobox (diff).
• In my opinion the image in question is not suitable image for illustrating the actor in question in the character in question (fair use criterion 8). I have placed a disputed tag on the image page and written a comment on the talk page. I will try to find a replacement and then orphan the image in question.
• Finding a free image to place in the infobox was not very hard, I found one in commons:Category:Roger Moore.

Sincerely, Oden 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!

Fair use images which are being used incorrectly in living people's biographies and replaceable fair use images are a significant problem here on Wikipedia (and apparently a contentious one, see Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote). George Lazenby currently has three almost identical fair use images illustrating the same role, of which one is in the infobox and another is clearly larger than web-resolution (WP:FUC criterion 3). Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan appear to have had images deleted recently.

My personal preference is to move the image out of the infobox and place a hidden message not to place a fair use image there. However, if the image is of a fictional character who appears in a motion picture and is not being used in the article on that motion picture then I usually consider the image redundant and orphan it.

I would also like to point out that the image which you uploaded lives on as Image:Bonds-6.jpg. There's no talk of deleting that image, because there it shows six bonds (five of which are in their smokings). Of course, everyone knows that Sean Connery is the original James Bond, the others are just imitators... --Oden 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Video conversion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Video conversion. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Esurnir 04:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have reflected on your comments here and have to agree that you are right, this is probably a edit dispute. My dislike of promotional images on Wikipedia, which I regard as a form of advertising, should be supported by a change in policy. I have reverted my changes (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3). Sincerely, Oden 11:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't quite relise there, I reverted it because I thought you'd accidently replaced the Harry Potter one with that, I wasn't looking properly. Sorry, you can change it back, or you already have.--Rasillon 12:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:WonderswanColor.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:007Dalton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, haven't seen you around WPCVG in a long time? Are you just editing James Bond articles now? JACOPLANE • 2007-02-13 01:57

I was a friend of John McLusky and have news images etc which I could add to your entry on him but I lack the knowhow! If you tell me how then I can add images to this entry!

Many thanks

Akinaria xx