User talk:Mark83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives April 2004 - July 2005 July 2005 - January 2006 February 2006 - June 2006 June 2006 - September 2006 October 2006 - December 2006

Contents 1 Can You Read??? 2 Renault F1 vs Renault Sport 3 Schumi again 4 Image:RB211 BLX.jpg 5 User:Ernham 6 Re:windows 2000 7 Smiths 8 Removed template 9 Admin? 10 Pan American World Airways 11 Peter Jennings FAC 12 Jennings refs 13 You're right... 14 My talk page 15 Please help 16 RBR 17 Travb 18 Ian King 19 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Shaws.png) 20 Re: List of Scrubs episodes 21 BBC UK regional TV on satellite 22 BAE Systems assessment 23 Schumacher talk page 24 Jeremy Clarkson 25 Sainsbury's Staffing 26 Kimi Raikkonen 27 Survey Invitation 28 Re: Top Gear 29 Alonso's success IS good for F1 30 Alonso reply 31 Formula-one.net images 32 Aviation Newsletter delivery 33 Type 45 34 Template:British Shipbuilders evolution 35 ASDA 36 Template:BAE Systems evolution 37 Hi Mark/Hughes Electronics 38 Create a New Hughes Electronics Corporation Page 39 Casino Royale FAC 40 Paula Yates

[edit] Can You Read???

KenL 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Please refrain from contacting me.

Hi. Happy New Year and thank you for your message on my talk page. Unfortunately refusing to talk to other users is against Wikipedia policy. I will be happy to elaborate if you so wish. Feel free to contact me any time about it or any other matter. Thanks again for the message. Have a nice day. Mark83 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

KenL 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Why do you think I would want to talk or hear anything from you? And when have you decided to talk about anything to anybody to begin with? You really should be the one to talk when you maliciously delete other people's efforts, calling them "awful and dreadful", now you have the nerve to say I refused to talk? Why should I talk to someone who engages in personal attacks just because I actually have the guts to stand up for my contributions?

Go back to your self-induced and self-deluded sense of superiority. And by the way, I am having a nice day considering that most of the screenshots I contributed are now being deleted because the Bond fans here at Wiki do not appreciate my efforts, so I wonder why I even bother to begin with. I will save my energy to those who appreciate other people's "dreadful and awful" contributions.

Loser.

[edit] Renault F1 vs Renault Sport

Hi Mark83. We've been having a discussion on that topic for the past few days here. The concensus was that we should link all F1-related instances of "Renault" to Renault F1. For what it's worth, my initial position on the subject was exactly as you described on my talk page(!), but the discussion convinced me that linking them all to Renault F1 was the way to go. However, I'm happy to suspend making further changes for a while (it's incredibly tedious anyway!) if you'd like to add to the discussion. - DH85868993 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of assistance. There are about 150 more links to Renault Sport to check. And once they're done, those that link directly to Renault need to be checked (sigh). And once they're done, then there's "Team Lotus vs Lotus Cars" and "Honda F1 vs Honda" to do, although I'm trying not to think about those yet :-) DH85868993 12:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work, my friend! DH85868993 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done Renault. DH85868993 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schumi again

Beats me why some people are so fixated on the flawlessness of their heroes. I decided years ago that no driver (not even Prost, my then hero) was above doing things that were either dumb or morally dubious from time to time and that there was no point in bending the truth to avoid it.</sermon>

Anyway, I'm practicing the art of suffocating the enemy with (almost) infinite patience. I feel it's worked quite well with some other editors. ;-) It'll probably get me into trouble when I run into a real idiot with too much time on his/her hands. 4u1e 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As you say, at least we get the pleasure of taking the high ground. It's probably good for my karma, too. 4u1e 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RB211 BLX.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RB211 BLX.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. —Bkell (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ernham

Well, he is well aware of the 3RR rules on Wikipedia. I happened to wander upon the article, and I saw that I was going to block him for 24 hours, but after a look at his user talk page and block log, I felt a one week block was most appropriate. He has had a history of adding German nationalist POV material, and has been repeatedly warned not to do so. Yet, he persists to override edits of other users despite consensus. For these reasons, I felt the current one-week block was most appropriate. Nishkid64 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:windows 2000

Perhaps leaving some comments on the talk page first would be better. If the issues aren't addressed you could put it up for FAR, but maybe first ask someone experienced at FAR to see if it should be there. M3tal H3ad 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smiths

Gracias. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed template

Posted on talk page:

"Removed template of corporate assets, at the bottom of the article, as there was no direct source supporting it. Please see history and re-read Wiki policies.162.84.159.253 04:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Admin?

Nice...so now WP:Air has its own pet admin! —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pan American World Airways

Hi Mark83. Please note that you are correct that "two hundred seventy" should be numerical. However, one exception to this rule is at the beginning of a sentence (no number should be numerical if it begins a sentence). Clipper471 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Jennings FAC

Hey there. Forgot about those FU rationales...thanks for bringing it up. I've added rationales for all of the images. Could you revisit them and let me know if the rationales I provided are OK? Thanks! Gzkn 06:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I would say it was verifiable. But I don't think it should take you to the LexisNexis screen. Any link on our site should take you to the article itself. If there are no articles online (or a summary from the newspaper's archives) then it should not have an external link in it. Jeffpw 11:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennings refs

Hey there...I'm being fickle and thinking about ditching the citation templates...could you hold off converting the refs for now? Thanks! Gzkn 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're right...

...Cherie Blair was irrelevant (but true) - I put it in as a little joke... --Jim (Talk) 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

The reply that you put on my talk page has been answered and can be viewed here. HyperSonicBoom 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reply on my talk page has been deleted. You can clearly see what the template at the top of my page says. And it says: "This is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page."

Plus, I'm over the SAAB thing because I read that it stands for "Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolag", so if it were Saab AB it would be "Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolag Aktiebolag", which just wouldn't be right. HyperSonicBoom 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the link you sent me. It just tells "Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolag" (SAAB), and doesn't show what the AB is for. HyperSonicBoom 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: "Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolag" is "SAAB". "SAAB AB" would be "Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolag Aktiebolag"! HyperSonicBoom 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'd be happy to continue this conversation further, but I'm just going to have to repeat what I've been saying. It's very clear, while Saab used to be an acronym it isn't any longer. You obviously seem to know better than the company itself so perhaps contacting them would be the best route, maybe they can explain things to you better than I seem to be able to. Regards Mark83 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

In regards to the merge tag on Ford can you please help me fix this tag if I am doing it wrong? As per: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Merging_and_splitting I think I am doing it right, but let me know. Thank you. Travb (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Mr. Mark83, have a great work week. Travb (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Mark, please do not remove my merge tags again. Please stop. Travb (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RBR

Well, I was 'passing through' that article (can't remember why!) and saw the tags, so yeah, I think they achieved their purpose. At least the flow makes a bit more sense now, it did jump around rather. Cheers. 4u1e 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travb

FYI, he is referring to your deletion of his request to discuss merge of the Bridgestone and Firestone articles. I was going to delete the message box myself as it's been there 15 days and had no interest in merging these two articles by the current editors. Travb has replaced the discuss merge on the page that you removed. Bridgestone Mobile 01^Talk 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian King

Hi Mark, why this article's (Ian King) been deleted?? I also noticed it's been redirected as Ian King (businessman). Give me feedback. Thank you NAHID 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Shaws.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shaws.png. 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 07:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Scrubs episodes

I did not realize they were copyright from another source and hadn't yet been paraphrased, I assumed that the anonymous editor had a problem with summaries of future episode in general, and he was writing that in an only slightly relevant Talk page section. Especially because no one but an anonymous editor changed it. Where were they stolen from? -- Viewdrix 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC UK regional TV on satellite

Hello, I was just wondering what your opinion is on the BBC UK regional TV on satellite article - I personally think it probably meets the GA criteria now, but it would be nice to have a second opinion. Bob talk 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems assessment

What is it you need me to do? For the record, I'm not a fan of the assessment system at all. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can add my opinion to the location you need; but I can't find it in relation to the assessment. Is it in an out-of-the-way area? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schumacher talk page

Hi, no offence meant or taken :) My main beef with what Jordan said lies in that he never worked with Hill or Senna at the same stage in their careers as he did with Schumacher. Hence he's not particularly well-qualified to say what he said. He is of course well-placed to have an opinion, but not one like that.. I have a sense that he's biased towards Schumacher anyway, because he "discovered" him - but you're right, it doesn't make him an unsuitable source - though I do think he's moved outside the scope of his knowledge with that quote as it's worded there. Cheers! Bretonbanquet 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem :) I too am encouraged by the direction the discussion is taking - I think this one may run for a while yet! Bretonbanquet 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Clarkson

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Jeremy Clarkson, you will be blocked. Mark83 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As a major fan of wikipedia, I was shocked to find you accusing me of vandalism. I visited the article in question and found that it had been vandalised. In response, I changed the article back to give the correct details, as I outlined in my summary. So why have you accused me of vandalism? 129.67.53.115 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sainsbury's Staffing

I have no problem with you changing the section, but I would rather an explanation as to why you have also deleted information which could be informative to the reader. Wikipedia is supposed to expand information not reduce it. So please place your issues on the talk page rather than delete the information unnecessarily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.196.82 (talk • contribs).

I could say the same about the CTS information, but it is there anyway!

[edit] Kimi Raikkonen

Hi - sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. Busy in the real world, and I wanted to take the time to reply properly. I think it is absolutely right to aspire to cover more intangible things like opinions of drivers, especially their driving ability, although also the broader matters, like leadership, that seem to form such a big part of Schumacher/Ferrari's success over the last decade. So the short answer is 'yes' - I think it's a good idea to cover the kind of points raised by Martin Whitmarsh and JV.

However, this being Wikipedia, I think it is also going to be really tricky to do it properly. Straightforward things like numbers of race wins or 'first to' content are very easy to do (so why does it always take so long.... :( ) because you only need to find a single reliable reference to establish your position. For something like, say, a view of someone's driving talent we can't just rely on one source. In theory what needs to be done is to read everything (!) relevant about that drivers' skills, and then summarise it in the article, giving all significant views. So to really get a proper handle on how M Schumacher's driving skills are viewed, I'd need to read all of his biographies (most of which are not good reads, by the way) and probably the Autocourse and Autosport season reviews for the last 15 years, and then summarise whatever the sum total of that was into a snappy paragraph. Yikes! You can short cut to a certain extent by knowing the ground - i.e. I know Jackie Stewart and Stirling Moss think Schumacher has too many accidents - but you are short cutting and leaving the article open to challenge.

In the real world, where some of us have other things to do (see para 1), I'm not sure that level of research is possible - I haven't read into Brabham in quite that level of detail for example, and it's still taken me more than 6 months. Without it though, the article is always open to challenge and you can't really have discussion about whether the balance is right. It's much easier for older topics, because there is a much bigger chance that someone will have done the groundwork for you and summarised the position on the topic in question. Newer topics, or worse - current ones, rely on your judgement in taking material from primary or near primary sources, and the judgement of others will always be different.

The long answer therefore is - 'Yes, it's a noble aim, but it'll be hard to do properly and be prepared for lots of arguments (see talk:Michael Schumacher!)'. Not sure how helpful all that is, but you did ask what I thought! 4u1e 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Re: Top Gear

Before your comment, there was only one dissenting statement against moving the article. There also has been no discussion in the past 3 weeks and the article was in its current place for much of that time. The only debate was to what the article title should be. I felt that consensus had been reached in that the article shouldn't be named Top Gear. The current name isn't the one I would have chosen, but if it is renamed again in the future, it isn't a big deal to have a bot run through and replace all of the links. It is a bigger issue now though because there are quite a few wikilinks pointing to Top Gear, but they are in reference to the original format, so this has the extra benefit of providing an opportunity to point them to the correct location. I also replied to your comment on Talk:Top Gear. Have a good day. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alonso's success IS good for F1

After reverting my comment (the 1st time such an embarassing thing has happened to me) from the F1 page, I would kindly like to point out that Fernando Alonso's success has been good for the sport - it's a fact, not my point of view;

• it has provided variety after 5 years of Ferrari (and Schumacher) domination.
• and MORE IMPORTANTLY, the Spanish are a major customer of F1 now, with the Circuit de Catalunya's grandstands bursting at the seams and more money being raked in.

Look at the Spanish people now, and even some from other countries since Alonso started winning... F1 is a hit! They love it (I am, by the way, taking it you watch F1) and I oppose the elimination of my edit. Lradrama 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alonso reply

OK, thankyou for your reply, i get the gist of what you're saying now. Lradrama 09:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formula-one.net images

Hey. I see you noticed the problems with some of the Kimi Räikkönen images and tagged them as not sourced. I agree that these need to go, as "free for media use" is not free enough and the license tags are dubious. However, the source itself is valid, as you can see on web.archive.org. Thanks, Prolog 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that Ifd is process-wise more correct. I don't know if dead source links should be considered a problem, unless the uploader has a history of copyright problems with his/her uploads. Prolog 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type 45

It's that you're about to, not that you have. If you had you wouldn't have been able to write to me because you would have been blocked by an admin.

Oh, no - I've been blocked for edit warring. So what? That doesn't mean you can get away with it. John Smith's 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you think I needed to be reminded about Wikipedia policy, fair enough. However not only have I never been blocked, but I have showed sufficient knowledge of WP policy that I have passed a Request for adminship. Please stop your moral high ground position - eg. "That doesn't mean you can get away with it" - I'm sorry but your claiming a superiority that doesn't exist. I cannot replace the information into the intro for obvious reasons, however I would like to discuss the issue further. Best regards, Mark83 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said I claimed any superiority? You were doing that by bringing up my blocks, as if that really matters. I was merely replying to your snide comment. John Smith's 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if that came across as "snide" - that was not my intention. And of course previous mistakes don't mean that they can be extrapolated into current behaviour, so apologies again. However as I said I would like to discuss the issue further. Wikipedia:Lead section says that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". And if a possible export of 2 or 3 £0.6 billion warships is not a "most important point" I have no idea what is. Mark83 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. There is nothing to say potential export orders have to be included in the lead section. The lead should stay pretty much constant in my view - only the latter parts should have "news" in them, in my opinion. John Smith's 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's the problem, you qualified your position by saying "in my opinion". So you feel strongly that it shouldn't be in the intro and I feel it should be. We either have to expand our discussion or get a third opinion. You don't agree that it's a "most important point"? Mark83 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that wikipedia policy would not prefer the lead to stay relatively the same? John Smith's 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. That the lead should stay stable? No that's not what it means. If the PM was assasinated one night the lead should change ASAP. i.e. the lead should summarise the article as fully and as quickly as possible. Mark83 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That the lead should stay constant, unless something is confirmed/happens. Your comparison was not suitable, as an assassination would be instantly confirmable - would a lead have been edited if there was a report some terrorist group was considering to kill him? John Smith's 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I maintain that an export would be significant, however I concede your point about the possibility of a PM assasination/warship export not being analogous to an actual incident.

By the way, I've aplogised for my initial response and I stand by it. However might I suggest that your 3RR warning was overkill? My reverts weren't intransigent, the 1st was because you provided no edit summary and the 2nd (although you disagreed) was a genuine attempt at compromise. Mark83 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but when I don't know an editor I need to make them in case they push the issue further. Of course in your case everything seems fine, so sorry about that. So what are we going to do? John Smith's 11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British Shipbuilders evolution

I have been working on improving the template Template:British Shipbuilders evolution and was rather pleased with the results, but appear to have incurred the wrath of someone who has proposed it as "listcruft" at templates for deletion. Y I would appreciate any input that you might have at TFD (positive or otherwise, if I am being too protective of my "baby" perhaps its about time I saw the light). I understand you are now an admin, I understand therefore if you are unable to enter into such wrangling, and would like to make it clear I amn't looking to round up support amongst the powers that be! :) Rather, you previously expressed support for the template when I was originally developing it, and thought you might be interested in preserving it. Regards, Emoscopes ^Talk 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASDA

Hello there, mate. Currently I'm doing an essay on globalization, and I have been told by numerous people, even ASDA workers themselves, that ASDA stands for Associated Dairies. I just don't see how they can all be wrong. I'll stay off re-adding until I can find out for sure, please write back on my talk page, I'd like to hear what made you think it was wrong. δσώпҹ ^(talk)(cont) 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, something to show my teachers up with. Heh, thanks for correcting me, mate. δσώпҹ ^(talk)(cont) 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BAE Systems evolution

As discussed, before I start adding it to pages, I thought you might like a proof read of the template. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't include Tracor / Plessey / Ferranti etc. as I intended this particular template to concentrate on the aircraft companies, so that it can be displayed on all the namespace of all the companies involved. I am more than happy to make a newer version showing the defence electronics industry consolidating into GEC and then into BAE systems. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes you suggested and incoporated the template in the suitable pages. Hope you like it :) You may wish to add the image to IfD, I have decided that I will make a BAE Systems specific template to put on that page, including as much of the defence companies (aircraft, shipbuilding, electronics, land systems) as I can, rather than have 3 or 4 separate templates on that page. All in good time though :) Emoscopes ^Talk 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've incorporated your suggestions, let me know if that's what you were after. Also, as a heads-up, someone has raised a query about the template here Emoscopes ^Talk 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Mark/Hughes Electronics

Hi Mark,

I noticed that my Hughes Electronics page was deleted. I am sorry for that mix-up on forgetting to add the cite reference on where I got that information.

What you want me do? Do you want me to add the cite information? That information is more reasonable then what was on the previous Hughes Electronics page. I would like Hughes Electronics to have a page and that - that information can stay on their.

Also the Image Hughes Electronics - I can't find info. on who created it. My guess is General Motors Corp. because they created Hughes Electronics as a subsidairy for Hughes Aircraft and Delco Electronics. I asked help for that image but no so far as helped me find that info.

Please let me know on how I can be better at this web site. I am a brand new member to wikipedia.

Thank you,

Anthony Gracian

[edit] Create a New Hughes Electronics Corporation Page

Hello Mark,

Thank you for replying back to me. You said "You are welcome to write your own article or to paraphrase the source in question."

How can I create a New Hughes Electronics page? And how do I paraphrase the source in question?

Can I take out certain infomation from that article and put quotes and citation web site. Some of that information is good info. and better than the infomation that it had on the previous Hughes Electronics page. This info. gives more in deep information about Hughes Electronics.

Also, like I mentioned to you before the Hughes Electronics logo, I need help with that on who created it - I say GMC because they combined Hughes Aircraft with Delco Electronics to form Hughes Electronics. I can you please help me with that or direct me to a person that can help me with that.

Thank you,

Anthony —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthonygracian (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

THanks. Oh I don't usually make so many small edits but trust me I was so intent on improving it quickly that I didn't even think about the save or preview button!! THe mos timportant thing is that it has improved . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 11:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paula Yates

Hello, thanks for correcting my edit on the Have I Got News For You page, you're quiet right; I don't know how she felt. (INXS-Girl 16:00, 05 April 2007 (UTC)