User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

marilynmonroefamily.com

marilynmonroefamily.com is NOT a fan site in the simple use of the word. It is hosted by the cousins of Marilyn. She is my 2nd cousin once removed. My grandmother is Gladys's cousin and Marilyn's 1st cousin once removed. We are currently documenting Marilyn's (and our) family history. Please do not remove www.marilynmonroefamily.com. Thanks, jasonekennedy@yahoo.com Jasonekennedy (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, as you did in this edit. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

p and pp numbers and more

Hi F&H, I added pp numbers in each instance you noted except three. (I even added a few more now that I ustand wiki's protocol.) The first two are in the retirement section. I can't find a page or pages that specifically say that she took long walks throughout her life. You can only know this by reading the biographies. 2) the same is true with the assertion that she struggled with her life-long melancholy, anxieties, and eccentricities. I looked through other wiki subjects and see that authors discuss many things in all of them that are not cited. (So I still have some problem with referencing every assertion since it disrupts the reading process). In any case, I've put the page numbers in. Third, I can't give page numbers from Vickers about GG's relationship with de Acosta since he wrote an entire book about it. So his name and the publication date stand alone in the cits. On to Bainbridge. All the Bainbridge stuff comes from a previous writer. So you're on your own there because I've run out of time and have to get back to my teaching and scholarship. Finally, thanks for doing the research on Paris's book. I think I should go through all his references the date of its original publication with Knophf. Do you agree? Thanks again for all your contributions to this entry, and for copy-editing. Would be great if you did this after my most recent changes. Cheerio, AnneClassicfilmbuff (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you had added a lot of page numbers. Generally, I wouldn't think that requires much copy-editing, but I'll try to take a quick glance tomorrow when we're less likely to be stepping on each other's edits. Frequently my edits consist primarily of what they call WP:Wikignoming – tedious little formatting stuff that doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of the subject...

I only mentioned Bainbridge because, based on your account name and obvious interest in Garbo, I thought you might have a copy. If not, it's no big deal.

On a specific, for some reason I think I remember seeing a mention of her walks in one of the newspaper or magazine sources; I'll try to check when I'm reading through next. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

More Garbo stuff

I just wrote you a longer message but forgot to sign it so it's living happily in oblivion. Don't remember what said, but will talk if I do.

But important: Date for Paris's biography is the copyright date in the book itself so I'm going with Knopf. I think the dates listed at google et al are all coming from one online source and they're incorrect. I will now commence to change all the Paris dates from 2002 to 1994. Fun fun fun. Oh yeah. A while back, you started putting commas and periods outside quot. marks whereas I put them inside. In Amern Eng, (that's me) they go inside so you must be from Britain or perhaps Canada. --cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the references, as well as the online sellers and catalogs, used the date published, not the copyright date. Amazon, for instance, shows a publication date of February 21, 1995, which is not inconsistent with a 1994 copyright. Logically, if copyright date were used instead of date published, all editions of the same book (except later revisions) would be listed under the same date, which does not seem to be the norm.

As User:Add Hominy pointed out, the comma/quote usage is a matter of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which does favor the British convention on this one issue. You can see the write-up, with examples, if you click here.

Have a good day. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&H, Thanks for the info. I've been at this for 15 years and never have I used anything other than the copyright date. So, unless the wikipedia gods come pounding at my door, I'm going to stick with it. Thanks, too, for clarifying the comma/period usage. I still know that you're from across the pond because some of your edits came through a day later than that on which i was working. Greetings,cfb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. If you check the history page for an article, you should see a consistent set of dates and times which, by default, are in UTC, which is roughly equivalent to GMT (except no Daylight Saving). So even the timestamps on your messages above should be represented in "British" time.

BTW, I don't know if you've discovered this on your own, but checking the "Watch this page" box (above [Show changes]) when you edit an article or talk page has major advantages, in that if you periodically refresh the "My Watchlist" tab at the top of the page, you can readily see if someone has made a change or responded to a message. If you rely heavily on your mouse instead of the keyboard, I also highly recommend going to My Preferences→gadgets and enabling "Navigation popups" in the first section. While not the "be all, end all", it's great for quickly previewing messages and sets of changes without opening the full page each time. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings F&H, Thanks for "watchlist" tip; will use. as for, "I also highly recommend going to My Preferences→gadgets and enabling "Navigation popups" in the first section. While not the "be all, end all", it's great for quickly previewing messages and sets of changes without opening the full page each time," I have no idea what you're talking about and at the moment, don't want to know. My brain is fried. OK, I've just changed all dates for Paris refs from 2002 to 1994. If you learn that Wik protocol requires that I use the 1995 date, I'll go through and change them all.

Meanwhile, thanks again for all your help putting this page together--with edits and copy edits, and so on. I learned a great deal from you and feel very lucky having a second pair of eyes moving along the writing with me. I think it's an excellent page and it would be messier and less reliable without your contributions. Now, how long do you suggest that I check in before I can put my hat on and say goodby to this thing? Or will I need to check in for the remainder of my life? Greetings, cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about wikipedia pounding on your door; most of the rules and guidelines here are so vague they're close to meaningless. The punctuation of quotations is actually an anomaly, and even that one leaves room for confusion and debate in the case of a final clause or phrase being quoted (i.e., does the fragment "communicate" a complete sentence?)

I made a few minor changes just now. Also, another editor corrected something that I think was there before either of us got involved, but I realize I accepted and modified without catching. Ongoing, I'd say that unmonitored for six months, the article will contain large portions you won't recognize. But that's the nature of the beast here, and you need to be careful to avoid a WP:OWN outlook. (Aren't there other classic film related stars or topics you feellike working on? Your post above makes it sound like you might be abandoning Wikipedia after one article, or am I misinterpreting?) Good night for now. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the minor changes. As for monitoring, will keep watch and see what happens. Summary: stay involved as long as I am concerned that someone deletes something I think is important, or states something that is factually incorrect, etc. Can you explain what you mean by, "and you need to be careful to avoid a WP:OWN outlook"? What the hell is that? Later, cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a short-form link (as User:Add Hominy described) to another WP policy statement. In brief, sometimes when an editor has contributed extensively to an article, especially one within their area of expertise, there can be a tendency to resent subsequent changes as abrogating all their hard work and revert back to the their "revealed truth" version. I wasn't suggesting this would be the case with you, but with the "check for the remainder of my life" (undoubtedly facetious) comment, I thought I'd mention the dangers of the all-too-human reaction. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

omg--thank you so for correcting the spelling of Vieira! How on earth did you figure this out?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please! That one drove me absolutely crazy!! If you look at the version prior to my changes (available from the article's History page), you can see a few bold red errors in the "References" section. One of them was for a "named ref", I believe, Vieira2005p67, meaning such a reference was used but not defined. Using search/find functions in both my browser and MS-Word (where I had made the dash fixes), I eventually realized we were citing both his 2005 book on Garbo and his 2009 book on Thalberg, although the latter is not in the bib. When another search failed to find the Garbo book or the cites to it, I noticed the spelling difference, finally resolved (ignorant and untrusting person that I am) by zooming in on the actual cover image of the Garbo book at Amazon. Ouch. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't give 2009 dates for any of V's cits. Did you? Whatever, thanks, as usual. What do you mean by ouch? Finally, how/ did you get interested in the Garbo page. Are you a fan? --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the 2009 book; it was there already. I might have inadvertently changed the 2009 to 2005 in one of the ref cleanups. By "ouch" I was just indicating discomfort at the process involved in tracing the discrepancy. Which, ironically, would have probably gone unnoticed if one of us had not made the accidental change to the existing ref.

Actually, many of the pages I watch are the result of having followed a serial vandal from another page I was already monitoring. Or something I see, often on TV or elsewhere on the Internet, piques my curiosity, and in reading further on the subject on Wikipedia, I make a few small grammatical or formatting corrections, which automatically adds the page to my watch list until I get tired and remove it. Some, like this one, are interesting enough that I keep up with them. But I'm not sure what brought me here originally. But to be honest, although – like anybody who has not been a coma for the last 90 years – I was aware of Garbo and her reputation, I have never seen any of her films or read much about her. Sorry to disappoint you.

Question. How do I remove the message reminders in the blue box on my talk p? When I click on "click here," I get an editing p. Thanks in advance--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In the editing window, delete {{tb}} or {{talkback}} and they should go away. (talk page stalker) Kevin (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. As I was telling you earlier about having changed pages added automatically to your watch list. Another advantage – helpful people who have done this can answer questions before I see them. Thanx, KG. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings F&H, thanks for correction in dash formatting. I saw the mistake but couldnt figure out to fix it. Now, I can't find Watch List. Where is that located? Finally, in plain English, what is vandalism? Thanks Thanks Thanks, CFB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The shorter "endash" can be entered by:

• Clicking the furthest left of the symbols shown in the bar below the [Save page] button at the bottom of the edit page (with the bar's selection arrow in the default Insert selection);
• Holding down the [Alt] key on your keyboard and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad (not the top row of the keyboard). If you have a laptop without a separate numeric keyboard, there is probably a [Fn] or other special key to change certain keys near the M to have the keypad function;
• Type – where you want the dash;
• Type {{ndash}} where you want the dash, in which case it will be inserted with appropriate spaces before and after.:The shorter "endash" can be entered by:

The longer "emdash" can be entered by:

• Clicking the second-furthest left of the symbols shown in the bar below the [Save page] button at the bottom of the edit page;
• Holding down the [Alt] key on your keyboard and typing 0151 on the numeric keypad;
• Type — where you want the dash;
• Type {{mdash}} where you want the dash, but if you click on my example to the left here, it will take you to the documentation for the mdash template, where its use is discouraged as producing spaced output, which does not conform to the Manual of Style.

Your page layout may be slightly different, since I don't use the default user interface, but if you look near the top of of almost any page, there should be a bar OK, scratch that. I temporarily changed my preferences to use the defaults.,,

On the right side of the screen, at the very top, there should be a bar which reads:

Classicfilmbuff   My talk   My preferences   My watchlist   My contributions   Log out

Clicking My watchlist will take you to a page showing the most recent change to each of the pages you have marked with "Watch" (if there has been a change within the last week). Each of the other labels is a link to something associated with your account. Check them out, they can be useful.

In casual conversation I tend to use "vandalism" loosely; technically, it's the Wikipedia equivalent of graffiti – article content like "Garbo was a stinkin' lesbo hoor", "Obama is a Muslim terrorist traitor", "I love Sean Connery he's the sexiest man alive" (or even "for a good time call 643-555-1234"; really, there have been some). Or simply blanking out large portions of a page, or filling it with repetitive drivel. You get the idea. Lesser forms are not really vandalism, but can involve content disputes driven by obvious POV pushing, or – in some cases – just exasperation with such (see the "warning" I was given, linking to such an edit at the WP:POINT section above).

Fat&Happy (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&H, thanks for everything, as always. Found Watchlist. duh. For what reason would I mark a change "Watch"? Final question, how do I delete the blue box on my talk page? When I click on the links in it, it takes me to another incomprehensible wiki page, with nowhere that I can see to delete? Take care, cfb--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have edited only a few pages (or one), there's no real reason to check a watch list, since it's just as easy to go directly to the pages you're interested in (or better, their History pages) each time you log in. If there are many pages you've taken some interest in, using the watch list is an easier way to keep up with changes to them.

Oh. I thought the blue talkback boxes had been resolved. Just edit your talk page, the same as editing here or an article, and delete the lines containing {{Tb|Fat&Happy|Some section title}} ~~~~ You probably might as well delete the section heading too.

Have you seen the latest change to the "Queen of MGM" section? It was added by one person, a second supplied the citation, and I changed the phrasing around a bit. Not sure it's important enough to be there, but the book used is by a notable author (meaning she has a Wikipedia article about her...). I'm not entirely happy with the segue to Ninotchka after my changes though, but I disliked the previous editor's "rebounded".

Fat&Happy (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey F&H, thanks for edits. Yeah, seen changes to MGM Queen. I fine with the "box-office poison" statement but agree that it's not terribly important. On the other hand, maybe others will think it is. I Like your phrasing edit. Thanks for blue box answer. Will be, for the most part, out of the loop for a while. Knee deep in work obligations. But I'll check in! I think the page is solid and should not be messed with except, of course, for minor edits and new, enlightening information added. All best, cfb--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd clarify for the record; I knew that links to non-existent articles display red. The theory was, if this organization is or was notable enough for their negative comments about five major superstars to be given credence, the organization itself should be deserving of an article too. Red-linking is a permissible method of pointing out this lack, encouraging others with proper background to rectify the situation. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, at last it seems as if the Garbo page is set. For a while, I suppose. It's been quiet for a while. Once again, many thanks for all your help and observations throughout this process. I hope you're onto something new and interesting. Greetings, cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been fun. Hope the coming semester goes well; say hello if you stop by this way later on. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will indeed! Thanks for Susan Lenox fix; can't believe I made that mistake. I just watched the damn thing. You take care. Will keep checking in. cfb--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha. It just struck me as strange that it wasn't linked like most of the other mentioned films, and even stranger that there was no article under the name used, so... Google time.

Can you verify whether the change I made from The Torrent to simply Torrent in the Filmography section is correct? It seems to be from our article on the film, and the poster illustrated there; Variety's contemporaneous review used "The", but the NYT didn't. Minutia, I know, but it just looked wrong. (I also dropped a few links from title references after the first, except in the list in Filmography where anything than can be linked probably should be.) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Torrent/The Torrent. Both used. But all 3 of the most biographies give the title Torrent. This includes Mark Vieira's, arbuably definitive expert on her films. So let's go with Torrent. Glad you dropped links to 2nd etc titles. That was on my mind. Now, another problem: In her filmography, the director is cited in only the first few. Either all of them or none of them should be included. What do you think?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What do I think? You're the one using the name "ClassicFilmBuff"...

But since you asked. My first inclination was to say drop them this is Garbo's biography, not theirs. But I checked a few other major stars, and including the information seems to be fairly standard:

• Katharine Hepburn filmography
• Bette Davis filmography
• Marlene Dietrich filmography
• List of Audrey Hepburn credits

all have the director listed consistently except the last one. My preference of the four formats was Katherine Hepburn, which included separate columns for Director and Leading man. Another option was Other cast members, but that seemed too crowded. The problem with the KH one is there was no column for "Notes", eliminating awards, nominations, foreign titles and comments.

On a whim, I then also checked Marilyn Monroe#Filmography. This was similar to the Hepburn one, except with a "Notes" column but using "Other cast" instead of "Leading man".

So, my vote goes to include a separate director column, filled wherever possible, another separate column for "Leading man", and keep the "Notes" column for noteworthy comments. Sort of an amalgamation of the Monroe and K. Hepburn formats.

Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I see you found another parenthetical year; I thought I got the last one yesterday. Notice that the caption on the Infobox photo also ends in (1931). Personally, I like the parentheses better, but consistency probably says that one should be changed too. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I love how you say, "What doI think"... You're the classic film buff and then you express a long opinion, after doing careful research!! ;--) Well, I'd add the co-stars but I have no idea how to make a column and nor do I have time to do all that now. Will get back to you on that later. Meanwhile, will gradually add the directors. The hurricane is hitting where I live. Take care, cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope you make it through OK. For some completely unknown reason, I pictured you as being on the west coast. No idea why. It's supposed to get to us over the weekend.

If you want, I can add a column for "Director" to the existing table and you can play fill-in-the-blanks as time allows. I would assume between "Role" and "Notes". (For that matter, I could also add one for "Co-star", but somebody might object and delete it if it's completely empty.) Let me know. (As long as I don;t lose power – my battery life is horrible, not to mention the cable modem.) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote you an entire paragraph and forgot to sign it so it's in oblivion. Basically I said that the other 4 AFI stars before G had a lot more material written about them. It's obvious that biographers and scholarly experts developed their pages. I hope that Garbo experts will add to the current foundation. There's certainly a lot more to be said. On the other hand, Garbo made only 27 pictures and retired at the ripe old age of 34 and then pretty much dropped out of site. Davis and K Hepburn made over 100 pictures each and both worked into their 70s or 80s. Still, two recent thoughtful and compassionate biographies have been written about G's eccentric and troubled life and both were over 500 pp. More than a few have argued that Garbo was the greatest in her day. Like no other--a cultural phenomenon that inspired a kind of world-wide craze at her peak. I tried to convey this in my writing--and was able to cite this. Now, another thing. I noticed that the pp. of the other stars include far fewer references than I do. So I'm going to add one more important piece of information that I can't cite because it's ubiquitous and it's very important. This is that only a handful of her pictures are considered great films. But G made them great. She always transcended the material and her electric magnetism made the co-stars and films themselves almost irrelevant. You just can't take your eyes of her. Molly Haskell described her co-stars as "invisible, to say the least." This is part of what's so fascinating about her. She is the raison d'etre, in most cases, not the director or cast, or writers. How I drivel on... cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. If you add a director column I can fill it in over the weekend. I can also quickly name the co-stars. Can probably do both this wkend. Go for it.

I'm intrigued that you're working on so many projects. You're interested in a lot of stuff. Reagan? Bush? NRA? Sinatra? Rick Perry (who the hell is he?), Glenn Beck? Syrians? Obama's father? I think f&h must be more than one person. How did you get interested in Garbo? She has nothing to do with any of these people/historical stuff except, perhaps, SinatraClassicfilmbuff (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if "interested in a lot of stuff" is as good a description as "unorganized and unable to focus", but I'll go with it.

(Rick Perry is the governor of Texas, who just announced he's running for the Republican presidential nomination. Once you start following one politician—I think Obama was the first—and try to fix serial disruptions, you end up watching very many, very quickly.)

Your question made me curious, so I tried to look back my edit history to see if I could determine what brought me to the Garbo page. Nada. Nobody had made any noticeably inappropriate edits just before. I had been doing a bit of cleanup on Maria Bartiromo, who has no apparent tie-in at all. Best guess is that something in either Gracie Awards or its parent, Alliance for Women in Media—where I was doing some minor maintenance—caught my attention and I wanted to look something up. Who knows <shrug>.

I'll try to get to the columns shortly. Once they're established, it's easy and obvious how to change the wording in the headings (and even switch the sequence of the two, which is much easier before they're filled in).

If I do it right,they will be sortable columns. If you want to be really impressive, instead of entering a name as [[George Cukor]], use the Wikipedia template {{Sortname}} and enter it as {{Sortname|George|Cukor}}, which will display as George Cukor but still sort properly. (As usual, more detailed instructions are available if you click the link to "Sortname" in the previous sentence.)

Fat&Happy (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry. Duh. Don't know where my brain was. Just finished directors, costars, notes. I think the sequence the columns are in is perfect. No reason to switch. I just copied what I saw, which was, e.g., George Cukor, etc. I don't know what you mean by sorting, sorting properly, etc. Feel free to see if I did it correctly. It looks fine to me. I hope others will add interesting stuff to the notes section. There's a lot to say. If and when I come back to reading about Garbo, I'll do it. Are you a guy or a gal? Can you guess which I am, or have I in some way given it away. For somereason, I've been thinking you were a guy but since you're interested in the Gracie Awards, I'm wondering. Hmmm. Later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I'll be making a few formatting changes, mostly to improve the sorting in odd cases. At the top of each column except "Notes", there's a little square box with inward-facing shaded arrows. Clicking one will cause the table to be sorted in the sequence of the selected column, and the arrow in that box will point up. Click the same one again, the table will be re-sorted on the same column in descending sequence, and the arrow will point down. Rinse and repeat. (Note that the best way to restore the table to its default sequence is to have the browser refresh the page, since sorting on year may give a different result than the original.) Useful for finding, say, all the John Gilbert movies.

Unfortunately, if there are two directors or two co-stars, only the first will be used in sorting. (Wellll... except as a tiebreaker—John Gilbert alone would sort before John Gilbert and Barry Sullivan...)

Beyond simple formatting adjustments, I have three questions about your changes:

• The earlier (pre-you and pre-me) version of the table had a comment labeled "source:" in the notes column for four films, each pointing to the DVD of another, widely available film. I had switched these to footnotes, as they didn't seem to be adding useful information. Three are still there, but you deleted one from The Divine Woman; it originally said "Source: The Mysterious Lady DVD", which I converted to a citation to that DVD. Was the deletion accidental, or was there a reason you thought it didn't belong?
• Are you sure the German version of Anna Christie was released in 1930? Everything I see indicates that although the two versions were filmed simultaneously, the English version was released in February 1930, and the German version in January (U.S.) and March (Germany) 1931, which is the year the table had used.
• Did Thalberg dislike Stiller's artistic style, or did the two have a major personality conflict? Your original comment indicates the former; the current phrasing makes it sound more like the latter.

Guy. My excuse for the Gracies is that one of the entertainers I was working on had received the award, which of course led me to look at the article, which of course led me to make a few minor fixes here and there, etc., etc., etc.

You seemed to sign one of your posts above "Anne". I took that to mean either:

• You are female;
• You were obfuscating;
• Your parents were a little too heavily inspired by Johnny Cash songs.

Fat&Happy (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL! OK mister, couple of points

• Don't understand the source edits but I'm sure your right.
  • I'll go ahead and replace it. Seemed pretty innocuous.
• Thanks for reformatting all the names! That must have taken you some time.
  • The reformatting wasn't too bad. It was all cut-and-paste, and I'm much better on the mouse than the keyboard. It was verifying some of the links to disambiguation pages (i.e. John Gilbert, making sure it was the right one, getting sidetracked making small changes to the linked pages and stuff that stretched it a bit. And figuring out how to correctly link the right Hans Junkermann, which was completely unnecessary, but I felt like it.
• Glad you caught the Cukor misspelling or perhaps I did
  • You had it once right and once with the second c. If I hadn't noticed, it would have been obvious from the red once the link was attached. Which is what happened with Nielsen and Feyder.
• German Anna Christie was released in 1930. Just checked Vieira (the definive expert on G's films) and Paris. Your sources are incorrect. I'm make sure I've dated it correctly the first time
  • Your sources seem better; all I had was IMDB, which is not considered the best source in the world, and TCM, which is a bit better but still not scholarly. The problem, though, is that Wikipedia is now internally inconsistent. It has two articles, Anna Christie (1930 film) for the English version, and Anna Christie (1931 film) for the German version. If they're both 1930, the title of at least the German one should be changed, along with the content.
    
    By the way, the Garbo article says "Because of Anna Christie's popularity, she made a German version of the movie later that year", whereas Anna Christie (1931 film) says "This version was shot simultaneously with the English-language version, and used the same cinematographer, sets and costumes, but a different crew. Garbo was the only actress in both versions and noticeably differs in her appearance in the two versions." Obviously one of those two statements is incorrect, or at best very misleading.
• Thalberg disliked both Stiller's directing methods and his volatile personality. They had major conflict right from the start. It seems that what I wrote is misleading so I'll rewrite it. Fred Niblo, "second" director, must be listed as director since all Stiller's scenes were cut.
  • No big deal, I was just a bit confused and curious. After reading the unedited version of your reply, I was thinking of something like "he was fired because of personal and professional differences with producer Irving Thalberg".

Interleaved responses: Fat&Happy (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to make sure, with both of us working away, that you noticed my removal of "American" from the 27 films comment, since the filmography seems to show that number includes the two pre-MGM ones. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right about 27 films. She only did 25 in usa. Right, very good. What would I do without you?
• Corrected date of German AC in AC article
• As for "This version was shot simultaneously with the English-language version (wasn't actually shot simultaneously--German version followed right after though) and used the same cinematographer, sets and costumes, but a different crew (and director). Garbo was the only actress in both versions and noticeably differs in her appearance in the two versions." Where is this written?

Anon,cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you adjusted phrasing in the article [[Anna Christie]] about the play. The quotation I included above was from [[Anna Christie (1931 film)]], which is specifically about the German version of the film (and might be better titled Anna Christie (German version)). Note that the article [[Anna Christie (1930 film)]], about the English version, also mentions a 1931 release date for the German version.

Actually, the article about the German version in the German Wikipedia is interesting. If you read German, you can check it at de:Anna Christie (deutsche Version); if not, maybe try this version from Google Translate. Translated quotes:

• "The premiere took place on 22 December 1930 in Cologne."
• "The shooting took place in spring 1930, with most of the sets were reused."

Also, from the German Wikipedia article on the English version – de:Anna Christie or Google again:

• "The choice of appropriate subjects [for her first talkie], however, was much more difficult. Irving Thalberg toyed with the idea of filming the play Saint Joan by George Bernard Shaw. Garbo was enthusiastic about the idea and said in an interview in late autumn 1929, that she hoped to play the role of Saint Joan, directed by Erich von Stroheim.
  
  "In the end, they agreed on Anna Christie, probably because the heroine was Swedish and Garbo would be free to speak with an accent. On the other hand, the role of the embittered prostitute meant a radical departure from the previous image of the actress as a glamorous star in romantic melodramas."

Unfortunately, that article is not exactly loaded with citations to back up the facts given. But the dates and maybe the Ste. Joan bit would be good to add if verifiable.

Fat&Happy (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi FH, Yeah, yesterday I corrected the date of the german version in American Wiki to 1930 so it's now consistent. I think most of what you say that's in the German Wiki is true, but I can't recall at the top of my head. Do you speak German? There are a million stories about every one of her films that I could grab and add to the article. Everything about her career was interesting because she was such an intersting person--eccentric, depressed, fearful, shy, and many other things. Absolutely one of a kind in pictures and a true original. An incomparable star, which is why there are so many biographies about her--in print and on video. She deserves a longer page here, like other major stars have. My problem is with time. I hope others will add things. Like Garbo scholars along with her biographers. You should see some of her pictures. Start with Flesh and the Devil, then maybe go to Mata Hari. You may be mesmerized like so many others. But who knows what your taste is. I won't be adding too much for a while since I'm swamped at work now. Will regularly check in though.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Man, I just saw the lenghth of our conversation. We've said a hell of a lot to each other! Is this typical?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. I keep thinking about starting a new section so there's less paging to do to get to the end for a reply, but never seem to find a logical break point. No, I'm pretty sure that's not typical. But I do tend to ramble on a bit lot.

Let's see. I took two semesters of German in my sophomore year of college, languages were always my weakest subjects, and I haven't used it at all since then, so I guess the answer to your question is "no". Though I remember enough of the syntax to patch Google's word-for-word translations a bit going either direction.

I never got into pre-1950 movies that much. Something about being used to modern technology and the increased "naturalness" of newer movies I think, though I've expanded very slightly to enjoy some older Turner Classic Movies content on TV. Interestingly, and maybe it's just bad timing on my part, I don't recall seeing any Garbo movies there when I'm channel surfing. I probably should try to find a couple, now that I've been working on the article.

When you get the time, maybe some of those millions of stories could be used to expand the separate articles on the individual movies so they are available to interested readers without bogging down the main biography?

Anyway, good luck with your work. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see new section below. Yeah, I'm sick of scrolling so damn far.cfbClassicfilmbuff (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

re: glenn beck

Hi fat&happy - I have opened a section on Glenn Beck's talk page (here) to discuss the phrase "what they claim are" that you have recently removed from the article. I'm going to wait a day or so for you (or any other interested party) to comment on, and then if no one does or if some semblance of consensus is reached, I shall act on my suggestion. (I am leaving this message both on your page, and on the page of the other person recently directly involved in editing that section.) Kevin (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra Edit (August 2011)

Excuse me but I take issue with your reverting my edit in the Frank Sinatra article, the incident at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City is well known, In fact it is included in Biography of Frank Sinatra and as for your claim it was poorly written I simply provided the facts of the incident, IMHO you are one of these people who put Sintra on a pedestal and don't want his name sullied by facts that may like it is defaming him. The fact is Sinatra while one of the best singers ever, he was a bully and a thug and used his weight to get what he wanted even if it meant breaking the law in this case he did and such controversal aspects of his life should be included. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding removals citing "original research"

I noticed that you deleted both my entries (which I've now reinstated) that mention Obama being the first President born in the second half of the 20th century, just like how Kennedy's article includes that he was the first born in the 20th century. It doesn't matter if it's "original research" or whatever as long as it's factually accurate and there's no serious dispute of it. In fact, it wouldn't have even been possible to have President born in the second half of the 20th century prior to 1986. And clearly Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Dole, Bush, Gore, and Kerry were not born after 1950.

So please stop deleting my entries just because of some technicality (especially if the rest of the paragraph is also "original research"); I feel like I'm being unfairly singled out.Estil (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Syrian American

Fat&Happy, not only didn't you bother to read the source, but you didn't even care to read the wiki link I am placing. Here is what the source in question says "The largest Christian denomination in Syria is the Greek Orthodox church, also known as the Melkite church. The appellation "Greek" refers to the language of liturgy, not to the ethnic origin of the members. Arabic is also used. The Syrian Orthodox, or Jacobite, church, whose liturgy is in Syriac, split off from the main body of orthodoxy over the Monophysite heresy." The term "Eastern Orthodox" is analogous to a generic term that applies to all Christians east of western Europe. There are many different eparchies in the Greek Orthodox church; and Syrians belong to the Antiochian branch. All you have to do is look at the "territory" in the infobox of Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, you will notice that Syria is not only the location of the headquarters of the church, but it is also listed as one of the countries. The generic term "East Orthodox" applies to almost all eastern Christians, and "Greek Orthodox" also applies ethnic Greeks; whereas my link is the most specific. It gives you the actual church that the majority of Syrian Christians belong to. You should scrutinize the edits of the ip addresses, not someone who has been on wikipedia a long time. Sincerely,George Al-Shami (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

I may have missed something in reading a source. I may have misunderstood something in reading a source. My interpretation of something in a source may not be the same as yours.

Do not begin a post by telling me I didn't bother to read the source.

The statement in the Wikipedia article is "Most Christian Syrian Americans are..." In the source, as you point out, it says "The largest Christian denomination in Syria is the Greek Orthodox church". The source also says "The vast majority ... belong to the Eastern communions, which have existed in Syria since the earliest days of Christianity." The phrase "the largest Christian denomination" does not support a conclusion of "most Christians". The phrase "the vast majority" does. I really have no vested interest in either phrasing; my original edit was mainly to repair the damage done by the IP editor, and the easiest method would have been a simple "undo", but instead I actually bothered to read the cited source and came to the conclusion that, in context, "Eastern", though broader, was accurate. Another alternative, for those sensitive about the issue, might be to change the sentence from "Most Christian Syrian Americans are..." to something like "The largest [group/denomination/other appropriate noun] of Christian Syrian Americans are...", which conveys much the same idea while still accurately representing the source. (Or, another source could be found. I'm not sure how "reliable" some of these About.com articles are anyway.) Fat&Happy (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama senior

Can you explain this edit? I believe it violates Infobox person template rules as nothing is stated about former religions in the parameter. Pass a Method talk 18:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "rule" you think is being violated; last time I checked his original and eventual religions were both sourced in the article. Nor is this article being singled out for special treatment; see, e.g., George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Marilyn Monroe. I'm fairly sure I wasn't the person who originally added the information – in general I hate all the emphasis in biographies on minute details of ancestry, ethnicity, and religion – but it's been there for a while and one thing that is against the rules would be repetitively deleting stable, sourced content without discussion on the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the DAB

You got the right, Bush, now cut out the wikistalking.  :) Seriously, I'm the coordinator for the firearms project, The category for NRA members was very good at listing shitheels like Michael Moore and Tim McVeigh, but did not list the prominent people who were and in some cases are members of the NRA, including 8 US Presidents. I'm trying to improve the category and the articles, by the way Eisenhower and Kennedy were life members.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the goal, but the "add first, supply support later (only when forced)" approach doesn't seem to be in line with Wikipedia requirements that the verifiability for everything be established within the article (and though, for example, I accept TR as a given, I'm sure lots of people consider saying eight presidents and a lot of other notable people were in the NRA to be contentious – for that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if someone [not me] challenged the NRA's site as being an SPS). Thanks for clearing up (so far I've noticed) Kennedy, Sheridan, Ike & Reagan... Fat&Happy (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just using a quick hit, I have better sources which i'll be using. The Bush one i'm working on, it's a bit tricky. GHW Bush was a life member and was endorsed by the NRA twice (despite the 89 import ban and resulting sec 922R), however in 93 or 94 he publicly renounced his membership because an NRA press release referred to BATFE agents as "jack booted thugs". I do not recall if he mended fences with them since, but he was a US President who was a Life Member.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My Apologies

I was trying to fix something for a nitpicky editor who insisted that Air Base was incorrect, and said Airfield was the proper name. I discovered that a LOT of people call the place Bagram Air Base in a lot of news articles and Wikipedia articles, but when I tried to move/rename the article about the bombing, it said it couldn't because the name was already being used, so I took the shortest route possible to getting it fixed, which seemed to be just flipping the content and Talk pages of each. Because the article was so short, I didn't really think that the article history would probably matter much. But regardless, I'll seek admin help in future for such amendments. -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. Except for the part about the nitpicky editor, I pretty much figured out what had happened after seeing the talk page for the installation itself, and have gotten frustrated myself in the past trying to reverse a page move back over its redirect. I was also surprised to see the page had over 100 items in the history, but since I stalk HJ's talk page regularly, I knew it was something he's willingly fixed in the past. I hope I didn't sound too critical or anything; I certainly didn't mean to. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had made a cursory check earlier, but did a more thorough one just now; I didn't realize you got the warning message from HJ. Sorry about that; I didn't anticipate such a strong reaction. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Connormah (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry - Christian religious beliefs

Fat&Happy, doesn't that bit you reinstered hit undue weight if all we can scrape up is a web archived page of local news site, particularly for a BLP where such controversial statements require exceptional sourcing? I was going to bring it up on the talk page, but thought I would get your take first. Morphh ^(talk) 16:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think bringing it up on the talk page might be the best approach. I don't have a strong attachment to the blurb, and at this point I can't say how I'd "vote" if there was an RfC. What I do have a strong attachment to is people not changing sourced material to correspond with their views and personal interpretations, which was the reason for the first reversion that sparked the edit tiff. Same principle as the gay marriage section, where I was on the "other side".

Articles about active politicians are difficult. News articles (as opposed to op-eds) promoting scandal sell way better than ones detailing philanthropy or volunteering at homeless shelters, so a politician's opponents will always be able to find lots of negative coverage in so-called reliable sources. The issue often becomes an argument over undue weight, which is completely subjective.

Older versions of the Perry article had more on the incident. I agree with the removal of (IIRC) comments by Kinky Friedman and another then-current opponent (and, BTW, am a bit uneasy using the education study prepared by Carole Keeton Strayhorn ([164], at the moment), who was also an opposing candidate in the same time-frame). OTOH, the fact that the comments were in response to questions asked about statements at a quasi-political event probably add to the relevance. Perry does have a tradition of intertwining his politics and his religion in a way that makes many people uncomfortable, and has sparked criticism. (OK, I know, if he helped an old lady across the street, it would "spark criticism" – "Texas Governor Kidnaps Elderly Woman, Drags Her into Traffic-filled Highway"...)

Just some random thoughts; probably not very helpful. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry GPA

F&H I'm surprised you went along with that obvious OR! Come on, WP:CALC doesn't mean dig up what someone claims to be someone's college transcript and then do your own calculation of his GPA! You've been here enough to know better than that. Just sayin' Cheers! Tvoz/talk 00:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We're in at least partial agreement, perhaps more than you would think. I was never completely comfortable with the calculation, but mainly on the basis of not being 100% sure of methodology. However, doing my own calc was a situational decision I saw at the time as being the "least bad alternative".

As to whether or not that was a true copy of actual final transcript, I would ask how much we can question our so-called reliable sources. The Huffington Post article included that copy as backup for its interpretation; if we can use the information contained therein at all, we should be able to at least treat it as a primary source and include information not requiring interpretation. That would allow, for example, incorporating the courses, hours and grades into a table, and even using WP:CALC to sum each column. It's only the final division of total points by total hours which raises questions. If there is a true question on the validity of the transcript, any reference to it should be precluded.

I'm also uncertain of the use the 2.5 GPA from the Texas Tribune. It doesn't say that was Perry's final cumulative GPA. In fact, the phrasing "he credited [the corps] with giving him the discipline to get an animal sciences degree—his 2.5 grade point average wasn't high enough to go the veterinary route—and join the Air Force" implies it was not his final average. Normally he would not choose a major, or decide whether to apply to veterinary college, after graduating and seeing one's final GPA.

In summary, I have no objection to removing the calculated 2.22 GPA, but I think we also need better sourcing for anything we decide to substitute. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't care what number is used, and I agree completely that we need better sourcing, but I disagree utterly that CALC allows us to take a transcript and calculate a GPA. Not the same as calculating age from a birthdate, you know? Based on what - the way my GPA was calculated, or yours? Come on, read our own article on GPAs which clearly says that some institutions do it one way, some do it another way, etc. We don't know how Texas A&M did it when he was a student there, we can't verify the document - this is OR. As for Huffington Post's posting of it, I don't actually think it is bogus, but I find it amusing that people went ape shit over Obama's birth certificate that the state of Hawaii certified, but no one makes a peep about this post. It may be valid, but it isn't verifiable as far as I saw, and even if it was, our calculating GPA is OR. Anyway, I wasn't blaming you at all for this, just mentioned it here because you're the only one in that group with whom I have a passing acquaintance, as we edit some of the same articles. Cheers Tvoz/talk 05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't taking it as being blamed; though perhaps if my response sounded like I was, it could be because I already was feeling a bit guilty about contributing to the fiasco. On a personal level, I don't think it's quite as clear the calculation itself is OR as you do; for example, most differences mentioned in our article you linked have to do with how many points are awarded for a given grade, and possibly how many hours are assigned to a course. Both of those figures are printed on the (so-called) transcript, not derived by us. But I still dislike the whole thing enough that I'm not going to raise the argument for real. (By the way, did you look really hard at the calculations? Although I still think the 2.22 is pretty close to correct, I'm at a complete loss to understand the apparent awarding of bonus grade points for the Phys.Ed. courses, which add 0 to the hours, but an equivalent of a 1-hour course to the grade points. The main reason I was originally hesitant to use any calculation.) Oh well, I think I'll watch this one from the sidelines for a while. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha - no, I didn't look at the actual numbers. Maybe they were awarding him some mercy points to pull his GPA up - I'm only partly kidding. When I have a few minutes I'll look at the details - I was talking more about the process than the content. Tvoz/talk 06:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I was just acknowledging that the particular content highlighted the reason for questioning the process... Fat&Happy (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering why

you removed the, "Under the White Wing: Events at Sand Creek" reference at Sand Creek Massacre? I could see removing a link to sell the book, but it seems like a perfectly good publication to add there.
On a completely different note (falling well into the "none of your ******** business" category. Hmmm. That would be an interesting category to add in other places too, I wonder.... ) I was fascinated to read (in an above discussion) that "I hate all the emphasis in biographies on minute details of ancestry, ethnicity, " when your user page appears to be mostly a collection of that stuff. But I digress. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The entry provided no evidence that either the poem or Charles Squier the author are considered particularly noteworthy. For that matter, there wasn't even any verifiable evidence the poem exists.

I like the pretty flags. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Flags are nice. And I am one of those unenlightened folks who consider pretty much ALL poetry to be not particularly noteworthy, but a google search of the title produces a bunch of results. I'll look through some and see if I can find at least a review of the work rather than Amazon trying to flog off copies. Then (1) do something or, (2) do nothing. Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

After looking at all the Google results it appears that option (2) is the way to go. Good call, Carptrash (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bank of America talk page

I wrote a response to the BOA talk page regarding it's status as a holding company prior to reading your recent comment. At first I thought we disagreed but later noticed we do agree. I do however question what the chances are of the article being revised accordingly without tremendous reverts and mudslinging.

The reason that brought me to initially comment on the BOA regarding the office of the comptroller was an issue resolved however I expected a response from them which I did not get. Instead BOA contacted me privately about the matter. In any event it taught me a quick lesson about how state banking regulations do not apply to all banks. Woods01 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Encyclopædia Britannica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New Garbo thread

Well, don't really have time to go back and read the stories related to her pictures. But in a month, when I've finished a major commitment at work, I want to go through and read the references written by my predessor. It seems he may have written material that could be promoted to the text. that will be my next project. Yes, I have thought about starting a new section myself but didn't know where. Maybe I'll start right now with these comments. I'll see you onthe other side.

Here I am. This thread, as I say, will be quiet for a while because no time to work on the page. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of us had to break down and do it. Good timing; the auto-archiving bot just moved every earlier thread to my archive pages, so I manually did the same with the overlong section. I have it normally set to do sections that have been idle for 14 days, but this frees up a lot of space on the page (~38K). If you need to look at something posted in that thread, just click "5" (or maybe "4" for the earlier, shorter threads) in the "Archives" box at the top of the page. L8R. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, just tried to see your two recent edits. Can't figure out. Cn you explain?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

1. When you removed the comments about marriage and children, it "orphaned" the references to the NYT obit which are part of a group of named references in the "References" section rather than in-line immediately following the content. This causes two rather ugly boldface red error messages to be displayed in the references area. (One of the reasons I hate those grouped references, but some people see them as making editing easier since you don't get interrupted by large blocks of citations when you're making changes.) Bracketing anything with <!-- and --> turns the bracketed text into a comment, not considered part of the page. The method is also used to leave comments for future editors, if you want to explain something they might question.
2. On the citations to his books and articles, there was a link to John Bainbridge (author), so if you click the name it will go to his Wikipedia article (mea culpa – I think I had added the links originally). But when I happened to read the article more thoroughly, it was obvious the article is about a different John Bainbridge. The only visible difference would be the changing of his name from dark blue to black.

Fat&Happy (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&H, Lamentably, I have no idea what you're talking about! I don't understand orphaning but I trust that you've fixed the problem. I can't figure out what you did on the edit page and often, I still can't figure out the difference between prev edit and curr edit. Any thing having to do with Bainbridge comes with another writer. He is not one of my sources. Again, I'm sure you've fixed it.

As you know, I'm inexperienced with Wiki and an idiot when it comes to most things technological. What I do know is that I thought the Garbo page needed to be radically re-written--improved organization, prose, adding new and updated material, and so on. (If previous writers are reading this, you can see that a lot of your contributions are still in the text and are important and well-referenced so I mean no insult.) The great thing about working with you, f&h, is that, 1st, you've been an excellent copy-editor; 2nd, you've raised formatting protocol up to standards; and 3d, you identified assertions that needed more specific citation. Plus, our communication has been fun! Can't really do anything specific because work obligations(for the nxt month) are keeping me busy 24/7. But I check in almost every day and try to grasp what the hell you're up to with complete conficence that your improving the page. Bravo! Later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&H, who are the editors without names, only a series of numbers? also, what does this mean: "rm linkspam"? as in Sept. 1: 82.152.166.158 rm linkspam) (undo)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are people who have not registered a username (or temporarily forgot to log in), so their changes are attributed to the Internet IP address they are working from. Many internet providers use "dynamic" IP addresses, and schools and libraries may have a set of addresses used by a large population, so there is no one-to-one correspondence between IP address and person editing.

"Remove linkspam" – click the link here for a better definition and discussion than I could provide. A link to a law firm specializing in DUI cases, added to the "External links" of the article on driving under the influence is pretty clear linkspam. Like vandalism, the term gets overused; I'm not convinced Find-a-Grave pages are actually spam; they generally aren't very authoritative and don't add much that is not available elsewhere, so a couple of community discussions have said they're not appropriate external links, but some people still dispute this. I'm neutral on that one; in general, I won't remove a link to Find-a-Grave, and I won't restore one deleted by someone else. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well F&H, now that things have slowed down on the GG page, save minor gramatical corrections, we need to add our long conversation to our memoirs. Next summer, I may add additional worthy information and perhaps we'll see each other again. Meanwhile, take care, and have fun on your other Wikipedia projects.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here you are again! Thanks for the tweaks. Glad you're keeping an eye on my corrections and tweaks for clarity, accuracy. What's your major Wiki project now that GG is on the sidelines?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the latest two patches were to changes made by the other editor; I know the TMC disambiguation was. Something about the other sentence just bothered me, probably unnecessarily. It wasn't content or grammar, just that as set up it looked like the link was to the novel itself, not the film. (OCD, anybody?)

No articles I'm concentrating on at the moment. The POV disputes on the political articles are getting tiresome. I had no internet (except cell phone) for several days, and it took a while to catch up on changes to articles I'm watching. This afternoon I spent a couple of hours putting together six references for about a 25-word change to one sentence in Ghost Dance, based on a disagreement on the article's talk page in which I wasn't even a participant. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But where would we be without ocd? A sloppy world indeed. I think it's so cool that you're so involved in improving articles in wiki. Must be fun. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

hey fh, I noticed that the rating for "objectivity" of the GG page is 4.0 out of 5. Yet the page I rewrote is objective. Any changes you think I should make to change this perception?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread was getting a bit long again, so I moved your original question to a new one (Garbo V) at the bottom of the page. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)