User talk:Loeba/Archive2

Interesting, was unaware the US government stamp images were not public domain. Will put them up as fair use with the appropriate boilerplate then. Thank you for the heads up !!! Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! I'll check out your other sites. I've rewritten most of the GG page over the past 7 months. Updated, reorganized, and added a lot of stuff. Previous article had some good parts but was, in general, terrible. So, you say, "page is in pretty good shape." I'd say excellent shape, though incomplete. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Especially, as I say, with legacy. What would you change? Or add? If GG isn't one of your favorites, what brought you to the p.?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you made a comment on my watch p. Can't find. Can you direct met too it? Thanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, your suggestion about obits was excellent. I too found the nytimes obit and it has lots of stuff. Also a few things from the Wash post. Times much richer, of course. Other obits came frm papers I don't subscribe too. but the times really suffices. Good idea about combining the quotes of others into prose. Will get to that eventually. I'm putting together new additions to the legacy section now. Yeah, I've heard the "pulling a Garbo" but haven't encountered it in my readings so have no source to cite.

OK, I need your help. I'm still really confused about how to view material on my Watchlist. I did get your post but now I want to go back to it to comment on some of your other suggestions. But can't figure out how to find it once I'm back. Can you help? Gracia,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might get it. I go to "My talk" to read what you wrote me, then I go back to your talk to respond. Is that correct? But its weird because this way, there's no thread between us. Am I right? I'm really dumb about WP tools. A user nameed fat&happy has been helping me through the vagaries of WP protocols.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI lobo, What's WP: Peacock? And...Would you have any idea how to cite something in a special features commentary in a DVD?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Thanks so much for your very clear answers to my three questions. I'll check out the formatting for American Beauty. It makes a lot of sense to "show rather than just say she was a legend. I think that's what I'm working on in the legacy section. I may be back in touch! Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done with the thing. (except for talking more about the eroticism bit which I'll get to some day). Would love for you to read it and let me know of any suggestions you might have. (Time permitting, of course.) Also, any idea about the red error line at the bottom of the references section? Meanwhile, good luck with the articles your working on. Regards,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant edits to section on her acting! Thanks, and take care, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Lobo. I'm happy with the p. for the most part now. I better be because if I go on with this obsession I'll lose my job. I will have to throw away my home computer to avoid starting work on another p. in terrible shape which is Stanwyck's, or I will lose friends and family and be forced to join a 12 step program. HOWEVER. THe pictures in the G. page are mostly trivial and do nothing to enrich the content. I won't be able to do anything now, but will eventually. So, my question to you: How do you insert images? Gracia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per your last message, fun reading! I like how you refer to the obsession as a hobby. Very acceptable. Coincentally, I read the Chaplin entry after seeing two of his pics the other night. Page is woefully inadequate. Distressing for such a genius, as you say. I hope you get on the case with it. Look forward to reading Hepburn p. As for the Lumet film, my problem is that there are many movies, songs, other media, that refer to her, sometimes significantly. But I just read about Garbo Talks and does centralize her. Still, I think citing this pic would open a pandora's box of actual trivia and I don't want to go over that again--though will probably have to eventually.

I don't think the Garbo/Gilbert is a biopic; it's a short documentary piece that's part of a series on hollywood romances; seems possible to put it the legacy section with the other docs, but I'll have to think about it since it's not a full-feature. CAn do nothing for a while because I start teaching tomorrow--I'm a university prof. (Of course I've totally neglected my own writing since August!) So, doing stanwyck would take too much time now. As you know, it involves considerable research. Can't do much but tweak prose for a while. Thanks for sending WP gg pic "bank"; interestingly, most of the pics are from the silent era. The talkie pics pretty dull. But when I can I'll insert a couple from each period to liven up the p. when I can. I'll be back to bother you at this point.

Finally, yes, GA (first) is a great idea! Will go for it this spring.

Greetings, and get to work on Chaplin.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just skimmed through your Hepburn p. Wow! So complete, and detailed. Outstanding. I like how you separate "Personal life" from "Romances." Makes me think I should do the same thing with GG. Problem is GG was so private and out of the public eye (except for the fact that so much of her energy was devoted to keeping out of the public eye!) that much of her personal life is a mystery. Also, it seems her personal life was, sadly, rather dull. But it true that I devote the entirety of her personal life to her romances--the subject of much fascination with her. And her recent biographers have shed new light on them. I could write a lot more about her movies. Ah well. But I definitely should add that she retired at 36, at the peak of her career, after only 27 films.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lobo, My mother and sister-in-law are both primary school teachers and very happy! I respect them as much as I do anyone. You will not be surprised to learn that i teach theatre history, lit, and theory. Very intertwined with film studies of course. I like my job a lot but working in hi ed is brutal. Like Jurassic Park.

As per GG, about political and religious beliefs, she doesn't seem to have been religious or interested at all in politics per se. Pretty self-obsessed, I'd say; I think KH was a person of very high character. Very powerful woman in all aspects of her life. Smart, well-adjusted, happy, vital, fully engaged with the world. GG was profoundly insecure, no ego boundaries, not a strong person, very eccentric. (glad I conveyed the latter a bit) After she retired, she said, "I have no plans for work or anything. I'm just a wanderer." (Come to think of it, I should find that quote (oh God) and get it into the article.) Now that we know much more about mental illnesses, she was definitely, in my view, bipolar. She said herself she was a "deeply depressed" person. (I should get that quote in too but to find these things I'd have to reread the damn stuff all over again) and one of her recent biographers surmises as such. I touch upon this and cite the biography p.

Now I'm really intrigued in seeing the biopic. Can you send me a link? Or tell me how to get to it? All best to you,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh and the Devil. Caused an absolute sensation when it was released in 1926 and, as I say, made her and int'l superstar almost overnight. No one had seen anything like it or her. Let me know what you think! I'll google around for the GG/JG film and will let you know if I find anything. Talk later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to tell you. Hepburn was so fascinated by GG that she tried to get a small role in one of GG's films so she could watch her act. Oh, also, saw Hep and Tracy last night in State of the Union but don't care for Capracorn. Especially not interested in kate doing sentimental stuff. And not at her most interesting when doing weak, subservient wives! (btw, are you a guy or a gal? I can't get a sense of it. Leaning more td guy. Any guesses about my gender?--98.74.188.35 (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually I was moving more toward girl, like me. Now, I have a technical question. In GG retirement section, I can't seem to solve a bizarre reference note problem that emerged after i added a quote abut her depression. After I say, "eccentricities," notice that ref no's are 91 and 96. So there are 2 91 refs no's. I tried various solutions to the problem but each failed. Any ideas? Have a good first day of a 3 day weekend, and don't spend it ALL on WP work!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing. What's your thinking about the page ratings? Do you take them seriously? Garbo just went from 4 5.0s to 4 4.5s. Also, the number of raters dropped in two categories from 22-20 in one and something-or-other to something-or-other in another category. Huh?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very intelligent assessment of the ratings p. British? There are 4 or 5 countries (correct me) in Britain. Which one? The Artist--don't know it. May have just seen a preview. Is it in BW set in late 20s?

Now, I'm ready to insert a few pics in the GG p. If it's not too difficult, and you have the time, can you explain how to do it? (Tip your hat to MLK on Monday. The problem with liberalism in the US is we have no MLKs to lead a movment) greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the link is incomprehensible to me and have no idea what you're talking about. You see, I'm an idiot about all but the very basic WP protocols and you are obviously very smart about it. (Perhaps you might consider wasting more of your time by helping out an idiot tomorrow??--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've picked 8 pics. 3 from silents, 3 from talkies, and two candids taken during her later years. I've got them in a folder in my Windows documents. (Do they have to come from the p. you linked to?) BUT! Naturally, I don't know how to send you links to them. Can you explain? Are the two candids considered public domain? De facto or de jure? Finally, they should go in the order I send them since they start with her first movie in Sweden and go in order to her later years in retirement. We also have to get rid of the bad and irrelevant pics that are already up, including the grave stone (who on earth would be iterested?) except the first one that is connected to her dates of birth and death, etc. I'm SO grateful to you for helping me with this. Garbo's unique allure and beauty are integral, of course, to her iconic status and acting and their omission weakens the article. I await your marching orders! Hope you had a good day at work,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey girl, ok, no candids. Now, I still don't know how to send a link. Obviously not the via address bar since the address is 3 lines long! I know Monday exhaustion. Friday's worse for me. By then my eyes have turned red.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll send the links soon!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! P. looks great now! You're amazing. How do you know how to do all this stuff? Excellent changes. Love the stamp! There's also an American one, and probably every other European country, and in Afganistan, too. They used to attend her flix by camel I read. Your pic of Camille sounds right--capture the romance. But it's not up yet. If you think it's better, I trust your judgement. Go for it. In the relationships section sounds good. So where would you like to go on vacation? You can always visit me but politics in the US just a nightmare. you might want to stay away. What p. are you going to work on after you finish Hep.? I still have to talk about the reasons GG retired. No clear reason though. She was just a fearful bipolar woman.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, the changes look good to me. I am not doing much with Wikipedia any more - I've semi retired. The page looks excellent. You really have poured your heart and soul into it. Congratulations on all you have achieved. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes work well. Span (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hate to say it but I'm pretty confused. I'm assuming the commons is where you post photos to be inserted in the page? But I don't understand when you say, "To put the images on the page, just copy the format from other images there and change the file name and caption." But I have no idea how insert them. Nor do I know how to get rid of the other ones. Yes, the second is from Flesh/Devil with John Gilbert whom I talk about; first and 3d are also correct. Sorry to be such a dimwit. But I do know quite a bit about German philosophy. Molto grazia (sp),--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lobo, thanks for the lesson! I will follow your instructions diligently. However, still unsure about how to insert the new pics. No hurry to respond because i'll be away from my computer till Tuesday. Help! How will I get my WP fix? I will have to find and take morphine. Anyway, looking forward to getting back in the scene then. Will be in touch. I'm enjoying our conversation. I keep thinking I'm done with the page. But in the talk p., someone asked why no reasons have been given for her decision to retire. Naturally, I had to follow up on it, and in so doing, found other stuff to add. But I think it's important because these additions will make the page deeper, richer. And GG deserves it. Quite the phenomenon. Meanwhile, thanks for all your work on behalf of the page. Talk to you latex,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Lobo, I'm back! To bother you. You'll be thrilled to know that I've inserted the two pics you downloaded on the commons page. Site? So I'm ready to go with the others when you have time to download them. If you can explain how to do that simply I can give it a go myself. But one has to give very clear instructions to me because, just to remind you, I'm an idiot. I'll tell you something interesting.. The number of raters of the page has stayed the same, but all the ratings have gone down. do you know why that might be? I'm curious. But after this, I'm just not going there to check. A waste of time, as you suggested. Hope all's well, and thanks again for you help. greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few minute later. Are these kinds of conversations/debates typical? Is there ever a point where an article stands for a while? (also, if we were to reorganize it, I would have to switch a lot of things around, for example, her comment about "...I hope you don't feel I'm being acrimonious because I'm not!

Hey girl, are ya still with me? Hope so. Hope all's well,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I figured it out. All done. Check out the page when you have time and tell me what you think.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Lobo (where does that WP name come from?), You're brilliant! I had just learned that all the photos were going to be deleted and, despondent, I thought I'd have write you with the news that the mission had failed. Many many things for fixing the problem. I would never have figured out how do do that. Can you tell me how to find a web link (for that last pic)? Also, have to re-position one of the pics (Mata Hari I think) in order to delete the long space between sections. I'll fix that now. Meanwhile, feel better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's way too soon to say "well-done." (actually, you Brits put your commas after the quote) I spent 2 hours trying to repostion the pics in order to delete large gaps. They still look very blocky. Then I spent 30-40 minutes trying to upload an image from the commons. No luck. I swear, you need a phd in WP tecnnology to figure out their instructions. I certainly can't. Anyway, I have no idea how to do what you did, but I have the addresses of 3 pics, below, I'd love to get in there (for variety--of period, and expression, and including the excellent currently invalid one in the legacy section--only 1 of 2 glamour photos (only one now on the p. is the silent Wild Orchids pub photo)--which the page needs since she was the queen of glamour for about 15 yrs. I'm going to give you these damn links and if you have the motivation and time to help me get these up, I'll come to England, cover your classes for a week, and pay for a vacation for you anywhere in the world. No hurry. THANK YOU.

1) For Retirement: The one already on/in the commons; a pic of her wearing a veil, writing something, and applying for US citizenship in 1950

2) Camille: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+camille&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=ayyBfErcNbWUOM:&imgrefurl=http://www.movieactors.com/superstars/greta_garbo_photos.htm&docid=ToUbOCi6x3i7fM&imgurl=http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/greta-garbo-camille-7.jpg&w=533&h=400&ei=eJEhT7WtDpC5tweinJyiCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=172&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=170&tbnw=221&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0&tx=85&ty=85

3) Photo currently in Legacy section: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=inspiration+greta+garbo&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=724&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=uV55txqDqvdxnM:&imgrefurl=http://lettertojane.com/post/14911614564&docid=IGTY3jVU2AsU5M&imgurl=http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwjne7BTP51qc3d79o1_500.jpg&w=500&h=668&ei=PJIhT_DwAtK4twf7iLCiCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1247&vpy=271&dur=5094&hovh=260&hovw=194&tx=108&ty=114&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=164&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:0--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and i can't get the Ninotchka pic in the right section, Last Work, without creating a huge gap. Is there a way to do this?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "correct" section.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! P. looks great now! You're amazing. How do you know how to do all this stuff? Excellent changes. Love the stamp! There's also an American one, and probably every other European country, and in Afganistan, too. They used to attend her flix by camel I read. Your pic of Camille sounds right--capture the romance. But it's not up yet. If you think it's better, I trust your judgement. Go for it. In the relationships section sounds good. So where would you like to go on vacation? You can always visit me but politics in the US just a nightmare. you might want to stay away. What p. are you going to work on after you finish Hep.? I still have to talk about the reasons GG retired. No clear reason though. She was just a fearful bipolar woman.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Inspiration Photo in the legacy section was deleted. Any way to get it back? It's a powerful image in the perfect place. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, or afternoon Lobo! Well actually, I carefully thought through the entire matter of how to write about, for example, her reclusiveness. I decided to integrate these aspects of her personality into other sections for a couple of reasons. First, all the stuff you put into “personal life” relates not to her personal but to her professional behavior and demeanor. For example, I elaborate the I want to be alone quote into its use in her pictures. It was a wink to the audience… the studio having fun. Second, I integrate her private reclusiveness into the retirement section because otherwise I’d need to spend a lot more time on her multiple eccentricities and quirks and I don’t think an encyclopedic article should address these characteristics more than what I have done.

The truth is that no one really could or can grasp who exactly she was in her personal life—what she was like, her values, beliefs, interests, needs and her entire emotional make-up. She absolutely prohibited the public from learning anything about her. She never wrote about herself. She never gave interviews. All her friends, along with many experts and non-experts, have tried and their analyses are all over the map, inevitably falling short. There would be no way to cite the multiple conflicting perspectives on “Garbo” from her friends to her biographers. Some of her friends and acquaintances, for example, thought she was profound, others mundane. Some thought fascinating, others dull.. Moreover, she kept them all in compartments leading to widely divergent points of view. The recent biographers let the facts speak for themselves or attempt to analyze. (To me, she was obviously bipolar; socially claustrophobic, paranoid, terrified of strangers, and so forth.)

But is this important to dwell on? I don’t think so. She was in some ways all persona—an intertwining of the personal and the professional—which seems to have tortured her. This was part of the problem. What she seemed to crave was privacy yet her unequalled magnetism as a star made this impossible. Thus, it’s all interpretation and subjective analysis and outside the purview of a neutral encyclopedic article. What I decided to do was allude to the character of her reclusiveness and demystify some of the legend. In sum, I believe that a superficial discussion of her personal life is all that is possible and that would trivialize her social impact. The less said the better. So I really think we need to revert to the previous version. How do we do this?

As for the new Camille pic, the problem for me is that it shows nothing in her face—exactly the problem you identify with the Mata Hari photo (which is at least a better portrait). Let’s keep searching…! With deep respect for you,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, OK, I see your pt about interrupting the flow of her career. But there is still a problem with your organization in the context of the rest of the article, in addition to the ones I blabbed about yesterday. (Why I chose not to have a Personal Life section) For one thing, the way I organized it, her important disclaimer, “I only said I wanted to be let alone" goes after I discuss the “alone” motif in the Queen of MGM section. I doesn’t make sense to put it in before, where it now is. So here’s what we’ll do. A user named Fat&Happy has been plugging away with me at this, fixing formatting problems, tweaking prose, and giving feedback. I’ll revert back to the original, refer him to your issues, and see what he says. He also took an interest in the Camill photo with the first version which, like you, he didn’t like. So I’ll also get his thoughts on this too. The photo looks much better when you click on it, and maybe that’s the point? Cheers,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm a huge Lombard fan.. Definitely needs work. Agree that Spence was terrific actor. Ahead of his time. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Here's what I wrote F&H. ....She thinks that the last paragraph in the Queen of MGM section, about the motif "I want to be alone," should stand alone as a new section "Personal Life--Reclusiveness." It's current location, she thinks, interrupts the flow of her career. Now, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to write about her personal life and decided, fundamentally because of its unknowablility, to state, allude to, what we can say about it in the retirement and relationships sections. The reclusive piece is forshadowed in MGM section. The question is, do you think the way I address (what we can say about) her personal life, including her famed reclusive persona, is adequately finessed in the current organization (as i do)? Or do you think the "alone" motif at the end of MGM Queen is disruptive and needs to stand alone somewhere? ....Also, what do you think of her Camille photo? We've been discussing that too. I don't think it shows her face to best advantage. But if you like it, it's a go. We could also look for Anna Karenina pics if you too are dissatisfied. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)You see? I hold you in very high esteem[reply]

Nevermind. As an obsessive, I've gone over and over this in my mind for the last 2 hours... read over and over each section that touches upon the inscrutable complexities of her private life. And I think the way I've handled it works well. The bit at the end of the "Queen" section is relevant to her career because it pertains to the development of the Garbo myth, which was embedded in her performances and her work. I like the way I lace her renowned reclusiveness within the professional and personal (retirement). So I feel strongly it should stand the way it is. I hope you're OK with that. We'll see if other readers want to discuss or change. Anon, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a few minutes later. Are these kinds of conversations/typical at WP? At what point does an article stand? I hope you don't think I'm being acrimonious, or that we are in a so-called edit war. I don't feel that way at all. (BTW, if we were to stick with your idea, I'd have to switch around other things I've written for coherence, which could be a nightmare to edit. Of course this would not be a reason not to change if there are significant problems but as I say, I think the article works well--particularly in light of her enigmatic life.) Random thought: Maybe I could reference the Garbo myth thing, at center of both prof'l and personal life at end of MGM Queen. Would certainly be accurate.

--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey here we are together! I appreciate your final thoughts, Lobo (what does that mean?) but must add the following since I just wrote it:

Ok my friends. I’ve figured it all out. I’ve been speaking extemporaneously, blabbing on, when I should have worked out my argument in advance, and then stated it succinctly, which I will now do. There are two problems with Lobo’s plan, I think.

1. Everything I’ve written about her reclusiveness at the end of the "MGM Queen" section is related to her development as a movie star. No publicity, autographs, public appearances etc. All the references to "I want to be alone" were in her pictures. These were studio decisions. However, they contributed to the construction of the Garbo persona and myth which indeed bled into her personal life.

2. You can’t have a section called Personal Life in which the only subject is "reclusiveness" as it was developed in her professional life. And for all the reasons I’ve discussed, I decided not to include a separate section on her personal life.

So there’s my argument in a nutshell. I hope you're Happy! And thank you Lobo for your signifcant contributions to the page and brilliantly getting the pics up.Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. A very interesting twist and VERY appropriate to what makes GG unique. I'll do it. You still didn't tell me what Lobo refers to. Also, what are you working on now? Still Hep and Trac? Are you addicted to WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see where you used the term! I think I overlooked it, and was just attending to your creating the personal life thing. I think I had to really work this out in my thinking. I think I know GG inside and out, contrary to what i've said about no one knowing her, and because of her general inscrutibility, I've had to really finesse the interweaving of her on/off screen life. What's paradoxical is that after she retired, she generally refused to talk about her movies with friends, what she called, "her former job." Don't forget to see Flesh and the Devil. You'll "get it." Anon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the brilliant Lobo from the idiot Cfb. Well, I PROMISE I will waste no more of your time since I'm almost finished what I hve to say on the p. Except for this one tiny thing. ;-) I'm still interested in replacing the Camille pic since it doesn't show enough of her eyes whose richness and depth of expression is largley what set her apart from her peers. Will you take a look at the following pics from Anna Karenina (same point in her career) and tell me what you think? The first one (which I think is the best) has a low resolution and appears to be from the film. So may be impossible to post? But the others are studio portraits. Molto, molto grazia.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+anna+karenina&hl=en&biw=1232&bih=601&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=TERNMDCdbZpdcM:&imgrefurl=http://www.fanpop.com/spots/greta-garbo/images/4330893&docid=Etn5NFlWofwSRM&imgurl=http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4300000/Anna-Karenina-greta-garbo-4330893-600-450.jpg&w=600&h=450&ei=mLMlT8bwBtPJ0AGD5MibAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=578&sig=102070396330840809095&page=2&tbnh=118&tbnw=149&start=14&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:14&tx=81&ty=57

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+Anna+Karenina&hl=en&biw=1232&bih=601&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=Km-rjRSVTB3YaM:&imgrefurl=http://www.doctormacro.com/movie%2520star%2520pages/Garbo,%2520Greta-Annex.htm&docid=H5lortsLQaDsnM&imgurl=http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Garbo,%252520Greta/Annex/Annex%252520-%252520Garbo,%252520Greta%252520(Anna%252520Karenina)_07.jpg&w=1300&h=1680&ei=_rMlT9_DHoT00gHqrMj4CA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=344&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=143&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=80&ty=72

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+Anna+Karenina&hl=en&biw=1232&bih=601&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=nLIA_GFzSjK2DM:&imgrefurl=http://ann-lauren.blogspot.com/2010/09/20th-cent-greta-garbo.html&docid=d1Az6l9tfj9k6M&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hjD61YU8VYs/TJT7nDDzJoI/AAAAAAAAekg/GxlSgX9zwDw/s320/Greta%252BGarbo%252B1935%252BAnna%252BKarenina.jpg&w=256&h=320&ei=_rMlT9_DHoT00gHqrMj4CA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=453&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=106&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0&tx=61&ty=54

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+Anna+Karenina&hl=en&biw=1232&bih=601&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=4MERhlKMrgQMzM:&imgrefurl=http://mythicalmonkey.blogspot.com/2010/09/poll-on-greta-garbos-birthday.html&docid=GWLbamqwXIr1MM&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bpdWsOrotV0/TJS2R012lRI/AAAAAAAADYo/BtT4oC4O_Ro/s1600/greta%252Bgarbo%252Banna%252Bkarenina%252B4.jpg&w=1269&h=1600&ei=_rMlT9_DHoT00gHqrMj4CA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=422&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=103&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0&tx=67&ty=75

--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm pretty familiar with most of the pub shots. Though still find new stuff. Thanks for the link. Never saw a lot of the candids. It's interesting, she was not particularly photogenic in candid shots. Pretty plain jane, though apparently still beautiful--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There Lobo, I'm Back! Alright. Fat&Happy and I are almost finished with the photos on the GG p. Tried to get a mix of glamour portraits and production shots. Tried to suggest some of the scope and effectiveness of her acting through the face and eyes and also a little of the progression of her career. So I'm interested in your thoughts on a couple of things. First, do you think adding another pic to the career section would make it too crowded? We chose this to add, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b2Lv4b7pxKY/TfmKdlLZGyI/AAAAAAAABOI/QfsQKC4j-GQ/s1600/Mata+Hari+%25281931%2529+102.jpg, a splendid portrait with a famous costume by Adrian, animated face, hand, shows her "thinking", etc. We would move the N shot to the right and put it to the left of the Persona section (yours :) so the glamour pics aren’t all lined up on the R. So, is it too crowded, first, and second, would there be too many glamour pics? I looked at the pp. of several other glamour stars (Monroe, Bergman, Dietrich, Crawford, A. Hepburn) and they each had only 1 or 2 and included more candids. Now, GG was arguably the greatest of the glamour stars (I'm not saying the greatest star) and her enigmatic face was intricately blended into her on and off-screen persona, so I think it's appropriate to have 4 up. But 5? To balance out the p. I'm thinking we might consider adding another candid photo to the retirement section—when she wasn’t at all glamorous. What do you think about all this, when you have a minute? Thanks so much, and hope you're still having fun with the myriad WP projects your involved in.

Hi Lobo, many thanks for your thoughts!

I personally find film stills far more interesting than glamour shots. I know Garbo was largely about the glamour, but if it was up to me I'd still communicate this via stills of her acting (and you have glamour shots in the lead pic and legacy).

Well, the reason for more glamour shots is that they convey her unique beauty, an important tool of her effectivness with audiences. Plus, the glamour shots of Garbo (mostly by Clarence Bull) are probably the most brilliant of any star since her face and hands are so animated in them--eyes mostly--and they show the eextraordinary scope of her expressiveness. It is this, in fact, that consitutes her magnetism and mystique. And I want to show this--just not too many.

I also feel like there should be a picture from Camille, since I'd definitely say it's one of her top 3 best known films/performances (Ninotchka, Camille and Grand Hotel - don't you think?)

Would add Anna Karenina and perhaps scrap Grand Hotel since it was a multi-star picture. Queen Christina would also be on the list. For classic film buffs :) Mata Hari and Flesh and the Devil. Why I chose them.

Another thing I'd say is that the picture next to "Screen persona" right now really doesn't illustrate what is being said in the text...you need a pic of her looking a bit lonely and miserable, really.

Again I don't see it that way (are you feeling mistreated?!) The main element in Garbo's persona was her magnetic, enigmatic, mystique, as I say, (which Bull captures in the glamour photos like no other star). Her unhappiness was really not part of her persona. Melancholy, yes; mysery, no. (You need to see some of her pictures, girl!!!)

Maybe the Grand Hotel one should go there. Actually I think that's a really good idea, then the caption can mention "I want to be alone" as coming from that film. As for candid photos, they are far more likely to be copyrighted since they were probably published in a newspaper/magazine and that periodical would own the copyright. Unless they never renewed the copyright...but you'd have to find out exactly where it was first published, and then search copyright renewal records...sound fun?! That's why I said just stay away from them. ;)

Thank you for that bleak news

This one is pretty great, that's such a "Garbo face"! Or this. However, I definitely agree that the stills are very important and that there are too many glamour shots.

These are EXCELLENT photos from Camille (where did you find them?). So my fello photo montager Fat&Happy and I will get one of them up Thank you so much for your feedback. Check out the p. in a couple of days. Hope we can stay in touch somehow. You're very smart...and knowledgable about WP. Greetings, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Lobo. We finally finished adding the pics and I think the look of the page adds a lot to the text. Decided against your C photo because couldn't see face too well and expression and angle almost identical to that in GH. We could find only a few film shots and the ones we did find were rejected for copywright violation. I don't why so. But I like having at least one extreme close-up. (G probably had more of these in her pictures than anyone else.) So I hope the visual enhancement meets your high standards, with the exception of the MH photo in the persona section! Thanks for your excellent contributions and have fun with the Tracy p. and whatever else you're working on.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lobo - I find the new structure just fine. For me either version is very good, so I say do not pay too much thought to it; what matters most at the end of the day is the quality of the text, which is beyond excellent. BTW, I've been following the article's progress, and it's just great. Somehow I liked the previous lead better (not that the currect one isn't good, it's actually better in terms of how much info it provides), but it may just have a lot to do with the fact that I got used to it (although I still think the fourth paragraph could still be somehow incorporated into other parts of the lead, like the reference to her relationship with Tracy, for one - tomorrow I'll have more time, so I'll give you a more detailed view). Way to go. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I saw your message, but was putting off replying until I was ready to fully re-invest in a full-fledged review. Oh, but I see you've just nominated Hepburn at FAC -- way to go! I still hope to review, but it may take a day or two until I'm fully ready. I hope you get tons of useful feedback, as you've done such a great job. :) María (yllosubmarine) 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw my comments and humbly decline from entering more, that way your article will have a better chance for achieving featured status by way of other peer reviews. It's true that I'm a fan of Errol Flynn and I'm fully aware that he wasn't exactly a saint in real life (he pretty much boozed himself into an early grave) but he doesn't deserve the slandering that Higham gave him. This is of course, really has nothing to do with Hepburn and since I haven’t read his Hepburn book perhaps my judgment was made in haste.
I don't have a personnel vendetta against Higham but I do have a vendetta against the "trashing the dead celebrity" style of writing that he has consistently indulged in. The weird thing about Higham is that he’s well-educated and articulate man (I’ve met him several times) so it baffles me why he has no apparent guilt about the slandering he indulges in.
Here’s a good example of Higham writing style: In the forward to Murder in Hollywood, his take on the William Desmond Taylor mystery, he states that he attended a part on January 1, 1971, at the home of David Bradley. Among the others in attendance (according to Higham) was Josef von Sternberg, who actually died in December 1969! Jimknut (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it interests you, James Curtis can be contacted through his web site. Perhaps he can give you a few pointers about the Hepburn article. I've known Mr. Curtis for many years now although I can't really say that we're close friends (I see him and his wife only a few times every year). However, I can say with absolute certainty that he's an extremely nice guy and (obviously) an outstanding writer. Jimknut (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous job with the images. Sorry I haven't been around to help—though it hardly looks like you need it.

Anyway, I'm writing with an idea for you. As the article states, "Her clipped, patrician voice is considered one of the most distinctive in film history." Well, we can get that voice into the article, which would be a great addition. You've accessed four public domain trailers for images: Adam's Rib, Summertime, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, and Rooster Cogburn. The audio in those trailers equally qualifies as free media. If you don't know how to rip audio from DVD and convert it to Wikipedia standards, I can explain how (I did it for the film noir FA). And if you don't have access to any of the DVDs at the moment, I could grab something from the Adam's Rib trailer.—DCGeist (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments—yes, I'm very pleased with how those articles came out. I saw that Kate was at FAC. I'll try to find time later in the week to read through the article and drop in there. My impression, just glancing through it, is that it's very strong.

On an audio clip, I think it could fit in Slowing in the 1940s (1942–1949) if we dropped the image by one graf and slotted in the clip against the top graf. There's certainly room for one in Film, television and theatre (1971–1983), but I don't know if we want Rooster Cogburn to be the primary representative of "The Voice."—DCGeist (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the wording you inquired about was a little awkward. I made a minor adjustment on the article page.—DCGeist (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good line in the Summertime trailer: "I don't know what your experience has been with American tourists..." And the way she pronounces been "bean" is an excellent example of The Voice.—DCGeist (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume when you ask about the possibility of making "sound files smaller," you're not talking about the files themselves, but their visual representation—the appearance of the sound clip box produced by the template (customarily Template:Listen) that "houses" them. The template doesn't really allow for size manipulation, so the best that can be done is to pare down the text that accompanies the clip. In practical terms, the sound clip boxes you can see in Leo Ornstein are as small as it gets—and you may well feel those are still too large, given your existing media. So...

There is another option: Template:Audio allows sound clips to be integrated into the flow of an article's text. You can see how I use them scattered throughout the Use in Western music section of Tone cluster. You might get some resistance in FAC to using them for non-feee audio clips, but given that everything we're talking about is public domain, there shouldn't be any problem—though such usage of Template:Audio would be unusual, and you know how some people can get with "unusual." From a visual standpoint, Template:Audio obviously makes it easy to incorporate as many free-use clips as you deem useful—if you really want to have fun and be progressive, you could even incorporate Template:Audios into the caption text accompanying appropriate images. Other than the selection of clips, the issue would be what you want to do in the text immediately around them.

As for your other observation...I know, FAC ain't like the old days. I will do my best to weigh in some time this week. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To rip from DVD, you'll want this lovely piece of software. Note that the free version will suffice—the pay version is needed only if you're planning rips longer than ten minutes. If you have any trouble figuring out how to use it, I can advise or am happy to do it myself (I have Adam's Rib and Summertime, can get hold of others fairly easily).—DCGeist (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice of clips—though it seems to cut off midword: "You're a producer, you ought to see peo-".

I'll go over the prose more thoroughly in the next few days, but this is bothering me in the lede: "She enjoyed great success in the latter half of her life, winning three more Oscars for her work in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, The Lion in Winter and On Golden Pond. In 1973 she made her first appearance in a television movie, for which she found her greatest success in her later years." She found her "greatest success" in a TV movie? What TV movie was that? Did you intend to say that she found her greatest success during her later years in TV movies, plural? But then...really? "Greater success" than her On Golden Pond Oscar? I would rethink this passage and rework it from the ground up.—DCGeist (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to English-language Wikipedia, so please don't hate me if I'm doing this wrong! Anyway, I read from the Talk-section in the Charlie Chaplin article that you are thinking of re-writing it and are looking for help. I'd love to help you if possible, I think Chaplin deserves a much better and clearer article. I could possibly even be able to co-author it with you. So if you're still interested in re-writing that article, please let me know! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I'm hoping my opposition doesn't dishearten you. I truly think the article is very good and not far off. I commend you for taking on this important subject. We need more editors like you. --Laser brain (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my page. Span (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've found different references concerning the artist MeeK who recorded a single about SFU. Deciding whether references do or do not "establish notability" is extremely subjective and relative by definition and are difficult to find in this context, this artist did give several interviews but none of them have clearly been about THIS song... But Meek appears to be indeed a well-known Indie artist in Europe (he's of a French and British double nationality apparently) and this is as valid a cultural reference as any other it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryBlock (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, I've replied to your various points at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#Some comments!. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, I've made some more changes to the article in response to your follow-up comments; could you let me know if this meets your remaining concerns? Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments on "my" Szabo article. Although you wrote them in November, I only just discovered them, due to my own lack of understanding of how to monitor these things. I have it on my To Do list to improve the article. Maybe some day I'll actually do it! Hirschjoshua (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lobo, congrats on Kate's promotion. I'm glad to hear that you plan on working this woefully neglected subject. I have a casual interest in the area as I'm trying to catch on up the "great movies" and reading biographies of the actors that I like. Next up on my reading list are Bogey, Jimmy Stewart and Spencer Tracy if you have any plans to work on them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• May I add my congratulations on the promotion, well deserved in view of the hard work and effort you put into it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian. I certainly did work hard on it. I enjoyed it though...give or take the odd moment of exasperation. Now I'm just waiting for the bot to come through and make it official, it's been two days now...Is the delay often this long, or do you think there might be a problem with it? --Lobo (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did it, hon! Huge congrats. x Span (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I didn't take it from the Guardian review myself, I took it from the wikipedia article on the film. that also needs to be removed as a vio.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comment about Shirin was pure and simple copyvio. I'm glad to hear you didn't add it intentionally. As for the Bradshaw quote, I simply think it was longer than it needed to be. But if you really want to leave the whole thing there, I won't delete it again. --Lobo (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I've reworded the previous info, glad you spotted it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your help with Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Are you happy with what I've added about public outrage in the Aftermath section, as you requested? Also, if you're happy with the article overall, would you consider supporting its candidacy at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1? I'm keen to get the FAC review completed soon, so it would be really helpful if you could indicate if you have any objections to it going forward. Prioryman (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your help has really been invaluable, so thanks for all the advice and assistance! And yes, it's perfectly all right for you to give support to FACs. :-) Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally finished my copyedit. (Too late for FAC, where you hardly needed me, but perfection knows not of scheduling...) Really top-notch work. Congratulations on a hard-earned, well-deserved achievement. In just three subsections, I think, did my edits affect the substance, and even there to no great degree: Career struggles, Revival, and Slowing in the 1940s. If you have any questions about what I did, I'm here to discuss.

One little note relevant to your future endeavors (I want you to do for Chaplin's page what you did for Kate's!). I sadly had to eliminate a fine Briticism from the article. In America, we don't get "slated" (I say "we" as a sometime actor...not that I've evah gotten slated!); I substituted "roundly panned." An American idiom describing an even more extreme negative critical reaction is "savaged." Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a moment did I think you intentionally misused a source—or even really misused one inadvertently. There's not enough space in an edit summary to explain my thought process in this case, and I regret if my summary gave the wrong impression. Here was my thinking:

On reading through, I felt the phrase "was too late to compensate for the previous flops and overcome the negative publicity" was unnecessary and bogged down a clear, strong narrative. You've drawn an effective picture of the decline in her fortunes up to this point, and then just two sentences later you finish powerfully with the Britton quote on this very matter. Now, the question of whether the phrase is unnecessary and boggy or not is basically one of editorial judgment. Throughout, I deferred to your editorial judgment, but here it seemed to me worth looking at the next following source to at least see if the statement was getting good support. When I saw that the source did not offer that support—and, in fact, offered quite a different reason for the film's failure (whatever the plausibility of that reason)—I felt that gave me the license to act on my editorial judgment in this case. So...it's not even that I thought you were being "too interpretive", let alone doing anything intentionally misleading; it's simply that I felt on this rare occasion that you'd included verbiage whose elimination would much better serve your story-telling, and the absence of a direct source gave me the confidence to make the cut.—DCGeist (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My tastes are pretty wide-ranging. While I do love Roger Corman and Larry Cohen, I'm not really the biggest B-movie fan. I took that article on mostly so I could educate myself about that vast level of the motion picture industry to which I hadn't given much thought for most of my movie-loving life. Generally, I go for the sort of things a mythical, prototypical "film snob" would like, though I also have a powerful sentimental streak—I definitely was on the verge of tears for much of The Notebook...sigh. Film noir—yes, I'm for sure a noir devotee.

For a couple of years, I've wanted to dive into an article on a major director and bring it to FA. Orson Welles? Jean-Luc Godard? Rainer Werner Fassbinder? (If you woke me in the middle of the night, I'd probably say Fassbinder was my favorite director.) My work obligations at the moment don't really make that possible, though. Anyway, that's part of why I'm so excited about Chaplin. He'd be only our third film director FA, after Abbas Kiarostami and Satyajit Ray, and the first to be promoted in more than five years, since Kiarostami in March 2007. I'm more of a Keaton man, but Chaplin is one of cinema's towering figures. I'll keep up with what you and TrueHeartSusie3 do over there, and pitch in as possible and helpful. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Katharine Hepburn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Higham

Spencer Tracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Last Mile

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I'm quite busy myself, but on the other hand, working on this slowly can have its benefits! I have read quite a bit on Chaplin but oddly enough don't own any books, I just have a really good local library (which I sadly will only be able to access during the summer as I study in a different city). Still, I think I could start planning it already and even writing some very rough drafts... I'd love to start planning this, is there a way to contact you? Does Wikipedia have a private message-thingy, or should we email? I've got quite a few ideas already! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

So excited about this now! Ok, so books. Chaplin's autobiography is certainly worth reading, but I think one should be very careful with it. It is pretty much about how Chaplin wanted the public to perceive himself, and even those who think it is essentially fact-based (like Robinson) have noted that Chaplin omits stuff and remembers ages/years wrong. The Robinson biography is definitely THE definite biography on Chaplin, it gives a great chronology and loads of information on his films. However, Robinson originally wanted to only focus on Chaplin as a filmmaker. He is quite cautious when writing about him as a private person (possibly due to the help he received from Oona Chaplin, i.e. giving him access to Chaplin's private papers) and often presents a one-sided view of things like his political views and the Lita Grey and Joan Barry cases. Do you have the original 1985 edition or the newer one? I've only read the old one, always wondered what the new one is like.

Besides those two, I would really recommend Charles J. Maland's Chaplin and American Culture: The Evolution of a Star Image. It's possibly the best book I've read about Chaplin. Its one of the few academic takes on Chaplin, and is beautifully written and very clear and uses sources well. It is not a biography in the same sense as Robinson's, but traces the evolution of his star image in the US from 1914 to 1989. Not only does it give a good overview of the 'Chaplin phenomenon' but it is also one of the most objective books I've read on him. Of the recent biographies, I've read Kenneth S. Lynn's Charlie Chaplin and His Times (not very good, extremely biased and speculative, but does have some good points which Robinson missed/misinterpreted) but not Joyce Milton's The Tramp or Stephen Weissmann's Chaplin: A Life. On top of these, I've read some older biographies and books written by people who knew him, like Jerry Epstein and Charles Chaplin Jr.

As for the article... I think you suggested combining the career + personal life sections? I think that's a good idea, but I'm also slightly concerned whether it would make the biography article too crowded with personal life details at times? Actually, I am confused about how much 'private life' detail a Wikipedia article should include. The personal life section at the moment seems to try and chronicle every single date and relationship Chaplin had during his life.

Off the top of my head, a possible structure of the article could be like this:

1. Childhood and background (1889-1904)

2. Career in theatre and variety (1904-13)

3. Start of film career (Keystone) (1914)

4. Breakthrough (Essanay) (1915)

5. Mutual years (1916-18)

6. First National & own studio & founding of UA (1918-1921)

7. 1920s and feature films

8. 1930s and reaction to sound film

9. 1940s and the radical decline of career in the US

10. 1950s and continued controversy

11. 1960s and renewed appreciation

12. 1970s and death

+ a section on his cinematic style and working methods, as well as a section on legacy. The names I've given to those sections are definitely not how I would title them on the actual article, it's just the structure. What do you think?

It's going to be a lot of work, but maybe we could start from section 1 and work on that for a couple of months (definitely no strict deadlines to stress us) and see how that goes? We could plan together what information and sources we want to include and then split that section into smaller sections which we write individually and then combine and make run smoothly together? I don't know, it's just an idea... I've never written a WP article together with someone, so I don't know what's the best way to do it! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I just got finished reading the Katharine Hepburn article, and I was just blown away. You did an amazing job on the article! Keep up the magnificent work! :)—DAP388 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, heh, thanks very much :) --Lobo (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the nom for further improvement. Please discuss in the talk page of the article and give your suggestions. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a peer review. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo512,

Thank you for correcting my mistake on the KH article. I was in error in my edit. Nice work with that article. Regards, --Mollskman (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. --Lobo (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, how are things going? Highbeam are taking applications from content-adding editors for a free subscription. I thought of you. (There is no limited number, though there is a selection process). Enjoy the sun. x Span (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Span. I'm alright thanks, so nice to have winter over and done with for another year. Thanks for letting me know about this, but unfortunately I'm not eligible as I haven't had this account for a year. Ah well. That's great WP has sorted out a deal for researchers though. --Lobo (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Please pass the notice on to other content-adding editors you know who might be interested. A hot weekend ahead, looks like. All the best Span (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy lately due to my inactivity, but I am still able to address your comments on Days of Heaven if you are still interested. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, how are things going? I might well go along to the London gathering on Sunday. I invite you for a cup of tea if you fancy it. Several other regular arts editors might be coming down too for a natter. Just flagging it up. I hope all is well with you. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's nice of you to offer Span. I think it's unlikely I'll go along though, I'm not very good in those sort of social situations! Just being honest. :) I'm okay but have a recurring problem with my arm that makes going on the computer very difficult... --Lobo (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sorry to hear about your arm. Have a restful week. Span (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Eric Campbell (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin MacDonald (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) 10:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo, it good to hear from you. You've done so well with Kate. It's a real example of an editor focusing their energy on one project and taking it to great heights (instead of getting dragged of into disputes and admin). I think the TFA is fine. Two questions I had were around the para "Later in life Hepburn mostly played spinsters, such as in The African Queen, and became a Shakespearian stage actress. She remained active into old age, making her final screen appearance in 1994 at the age of 87." I'm not sure the spinster aspect is terribly important - not vital enough to be included in your limited word count. Not sure what it points to. I think the Shakespearean / stage work is more interesting and lesser known. "Old age"? May be "Later years" would work. People's idea of "old age" seems to be a pretty subjective thing, esp nowadays; does it mean 60, 80 or 90? I put the comments here as I don't feel strongly enough to defend a position on the talk page, but just wanted to pass on some thoughts. I hope all is well with you. I didn't go for tea in the end but might get to a gathering one of these days. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]