User talk:Loeba/Archive5

New FAC

Hello hope your well Loeba. Another of Chaplin's peers is appearing at FAC if you could spare the time to pop in. Any comments gratefully received :) -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fine article, yes I will happily review at some point next week. :) Hope you have been well, --Loeba (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sweet Bird of Youth (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drifter (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) 11:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve I Take this Woman

Hi, I'm The Cosmos Master. Loeba, thanks for creating I Take this Woman!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This page needs references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. The Cosmos Master (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lobo/Loeba

Out of curiosity is that your real name or what was the inspiration for it? It sounds African.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no. "Lobo" came about because when I registered with WP, I expected it to be pretty exclusively for working on the Hepburn article, so I chose a name related to her - Lobo was the name of her dog, but that was taken, so I added on her birthday "512" - May 12th (American date order). Pretty weird and random, but I didn't put much thought into it because I didn't think of WP as very important! I grew sick of it pretty quickly, but only realised it was possible to change it recently. I thought I'd better not choose something too different, so just ditched the annoying numbers and made it sound more feminine (I initially asked for "Loba", but that was taken so just added the e. I'm actually really pleased with it though, which I'd changed it ages ago..!

Sorry for not replying to your last message yet. I have seen The 400 Blows, great film. My favourite Truffaut so far (out of 5 seen, I think) is Jules and Jim. I haven't seen Sayonara but will keep it in mind as one to watch. Glad you like The Big Country, I really enjoyed it too (despite not being a big fan of Gregory Peck). Have you seen Johnny Guitar? That's another of my favourite '50s Westerns. I never imagined I'd get into Westerns, but I do enjoy them now (as long as they aren't too machismo and focussed on killing Indians). --Loeba (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've seen it but I don't like Sterling Hayden much. I find him a bit wooden. Funny you say that about Gregory Peck as he's one of my favourite actors (I loved his voice and manner in particular) but some of his films were rather boring, Twelve O Clock High and Night People in particular!! I think on average I tend to like Jimmy Stewart's films the most consistently and Henry Fonda's more than Peck's.I much prefer the Leone westerns and Spaghetti westerns in general to the typical stereotypical pre 1965 US western, I mean how many John Wayne films have you seen and largely forgotten! I rather like the anti-hero like Clint Eastwood rather than the good goody lawman that Wayne and Cooper typically played. I still enjoy most of their westerns though although some are a bit dull and generic, especially Wayne's in the 1930s!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) -- If you want a good Western (albeit spaghetti) then try Once Upon a Time in the West. A beautiful film with a truly fantastic musical score by Ennio Morricone. -- Cassianto ^Talk.

Oh god yeah, you can't be a fan of cinema and not love that film! Definitely my favourite western, and one of my favourites from any genre. Once Upon a Time in America is also fabulous, I probably love it even more.

As for Peck, I think the first film I saw him in was Spellbound (1945 film), where he is as wooden as a plank, and that that has affected my perception of him ever since. Jimmy Stewart certainly appeared in a hell of a lot of great films and he's one of the most enjoyable actors to watch, no doubt. I'll watch him in anything. I like Fonda a great deal too, although I'm an even bigger fan of his daughter; she's recently become one of my favourite actresses. --Loeba (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto, that has been one of my favourites for years, seen it at least 20 times and I believe the soundtrack for that film is the best of all time but strangely not mentioned in the top film lists. And one of the best intros to any film! Check out this.. I know what you mean Loeba but I still think he had a certain charm about him, he was excellent I thought in films like Gentleman's Agreement, Roman Holiday, Man in the Grey Flannel Suit and To Kill a Mockingbird. I think he had one of the coolest voices in cinema, almost sounded Canadian/Irish at times rather than Californian, he emphasized the "ock" sounds in particular didn't he, "st'ock' holder, I want to kill a m'ock' ing bird LOL. I suppose some people thought he was irritating, too much a "peter perfect" straight-laced type, I can't remember the film but in it somebody said something like "we can't all be Gregory Peck now can we", was it Giant? I forget. Checked, it was All About Eve. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fact for you: Do you remember the utterly stunning scene in Once Upon a Time in the West where the train arrives at the station with Cardinale, and the camera rises up above the ticket station to expose the dusty, western village full of horses, cowboys and wooden taverns? That whole scene was ~~stolen~~ borrowed by Robert Zemeckis in one of the Back to the Future films. Compare and contrast. -- Cassianto ^Talk 15:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. It's possible it was an intentional homage?! --Loeba (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dead cert I reckon! And why not!? I can think of worse scenes to borrow! -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified "well-intentioned homage", ie, hopefully not just a shameless rip-off! --Loeba (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're also fascinated by the Titanic seeing your comments at the Sinking FAC. Just been reading the articles! I didn't realize that Cameron's film was so accurate in a lot of decor and sinking details. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yeah I really enjoyed doing that review. I was 10 when Titanic came out, which was the perfect age and I was just obsessed with it (and Leo) haha. I'll always have a soft spot for the film now, cheesy dialogue and all - I wouldn't change a thing. :D Watching it in the cinema with friends last year (for the 3D release) was so much fun! --Loeba (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's cheesy, and somewhat predictable but it remains a truly great film. Her death at the end and her walking up the great staircase and being reunited with the cast and crew of the Titanic as they were gets me every time! I saw it in the cinema twice when it came out in 1997. I had hair like Leo/Nick Carter at the time when I was 14 or so as that sort of curtains style was in then LOL! Kate Winslet really seemed middle aged to me in the film when I watched it and 10-15 years older than Leo, even now looking at it she seems a lot older than 21! Have you seen Fargo? Great film, in fact in watching it seemed like one of Tarantino's, although it might be Buscemi which did it. I love Frances McDormand in that film and the way she keeps saying "Yah" to everything and that smile of hers! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have been a proper '90s teenager if you didn't have the "step" haircut! Hell yeah I've seen Fargo, McDormand is hilarious. I've seen all the Coen Bros films. They're incredible. My favourite is Barton Fink, which to me is one of the single greatest films ever made. It also has an excellent article on here, which considerably influenced my appreciation of it (long before I was even editing WP). Actually, I've always been meaning to tell the primary editor that... --Loeba (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you like Giant. Dean's best performance IMO. I think he'd have gone on to be a terrific actor, one of the very best. I've seen all the Best Picture winners now except Going My Way, Life of Emile Zola and Cavalcade! I'd rate the five worst as 1.Chariots of Fire 2. Gigi 3.The Best Years of Our Lives 4. You Can't Take it With You 5. Cimarron/All the King's Men and the five best (extremely tough choice as I loved over half of the films) but as 1.Ben Hur 2. LOR 3.Dances With Wolves 4.The Godfather 5.Titanic/Forrest Gump. I know what you mean about A Beautiful Mind. I thought it was a good film but I didn't think it was Oscar worthy, no way was it better than LOR 1!! Plenty of irritating moments in it, particularly the repeated appearances of Ed Harris and Paul Bettany which started to grate by the end of the film. It was like, "OK they're imaginary, I get it, enough"! Jennifer Connelly's eyes though kept the film attractive hehe! I have a few Tom Hanks films I want to catch up on next..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good going! You'll have to find a new list to work through now, haha. Serious film buffs are all very taken with this one. I've currently seen 609 out of the 1000 (it's easy to keep track of with that site I told you about [1]) and 92 out of the top 100, including the whole top 70! Wow, I haven't checked it a while, I'm pleased with that! Haha. Silly wikipedia is slowing down my film viewing though, boooo... --Loeba (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next challenge, all of the Oscar nominated films and the top 10 films at the box office of every year!! There's 320 odd nominees I'm yet to see! Also to see all of the 400 odd AFI nominees and BFI top 100... I'll keep the 1000 list in mind, I'm sure most will overlap anyway. Might take a while.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highest grossing of each year? Wow, you're brave to take that on, there's bound to be a lot of crap haha. What Tom Hanks films are you going to watch? I love Hanks. He's like our modern day version of Jimmy Stewart, don't you think? Lovable, reliable, and good in just about any genre. I strongly recommend avoiding The Terminal (film) like the plague. --Loeba (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the Terminal, agreed! I've pretty much liked him in everything I've seen him in to date but there's some more recent and early 2000s stuff I still need to see in particular. So yeah, comparable to Jimmy in that respect. It takes a certain kind of special actor to turn a rather ordinary film into a great film just by them being in it. Have you seen Chicago? I was surprised that Zeta won Best Supporting actress as she really didn't have to act much did she. I thought Richard Gere's performance in that film was terrific and at least worthy of an Oscar nom, he and Queen Letifah made the film IMO. I know some people disliked the film but I thought it was a breath of fresh air as an Oscar winner (as was The Artist which surely no real film buff could dislike! I loved the dog in it the most!). No doubt there were probably much better candidates for 2002 though instead of Chicago, Gangs of New York springs to mind, but I liked it. The Ipcress File, Dick Tracy, A Star is Born (1954), Funny Face and Road to Perdition are on my upcoming watchlist.Still couldn't access Adam's Rib, I'll probably get a few Hepburn-Tracy films on DVD at some point. How about you, what's on your "to watch" list currently? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, A Star Is Born (1954 film), a film of crimes.. Firstly how on earth did Garland not win Best Actress for that performance and loose out to Grace Kelly!! It's one of the best performances I've ever seen by any actress. As Groucho Marx said, greatest crime since Brinks! Secondly it could have been a brilliant film but for sloppy editing. Way too long and with some nifty editing it could have been one of the best films ever. A text book case of how editing and pace of a film can make all of the difference. Still a very good film though obviously but not as good as it could have been with better focus. About 2/3 the way through I began to feel a bit sluggish which if they'd cut it by around 30-45 minutes to the ending and added a stronger ending like with her making a come back performance or something instead of "I'm Mrs Norman Maile" it would have been perfect. The film should have explored his alcoholism and impact on marriage more though, and he wasn't exactly a very believable 20-yearr alcoholic was he! A good drunk though! The scene with her impersonating an Oriental woman with the lampshade was one of the funniest moment I've ever seen in a film! Still love it though and rate it within my top 50 but as I say with decent editing and some changes would have made my top 20 maybe even 10 I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really love the '54 A Star is Born. I don't even mind the length. Garland is indeed brilliant (as is James Mason, one of Britain's best ever) but her performance in Judgement at Nuremberg may be even more impressive. It's brief, but extremely powerful. She had far more dramatic talent than people give her credit for. I recommend you check out the 1937 version of A Star is Born, which is also great, and basically exactly the same story but in 111 minutes and without any singing. Janet Gaynor is/was lovely.

Yeah, I'm a fan of Chicago. I watched it again recently for the first time in about 10 years and was really impressed. You can definitely sense the Bob Fosse influence, which made me happy as Cabaret and All That Jazz are among my absolute favourites. He was a genius. Agree that Zeta Jones didn't really deserve an Oscar though. Regarding Tracy-Hepburn films, if you can't acess Adam's Rib, try with Woman of the Year and Pat & Mike. Both very enjoyable comedies. State of the Union is a good drama as well, and actually has one of my favourite Kate performances. She's really touching in that film (not the "tough as nails" type she usually portrays at all).

As for what's on my "watchlist", heh, well to be honest I just have a constant backlog of films that I'm interested in seeing, and I kind of just pick things on the spur of the moment, based on what I feel like! I've seen a lot of the best known films now (especially American ones) so I'm often researching different actors/directors/genres that interest me and seeking out lesser-known films that sound good. I'm on something of an Emma Thompson kick at the moment though. I just love watching her (and have even been working on her article). I'm making my way through the miniseries Fortunes of War (TV series) at the moment, which is pretty good. I'm keen to try and see The Great Beauty at the cinema this week, as it's had a lot of acclaim and I think it's the last chance. Tonight I might watch Ironweed (film), since I love stuff set in the '30s and any film starring Streep & Nicholson must be worth a watch. --Loeba (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I'm a big jazz fan and seeing a 30s set film and that old school jazz playing gets me all excited! If I had to pick an era though it is the 1950s in colour on film which excites me the most, seeing those cars drive by in 1954 Hollywood in A Star is Born was one of the best parts of the film for me! Above all I love the glamour of old Hollywood which is why I think films like A Star is Born, The Great Ziegfeld and Sunset Boulevard appeal to me so much, they're windows to that period. Did you like Changeling? I loved the look of that film, it was rather dark, but I think it is one of Eastwood's best. I'll watch Ironweed now and tell you what I think of it tomorrow and hear your views on it too after you've seen it, agreed anything starring those two together surely can't be bad! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed Ironweed, would be a good film to be drunk watching I think like them in the film! I agree with Ebert's rating of 3 out 4. It's wonderful seeing Jack Nicholson as a tramp, not so much Streep because she looks so painfully ill and weak in the film!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I enjoyed it too! Well, "enjoyed" may be the wrong word, it was pretty depressing by the end. I found Streep's character particularly compelling, it's a shame she wasn't in it a bit more. Very good film on the whole, well worth watching.

Yeha that was the film's fundamental flaw IMO in that it seemed to abandon her towards the end in favour og Jack's character reuniting with his family. What it needed was her character to have been spotted by a talent agent or something and seen her make it as a concert pianist and restored to wealth and prosperity and above all good health.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a major reason why I love watching classic films as well. I've always loved learning about 20th century history, and find it amazing being able to "go back in time" to those eras. Yeah, I liked Changeling, for the time period and because it's obviously a fascinating (and horrific) story. Eastwood's films often feel a bit "flat" to me though, they're far too "by the numbers". I think his best directed films are The Outlaw Josey Wales and The Bridges of Madison County. --Loeba (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right, I certainly rate Josey Wales as his best directed western. Most of his films are not brilliant, in fact a lot of them in the 70s and 80s were not great in the technical sense, but Eastwood for me has always been about the masculine/bad ass quality who stands out above most other actors and is why I tend to enjoy most films he's in. Take The Gauntlet for instance, one of my favourite action films but in terms of cinematic beauty/quality it's rather dire. Pink Cadillac is a rather mediocre film for instance, but it is watchable largely because he was in it, especially his super cheesy Vegas scenes which worked purely because it was Clint Eastwood! Scent of a Woman, Road to Perdition and Separate Tables coming soon! BTW, preparing Mughal-e-Azam for FAC. You may wish to read and copyedit it when you feel like it, if not, no worries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, I think I actually prefer his '70s stuff to the more recent films. I'll take '70s grit over 21st century gloss any day! Just my personal taste though. Separate Tables is one I've been meaning to watch, let me know what you think. I found Scent of a Woman pretty annoying. I might be able to look through that article...I've got half-term next week (I work in a school) so will have more time. But I'm also pressurising myself to work on the Chaplin article, if there's any chance of getting him to FA before the 100 year anniversary of his debut in February...I've got that, plus two other articles that I'm in the midst of writing...I probably shouldn't do more than one at a time (let alone 3!) but I'm a bit silly like that. God, and I've committed to helping with an overhaul of the James Dean article...I must be mad! --Loeba (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I prefer his 60s and 70s stuff mostly. In my opinion his worst films were in the 80s, with the exception of Pale Rider and Sudden Impact. I know what you mean about his recent stuff being too glossy though. I like it on the weight of the grit of the past which I think gives him a better overall credibility. I'd love him to go back to the grit one last time thought.. Hehe I reckon you must have a thing for loathing films set at universities with cocky young men (like A Beautiful Mind) LOL. I'd be interested with working with you on promoting the Chaplin article, the Dean article looks too messy, you're brave to overhaul it! I'll get around to Bringing up Baby sometime.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Separate Tables now, you're not missing much, isn't a good film IMO. Pretty bland and annoying actually with irritatingly posh/fuddy duddy old English ladies in it. Considering that it had Niven, Lancaster, Hayworth and Kerr in the same film I was rather disappointed. I generally love Rita too. You think Peck was wooden, check out Burt Lancaster talking to Rita Hayworth in that film. They had absolutely zilch chemistry and neither of them looked like they wanted to be there. I hated Kerr in it most of all, too melodramatic and annoying. One of the most overrated films I've seen of the 50s to date. Some of the rotten reviews here sum it up well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I'm sure I'll check it out someday anyway. I'm often not crazy about Burt Lancaster, I definitely don't like him as much as most people...he's very good sometimes though, like in Elmer Gantry, Birdman of Alcatraz, Atlantic City... I'm not as taken with Deborah Kerr as a lot of people either.

As for Chaplin, he's nearly "finished" - another user and I have done a lot of work researching and writing it, and I imagine that we'll be nominating together if we take him to FAC. But if you want to make any copyedits/suggestions that would be very welcome! I still have some additions/improvements I want to make, and then its a matter of polishing and trying (hopefully) to trim it a bit. The James Dean article has already had a rewrite in someone's sandbox, and I'm mostly just going to be copyediting, so it's not too bad ;) Loeba (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said about the top grossing films I gather you meant ones like G.I. Joe: Retaliation. The cinematic equivalent of McDonalds to nutrition. Just an awful, silly film. Dick Tracey really isn't a good movie either. I'm sure it was OK in the cinema in 1990 but I really couldn't get into it. Pacino is totally wasted as the baddie in it and surprisingly bad in the film. Have you seen Charade (1963 film)? Great Hitchockian-like movie, also you said you weren't too keen on those type of films. Having watched it I've decided that it is Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn I enjoy watching the most. It's just his sarcastic sense of humour and Audrey just makes me melt with those eyes. I'm yet to see a film with either of them in that I disliked. The only one of Jimmy Stewart's I've disliked to date has been You Can't Take it with You but I've not seen a Cary Grant movie I've disliked yet, although I didn't exactly love Operation Petticoat. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you familiar with the Ealing comedies? I am watching Went the Day Well? right now and it is a joy! -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, been a while since I've seen that particular film!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not my favourite Ealing film by a longshot, that accolade goes to Champagne Charlie or The Lavender Hill Mob. The main reason why I adore these films (other than the obvious), is it gives me a chance to look at old England, and its quaint little villages and eccentricities. A gloriously beautiful time (even though there was a war), but everything just seemed so simple and clean.

Dr B: I actually recorded Dick Tracy off the TV the other day, but after about ten minutes of watching I had to stop and delete it (which is very rare for me not to stick it out)! Ugh, not my sort of film at all! Charade, however, hell yeah - that's such an entertaining film (I never meant to imply I don't enjoy these sorts of films - I just meant I'm not (or didn't used to be, I'm getting there) as enthusiastic about Hitchcock as a lot of people...Charade isn't entirely Hitchcockian anyway - far more of a romantic comedy element). If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to chose a favourite actor I'd quite likely say Cary Grant. There are more talented actors than him out there, but when it comes to charm and entertainment factor he's pretty unbeatable. He made a lot of films so there's definitely some dodgy stuff when you get to his lesser known work, but nevertheless he is always great. Love love love him. :)

Cass: I've seen quite a few Ealing films. Went the Day Well is very good, but I would call it a drama, wouldn't you? My favourite is probably The Ladykillers. Haven't seen Champagne Charlie, I'll put that on the hypothetical "to watch" list. I see it's also directed by Cavalcanti - he made a really good British noir called They Made Me a Fugitive. Check it out if you ever get a chance. One of my favourite British films from that era (or any era, in fact) is This Happy Breed (film), directed by David Lean's and based on a Noel Coward play. If you haven't seen that, I very highly recommend it. --Loeba (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever seen This Happy Breed - you bet I have! Lots and lots of times in fact. I love the chemistry between Stanley Holloway and Bob Newton, and Celia Johnson is just sublime. The death half way through is a real choker and makes one dwell on what a sad, tragic time our descendants must have had before us. Went the Day Well? was humorous in places; whether that was intentional or not is a different matter. Cavalcanti was very good wasn't he; he also directed (in part) Dead of Night and he produced one of the best segments of the film. Champagne Charlie is wonderful and this and this should give you a clue as to why I adore the English music hall scene so much. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making a correction to my post above when I saw that you'd already replied - How did I forget Kind Hearts and Coronets when listing my #1 Ealing film? That's definitely their greatest IMO, so dark and funny and Alec Guinness is pure genius. I also forgot that Stanley Holloway is in This Happy Breed, so of course you've seen it. ;) That's very nice to meet a fellow fan, it's actually not very widely seen (even though it's a David Lean film). Ahh David Lean, what a master he was...so many great films it's ridiculous. --Loeba (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I just watched those clips - yeah, music hall definitely looks like it was a fun night out. I'm guessing you've probably seen The Entertainer (film), with Laurence Olivier, which is about a fading music hall star? It's one I've been meaning to see for ages (I read the John Osbourne play at uni, when I was doing a very interesting module called "British Imperial Culture") but still haven't got round to it... --Loeba (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you love British cinema/culture surely you've seen some Powell and Pressburger? I've seen all of their major films, I think, and haven't seen one I didn't love. They have such a unique quality to them, just genius. --Loeba (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next on my list to watch is Elmer Gantry (1960), Judgement at Nuremburg (1961), The Prisoner of Zenda (1952), Julius Caesar (1953), and For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943).♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Tracey actually gets worse at it progresses. It is truly an awful film, it is the newest entry to my very worst list. Madonna in it is the worst, she feels like a product placement, wrong in so many ways. Yes Loeba, Powell and Pressburger films are on my to "watch" list, particularly the 40s movies, I am aware of how many gems they produced. There's one Pressburger from 1947 in particular I think Black Narcissus which I've been intending to watch. Yes, there are more talented actors than Grant of course but it's just his manner and charisma which makes him very entertaining to watch. He seemed to pull it off with a range of different leading ladies, even Doris Day! I still think his best was with Katherine Hepburn though. He has a very British sarcastic sense of humour which in American films is a breath of fresh air. Yes David Lean, a master of masterpieces. Have you seen Brief Encounter? That's the definitive "having an affair" film I think! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Black Narcissus now with commentary from Martin Scorsese and Powell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! That's a great film, but I actually rank most of their others (that I've seen) even higher: My top three are probably The Red Shoes, A Matter of Life and Death, and I Know Where I'm Going (closely followed by The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp). As for Lean and Brief Encounter, the same applies - great film but Lean made so many amazing films that it ranks quite low in his filmography for me! My #1 from him is Doctor Zhivago <3 --Loeba (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you can't compare Brief Encounter with his epics, but it remains one of the best films I've seen of the 40s to date. Dr Zhivago is my favourite Lean picture too and is within my top 15 best films I think. Lawrence of Arabia my second favourite I think which is obviously one of the greatest epic films ever made. Black Narcissus was astounding in terms of technical aspects at the time and I thought it was a great film overall. Plot wasn't brilliant, but I think it's a masterpiece. The lighting in particular for 1947 is out of this world. You should try to check out the DVD commentary on it, extremely interesting and has allowed me to make additions to articles like this. If you're a Powell-Pressburger fan it's a must I think as Powell also reminisces about other films he made and actors which is wonderful for the cinema buff! Red Shoes was another I intended watching asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's a technical masterpiece. I have this boxset, which is an absolute bargain, but unfortunately it doesn't include the commentary you're talking about. By coincidence, P&P's fourth film together, One of Our Aircraft is Missing, is being shown on Channel 4 tomorrow afternoon. I haven't seen that one yet so will probably give it a watch (my enthusiasm isn't extremely high because I'm not particularly into war films, but anything by them is worth checking out). --Loeba (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to remember tomorrow. What time is it on? I'll watch Red Shoes later in the week, about to watch Coppola's The Conversation right now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the Conversation? Hackman looks really creepy in it, looks a lot like Gary Oldman in the film! Just watched One of Our Aircraft is Missing. Good film, wasn't too keen on the beginning and ending, but it was good in the middle What the hell is it with the film poster, looks like a low budget science fiction poster of that era! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch it while it was on - I was good and went swimming instead! I've recorded it though, will probably give it a watch tomorrow. The Conversation is pretty much the definition of a "slow burner" but it's a very well crafted film and Hackman is a great actor. --Loeba (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of Thor (film)? It's on my list of very worst films. Just awful. And I love Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins. CGI nonsense.. Everything about it is fake and intended to make money rather than a film, I fully agree with Roger Ebert's review of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I learned a while ago that superhero films aren't for me! I don't bother watching them anymore (even the acclaimed ones tend to annoy me, although I guess Nolan's Batman films are decent). About to watch The Place Beyond the Pines, you seen it? --Loeba (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gosling? Nope. Batman films are decent yeah, some of the Iron Man ones OK but most of them suck so badly. It's the cinematic equivalent of spoon fed music isn't it. I actually enjoyed My Super Ex-Girlfriend though, but it must have been the kinkier side of me fancying Uma Thurman with glasses and darker hair LOL.. Silly film obviously but watchable. She generally does nothing for me in terms of looks. Twilight Saga, Thor, Dick Tracey, Jamaica Inn, Separate Tables, and Chariots of Fire are definitely all in my super dud box. I'll try to watch Elmer Gantry tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster was very good in Elmer Gantry, couldn't be more different to his performance in Separate Tables!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, how on earth did Julius Caesar (1953 film) get a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But for Brando's very brief but fine performance I found it exceedingly dull, even James Mason wasn't that inspiring in it IMO. I think it might have helped if it had been in colour but if it hadn't have been for Brando I'll have fallen asleep. the whole film felt like it was shot on one set, boring... If you compare the cinematic quality to something like Ben Hur it isn't even 1/10th as good IMO. The Robe of the same year was a much better film I think. Julius Caesar joins my list of super duds which is surprising given its 100% rating. I hated it! What did you think of it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emma Thompson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Lindsay and Fortunes of War (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) 11:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reassurance

Just in case you miss it, I have pasted a comment from the Tich FAC:

I have reinstated the mysterious deletion of "In 1974..." and added a brief mention of "Tichy" to the lead. I have also added "In November 1884 he changed his stage name for the third time to Little Tich, which derived from Tichborne, and "Tich" or "Tichy" became a common term meaning small" to the text in the relevant section. I will get round to the Legacy section which can be found here in its early stages. Thanks again for all your help. :) -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you took on this suggestion! Promotion is imminent... ;) Loeba (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

On another Million Award, and on getting another of my favorite actresses promoted! I'm a big fan of your work here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw cheers :) I'm lucky that I was able to work on the articles of these great ladies (ie, that no-one else got there before me!) --Loeba (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean

I'd love to revive my efforts for the James Dean article, and maybe one day I'll once again become an active Wikipedian. But for now, apart from my strenuous college schedule, I haven't been particularly motivated to do any expansive work. However, you actually messaged me at a relatively great time as I'm currently on a week break from my college. I'll make some time and see what I can do. My draft has been untouched for a while, but feel free to mess around with it if you want to! —DAP388 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'm pleased to hear you would be up for giving this a shot (and if it's a slow project because of your college work, that's absolutely fine). My appreciation for Dean has grown tenfold since watching Giant (brilliant performance), and I feel more inclined to be a direct help. And I'd really hate all that work you did to go to waste. :) I think that before doing anything else, we need to post something on the article talk page and get support (others may even want to help). I can do this if you want? It may help your case if another editor states their enthusiasm for the project. Or if you'd rather do it yourself that's fine. --Loeba (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be greatly appreciated if you did it. :) —DAP388 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will get to that tomorrow! --Loeba (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ted Tetzlaff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swing High, Swing Low (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) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

Sorry for not being in touch for a long time! Uni life is very hectic now, we don't get any breaks this semester so I am constantly working on assignments and hence have to stay away from WP for most of the time – although I do check my watchlist daily! I think the idea about expanding the style & themes section and adding more sources is a great idea. I'll try to help you over the Christmas holidays if I just can; I could possibly also add things from Bagh's new Chaplin book, as it goes through his evolution as a filmmaker from 1914 onwards and apparently contains new information about the production of his films. I know it will unfortunately be in Finnish, but Bagh seems to be pretty knowledgeable about the archive; he also co-authored the 2002 volume on Limelight with Cecilia Cenciarelli, the person who manages the archive. Also, thanks for replying to Light show so well – I was a bit too annoyed and stressed about uni work when I wrote my reply (and maybe excessively used 'we'), so it definitely came out very combative, but I cannot help but remember the last time he started giving not-so-constructive criticism about the article... I just don't understand why he keeps on coming back. It's as if he wants to create drama? Anyhow, have to go now, hope you are well!

PS. Congrats on the Moore article and good luck with the Lombard one! She's definitely one of the actresses whose films I'd like to see more of – I don't think I've actually seen any? Any recommendations?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Hey, lovely to hear from you. :) I don't know why I even bothered trying to be nice to him/her. To come back and insult the article like that is just mean. Psssh. Anyway. I've not heard about the new book, but that would be great if you can add info from it (and it won't be a problem at all to use a Finnish source). I completely understand that uni doesn't give you much time though. As for Lombard, if there's one film you're gonna see make it To Be or Not to Be (1942 film). It's a satire of Nazism and absolutely brilliant. My Man Godfrey and Twentieth Century are her other major classics, and rightfully so, then I'm also a big fan of Hands Across the Table, Mr and Mrs Smith (Hitchcock's only comedy), True Confession...Lots of people love Nothing Sacred; I wasn't that keen on it when I saw it a couple of years ago, but I've recently downloaded it so I can have a rewatch (and make a good screencap for the article, heh). Of course, you already have to be open to screwball comedy to enjoy these. I love it as a genre, so it makes sense that she's one of my favourite actresses. --Loeba (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community

Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish

Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia

Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more

In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia

WikiProject report: Elements of the world

Requested page move

Hi, you might be interested in participating in a discussion at Talk:Michael Powell.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To cheer you, I hope :)

Hi, Loeba. I am so sorry that your article ended up being the subject of discussion, but the good news is that others will jump in to help now, and I hope you will end up happy with the result. As FAC delegate for four years, I used to routinely go out and beg, cajole, plead and urge the good reviewers to look at articles that needed a bit of help to get over the hump, and Tony could always be counted on to smooth out prose. Too many good reviewers have either left Wikipedia, or left FAC, and we need to encourage them back. Please do not take it personally; good review benefits everyone! Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, Hepburn was delightful :) Of course, since I also have an essential tremor, that was the first thing I checked for! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another PS. Per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes, Hepburn should be listed and sourced at essential tremor as a notable case, in case you have the sources to add her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment here SandyGeorgia (linked your name so you get a notification). I'm really sensitive to criticism and feel like a rubbish writer now, but oh well...I guess I just always need to make sure I recruit a good copy editor before nominating any articles. Which lots of people have to do, no shame in that really. Nice to know you're a fellow Hepburn fan. I'm happy to add her name to the essential tremor article - should I just start a whole new subsection? --Loeba (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all need good copyeditors ... my prose is as bad or worse as the next guy's ... there is no shame! I don't tend to suggest improvements because I don't have the sources, and one never knows when wording might be subtly wrong. But I do think we have to speak up about declining reviews at FAC so that the reviewers can learn to do a better job at helping nominators and articles (you had some of the oldest and best on Hepburn).

Notable cases according to Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes should be listed under a "Society and culture" section, towards the bottom of the article (see the order at MEMDOS). Ugh, after looking at essential tremor, I started chopping and rewriting, but there are only so many hours in the day! But the Hepburn addition would be most helpful, since the easiest way to explain essential tremor to people is to give the Hepburn example. (When I am trying to sip tea at a stand-up affair full of women who don't know me, and they start looking askance at the chattering teacup, I only have to say, "essential tremor, think Katherine Kepburn", and they hopefully stop viewing me as a drunk or a nervous nelly :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've been looking through my Hepburn books, and it turns out that they write "tremor", without specifying "essential tremor". I was sure she mentioned in in her autobiography, but can't find it for the life of me. Anyway, I found two specific mentions of it in The New York Times and an article from Columbia University. Those are probably good enough sources, right? I'll add the NYT one to the Hepburn article, as an additional source. --Loeba (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the sources -- both could be added at essential tremor (which I can do if you prefer). By the way, when you are scanning your sources, it is sometimes called "familiar tremor" and sometimes "benign essential tremor" ... so it could be a matter of keywords on search. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was looking through them manually, heh, and 2 of them do mention the tremor but without naming it. Kate definitely spoke about it in her documentary All About Me (which you should seriously watch if you're a fan btw, it's wonderful! It's included on the special edition DVD of The Philadelphia Story), but again - if I recall correctly - she says is a neurological disorder she inherited from her grandfather, but doesn't name it as "essential". Anyway, that NYT source says that her niece confirmed it as ET, so that's good enough to me. Would you mind adding it to the article? Since there isn't a "Society and culture" section already, I'm not sure how to go about it - would it literally just have one sentence mentioning Hepburn? --Loeba (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added it-- thanks so much! There has been changing terminology: the "benign" was dropped in recognition that it's not always benign, it's not always familial (hers was, mine is, but there are apparently non-genetic causes for some people), and I still want to know what the heck is so essential about it :) :) That is a significantly helpful addition to that article, since people instantly understand ET when you mention Hepburn. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for adding it. That's definitely a good addition - readers only need to watch a clip of her later work to see what it looks like. On that note actually, it might be worth specifying that the condition was only there in her later years? --Loeba (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "later years" business is not mentioned in the online sources-- is that from Berg? What does Berg say? Essential tremor typically worsens with age, so it could be helpful to add any detail you have, since that would make her a typical case. For example, in my family, we knew my grandmother had it, then my mother started in her 50s, then my aunt when she hit her 50s, and then sure enough, me and all my siblings started noticing it in our 40s ... and it does progress ... so if you have any additional detail from Berg, please plop the text over at Talk:Essential tremor, and I'll work it in according to MEDMOS guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Loeba. Just to let you know, in relation to your future work, that I will almost always respond positively to a specific request to review or copyedit an article. The possible exceptions are if the subject is wrestling or US highways – not your particular areas of expertise I imagine. I've recently been less active as a reviewer (holidays, private issues etc) but I hope in the following months to be rather more fully engaged with the FAC process. Feel free to contact me. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's an extremely kind offer, thank you Brian. I have to admit to watching wrestling when I was 12, but I think you're safe ;) Your input at Chaplin's upcoming (in a few weeks) PR would be very welcome, if you're up for the challenge? --Loeba (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when it's there – I'll look forward to it (Charlie was a Brit, of course). Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got City Lights up to GA level recently. My favourite is The Kid followed by City Lights. Remind to me to help you out with Chaplin Loeba..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc, I'll let you know when he's at PR! He was such a genius, IMO the only one of his features that's even remotely weak is A Countess From Hong Kong..and well, that's pretty damn terrible to be honest (how did he get it SO wrong), but I adore almost all of his films (couldn't be quite that passionate about A King in New York, but I definitely think it's good and clever). My #1 has to be The Great Dictator. It's so funny, but also so powerful - as a big leftie I just love his speech at the end. --Loeba (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years

In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?

News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?

Featured content: Wrestling with featured content

Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube

WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying

Main Page appearance: Julianne Moore

This is a note to let the main editors of Julianne Moore know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 3, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 3, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Julianne Moore (born 1960) is a British–American actress and children's author. A prolific cinema actress for more than 20 years, Moore's career has involved both art house and Hollywood films, and she is known for her emotional portrayals of ordinary women. She began on television in the 1980s, as a regular in As the World Turns, and then played supporting roles in films throughout the early 1990s. Critically acclaimed performances in Short Cuts (1993) and Safe (1995), followed by starring roles in Nine Months (1995) and The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), established her as a leading Hollywood actress. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Moore earned four Academy Award nominations, for Boogie Nights (1997), The End of the Affair (1999), Far from Heaven (2002), and The Hours (2002). Other notable appearances include The Big Lebowski (1998), Magnolia (1999), Hannibal (2001), and Children of Men (2006). She has continued to work regularly in the 2010s, including acclaimed performances in The Kids Are All Right (2010) and the television film Game Change (2012), where she portrayed Sarah Palin. Moore has also written a successful series of children's books. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, it'll appear on the day following mine and KJP's William Burges article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin

Hiya, I've probably asked this about a million times, sorry if I'm repeating myself! Anyway, what crucial elements do you think are missing at the moment which would not make the Chaplin article likely to succeed on FA level? Getting a GA status for it would be great, but I am getting ambitious :) I've read the article through again and made tiny changes like adding commas, but otherwise it looks good, I cannot really come up with any ideas how to improve it, especially if we don't want it to be more detailed.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Well that's great you're feeling that it's at its optimum best (since you're so knowledgeable about Chaplin, that's a great sign). I just have a bad habit of worrying about things and being cynical, haha. I like to think it is a viable FA candidate as it stands (maybe with some copyediting help anyway, the prose standards are HIGH), but to be honest you never know where there will be issues since there's so many specific expectations on wikipedia...We're lucky though - we already have some great editors who have agreed to review the article, and they should help identify where any outstanding problems lie. Let's just wait for that :) I've started the GA nomination, which is done by one reviewer, then when that's completed we'll take it to WP:PR where we'll get the opinion of (hopefully) about 3 more editors. It's all very time and effort consuming (I feel like it's taken over my life the last week, haha) but I suddenly, once I'd finally got those additions made to "style and themes", wanted to crack down and finally get this project completed! It's lucky I find him so interesting, I'm not sure I could hack it otherwise, heh. --Loeba (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; maybe we can take it in steps – first a GA status, then FA. In terms of information, sources, images and readability it is very good I think... Let's hope that if we get it to GA status, more people will be interested in helping with the prose. I take it the peer reviewers' main issues are usually with clarity and neutrality when it comes to prose? That's something I could try paying attention to during the Christmas hols as it doesn't require doing more research. Anyway, good night, trying to make it an earlier night than yesterday :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Just realised one thing: Corsier-sur-Vevey and Vevey are actually different places, although they are located next to each other. If you own Robinson's bio, could you please check if it mentions whether the statue for Chaplin is in Corsier or Vevey? I can change the text if it is in Corsier instead of Vevey. The murals are in Vevey. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Nevermind, found the answer online and corrected the section! I guess why it is so confusing is that Vevey used to also be the name of the district until 2006, so Corsier-sur-Vevey in fact was part of Vevey the district if not the town when Chaplin was living there.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julianne Moore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safe (film) (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) 09:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Charlie Chaplin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charlie Chaplin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cassianto -- Cassianto (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had begun editing Chaplin until I saw you'd nominated it and Cassianto had begun reviewing. I'll hold off on the additions now until the review is completed. I'll try to help out with the review but once done, can you allow me a week or two to work on it and try to see if I can further improve it before taking to PR?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I had begun working on it until I noticed you'd already nommed for GA. I'll hold off on any further additions until the GAR is over, but please do allow me to work on it once done. I'm happy to help address the GAR points, but if you feel I'm intruding I'll let you do it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I feel you are "intruding", but you know - it's exciting when you put an article up for review after working hard on it, and responding is part of the fun. I think it is kind of accepted that the nominator(s) will deal with any comments. I'm a bit concerned about having any more additions to the article - I've spent a lot of time trimming it down recently, and it's still over 11,000 words...(ie, probably pretty damn daunting to a lot of readers). --Loeba (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11,000 words is long yes, but it is to be expected on somebody like Chaplin. I just think I can make it more comprehensive and then cut down without it really bloating out the article too much. That said it already has 450 odd refs and already looks great! I've never really found GAR to be exciting, so if you really enjoy that part of the process, I'll let you have fun!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confident that the article is comprehensive and says everything a general reader would need to know. Sure there's tons more that could be added, there's so much that's been written about him, but I think everything important is touched on (at least), and that's the main thing...which areas do you think might not be comprehensive?--Loeba (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly say until I've really had a good look through google books. I'm sure it is very comprehensive but I'm never convinced unless I've checked things out myself. I'm sure Cass and Schrod and others here could vouch for me finding things which really help articles and improve it. I'm not sure you really trust me as an editor Loeba to work on this because you haven't any experience of working with me (yet).♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in all honesty, you're making it sound like you don't trust me and TrueHeartSusie...We've read a great deal about Chaplin and have included what's important. Gahh I don't want to be pissy about this, and I appreciate the offer to help, but I really don't want to bog the article down with small details...I think the level of detail right now is perfect. --Loeba (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Happy editing and film watching!... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding! Obviously if you read through the article and find you're left with questions, more info could be added in those instances. As for the comments you added about The Kid - I'm up for including something about it being a classic today, but could we do this in one quick sentence?

I haven't seen Julius Caesar by the way, it's not one I'm particularly fussed about (especially after your comments above, haha). I've hardly watched any films lately - wikipedia has been too damn time consuming! --Loeba (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps shorten the quote to just mentioning the mix of comedy, pathos or reword it somehow? Maybe a review from 1921 at the time might also help but your call if you think it's relevant or not! That's in my top 3 films I've ever seen I think! I love it to bits!! If you're concerned about me editing the article straight, after the GAR closes I could construct a page in my sandbox with some possible suggestions of additions and sources and you can judge whether they're suitable or not as I really don't want to bloat the article or cause you worry having put so much hard work into it. I think it's awesome the work you've put into it anyway and that you're gunning for FA and you've done yourself proud as a film buff in doing so! I just wish I had contributed to this article from an early stage and right now I feel somehow guilty and lazy for not doing so because it's such an important article for cinema, arguably the most important personality. Can you understand that Loeba? Yeah Julius Caesar is really bad, not even Brando could save it. He barely has 10 minutes screen time which is odd as he's top billing! I normally really like James Mason but he's rather bland as Brutus in Julius Caesar. The biggest problem with the film for me is the lack of imagination with the sets and the way the film is presented. It deadens the dialogue so the whole film to me seems really monotonous. For that sort of film to really be effective you really need to try to create the feel of Ancient Rome and really make it feel like it took place back then. Even if some of the sets on The Robe looked fake, at least they made the effort to try to make it look like Roman times. I wish they'd waited 5 or so years and invested more into it and made it more like a Ben Hur/Lawrence of Arabic type cinematic visual piece with Shakespeare and given Brando Mason's part instead. Brando was the only part of the film which had any life, and it showed what a tremendous actor he was being able to light of the screen on a film that bad!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Cat on a Hot Tin Roof? Terrific acting, especially by Burl Ives, what a brilliant actor he was. I'm glad he won it for Best Supporting Actor in The Big Country in 1958 but IMO his performance and speech to Paul Newman in the rain in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was even better and one of the best pieces of acting I've ever seen.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've seen it. The acting is certainly excellent, but I always seem to have a bit of an issue with Tennessee Williams...I haven't loved any film based on his work. The closest is probably Sweet Bird of Youth (film). Going back to Chaplin, I did make a call for collaborators when I first announced my intention to overhaul the article. Susie was only person to get in touch. You should never feel guilty or lazy though - you've done SO much for wikipedia! --Loeba (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm probably trying to do too much. I'm having a wiki break for a bit! I really detest Maurice Chevalier. He irritates the hell out of me!! I thought it was just Gigi but seeing him in A New Kind of Love it's just him. Just tries too much to be the token charming Frenchman and it comes across as very annoying to me!! Even his smile is fake! I'm having a Paul Newman run at the moment, will probably watch The Hustler next and I'll probably try to see Sweet Bird of Youth too if you thought it was OK! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, The Hustler is brilliant. I love that film. Make sure you also check out Hud and The Verdict, if you haven't seen them. I've actually never seen a Maurice Chevalier film! Love Me Tonight is meant to be great. --Loeba (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, The Hustler is an excellent film, albeit a slow burner. Have you seen Salomé. I thought it was great! Charles Laughton's face when Rita does the splits is priceless! I reckon she turned him straight for a few moments! Couldn't get Father of the Bride but Father's Little Dividend is coming next, not sure what you think of that film. Quo Vadis, The Great Gatsby, All the President's Men, BUtterfield 8, and Night of the Iguana are others I've been intending to see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father's Little Dividend isn't as great as the first but I still find it very enjoyable. I just love Tracy is those films! The only ones I've seen from those you mentioned are All the President's Men and The Great Gatsby. I actually really like the '74 Gatsby, although a lot of people don't. It's incredibly loyal to the book. I think tonight I'm gonna watch Blast of Silence, or maybe The File on Thelma Jordan - I'm in the mood for noir! --Loeba (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loved All the President's Men and Beat the Devil, couldn't get Butterfield or Night of the Iguana. Sidney Lumet is another great director, I've been watching a few of his films of late. Currently watching The General (1926 film). All That Jazz and The Man Who Would Be King (film) coming next... Hope you don't mind but I've requested you have autopatrol rights here. BTW have you see Designing Woman? I found Peck rather irritating in that film, his effort to be funny came across as rather forced I thought. Him and Bacall had no chemistry at all, she'd be way too rough for him... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was pinged about that, thanks! I'm not sure I'll qualify because I haven't created 50 articles, but it's a nice gesture anyway. I haven't seen Designing Woman, but I can't imagine Peck and Bacall ever being a good match. Cool you're getting into Lumet, he was great. Have you seen Network? That's one of my all-time favourites. If you're watching some Keaton, don't miss (if you haven't seen it already) Sherlock Jr. - definitely one of the greatest films ever IMO. Did you like All That Jazz? That's another one I adore but I can understand it's not everyone's cup of tea. --Loeba (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep and the Verdict. Loved William Holden and sexy Faye in the Network. Couldn't get All that Jazz I'm afraid. I saw East of Eden again earlier. About to watch Birth of a Nation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Fort Apache, The Bronx? I enjoyed it! I saw Silverado as well the other day which was good I though, although the soundtrack a bit irritating. John Cleese was surprisingly good in a western role as was Linda Hunt as the barmaid, I really think she's got a lot of charisma!. I saw Esther and the King yesterday though which certainly meets your "avoid tacky historical productions". Joan Collins really was nowhere near as good an actress as Elizabeth Taylor was. What did you think of Suddenly, Last Summer? Hepburn's and Taylor's dialogue in the film is extremely interesting. It has like a poetic sort of quality. I think it was brilliantly acted by both and a great film, although Clift was as the article says rather "shaky". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well d'you remember me saying I'm not crazy about Tennesse Williams? I'm not crazy about Suddenly Last Summer either. Definitely not one of my favourite Kate films (or performances). But it has been over two years since I watched it, and I've been thinking I should give it another try. I can't remember exactly what bothered me about it...I think I just found it pretty overblown. I've not seen the other films you mentioned. John Cleese in a western?! Julianne Moore is going to be TFA in half an hour, I'm a bit nervous the article will be criticised again but we'll see... --Loeba (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a bit. I liked it though!! The way it was structured was interesting to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

News and notes: Alleged "outing" of editor's personal information leads to Wikipedia ban

Traffic report: Danse Macabre

Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic

WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility

Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed

Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on the Chaplin GA - excellent article and I hope you take it forward to FA in the future. Please drop me a line when you do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Schro! I must say, it feels great to finally have it at GA after working on it for SO long! Next step will be PR (useful as Cass's review was, it's always worth getting more eyes). Thank you very much for the interest - would you like to participate there or wait until FAC? I think we're definitely going to take a shot there, at least. --Loeba (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I've changed my mind on wanting to make suggestions to it now though for obvious reasons..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc! We definitely need to collaborate at some point - Archie's page is pretty inadequate... --Loeba (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that would be good although I don't have any of his biographies! Bringing Up Baby is definitely one I want to work on!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Ivanhoe (1952 film). One word. Crap. IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Saw Father's Little Dividend earlier, wasn't overly impressed really, quite good but not great. I wondered why the quality for so poor for 1951. It looked almost 1931![reply]

Will try to look at it next week some time. Haven't seen it nup. So have you seen Ivanhoe? Not the best.. Having a Steve McQueen run at the moment, about to start watching Bullitt.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no sorry, I haven't seen that one. I really like Liz Taylor, but so many of those '50s historical epics are really tacky (I caught a bit of The Vikings (film), for instance, and could barely watch it!) Bullitt is one I've been meaning to see for a while - maybe I'll watch it tonight as well and we can share thoughts! If you're on McQueen, have you seen The Getaway (1972 film)? I really liked it, Sam Peckinpah films are awesome (I never use that word, but it seems like the only word for Peckinpah!) --Loeba (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw it a while back but I think I'll watch it again as it was a long time ago. Bullitt is very slow, and McQueen really seems like he doesn't want to be there. The car chase and airport chase is action Gold though but the film overall is rather bland IMO largely because McQueen doesn't change his facial expression at all throughout the movie LOL, it's the Lauren "Am I bovvered tho" type of expression. Too slow and not enough life in it for my liking as a whole. Second half is overall good though after the car chase. Do watch it though to see if you got the same feeling on it! I enjoyed the 74' Great Gatsby like yourself BTW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely Roger Ebert didn't like The Getaway. An excellent action movie IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Charlie Chaplin

The article Charlie Chaplin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charlie Chaplin for comments about the article. Well done!

Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cassianto -- Cassianto (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award

Can't believe I'm giving you a third one of these already--you're really doing some amazing work! Can't thank you enough for your contributions. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Charlie Chaplin (estimated annual readership: 2,336,000) to Good 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) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Charlie Chaplin to Good Article status.

Thanks Khazar! This has been a tough one, it's very nice to get recognition :) --Loeba (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You!

		The Feather Barnstar
		That was a great work on Chaplin sir's article! Keep up your hard work! -- L o g X 19:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How kind, thank you! --Loeba (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light show

Do you know if it's possible to complain to an admin about Light show's behaviour? It's quite clear he hasn't read about Chaplin, and every time you corner him about that, he stops replying to that particular discussion and begins another on something else that 'bothers' him. He just wants to argue – he is a troll. It seems to me that he is looking for some kind of personal gratification by arguing with other users (a quick check on his talkpage confirms that this is his usual behaviour and he has even been banned from some articles) – he is not trying to resolve the issue but to argue... his behaviour doesn't seem normal to me, I mean why would someone spend hours doing something like this?! I feel a little bit sad for him, actually. I've stopped replying to his 'complaints' as it is so clear that he is a troll and simply wants to argue for the sake of arguing, but I have read what he has been writing on the page lately and since he seems to have made trolling the talk page his latest obsession, I'm wondering whether an admin could look into the issue? What do you think? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your interpretation of him is correct Susie. Lightshow/Wikiwatcher offers nothing to the project other than disruption and incivility. If talk page trolling were eligible for grading, Lightshow would be permanently at WP:FAC. See Peter Sellers and the various archives on the talk page for evidence of this. My advice would be too simply ignore him, and he will hopefully disappear back into his cave. --Cassianto ^Talk 19:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well I'm hoping s/he'll (I have a feeling I saw Wikiwatcher identify themselves as female at one point, could be wrong) leave Chaplin alone now...I wanted to take the "ignore" approach as well, but then it occurred to me that someone may see the complaints while we're at FAC, so I thought it was probably best to at least make clear that there was no basis in them. If he continues this behaviour, then yes, we could try and alert admins about it...Hopefully it won't get to that point, I really hate going through drama on the internet. It's just time consuming and annoying and I don't have the energy/patience to keep up any battles for long!

Btw Susie, will you be happy if we start the Peer Review soon? I wanted a couple of days break, but I'm thinking we could start it at the weekend? --Loeba (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, see my post here Susie. This discussion should really take place there, can you copy what you've said here there? He's a troll who has no place in our project. I was going to propse a while back to get him topic banned from Peter Sellers. Basically he wrote the article up until the c class stage and he's miffed that we developed the article and overrode what he wrote. He now has a warped vendetta against the article and Cass and Schrod in particular. He spotted Cass doing the Chaplin review, the only reason why he tried to cause trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't the first time he's got involved in Chaplin - he was being difficult there early in the year as well. About a week before we started the GA review he made some changes/additions, which we reverted (with reason). I think this really pissed him off so he started making complaint after complaint. And I'm sure that he carried on the complaints during the review to try and sabotage it - there's no other solution given that I'd asked him to let the review go smoothly, and any decent person would have done that.

To be fair, I have a lot of actor/director articles on my watchlist and I've noticed him making "constructive" edits to several of these (most recently Robert Altman)...I'm not crazy about his style of editing, which is basically just copy/pasting loads of quotes, but anyway....Still, I completely agree that he regularly displays troll behaviour. He clearly loves an argument, and he's far too comfortable criticising other people's hard work. --Loeba (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]