Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 9 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Bond (literary character) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	James Bond (literary character) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 4, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

James Bond (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: British / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Bond (literary character) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 21 days

File:Saab900T.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saab900T.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Any Connection?

This article states: "Fleming went on to write a total of twelve Bond novels and two short story collections; he died on the morning of 12 August 1964." Unless there is a connection that isn't obvious, not sure these two sentences should be hooked together. Indeed, the latter sentence doesn't appear to belong in this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Bond (character)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is an outstanding article! I wish I could offer more feedback, but I had difficulty finding things to improve.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This was all very good. The lead especially was a good encapsulation of the article as a whole.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I expected this to be a problem, but actually the sourcing is impeccable. Good job!

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I admire your strength in resisting the temptation to include a detailed fictional character biography.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Other than perhaps adding an image of Felming, no problems here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have left a couple suggestions below, but they are quite minor. I am happy to pass this, and if you intend to take this to FAC I don't foresee any problems.

Comments

• Prose: an average intake of sixty custom-made cigarettes. I think you mean sixty custom-made cigarettes per day.

• Done SchroCat (^ • @) 06:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Images: Have you considered adding an image of Ian Fleming?

• Done SchroCat (^ • @) 06:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Structure: For the continuation Bond works, would it make sense to put the Kingsley Amis material above the John Gardner material, since he came before Gardner chronologically?

• Sort of, yes! What I wanted to do was put in the writers of numerous books first (Gardner & Benson) before moving onto the one book contributors. Although Amis was a notable writer and provided the Bond canon with an excellent and sympathetic work, he had less effect on the series than the Gardner and Benson because of their sheer weight of numbers and the fact they were the ones who tinkered with Fleming's formula SchroCat (^ • @) 06:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 'Tastes and style: It may not be necessary to have such an exhaustive list of the drinks from On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

• I've left the list in as it's an example of the drink Bond went through in the course of one book. SchroCat (^ • @) 06:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prose: This extravagance was more noteworthy for Bond eating exotic, local foods when abroad, at a time when most of his readership did not travel abroad. I do not understand this sentence. "More noteworthy" in comparison to what?

• Done SchroCat (^ • @) 06:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by non-reviewer

• I think it is a comprehensive, well sourced and very well-written article. I removed one sentence which was a critique by someone who appears to me not to be qualified to analyse literary works (a lifestyle writer for The Times), although it's not a big deal really. Another fine article! Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth of James Bond

The article states that Ian Fleming did not provide Bond's date of birth and adds some speculation from Pearson's fictional biography and Griswold's study. However the dates are in direct contradiction with Fleming's writing - as he in fact wrote about Bond's date of birth.

"Mr. Tanaka had been born in the year of Tiger, whereas Bond, as Tiger had taken much pleasure in telling him, had been born in the year of the Rat" - You only live twice, Chapter 6

and

"By the time he left, at early age of seventeen,(...). By now it was 1941." You only live twice, Chapter 21.

So Bond was born in 1924, which really was Year of the Rat.

This is my first attempt to add something to Misplaced Pages so I don't know what has to be done and how, so please if someone reads this, to check it and perhaps add it to the article.

95.102.57.136 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Pearson's authoriZed biography

The first edition of this work—in the UK—is James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. Please see the British Library catalogue, as well as the book's own article, showing the first UK edition cover in the infobox. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

British-published book uses British spelling conventions

The book, James Bond: The Unauthorised Biography (1) was published in New Zealand by a British author about a fictional British character. As the book title explicitly uses British spelling conventions, we have little choice in the matter - It's even listed in the biography as such. It doesn't make any difference if a subsequent edition was published for us Yanks swapping 's' for 'z'; that much is clearly demonstrated in all sorts of books published the same way (ie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, etc.); we use the initial titling. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See the section above. I care not about the NZ edition, or whatever Amazon may have on offer: I go by the first edition in the UK (which is the first edition anywhere), which uses a Z. The section above which I wrote for you 5 minutes ago has a link to the British Library catalogue, which lists the UK edition of the book as having a Z in the title. You'll also see a link to the book's article, which has an image of the UK first edition, again showing a Z in the title. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Before you revert again, you are already in breach of 3RR. Don't make it 4RR or MoreRR... - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Before things get incredibly stupid, I am going to point out that you are already at 4RR, Schro. I'll suggest that you revert immediately, and use the talk page for which it was designed. I won't wait long before reporting it, so consider the clock to be running.

Secondly (and far more importantly), check the link provided far more carefully than you have; the publisher, author, and subject material all fall under British spelling conventions. In point fo fact, the first edition did not use authorised with a 'z'. You should, however, feel compelled to produce evidence to support your conclusion. I have done so in support of my edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, I've noticed that the book's article that you graciously linked to indicates that you have changed the title of teh book within the past half-hour. I don't really consider your argument there to be all that valid, as you've sought to alter the evidence of the argument. You might want to consult with an administrator, because it would appear you are moving into some pretty gray areas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I am not at 4RR (my first edit to correct the title isn't a revert: it's an edit)

Secondly, I will not self-revert as the information I have put in is correct and I think you are missing the point here.

Thirdly, I have already provided a more than adequate citation regarding this. I suggest you read the section above this one, titled "Pearson's authoriZed biography", which I wrote at 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC), some six minutes before you opened the "British-published book uses British spelling conventions".

Let me break this down a little more clearly:

• The book was first published in the UK in 1973.
• The UK edition is titled James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. With a Z. yes, it's a UK book, but the first UK edition uses the word "authorized" in the title.
• See the link to the British Library that I included in the above section (still called "Pearson's authoriZed biography") which shows the first edition title.
• Then see the book's own article with the UK edition front cover image in the infobox, which shows the Z in the title.

- SchroCat (^ • @) 14:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're arranging deck chairs here, Schro. You altered the book article in support of your argument here. Therefore, you are going to lose any argument wherein you use that as a supporting document.

Secondly. I think you need to check the definition of WP:3RR again; I've thoughtfully provided the link for you; you are indeed in violation. If you state that you will not self-revert again, i will forego the waiting period and simply report you now. You now have an hour and a half.

My previous pointing out of Misplaced Pages's crystal clear British spelling conventions still trump your arguments. The first edition uses 'AuthoriSed' (2). Period. If you feel an RfC is necessary, go ahead and file. I am fairly certain of my viewpoint here; prove me wrong via a consensus of opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are misunderstanding by accident or design here, so I'll try and spell it out even more slowly for you;

• For details of the first edition, see this link right here. I think the British Library catalogue is a far better source than that of a fansite. I am fully aware of the british spelling conventions and spend much of my time reverting US edits on British articles. Regardless of that, the first edition of this book was published as James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed your accusation, above ("you have changed the title of teh book within the past half-hour") Firstly, it's etiquette not to edit further up the conversation as things get missed, so please try and bear that in mind. Secondly, no, I haven't and I'd appreciate you withdraw your comment. Just to make it clear, the only edit I have done on the article today is this one, which is wikilinking two terms. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you appear to have made the spelling change to the article for the book initially via several edits and a page move/renaming, and then came to this article less than a day later to enforce that change, via edit-warring. Since the matter of your 4RR violation is being handled elsewhere, we'll put a pin in that for now.

Your argument citing that the British Library as a premier source for your change is substantively false, SchroCat. following the link you provided, we see that your search term encompassed only your preferred spelling ('authorized'). When a more appropriate search is conducted, it illustrates - quite clearly - that the British spelling came first:

3 Book

James Bond : the authorized biography of 007 : a fictional biography / by John Pearson

John Pearson 1930-

London : Pan Books, 1975.

There are 2 versions of this item

4

Book

James Bond : the authorised biography of 007 : a fictional biography / by John Pearson

John Pearson 1930-

London : Grafton, 1986, c1973.

Note that the Americanized edition was published two years after the version using British spelling conventions. Not sure how you missed that, but you did. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you? The first edition was published in 1973 by Sidgwick and Jackson. Try searching for spelling of that version, rather than any subsequent re-prints by other publishers. I'd hardly call putting in the spelling you want "appropriate" either: try looking at all the editions and see the slightly bigger picture. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I am aware of the matter, SchroCat. Simply because a number of subsequent versions use "authorized" doesn't negate that the first version uses the British spelling convention: "authorised". The first version was published in 1973 (using the Brit spelling). Subsequent versions alternatively use both 's' and 'z'. Does that mean that we mention both in the article for the book? Absolutely. What we do not do is completely alter the article to reflect a preferred version, which is what you did. Furthermore, you came here are edit-warred that preferred version into the article.

Lastly, your latest contention that Sidgwick and Jackson were the real initial publishers and not as noted above is in itself provably inaccurate. According to their own Misplaced Pages article, Sidgwick & Jackson are an imprint of Pan MacMillan (note the publishing date of 1975 as referenced above from the British Library itself). The initial publication of the book appears to have been Grafton.

Perhaps I'm just misreading it all. Explain it to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading it and I've tried to explain this to you a number of times.

1. The first publishers of the book was Sidgwick and Jackson. See see this link right here for details of the first edition.
2. The link above refers to the 1973 first edition. It's the first edition anywhere in the world and it's in the UK. And it used the title James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. See also the Worldcat reference
3. Subsequent publishers (ie. not the first edition publishers) changed the title of the book to James Bond: the authorised biography of 007.
4. Grafton were not the publishers of the first edition: they were publishers of the paperback edition. Check out your BL search again and when you see the Grafton reference, click on the "details" tab - it shows it's the paperback version.

Can you now see that actually Sidgwick and Jackson—the first UK edition—used the spelling "authorized in the title. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am not sure I am misreading this, SchroCat. Are you misunderstanding my reasoning here? I am stating - fairly clearly, I think - that the search result sources you are providing are non-starters: they are the results that you plug in (be it searching for 'authorized' or an isbn for a book that uses authorized in the title). For example, you point out that WorldCat supports your claim of non-Brit spelling being the first used. A subsequent search, using the proper search term, seems to clearly indicate that the title uses the Brit spelling conventions. I am stating that you appear to be stacking the search 'deck' to support your own choice of title spelling. As for paperbacks versus hardcovers, I think it was fairly common practice back then to publish paperbacks initially on subjects that might not sell all that well. A decision to publish hardcover - a sizable investment by the publishing house - could be considered if the paperback performed well in sales. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just came across this as well: IanFleming.com list the book as Authorised, as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are also twisting your search results the same way! Try searching for "john pearson james bond biography". You'll see the first edition is the Sidgwick and Jackson one. No others. not Grafton, not Granada, not Pan, but Sidgwick and Jackson. 1973. You'll see the results soon enough - and not just a 1985 book carrying the 1973 copyright. And yes, of course you found the Ian Fleming Publications reference: modern versions carry the "authorised" title, but again you're missing the point, or are you bening deliberately disingenuous? - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, is it your contention that the souce I noted that uses British naming conventions in 1973 was only copyrighted as such? I am not seeing that. Perhaps you could produce a source that explicitly states that the 'authorized' titling was used first. Find that, and we're done. this roundabout Sherlocking isn't going to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Once more round the roundabout we go. My contention is that the 1973 first edition is by Sidgwick and Jackson: they used the title James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. As the first edition, that is the correct title, no matter how many Amazon, fanpage or 1980s/90s/00s publications you try and show me. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but I've used the same sources you have, to point out that you are cherry-picking your preferred source. Now, I've asked for a definitive source that states without equivocation that the non-Brit spelling was published first. Do you have it, or are you going to file an RfC? Bc - quite plainly - I am not satisfied with your explanation.

And you can dispense with the ad hominem attacks, SchroCat. That isn't going to get you anywhere close to convincing me, I can assure you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure whether you are a troll or a hound. If you want to make a comment on my talk page then do so, don't try and hide it in the summary—at least I presume that is what you are calling an attack. I've already suggested that you stop cherry picking your search terms and search the records for "john pearson james bond biography" and see what results you come up with. You'll see the 1973 Sidgwick and Jackson edition is the first edition. Do you have something that unequivocally says otherwise? Shall I go to the British Library and look at the various editions and let you know what I find? or will you do that? Or do you just want to keep spinning this rather pointless argument out even further? - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. Sure, go on down to the British Library and confirm your hypothesis. Just because I think you have made some mistakes and handled being told so piss-poorly doesn't make me a troll, hound or your mommy. Focus on the issue, and simply provide a source that states without equivocation that the book's first edition did indeed use the non-British conventional spelling. I will ask again: can you provide that, or do you need to initiate an RfC to seek a consensus. At this time, you do not have a consensus for its inclusion, as there are competing sources that cancel each other out. Either file the RfC about the matter so others can weigh in, or simply provide the source that stipulates what you think the info does. I'm not seeing a third choice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This really is getting quite tiresome—and please mind your language: there is no need for profanity in your comments. I have provided a reference to the first edition. You have not. Do you have a source that shows the first edition? If so, show me. If you can't, then go troll somewhere else. Despite that fact that I know you will not be able to show me any other first edition apart from the one I have already identified, I will visit the British Library next week and confirm what I know to be the fact of the matter. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

if the British Library isn't enough for you, how about two independent books sellers, both UK based and both offering the 1973 first edition from Sidgwick and Jackson. Do you have any, any sources which would refute this at all? 1 and 2 - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will wait for a week for you to present your incontrovertible information citing where someone has explicitly named your preferred choice as the first edition - since you are stating that you can get exactly that.

And just so we're clear, getting up in arms about my usage of piss-poor would likely carry more weight were you not - in the same post - calling me a troll. Act like an asshat, and you will be dispensed with as one. So, until next week, then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You really are a rather rude and objectionable editor, aren't you? I have now left a stack full of references and you have left none. Your behaviour, which consists of foul language and insults, as well as stalking and picking petty arguments over points about which I am sure you know the truth, suggest nothing but the actions of a troll. There is no use waiting a week. My evidence is already here. Where is yours, exactly? No-where: because you have none. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I reluctantly join this flame war but must do so all the same. SchroCat is correct. Jack Sebastian is wrong. SchroCat has already said everything that needs to be said in support of the facts. Some of Jack Sebastian's arguments and claims undermine his own position. I myself have handled the UK 1973 hardcover first edition. It uses the "Z" spelling. The first British paperback printing also uses the "Z" spelling. Google image search is our friend. The Grafton edition Jack Sebastian refers to is a 1985 reprinting. Going by Jack Sebastian's comments above, it is clear that he knows little about Bond or the publishing industry. Example 1 Example 2 His own edit history shows little work done in James Bond related articles. For that reason I do not understand why he wanders into a subject he knows little about. It does not matter if the British edition uses the wrong spelling. Ask yourself this: what would we do if a publisher deliberately misspells a word in the title? Correct the error or list the title as it appears on the book cover? This of course is a rhetorical question. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a little reminder about WP:Verifiability. Yes it's true that the British spelling is "unauthorised", but it can be verified that the first edition (correctly or incorrectly...doesn't matter) used the spelling "unauthorized". DonQuixote (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to simply ignore SchroCat's continued snipes and focus on the matter at hand. I am not interested in a flame war, either. AS some may recall, I asked for an RfC so as to build a consensus of opinion one way or the other. I was looking at the material that SchroCat was presenting, and it looked cherry-picked. Nothing irritates me more than that sort of behavior. Except perhaps for people reverting instead of talking. "Uncool that," indeed.

Btw,that's the advantage to not being immersed in Bond trivia, Fanthrillers - I am not married to any particular opinion on the material and can look at it objectively. Rather than condemning me for "wandering into a subject", you should be thanking your lucky stars that there are many of us that do just that. Otherwise, your favorite articles would likely remain in a state of polarized lockdown; two or more fan groups unwilling to see the other fan group's pov.

The point of the RfC is to bring in new views. If I am wrong, i'll admit it, but I have yet to see a source that hasn't been massaged via search engine by SchroCat. Just present one, and I'm good to go. Don't think that i'm hung up on Brit spelling conventions that I'm going to insist on changing a title to conform to it. That's just a dumb idea. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I've told you: do a search on the British library using the term "john pearson james bond biography". Looks for the ealiest published book. It's 1973. It's Sidgwick and Jackson. It's James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. Your own searches have included the term authorised. I suggest you leave the word out altogether and re-do the searches. There can be no accusation of skewing the results if you follow that suggestion. You want an RfC so much, start one. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for opinion. The facts suffice. I note that Jack Sebastian does not address many of my points. SchroCat's material is not cherry-picked; your "evidence" clearly is. SchroCat has given you many sources that have not been massaged by a search engine; where as you have massaged your own sources. Few things irritate me more than somebody who blunders into a subject pretending to be an expert where he or she clearly is not. Not being immersed in Bond "trivia" is not an advantage. You cannot look at this objectively or do the necessary research when you don't have all the facts at your own fingertips. I will not thank my lucky stars that there are many people like you who start unnecessary edit wars. "Polarized lockdown" is what you seem to be trying to achieve on this thread. Have you ever handled a copy of the first UK hardcover edition? I have. You apparently haven't. Once you've finished patting yourself on the back you may want to consider this source. If one photo of the first UK hardcover edition is not good enough for you, then here is another. I'll save you the trouble of clicking on the image. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, Fanthrillers, though I know it to be tragically incorrect. I could address that i've pointed out - quite clearly, I might add - that I do not pretend to be an expert about a fictional spy. It would appear, however, that I know our wiki polices and guidelines somewhat better than you. For instance, were you aware that you are being something of a dick, when I have offered you no offense, nor have ever interacted with you before (unless you edit as a certain IP address…hmm…)

Being uninvolved with the suspension of belief and clutter of trivia surrounding Bond affords me the opportunity to look at mattes solely from a policy and guidelines point of view. If you don't like it, find someplace else to edit; you are going to encounter a lot more people like me than like you.

And if you want answers to your questions, don't be an accusatory tool when asking them. You might get a response then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• GA-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• GA-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Comics articles
• GA-Class London-related articles
• Low-importance London-related articles
• GA-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles