User talk:Loeba/Archive4

Joseph Grimaldi

I currently have the above listed at peer review as a result of a lot of work and research which I have conducted over the last couple of months. I would be extremely greatful for any comments you may have and would welcome any feedback or suggestions. Many thanks in advance. -- Cassianto^Talk 02:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Loeba! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Loeba! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New message

Hello Lobo512! After going through months of hard work and a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, I have nominated Kareena Kapoor's article for a FAC. I would greatly appreciate if you were able to comment on this. Thanks :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest BollywoodDreamz, I was a bit annoyed that I never received any thanks whatsoever for the review I gave in the summer. It's just common courtesy once someone has offered their time, you know? Anyway, never mind because I'm not really using wikipedia right now (especially in that capacity) so I'm afraid I'd decline either way. Good luck though, because I can tell you've worked hard on the article. --Lobo (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You must think that I'm quite an a**... Don't you? :( I don't know how I forgot! Anyways, I really apologize that I didn't take the time to thank you before. Your help was much appreciated! Hope there are no hard feelings! Best regards -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 07:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Lobo. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in the performing arts area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'm really sorry, but I've only just started to edit WP again (after a long break) and I don't really feel prepared to take on any reviewing at this point...it looks like you are safe anyway, you are piling up the supports. :) All the best of luck! --Lobo (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin project

Hi, just wanted to leave a message; it's so nice to see you back! I really like the changes you've made :) The article will be complete soon! Although I have to say it annoys me when people ––experienced editors at that! –– keep adding/changing things with no other than unreliable internet sources... the recent 'addition' to the Lita Grey divorce section for example. The sources for the info include an Independent article and Hollywood Babylon! Oh dear.

Anyway, keep up the good work :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hello! My inclination to come back to the article has come on as suddenly and unexpectedly as my loss of interest in it, lol. I don't want to let WP take up too much of my time though...need to try and get a balance instead of all-or-nothing! But yep, it feels good to get back into it.

The page is pretty much "complete" in terms of having coverage of everything, but now it's just a matter of adding little bits here and trimming little bits there...I do want to rewrite the lead as well. The current one is actually pretty good, but we can definitely have a better one that covers the whole article. As for the Lita additions you mentioned, yeah I was thinking the sources are poor. Having some detail of her accusations is probably a good idea, but we need to replace the sources. I'm sure Maland must mention it in some detail?

I'm so glad we've been able to collaborate on this project - I actually think it would've been pretty impossible on my own! I hope you'll stick around to help with the refining process, but it's up to you of course. :) I think I'd still like to aim for FA...I feel less fussed about it than before, but it did feel really satisfying getting the Kate Hepburn article to that point...it's just nice to get some real "achievement" out of all the hard work, you know? And it would be really cool if he could be on the main page next year for his 100 year debut anniversary! But it's also an extremely anal and nitpicky process, so we'll see. ;) --Lobo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the lead should be rewritten. I've actually made a couple of attempts at drafting that, but it's quite difficult to condense the article to three or four paragraphs! I'll definitely be sticking around, and will try to help the best I can. However, I might be a lot slower in editing than I have been in the past weeks, as I am back to uni now. But maybe we can 'take turns'; I'll edit when you feel like not doing it for awhile and vice versa. It would definitely be great to see it as a FA. How long does the actual 'voting' process for it take?

As for the sources for the Lita divorce, I think Maland does briefly cover it and could be used as a source. Of course there's also Lita's own (second) biography The Life of the Wife of the Party, where the complete divorce complaint is printed, but the book is quite expensive and I am not sure whether it is even in print anymore.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Oh yeah, writing a good lead is tough tough tough. Especially since it's the most important part of the page! If we're still considering FAC as an option, I think we need to continue expanded the sources used. We've got a good list there, but considering the huge amount of literature on Chaplin I suspect they'll want more. As for how long the voting takes, it completely depends. If you got 3 supports and 0 opposes in a couple of days, it could get promoted. But this is extremely rare; for most articles it takes ages to get reviews, in which case an article can stay on the page for weeks. I'm pretty sure you need at least 3 supports. You also need to wait until someone has done an image review and a spotcheck of sources (for verifiability and lack of copyvio). There's no limit that I know of, unless it's been at FAC for roughly 3 weeks without a single vote then I think it will be closed. It might be worth you taking a look at WP:FAC to get an idea of what goes on there. We're still some way off that stage though, to be honest.

You may have noticed I changed the Lita stuff. None of the books even mention the specifics, so I haven't put them in the article. Hopefully we won't get any grief from that editor who added them before! --Lobo (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy

Since the image of Tracy from the "Libeled Lady" trailer included his name and was a good shot, I thought it would be decorative since that section didn't have a photo. As for reducing the size of the star, a more salient question might be to wonder why a picture of the star has to be included at all; every star is identical except for the name so if you've seen one, you've more or less literally seen them all, and a huge picture of the star crowds almost every article about any actor in Wikipedia, to the point that it's a laughingstock. His name was included in the photo that I inserted earlier and it was even in a different script, at least offering some variety from another huge dreary picture of the star. Since every picture of the star is identical to every other picture of a star, one would imagine that mentioning it along with the address would suffice as opposed to inserting another in the thousands of huge pictures of them, much less keeping the size of it quite large. Kultoa (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that they were good faith edits but there are tons of pictures of Tracy right now, and I actually think another one in that section makes it too crowded (especially with the block-quote). And having it so extremely small just looked bizarre. I'm also a big fan of images being relevant to their section, which a trailer screenshot in the "Character" section definitely wouldn't be. As for the star, yeah it is fairly boring but when it comes down to it, these Walk of Fame stars do represent legacy. And you didn't remove it anyway, you just made it extremely small which (again) I just think looks silly. I did make the star smaller than it was, however, (now 150px) as a compromise. I don't feel strongly attached to it though (I just thought it was "better than nothing"), so I suppose if you want to remove it I won't object. --Lobo (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

After reading your explanation, I agree with you across the board about both images regarding the sizes: you are absolutely right. I did remove the star, I think it detracts from the article and Tracy deserves better, and appreciate your gracious and eminently sensible comments, Lobo512. I imagine that at some point someone will re-insert the star, probably within the close of business today; I sometimes wonder if some clerical employee of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has everyone in show business on a Wikipedia watchlist and has to stick that kitschy thing onto every site, like an embarrassing bumper sticker that you can't get off your car. Kultoa (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A superb exception to the Hollywood Walk of Fame star issue would be the Chaplin article. Given the politics of what happened with it, the delay between 1958 and 1970, a snapshot of the star belongs in that article to emphasize the sort of nonsense to which Chaplin was subjected; people who don't digest text so well but do look at pictures might see it and the caption. Kultoa (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead / Legacy

Tweaked the Legacy-section a bit, and was wondering about a couple of things. "In 2010 the New York Guitar Festival commissioned new scores on some of Chaplin's silent films from a number of contemporary artists, including Justin Vernon of Bon Iver, Marc Ribot, David Bromberg, and Alex de Grassi." Should this be trimmed? It just seems so random to me, as NY Guitar Festival is probably not a very well known festival (as in it probably is for music fans, but I don't think it is very well known for others), and I am not sure whether we need to mention four artists.

Also, what are the guidelines for the 'Characterizations' section? A new play about Chaplin premiered recently at one of the oldest and most prestigious theatres in Helsinki, and I was wondering whether I should write a mention about that? On the other hand, because Finland is such a tiny country, I'm not sure if it is relevant enough?

As for the lead, I am not sure if there is anything to take off, I think it looks pretty good! Chaplin had a very long and interesting life, so I think it is understandable that the lead is also long. Do you think it is going to be a huge problem if we just leave it like this? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

To be honest I've seen much longer leads on here (and sometimes you get big ones for far shorter articles than Chaps) but I personally admire leads that say everything in as small a space as possible. I'm glad you think it's in good shape though! It actually came together more easily than I expected. I don't feel 100% satisfied with it though, I expect I'll still be making revisions. As for the "New York Guitar Festival" stuff, I heartily agree with you and have taken the liberty of removing it completely. What to be included under Characterisations, well...I'd say it's just a judgement call. I think anything in which he is the central character must surely be worth mentioning? At least for now, and then we can see if any future reviewers mention that it may not be notable. I am very conscious of the article's length, but there are so many things worth mentioning...I honestly don't think we can have a comprehensive article on him in less than 12,000 words! It's currently 12,435 words of "readable prose", in case you were wondering (which means the main text - not references or footnotes or captions. It's measured using this handy tool: User:Dr pda/prosesize).

I've added more stuff to legacy, but there are stills bits that need to be developed. I especially want more stuff on his influence as a comedian, not just filmmaker...have you come across any useful sources for this? And please add to the list of filmmakers of cited him as an influence if you have any more specific names! I'm sure the likes of Woody Allen, Preston Sturges, Frank Capra (even Kubrick? I think City Lights was his favourite film) must have mentioned him? It's just about finding the sources. I'm going to attempt a paragraph summarising his "current reputation" as well, where I'll include the stuff about Keaton being more acclaimed these days, and the 2012 Sight & Sound poll.

Okay I'm off to bed, take care! --Lobo (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any books which would concentrate mostly on him as a comedian, except maybe Walter Kerr's Silent Clowns (1975). I've never read it myself though, but I think Kerr evaluates and compares Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd etc. as comedians in the book. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

DYK for Charles Chaplin, Sr.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and Interwiki links

You are receiving this as you have recently deleted an interwiki link on a page that is not currently on Wikidata.

Please either make sure ALL links are on Wikidata before removing them OR leave the removal of interwiki links to bots.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Independence

Hiya, was just wondering, should we change the 'Independence' subheading in the Chaplin article? I still don't have any ideas on what to replace it with, other than 'Silent feature films/features', but then again, The Kid is counted as a feature film so it's not accurate :/ TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hey THS. Yeah we never worked out what to do with that heading! It's so tricky. I guess we could go with "Silent features"...The Kid only just qualifies as one after all, haha, so it doesn't matter that much if it's under a different heading. And I think whatever we chose it won't be perfectly accurate, there isn't a simple way of summarising those years. I did think of something like "Peak years", since his three biggest films all come in that era, but it might be seen as PoV...

By the way, there are a couple of refs in the legacy section that don't have page numbers? Any chance you have access to those sources and can find the page numbers? I still keep meaning to add additional refs etc. to the filmmaking section (it's really solid already, but it's always good to back it up with more refs, and I think I have some additional tidbits I'd like to include...same for the Monsieur Verdoux section). I've decided to focus on my other "project" for a while though (Julianne Moore), because CC is in a good way right now and that one needed completing.

Do you like the statue collage I made?! I was lucky to find the picture of him getting the Oscar as well, right? Much better than that other slightly weird one of him as an old man. --Lobo (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hiya, will try to find the missing page numbers as soon as possible :) I think it's also fine to have "Silent features" as the title – as you said, The Kid is considerably shorter than all his other features. As for the collage, it's awesome :D I never would've thought of that, I think it shows quite nicely how internationally loved The Tramp was/is. And yes, that Oscar photo is much better as the old photo was a bit weird.

Would you mind if I made a slight alteration to the 'Young performer' section? I would just like to specify that the story of Chaplin first performing aged 5 is based only on his autobiography, and that there's no actual evidence to verify it. I'd maybe add something like: "Chaplin recalled that his first stage appearance came at five years old"... etc. It's just because it has never been confirmed by any kind of evidence, and at least Kenneth S. Lynn is skeptical about it. Adding that it's Chaplin's recollection would not be outrightly questioning it but it would also not make it seem like it's a definite fact supported by ample evidence.

Anyway, gotta go write an essay :) I will try to find the page numbers + will keep on checking the page + help in editing when I can! Good luck with the Julianne Moore article, it already looks great :) After I'm done with Chaplin, I've decided to rework Oona's page... I think it could be a fun little summer project, given that there's not that much information about her. The current page is so incredibly bad that it wouldn't even be difficult to improve it (I actually already began by deleting everything that's trivia... basically half of the article). Had an urge to start re-vamping Jodie Foster's page, but I have to keep reminding myself that I really do not have the time for a huge project like that... Wikipedia can be so addictive at times!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Aw, please don't feel like you have to check with me about making a change to the page. Go ahead and add/change whatever you like. If by some chance I wasn't sure about it we could just discuss it after (and same goes for you - please always tell me if you're unsure about an edit I make)..but I think that's unlikely anyway. :) Making clear that the first performance was just his recollection is a good idea, then you could even add a footnote explaining Lynn's scepticism.

That would be nice to see Oona have a decent article. I must admit I don't know much about her. Did she ever work after marrying Chaplin? I kind of get the impression she just completely devoted herself to him and their children.

Good luck with your essay! Ugh I remember those times. Such hard work. How much longer will you be in uni for? May I ask how old you are actually? I'm just curious, hehe...you could just give a "rough" age or you don't have to share if you don't want to :) All the best, --Lobo (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Oona never worked after marrying Chaplin; she did have one very minor role in a film called Broken English in the late 1980s, but that's it. During the marriage, she completely dedicated herself to Chaplin; to her children as well, of course, but many of them have commented later that it was clear to them growing up that Charlie was always #1. How I've understood it is that she pretty much concentrated on drinking after Chaplin died, and especially towards the end of the 1980s was pretty much a recluse.

To be honest, re-writing the article is going to be a bit of a task because she was an extremely private person – she never gave interviews and I read from somewhere that before she died, she made the children to promise that her diaries & personal correspondence would not be given to researchers or published– so there isn't much information available about her. None of the children have, to my knowledge, ever talked about their mother's problems and later life in public, with the exception of Jane Chaplin, who wrote a book about her childhood and described Oona as manipulative and cruel as a mother. There were two 'biographies' published in the 1990s, by Jane Scovell and Patrice Chaplin. I've read Scovell's (for some weird reason my local library had a copy), and while it's not as awful as it could be, she clearly doesn't have much other material than what she has been able to find in the newspaper archives to build her portrait on, so it's pretty much all speculation. She doesn't even include footnotes. The other one by Patrice Chaplin (Michael Chaplin's ex-wife from the 1960s) I have not read, and to be honest am not planning to either, as it seems that she didn't know Oona, only met her briefly a couple of times. Based on those brief moments and their shared experience of alcoholism, Chaplin for some reason thinks that she understood Oona better than others... I mean, the fact that she's decided to keep the name 'Chaplin' although she and Michael Chaplin were divorced in the 1960s, and continues publishing books under that name, makes it look like that she simply wants to cash in on the name.

I guess I am fascinated by Oona because of her background. Alcoholism and general unhappiness seem to have run in her family, and that reminds me of my extended family on my mum's side, who were all drunks/junkies in several generations (with the exception of my mum, who has for some reason been able to lead a happy and balanced life). Having grown up in a happy family, I find it difficult to understand the tragedy and abuse, and the older I get the more I want to learn about it. Why is it that some families' stories are filled with tragedy and others' are not? Ok, it's a bit of a silly reason probably, as of course all cases are different and in no way am I saying that the O'Neill family would necessarily make me understand my own, but I can't help but remain fascinated by it because of this personal reason.

As for my age, I'm 22 and am currently a second-year undergrad, so 19 months to go and I should have a degree in Modern History! In Finland sixth form takes three years instead of two, on top of which I took a gap year, that's why I'm a bit older than most in my year level. Oh, and I study in Scotland, hence the four-year degree. How about you? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Cool we're the same sort of age, I'm 25. I hadn't ruled out the possibility that you were a "mature student". I just thought the odds of us both being girls in our early twenties who love Chaplin was too slim. I mean there can't be many of us out there but we've ended up working on the wp article together! Not the type of author people would expect, I'm sure. And guess what? I also studied history at uni! Next we'll find out we're related, haha.

I actually didn't know Oona was an alcoholic. It does seriously seem to have run in her family...Have you seen the film of Long Day's Journey Into Night, which Eugene O'Neill wrote about his family? I'm obviously going to recommend it since it features the Great Kate giving probably her greatest performance. But it definitely shows that his family was fucked up. And both of his sons committed suicide, right? I find Oona kind of bizarre and fascinating purely for the fact that she was 17 and wanted to be with a 53 year olfd...I mean, they were obviously very happy together and I'm glad about that, but there's no denying that's pretty odd. Given the difficult relationship we know she had with her father, you have to assume there was something very Freudian going on with that attraction! But I don't think you have a silly reason for wanting to do the article at all, and I look forward to seeing it come together. Maybe some biographies of her dad would help? I need to read some of the books written by Chaplin's kids, I'd actually be really interested in them. --Lobo (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hahah, you should've seen my face when I tried to borrow Maland's book from the Uni of Helsinki library last summer, only to realise that someone else had borrowed it already! I literally went: "There is someone else who reads about Chaplin? I'm not the only one? Really?" In general, I find it really hard to find people my age who are into old films & film stars. Glad to know I'm not the only one ;) Can I ask what kind of history you studied?

I haven't seen the film adaptation of the play, but I read the play last summer and really liked it! I should watch it, I'll add it to my list of films I need to see. And yes, both Eugene Jr. and Shane O'Neill committed suicide after years of depression and substance abuse. I think 'Freudian' is the perfect word to use when talking about the Chaplin-O'Neill marriage... it's actually kind of funny how people always write how Oona was attracted to older men because of her relationship to her dad and Chaplin was attracted to young girls because of what happened to his mother! The perfect marriage, one could say. What I find harder to comprehend is why they kept on having children until Chaplin was 73?! A lot of sources say that Chaplin didn't even want children anymore. It must have been very difficult for the youngest children, especially when they were teenagers and their dad was an 80-year-old in need of constant care.

As for the sources I am planning on using, I'll probably use books about O'Neill and Chaplin – it will be interesting to learn more about O'Neill and the 1920s theatre/art community he and Agnes were part of. In a way it will be nice not to have such a huge amount of possible material to use, as with Chaplin.

If you want to read books written by Chaplin's children, I can warmly recommend Charlie Jr.'s My Father, Charlie Chaplin. It's probably one of the best books about Chaplin, one of the best 'portraits' of him. So many of the books written about Chaplin by the people who knew him are about revenge. Charlie Jr.'s book is not like this at all; while he is frank about Chaplin's failings as a parent, he is not bitter about that but tries to understand him and why he acted like he did. It's also a pretty hilarious read at times, especially when he describes how to interpret Chaplin's various moods by the swear words he used, or when he describes his father's slightly erratic way of driving. It makes one sad that Charlie Jr. had so many problems (which he actually talks about in the book as well) and that he died so young. He seemed to have a really warm if somewhat complex relationship with his dad, and it is sad that later biographers (Lynn especially! He is such a 'cherry picker' when it comes to source material. Or rather, he was. I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that he was a Professor at Johns Hopkins, the book is so incredibly bad.) and authors (Joyce Carol Oates' Blonde, while of course a fictional book, includes Charlie Jr. as one of the main characters and doesn't really give a good impression of him. The sad thing is that a lot of people who read that book will think it is completely based on reality) don't seem to have read this book when writing about him. I'd really love to read Jane Chaplin's book as well, but I don't trust my French skills enough to buy it from Amazon.fr (it's only available in French). Doesn't Weissman's book have a foreword by Geraldine Chaplin? Is it interesting? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yeah Geraldine does introduce the Weissman book, which I'm surprised by because it's not exactly great...She doesn't say all that much to be honest, and nothing about her dad's nature. Are there any good interviews with her? You've definitely inspired me to buy a copy of Charlie Jr's book. It sounds really interesting.

My uni made us study both medieval and modern history, but I've always liked modern history best and by third year I was only doing 20th century modules. That's my favourite period by far (although I enjoy studying all sorts of history). I'm sure it's a big reason why I love watching classic films - it's like being able to go back in time to that era. How about you - what have you been studying?

I've got to get to bed! I had the week off from work last week because it was half term but it's back to reality now. Speak soon, --Lobo (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've seen/read some interviews with Geraldine, and she is generally asked the same questions over and over again ("What was it like being his daughter?"... such a bland and silly question!). The best interviews specifically about her father are perhaps in the documentary The Forgotten Years/Les Années Suisses (used to be available on Youtube but couldn't find it anymore), and in this RTÉ radio program about the Chaplins in Waterville:http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/radio-documentary-kerry-and-the-trramp-charlie-chaplin-waterville.html. Youtube also has this snippet from an interview with Robinson when she was promoting the big retrospective in Berlin in 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HfidT8x1qs . There was also another interesting interview with her a couple of years ago when her career was celebrated at the Spanish Film Festival in London, but the link to that doesn't seem to be working anymore.

As for my studies, the first two years in MH cover the years 1450–1989, plus I took an early medieval module on the first year, and am currently also taking art history and film history modules. I've always been more interested in social and cultural history than other types; I think the mix of anthropology + history is also very interesting. For the past couple of years, I've been most interested in the years c. 1850–1960, especially in American history, and I hope I will be able to concentrate on those years/topics more next year!

Ok, my procrastination time is over for today, have to finish an essay! Talk to you soon! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hi,

This comes a bit late but glad you liked the Geraldine links! She's been in a lot of bad films but then some of her choices are so interesting that they make up for all the rest. I think she is a very good actress when in the right project (Saura, Altman, Rudolph, many of the Spanish films she's done recently etc.), so it's sad that for some reason a lot of people only know her as 'Chaplin's wannabe actress daughter whose career never really got off' just because she's not an American movie star. If I ever have the time, I'd love to re-write her page in WP... In the interviews, she also comes off as interesting and really different from what I would expect someone who grew up with all that money & publicity to be like.

Also, very excited about the positive feedback for the Chaplin article! I have not forgotten about looking up those page numbers etc., but unfortunately I am not sure whether I will be able to do that very soon :( Just wanted to let you know that I have not abandoned the project, but I probably won't have much time to dedicate to it in the coming weeks due to uni etc. Sorry :( We're so close though that even if there's a little delay on my part, I think we should be able to reach FA status well before 2014! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hi

Hi Lobo, sorry it's taken a long while for me to get back. I'm glad you are still writing and are part of the community. It can get wearing, for sure. Taking regular breaks seems very healthy to me. I went away too for a while and then cut back a lot on the pages I was watching as I'd got spread a bit thin. I'm trying to reduce my screen time generally. I'm not writing much content these days, just keeping an eye. Chaplin looks great; congrats on that. I'm hoping the snows in our part of the world are going to bugger off some time soon, but no sign of it, eh? Enjoy the school break (if that still applies) and best wishes for your health. Span (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Span. The weather has been absolutely ridiculous. We better get a damn good summer after this! Nice to hear from you, all the best --Lobo (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Excellent work on both Julianne Moore‎ and Charlie Chaplin: two very different figures, but two very, very high-quality articles as a result of some great work. A pleasure to PR the first and I hope to comment on both of them at FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is really kind, thank you. :-) --Lobo (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Moore PR

Sorry - I didn't get a chance to get back to you on the couple of questions you raised to my comments: my fault as my attention was caught up in a couple of other bits and pieces on and off wiki. Both were relatively minor and shouldn't affect the onward progress. The two points in question were the "International recognition" title: the only option I could come up with was "Critical recognition", or "Increasing critical recognition". Neither perfect, but put it in the mix with "Widespread recognition" and see which one suits best. The other point was the piped Telegraph link. Your explanation makes sense to me. I'd avoid piping to the owning company, which sometimes means little, but leave it as you have it now. As the article now stands I'd only have the two Variety links blocking an FAC support from me, but I know you have those in hand for as and when the question arises. Good luck, and don't forget to drop me a note when you get to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I just thought I'd better close the review to free up the main PR page, as it was getting pretty long. Many thanks again for your help! I actually emailed Variety and asked if they knew when the reviews would be available again, but they just gave me "in the coming weeks", exactly what the website says. No help there then. So we could be waiting a little while longer till I can take it to FAC, but I'll certainly let you know when it's there. Cheers, take care! --Lobo (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin's Romani connections

Hiya,

Hope you are well! I was just wondering whether you would have time to add a little detail/footnote that I think should go in the article? I'll add it myself when I get back home in June and have more books available, but thought to approach you about this as well in case you have time to do this before me.

During the months that we've been re-hauling the article, I have noticed that there has been some bickering about Chaplin's Romani origins. Basically, there have been people adding categories like "Romani actors" to the article, as they take the mysterious letter sent to him in the 1970s to mean that Chaplin had more extensive connections to the Romani community than previously thought. While of course this might be the case, there has so far been no serious research into that claim, it is all interesting speculation – and hence saying that Chaplin was a Romani actor or film director is overemphasizing his Romani heritage. But then, there are also people who think that Chaplin had no Romani connections whatsoever, as they are not aware of Ellen Elizabeth Smith, leading for example to the recent removal of the category "British people of Romani descent", which I don't think is misleading to have there.

To end this annoying adding and de-adding, I am thinking that we should maybe add a note in the 'early life' section that clearly explains his confirmed connection to the Romani community (i.e. that his grandmother, who was dead before his birth, was a Romani) and that Chaplin was very proud of this part of his heritage, while also explaining that there is (very) unconfirmed speculation about him having more Romani background – but that it is UNconfirmed. Maybe this way people wouldn't argue about this anymore... Anyway, let me know your thoughts! As said, I'll definitely do this myself in June, but it's annoying me so much right now that I thought that maybe if you're bored and have the books with you, you might be interested in adding it already :) It's of course completely fine if you don't, I feel kind of bad about even asking you to do this – it's just that now that the category has been removed, I am expecting someone else to (again) come along and start complaining about how his Romani connections have been ignored...TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Email

Are you not comfortable with that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I should have acknowledged that I'd read it. I do generally prefer to keep things to talk pages, if possible, since the WP email system gives away your real name...which for some reason I do feel a bit funny about! It's not that I don't trust people, it's just that I find it weird merging my "real life" and "internet life" :)

I had a thought: if you loved The Great Ziegfeld, you should really check out Yankee Doodle Dandy (if you haven't seen it). It's another biopic of a major figure in American theatre, with a fair amount of spectacle. I really enjoyed it, and James Cagney is fabulous in it (my favourite performance of his). --Lobo (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK, some people create an email address solely for wiki though. I'll take a look at the FAC tomorrow. I watched Gigi yesterday and wasn't very impressed by it. Louis Jourdan will always be grumpy Kamal Khan to me and him singing and romantic seemed strange. Very suave isn't he. The posh voices of the old women and the grin and singing of Maurice Chevalier in it really wasn't my cup of tea and really grated on me, but I can see why some people would think it a great film and I'd guess that you probably liked it, at least more than Ziegfeld. Bringing up Baby which I saw the other day though was hilarious. Singing in the Rain I thought was miles better than An American in Paris. Tomorrow I'm going to watch Cover Girl I think. The Greatest Show on Earth was good but Singing in the Rain should have won the Oscar in 1952 in my opinion. I discovered earlier that an old aunt of mine is also a major film buff and she's given me her A Pictorial History of the Movies book from like 1950 or something to borrow. It has photos of most of the notable movies from 1903 to 1949 and some summaries of text. Great book! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gigi is actually one of the few BP winners I haven't seen, I've never felt that interested in it. It isn't held in very high regard these days. I'm glad you loved Bringing Up Baby! There are very few film I love more than that one. I got to see it at the BFI last January. So much fun! The audience applauded at the end. :) Do you think you'll give Yankee Doodle Dandy a look? It's online here, hint hint. That old film book sounds cool, I love finding things like that. Where abouts are you from btw, are you British as well? I get the impression you may be? --Lobo (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup about to watch it now. Of course I'm British LOL! Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was a terrific film.. I'm also going to watch Adam's Rib later if I have time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle was certainly worth a watch, good film, not great though, Mrs Miniver deserved the Academy Award winner for 1942 I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! I liked Mrs Miniver but I don't think it would make my top ten of the year. My #1 from '42 is To Be or Not to Be, which is one of my all-time favourites (with the wonderful Carole Lombard in her last film). It's so funny and clever! And that actually links in with the other thing you mentioned, Tracy-Hepburn films, since my favourite of those is Woman of the Year (their first), which is also '42 and a very close runner up. I adore it; the chemistry between them is just sizzling, and it's amazing (for a lame fangirl like me) to know that's because they were falling in love in real life at the time, eeeeee...But I'm sure you don't care about all that, haha. If you watch Adam's Rib later and then happen to take a look at the plot summary on here, it just so happens that I wrote that. *cough* shameless self-plug *cough* I lovvvve that film too. They were both so wonderful at comedy. Have you seen Father of the Bride?? ST is utterly hilarious, just perfect in that. I actually think he was one of the funniest actors in history, just the slightest facial expression can have me in stitches.

Nice to know you're a fellow Brit! --Lobo (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen Father of the Bride, agreed! But I haven't seen that many of the Hepburn-Tracy films. Hepburn is my favourite actress I think, although I have a big thing for Audrey Hepburn and Ingrid Bergman who makes me happy just seeing her smile! I loved her in Indiscreet. I'll try to see as many of Katharine's as I can. I've reached The Apartment now for the Oscar winners. I really didn't think that much of Spartacus, Kirk Douglas seemed totally inappropriate for the role and it just looked like he was an American being paid to just stand there and recite his lines if you know what I mean. Richard Burton or Charlton Heston would have been much better in it I think. Peter Ustinov and Jean Simmons were good in it though. I've seen a lot of films but there are still many you'd be surprised that I haven't seen. I'm getting there anyway....♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW I started a missing William Wellman film Young Eagles (film), you might find something further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Well, I edit much less these days and try to focus on quality. I accepted a long time ago I'm never going to have the time to get what needs to be done on here! Unfortunately I couldn't get Adam's Rib... About to watch The Apartment.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[1] ;) The Apartment is one of my faves, enjoy! Who doesn't love Billy Wilder? I'm not crazy about Spartacus either BTW, definitely my least favourite Kubrick film (although I haven't seen Fear & Desire yet, which is bound to be worse) --Lobo (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Amazing to see Shirley MacLaine (who even Clint Eastwood professed to be scared of) in such a demure, vulnerable role. Lobo, would you me interested in getting Bringing Up Baby up to GA status with me? I don't think it needs much more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Coincidently, I watched a Shirley Maclaine film last night too (her first) - Hitchcock's The Trouble With Harry. Strange little film! As for BuB, yeah I guess I could help with some polishing of the article...I'm already frowning at it though, over the claim that Susan and David's relationship was inspired by Hepburn's "relationship" with John Ford. This is sourced to Barbara Leaming's biography, with is famously bad (there's a reason I didn't use it for Kate's article) - she's obsessed with the idea that Ford was the real love of KH's life, even though they clearly didn't have anything more than a fling (and even that isn't certain). In all the Hepburn books and articles I've read, I've never come across this idea (about the writer being inspired by her and Ford). I bet Leaming is the only person who has ever claimed it. Gerald Mast clearly did a large amount of research for his monograph on the film, so if he doesn't mention it then I think it should be removed... --Lobo (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some authors tend to focus on things like that, the McGilligan source on Clint Eastwood goes to town on documenting Eastwood's promiscuity. I enjoy MacLaine's relationship with Eastwood in Two Mules for Sister Sara. You could cut the sexual tension between the two with a knife but he and Don Siegel said that they hated her and found her scary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen A Man For All Seasons and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? but it seems crazy to me that A Man For all Seasons beat it to the Academy Award in '66. Woolf was superbly acted, a Man for all Seasons was rather bland.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've seen them - I think AMfaS is great (Fred Zinnemann is one of my favourite directors) but WAoVW is f'n amazing. Like, probably in my top 20 of all time. I LOVE it. The acting is incredible, especially from Liz Taylor IMO (anyone who says she couldn't act just needs to look at this film; it's one of the best performances of all time), and every line of dialogue is delicious. But let's face it, it's not Best Picture material. It's way too edgy and stylish. The Academy likes nice, safe, straight-forward dramas (to their credit they've got a lot more ambitious in the last decade, but throughout history that's definitely been the case).

Are you still thinking of working on Brining up Baby? I have this recurring problem with my arm/shoulders/neck/back and they hurt when I use the computer too much, so I'm not sure I can make any major commitments to it (since I have other articles I'm keen to work on, and that will use up most of my "computer quota"), but let me know when you think it's "done" and I'll read through and see what improvements I can make.

Right, off to work now! Best, --Loeba (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I liked Orson Welles in A Man For All Seasons, but something about Robert Shaw in that garb and the guy with the funny eyes and obvious George Harrison haircut and tash of 1966 really unsettled me. Agree with you on Woolf being within my top 20 and also being too edgy for Best Picture. Some of the best acting I've ever seen in it though. Yes, 1968, Oliver! for instance was an enjoyable film and really good, but I've never consider it to be a superior picture to something like Rosemary's Baby or even Once Upon a Time in the West, but that was too offbeat to win Best Picture. Rosemary's Baby is by no means a "perfect" film, I can see a lot of flaws in it, but it's still a great movie. I think it's sad that they feel they have to be straight laced, it isn't fair on the industry I don't think. A better film is a better film period. Yes, still interested in Bringing up Baby but not all that enthuastic about wikipedia at present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Chariots of Fire, definitely the worst Academy Award winner I've seen to date. The only good thing about it was its music and the famous theme now played at the Olympics and other events. The actors in the film were extremely unbelievable as athletes let alone Olympic athletes and I found that I really didn't care if they won or lost. Even the 1924 Olympics looked like it had been shot on the track in somebody's backyard. My feeling is that the soundtrack tricked the Academy to thinking it was a great film, when it really wasn't. On Golden Pond and Reds (film) are far far superior and would have been better candidates for the Oscar in 1981 from the films of that year I've seen to date. I see quite a few reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes agree with me, but most don't, including Roger Ebert which is surprising. But then again Ebert considers Notorious to be the best Hitchcock film and in his top 10 of all time, I think Psycho, Rear Window and Vertigo were better, even though Cary Grant and Ingrid are among my favourite actors and I loved their chemistry. The acting might have been more alluring in Notorious, but I didn't feel the plot was as a strong as the others and didn't find the film overall as "thrilling" if you know what I mean.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought Chariots was nicely shot and acted but ultimately pretty dull and forgettable. Nice to here you mention Reds, I don't think that film gets the recognition it deserves. But my #1 of '81 so far is Mephisto (1981 film), which won the Best Foreign Film Oscar so they nearly got it right! ;) I was a little underwhelmed by Notorious as well, although I've been meaning to rewatch it (Hitchcock has been growing on me lately - I was never that big a fan but I'm starting to "get" him more).

My least favourite BP winner has to be A Beautiful Mind. I seriously disliked that. --Loeba (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Haven't seen Mephisto but I've heard that it is a great film. I'll try to watch it this week. I love Hitchcock's 50s films and I've enjoyed most of his 40s films I've seen to date but his Jamaica Inn ranks among the worst films I've ever seen and I believe even Hitchcock hated it.This comes from somebody who enjoyed the novel and is fascinated with the myths and legends surrounding Bodmin and in the inn which if you've seen film you'll understand why it failed so badly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Films like Reds and The Deer Hunter are a bit long and drawn out in parts, I think both would benefit from a half hour cut, but both are very good films. I couldn't access Mephisto unfortunately. American Graffiti and Terms of Endearment coming next. BTW Deepika Padukone is at FAC which you might wish to comment on, no worries if not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Youre getting through the BP winners pretty fast! BTW, did you catch my cheeky link to Adam's Rib above? As for the FAC, I'd like to help you out so will do my best to chip in some time next week. Can't say I've ever heard of the lady, heh, but sometimes that's a good thing. :) --Loeba (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I skipped most of the 70s ones because I've seen most of them several times that's why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The strongest year in film I've seen to date is definitely 1939. That year had a ridiculously high number of great films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay (about skipping the '70s winners). Well you wouldn't have received any judgment from me anyway if you had watched them all that fast I've been known to watch 20 films in one week...ehem. Yeah 1939 definitely has a lot of goodies! I tend to have the most "wow, that was amazing" films per year in the 60s and 70s. Don't know if I could pick one year as the "strongest" though, that's tough! --Loeba (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

1959, 1962 and 1979 were pretty strong years, 1962 in particular was a beast of a year, I mean Lawrence of Arabia, Manchurian Candidate, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Kill a Mockingbird, even Dr. No. What do you think of Apocalypse Now and Platoon? As a Vietnam War film I thought Apocalypse Now was far superior to Platoon and was a superb film. Platoon, I'm amazed it won Best Picture because there's really little plot to it. If you look at the story and plot of Apocalypse Now, Platoon doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same sentence. Its a good film if you like that sort of thing, but Best Picture winner it wasn't IMO. Thanks for the review BTW, Indian actor articles tend to be very detailed though, Priyanka Chopra is, and at the FAC people even said "I think it's what the readers want".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Platoon is very good either! I don't know where the acclaim comes from, it's pretty cheesy. I've actually only seen Apocalypse Now once, about 5 years ago, and have been meaning to watch it for a while now (I even bought the DVD). It's a really good film, no doubt, but it's not quite one I'd call a personal favourite (I remember finding the ending a bit overblown). That could change on rewatch though. 1962 was definitely a crazy good year...there's all sorts of amazing world cinema films, along with the American classics.

As for the review, I think I always seem to come across as pickier than I am! I just make suggestions as I see them, but will rarely insist on the changes being made (and if I do feel strongly about something, I'll make that clear). So don't worry too much if there's anything I said that you disagree with. --Loeba (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, don't worry about it! I appreciate you taking the time to review and post comments on it! Infoboxes or lack of them generally are more trouble than they're worth and it'll only be a matter of time before there's edit warring on the matter. I don't want to be involved in a dispute over it, we've had trouble enough with Sellers and Le Mesurier! But I'm increasingly supportive of a photograph in favour of an infobox. in fact I removed the infobox recently for Uppsala Cathedral, which if you compare it to how it looked a month ago I think it's clear to me what looks better! Unless something has a lot of data like sports personalities or aeroplanes etc, I generally think that infoboxes are seriously abused on wikipedia and often look ugly! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, to each their own I guess. I don't find them ugly (I actually think articles look a bit sparse without them) and genuinely find them useful - whenever I open an article my eyes always wonder over to the infobox first, to take in all the basic facts.

By the way, since I'm assuming you have an interest in Indian film, have you seen anything my Satyajit Ray? I've not (yet) seen anything outside his acclaimed Apu trilogy, but those films are just beautiful. --Loeba (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your review to date on the Padukone article, but some of the comments like "Oh dear" and "you don't know how to use sources very well" which I think are directed towards Smaro might not be taken too well! As I say I don't mind you being as picky as you like so long as nothing comes across as offensive to the contributor! I've explained what I think is the problem on the review and why it might not be possible to effectively source all of the claims. The funny thing is that I'm not really a big fan of Indian films especially at all, some of them I've enjoyed, but most I've seen have that generic sounding playback singer which I often find grating if I'm honest. Some of the more recent films are often badly plagiarized from Hollywood films, but they can still be charming in an Indian context. India like any country though has its truly great films, Ray's films in particular are highly acclaimed, and films like Mother India and Sholay are considered the best. Mughal-e-Azam I'm working on this evening and seeing if I approve of it for FAC. I think you really have to be Indian or of Indian heritage/diaspora though to fully appreciate most of them or understand why the song and dance "item number" means so much to them and get the films culturally. I'm generally interested in world film and improving coverage globally on wikipedia to address systematic bias. On wikipedia though there is significant number of editors working on Indian films, so I try to help them! BTW have you seen Mean Streets? I thought the plot of the film was rather poor to be honest! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think I wrote anything like an attack? I hope not, I tried to be civil. But I also need to be honest, and I think lots of reviewers would've been much harsher that I have been. Rest assured I don't feel good about the whole thing: along with hurting your feelings (both of you) it's ended up being pretty time consuming, on an actress I don't personally have an interest in, and I would've much preferred to spend that time working on my own projects...But I dunno, once I'd started the review I felt like I had to do it properly...Sorry, I bet you regret asking me now, right?!

I love Mean Streets, and think it's one of DeNiro's best performances, but it's still secondary to Goodfellas and Casino. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to feel bad at all. Of course I don't regret asking you at all as you've found many important points that the others hadn't picked up on!! Your time on it is much appreciated. I agree with most of what you've said, but not on what you said about not having a general ability to properly use sources! In my own work I always try to put sources to direct good use and if I'm going to make a strong claim I'll make sure that it is instantly verifiable. Admittedly I haven't looked into the sources that Smaro has used and I copyedited it and made additions on top of what had already been written but my experience of him is a competent editor who is certainly aware of the ropes. I can see though what you mean about the statements and sourcing but as I say I think it comes down to the lack of a general overview of her films and career, most sources are individual reviews of her films and don't evaluate all of the reviews in one! It is a valid problem you've identified though, so let's move forward and try to address them! I love most of Scorsese's films but I didn't think much of Mean Streets, a lot of the film was in dingy lighting and has a sort of claustrophobic feel to it and I didn't see much point to it! Goodfellas and Casino on the other hand are great. I've even got Kundun on DVD which being very interested in Tibet I much enjoyed, although I'm sure most people didn't like it. The Last Emperor was a good film, especially the scenes of the temples, and the earlier part, but it did drag a little I thought. I saw That Touch of Mink the other day, loved it! I've reached Silence of the Lambs now, having seen the ones from 1988-1990 within the last year, but I haven't seen Silence of the Lambs since about 2005 so I'll watch it again! Schindler's List I haven't seen since the early 2000s either!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I've invited somebody to do a spot check anyway just in case! Do you get what I mean about the claustro feel of Mean Streets with the tiny bedrooms, and the beds, the dingy airless feel of the bar, and the small corridor fights? The least claustrophobic film I've even seen is Cattle Queen of Montana LOL! It's not something I normally think about, but I think the dingy lighting in Mean Streets helped create that feel, which if it was intentional it's pure genius! I loved De Niro's scene towards the end in which he starts to burn the money, rather ungrateful!! Generally though I didn't think too much of it, but I think a lot of that had to do with the background and plot. Unlike Raging Bull or something where the apartments and casino were used to great effect. It's difficult to dislike any performance of De Niro's in particular of course! Raging Bull was really De Niro's film but in Goodfellas I thought Pesci stole the show, very convincing as a gangster. There's a few types like that in clubs in my area who start fights just by somebody having looked at them! Only about 7 or 8 films left on the AFI 100 list I haven't seen now. Unfortunately I couldn't access that Adam's Rib one.:-[ Have you seen My Left Foot? That's one of the most convincing performances I've ever seen!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Mean Streets definitely has a claustrophobic feel - I'm sure it was intentional and I find it very effective. I want to watch Kundun - it's not one of Marty's most acclaimed, but I don't have many of his films left to see, and he's one of my favourites (despite a few dodgy outings in recent years). Have you seen The Last Temptation of Christ? I actually think that's one of his absolute best, it blew me away. Agree about Pesci, I lovvve him in his Scorsese roles. What area do you live in, out of interest (and if you don't mind sharing)?

Yes, DDL's performance in My Left Foot is incredible (and it could've been such a disaster). The link for Adam's Rib here doesn't work for you? That's weird, the putlocker version works perfectly for me (once you click the "Close ad..." button). How about here? You seem to enjoy discussing films, so I was wondering - have you ever posted on the IMDb message boards? The general one, here, is very active and you get so many recommendations from posting there (I did). There's also one specifically for classic films, which has some seriously knowledgeable posters. It's entirely down to these boards that I became such a film buff. You won't find me under this screen name though, I'm afraid. You'll have to play detective and work out who I am. ;) I don't post there as much as I used to though. --Loeba (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Everytime I click the link I either get a McAfee security risk warning, I get a media player update request or I try to download it and it just doesn't load. on Viooz you can just click the arrow and watch without any plug ins. Never thought about joining imdb, I was under the impression you had to pay or something. I live near Cardiff in south Wales. Gavin and Stacey land! What about you? Yes I've seen Last Temptation, a brilliant film, arguably Scorsese's best I think IMO, although I also rate Taxi Driver very highly. Kundun is something of an art film, it might bore a lot of people I think, but for those who appreciate world culture and history and Tibet they'll like it. If you liked The Last Emperor you'd like Kundun I think. It had some very touching moments in it like him knowing where the 13th Dalai Lama's teeth were kept! The earlier part like Last Emperor when he was a young boy is the best part of the film, some of the parts later on aren't that great. I preferred Seven Years in Tibet actually, Brad Pitt's dodgy Austrian accent aside, but still enjoyed both. Tomorrow I'm going to watch Brando's Sayonara or/and Liz Taylor's National Velvet if I have time. At some point I think it would be interesting for me to draw up my own Best Picture of every year. Maybe in a year or two when I've seen a good number of films from every year! My 1985 choice would be Back to the Future, I doubt anything will change that one, the trilogy is one of my all time favourites and I have to watch it every Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah you're a Welshie! Nice, I love Welsh accents. I'm from North London (Islington/Camden to be precise). I might try and watch Kundun this week, it's sounding more and more intriguing. Think about joining IMDb, I think you'd enjoy it there. Aside from the message board, it's also great fun being able to rate each film you see! Making "top film" lists is fun too - I find it difficult to make an all time favourites list (not a ranked one anyway), but I do like making top ten of each year lists. Yeah, I'm a dork (blame IMDb!) --Loeba (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with imdb's Shawshank Redemption ranking as the best film of all time. I love films which have multiple twists and some form of justice, which with Morgan Freeman with a voice next to God in narrating it and its often poetic qualities, I honestly think it is a worthy candidate for Best Film of all time. It did have some flaws, like the Rita Hayworth/Welsh poster and a tunnel not being discovered in 19 years, I mean, as if, but the whole point of his escape was justice and winning one over the guards so it didn't matter. It is possible I'll find more films which are even better than Shawshank but that's my current feeling. The Kid, Toy Story, It's a Wonderful Life, Good the Bad and the Ugly, Back to the Future Trilogy, Sunset Boulevard, Ben Hur, Cuckoo's Nest, Lords of the Rings trilogy, and Roman Holiday would be candidates for my top 10 at the moment I think. Some people rate Casablanca or Citizen Kane as best film but I don't. Casablanca would be in my top 25 I think. I think I'll have to watch Citizen Kane again, I really couldn't see what the fuss was all about about on first viewing. I have both films on DVD anyway♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I do admit to loving Shawshank (a lot of the imdb crew turn their nose up at it), and it's amazingly rewatchable, but there are many films that I find more mind-blowing. The only one on the imdb top ten that would definitely make my own top ten is Pulp Fiction. Oh how I love that film (a lot of imdb users dislike that one as well, but screw them! Some people will hate anything with mainstream popularity, which is ridiculous). I 100% agree with Citizen Kane's reputation, I think it's absolutely amazing (and gets better and better the more I watch it - I think I've seen it three times now). I love Orson Welles. I've seen all but one (Macbeth, which I have actually seen bits of) of his directed features and although I enjoyed them to varying degrees, I haven't rated any of them less than 7/10. Definitely one of my favourite filmmakers (and actors, love watching him). To each their own though, there are some major classics that do nothing for me (like The Searchers). --Loeba (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider The Searchers that great either either. The Big Country is a superior western in all but having John Wayne in it! I think Broken Arrow and the Big Country are the two best westerns I've seen to date of the 50s, although Shane is also very good. High Noon and The Searchers are two of the most overrated western films period IMO. Pulp Fiction is a great film but I definitely wouldn't consider it top 10 material. I guess each film has something which appeals to each person, and everybody is different of course. Agreed on Welles, he was terrific. I'm admittedly wary of those films which are extremely popular as I am with music, but I would never let commercial success and popularity affect my opinion of a film in watching it. Stars Wars are great films of course but I wouldn't consider them best film of all time material. Return of the Jedi lacked depth I thought and as Roger Ebert said, too many grunts from Chewy, how on earth do they understand him? Chewbacca though is one of the best things about Star Wars I think, having a cute big furry creature as a pilot in space! The first one was the best I thought. If you're going to measure it on innovation and way out there for its time yeah I'd agree, best film ever, but the plot of the films in my opinion are not brilliant. I really must watch Citizen Kane again several times over because I must have missed something! Have you seen The 400 Blows? Watched that yesterday, excellent I thought and so realistic, took me back to my own school days and difficult teachers! I saw Sayonara the other day, the suicide bed scene was one of the most moving scenes I've ever seen in any film, not surprised they both won Oscars for it! One of Brando's greatest performances I thought in that film. Today I think I'll watch Silence of the Lambs again.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How a Mosquito Operates

Hi, I read on the FAC that you had an issue with the lead of the article. Can you let me know what needs to be fixed? I'd like to give it a shot and help the article hit FA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. I've gone ahead and made the changes myself - hopefully the FAC nominator will be okay with them. --Lobo (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Katharine Hepburn (estimated annual readership: 1,236,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Spencer Tracy (estimated annual readership: 470,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display these userboxes:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Katharine Hepburn to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Spencer Tracy to Good Article status.

Thanks for your work on these, two of my favorite actors!

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow what a nice award, thank you!! --Lobo (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being a constant source of inspiration for editors working on biographies of film actors and actresses. smarojit HD 10:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I am?! I'm not sure about that, haha, but I'm really touched that you think so. :) Thank you! --Lobo (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. :) Katharine Hepburn and now Julianne Moore—amazing work on two of my favourite actresses. --smarojit ^HD 14:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For great work on Julianne Moore and your success at her FAC. Congratulations! CassiantoTalk 10:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cass, and thanks so much for your help in getting her there! --Lobo (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Aw well done!!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Carole Lombard

I was just about to undertake a rewrite of the article when I noted you had already done just that. I wanted to use Harvard Citations and the Modern Language Association style guides as the basis of the reference notations since these are the most common style guides in use for Social Sciences such as history and biography works but I see that you have adopted the American Psychological Association style guide which the !@#$%$ citation templates use. The APA guide is the standard for scientific works and although widely adopted by Wikipedia is not the way most "real world" publications would cite references. Is there any interest in my doing the bibliographical aspect of the re-write while you do the contextual alterations? FWiW, I was a reference librarian for 30+ years, and presently, an editor, filmmaker and author. See my biographies on film stars: Dirk Bogarde, Gary Cooper, ad infinitum ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It's nice to know you have an interest in the article (and Dirk Bogarde as well, who has recently become one of my favourite actors). I appreciate your credentials, but I've always found the format produced by WP's citation templates is absolutely fine. It's pretty much exactly how I was taught to reference when I was studying for a history degree. I'll hopefully be taking the article to WP:FAC at some point, where the referencing is one of the criteria, so I'd kind of be more comfortable sticking with the templates...What are the specific changes you would like to make? I took a look at the Bogarde article, and the only difference I see is that the year comes at the end instead of after the author? I personally think it's clearer for the year to come after the author, no? I notice that you've added the year to all of the Ott citations in the article, but none of the others. Whatever we decide, we need consistency.

Have you written full-length, published biographies on those stars or were you referring to their WP biographies? --Loeba (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been very tentative with introducing changes and the alteration to one set of citations was to hopefully catch your attention. I fully understand the use of APA style guide at university courses as that is where the instructors used this format to introduce referencing in research papers. The APA is a simple format that is easy to implement especially if templates are employed. The problems with tying the date to the author is how to introduce multiple editions, and the ALA style indicates that date should be linked to the publication, not the author. In basic form, the APA looks like this: Author, date. Title. Publisher, while the MLA guide is: Author. Title. Publication, date. There are some similarities but it the templates as written do not allow second and third authors to be noted properly, as they are listed incorrectly as last name, first name. Dates of publication can be properly cited but that is another issue as I personally believe that publication date rather fits better to the publication tracings of: Location, Publisher, and date of publication as MLA states. Now, a not so dark secret, APA was introduced at universities to be a simpler system for those folks that were in science courses and needed to learn something that didn't require understanding the Modern Language Association style guide which is the most commonly used format for the Social Sciences including History and Biography. Nonetheless, the Harb and SFN templates can be altered to output properly in whatever system, however, the reference templates are only written in APA style. I do not think the one advantage of linking to the citation warrants their use, but, since the typical Wikipedia editor is not a reference librarian or cataloger, they often don't know what to do with those who can "scratch" catalog. Now, to ally all your concerns about speaking to a Luddite, I was a librarian for many years and introduced into many local systems, data processing, catalog templates and conversion of traditional library card catalogs to a digital system, so I am very familiar with MARc records and templates, but those template forms were absolutely "bullet-proof", nothing like the "buggy", made-up templates that now require separate forms for books, non-print media and the like. and still get it wrong, most times. I would change all citations to a standard Harvard Citation which would read as: Author (last name or authors if two authors are listed) date of publication, and page or location. Bearing in mind your preference for the WIKI SFN and bibliographic templates, I would only edit for errors, mindful of the dictum of "garbage in, garbage out". I have to leave to chair a meeting at our city's library board, but will respond if necessary via email, as I do tend to go on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As to articles I have written, in the 6,000 or so that I have worked on, quite a number were full biographies: see Amelia Earhart, Alexander Graham Bell, numerous others in all different areas. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to go back to the discussion about machine technology, but the older system of title/sub-title apparently does not read properly as line breaks. The usual method of addressing this is to make a definitive break, otherwise, some editors are also using bold titling as a way of showing a different title. 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) If all you are looking for is a compression of a list, then toc limits can work. I'll insert one to show you what happens. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carole Lombard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man of the World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deepika Padukone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Sarkar]]'s drama ''[[Lafangey Parindey]]'' (2010) saw Padukone play opposite [[Neil Nitin Mukesh]]) in the role of Pinky Palkar, a blind girl determined to win a skating competition. In preparation

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)