User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 10

Princess Diana
Fat and happy, why do you keep undoing the changes I made on Princess Dianas ancestry. I erased the part that said the her great grandmother Elza Kevork was Indian and dark skinned. When a dark skinned person marries a white man the kids don't come out white, they come out slightly ligher but the pigment never goes away and even generations later the dark pigment remains. Therefore logic and science tells us that Elza Kevork could not have been dark skinned or Indian because her children were white. Princess Diana is as fair as they come. My mom is 100% Armenian and she looks just like Princess Diana, she has pale blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.228.12 (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rev/del
I did quite a few, others did the rest. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw a couple you did, which is why I posted the others to your page originally; then I saw they had been picked off already, and killed my post. Thanks for the response. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Leland Stanford, robber baron
Are you sure Leland Stanford wasn't a robber baron? Here in California, in the public schools, we are taught that he was one of the "big four" robber barons (the others being Collis Huntington, Charles Crock, and Mark Hopkins). The term "robber baron" was coined in 1934 by historian Matthew Josephson for a book he wrote called The Robber Barons. Stanford did great work late in his life, founding Stanford University among other things, but he was much hated in California in the 19th Century, especially by wheat farmers, whom he gouged and put out of business by the thousands by charging outlandish rates to carry their wheat to market on his railroad lines. Some historians want to give Stanford's image a makeover and soften his reputation. In a forward to the 1962 edition of his book, Josephson wrote the following about these historians:


 * Of late years, however, a group of academic historians have constituted themselves what may be called a revisionist school, which reacts against [my] critical spirit of the 1930’s.... To [these] revisionists of our history our old-time moneylords “were not robber barons but architects of material progress,” and, in some wise, “saviors” of our country. They have proposed rewriting parts of America’s history so that the image of the old-school capitalists should be retouched and restored, like rare pieces of antique furniture. This business of rewriting our history—perhaps in conformity to current fashions in intellectual reaction—has unpleasant connotations to my mind, recalling the propaganda schemes used in authoritarian societies and the “truth factories” in George Orwell’s anti-utopian novel 1984.

The article Robber baron (industrialist) describes thinking about what constitutes a robber baron and lists Leland Stanford as a robber baron.

I don't think Wikipedia should be part of this revisionist school but should tell it like it is, and call Stanford what he was -- a robber baron. Just my two cents... Chisme (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And I don't think a reputable encyclopedia should begin a biography by presenting a pejorative, opinion-based term as an uncontested factual characterization of the subject and then fail to present any evidence in the remainder of the article explaining the term, justifying its use as appropriate, and possibly mentioning that its use in reference to the subject is contested. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll work on writing up a robber baron section for the article. Chisme (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks. I frequently need that. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
 * If only my Portuguese vocabulary consisted of more than one word... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with Peer Review needed: Jayne Mansfield


A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Currently it's going through another peer review. Please, lend a hand. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Never having participated in a peer review, I'm a bit unsure as to what's involved and what "help" would consist of. Any suggestions? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cruise
Do you have a common sense ? look what you've done to this article ! --Napsync (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Napsync, if you have a problem with an edit that Fat&Happy has made, please no personal attacks. Regards,  Wheres  T  ristan  23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Overrule category
I have initiated a DRV here for the overrules category that you recently nominated. Savidan 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin article edit undo
You undid this edit today indicating it wasn't in the source article: "though no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen." That phrase is directly from the sourced article. Please re-read the entire article, and when convinced, redo your undo for me. I came to your talk page to avoid an edit war, thinking that you probably just missed the information by not reading down far enough in the article or something. Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I have no explanation. It's not that I didn't read far enough; when I rechecked just now and found the sentence (in two seconds), I remembered reading the two paragraphs before it and the paragraph after but somehow managed to miss the relevant sentence itself. Sorry. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, oops, I went ahead and did it myself. I just came back here to say so. :) Thanks and Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. We may have had an edit conflict; the history shows my undo as having taken. Which is just as well – this way you're not charged with a revert for the day under the 1RR restrictions. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For your information
Your user name is now featured on Mashable.com in a bar-graph illustrating, ahem, us five Wikipedians with a few dozen edits, at least, upon Wikipedia's BLP about Mitt Romney during the Primaries to-date (altho most of my edits there--and in general--tend to be something like adding a hyphen and then afterward deciding to delete it and stuff ): LINK.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: this was borrowed from Yahoo News and your user name's also mentioned here: LINK--i/e under the heading of top edits to the Gingrich blp and the like. :~) '~) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Template links
Hi Fat&Happy. I see you are a template guru, so I have question for you: Is it possible to unlink the links to the disambiguation page Unkown (but keep the text) in the election templates in Gatton by-election, 1803 (check) and 13 other articles? Applying nowiki tags doesn't work... LittleWink (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick acknowledgement... I'm hardly an anything guru, definitely not a template one, but I'll take a look at the page and see if I can figure something out. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you mean now. Two possible fixes come to mind. the first would be a one-off change to the way parameters are used for the template in that particular article, which would manually override the template's default way of doing things and properly link "Tory" but leave "unknown" as not linking to anything. The second option is a change to a sub-template to force "unknown" to always link to another article instead of the dab page, the problem being that I didn't come up with (after a very brief search) a good page to link to. The best I could do is the "unknown" page at Wiktionary, but other suggestions will be gratefully accepted. I rather prefer the second approach, so all uses of the word for a party (there are less than 20 currently) would be treated the same. Any comments or suggestions? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of good Wikipedia article to link to either. Personally I prefer unlinking the word "unknown" as WP:OVERLINK states that linking plain English words should be avoided. It is also a common word, so linking to Wiktionary isn't necessary in my onion. (I unlinked another 15 or so links in other articles where this word was used to describe something not know.) Cheers LittleWink (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the article's infobox, and a similar use of "unknown" for the party in another templated table. The infobox change is a bit more complicated than it needs to be; I was attempting to maintain consistency with the shortname and color templates for the Tory party, but could only make it work for the shortname and had to hard-code the colour-bar colour. But I left the complex version for the name as a guide for anyone (including myself) who wants to spend waste more time on it later. If you need to make similar changes to other articles, the relevant portions are the party_name=no parameter and the piping of the party's article name to it's common short name.


 * The italics are optional; feel free to remove them, but I've seen them used in similar cases to distinguish comments from actual names. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I liked the italics and used it when I fixed all other articles with these templates. But the ranked choice template in San Francisco mayoral election, 2011 puzzles me again. What is the solution here? LittleWink (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. That one was a bit trickier; I couldn't locate an alternative template (like Election box candidate with party link / Election box candidate), so I just followed the old brute force approach and made one. I can never gat those curly-brackets right the first time, though... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But you manage to create a working template. I already thought creating a new template was necessary but I wouldn't even try to start with one. Thanks again. LittleWink (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, all right, a small modification to my very first response here... I make some claim to being a mini-guru of the art of cut-and-past appropriation of earlier works (both my own and others'). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Garbo images
Back again to bother you! Today, a user recently replaced susan lennox pic at top of gg p. with what i consider to be a terrible AK photo. Then s/he added the SL pic to the body of the text, creating huge gap betw sections and overcrowding it as well. I wrote him/her and, arguing that previous pic and arrangement MUCH better, reverted the change and saying we might want to put the discussion on the talk p, where it now is. Perhaps you might check in and pitch your opionion. You'll also notice some other pic changes I made after user informed me of some WP image placement protocol, so the p. will look different (and better) to you anyway. Hope you're well!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, unless I'm confused about our agreement, I think the two of us just got it resolved. So you're off the hook! I keep trying to sort of let go of the p. but then editors make changes and because I am so emotionally close to the page, I have strong feelings about big changes. On the other hand, the imagery looks much better after I learned more about image guidelines. Hope youre' having WP fun! Greetings, your old pal--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi F&H, well this whole discussion is madness now. Await your comments on how to resolve the argument, which is what it's become. An editing war, I guess. Who would have thought? It's an excellent, well-researched and written page as it stands. I'm already exhausted thinking about getting back into this page when I thought I had finished. But unfortunately I don't agree with many of his or her changes and additions which I think, and have made clear, weaken the p. And I presume you read my exegesis in which I tried to defend the section as it is.

But on another matter. Can you explain how to archive stuff on my talk page? I did it once but now i can't find a link. Thanks for your help,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't checked most recent discussion at GG; tied up with Dell tech support for a couple of hours yesterday and today, etc. But for archiving, I don't see where you ever did it (admittedly cursory search), but until things get unwieldy, just copy and paste sections from your talk page to User talk:Classicfilmbuff/Archive 1 (you can erase the word "placeholder" put there just to force the page to save). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, but I can't find the Archive link on my talk page. Where is it? I can't just keep using the link you've provided! :)
 * OK, I put one there.
 * Just an observation – if the content is worth actually archiving and not just deleting, it's probably better to retain the separate sections, which will (eventually, when there are more than three) give you a table of contents, providing some organization to the chaos. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it there. Why wasn't it there to begin with?
 * Very few things in Wikipedia are fully automatic. Creating the archive page, which was all I did, doesn't create a pointer to it on the main page, which I should have thought of (especially since I had just finished redesigning the little archive link box for my own page). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to delete anything. I was trying to archive, with sections in place. I knew I screwed up as soon as I did it.
 * It will take me around 50 seconds to restore the headings and anything else accidentally deleted if you'd like. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW I realized I was out of line in deleting a message I sent you on your p. It's none of my business to do this and I apologize.
 * Meh, no problem. Pretty much everything on WP is recoverable (some minor exceptions at the discretion of admins, but I think even those can be recovered by another admin). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have time, what do you do with Dell? Other computer related stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 April 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Mostly bitch and moan about things not working right on a new laptop. (Actually, not completely true. The tech support guy working with me has been very helpful, and in reality the first thing I called about was based on a mistake I made when ordering. But there are still some [minor?] problems.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All fascinating. Particularly since so much of what you say goes right over my head, for example your discussion of pointers to archive blah blah on the main page, which you "should have thought of." I don't even know what the main page is which I assume is diff than the home p.
 * Yeah, could you restore the stuff i deleted and put it into my archive and don't bother explaining how you did it. I'm an idiot but used to be very goodlooking I'm told.
 * Done. If I added too much, you can easily delete. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As for "meh," I'm surprised you're not a mac user. Why mess around with pc's any more? I use a pc because that's what I have at work.Maybe you too. But as soon as I retire, that's it.
 * "Old dogs..." I sort of feel about Microsoft – in a much smaller manner, of course – the same way Winston Churchill did about democracy. (You know, "the worst [company] ever...)
 * Last thing. The GG talk p. has gotten huge and unweildy, don't you think the stuff thats 2 or 3 yrs old should be archived?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not a bad idea at this point. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally. You may be interested to know that after the debate plays out with Wikiwatcher and any other interested talk p. readers, I'm going to let go of the page completely. Just not look at it. This past go-round was emotionally wrenching and I spent a lot a lot of time defending the reasons for my actions. So, 1), I never want to go through that again, 2) I understand the nature of the beast and know now that pages can go up and down in quality, things that are written can be deleted, changed, etc., etc., and 3) I have to move on. This p. has dominated my life for almost 8 months. I think the page as it stands is superb and written according to the highest standard of scholarly rigor. None of this would have happened without your participation. There is still more to say about Greta Garbo. Small mistakes should be corrected. If another wants to develop it further, I hope he or she will exhaust the available research and dispassionately write material that is consistent with the quality of the current version. I don't mean to sound conceited or egotistical--I'm too old and floored by life for that--I just know my strengths and limitations as a person. So I'll be watching for a couple of more weeks and then leave its future to the Wikipedia gods.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks babe, you know everyting. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there old buddy. Wikiwatcher just added a new image. Do you think the p. is now overcrowded? Also, should it have two photos from Ninotchka?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey. I noticed, but didn't pay too much attention until I saw your note above. I don't think it makes the page too overcrowded (the separate gallery helped a lot on that count), but my initial reaction when I first saw the change was to question the need for two Ninotchka pics. But the new one is a pretty good pic (tho' I still miss the old "hat" one that got summarily thrown away). The two vertical/portrait pics – Anna Christie and the new Ninotchka – could stand to be made a bit smaller by appropriate use of the "upright" parameter. I tend to agree with your comment on placement; if we must have two Ninotchkas, the one of her laughing should be switched back to complement the text about "Garbo laughs" and the rather standard glamor shot can be used as the standalone filler. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I questioned Wikiwatcher about the problem with 2 Ninotchka's. I think it's a mistake. If we're going to add one (which I personallydon't think we should), it should be from one of her most famous movies, Queen Christina, which isn't represented . I told Ww my thought. Said s/he'd look for some. W9ill you look too? I'm going to but of course don't know how to get around copyright rules so will put it up temporarily in GG talk p. In meantime, I'll shrink the N whch creates enormous gap. PS. watchout for peer0-review. Have to know a lot about the subject. Takes forever (I do it for a scholarly journal)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I sent this to Ww. Check out the google site yourself, if you have time/interest of course. "OK, google garbo queen christina "images." Look at first two. 2nd one of the most famous shots in cinema history. First slightly better quality. I think either would be a much better choice than having 2 pics from the same movie. What do you think?".....--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's me again. Can you do something valuable and at least shrink the damn thing now? It's quite out of proportion, I think, and of course creates the huge gap. thanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He chose another from Christina which is pretty damn good. One of her most famous movies and expresses her well-known androgyny which is part of her screen persona. So adds something new to the p. Do you like the dimensions? Seems a bit large to me but smaller wout obscure her eyes. btw. It's sat May 5 and Camille, whichmany think is her finest perfnc, is on tonight on tcm at 8:00 est. why not check it out for god's sake!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect timing. I may have noticed it myself, since Saturday evening is a pretty crappy TV time recently and TCM is on my normal channel-surf list, but I could easily have seen something else first and missed it. I'll give it a try, though I don't usually opt for movies pre-1940 (GWTW excepted, of course – as could be predicted from my user page).
 * I'd prefer the pix be a bit smaller, but since the discussions of this page are pretty much ex parte, why don't you see what WW thinks about adding an upright parameter? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with size. I assume ex parte means over and done with, but I don't think it is. Don't know what you mean by adding an upright parameter. Can you pose this question on the gg talk page, and also express your opinion about the size? Ww chatting on her talk p. As for camille, Notice how she usurps the entire screen when anyone else is on. Even when she's in a close-up lasting 1 or 2 seconds, she's electric. Also, you know everything she's thinking and feeling with the subtlest, tiny movments of her eyes, brows. Notice too how everything everybody else does when she's up gets reflected back to her. Absolutely remarkable. THis is what intriqued me so much to read her bio. then another. And another, and here I am still absorbed in the damned WP p.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi it's me. Last edit on g p. is: "Robot: sr:Грета Гарбо is a good article". Can you explain to me what this is? Also, watched Camille again last night and saw that while her perfnc is good, the movie has really dated unlike others she made. So, meh.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just one of the little robot programs we discussed a while ago, adding a notification that the Greta Garbo article in one of the other-language Wikipedias has been designated a "Good Article". Not sure which language "sr" is, but since it uses a Cyrillic alphabet my first guess would be Serbian. (Whatever the language, I applaud their editorial good taste – both the Mata Hari picture and the Anna Karenina one with the hat were featured in the main part of the article. A quick glance left the impression they don't have as many references as we do though.)


 * I sort of watched. That's the problem I have with TV – I can't just sit there and concentrate on whatever's on; I constantly distract myself by doing something on the computer, grabbing a snack or something to drink, etc. It actually seemed pretty good; maybe if I see another listing I'll try again and catch some different parts of it. (The upside here is that I can "watch" the same movie or TV rerun multiple times without being bored by having every scene memorized.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the class on 'good article." Are you planning to keep up with the Queen Christina and maybe resize it? I see Jane Mansfield on your p. I remember you mentioned about 6 mo's ago that I might consider working on her p. I chided you a bit, I think. What is it? you must have the hots for her.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, though I recall liking the Promises, Promises article at the time. But I'm away from my usual fast, cheap internet connection for a while, so I'm trying to minimize byte-count. More later. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. Can you explain the edit, and your reversion, on May 9? Seems like the other one changed U.S. to United States and you reverted back to U.S. What was his/her and your reasoning for for this tiny change? Yours,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Another technical question: What is helpful pixie bot?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of richest American politicians for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of richest American politicians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of richest American politicians 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 template from the top of the article. Dezastru (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama article
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you. Innab (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Modern/contemporary Sufi scholars" section of Sufism
Hi there!

Since you have frequently made edits to this section, I wonder if you have any opinion on |the discussion currently under way on the Talk page.

The basic issue is whether "Sufi scholars" should mean Sufis who are scholars (in whatever area), or scholars of Sufism.

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that a noted researcher, author, and professor of theoretical physics who attends religious services every day and reads the holy works of her/his faith nightly is properly classified as a scholar and a physics scholar – and as a religious person – but not as a religious scholar. The principle still applies when drilling down to subsets of the religion. But that's merely a personal view, not based on any particular expertise or education. So for now, I'll monitor the discussion but hold off on participating unless I see several other editors joining with opinions as unhelpful as I think mine would be... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JPM-Chase $2B Loss on Jamie Dimon Page
The entry on the Dimon page is about the $2B loss. The Krugman opinion ties it to the [Volker Rule]. My addition adds facts about Dimon and the Volker Rule to that page it is not disputing Klugman's opinions. It adds relevant facts from a reliable secondary source. From the Wiki help page 'Describing points of view': "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." Jamesedwardlong (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks
Thank you for fixing my mistake. Indeed, that is what I was trying to accomplish. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one of those days, I guess . BTW, another option would have been the templates !( for  and )! for the . Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanford I. Weill
Dear F&H, you reversed the line I entered about the Weills' buying an estate in Sonoma County, placed just before the line about their $12 million gift to Sonoma State University, on the rationale that it was out of place in a section on their philanthropy. In fact there is a clear connection, as is apparent in the immediately preceding item: first they buy property in an area, then they get involved with local philanthropy. Without the estate purchases, there would have been no local philanthropic gifts. Or maybe your logic would have you delete the reference to the land purhase in the previous item as well. But it does appear to be an interesting, connected pattern. Dwalls (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The thought crossed my mind, especially since the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph has been marked Cn for six months. Actually, although somewhat synth-y, the suggestion that the Weills contribute to local organizations after purchasing property in an area is interesting; my primary objection to the addition as made was the possibly unintended contrast between the amount paid for a personal estate and the smaller amount later donated to charity. Perhaps the estate purchase could be restored sans the $31 million price tag and Weill's comment (from the cited source) that they "love to be involved in the communities where we spend time" could be added, better illustrating your point? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the helpful suggestion.  I see your point more clearly after reviewing the WP:SYNTH guideline. Dwalls (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that works fine; glad you agree. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Learn to cite
I recommend Chicago. Revert yourself now. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Toby Keith article
Dude, I watched the CMT special. He did promise G-d that he'd quit by the time that he was 30. And you can do the homework yourself--Alicia Sandubrae is Krystal Keith's sister-in-law (Look at her Pininterest, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) and Shelley Covel Rowland is Toby Keith's daughter. Nickidewbear (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Nation
Your comment about the Lawyer's comments are wrong. Lawyers, Genealogists, and Historians all worked on that letter. It was not the opinion of the lawyer but fact. no lawyer in their right mind is going to go up against the Federal government without facts. And by the way, we won that case in Federal Court. The BIA conceded to us in front of the Supreme Court even though we didn't gain Federal Recognition. Ramapoughnative (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Frocks & smocks
Could you revisit your rvv change? You also reverted a few changes of mine there (the account I assume you meant only added to lead, not the later-sections' changes I made). DMacks (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reinstated my changes (the ones unrelated to that account). Feel free to discuss if you feel there is an error there. DMacks (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. My original intent was to eliminate all traces of the troll, but missed that you had slipped in a couple of actual fixes to older content in the middle of their edits (and was half asleep when your first comment above arrived, so didn't fully register it). Sorry. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! Happy editing (and enjoy a nap when you get a chance:) DMacks (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Uma Thurman
Discuss your objections here: Talk:Uma Thurman Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

account
F&H,

give examples of some of the million - because the section is about the provision of the service to the Post office, although have not seen research showing provision of "licence, etc" to be the case for any other similar organisation Largehole (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So the post office is one of their customers. So what? They're a $2-trillion bank that provides a wide variety of financial services to governments, corporations, small businesses and individuals all over the world. Debit cards are just one of those services. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

please go to Talk of the article as your criticism doesn't seem correct, although would be interesting if the facts were made more obvious by your referencing your statement, to my knowledge, the Electronic Transfer Service is the only one of this within the U.K. of which JP Morgan Europe are the only provider of the licence and EBT, they don't infact provide the customer service,(the Post Office provide this) the EBT of benefits is known of in the states of America also. Largehole (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the information $2-trillion  isn't very informative, and something has to fill the blank parts of the article, the information is interesting to me not seeming relevant to yourself, so is not democratic to remove the information,(1:1) and is not harmful to anything to leave the information in. (if no actual information of how the sum is being used etc is given nobody knows anything)Largehole (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(1:1) F&H, Largehole (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan military
Thanks for following-up on my recent edits on Ronald Reagan's military service section. Understanding Wikipedia's Manual of Style on military terms, I have some differences in the edits made. For instance, it appears a few of the terms should be proper, not general. It appears you have enough fights going on, so just take a look at my addition to the talk page and let me know what you think. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Starwars Music Entry
You deleted a link to the most extensive article on the Force Theme that exists on the web as well as in literature. The "fansite" jwfan.com is the biggest John Williams database on the whole worldwideweb. No one except maybe Steven Spielberg and John Williams closest friends have devoted more time to everything John Williams than this website and their members.

It is by far the biggest and best John Williams website on the worldwideweb. An official site doesn't even exist anymore. So this comes as close to official as it gets. To delete a link to a great article excactly on the subject just because it is posted on a "fansite" seems very superficial and one minded to me. I encourage you to rethink your decision to exclude the biggest and best John Williams resource on the net just because you don't seem to know anything about this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.80.155 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dangerfield citation in BUS
Why was the Dangerfield sourced material removed? Are you familiar with the topic? 36hourblock (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no idea what I was talking about; my mistake. 36hourblock (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I rely a bit too much on hovering images formatted by Popups. I later re-checked the full diffs to be absolutely sure I hadn't accidentally deleted actual content and decided you may have been temporarily misled by the way they show a couple of deletions of extraneous line breaks. No problem. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time (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) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama
This My fault for not paying attention to the date. Doh... you're right of course. TMCk (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering. I won't guarantee this is the first, but I can't recall (m)any edits of yours that I've disagreed with.


 * I, OTOH, read my watchlist from bottom to top and didn't notice until later that the subject had been taken to talk. It looks like the feeling is to keep, but I could be persuaded that "undue" applies if it goes the other way. (Just not "crystal" ). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither can I remember any occasion where I disagreed with an edit of yours. I usually don't check on edits with your name attached, contrary to the editing of some other fellows ;) Didn't check the talkpage and am busy with other things but maybe I take a peek at some point. Either way, I don't have strong feelings about the edit in question w/o reading further input on this. And yes, "undue" would be the only thing that might apply and I was, as I said, far off with my crystal ball. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

help with the politics entry
I'm trying to add some lines and suggestions to the wiki page about politics. As near as I can figure, you have tossed out my entries because they were presented as facts. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

Why are you moderator of this entry? Is there another moderator I can appeal to? maybe I don't understand how wiki works. But, the info I submitted is relevant and even 100X more coherent than the incomprehensible drivel that was there before, which offered nothing to the discussion about politics and property at all. I think some pot smoking history drop out was trying to tackle the issue before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.193.73 (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Vesper=Massacre
If you took the time to read Asiatic Vespers you would stumble over the word "massacre". That the title is vesper instead is not the point. see also here German.Knowitall (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to read the title of the article, you would stumble upon the fact that it is "List of events named massacres". It is not "List of events to which somebody, somewhere once referred as being a massacre".


 * If you took the time to read the edit note near the top of the article, you would have stumbled upon a paragraph on the inclusion criteria that begins:
 * "Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event. A reliable source that merely describes the event as being a massacre does not qualify the event for inclusion in this list. The word Massacre must appear in the source as part of a name for the event."


 * If you took the time to look at the article talk page, you would have stumbled upon a heavily highlighted permanent section titled "Criteria for including events in this list", which pretty much reiterates the contents of the edit note. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio media appearances
Why are you deleting sections of the Marco Rubio article leaving no summary and not commenting in the relevant section on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cher
I don't understand why you kept erasing the same words while claiming it was minor or not even giving a reason. To me, it smells like vandalism, but I don't know how all the rules work so I'll let others berate you. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can recommend a pretty good otorhinolaryngologist to help with that condition. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out that your mistake wasn't erasing the reference, it was refusing to explain why. Reasons matter but your insults are pointless. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OIC edit war
You seem to be edit warring to keep the well-cited criticism out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation. If I understand correctly, I could report you right now for WP:3RR and have you blocked. Is this what you want or are you going to put the criticism back yourself? 24.45.42.125 (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

reference opinion?
from Mormonism and Christianity, regarding inclusion of Mormonism and/or Latter Day Saint movement in Christianity and environmentalism article without clarification.

99.109.124.95 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism vandalism
cunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slr722x (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 May 2012‎ (UTC) @ User:Fat&Happy

Please stop making changes to Islamic view of Joseph - In Islam, photos are not prohibited of Prophets; therefore you have no right to keep editing my changes; they are personal feelings they're Islamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slr722x (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Why are you posting lies on Wikipedia?
You lie that Sheriff Arpaio has not sent investigators to Hawaii. Or you are uninformed. Just Google "Sheriff Arpaio investigators Hawaii" and you will see plenty of articles. Please undo your lie and put the truthful version back on. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sheriff-arpaio-s-detectives-concentrate-investigation-hawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 8 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment
Dear F & H -

You've been editing some of my recent posts, and thank you. Can you review some of the articles I've rewritten and see if they are suitable for Good Article Reassessment? Thanx. Dallas tariff, Era of Good Feelings and Bank War. 67.59.92.60 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. First – and most importantly – this question completely slipped my mind. I was also a bit confused as to what edits I had made to your recent posts, something cleared up by the question below.


 * Your request timing is mildly ironic. If you check the last three or four paragraphs of the (exceedingly long) "archiving ?" section above, you can see why I say that.


 * As I sort of mention there, I'm far from an expert on Good Article criteria, but even so I'll be glad to take a look at the three articles you mention and get back to you in a day or two. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Second Bank of the United States
On July 5, 2012, you revised the block quote in this article and integrated it into the text. You also seemed to have introduced two citations from Schlesinger and Wilentz. The only sources I offered in the original were from Varon and Dangerfield.

Did you source these and add them? If not, where did they come from? Did the Schlesinger and Wilentz cits get moved from another portion of the my text? Please check. 36hourblock (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The original assertion that Taylor and Randolph opposed the bank as overreaching and a danger to slavery was sourced to Schlesinger, Wilentz and Varon. When you a dded the direct quote from Taylor, you sourced it to Dangerfield and the same page of Varon as the original assertion. I moved the quote to the end of the existing sentence, both to eliminate the implied special importance the grab quotes impart and to somewhat clarify the context of the quote in regard to the earlier statement. Rather than interrupting the reader by sprinkling separate citations through the resulting sentence, I combined them at the end, giving precedence to the two you had used for the direct quote itself. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When the number of cits gets over 100, it's like herding cats. Thank you for clarifying the matter. Best, 36hourblock (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Dan Senor
I dont know what your game is but you obviously arent sensitive to the issue of intermarriage as it relates to the Jewish community and how it should be reported concerning a prominent member such as Mr Senor when he marries a Catholic woman. Is it something that should be noted neutrally in his bio? I think so but I guess you have the final word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.101.88 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1824
Ok, WTF are you doing. C T J F 8 3 00:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Judah P. Benjamin
You deleted the comment about his sexual orientation as "speculation." The cited work, "A World on Fire," mentions that possibility. The book quotes the diary of Lord Russell, British Foreign Secretary, who remarked that Benjamin was "clever keen & well yes! What keen and clever men sometimes are." Benjamin's hasty departure to New Orleans, his quick marriage to a rich woman, the fact that nine years elapsed before they had a child, and his wife's decision to move to Paris and live separate and apart from him all point in that direction.John Paul Parks (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreman is speculating about the meaning of Lord Russell's speculation. You are speculating from the sequence of Foreman's narrative that she is ascribing his expulsion from Yale to this speculated cause. Three levels of speculation; this hardly meets the requirements of WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks for the response.John Paul Parks (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
Hi thank you for the sources. However, I fail to see how the deaths and OIC's stance relates. Did OIC ask people do demonstrate violently? Were all demonstrations violent? If neither is answered as a "yes" wording needs to be adjusted. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns; my initial reaction on reviewing the paragraph after you tagged it was that the mention of the violent and fatal demonstrations represented inappropriate synthesis. However, only synthesis by Wikipedia editors is prohibited here, not synthesis by reliable sources. I tried to reword the paragraph in as neutral a manner as possible while accurately reflecting the content of the source, which pretty much draws a straight line from the cartoon through the OIC condemnation to the heightened awareness and the violence. I have no particular attachment to the current phrasing, and if you can suggest a better way of presenting the issue, I say "go for it". You may also be able to find some sources showing that the OIC attempted to quell the violence; I believe I saw such a statement somewhere, but chose not to expand the section covering this minor (in terms of the OIC's overall history) issue further. Since I'm already currently involved in a rolling content dispute where I've been accused of attempting to censor criticism of the OIC, and an article talk page discussion regarding needed changes to the LGBT issues section, I'd prefer to have you or someone else do the heavy lifting on changes to the cartoons section, though. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case it should be portrayed by a claim from the said source. "Foo claims" format basically. Feel free to try to reword it. I am no expert on the topic which is why I would prefer someone who knows whats going on write down the issues. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

archiving ?
Hi F&H,long time no see. I've been away from the p. for 2 weeks. Came back for a visit and realized that much of the Talk p. should be archived. Much of it is too old with no comments for several years and others are too "bulky," as "archive help" calls it. i'm trying to archive stuff and I simply cannot figure out the instructions. Can you provide me with a simpler, clearer explanation? hope you're well, arriva derci,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, I promise I'll never bother you again. Honestly. I know you've helped me with this procedure before but now I'm lost. Last request. If I don't hear from you, thanks for everything. Been fun. Hope all goes merrily with you. Hope all goes merrily with you,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello my friend, I'm sorry you've been feeling pissy and lethargic recently. Yes, I deal with this all the time so I completely ustand. What a treat to get something frm you on my talk p.!!! Thanks for the bot job. Interesting that no one seems to write anything on the talk p. Moreover, noone has made significant edits to the G page except Wikiwatcher a few months ago. I corrected his mistakes and he seemed satisfied. I'd love to see some additions to deepen the page--without diminishing it--but nothing yet. I take this to mean that the p. is in pretty good shape. I keep making tiny prose tweaks and adjusting words and sentences for accuracy. I even corrected a citation I made. Eventually, I'll say goodbye but still attached and small, but significant adjustments continue to pop into my head. Thanks so much for your message. I remain fascinated by all the articles you work on which seem to cover such a rich variety of totally unrelated subjects.


 * When your energy's back and mood improved, and only then, I'd love to ustand how to archive myself. The last and only archive was dated 2009 and so a lot of the stuff needs to disappear. Just bullet instructions on my talk page. Went to Italy for 10 days. Everyone who can afford it (I barely can) needs to go there once every few years to be rejuvenated. Warmly,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Something seems to be wrong with the auto-archive instructions I added. And I can't remember who I've seen that looks to be expert on that subject to ask to look at it. Hopefully I can remember or figure it out somr time soon... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good timing; see this thread: User talk:Wwoods. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. Away now but will check it out soon and keep you posted. Thnx so much for the link.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello friend, I see that the bot (whatever the hell that is) archived all the old stuff. Very good. Thank you! As for the 2012, I understand the protocol now--wait at least 2-3 years unless thread really really long in which case one year. Got it. Won't worry about it till next spring. But there are 3 or 4 subjects that just go on and on. I can't imagine anyone bothering to read them--especially since I pretty much resolved them with my arguments against redundancy, inadequate sources, and inaccurate information. Not trying to pat my head but just a fact. I'd love it if someone came along and added to and enriched the page. But my stuff is pretty solid and don't want to see it messed up--like above. So I'll stay in touch. Amazing that except for afformationed edits, the page has held steady for almost a year. What do you think of the GG web site below her opening pic and basic info? I think it should go. Site is illegitimate for encyc entry and says virtually nothing of interest. Who knows who wrote it? Certainly not a scholar. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No actually I set it up to do a 90-day lookback, so if a thread has not had any additional posts in the last 90 days, it will be archived automatically. The long ones you mention should go around the middle of July unless someone revives them before then. But it will leave three threads, so the latest short ones may survive for a while.


 * Unfortunately, the web site seems to be the "official" site of her heirs or something, so removing it could meet with legitimate resistance. Other than that, I don't see it adding a lot and their choice of pictures to display sucks bigtime, but it's fairly harmless. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for edification on archiving. Policy is rational, always a good thing in life!
 * Actually, no policy and questionable rationality involved. I just picked 90 days as an arbitrary number that would clear out superfluous garbage without completely emptying the page when it's less active. 60 would have probably done just as well. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting about "official" web site. Useless but harmless as you say. The official web site should be "Garbo Forever" which covers all possible information about every possible aspect and detail of her life. Dispassionate and, according to my research, very reliable but not a legit WP source. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I almost said exactly the same thing in my post above (absent, of course, "according to my research, very reliable", since you know I don't have the background to make such a statement). But then I forgot by the time I finished typing the rest of the paragraph. :) At least it's included in the external links section. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike... I always forget things in the space of 2-5 minutes ;---) New G bio written by a guy who writes really trashy bios about stars. Even the publisher's description contains a false assertion. Utterly illegit. So I'll keep my eye on the the p. to see if anyone adds junk from it. Some trivia to waste yours and my time and procrastinate: Apparently the quote "We've got to stop meeting this way" derives from one of G's silents (1929); also I heard that "put that in your pipe and smoke it" derives from G's first talky, 1930. Ahhh the joys of the insignificant.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did somebody say "waste time"?
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzgMHP4cu8o
 * http://www.quora.com/Phrase-Origins/What-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-Put-that-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it
 * Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fun! wasting time,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi F&H, check out all the changes Suncreaator made to the reference section. All in error! Do you think he or she just didn't check? Or just wacko. Wrote him/her and asked if s/he planned to keep working or should we undo. pretty weird. Thoughts or explanation of problems user tried to fix? Have a grand 4th and don't forget to salute the flag.
 * Well, they've gone and fixed the problem with a zillion changes that I don't ustand. I will say that all the ref sequences he says he changed related to previous editors' work. I wish I could follow it but it's above my WP intelligence level. See ya,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So glad SunCreator has moved all that superfluous ref content to the talk p. I now think s/he is making a really valuable contribution, even though I don't ustand most of it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was unhappy with the "original" edit someone else made, squishing the refs into an unintelligible mass, but I didn't have time to fix it properly if I had reverted when I first saw it. By the time I remembered to check again, several other changes had been made, and they all took on a "too long; didn't read" character. I still haven't reviewed in detail, but SunCreator's changes seem to be a big improvement. I think there's a tag that can be put on a talk page section to prevent that section from being automatically archived; maybe the saved refs should have that done for a few months? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you guys are amazing (i know I'm stereotyping by assuming he's a guy but let's face it--the vast majority of technical and computer wizards are guys). For instance, I'm a gal and ustand about 1/10th of what you're both talking about. I've been trying to follow some of the crazy tech stuff you've done for a year and remain mystified. But I'm really glad you think he's improving the p. a lot. Salute the flag my dear as our "great" nation falls apart.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah btw. I thought you set up the talk p. to archive after 90 days. But all that that endless conversation I had with Wiki somebody is still there and it's been way over 90 days.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's done a section/thread at a time by age of the section, not by each individual message. As I recall, a couple of sections were active until around April 10–15, so they should be moved in the next week or so. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the article's excellent and the refs and cits have all been updated and cleaned up. No one's made any significant change for many months which suggests to me that it's solid. Do you think it might qualify to be a featured article? What's involved in submitting it? What exactly happens when an article is featured? Is it worth the trouble?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really much help on this. I pay about as much attention to Featured Article and Good Article nominations as I do to the article ratings.


 * If you look at the top of the article's talk page, you'll see that someone nominated it for FA status back in '06, and there's a link to the comments made when it failed at that time.

--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You could also take a look at WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles for some background on what the designation entails. Personally, I think I'd try for the lesser "Good Article" designation first, then use that experience to try for the next level. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't sound like it's worth the time if people like you don't bother with them. But I'll check out the information bye and bye. Thanks, though--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. A lot of editors here place value in the ratings and the article status. I guess you could say it's sort of the WP equivalent of an academic having their paper selected for a prestigious journal. As I recall, Lobo[some number], who helped out on Garbo quite a bit while being involved in her own projects, has proposed several articles for GA/FA status.


 * I thought about you when I ran across this edit an another talk page earlier today. Even if you're completely uninterested in the subject, it's a pretty short article and you might gain some insight by looking at it and then following the Feature Article Review through to see how the system works from beginning to end. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Been away. Very interesting and intelligent WP editor responses in GHWB article. Will study and determine extent to which the GG article meets criteria, consider changes (e.g., Queen of MGM, which I can't figure out how to rephrase in dispassionate, yet interesting, prose--any ideas?) and ponder submitting to editorial board for F or GA status.. What's the difference? I think most my writing probably meets standards of scholarly peer-review but not sure to what extent scholarly is diff from encyclopedic writing. Send along any other links like Bush you come across. Meanwhile, hope life's treating you well. anon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one problem is organizational. A new section called "personal life" should be created that would include elements now in "retirement" and "relationships" sections. I've known this for awhile and have hoped someone would take this on. I think the current text is important and effective but page would benefit from this revision. Not sure I have time to do this since it would involve adding more information about her personal life, which she assiduously attempted to conceal. One would need to research the good biographies and thread dispersed bits and pieces in to a narrative whole--time-consuming and challenging. do you agree with the structural problem I identify here,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.248.251 (talk)