User talk:Classicfilmbuff

/Archive 4

Welcome
Hello, Classicfilmbuff here. All discussion is welcome!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Garbo–JFK
LOL. So I clean up irrelevancies and duplicated references, clarify the previously obfuscated source and tag the source as being possibly unreliable; why am I not surprised at the result?

The only reason I didn't just delete the whole thing myself was to see if anyone else (read "you") could verify the incident. If you look at the cited Garbo Forever page, note that down at the bottom they show Paris and Swenson as sources, though certainly not as a proper citation that would make verification simpler. But do you recall anything in either book about this event (possibly even on a different date, as GF completely hedges on even that). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. At least one of them writes about it. So would be interesting addition if sourced to them. Instead, editor embeds a Times obit of health advocate, Florence Mahoney. Weird. NO username always a problem. Otherwise i would have written directly to him/her before undoing the change. I can't seem to open the G Forever site to invesigate this.


 * Strange. I think I noticed it was a bit slow to load originally, but clicking on the link in my post above just now snapped right to it in a second or less. It's a fairly long page though. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The NYT obit seems to have been meant to source the fact that Mahoney was a large contributor to the NIH, a factoid I trimmed out of my version as being completely irrelevant to Garbo. In fact, if the event is restored based on one of the bios, I don't see any reason to even mention Mahoney. But that would also depend on how the story in the RS bio is focused. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, s/he does have talk p. Check it out! Very interesting. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. One of those known shared IP addresses. Always fun to deal with. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope this person does the homework and sources it correctly to Paris and Swenson because it is an interesting tid-bit. Also, having read Paris and Swenson on the visit s/he mischaracterizes it a bit, or the G Forever site does. Anyway, I'm not going to bother with it. Greetings, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

re: MdA
Hi CFB. I've been traveling the past couple of days and not paying as much attention here as usual. I think the quick archiving I have on my talk page might have moved my response to your original MdA post before you saw it; it was: "Well, I fixed the immediate problem. Have a related question, though. Did you supply that ref originally? It refers to a time in the video for the comments it's supposed to be supporting, but there's no link to the video, which lessens its usefulness. Have you seen a link that's not a copyright violation? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)"

Bye for now... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, didn't see your message. Thanks for reposting it. Yeah, I supplied the ref originally with your help. Link was valid then. Unfortunately, the only link is TCM. It gets taken off and posted again pretty regularly. So yes, copyright violation. Also tried once to TV Guide and video is expired. I'm assuming we can keep the material in the article, sourced without link. Hope your traveling was, or is, fun. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the TCM page looked familiar when I was searching Google for a copy, but then again all their pages are pretty similar. What threw me was the decimal usage in the time range; I can't picture having used decimals instead of minutes and seconds. Unless the 39.98 was a typo for 39.08, but with no good copy available, I guess we won't know.
 * Let's just say here that I'm glad to be back home. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Garbo nominations
Moved discussion to talk p.

Re: Garbo revision
Hi, I was just making it so the footnotes displayed in ascending order (i.e. 1 first), rather than the other way around. I don't think there's an actual guideline about this, but I and a number of other editors prefer it that way; it just seems neater. Re: the relationship to Green, see the mention of him at the "In retirement" section of Garbo's article. Graham 87 02:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
...and Happy Thanksgiving.

Actually, I was just thinking about you a few days ago. I realized I hadn't seen any edits or posts for a while and was wondering if you were still around. No really important news here, but I hope things are going good for you. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry...
I just made a tiny edit at Mercedes de Acosta, and it reminded me that I had forgotten to reply to your last message a while ago. Things were a bit hectic in real life for the past couple of months, and I meant to write but then it slipped my mind. Not doing anything really major or exciting on Wikipedia recently; just little gnomish clean-up stuff here and there. What's occupying you these days? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, welcome back. Is the directing thing a newly discovered talent, or just one you never mentioned before? Still teaching, too, or taking a sabbatical?


 * Don't know if you saw it, but there was a minor disagreement @ GG a little while ago. Back to that thing about "how many times" she was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar. I'm still not all that thrilled with the way we worked it out, but had to defend it because it's what the only source I have access to says (i.e., the Academy Awards website), even though somewhat indirectly.


 * Stanwyck could be interesting. At least, unlike Garbo, I actually recall seeing her in a couple of old films (not even counting Big Valley). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, 4 should be cited. This is the way we calulate now I think. 3 is another paradigm. Directed quite a lot. But took it up again and it's clear to me that directing is my talent. I'm a person of the theatre. And film. Must make the most of it. What is/are your talents?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't figured that out yet. Maybe when i grow up I'll discover something. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey...
Always good to hear from you. Been a bit busy and not in the mood to edit recently. Had a class reunion; good seeing folks for the first time in years. How's the directing going? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

later...

Actually, if I had been thinking about it, which I wasn't, I probably would have guessed you at somewhere around 55–60; too much background and experience in evidence to be, say, 25. No, you mentioned the directing a few messages ago, but not in the latest one. Not clear, though, whether it was a professional production, college group, local amateur theater group, or what. Glad it was a success, though.

I see somebody again broke the GG filmography out to a separate article. I'm still not sure it's necessary, but I don't care enough either way. I think I've mentioned in the past that i don't know much about Good Articles and Featured Articles; that hasn't changed, but you can probably get some information at this link. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * hi again. Class reunion--Cool!. College? High School? Pre-K? Shifting from scholarship to directing is liberating, as evidenced by the two years I spent on Garbo! and later, MdA (more important contribution). Obviously no motivation for scholarship that will gain me full professorship and no merit raises. Who cares. You only live once and briefly at that. Super motivated to direct. Next campus production is a farce by Moliere and this summer I'll try to line up semi-professional gigs in town. Happy for your small edit to MdA p. Yeah, not interested in another round of arguing against separate page for filmography. Who cares, really. Thanks for link to good/featured articles! Will keep you posted.


 * on Stanwyck. I was fascinated by her for about 2 years, like GG. Saw all of her pictures at least once. One of a kind, like all the premier stars. And incredibly versatile. Problem is I've moved on and would have to read the new 1000 pp. bio and keep re-reading parts or all. So, maybe some day if I get re-interested.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, posting on my talk page was probably a good idea. Your page is still on my watch list, but I don't review the list as thoroughly or as often as I used to, so a posting here might be easily missed. Much like the case with the GG filmography, I can't convince myself to care that much about the articles, and I'm tired of feeling like I've been drafted into a poorly titled Glenn Beck book...


 * Well, technically it was high school, but based on the people I hung out with both evenings, for all practical purposes it could have been grade school; lots of the same people in third and twelfth grades. As to the years, I'll just mention that it was impossible not to be struck by the anachronism that the reunion – like the original graduation – was lily-white, and let you draw your own inferences. Interesting – and probably fairly common – dynamic: the guy voted "most likely to succeed" was nearly impossible to locate, apparently didn't respond to any calls or emails and was a no-show; the guy who self-identified as class clown and least likely to succeed has double doctorates in science... At least we had good period music; the school's second-best (some would say best but second most successful) garage band partially reconstituted for the dinner to reprise their one-and-only top-100 effort. Definitely helped in the memories department.


 * So in other words, you're still at the university but reducing the academic workload? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, there
Wow. Pleasant surprise hearing from you. Glad to hear (or infer) the directing is going well. Always good to be doing something you enjoy. I haven't really been working on anything lately; at WP, for instance, if you were to check my edit history – I haven't bothered – I doubt there's more than 5–10 changes since we last talked. Just sort of bored with the whole process. I do still check in to read sometimes, though.

I do want to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving though, and continued success in your artistic efforts. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Greta Garbo page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=645815309 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F645815309%7CGreta Garbo%5D%5D Ask for help])

Trouble?
We're heading for trouble if you go on being disruptive on Greta Garbo by trying to get your way about her gossipped-about lesbianism without additional source back up and by ignoring the talk page. In any cae, that isn't going to work. You should know better. There is no reliable source material to support your wish to label her as a lesbian in the eyes of our readers. None! You're just going to have to accept that as a fact. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoa. No need to be hostile. You should know better, as you said to me! I don't know why you refer to this as gossip or unsubstantiated. It seems you are the one making drastic changes without discussing them on the talk p. I have cited five, yes five, sources to back up my statements. When I go to the talk p., I see you have said the exact same things you said three years ago. please Serge, read the sources and stop saying they don't exist! No, I have no need to call her a lesbian or bisexual. I could care less. I've just studied and read everything about GG, I am simply trying to inform readers of what has been written about it. The most recent source is the author of a biography of Mercedes de Acosta. Please read that. It's very clear. If this section is written as you like, it will mislead the public and ignore what we know know. I will continue to revert to the previous edit which I wrote very carefully to reflect what has been written. If you would like to have an editing war (which would be silly) we'll have to get a mediator or something. But at the very least, please stop saying 1) that I need to identify her as a lesbian, which I don't--I am a dispassionate scholar, and 2) please stop saying there are no sources to back up my statement. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Sondheim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julius Epstein. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
This clearly constitutes a personal attack of the kind that is frowned upon, especially as it was completely unnecessary in that context. An article talk page is not supposed to contain such material about & aimed at any editors. I do not indulge in personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA, WP:TPYES and WP:TPNO carefully, and refrain henceforth from attacking anyone! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion to my edit to Greta Garbo
If you were able to go back in time and ask Garbo herself, which do you think she would say she was maintaining by living the way she did: her privacy, or her "mystique"? Ormewood (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course. But the article is not from her perspective. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the sentence in question, verbatim:
 * "Garbo-watching" became a sport for photographers, the media, admirers, and curious New Yorkers, but she maintained her elusive mystique to the end.
 * Note: it says she maintained her "elusive mystique." It doesn't say that the press insisted on calling her efforts at maintaining her privacy "mysterious", "elusive", etc. (the standard gambit of the press when famous people get sick of the toxicity of fame and start trying to live a more private life...J.D. Salinger is a great example). The only thing she, personally, was maintaining was her privacy.
 * She was a really good actor, but she couldn't stand being a celebrity (completely understandably). There wasn't ever anything "elusive" or "mysterious" about her. That was all nonsense that was ginned up by the media when she started giving them nothing to write about. Ormewood (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * She retained her reclusive mystique to the public and to her public, not to herself. It is a cultural concept. Much is said in the article about her quest for privacy. No need to repeat that. What's interesting and that should be noted in a fair representation of Garbo's persona in film history is that she retained the elusive mystique she projected from her first day in Hollywood. As for her need for privacy, that's certainly true but it's a different category. It makes no sense to say "she retained her privacy till the end." Of course she did. Who would think she might suddenly change her personality during the last years of her life. So no, I wouldn't say that. But as for her importance in cultural history, "she retained her elusive mystique" (or whatever it is), well that says something about her significance as a cultural icon. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording was that SHE "maintained" her "elusive mystique," and it closes a passage which discussed her avoidance of publicity.
 * I suspect she would have been revulsed at the idea that she, personally, was "maintaining" an "elusive mystique." She was, in fact, doing everything she could to live a private life, away from scrutiny by the press and the public.
 * The "elusive mystique" bit was bullshit manufactured by the press to spin the fact that she was avoiding publicity. And you are doing your best to see to it that follows her beyond the grave. Ormewood (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with your point. (Except the unnecessary bit at the end.) Will ponder how to re-word it so that it's clear the "elusive mystique" "followed" her to the end and was not her intention, which was simply to maintain privacy.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)