Am now in newspapers.com and there seems to be material there. We hope (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Another alias of hers was Cynthia Krensky Bouron-used that name to marry Milos Milos (Milsovic). The couple was just short of the final divorce decree (slated for July 1966) when Milos committed suicide on 30 Jamuary 1966. However, he had been having an affair with Mickey Rooney's 5th wife, Barbara. Barbara and Mickey were working hard at a reconciliation when Milos, apparently angry about her returning to Rooney, shot and killed Barbara. Milos then turned the gun on himself. Bouron had at least 3 husbands-she had been in the car trunk for a week before being discovered. We hope (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
this is quite interesting. A lot of guys from "The Outfit" have wound up in the same manner-killed and found in abandoned cars. We hope (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. It's a pity there's not a photo of her somewhere, I'd liked to have seen a picture!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
From the text above, it looks like pains were taken to "freeze" her publicity at the time of the Grant accusation, and they probably stayed frozen. It also reminds me of the Bonnie Lee Bakley story. We hope (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Yup, looks like she also tried to out do Lizzie in marriage count too LOL. Similar sort of personality to Cynthia and similar fate as you say. The Sinatra and Martin types must have been able to spot those obsessed types a mile off though, no doubt there were hundreds of them in Vegas over the years looking to score. I'm sure it cost Sinatra a lot of $2 ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
It should be somebody interested in building content rather than bolstering their ego/raising their political profile....♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.gjenvick.com/Immigration/EllisIsland/1905-02-HowImmigrantsAreInspected.html#axzz4AXcRu4wA "On entering New York harbor the ocean liners are boarded by the state quarantine authorities, and the immigrants inspected for quarantinable disease, such as cholera, small-pox, typhus fever, yellow fever or plague. Then the immigrant inspectors and a medical officer of the Pubic Health and Marine Hospital Service board the vessel and examine the cabin passengers, paying particular attention to the second cabin."
The notations on the manifest do not indicate Leach was deemed a medical case, so he definitely did not have to go to Ellis Island. I realize this is an incredibly easy mistake for any writer to make, alas.
Hope this helps in emending the erroneous claim that Leach went through Ellis Island. Collect (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't actually write that, it was there before I started. I was going to remove it as I thought it made him seem like a soldier anyway. Thanks anyway though, I shall do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
My 10th anniversary here will be on June 14th. I wish I could say that I'm looking forward to it and excited about the future of wikipedia. In all honesty I'm on the verge of quitting here unless things pick up. People will have already noticed that aside from the Dragon contest I've really wound down in editing and creating here. The basic problems with the readability of most of our articles is the least of it. Too many obsessed personalities in one place create an awful environment and in the last week or two in particular I've really sensed a lot of people souring here. It creates a horrific atmosphere to edit the site. We should all be supporting each other and planning the way forward, not attacking each other and belittling each other's work. Way too many outcomes on wikipedia are the result of vendettas and bullying. Not just in the way the obsessed personalities target specific articles but the way certain admins operate with double standards and pick and choose to block when it suits them. I had been looking forward to running more Dragon contests and doing my best to promote wikipedia's important articles but I feel like I have the support of extremely few people and that my time is best put into something else. At present every minute spent on wikipedia feels like time wasted. I'll be deleting the majority of my user pages and winding down on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 04:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
People will always throw stones in your path. What will happen depends on what you make out of it—a wall or a bridge! So cheer up and move on. Krish | Talk 06:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou Krish, but it'll take a lot more than a barnstar for this site to change for the better! They've really been out in force the last few weeks, just when you think it couldn't get any worse they step it up a notch!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I can understand as I have been there seen that. When an article is a stub, nobody gives a damn about the inaccuracies but when you start working/expanding, giving your precious time, the problem "kind of" starts there. I can understand your pain and frustration with the never-ending discussions to a small thing questioned by stubborn users, who won't let go. It makes makes you question your choices. Don't worry the hard time will pass. Listen to some great music or watch a great film or just take an outing. I hope people become more human here as writing an encyclopedia shouldn't be problematic or made difficult to the extent the contributing editor starts questioning himself.Krish | Talk 09:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The films are mentioned in the body of the biography, but, more to the point, the descriptions were all copyvios (sigh). Rather than reword each to get rid of the copyright violations, I excised material as the films are already mentioned. If you can reword them without resorting to "close paraphrase" please do so. Collect (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Collect: It's still standard practice to mention the most notable roles in the lede. It would be better to trim it and mention the films if there is a copyright vio than completely remove.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Then you well ought remove the copyright violations, yes? Collect (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
What copyright violations? Was it is a vio of?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The biography uses exact words from a copyrighted source - and has for a long time. Some has been removed, but removing part of a copyright violation leaves the article "a little bit pregnant." I had thought you would certainly know this having worked on a thousand great articles. Collect (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
gI ask what it was a copyvio of, show me the source it was copied from and I'll reword it. Nobody could possibly know if text is copied or not unless you know, so that's a bit of a silly statement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
" He invariably played outsiders in conflict with his surroundings, often victim-heroes like the starry-eyed social climber in George Stevens's A Place in the Sun (1951), the first of three films with his close friend, Elizabeth Taylor; the anguished Catholic priest trapped into hearing a murderer's confession in Hitchcock's hugely undervalued I Confess (1953); the doomed regular soldier Robert E Lee Prewitt in Zinnemann's From Here to Eternity (1953); the Jewish GI bullied by antisemites in Dmytryk's The Young Lions (1958). His seismographically delicate face and eyes conveyed his inner struggles and torment."
Much of the original copyvio has been removed but the current section of the lead:
He is best remembered for roles as a social climber in George Stevens's A Place in the Sun (1951), the anguished Catholic priest in Alfred Hitchcock's I Confess (1952), the doomed soldierin Fred Zinnemann's From Here to Eternity (1953) the would-be deserted soldier in Edward Dmytryk's The Young Lions (1958) (note exact sequence of roles and films here)
Note the same four films and roles in the same sequence as in the original source, the same adjectives as in the original source (including "anguished" and "doomed"). The most blatant copyright violation is listing the same roles and same films using the same descriptions as the Guardian article does. Do you note the similarities between the Guardian article and the material in Wikipedia here? Collect (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and unlikely that The Guardian would plagiarise wikipedia. I'll reword it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Now what prompted the Evil One to take up Natalie Wood and Humphrey Bogart as his next planned projects? Maybe because of their iconic status in cinema? BTW, watched Hush, Hush, as you said, not Baby Jane level, but there were some moments like the dinner scene with Cotten, De Havilland and Davis. Hard to see De Havilland play such a scheming Shakuni-like character. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 10:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Burt Lancaster article probably needs the most work but yeah Natalie Wood and Bogie. Need some motivation on here. Karla at WMUK is a big fan of Wood so more motivation to do that one next. Three more books for Cary Grant ought to do it, it's coming on nicely now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Its improved a lot I say. I'll resume with Burton after my exams end by this June third week (only two subjects). I was busy with my thesis papers on OTEC for the past couple of weeks so you didn't see me much here. Pretty interesting, sustainable topic but taxing process (meaning the thesis) really but hey, comes with the field. Go green, save green... that's my motto. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 10:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Lancaster's one of the best. Very handsome and subtle in his approach and acting style (tends to go a tad overdramatic at times). Really loved him and Kirk in Seven Days in May. Amazing to see how much Michael resembles his father, almost a twin/xerox copy. Do you think Kirk xeroxed himself instead of letting his wife give birth? LOL ;-) — Ssven2Speak 2 me 10:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As you seem to have accessed Vermilye and Eliot books I'll request Morecambe (2001), his daughter's memoir and The Films of Cary Grant to cap it off. Better to get 6 books and get to GA and move on I think rather than spending too much time on one. Lancaster's article is appalling, there's even bullet points in one place!
Michael a spit for Kirk? Nah, he looks a lot like his mother I thought [1] Kirk was blonder and more rugged looking, Michael's always been baby faced. You can see they're father and son though. Some of these Hollywood stars do have very strong genes and tend to have children who look a lot more like them than most of us!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ssven2: I notice that Grant had nearly 11,000 hits yesterday which is pretty huge (even Justin Bieber only gets about 16,000 on average). Starting to take shape now! I've requested three more books now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Haha, sounds more like something Michael Caine would have said than Johnny Depp!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Taking a break now but if you have time feel free to flesh out 1941, 1944 and 1958-63 for Grant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Interview of Grant in 1986. Would you look at this? Right from the horses' mouth. He denounces his own biographies (particularly the one by Schickel) and denies being gay and as predicted by him, the allegations became biographical fodder after his death (even during his lifetime!). — Ssven2Speak 2 me 01:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Schickel 1996 is one of the books I've ordered, now you tell me??♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Read it carefully "One was a real hatchet job; I never read the one by Schickel (Richard Schickel, a Time movie critic). I heard it was a quality job, and it certainly had a good look to it." -he's not calling the Schickel one a real hatchet job but another one, he's saying that the Schickel one was quality. He's probably referring to the Vermilye one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Vermilye never referred about his sexuality or any aspects of his personal life. His is more on Grant's film career. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 07:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ssven2: I'm actually thinking about taking on Audrey Hepburn now. 220,000 hits a month vs 80,000 for Bogie and Wood and 182,000 for Sinatra. Doesn't need too much work, but will need a lot of fact checking and some biography reading to reinforce it. Such an article really needs flly sorting out and to be minimum GA. I don't know..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Following the discussion at WT:FILM, please find the discussion here about umpmerging the year/genre film categories. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cary Grant may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
very keen on him playing the role of Mr. Jordan in ''Heaven Can Wait (1978 film)|Heaven Can Wait]]'' (1978), a role whch eventually went to James Mason.<ref name="86interview"/> In the late 1970s
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cary Grant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
of Ernest Bliss]]'' (1936), a remake of the [[The Amazing Quest of Mr. Ernest Bliss]|1920 film]], in which he played a man who inherits £2 million, but decides to work to prove his worth.{{sfn|
(talk page stalker): At this point I can say that Krish's edit was proper and civil; the lede section had "3 billion", and adding too much fiscal information in a BLP may stray focus from the subject. I don't know why Krish was attacked for removing that term. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Krimuk is totally fed up with this site in general? It's understandable the way he's been treated in the last week or two.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe but its ironical that he promoted the same thing which occurerd to him few days back, which is POV-pushing agenda. I am trying to make amends but he is too snooty.Krish | Talk 16:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, is there no photograph from 1917-1923 era though?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing that can be positively dated to that time frame except this, which is a photo of some of the seating there in 1922. We hope (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations in advanced on your tenth year here (according to the "user rights" page, it's on June 11th so I'm posting now before I forget.)FrB.TG (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Will have to find the remaining ones to complte his filmography haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I've seen Gambling Ship too but will have to doublecheck with that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure The Woman Accused and Gambling Ship are accesible, unavailable on Amazon and no Gambling Ship :-(♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not able to find any other online source for both the films as well. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 10:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
He only has a very minor appearance in Without Reservations but I'm curious to see Colbert and Wayne in the same film haha.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Cheng until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFGtalk 21:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers WH, the hairstyle on Grant as a woman is a classic!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I second Doc's statement on Grant's hairstyle. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 13:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Can you do me a favour and source the bit about North by northwest being considered one of the greatest, isn't it on the AFI 100 or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I did read your note that you have left on your talk page about requests for comments, and I haven't seen anyone asking lately so I hope I am not in any violation of that rule . The reason why I have decided to ping you is for a review on this article, since you did review it for GA back in 2011. If you're too busy or not feeling too great to review since you seem like you have been feeling a bit down recently, you can disregard this message. Thanks – jona✉ 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Doc, have you ever pondered on a world without the great artist? Who do you think would not have made their mark in the film industry if Chaplin wasn't around? To me, the first few people who crop up are Cary Grant, Woody Allen, Marlon Brando, Jerry Lewis and, of course, Mr. Bean. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 06:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Chaplin was a big influence but I find it hard to believe none of these people would have pursued what they did without Chaplin. There were other influences on most of those too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
True...enough. Their primary influence was Chaplin (maybe not Brando as he's Kazan, Strasberg material) but Allen and Atkinson, yep. Most definitely Chaplin-influenced. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 12:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I can't speak for the others, but I'd be extremely surprised if Woody Allen was influenced by Chaplin in any meaningful way. Allen was a newspaper and magazine writer who drifted into stand-up and went from there to cinema, not someone who went the drama-school route, so he'd have had little chance to see Chaplin's films which were for all practical purposes effectively banned from mass market outlets like cinema and television. Allen was born in 1935, so his formative years (circa 1945-1955) coincided pretty exactly with the nadir of Chaplin's career and the mass boycott of his work—there's a fairly decent likelihood that Allen never saw any Chaplin film until the 1960s (when his films began to be shown again in the US). ‑ Iridescent 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Just checked and the film was not renewed-interested in this one? We hope (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@We hope: I think we're OK for film images now, but if there's any you can find of him in Vegas or personal life during career years or later that would be great! Perhaps one with Randolph Scott or taken at his house or at an event?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ssven2: I noticed you've aligned most of the images on the left for Grant but I believe right aligned is most encouraged on her, especially for mobiles. Perhaps Aymatth2 can explain further?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I assume we are talking about Cary Grant. I have tried it at different screen sizes, and it looks fine to me. I slightly prefer to follow the defaults, with 220px thumbnail images on the right, so the left margin of the text does not jump around and the images to the right clearly illustrate the text rather than decorate the page, but this may just be a personal preference. There are problems when there are too many images (not the case here) and the editor has carefully arranged them to fit on his nice wide laptop screen, giving a messy effect on a smaller tablet screen, although on a phone it may look o.k. again as the images are more spread out. My attempt to show the effect below.
Sunset view
The Baixada Maranhense Environmental Protection Area was created by Maranhão state decree 11.900 of 11 June 1991.
Area in Maranhão
The goal is to regulate use and occupation of the land, exploitation of natural resources, fishing, predatory hunting and breeding of buffalo, so as to preserve biological integrity, water quality and refuges for migratory birds.
Palm trees
The conservation area has three sub-areas: Baixo Pindaré, Baixo Mearim-Grajaú and the Mearim-Pindaré Estuary - São Marcos Bay including Caranguejos Island.
The Baixada Maranhense Environmental Protection Area was designated a Ramsar Site in 2000.
Ordnance 66 of 5 November 2012 assigned an area of 56,386.11 hectares (139,333.1 acres) to SEMA/MA as the Baixada Maranhense sustainable use conservation unit.
I find this unprofessional looking. Again, the Cary Grant article looks fine. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've right aligned a lot of the images now that's why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge[edit]
I was thinking around July 20th start or could just be August. Yes, it's a larger one which has good support so should be worth doing. I'll try to get a financial prize for that one. Nothing you can do in the meantime I don't think, you got what needed to be done very quickly early on!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
OK I'll leave the timing to you. NB I will have very limited access (via pub wifi while on the boat) between Fri 22nd July & Sat 6th August.— Rodtalk 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, both worth uplading but I think I would use the table one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Am on the way with this but something else just came up. childhood photos I need some advice on this--whether they can be used or not as all were taken in Bristol and we don't know if this was first publication or not. We hope (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your ten years of impeccable service to the encyclopaedia! It's safe to say that during the ten years here you've accomplished a lot more than everyone else! JAGUAR 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, it's my seventh anniversary tomorrow! JAGUAR 19:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to join the choir! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! (... and it was my 9 year anniversary June 4th!) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Aw thanks. Congrats both on 7 and 9 years :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, congrats. And thanks for all the articles :-) Now about running for admin ... how about it? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
My heartiest congratulations on your 10th anniversary, Doc! Way to go! — Ssven2Speak 2 me 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou both! As for adminship, as Cary Grant would say "fat chance" ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou Ser Amantio di Nicolao too, you might be grumpy these days but for a long time there in the old days you were one of the most motivating editors on here and I have a lot to thankyou for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doc, Many thanks for your comments and edits on Dr No. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, of course. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I'm sure it's a really bad article, haven't you read WP:QUOTEFARM? I count a whopping four quote boxes.;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
LOL - Maybe I should add a couple more, just to bring it up to scratch! - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to wind up Moxy ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cary Grant 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Cary Grant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cary Grant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put it to the vote. Show of hands please for the next article you want to see brought to GA status? Sign your name and a # under the name you most want to see promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
In honor of the playing of the US Open this week I say Bogey (sic). Any of the three will be enhanced by your efforts but I chose this one to reach my "bad pun" for the week quota :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Poorly underdeveloped and researched yup, look at that messy popular culture list too! But in a much better state than the Burt Lancaster article which is absolutely atrocious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Audrey Hepburn
220,000 hits a month -More traffic and watchers though so more likelihood of trouble..
She deserves to have a better article! Z105space(talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Audrey—but keep the infobox! ( grin) Montanabw(talk) 21:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes please - one of the most famous and important actresses in the history of film (not of course implying that "Bogie" isn't important either of course), - Breakfast At Tiffany's is still a cult film 55 years on and Roman Holiday has recently done the rounds in the Galaxy chocolate advert, so she's still very much in the public eye. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
She's one of the best! Nothing more to say. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 13:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I should have commented here yesterday... JAGUAR 13:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
One of those lovely short-lived careers and actresses who had infamous deaths. This could be your Marilyn Monroe, Doc. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 10:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I could take on Audrey, but I'm not sure it would be worth all the inevitable heartache I would get in trying to promote it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we have a winner then, Audrey Hepburn it is! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations on 10 years of editing, I hope the next 10 are even more fun! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Aw thankyou User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)! Much appreciated! Hey don't forget to vote in the above section on what to do next!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"Happy wiki-birthday to you, happy wiki-birthday to you!" And join the club! Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
you are now officially part of the permanent exhibits. Fortunately, it is not a petting zoo! Thus, I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And you may proudly display your membership badge:
This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years.
Oh yeah, thanks for that Montanabw!♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers Lugnuts, looks like you got me beat by two months! Funny, when I joined it felt like I was a later comer to the project but it seems that most active editors nowadays arrived no sooner than 2006!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, time to give Blofeld the bumps. Lugnuts, you grab his arms, I'll grab his legs, Montanabw can, er, hold the video camera. And I've been around for longer than all three of you (though I'll admit I was too busy being a parent for about the first 7 years), so ner ner ner pfffffffth. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
If I take on Audrey I'll need you as a henchman I think ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! Keep on editing! Robevans123 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Happy birthday indeed, Dr B. Sorry to see that you are rather off-wiki at present - I know the feeling well. But look back on all that you have done, including, but by no means limited to, working with a novice like me to get 3 Burges articles onto the front page. For which I shall always be grateful. As will the great man! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou dear KJP1, one of the best editors I've ever worked with!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking forward to seeing you get the 20th anniversary cake too. :) John Carter (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Film career of Cary Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Arnold (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) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nearing completion tonight. Turning out to be a brilliant cinematic experience. Shall get back to you once i'm done with it. Thanks for the recommendation, doctor! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for being late. Sansho The Bailiff is indeed a great film. The cinematographer must be appreciated for the proper usage of light to enhance the mood of every scene. The way the director used water bodies as a plot device needs a special mention. Thanks for the recommendation, doctor! It is spiritually influencing, like Ugetsu (though the latter was truly magical). For me, its Ikiru next after watching Thegidi, a recommendation by Ssven2 recently. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes Sansho is amazing. You'll think Ikiru is good too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I really don't like inline quotes. SchroCat opinion? It looks much better in the boxes, and I've promoted articles to FA before like Rod Steiger where that has been perfectly accepted. I would prefer it if somebody restored them. I'm taking a break from Grant for a bit, it's been doing my head in!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Swapped back already. I've had the same discussion on the same two points (quote boxes and google books access dates) on the Dr No FAC. (I see he reverted my changes in the meantime: I've pointed him to the talk page, and hope he won't continue to edit war pointlessly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the boxes, far easier to read. I'm with you guys on this one. Montanabw(talk) 04:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Dr. Blofeld and Happy Wiki Birthday! We meet again. May I suggest adding a {{reflist-talk}} template at the bottom of your post here to prevent the reference from floating continuously down the page? Nice work on the Cary Grant page. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou, good job on your article too. But please don't remove the boxes, they look tidier than the horizontal ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It could be worse, somebody could pop along and drive-by edit an infobox. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean, like mine? I typically don't add, only defend those removed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I defend those removed, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You're not sorry in any way shape or form, so spare us the crocodile tears. As I've posted before, you have your views, others have theirs, but you're a bloody disruptive influence on the matter of IBs. "I typically don't add: that's a lie Gerda. You add one at least once a day on average and no-one chases you round removing them, or hassling you, or deleting them, but you just can't stop yourself when one of the bloody things are removed. Despite your protestations of wanting "peace" when you post on people's talk pages, you really are far too disruptive on this issue. I don't see anyone else keeping pointless and idiotic logs about IBs. Your behaviour on these bloody things really is shoddy. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should design the site so that rather than articles spanning the width of the page we put them in note form in a skinny box on the right all down the page LOL?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the lovely image of the princess admin greeting a newbie. I created one before: go outside. Which link do you prefer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the rose, the other looks 2001 Space Odyssey esque for some reason LOL! From a distance it looks like the red button on HAL on top of the earth!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It made me blush in 2012. Lingzhi designed it, loooong ago, perhaps when Keilana was an admin age 13. - I didn't ask about the images, but the links from "go outside", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
One of the things mentioned is a Bristol Basin in NYC, built from rubble of buildings destroyed in Bristol during WWII. So I started looking and indeed, there is a small area in lower Manhattan known as Bristol Basin. It was originally dedicated in 1941, but was re-dedicated in 1974. Cary Grant was a key person at the re-dedication, as he felt the ruins of his family's homes were part of the rubble brought to New York as ships' ballast.
Hi Dr. B. I was going to join the queue and express my indignation above about the quotes boxes being removed at Cary G., but that seems well under control. Wanted to say thanks for your notifications on changes at "Blue Jay Way" – but also to express my surprise at the specific changes you picked, well over a year apart – here and here. That's some mighty thorough searching through the article history you've done there! Thanks again, also for the comment you posted at talk:The Beatles (album) in reply to a pretty ridiculous assertion, imo. I might reply there also – but between you and Ritchie, the point's been made, I hope. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Love the Piggies article too JG66. If only more were like you here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you're too kind. Really. (I'm glad I got in first with my praise for your work on PSH!)
Speaking of Piggies, the GA review seems to have stalled after I posted a message there in reply to the reviewer's comments on the first few sections. Hopefully, it'll blow over, but … Well, I'm concerned about a) the silence, when surely it's an invitation for a discussion (they've been plenty busy elsewhere in the meantime); and b), per the reviewer's user page, their age (13, apparently) and command of English. I believe the article's pretty good, so if the situation doesn't move on – heck, should they decide to fail the nomination – I may be back here asking your advice. If that's okay. JG66 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@JG66:@Dr. Blofeld: No no, the review was not abandoned and it was not because of your comment. I have just started to review "Piggies" in a night when I realized that I was too tired to continue. The next days, I had no time due to school activities. I bet I'm going to finish the GAR and put your work on hold this evening or someday until this weekend. To finish, sorry for the delay and yes, I'm 13:) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, don't ask me, as Manuel from Fawlty Towers would say: "I know nahthing" about GAs. As I'm sure Eric would agree, Jaguar is the official leading authority on Good article reviewing on this site, closely followed by himself. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Cartoon network freak: I'm sorry – I misjudged you, and I'm embarrassed at my clumsiness. I imagine you must've received a notification when I linked to your user page above; I didn't know you would (not that my ignorance makes it any better). Please don't feel the need to rush with the review – whenever you're ready.
And Blofeld, sorry for bringing this here to your lair. Nothing like making one's mistakes in public … JG66 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@JG66: No, no. It's fine! No worries; we're all here to help each others. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about age CNF, there's younger admins than thirteen on the site! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Disney is rocking pretty much of late this year. Zootopia is brilliant, so is Finding Dory, its Pixar product. I'm literally addicted to "Try Everything" right now. On repeat mode with it. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 15:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've been meaning to see Zootopia!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Definitely main image. A pic from Breakfast At Tiffany's for a main image candidate would be great, We hope. :-) — Ssven2Speak 2 me 17:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I really like the pic but I am not sure about using it as the main image. Something about having her mouth slightly open isn't as appealing to me as the pic currently in the infobox. This is purely an aesthetic reaction on my part so if everyone else likes it please proceed as you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a great quality image, though she does kind of look like she's from an old Soviet eastern bloc country in it if you know what I mean! She looks more like a lesbian Moldovan journalist in it than the Audrey Hepburn we love ;-) Audrey Klebb or Rosa Hepburn ;-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Careful--someone might think you're spreading "gossip" and "rumours". ;-) We hope (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Audrey Hepburn (9304394852).jpg would be the "money shot", except for the obvious problem it's not actually a picture of her, but it does prove that a free Holly Golightly shot would be the best one. Otherwise, I would go with We hope's image as a high-quality visual identification that the reader is in the right place. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
OK this is one of those "I just heard this song and now I can't get it out of my head AND it is driving me bonkers" situations. A week or so ago I made an edit on the Stanley Kubrick article I glanced at the pic at the top and I thought "wait a minute - isn't that Mr. Bean?" Now that is all I see :-) Does anyone think that we might move that one to the "Early life" section and place one from the middle part of his career (maybe from 2001) at the top. Now that I look again I am struck by the fact that there is only one other pic of SK in the entire article and it is also from 1949. Are there "Image use" problems with other pics? Now I can learn to live with (probably-heehee) the current pic but I do think the article would benefit from other pics of SK if possible. Cheers to DB and his talk page watchers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem with photos of SK is in getting any which are proven to be in the PD. There were quite a few presented as such in the past but they turned out not to be. Since the Look photos went into the PD via the gift of them to the LOC and the Cowles Publications stipulation that photos taken by Cowles for the magazine should now be free of copyright restrictions, there are PD photos of him-the ones from Look. We hope (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's terrible using an image of Kubrick at 21 but copyright is copyright I'm afraid!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for taking the time to explain the situation We hope - much appreciated. It is funny to not see his big bushy beard somewhere in the article :-) But now I know why. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If sources go into detail about him having an iconic beard or another physical feature that isn't in the free image, you may be able to get away with a fair use image as well. Speaking of images: Dr., I left you a little bonus at Chitra Dewi. Thanks for starting that article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Superb work Crisco!! Excellent image too! Look at all those red links for films though!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I filled one in today. Will probably nibble at some others, in between working on my dissertation and some conference papers. I've got the flyers for several of Dewi's films as well, so there'll be illustrations for those. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Always amazes me how much you're able to write on these films!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Tiga Dara is like Darah dan Doa: there's a lot on it if you know where to look. Some Indonesian films contemporary to Tiga Dara barely have information available, even in the Indonesian film catalogue. The 1955 adaptation of Pandji Tisna's Sukreni, Gadis Bali, for instance, doesn't even have the director listed.
Dr. Blofeld, the reason for my request of withdrawal is truly and truly due to my real life issues. I am facing a personal loss right now and am very dispirited. At the moment, i cannot really work on something where i have to behave with civility, deal with patience and enthusiasm. I really appreciate your copy-edit; please continue it if you wish to. But, i can't pull the stops this time. Sorry and thanks for everything! I shall return soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, as long as that's genuinely the reason and you're not annoyed with Schro and myself for thinking it needs a major copyedit before being promoted. I'll continue to edit it a bit anyway. Hope you feel better about things soon, life has many blessings but at times it can really suck balls haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: Let me know when you plan on nominating it again and I'll try to give it a full copyedit it before you do so. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the c/e, doctor. Not anytime soon, but you'll be the first to know about it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Found your 9-day old mail today. I've replied there, please check it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Its a very sleazy and sexy genre, ain't it, mac? Have you seen Murder, My Sweet yet? Fantastic adaptation of Chandler's novel on screen, it is! BTW, after having breakfast at Tiffany's, are you gonna stake this American to a meal? — Ssven2Speak 2 me 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course! It's a pretty good film but not sure it's masterpiece material. Yes, a lot of those mid to late 40s noir ones are quite sinister. George Raft, as I'm sure MarnetteD will agree, was one of the seediest actors in Hollywood who was close friends with many notorious mobsters. Some of the ones with him in are particularly sleazy or dark. He was a bad egg who made a lot of the films like that! One of the most powerful noirs was Force of Evil, John Garfield in that was fantastic. The early 30s pre-code ones were more risque though, the sleaze of the studio bosses shone through on a lot of those early 30s ones! Mae West was a man eater!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I bet you Red Light is one to watch. Roy del Ruth directed some great ones. BTW have you seen A Star is Born (1954) yet? That's probably the most "Golden Hollywood" film ever, watching those cars drive by in it during a scene with Mason and Garland is one of the greatest film moments for me!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Will do so soon enough. You can include Murder, My Sweet as a "good to excellent" film. Its certainly not as bad as Countess from Hong Kong, ain't it? — Ssven2Speak 2 me 16:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I did, long time ago for 1944.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, there it is. Couldn't spot it properly earlier on. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 03:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It might be one of those films which grow on me if I watch again!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you seen Forbidden Planet yet? Nielsen rocks in it. Police Squad in outer space! Fascinating. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 10:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I saw it a long time ago on TV, rings a bell but I'm definitely due another watch!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
For your contributions to bring Cary Grant (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! We hope (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou We hope!! Of course I couldn't have done it without Collect ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Fuming that there's not a single honest adminstrator on here who can ask Collect to take down his false claim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I did more than a few copyedits, and I haven't even got so much as an "attaboy". Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't accepted We hope's kind gesture, but I think in your case, Doc, it's most deserved. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Cheers Cass, but if Collect is claiming he promoted it, you're easily as entitled to claim it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You and SchroCat did easily five times the amount of work Collect did on it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it too early to start a grassroots campaign to make Blofeld and Martinevans123 Wikipedians of the Year 2017? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Nah I reckon Collect, Lightshow, Rob Sinden and The Banner are on WM's honors list next year, they're enormously helpful here ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm feeling restless and am trying to do something constructive to kill time. Can you review this small article for GA? It has been copy-edited by the GOCE recently. If you are interested and free, consider taking up this task. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
BTW, watched Hush, Hush, as you said, not Baby Jane level, but there were some moments like the dinner scene with Cotten, De Havilland and Davis. Hard to see De Havilland play such a scheming Shakuni-like character. 
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cary Grant may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
. The reason why I have decided to ping you is for a review on this article, since you did review it for GA back in 2011. If you're too busy or not feeling too great to review since you seem like you have been feeling a bit down recently, you can disregard this message. Thanks – jona ✉ 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:Cary Grant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.salsca.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/actress-diana-douglas-mother-michael-dies-at-92.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}