User talk:JeanGreyForever

Welcome!

Hello, JeanGreyForever, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

- J Greb (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Emma Frost

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Emma Frost. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

- J Greb (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring on the Oscar Articles.

Hey JeanGreyForever.

Like the username. Jean Grey has always been my favorite X-Men character.

Listen, I don't want to edit war back and forth, so I would like to work together to compromise and find a happy medium that would satisfy us both. I was looking at the changes and noticed that by reducing the amount of text in the sidebar--because I actually reduced a lot from what there was before as it was--it allowed room for one more face, Ginger! I was happy about that. Kinda torn between her, Joanne Woodward, or Judy Holliday. Or honestly Sandra Bullock, even if she won for that atrocious white privilege savior movie that I loathe. But I like her. Just hate that win, and pretend it's for Gravity 4 years in advance.

One frustrating factor is that other articles have a lot of info on sidebar picture captions, and I did my best to reduce info, but retain little nuggets of information, link to the corresponding articles that can detail further information where readers can learn more about the Oscar superlatives that relate to the matter. Whether it be the first black winner, consecutive, most nominations, shortest performance, youngest, things like that. And it has all been constructive, so I'd ask you kindly and calmly to please discuss this with me before undoing it again. Let's see if we can work things out a bit and come to a consensus. Like I said, maybe omitting some things would be best, or maybe making all of the faces even with one another would be best, for consistency in flow. If we do omit most except for just a few select superlatives, like just Rainer's consecutive, Poitier being the first black winner, Tatum being the youngest, Hopkins the oldest, etc., it does no harm to link them to the superlatives pages at that point. It only benefits the reader, in my opinion.

For the actors, there's a lot of change there with people. And "who do you think you are?" is a really antagonistic comment, because I could reply the same to you, as you changed my edits, which were along the lines with what have been the primary faces and a couple extra. You did not give a reason for your edits last time. Now, getting rid of Will Smith? FINE BY ME. Putting back Forest Whitaker works for me. Cliff Robertson, I don't think needs to be there. John Wayne, like him or not, he is a legend. And he ought to be there. I dunno that Eddie Redmayne is so necessary. Rex Harrison and/or David Niven, yes. Richard Dreyfuss, maybe. Jon Voight, sure. I'm willing to compromise, but not say "everything you want, nothing I want". It's a 2-way street after all.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 06:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You are some king or queen that you rule those Oscar pages? The audacity that you claim you have not heard back from me in a few hours so you are going ahead to change the page to restore some vision of yours? Like I am at your beck and call and your servant?

I have no time to talk to you. Not gonna discuss with someone so rude and ill-mannered. Do not mess with people's edits or we will complain and have you reported. Good day. JeanGreyForever (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to apologize for your entitlement and rudeness. I will work with you then because you were hostile and arrogant from the beginning.

In terms of actresses, Ginger is a major star. She will stay. I agree with Sandra Bullock being added. Please remove Emma Stone. She is a talentless actress and has no place on the page when stars like Ginger and Sandra are gone. Faye Dunaway has little credibility as well to remain since her career went nowhere after that.

Way too much info in the descriptions. They used to be quick and clear. You made a joke out of everyone's ethnicities. Most of those classic actors would be offended if you reduced them to an ethnicity whether Russian or Latin. You're not even consistent since Claudette Colbert is the first French actress.

Cliff Robertson gave a masterful performance and will be added back. You can keep John Wayne. Eddie Redmayne's performance was inspiring to the disabled community and he has a large fanbase. Rex Harrison is a must-have. David Niven would be nice. I don't need Jon Voight or Richard Dreyfuss. I only added them because of their popularity but you can remove them. If it's a 2-way street, you need to stop acting like you're his royal highness and fully in charge. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sandra has been added as per your request. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Emma Stone will remain, and deserves to as one of the brightest stars of today. She is a wonderful actress, and certainly a better actress than Ginger, J-Jones, etc. She's already frontrunner for Poor Things. =) --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it. She's very talentless and not even pretty or glamorous enough to be a star. I don't know how she would compare to those actresses you listed, but to the wide majority of winners, she is clearly at the bottom. Please check out DL's discussion on her win one day for laughs. But if you feel so strongly about her....I guess it could work. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was no more entitled, rude, hostile, or arrogant. My edits were up for one day before you amended things. It's unfair to belittle me with this hostility.

Ginger is a star, yes. On the other hand, most would argue Fontaine was robbed of her rightful win for Rebecca, thus given the consolation prize of Suspicion, which perhaps cost Stanwyck a potential win? Who knows. I didn't necessarily say I consensus agreed with adding her. But I think trimming off some captions, we can fit Rogers without losing any people. May even fit Bullock. But trimming off excess space above head or excess below neck/chest, not a big deal.

Okay, please stop editing so much right now and discuss with me. You are dictating everything the way you insist it ought to be, rather than the way we should decide it should be together. I'm not saying you're wrong. You may be right, perhaps even about most of it. But the whole point of us working together is discussing together.

Which leads me into "Cliff Robertson WILL BE ADDED BACK". Slow down there. He's a good actor, but will is a mighty strong statement. We need to see how many guys....Okay, so each page has 58 for leading. If we trim captions, we should be able to fit 60 people. (Blessed be Steiger's small picture.) If Rex Harrison is a must-have, so be it. So, Niven would be nice, but not a must? Okay....I would like him more than Robertson, but if Robertson means more to you, I understand.

I'm.......Okayyyyy with losing Holden. How's that? I already threw him overboard, technically! And alright, you don't really want Dreyfuss or Voight, phew. Let's just pretend we're back at no Holden, no Smith. That's my original 58 down to 56. I mean, Redmayne is okay......I like him......Do you need him THAT badly?

Now we add Harrison and

So the thing with Hackman is....I love Gene Hackman. Huge fan. I kept him in there the whole time until the other day. Reason being? He's in supporting too for Unforgiven. How do you feel about that? That's ALSO a Best Picture winner? I was trying to divide those to allow as many lead faces here, and supporting there, so as many faves can be represented, and I felt like Gene Hackman would still be great representation right next to Denzel, Joe Pesci, and Tommy Lee Jones, all four in a row. For me, I still wrestled, because I fucking love The French Connection....But ya know, he's an awesome actor. So idk, again, what does your heart desire here?

And then George C. Scott, what, meh? I haven't seen Patton....I loved The Hospital though.

So I'm really not sure where to fall just yet, that's why it's good to have a discussion. Oh, wait, is Forest Whitaker a must-keep? As long as there's one black actor in the later section, after removing Will Smith. I figured some would pick Jamie Foxx, but hey.

Oh, not to veer back to actresses, but re: Colbert--me mentioning Marion Cotillard is only because of her French-LANGUAGE performance. Although yes, it eventually got out of hand with the ethnicities, so that's one thing I completely agree upon removing. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

We discussed Ginger. You said you were fine with her. I added her only because you said so. I am not dictating. You said you want Sandra. I said that is fine and I added her FOR YOU. Please do not play a victim. You are getting what you want. Where all the other big stars like Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Renee Zellweger, Loretta Young, etc? Methinks it is problematic to only include some on the list and it is maybe better to include everyone. Everyone here won so everyone's face should be included. Aren't the pages long enough now that everyone could fit? Or maybe nobody should be included on the sides to make it fair and not have some picked and chosen like they are arbitrarily more special.

Rex Harrison is very famous for an iconic performance, that is why I said we should include him. He is a double feature with Julie Andrews.

I agree with your choice not to include Holden. I am fine with no Dreyfuss or Voight. I thought they were popular so I included them but missed Robert Duvall who I think is also popular but I had no room for him. Will Smith I removed because I accidentally cut him out at the end. But I am okay with him not being on because of his scandal like Kevin Spacey.

I understand your views on Hackman. I can see why you might remove him so I am okay with what you decide. I have no strong feelings on George C. Scott. Keep him if you want him or not. Forest Whitaker I kept because he did an awards sweep and won all the major awards so it seemed silly not to include him. Much like Helen Mirren who won everything for The Queen. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Zellweger is on supporting too. Supp. actresses was hard enough, letting Maggie Smith go there. At one point, Cate Blanchett with Maggie, then we did a swap. Wait, are you that same person from last time? That Jean? I did forget about Roberts actually. I just mellowed on Ginger because she is a legend and all. Would you rather Julia over her? Or Joanne Woodward, since we've got her hubby? There's different arguments I suppose. I think we 100% agree Bullock for #59. So let's say #60: Rogers? Roberts? Woodward?

Rex stays, not arguing. I did wonder about Duvall but his win is a bit boring, so I felt maybe it wouldn't be terribly missed. Whereas even though Abraham has done much in film, his win is still a popular performance. It's an interesting dichotomy.

So Hackman is basically the Maggie Smith of this consensus debate. Okay, Scott will be a wildcard. I understand with Whitaker. I liked him more than Jamie Foxx, Casey Affleck, and Eddie Redmayne as far as 21st century wins go, so I was cool with him on the list at first. Just last time I tried removing Will Smith, someone did NOT want that, so I was like #$%%#$!%!^, I'm stuck with him. Kind of a relief we're not? Let's hope. I guess, not to lump Julia as a Will, but she's his level of movie star, so not every movie star has to make it.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, maybe another time, it would be worth tinkering with sizing or whatever to attempt fitting everyone. It does seem oddly unfair that we need to hold summits with triumverates.

Okay so actor: Forest Whitaker stays put from before and you've added in Cliff Robertson, Rex Harrison, Henry Fonda. But also Eddie Redmayne.

That would be the ideal 60, if we can make them fit. I suppose....Do I maybe say screw John Wayne?.........No. I can't. Russell Crowe? Hm. Or Geoffrey Rush? (Didn't he have a scandal? Hm.)

Ha......Can I be controversial for a second? Okay. Just feel free to axe this idea if you hate it. But if you love it, rejoice! Cut Rami Malek? Because down with Bryan Singer and also Taron Egerton was robbed. Bitterly. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There is another Jean on here? I'd love to meet her. Ginger Rogers was one of the biggest stars of the 30s and kept audiences entertained during the Great Depression. She is my vote. I think Roberts should be included somewhere though which is why I go back to my earlier comment that it would be better to include everyone's face so no one is left out. It feels very elitist to only showcase some people...but I discuss this idea more in my later comment since you mention it later.

Duvall is also considered one of the great actors. Just saying. I don't need him to be in but that's something to be considered since he is regarded that way.

I don't get the reference to Maggie Smith. But that made me notice she's not on the list. I feel she is important to include even if she is not a star. Casey Affleck is also problematic. Yes, I agree that Will and Julia are on the same level.

I agree, we should table the discussion to include everyone for now but consider it later. I'm surprised you mind sharing the discussion with a third person though...you seemed friendly enough to them on their talk page.

If we're removing actors for scandals, then almost all of them would be gone. John Wayne was a known racist and there are plenty of modern-day articles about that. Russell Crowe had a scandal for an affair with married Meg Ryan. Geoffrey Rush had sexual assault accusations but they were never proven and his career continued.

I was going to remove Rami Malek yesterday but I was afraid it would upset people so I didn't. LOL. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am trying to be polite and work together in a consensus manner. I don't know what you mean about "other users" who've warned you. Your history doesn't display much activity. You are doing exactly what you are complaining about and being absolutely belligerent. Not to mention threatening. You also undid/reverted first without any explanation or discussion, which was the first misstep. I was not being the king of the page. I was in fact working with someone, who hasn't returned in about 3 weeks now, but he and I were discussing back and forth and I was mostly compromising to try to appease. So I'm very capable of doing so, but you are ill-spirited and have no desire to behave. Which is disappointing, and I've had to report you. I'm required to inform you.

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 15:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Warning about edit warring - Hello, my name is Aoidh and I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I am commenting here in regards to this report at WP:ANEW regarding your edits at the articles Academy Award for Best Actor and Academy Award for Best Actress. Through that report I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions, even if they are justifiable. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Please be advised that edit warring is considered disruptive, and that further edit warring may result in a block to prevent disruption. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Seen and noted. Thank you. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to point out something that may not be clear, a partial revert (i.e. a revert that only partially undoes another edit) is still a revert, meaning this edit for example counts as a revert even though you are not reverting the totality of another edit. I advise you to use the article's talk page to explain the changes and to get a consensus instead of continuing to revert on the article. - Aoidh (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am already discussing with that user. He said he would make concessions on who to add and who to remove. We have agreed on some already so the changes I made have been agreed upon by both. In comments, I mentioned what more could be changed after further discussion has transpired. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am in the midst of replying to you above. Part of the point they are trying to make to you is you need to discuss FIRST, not edit. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  You agreed on bringing back Ginger Rogers. I made that change when you agreed. You said keep John Wayne and others and were fine with keeping out Richard Dreyfuss. I removed Dreyfuss for you and have not removed anyone from your list. You can remove after we have discussed who else to take off. I only added Cliff Robertson who is non-negotiable. You said you did not think Eddie Redmayne was required but did not have a problem. Same with Rex Harrison so I added them back. Id id not add back David Niven for you. Gene Hackman and Henry Fonda are major important actors who everyone knows and loves. Not including them is an oversight so if you're going to keep John Wayne, they are must-haves as well. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I went ahead and added Sandra Bullock since you said you wanted her. Consensus reached there. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I meant in regards to all the captions and all the little in-between editing that they are referring to. That is what they are saying, it's all part of the edit warring. It's not just the people as a whole. Although I do agree with some captions being removed. And you're the only person I've ever heard call Cliff Robertson non-negotiable! LOL. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then let's discuss the captions please. But I see there are so many inconsistencies in your captions which I have mentioned in my edit comments. Better to remove them altogether since all that info is at the top rather than only include for some and not all. Please research Cliff Robertson's career. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you also just...slow...down. Relax. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  A moderator said we should discuss this all on the page's talk page. I think it would be more organized there since we have so many posts scattered here. Also another user was involved in edits and the mod said we must involve that user. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the other mod, Jamie, who warned down below and who did the page reverting. Sounds fine. I did one more reply above. Take a quick look please, and then we'll carry it over there, okay? --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oops I responded here to you. I'll just copy and paste my response here to you on the other page. Also please weigh in on the discussion for Best Actor and noting the first gay character to win. My issue is that it's well documented that Charlton Heston's character for Ben-Hur was supposed to be gay and written and directed that way. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  More than one editor has reverted your edits so it's not merely a matter of a single user's agreement, and I don't see any talk page activity in your user contributions outside of this user talk page, so it's unclear where this agreement was made or where the consensus alluded to here would have been made. - Aoidh (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please read above to see my posts with Cinemaniac. Under "EDIT WARRING ON THE OSCAR ARTICLES." You will see it. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read that discussion, and that is not a consensus. When more than one editor reverts your changes, and only one of those editors says they are willing to compromise, that is not a consensus for inclusion so much as an invitation to use the article's talk page to discuss and iron out the details. Your reverts are still edit warring. Just to there is no confusion, if you continue to revert on either article, you will be blocked from editing. - Aoidh (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Now I am confused. You said I need to work out and discuss with the user in question. Now I am being told there are multiple users I need to talk to??? Are you telling me everytime another users edits on here, he or she first goes around discussing with every other possible Wiki user first? Please clarify. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  And why are other people's edits allowed to exist without approval from others such as myself? I am a user on here and have had issues with people's editing back so how come they are allowed to edit back without discussing with me? Methinks this does not make sense. Please explain. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:BRD, if it is known that there is a disagreement about changes made to an article, you should stop and discuss those changes (on the article's talk page) and get a consensus before reinserting the content. Two editors have reverted you, and one said they were willing to compromise on certain parts, but that does not make a consensus, especially when another editor has expressed (through reverting the edit) concern with the changes made. The article's talk page is the place to discuss the changes you would like to make in the article, not this user talk page, so that others watching that article can see and participate in any discussions made. BRD is not required, but it is the easiest way to avoid getting blocked for edit warring, as your edits are edit warring and for the purposes of WP:3RR you have made 3 reverts now. - Aoidh (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understand now. I did not see another user was on there. I thought it was the same user. I am already discussing with the one user and we are now agreeing on changes and still talking it out. I will reach out to the other user or on the talk page. Thank you for informing me. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hey. I forgot to mention this in my reply. But you replied via an IP address on the Actor talk page, and that userpage was less cluttered, so I replied over there, if you would like to continue chatting over there. Or if you prefer over here on this username rather than an IP talk page, that's fine too! I'll copy what I typed over there below over here.

  @User_talk:76.30.174.168 --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Incivility

You've already been given a final warning regarding edit-warring; I suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR before you get yourself blocked. Additionally, this is not a helpful approach to resolving disagreements. Cinemaniac86 has been civil to you, please give them the same courtesy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

He has not been civil to me. He was rude, hostile, and indifferent. I will not speak to anyone like him until he gives me a full apology for demanding that I respond to him instantly like I am at his beck and call. Censor him. And this is my first warning so do not lie to me, whowever you are. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I am working with that user now, although I am waiting on his apology to me. JeanGreyForever (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

He was not rude and hostile. He does not owe you an apology. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to be willing to collaborate with other users. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

New Section!

Excerpt from Best Actor Talk Page:

That's all right that you're responding in a different order. Hope you were able to get some rest. I've seen both Cruz and Del Toro in their movies. If you like Catherine Zeta-Jones, that might be an incentive to watch Del Toro's Traffic, since she has a big part in that. I wouldn't be surprised if she narrowly missed a Best Supporting Actress nomination for that. Tbh, I don't remember how much English he used in his movie. I think it was mostly Spanish for his scenes but there was a little English as well. Cruz was more mixed. Her dialogue was mainly Spanish but she had a lot of English as well especially during the middle of her movie. Since those are English-language Hollywood movies that just happen to feature a lot of Spanish, but not purely Spanish, I think it might be safer not to mention the languages for them. Like you said, that would mean a lot of other performances would need to be adjusted as well like for Yeoh and Quan.

It's a pretty picture of Halle but it dawned on me that everyone else has a pic where they are older or at least a pic from after their Oscar win but Halle's is from before. She has lots of pics on her page (and the long hair does suit her as well as the short), so whichever you feel works best.

The nationality tag can be interesting but it can become a problem when you start to mention one and then you have to keep mentioning everyone else's. And as mentioned before, it gets trickier when you have the foreign-born Brits like Leigh, de Havilland, and Fontaine. I think the balance is good right now with the major descriptors being included, like first black winner, oldest or youngest winner, etc. because those are heavily hyped up in the media as well, rather than the more random ones like Yul Brynner being Russian.

I had a major crush on Peter McEnery (so did Hayley Mills it seems since he was her first kiss, onscreen and I think offscreen as well). Which is why I was not very sympathetic towards Bogarde's character in Victim for letting him die so soon lol. I wanted him on the screen for longer than 10 minutes. I especially love Servant though with Bogarde and James Fox. Hopefully you can visit the UK one day since you want to so much! And oh yes, I suppose we're cluttering up this page with casual conversation lol so that must be quite a read for the others. Let's definitely continue on your or mine page. I have no preference if you have one.

(I knew it was you, Jean from 1 month ago! When you posted from that IP address in reply to the chat thread, and I went to reply on that IP's talk page, I saw our old convo from last month. Same Emma Stone dislike, haha. No worries! It's all good though, who cares now? We're in the here and now and we've amicably and satisfactorily managed things. I wondered where you disappeared to last month after we first chatted. Sometimes I delay replying, if I feel too overwhelmed. Generalized Anxiety Disorder. I had a bunch to do earlier, but I'll repost your comment right above mine for posterity's sake.)

So btw, you're female Jean sounding like "Gene" or "jeans" right? Not jjjjawn Valjean / John in French haha, the boy version. Or are you that? Or non-binary? Hey, it's all kosher here. I thought I was just simply a gay dude. Cut to a decade later, all of a sudden, I'm a cisgender homoromantic demisexual. No seriously. I still find it easier to say gay dude most of the time, and get into semantics when/if necessary. But I'd love to see all of these subcategories more explicitly represented in cinema. Like instead of Addison DeWitt being a coded gay character, I could see him maybe as more of a sapiosexual, the way he's sorta drawn to Eve's manipulative coded-lezzie villainous ways, but probably more homoromantic. Or aromantic, but disposexual. I just made that up, as someone who uses and disposes those they seek for sex. He might bang guys, but he probably only loves himself, lol.

Anywho, yeah, I've always read things that if CZJ was ever robbed of a second nom, it was for that film. But it definitely fared best to keep the partially foreign factor out of it. I love the Wiki page that actually deconstructs the fact that some films have like 6 lingos and what percentage each is and shit. Cool, let that do all the work on that. W/ the exception of Baddeley and Straight frequently mentioned for brief times, that'd be too ridiculous and trivial. I forgot that website....I have it favorited somewhere. But I love that it actually timestamps everyone's performance, haha. Especially so I can gripe at performances whose nominations aggravate me. (Spencer Tracy in San Francisco.......Pointless.) Lucky Hayley Mills! Ooh. The Servant. That's still on my list. I must watch that sometime soon. And this page or the JeanGreyForever page, if you prefer? (I thought maybe that page had a lot of chaos up top, lol. But if you rather a "username" not an "IP address" page, that's fine.) My talk page and user page, those need clean-up. I need to archive some shit.

K, I gotta go do some chores I forgot to do earlier, grandma duties, sleep, but I'll check back tomorrow. G'night! --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)