User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 8

African American Firsts

 * Discussion moved to Talk:List of African-American firsts

The first African American playboy playmate does not constitute much of a barrier breaking precedent. This information is better suited on the subjects', Jennifer Jackson's article and Renee Tenison's article or preferably on the | playboy one. Most of the accomplishments listed on the above article have been of incalculable significance in African American history marking milestones as well as setting momentous precedents for generations of black Americans. Keep this in perspective, before reverting the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.90.1.65 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Input?
Hey Fat I wondered if you might have any suggestions, or input for my article on MSNBC Controversies. You seem to be up on the News artcles, and I thought this might be up your ally. Thanx Jetijonez (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't consider myself up on the news articles at all, especially if I'm correct in thinking you mean "the news media" rather than "current news/events". I somehow got involved on the Fox News talk page by following another editor I "talk page stalk" there, and have since made a couple of reverts on the article (including both Arzel and Gamaliel – not exactly consistent...) but that's about it.


 * I skimmed through the article in your sandbox. As controversy articles go, it seemed pretty well done, but it's not really a topic I have enough interest in to do anything much more than wikignoming grammar and formatting changes. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, still appreciate the skim though Jetijonez (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick Perry
"Comprehensive heading"? It's almost the antithesis of comprehensive -- since there is no mention of L, B or T. It is also not accessible because a lot of people don't know what stands for. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more comprehensive, and better reflects the broader content of the section, than "Same-sex marriage position". And a reader would have needed to be sleeping under a rock for the last 20 years to not be aware of the meaning, at least conceptually, even if they don't know what each letter stands for. It's the standard terminology for the broad range of issues, and if Perry ever says, for instance, that bisexual people need not abstain from the same activities as gay people, that would belong in the section. As to whether subgroups are represented in the current content, "L"s are homosexual and participate in same-sex marriages; 50% of "B"s are as likely as "G"s to be affected by Lawrence; the "T"s, are a more complex case, but are likely to be affected by at least one of the discussed issues under Texas law. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

NPA
this looks a lot like a personal attack. A suggestion would be to revert, and ask the editor/IP nicely, to refrain making those changes. Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

George Soros
George Soros is ethnically a Jew. Sourced in article. Quit censoring Wikipedia faggot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.171 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Mechanics & MLK article
Thanks for the heads up about the WP Manual of Style; I now feel rather sheepish for having been preachy in my edit note, and I apologize for that. It grates against every fiber of my being, though.Grandpallama (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Took me a couple of seconds to figure out what your post above referred too, though. Conversely, it's one of the MoS rules I actually support. (Added spaces around every mdash in one major article when I first started – 'cause that's what I'm most used to seeing elsewhere – and had to go change them all back when I stumbled across the MoS a few days later.) I still get confused on the application of "logical quote" in some ambiguous cases involving phrases terminated by commas, but a comma or period within a title or single-word description drives me crazy. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Harris poll link
Thanks for finding that Wayback link for Obama - for some reason the site kept crashing on me when I tried to get it earlier, so I went with NYT. But having both is good. So annoying when people remove chunks of text just because they don't see a good link. It ain't that hard. Cheers! Tvoz / talk 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been having intermittent problems with Wayback for at least this month to date, maybe a bit longer. Last night I was looking up several for some article, and either the specific server for a version was down, or the site was having problems, etc. Some of the "server down"s I could use another date OK, but it's a bit of a pain. And I'm not quite organized enough to make notes and go back later. (I freely admit that I'll revert maybe 90% of new content I see posted without a ref, but I hate the disruption of established stuff, especially just because of a deadlink.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * exactly. Tvoz / talk 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mount Everest
Hi.

See, that's interesting, and I actually toyed with earth's or earth's before deciding. I went with the longer one because it includes the 's in the link, rather than changing text colour and cutting off the hover:underline partway through a word. I tend to make decisions like that based on pages as seen by readers rather than editing convenience.

I did something similar, the other way, on Jimbo's Talk Page at New Year, and it got altered by an editor with the opposite viewpoint: (although he "cheated" with a redirect to get the same effect.) I agreed with him, so I've altered my method to include the whole word in the link. If that's wrong, could you point me to where it says so, please, because I'd like to see it to prevent me making mistakes.

I found, at Manual of Style/Linking: which seems to say the technique of extra characters after the ]] doesn't work with a leading apostrophe in the "affix", as here, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. (I didn't look at the single digit dates, though - you are correct.) Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, first I have to say that no matter what else, I'm glad you wrote and included the diff, because when I hovered it (Popups), I realized I'd neglected to remove a reflist template used for previewing the date fixes, so I corrected that before anything else...


 * I'm not sure it's a big deal either way; the overall impression I've gotten is that:
 * Appends are preferable to redirects, and
 * Redirects are preferable to pipes
 * but that's based on my interpretations both of the MoS and of observation of other editors I see as expert, rather than any specific mandate (as if "Wikipedia mandate" wasn't an oxymoron...) And my edit summary was meant facetiously, but probably could have been better (i.e. less dogmatically) phrased. I'm not sure the small color difference between the darker blue used for intrawiki links and black disrupts the reading experience like, say, a bunch of redlinks or the lighter interwikis would. Not enough – at a truly macro level – to justify the extra character counts. But if you want to change it back, I don't care all that much.


 * Afterword: I just took a look at the Jimbo page diff you included. In that one, I would have gone with Happy New Year!; both that construction and Happy New Year are already redirects, so I would have gone with "least steps to resolve". Similarly, if (awful example, but it's late) the article was titled "Earth (planet)" I would definitely use Earth's since the pipe was already required. Am I making any sense at all? Like I said, it's late and I'm getting overtired. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're making perfect sense. Small point, your solution of Happy New Year! wasn't available as such at the time - that's the redirect that was created at that time to "solve" that "problem". As you say, it seems like no big deal, and following the perceived "experts" is usually a good plan. Actually, my edit summary was a smiling "haha, but be more careful, even if you're funny", and yours was just in the same vein - basically it's a pretty good argument for keeping humour out of edit summaries unless we're 100% sure it can be understood, which is pretty much never. So I 'learned' that (again...), and we got an interesting chat about linking - your logic is very sound on all of that. Get some sleep. See you around. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield
I didn't understand you last revert. I removed the mention of the presence of Tony Cimber from the lead, and you discovered the omission of one of her five offspring! I reverted that misunderstanding back. But, looking at you interest, I would really like to ask for some help here, especially about the integrity of the copy. For instance, there are multiple mentions of Mansfield going out of Hollywood and coming back without making the time periods specific, which leads to some amount of confusion. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As to the last revert, I don't understand how you can remove Cimber's name from a list of her children in the lead with the edit summary "Tony cimber was NOT an 'offsping when:
 * The infobox immediately adjacent lists him as one of five children;
 * The section Third marriage says "Cimber took over managing her career during their marriage. With him she had one son, Antonio Raphael Ottaviano (a.k.a. Tony Cimber, born October 18, 1965)."
 * The Matt Cimber article states, "He was the last husband of Jayne Mansfield, who was the mother of his son, Antonio Raphael (Tony)."
 * The article at Biography.com at least confirms that "in 1964 Mansfield married actor Matt Cimber in Mexico, even though she had not yet officially divorced Hargitay. Mansfield and Cimber had one child before also parting ways."
 * Again, it seems strange to list four children in the lead, but delete the fifth as being "undue weight". On the other hand, if you have evidence she did not actually have five children, the other mentions in this and the Matt Cimber article need to be changed.


 * I'm not sure exactly what your other question is about. I did notice a day or two ago that I found the "Early life" section a bit confusing, especially the second paragraph. Is that what you mean? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ciao
Hi F&H, Just wanted to thank you for all the work you did helping me get the Garbo p. up to speed. Currently I'm attempting to put in new images. Someone's downloaded some I chose and I was able to insert them. But I'm not sure how long she'll stay with it. But I'm trying! I've added new stuff since you were on board, all of which I hope makes the p. a little richer, a little deeper. Which will continue to be my goal even though eventually I'll run out of gas. Anyway, thanks so much. I'm thrilled you're working on a page about George Soros. He's one of my heroes. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God! I just read the comment someone wrote to you about Soros. How horrible and mean spirited! I'm so sorry.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw you had been making changes to Garbo; you made quite a few in fairly quick succession, and I was a bit tied up on other things, so I never got a chance to look at them. I'm sure they were all helpful.


 * I wouldn't actually say working on the Soros page; I've simply made a few minor phrasing changes and attempts to maintain a neutral point of view occasionally. And revert vandalism, of course. As you might imagine, his page is a vandal magnet. (Almost, but not quite, as bad as Jane Fonda – hmmm; not "classic", but there's a strong female star whose article could use some work.) The comment you noticed is from a troll, one of a set of unregistered IP-address-only editor(s) with the apparent dual goals of 1) adding "Jewish" (recently shortened to just "Jew") to the sidebar Infoboxes of as many articles as possible, and 2) changing the word "husband" to "partner" whenever it is used about participants in a gay marriage (e.g. Dan Savage). Easy to ignore. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, yeah, added stuff. Also, just uploaded images which the p. desperately needed. Only one other thing I have to do, I think, which is to give cited reasons why she retired, though her decision is shrouded in mystery. Interesting about vandal, trolls, and other evil-doers. :) --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was just browsing through the pics you added. All good, but the one from Camille is probably not my favorite. I worry though; somebody is going to need to fill in the source and licensing information on the actual picture pages or they are liable to be deleted. In particular, the one in the "Legacy" section (a download from tumblr?) doesn't have any identification, even a caption. And the one with Schlee at Orly airport seems to have a good chance of being a copyright violation, given that it's an AP-wirephoto from 1956. Unfortunately, the only pictures I've uploaded are ones I cropped for another editor based on a pre-existing Wikipedia image, so all I had to do was copy the info from the older file and, I think, check off a box saying this was a modified work based on...yada yada. Still haven't read all the recent text changes though. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great to have your feed back. You got the source of the pic in the legacy section. I knew that, but how did you find the source? They've all been fixed (as per your comment about copyright) by someone who's been working with me on the images. I of course have no idea how to do it all. I uploaded what you see but of course it didn't have the needed licencing stuff. Interesting, she thought the same as you about the Camille photo and is going to add another that she found. What do you think about the ninotchka photo? Does it capture anything for you? It's one of the very few pics of her smiling. She was a melancholy dame, on and off screen. Actually, after all the reading I've done, it seems clear to me that she was bipolar and seems to have suffered other symptoms such as paranoia and fear of everything. Add to that her lesbianism. As a result of these problems, a very painful life. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ninotchka photo. Funny you should ask. I find it rather captivating in a strange way. Even though she was 34 at the time, there's an ingenue feel about it. It instantly evoked some recognition that I first identified as being reminiscent of Natalie Wood, and later decided was a bit of a cross between Wood, Millie Perkins in The Diary of Anne Frank (somewhat like this, but in the B&W of the actual movie), and a bit of Sophie Scholl thrown in. OK, feel free to call a shrink now... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like the N pic. Your thoughts are very, very interesting and strangely peculiar, Mr. F&H. Hmmmm...you have a complex and enigmatic mind. How on earth did you recollect her DOB? And why do you care? You do indeed have interesting interests. Well you were right, the powerful glamour photo in the legacy section was deleted. (Pic by the brilliant Hollywood photographer, Clarence Bull, who did 85% of her publicity stills.) But your caption remains! (Maybe people will just think the blank is a reflection of her elusive mystique.) It looked right to me after Lobo put it on/in the commons. I'm sure she'll spin her magic again when she adds the Camille photo. My hope is that these images suggest some of the expressiveness of her face. God I ramble with you. Forgive me.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs)


 * See, the really strange question is not how I remembered her birthday, which is in the first line of the article, but rather why or how the picture triggered images of a totally unrelated 53-year-old movie. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL! Of course the damn date is in the first line! I guess that subconsiously I wanted to remind you of what a dope I am. One of your strengths is that you don't respond to my queries and fascinating meanderings. Once all the pics problems are resolved, it's onto the treacherous terrain where her reasons for retiring lie. Then, I'll be interested in your feedback. I think that will be it. But if it isn't, I will have to be banned from writing in WP. I no longer spend any time on my own writing.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the Inspiration pic is back. It hadn't been deleted; someone at Commons renamed it from "File:Tumblr lwjne7BTP51qc3d79o1 500.jpg" to the more descriptive "File:Garbo in Inspiration.jpg" and the article page needed to have its pointers refreshed. (Don't ask. I know merely enough to be able to do it sometimes when there's a problem, but don't understand the underlying technical details at all.) So I also changed the name in the article for consistency/accuracy. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again you have courageously fought to save the page. Here! Hear! And FINALLY there is something you don't understand (underlying technical details) so my pride is restored. I'll see about that new Camille pic and then maybe you can help me upload it onto the p.?? Or if you'd find it interesting, poke around the Garbo photos and find one from that film (something expressive, different than the others). Important because many think her best performance and also to show progression of career. Gotta run to (boring) class to teach. Soon,--152.20.245.100 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir f&h, your services are required. You have an assignment. User lobo518 has been helping to upload pics and she's made some nice prose tweaks. She thinks that the last paragraph in the Queen of MGM section, about the motif "I want to be alone," should stand alone as a new section "Personal Life--Reclusiveness." It's current location, she thinks, interrupts the flow of her career. Now, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to write about her personal life and decided, fundamentally because of its unknowablility, to state, allude to, what we can say about it in the retirement and relationships sections. The reclusive piece is forshadowed in MGM section. The question is, do you think the way I address (what we can say about) her personal life, including her famed reclusive persona, is adequately finessed in the current organization (as i do)? Or do you think the "alone" motif at the end of MGM Queen is disruptive and needs to stand alone somewhere? (If you choose to accept this assignment--pro bono--you may be interested in the details of our conversation in our talk pp. although there's plenty of my blah blah blah in there to waste your time) I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this, if you have them. Also, what do you think of her Camille photo? We've been discussing that too. I don't think it shows her face to best advantage. But if you like it, it's a go. We could also look for Anna Karenina pics if you too are dissatisfied. You see? I hold you in very high esteem.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I don't necessarily think it needs to be in a section called reclusiveness. I also suggested "On-screen persona"...or something to that affect. My main concern is just that the text at the moment seems out of place. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As I just wrote Lobo, "Nevermind. As an obsessive, I've gone over and over this in my mind for the last 2 hours... read over and over each section that touches upon the inscrutable complexities of her private life. And I think the way I've handled it works well. The bit at the end of the "Queen" section is relevant to her career because it pertains to the development of the Garbo myth, which was embedded in her performances and her work. I like the way I lace her renowned reclusiveness within the professional and personal (retirement). So I feel strongly it should stand the way it is. I hope you're OK with that.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are these kinds of conversations/typical at WP? At what point does an article stand? --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A few minutes later, excerpt to Lobo: "(BTW, if we were to stick with your idea, I'd have to switch around other things I've written for coherence, which could be a nightmare to edit. Of course this would not be a reason not to change if there are significant problems but as I say, I think the article works well--particularly in light of her enigmatic life.) Random thought: Maybe I could reference the Garbo myth thing, at center of both prof'l and personal life at end of MGM Queen. Would certainly be accurate. I'll shut up now. I promise.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok my friends. I’ve figured it all out. I’ve been speaking extemporaneously, blabbing on, when I should have worked out my argument in advance, and then stated it succinctly, which I will now do. There are two problems with Lobo’s plan, I think.
 * 1. Everything I’ve written about her reclusiveness at the end of the "MGM Queen" section is related to her development as a movie star. No publicity, autographs, public appearances etc. All the references to "I want to be alone" were in her pictures. These were studio decisions. However, they contributed to the construction of the Garbo persona and myth which indeed bled into her personal life.
 * 2. You can’t have a section called Personal Life in which the only subject is "reclusiveness" as it was developed in her professional life. And for all the reasons I’ve discussed, I decided not to include a separate section on her personal life.

So there’s my argument in a nutshell. I hope you're convinced. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi F&H, you can ignore the entire epistle above, as you probably already have. But will you help me find a better pic from either Anna Karenina, or Camille? Would be a huge help. And then I'm not going to to bother you again! I have decided to write one more bit about the reasons why gg retired (no clear reason at all but I can some that others have speculated). Then I'm going to put this p. to bed and end this addiction and get back to my other writing! Hope you're well,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Here are the ones that I've found that I think would add to the p. They're from AK, at same point in her career as C All show the depth and richness of her expression through the eyes which are what set her apart from her peers. First one, which I think is the best, seems to be a film shot so probably not postable? Then, my friend, I promise I won't harass you anymore!


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


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


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


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

--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few I came up with. Interestingly, we have one duplicate, though the site where I found it identified it as Camille, nor Anna Karenina. The page you found that one on has another from my list below also.
 * Mata Hari:
 * Mata Hari I beautiful, but not instantly recognizable as that role (also, given the commercial source, copyright status may be more questionable)
 * Mata Hari II (main page) either love it or hate it; personally, I love the eyes, not sure about the overall image though
 * Mata Hari III (main page), another "in costume"

The site with the second and third Mata Hari pics also has a few good ones with her co-star,if you prefer. Personally, I like Mata Hari III best for that movie; the one we both selected with the hat for Anna Karenina; and either of the remaining two Camille ones if needed. (My selections for Camille reflect a personal distaste for her hair in most of the images from that pic, so may not be a reliable opinion.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Camille:
 * Camille I (main page) also might be possible to crop as more of a head shot if you prefer
 * Camille II (main page)
 * Camille III (main page) unfortunately hides part of face, but beauty comes through, along with a subtle "I vant to be alone" feel (later found from actual image link it seems Anna Karenina is accurate, not Camille)

Mata Hari in general has the best portraits of all her films, I think. Many very powerful. I like your last M H, but there are even better ones. But the problem with putting one up is that it's another from early 30s, which the p. already has, Anna Christie and Grand Hotel. What the p. needs is something from AK, 1935or C, 1936 (she only did 3 other films after them). I agree with you about the Camille hair. Your second C photo is from A K and is, in my opinion, rather dull (lacks "movement" and expressiveness of the eyes.) Don't you like my 1st and 2nd, AK? Those are my choices, but 1st is film still, so can we post it? If you don't agree, I'm satisfied with the one we both agree on--the hat photo from C. Looking forward to your thoughts. Maybe we could put up 2 one from MH and another from AK or C; but two crowded? We could add one to Relationships section, only one now without a pic. Your thoughts? Only Monday today, so work. Myeh. Hope you're indeed happy!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I know; for some reason I had a mental lapse and was thinking Mata Hari rather than Anna Karenina while searching. I re-read your post and the follow-up with the four Google hits when I came back to post my reply and realized my error, but I liked the Mata Hari ones enough to include them anyway.


 * Your first Anna K isn't bad, but the image quality isn't all that good and I think it makes her look old and sad; maybe that's part of the persona (sad, not old) that needs to be conveyed, but I think she looks more beautiful in others. The second Anna K, honestly, I think makes her look like a chagrined, frumpy 1950s sit-com housewife (think Honeymooners). Sorry, just my first reaction; no glamor there.
 * Got it.


 * My vote is to replace the current Camille photo with the "hat" picture (can you definitely ID which of the two films it is from? Like by comparing costume to the DVDs, which I assume you have?)
 * very interesting you queried the hat pic. It is indeed from AK and was my error to say C. I know it's AK because I know the scene with it, and also the hair.

And – let me hide before you try to burn me at the stake for heresy – I would replace the current Grand Hotel pic with one from the year-earlier Mata Hari, either my 2nd or 3rd one or one of the even better ones you've seen out there.
 * The strength of the GH pic is that it's a publicity still and shows her acting and her expressiveness. The p. already has 3 glamour portraits and I think the others should be publicity stills.


 * Also, I just did a quick search; I sort of like this one with Gilbert as a possible for the "Romances" section. Looks more "natural" than a lot of studio stills. (Predictably, nothing turned up for her and either de Acosta or Brooks. [Brooks herself, about whom I know nothing, was kinda cute in a Vampirella-ish sort of way.])
 * Problem with Gilbert pic is that we already have one, up top, from Flesh and the Devil which should definitely not be replaced.


 * It would be nice to have something in the 1940+ section, but I saw absolutely nothing I liked from Two Faced Woman. Well, actually not quite true; there was one of her dancing with a band in the background that was marginally acceptable, but it was on a commercial site with a watermark. Have you seen anything?
 * Her only 1940s film was her last picture,TFW(1941), and I haven't seen any pics of it that tell us a single thing about G. Plus, we already have the Ninotchka photo, which you like, that was her 2nd to last picture. And a very important picture it was in her oeuvre (sp?)


 * Ta for now. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So. Why don't we replace the current C pic with Taylor with the hat photo from AK. It's another glamour portrait but powerful.
 * Finally. Do you think, first, it a bad idea to put an MH publicity still (because they're so fabulous)in Relationships section because it's inconsistent section's content? Or 2nd, what about putting one in the Screen Persona section? Would all this be too crowded? I'll send along a few stills from MH for your consideration. But will wait till you tell me how to just send the link rather than the entire address! Soon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, just looked at a handful of MH pics and I don't think any of them are any better than your 3d. one. So the question now is, if we keep the GH, which, as I say, is important, can we put the MH portrait to left of Screen Persona or Relationships?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm procrastinating. Work. Ho hum. Just checked the Garbo Forever site which has a whole p. dedicated to GG pix from MH; check them out and see if any stand out as more interesting than the one we agreed on. Url: http://www.garboforever.com/Film-Pic-21.htm--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's almost time to break this section and archive it off. Actually, it's probably past time.
 * You got that right. Go for it. It takes me 20 minutes to go from the preview to the edit place. We could put all our conversations together and publish it as a book with some kind of existential title.
 * I recognized the problem that we already have one picture of Gilbert; that's why I tried – unfortunately unsuccessfully – to find a picture with one of her other (possible?) lovers, of either sex. As I said, nothing for Beaton, de Acosta, or Brooks. I also just tried Stokowski; one site's Google blurb says it has some personal or private photos of them, but the problem is that those could raise more copyright issues than the studio handouts.
 * I don't think we should post a pic with any of her lovers. Amost all of them speculative and would be biased to include one gender and not the other.

Two of Gilbert might be undue weight to him, but then again he is the one she lived with for a couple of years.
 * Nope. She was in and out over a period of about 18 months. Spent just about as much time at her hotel, her home at the time.

An alternative I don't really like, but will mention anyway, would br to move the existing photo to the Relationships section.
 * Bad idea. F+devil is a ground-breaking silent picture which caused an unprecedented sensation and that made her an instant superstar. Much more important than germination of her lop-sided affair with Gilber.

(It's too bad she never slept with Navarro; there are some decent Mata Hari shots with him so we could kill two birds with one stone.)
 * Yeah! Too bad. Most things in life don't work out the way they're supposed to eh?

I agree with replacing the current Camille pic with the Anna K hat shot.
 * OK, let's just DO it. No more discussion.

But. Layout is not my forte, but I still try. That will make the section have three portrait (upright) photos and one (GH, top right) landscape (horizontal). May seem off-balance, unlike the current way which is diagonally matched.
 * Ah jeeze. Problems, problems, problems. Why can anything in life be easy?

Even before noticing this, though, I was thinking Ninotchka could be moved to "Screen persona", since it's mentioned there. maybe that would give a bit more room to play in the crowded "Queen of MGM" section?
 * Right on. That's settled. Good reasoning, too.

(You/we need a test page to work out formatting changes where two or three people can evaluate things before updating the page for the whole world to see.)
 * How the hell do we do that? I can't even figure out how to put a pic on the commons and I spent I think an hour and 45 mins trying. But I'm of course game.

Actually, after reading your question about sending just the image links, I realized that for searching purposes the full, extra-long Google link may have an advantage. Google gives you a page with a "similar images" link, so if, e.g., one pic seemed close but not quite there as to either subject or picture quality, it might be easier to find the "just a slight bit better" version. But to cut down on the URL display size, put a single left square bracket in front (same as an internal Wiki link, but one bracket instead of two), then a space, a short description, and the closing right bracket. So: [http...yadyada/ridicously.long.linktosomerandom/googlepage brief description] will just show as "brief description".
 * Tanks!
 * And I'm sorry I take so long to get back to you sometimes. I sort of use a reverse prioritization system of swatting all the gnats to allow me to concentrate on the real task at hand, so I tend to review all minor changes to the 1,000+ articles on my watch list (no, they don't all change every day) before settling down to concentrate on the important stuff.
 * Lol! I have the same problem. I spend too much time on this frickin' page and then I have to cram in course preparations in 10 mins.
 * Oh, and I haven't gotten to the Garbo Forever site yet recently; since you had two messages backed up, I wanted to respond to at least the first one. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, I spent an hour last night with the G forever p. I learned there are zillions of books about G from all over the world. In Europe? Dozens. Then in places like Hungary, Russia, Brazil--you name it. And translations of many of the Swedish and Eng Lang Books in to crazy languages. In the page, I say 22 books, but that only includes English language books and I think there are even more than that. But I don't think G. F. is a legit source. I'll figure out something.
 * OK, so where are we at? 1) we exchange current C pic with hat pic; 2) We'll put the Ninotchka photo in the Persona section. 3) So the remaining question is, where does the MH pic go. Hmmm. Alright F&H, now's the time to be creative. Can you use your design talent (I'm sure you have some) and do an experimental page? I certainly have no clue how to do that as I say. Or you can instruct me, but recall that I'm obtuse. You, on the other hand, seem to like challenges. Want to give it a go?

--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC) So if we put the N pic in persona, we can put MH where N is now, right? Then we have 4 pics on each side, not including the retirement pic. It would be blocky, but so much of G's fame and mystique was about her face. I dunno. What do you think? Maybe it depends on the size of the mh photo. We might also find a smaller n pic. but unfortunately, we like the one up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OH MY GOD, f&h--High Alert! I was just poking around the net to see if I could find out more about books about her and found this one, http://www.amazon.com/Greta-Garbo-Handbook-Everything-about/dp/1743040601#reader_1743040601, pub'd in 1911 and discovered that the author plagiarized me in the bio section. I'm shocked!!!! People will think WP plagiarized the book! Check it out.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * New low alert: Overreaction! I just examined the very short section of the bio and it does plagarize verbatim a previous WP writer's work but not mine. Bad, but at least I selfishly don't feel like someone's making a profit off my writing :) Really importantly, in the back cover, and I think the review, it states clearly that the author used "reliable" online sites as references. Whew. So, delete all this (sorry to waste your time) and let's get back to the picture montage. Very important. yours,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha. I was doing my own checking as you wrote the "low alert" follow-up. Check this Sly Stallone one. Unlike Garbo and Woody Allen (the first two I saw), the Stallone one's preview includes an intro page where copyright notices would normally be, just before the Contents page. There's an acknowledgement (of sorts) that it comes from Wikipedia, and says "a portion of the proceeds ... will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation..." I think I'm still, uh, "miffed" (correct letter count and structure at least, LOL). But at least nobody is likely to accuse you of copying. And yes, the pub date was April 2011 (your typo above threw me at first), which I think was before you started.


 * This was a quick response. I created a new section at the bottom and will continue on other issues there. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Background
May i ask why the issue of Israel is given such prominence in the Background section of the primary article here ? Pass a Method  talk  01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I neither know nor care. Ask somebody who contributed to the paragraph. 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bradley Cooper article re: Serena ref
Hi there, I noticed you changed the reference for an edit I made to the Bradley Cooper page today regarding the film Serena. Could you explain why the NY mag blog site is a preferred source over news on Empire magazine's website? I saw both articles but chose the Empire source as it seemed more reliable (and in the past NY mag had been flagged as spam when I tried to use it). An explanation would help me make more productive edits in the future. Thanks, and I appreciate your time. --Abadguitarist (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That was situational, and actually a sequence of events which I should have at least briefly mentioned in an edit summary. I originally intended to just make a small phrasing edit to eliminate the "next he will" definitive statement about the future; when checking the source (Empire) for its actual phrasing, I saw that it referred back to New York. The New York article also, if I recall correctly, seemed a bit longer and more complete, so I decided to go with the more direct source rather than the more tertiary one which relied on it. I have no idea why New York would be considered spam; I honestly know nothing about Empire, but based on its WP article would consider it and NY to be equally reliable for most purposes. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the explanation --Abadguitarist (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Adelson
Thanks for the tip! Over at WP:RIGHT we could really use your help. Please consider becoming a part of the fastest growing most influential ensemblages of editors in the entire wiki: WP:WikiProject Conservatism/About us. – Lionel (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012
I for some reason still have this page on my watchilist, and see you've been quite busy here lately. I subsequently have had the page protected for a while. Hopefully that helps. Calabe1992 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks... I've been resisting the impulse to hit RFPP over the single intermittent but persistently disruptive IP I've been (along with others) reverting, but get the feeling from other edits over constant numbers-rigging that it can probably use the protection for several reasons I just threw up my hands at. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

p's and q's
Hello. Regarding your edit here, please note Manual_of_Style. Will you reconsider? —Eustress talk 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as being necessarily relevant in this case; in fact, I could see it as being specifically excluded; a characterization of Romney – the one and only person being referenced – is "wording about one-gender contexts" since he is only male. Meg Whitman, on the other hand, is clearly a businesswoman. Neither of them, as individuals, relinquished their sex when entering the business world. If Whitman and Romney met at a conference, it could reasonably be described as "a business conference", "a conference of businesspersons" or "a conference of business people". It would not be reasonable to describe it as "a conference of businessmen" (whether or not any women were invited, unless sponsored by a discriminatory all-male organization). I note that Ben Bernanke, e.g., is still described as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as are numerous corporate CEOs. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Eva Gabor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bette Midler grammy awards
When you read her biography it states she won 4 grammys now I'm confused how I can source that. This biography she was interviewed for as well. Researchers for shows like inside the actors studio have also stated she has won 4. However the grammy website states 3 which means there may be an error somewhere along the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.76.227 (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * My guess would be that the confusion is related to "From a Distance", which won Best Song in 1990 (as the note in the "Grammy Awards" section mentions). The award goes to the songwriter, not the artist, but may be popularly associated with the artist. Any reasonably reliable and complete biography would not just make an off-hand remark like "and she won four Grammys". Even the Wikipedia summarized article lists what they were. Which biography are you using? What kind of detail does it provide? Do you have a page number and perhaps a direct quote? Honestly, my tendency is to go with the Grammys' own site, but I would be the last to claim that either website designers or database administrators are infallible. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to split Park51 to Ground Zero controversy
Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Just to let you know.... I've started a dispute to get reference to the documentary included in the LDS page. [] Light Defender (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 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 "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Defender (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

College
Hi, Sorry for removing your edit on the college article, I didn't know you were an experienced editor. Thanks --  Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 23:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I sometimes get in trouble because of my rather random decisions as to whether to put an ES for little stuff like that. I didn't even care that the IP changed persons to people, but peoples in the context didn't quite fit. Hope you don't mind too much that I amused myself my reverting your edit back to your edit... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine. Thanks! --  Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich residency
Hi Fat&Happy, a few weeks ago you posted on my user page asking for clarification about which state is Newt Gingrich's legal residence. While I realize my sayso isn't necessarily enough for you to go on, I can confirm that Newt is a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I don't think that this registration is online, but I can point you to some reliable third-party sources that are correct. These include WTVR (CBS Richmond), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway and the Washington Examiner. I hope this helps. Best, Joe DeSantis  Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe. I'll take a look at those. Though I have to say, at this point I've almost given up on making any changes to the "Republican primaries" articles ("Candidates", "Primaries", "Results of primaries"... maybe others); they're all being reverted so quickly, a slow typist like me hardly has a chance to get a change in before an arises. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Garbo XIV
OK, continuing from the "Ciao" thread...
 * F&H, you've done a superlative job! It looks sensational!

I'm going to try to grab the AK hat pic and upload it to Commons as File:Greta Garbo Anna Karenina 4.jpg. If the link here turns from red to blue, it worked. Then I'll try to fill out the forms copying heavily from the other pics.
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying they're not yet permanently posted?

Be prepared to send out a distress signal to your friend lobo, though. Back later. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should I contact her? If she has a problem she'll get in touch with one of us but I can't imagine why she would

I added AK to the "Queen" section, deleted Camille and moved Ninotchka to "Persona". Tried to get a reasonable layout, but like I said – not my area of expertise... If we want to add a pic from Mata Hari to that section, the AK photo would need to be reduced in size to the same as the others; for now, standalone on the one side, I like it as is – but all the disclaimers still apply.
 * I love where you put it. Did you already reduce it? Well, the MH will probably need reduction too since I think the one we chose is pretty big. (We can probably get a smaller one if necessary) So, we (eh hem, you) shrink 'em both and put them up? What are these "disclaimers" you're talking about?

Ninotchka. Two (related) issues. To start, there's not enough text in the section to keep the picture from overflowing at the bottom. I'd like to create a second copy, cropped just above the bust at around the large button on her blouse.
 * you did that. Looks perfect!

The second issue is one I need your expert opinion on, since you've seen so many photos and movies of her (doubtless including Ninotchka itself). To me, the image seems very unnaturally "stretched" vertically (or squeezed horizontally) – the same effect you used to sometimes get if they played a widescreen film on an old TV set in the days before letter-boxing.
 * (Again. Letter-boxing. What the hell is letter-boxing.)

And from what I can see in other pics – even others from Ninotchka – it makes her face/head look too narrow. If you're OK with the cropping off the bottom, I'd like to also "widen" the picture by about 8%. Can you cast a critical eye on that picture and see if you think it represents her normally or could use a small adjustment?
 * Whatever you did looks terrific. I'll check out some other pics and see if it's been narrowed. I will say that she was pretty thin at this time. But let me look at some other pics from N and examine them. Actually I found a better pic. N is a particularly important G pix because it was her first comedy. She was nominated for an Oscar. And the most famous scene is when she laughs histerically at Melvin Douglass. They marketed the pix with the line, "G Laughs!" I'll see If i can find it again. It''s pretty small. I think. I hope everything I've said makes sense.

Later. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, I too am more than miffed and stunned that an author would simply lift text verbatim from WP. Is there anything to do about it? Is it legal? I know already I'm going to write her and her publisher.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi--you could be right about the vertical stretching. Can't tell. Meanwhile, I found a superb photo. It's horizontal, but I don't see that as a problem. Do you? It's a good size too. Check it out and tell me what you think. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+ninotchka&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=_lJzM6yQ_W7dnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gonemovies.com/www/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActGarboNinotchka.asp&docid=q4UowMfujHbJ3M&imgurl=http://www.gonemovies.com/www/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActGarboNinotchka.jpg&w=363&h=239&ei=ry4rT4vwJonO2AX8wMz9Dg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=314&vpy=354&dur=109&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=132&ty=99&sig=102070396330840809095&page=3&tbnh=148&tbnw=211&start=52&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:52 --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I confused you by posting then doing something then posting again and letting you just see the end result without a clear timeline of what parts of the posts were still applicable. Trying to clear things up:


 * I wasn't sure I'd get the picture loaded to commons and all the details on why it's acceptable to use filled in, so said you might need to ask lobo to help us; I certainly wasn't suggesting she would need our help on anything.


 * That part was before I tried even doing the upload, let alone the written justifications and the positioning. But no, as far as I can tell, I got it done right (copying what she wrote for another image is definitely my "area of expertise"). So the presence of the AK pic should be "permanent".


 * I made the AK size a bit larger than it's supposed to be (the Wild Orchids one above is done the same way). Even though it's portrait/vertical format, it's the same width as the landscape/horizontal ones, making the overall picture larger. If a fourth pic is added to the section, AK may need to be knocked down to the same width as Anna Christie or Ninotchka. (The size difference isn't as noticeable as for the Wild Orchids one, because AK is closer to square.)


 * No, I didn't change the Ninotchka pic yet; I just moved it. (Bear in mind that for technical reasons, how good a page layout of images looks is highly dependent on the size and shape of your browser window. What one sees as over-running the section might look like a perfect fit for another.) It wouldn't take me long to do it; I may try later and see what you think, since changing back to the current version would be a one-minute job. But I'd like to see the other one first if you find it.


 * Now letterboxing is a term I'd expect you to be more familiar with than me. Though maybe it's not used for the older classic films you're most interested in. It's the process they use to show a wide-screen film on a more-nearly-square TV screen by proportionally shrinking it, giving those black bars above and below. Some older films I've seen (older meaning '50s or '60s westerns) just squeeze the picture in horizontally, so things look out of proportion. That's how the current Ninotchka pic looks to me, though not very pronounced.


 * Whenever you make a post or edit, there's a little blurb below the edit window that says:
 * "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."


 * so yes, I think if you read the license you'll find that selling the book is legal. Doesn't mean the people paying $20 or so for what they can get for free on this site are very bright... but yes, legal. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm following you but lamentably, I'm just so deeply dense. I understand German philosphy but I can't understand facebook or twitter. What's really important to me is that I hope you're having fun. Now, look above and you'll see that I have a message that's situated before your most recent post. Somehow, I didn't see yours before I added mine. It's about the n pic. so: 1) What do you think about replacing the current one with this new one? It captures an entirely different side of her so would enrich the photo montage. It would also take care of the problem with odd proportions. But I'm certainly open. 2) Are we still on board with mh? I hope so. 3) as for the WO pic, it's the same size as it came in from the web. Maybe we should shrink that a little? Talk to you tomorrow,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I support all your ideas in your 4th paragraph. Follow your instincts. They're excellent.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Switched to the laughing Ninotchka pic. See if it looks like you expected.


 * Actually, the Wild Orchids pic, as well as the AK one, has been reduced considerably from the original size. Wikipedia reduces (or increases) to a default size, which can be overridden. To see the real size, click on the picture (takes you to its WP page); click on the picture there (shows picture without the write-up); if your mouse pointer looks like a circle with a "+" sign in the middle when over the picture, click again. That's the original size. What we both did – with or without realizing it – was fool WP into re-sizing it 1/3 larger than it normally would have.


 * Yeah, still want something from MH – just keep forgetting to check the other site. (Actually, it's a procrastination thing again; I know that site's so interesting I'll probably waste a lot of time once I go there...) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The new N pic looks fabulous, don't you think!? Really adds variety to the photos. So have you decided we need a MH pic? OK, what are your criteria for new one and I too will get to work after work today. Really interesting about the sizing. You seem to learn as you go along. E.g., you now know that you have both a good eye and also the technical know-how to post images. By the way, remind me how you found your way to the GG p. last fall? Do you edit the pp. of other stars? And have you seen any GG films yet?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * missed something. I really think we want a ''MH" pic. I'm waitin' on yer criteria.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two more things. First, do you think we should shrink the WO pic? I see no reason why it should be so big. Second, tomorrow I'm going to add several sentences about her reasons for retiring. That will create more space for a MH pic.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wild Orchids
OK, taking current content in the "Silent films" section first:
 * I'd like to reduce Wild Orchids about 10%. A "standard" size for portrait/vert would make it the same size as Anna Christie below (a 25% reduction) so 10–15% would make it larger than AC and smaller than AK. Ten percent looked good to me when I tested it just now, but 15% might be all right too. Just did another test; the 15% reduction may be better.
 * Good good on WO pic for all reasons you cite. Now, I also enlarged the GB, above WO just a little bit to show her face and it's expression. Now, if you think doing that throws off the scale with the other early pics, feel free to bring it back down
 * I'd also like to enlarge the first pic, Flesh and the Devil by 10%. I just think it emphasizes her "unparalleled eroticism" a bit better.
 * EXCELLENT idea, for exactly the right reason. I increased size by not sure how much but it's MUCH more effective. I went ahead and saved the changes.
 * Speaking of which, my dear FH, you can't figure out the scale of my idiocy. I'm dumber than you think and not as dumb as you think. Did you think I wouldn't see the preview before saving? Honestly. You'll also be pleased to know that I did incorporate about 4 pics last wk but copyright not acceptable cuz didn't know how to use the commons, so that's what Lobo fixed. You see, I have SOME intelligence. In any case, thanks for taking the time to explaining how to size.
 * (I hope it's ok that I deleted your instructions. I've got it down.)
 * Onto MH.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was sure you were aware of the preview button. However, from both personal experience and observation of others, I'm also well aware of the dangers of "live testing". The emphasis was to raise awareness, to encourage concentration, so to speak, minimizing the odds of reflexively clicking Save and moving on. And pop-culture TV isn't usually a source of useful insights, but there was a line in an episode of Las Vegas, where Piper a beautiful ex-Marine who had served with Danny tells a quite visibly pregnant Delinda, "If you go around telling everybody you're fat... people will think you're fat."


 * I removed a signature you accidentally left in the article, then I also reversed the change to GB. Specifying the size as 1.00 times the default size doesn't really do anything, placebo effect notwithstanding.
 * Adding: Which is not to say I disagree with the need to have her face show more clearly. But that's a large, dark picture and if we enlarge it enough to do her face justice I'm afraid it will overwhelm the page. If there's not a good shot from GB that's a better close-up, I rescind my comments below about not changing the work of MGM's best and vote to crop this picture a bit to focus on the two people and then enlarge it about 10%.


 * The 25% enlargement of F&tD is slightly more than I would have chosen based on previews on my laptop; on the other hand, it looks fine on my desktop monitor, so I say leave both "Silents" changes until somebody objects. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mata Hari
Oh, geez. You have no idea how bad I am at making choices. I have trouble deciding whether to have a raisin or everything bagel for breakfast, and you send me to a page with 140 pictures on it to choose which one I like best!!!
 * goodness! I certainly didn't intend to send you a link with 140 pix in it! Only meant link for one, which of course I've forgotten.

I didn't look at the full versions of all of them. Not surprisingly, I still like the one I had seen originally; on the Garbo Forever page it's at the bottom, row 28, column 5. But for this particular one, I think the version from the other site (called "Mata Hari III" in our earlier exchange in the "Ciao" section) is better – less cropping, more contrast.

I also like the very similar row 2, column 2. I think I like the original "Mata Hari III" a bit better; to me, it seems slightly less posed, which I know sounds stupid because they're all fully posed, but that's still my impression.
 * Good. It's settled. So let's narrow down our list and MH III will be at the top. Superb photo that includes Adrian's famous costume.
 * Unfortunately, I can't be sure of the pix in your rows and columns, sorry to say, since it must have been tedius to count all that. Can you send links?

Now I'm a bit irritated at the website for bait-and-switching. The small thumbnail at row 14, column 4 looks great, but the full image is a much larger shot of her in a mirror and Navarro standing over her. But, I still like it. If we like her in this shot, I think the mirror is used effectively and the photo could be used as is. There are also a couple of ways the picture could be cropped, either to grab just the Garbo mirror-image, or to eliminate some of the furnishings on the sides.
 * Can you send a link? Mirror sounds interesting.

Also, the thumbnail from the main page is good enough quality to use for the small size it would be on Wikipedia (I wouldn't try to blow it up to a 4-foot wall hanging). But I hate messing with the artistic expression of MGM's best by cropping their work. Don't know how you feel.
 * Same.Link pls.

Which Mata Hari photos do you like best? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a little overwhelming because there are so many excellent ones and they all show a different side of G; And it's partly her infinite expressiveness, revealing so many moods, attitudes, etc, that made her a brilliant actress and icon. (Incidentally, I suppose you could do worse than spend time looking at G's face!). But we should definitely include her in one of the two wild gold costumes she's wearing! NO ONE but GG could get away with wearing one of these! Would add interest and variety to the photo medley, which, I think, is what we're after. If you think the page would be enhanced with Novarro, here's one I just saw: http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Mata_Hari-130.jpg. Advantage is that it foregrounds Adrian's famous costume and reveals a knowing and experienced, almost world-weary, soul. Here's another whose advantage is that it would be the p's only glamour photo in profile. So also, would add interest, http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Mata_Hari-008.jpg It's a pretty stunning profile, but face may be too shaded? If you don't like either of these we'll nix them without discussion.
 * So here we are. 1) Mata Hari III is top of list; 2) you send links of specific pix you mention; 3) You look at the two I sent you. 4) that means we'll have 4 or 5 to choose. And then let's STOP looking at MH pix otherwise we'll go crazy. One advantage of MA III is that it's square so it will work well with two perpendicular pix above on right. With others, we might have to play around with positions of all of the others up, no?, and I'm in no mood to do that! --Unless, of course, you're having fun playing around with scale and size, in which case, we should definitely go with with one you can mess around with an learn something. But I do think it should be a relative close-up (to show eyes) and include one of the costumes. So I look forward to seeing the mirror one. In any case, let's try and make a fricken choice this weekend, yeah? We'd save a lot of time if you'd just moved here (or vice-versa) and we could look at the computer together.
 * I'm going to assume that "row 14, column 4" is the only one with a clarity of identification issue, since "row 2, column 2" and "at the bottom" (actually extreme bottom right – the last picture in the group) are fairly easy.


 * The thumbnail I saw at first can be found standalone at http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Thumb/Mata_Hari-069a.jpg.
 * Not sure whether you're proposing this but I think it's dull. Kind of generic photo--could come from many of her pictures.
 * Not really; it's nice, but as you say generically so. Just indicating how it appeared in the array vs. the actual image below.


 * The full image it's from would be http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Thumb/Mata_Hari-069.jpg.


 * I like the overall picture and the doubled image. But of course, it doesn't have the costume if you think that's necessary. Problem. I downloaded the image to my PC and used a photo-manipulation program to re-size it to the largest size we could get away with in this article (about 1.4 times the default for the other pictures) and her face is almost completely indiscernible. It's a no-go. Might be nice to add to the Gargo gallery in commons if you like it also, but that's scope-creep for today's discussion.


 * Looking again just now, I found a variation at http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Mata_Hari-004.jpg. It's small, but large enough, and has the unusual feature that she's actually smiling.
 * MHIII better I think


 * Also saw this: http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Mata_Hari-114.jpg. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison, but at first study it seems to be a reverse-image of the one we're calling Mata Hari III. It's not like she's Al Capone or Mikhail Gorbachev with an obvious way of telling real left from right; can you decide which image is a correct presentation?
 * same opinion


 * I don't have any real preference for with or without Navarro; it's "Which picture do I like best", then if he's in it, he's in it; if not, not. But if your preference is to include him, another possibility is http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Mata_Hari/Mata_Hari-126.jpg.
 * I prefer mine with Novarro, but since we disagree, I'm inclined to nix Novarro.
 * Not really disagree, at least significantly; just presenting another possibility to consider, same as the head shots above. But given space constraints, we're probably better with her solo. Unless that retirement section turns out like a chapter from War and Peace.


 * OK, break time. I'm Mata Hari'd out. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's what I think. Let's go with MH III. We've both liked it from the beginning. Very interesting. Her eyes convey thought, motion (so, dynamic). Unique expression (unlike any other), alluring, got the costume, has wonderful addition of the animated hand. Just a splendid photo. Let's finalize it and get it up. Will you do that? I don't know about Commons. Then, we can both look at it and tweak if necessary.
 * One thing led to another today and didn't write the reasons for retiring. Kind of tricky. Will shoot for tomorrow.
 * Btw, what does crossing out a sentence signify? All best,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Either: 1) After I wrote and posted this, I decided it needed to be changed, but it's considered impolite to change posts that have been responded to (I stretch that to "been visible a while") since it can disrupt the thread/conversation;
 * or: 2) Shortly after writing this, I amended my position, so I'll leave what I originally wrote as a record of the underlying process/analysis but strike it out as no longer applicable.


 * Getting MHIII into Commons is the easy part; where do we want to actually place it. As a fourth pic in the "Queen of MGM" area, or are we waiting for the new section? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Good morning, FH. Well, it would need to go to the left of Persona section (MH pic definitely captures her persona), moving Ninotchka to the right. Otherwise all the glamour pics (except in Legacy section) would be on the right. Nope, no new section.

Now I know you may kill me, but I'm thinking maybe we should forgo the pic all together (I'm trying to escape the darts). There are a couple of reasons. Do you think, first, that the career section has enough pics and that 1 more would make it too crowded? Second, we already have 4 glamour photos. I looked at the pp. of several other glamour stars (Monroe, Bergman, Dietrich, Crawford, A. Hepburn) and they each had only 1 or 2 and included more candids. Now, GG was arguably the greatest of the glamour stars (I'm not saying star in general) and her enigmatic face was intricately blended into her on and off-screen persona, so I think it's appropriate to have 4 up. But 5? To balance out the p. I'm thinking we might consisder adding another candid photo to the retirement section—when she wasn’t at all glamourous. I was under the impression that candids were harder to pass copyright rules but when I look at these other pps, it doesn’t look like it’s a problem to me. Do you know anything about this?
 * I'm completely lost on the copyright rules, which is why the only things I've uploaded – for Garbo or any other articles – are images for which I can cut and paste a justification from something similar.


 * As far as the MH picture, that's sort of where I was headed with my closing line above... uploading is easy, but WTH do we do then? I didn't want to disturb the "Queen of MGM" section, and the "Persona" section doesn't have nearly enough text to support two pictures. The only viable alternative for the MH shot at this point would be the "Legacy" section, either downsizing or deleting Inspiration; I could be persuaded either way, but my present inclination is to leave things as they are. If there's a good candid you like somewhere – preferably landscape format – it could be squeezed into "Retirement", but honestly I think we're getting into image overload territory.

On the other hand, the MH pic is so excellent in so many ways it might work. We could put it up and see what it looks like? What are your thoughts on this? I'll write Lobo and see if she thinks adding a 4th publicity portrait is too much. I hope I’m still your friend. :) --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at your recent punctuation changes but can't see what they were. I see the same thing in the yellow as in the blue boxes??
 * Yeah, single punctuation changes are hard to spot on the diffs pages, since they frequently only turn the one character red, not an entire word. Mostly hyphen replacements; with colons in titles and dashes in page ranges and text. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got your thinking on MH pic. But... Newsflash! Tomorrow I'm putting up a new paragraph about the reasons for her very early retirement(at 36) as per criticism by user in talk p. What I'd like to try is this: Move the N pic to right, in Last Work section where it should actually be (it was her second to last film). Then, put the MH pic (small) in Persona section which would be perfect. Then, we take a look and make a final decision. Are you game? (This is fun). So I'll post the new para. tomorrow night. (We can deal with candid later, if you're still interested in this project.)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it might work OK. I did the first move already; getting tired early tonight, but if I don't get the MH one uploaded, I'll grt it tomorrow. It's going to be tight, though. Any chance of getting another couple of lines of text into the "Persona" section?
 * I'm at work so short. Good work! I think it looks excellent, do you? We could reduce it a bit which may may solve the problem with the length of the Persona section. But will see if I can add to it. might involve too much time spent on finding stuff that can be cited, and I'm pretty much done all writing/researching I have time to do. Unless the biographers have persona in the GG section of their indices — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:52, 6 February 2012‎ (UTC) (talk • contribs) Classicfilmbuff
 * I was strongly considering reducing it a bit, but decided to leave it as-is overnight and see what your raction was. Since we both agree it could use some reduction, I'll go ahead. (I did experiment in preview; it's a strong close-up which stands out even at a reduced size. IM(H?)O.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The pending addition of "retirement reasons", which you mentioned earlier, was what I was wondering about when I said "are we waiting for the new section" above. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't quite understand you. Can you try to clarify, or elaborate? Later, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:52, 6 February 2012‎ (UTC) (talk • contribs) Classicfilmbuff
 * Rephrased. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good evening FH. OK, got it. But can't remember why you asked about it. I think the slightly reduced mh photo looks damn good, and necessary, though trade off is it reveals less of the the animated face. Ah well, you can't have everything. Now, wrote Lobo for her feedback about ratio of film stills/glamour photos. She agreed too many glamour. So she sent the following links from Camille which are excellent. So I think we should replace the AK (though wonderful) with one of them. Which do you think is better? Each has weakness: In the first, Taylor may dominate too much (though she says it could be cropped???) and second is too gloomy. So my vote is the first, cropped. Do you know how to do that? Look them over and tell me what you think.
 * This one is pretty great, that's such a "Garbo face"! Or this.

Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I really think the 1st is better. Expression more complex, composition better (though we'd lose that if cropped), and Adrian's costume much more interesting. your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote is the first one (#128 in the filename; dance floor); cropped, but not to eliminate him. 595x470 pixels (as opposed to original's 730x570, not counting border). Cuts off 3/4 of the distance between his back and the right edge, and 1/2 of the space between top of his head and the top edge. Bottom left barely include his entire pinky finger. This re-centers the image to just slightly right of her left (her own left) eye, drawing her more to center of attention. Convert to greyscale from sepia, and increase contrast 10% and I think it's pretty good. (Yeah, I think I can do that... ) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to tell you all that myself so you didn't have to research it. Why didn't you just ask me?
 * Go for it! Probably should be reduced a bit, too. Whatever you think. Can't wait to see it.


 * Ask what? How to best retouch it? That's really a trial-and-error thing until it looks right. Anyway, the image is at commons here, but I'm a bit lost as to where it's supposed to go. Upper right of "Queen" section above Anna K, or someplace else? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added it to "Queen", above a somewhat downsized Anna K. Then when I came back to mention that after checking appearance on both my screens, I started re-reading this thread and saw you were talking about deleting AK, not reducing it. I'm going to leave them both for now; do whatever you want. (Small warning: I've requested that an admin at Commons rename the Camille pic to something shorter than I originally used. If that happens and the box goes blank as happened with Inspiration, just edit the page and save after making either a minimal change (an extra space between words somewhere, e.g.) or even no change. That should fix it if it's the same issue as before.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out my new paragraph in the Last Work section. What do you think? I'm sure you'll find some little problems. I wrote this because someone said, "the page is seriously lacking for not addressing the reasons why she retired." Hrumph. F&H, this is the last writing I'm going to do for this damn p. I'm wiped out and have no more to say. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw it was added; will go over it shortly. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gösta Berling Saga
Oh, I forgot to mention above. While I was uploading to Commons, I also did a cropped version of the Gösta Berling Saga picture. Added it to the article and enlarged a bit. It's not optimal, but shows her face a bit better. If you have another suggestion for how to improve it, let me know; if you hate it, just revert my change. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks great. Good thinking! I'm fascinatd by your preliminary layout for C pic. Maybe that means you're working on it right now! When we get that in, do you think we should keep the AK pic? I thought it would be too crowded but I'm not sure it will. We'll know when the C goes up. Cheerio,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend, OK. Thanks for getting that up. Now, here's what I think we should do. Delete the AK pic (big glamour) and increase size of AK since her face is so expressive. I'll give it a try now and you tell me what you think. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC) OK, what do you think? It's certainly better since less crowded, I think. And slightly larger size suggests expression. But now I see another problem. Her expressions in ghand c are almost identical. What do you think???--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I think this one, below, is terrific; totally different expression; close-up so you can really see her face and so can make it smaller. I know resolution not that great, but good enough, and will be better smaller. Unless you object, I think we should go with it. If you agree, then, the photo montage will be DONE. And you will be FREE of GG. BTW, what do you think of my retirement reasons?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+camille&um=1&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=ayyBfErcNbWUOM:&imgrefurl=http://www.movieactors.com/superstars/greta_garbo_photos.htm&docid=ToUbOCi6x3i7fM&imgurl=http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/greta-garbo-camille-7.jpg&w=533&h=400&ei=B7IxT_7UCIa0gwe5jsGbBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=94&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=162&tbnw=203&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0&tx=109&ty=65 --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey buddy, are you still with me? Or have you gotten bored with photo uploads? I thought maybe you were so I thought I'd try and figure out how to upload the C pic, above, and replace the current C with it. I spent 30 minutes trying to follow the instructions for copyright stuff and uploading to the commons. No go. I simply don't understand the intstructions for either. Are you willing to help me with this? Then, as I say, you can put GG to sleep--unless you're still interested in the p., of course. Meanwhile, I hope you're engaged with other WP projects. Anyway, thanks a bundle--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

well now I REALLY need your help. I kept trying. When I first got the new C pic up, in the preview it seemed to be fine. No red box. Well, when I finally got it up, the no copyright box was/is there. I don't ustand. And then I somehow deleted the old pic formatting for the old one with Robert Taylor. Can you help me get the new one up? I think it looks great. I hope you do. Thanks!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's on the page all right. The problem is, the provenance of the new pic is unclear. The Garbo Forever site identified their images as studio stills. This one has the fuzzy impromptu look common to screen captures, which as I understand, it may still be under copyright. I don't know enough about copyright law – and Wikipedia's rules for compliance – to properly fill out the forms on my own. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Well, it's gone today. Damn. It's so good. Yes, it looks like a still within the movie. I'm going to try to put put back the other one by undoing the edit where I posted it. I hope it's not a casatrophe. Then I'll be back with a better one, I hope. Thanks so much.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't undo. So I found 2 other good ones, from AK, that are not clips from the film so should be easy to post. Here they are:
 * http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+and+Anna+Karenina&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=724&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=0WPTlgODrneuAM:&imgrefurl=http://modernretrowoman.com/2011/01/10/charm-school-beauty-
 * http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+and+Anna+Karenina&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=M5Hlr1ysu4swGM:&imgrefurl=http://missdandy.tumblr.com/page/78&docid=-sWoooy3GWLGsM&imgurl=http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lixrneAoL21qzfoz1o1_400.jpg&w=400&h=523&ei=7wc0T93VC8m-twfC6qzOAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=187&vpy=349&dur=218&hovh=257&hovw=196&tx=98&ty=245&sig=102070396330840809095&page=2&tbnh=160&tbnw=133&start=23&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:25,s:23
 * I think both are good and neither are glamour shots. Probably second one more expressive of her range, so my preference. But you may like the first. I hate to pester you, but can you put one of them up? ETernal gratitude. I want to be done with this as much as you!! I forgot, what state are you from? Texas? Trying to picture you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The latest one, as feared, got deleted as being a screenshot from a copyrighted work. For now, I just restored the previous Camille pic. It works, it's already uploaded, it has the use/license justification supplied, and it's not horrible. It seems adequate until the perfect substitute is found rather than uploading another placeholder for temporary use. The upload process isn't exactly rocket science, but it is a bit of a PIA, so it doesn't seem most productive to add another picture we don't intend to keep. (I played with the layout a little; hope it's okay.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it both pics didn't pass the copyright restriction? I'll keep looking. As you can see, the prob with the one up there is that it's the exact same expression as the GH pic and angle of the face with both GH and AC. God this is indeed a pia. Off I go on another search.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, this one should definitely work because it comes from the same place that several of the others did. Good because close-up so can see her eyes. I think it's as good as any of the gd pics I've gotten before. Soon, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Camille/Camille-046.jpg


 * No, I hadn't even gotten to considering copyright since my impression was that you just wanted something to use as filler for now. If I misunderstood and you're saying one of the above three should be the (semi-)permanent addition to "Queen" to replace the deleted Camille screenshot, then my vote goes to the second AK one; the link you have is another site, but GarboForever has the same image in it's AK stills at http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Anna_Karenina/Anna_Karenina-036.jpg, so it seems to be another acceptable freely distributed still. If you still like it, I can work on getting it in. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we both got confused! Anyway, who cares. I love your choice. This section needs another close-up and expression unique and entirely diff from any of the others, which is what we want. This one works. Let's go for it. Bravo! Except for little typos and prose tweaks, this p. is done in its current carnation. How can we celebrate? back later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fabulous. Looks great, don't you think? I'm going to shrink it a bit so it doesn't dominate the section so much. But we have cause to celebrate. The page is done. We'll see how long it holds, of course. But I have no more to add except tweaks, such as the ones I just made. Thanks, as aways, for the work you did with the pics. This was a real work-out, no? But the look of the page now adds a lot to the text.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I started off at a 10% reduction, which was smaller than unreduced the "hat" AK pic we had before, but it definitely overpowered the section. The norm, same as Anna Christie, would be 25%; I left it slightly bigger at 20% since it was alone across from two, but was still strongly tempted to drop it to the same as AC. It's a strong image.
 * One thing I'm afraid of is someone insisting on strict application of the style rule that people should be placed looking toward the center of the page, not the edge, but the head twist is so slight I don't see a problem here. (I think there's a rule about not putting pictures to the left of the first paragraph of a section, too, but we've blown that one completely to hell.)
 * Why did you remove the original Swedish titles and the from the pre-U.S. movies in the filmography, along with the Gosta Berling Saga DVD ref where they're mentioned or included? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How the hell do you know all little rules and regulations? Anyway, when I look at other WP pp. I see lots of faces that aren't looking at the cam. As for Swedish titles, I don't know, seem superfluous. I decided there are more important things to stress. Though I see inconsisntency. I left standing translations of two pictures--German Joyless St and the 1st one--which is a commercial. I think both should be deleted. I'll do that now. What do you think? I can easily add them back.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean td the center of the p.

Please note the amount of space we devoted to photo matters. LOL! I wonder, is this typical? As I am no longer devoting time to big edits and additions, I'm going over the p. with a fine tooth comb. Lot's of little, even tiny, stuff to change, small mistakes by previous writer to correct, including some unsupported assertions I've found. I'm checking all the cits to make sure they're legit. But so much easier. How will you spend the free time made available to you now that the major work of this edition of the p. is complete? On Eva Gabor? You are indeed a mysterious person :)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, you're wondering why I removed GBS DVD as citation. Because I don't think with this kind of information citations are needed. Let me know if you think I'm wrong. Let me know, too, if you think I should include the Swed. and Germ. translations.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep bothering you but you are my second pair of eyes. Question: most of the stuff in the talk p. is 2 or 3 years old. Shouldn't it be archived? What are the criteria for doing this? Lastly, If someone vandalizes the p., how would I reverse it? Tanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the Swedish and German translations go: as I understand it, they're not actually translations. The English names by which we know the films are translations of the titles from their original languages. A case could actually be made that the "real" titles should be used in the "Title" column, with the American name in the notes, modeling on the article titles such as "Deutschlandlied", "La Marseillaise", or La Fortaleza. That's probably overdoing it a bit, but I think showing the original title under "Notes" is useful information, especially for someone searching for additional details.
 * Yeah, you've persuaded me. I was overzealous. I'll put them back. (btw, of course I know that the English titles are translations of the originals; I was just putting in reverse.) I've done some poking round these early flicks so need to adjust a coupl of other things while I'm at it.


 * The GBS DVD I don't feel quite as strongly about. What I liked about linking to the DVD was the fact that not only did the Internet page serve as a reference, but the DVD itself contained some of the scenes from these early works as extra content, for those who might be interested.
 * I'm not aware of any link to scenes from the early works. None of these films are around anymore.
 * According to the web page for the DVD, as shown in the old ref as:
 * the "DVD Extras" include:
 * Excerpt from the 1922 Luffarpetter, an early Garbo film
 * "Rediscovering Sweden: Peter Cowie Introduces the Films of Mauritz Stiller"
 * Newsreel footage of Garbo's departure from Sweden
 * "Reklamfilm PUB Garbo" -- Advertising films featuring a young Garbo
 * I suppose I was thinking primarily of the first and last items. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I was thinking primarily of the first and last items. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The talk page content is old, but there's not a lot of it. Somebody manually archived the content in October 2009; it consisted of just under 50,000 bytes. The total now is less than 40,000. (As a comparison, several of our "Garbo X..." threads here have been in the range of 10,000 bytes each). I'd let it go a while; it's not like it's filling up all that quickly.
 * Got it.


 * The easiest way to reverse vandalism is to click the "(undo)" link, either on the history page or at the top right of the differences page.
 * What's the differences page? I can't find it anywhere
 * It's the page that comes up when you click either "prev" [next to any version] or the "Compare selected revisions" button [near the top] on the history page. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That will put you into edit mode of the page as it will be with that edit completely reversed (additions zapped; deletions and changes restored to the original). You can make other editing tweaks before saving if you need to (sometimes an edit will have ten destructive things and one constructive – you might want to edit the constructive one back in). Then save as usual. If someone made, say three, destructive edits in a row, it's sometimes easier to go to the history page, click the date/timestamp of the last good version, and when it opens, click "edit this page", then just click save. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gracias!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought you'd gotten rid of me, eh? ;--) OK, so if someone vandalizes, I have to undo every instance of the vandalism, in each section? I've always known how to do that, (though never heard the term "diffrence" p., I just thought there might be away to revert entire p. to its orignal, though I can see that would be impossible. Or is it? So what WP p or pp. are you fully engaged with, now that we're done. The Virginia Mayo p.? Ha Ha!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That could come under the last sentence in my post above, "If someone made, say three, destructive edits in a row, it's sometimes easier to go to the history page, click the date/timestamp of the last good version, and when it opens, click "edit this page", then just click save."
 * Sometimes vandal-reversion methods are situational. If the last 10 edits to the page all need to be backed out, the previous method works.
 * If, on the other hand, there were two constructive edits following the 10 vandalisms, you can go to the history page and click the radio buttons, first (left) on the last good version before the vandalism and last (right) the last of the vandalism edits. Click the "Compare selected revisions" button and the differences will be the net effect of the vandal's changes. Clicking "undo" might remove all the offending changes, or you might get a big pink box with a message that the changes can't be undone. This would be if the subsequent two good edits affected the same areas as the bad ones. In that case, you're sort of screwed and will have to decide on the manual approach requiring the least effort (e.g., manually deleting/reversing just the bad changes from the current version or reverting everything to the last good version, then reapplying the couple of good edits from the end).
 * [Now that I've gone over it, I'll mention this "multiple undo" approach can also be used to zap the n most recent changes instead of editing and saving an older version; it's what I do in those cases, but I skipped it originally because – as you can see – it's longer and harder to explain.]
 * A variation on the theme would be, say, three vandal edits, one good edit, then four more vandal edits. But the ways of dealing with this are the same as the 10/2 case above. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as usual, you're just smarter than me on this stuff. I've copied everything you've said in a word doc in case this happens. Reading it in the abstract is confusing. But if it comes to pass, I'll follow your directions. Thanks.

Uh oh, another problem. At the bottom of the page, there's a red line that says, Cite error: tag with name "Alberge2005" defined in references is not used in prior text; see the help page." It apparently appeared after I finished editing the filmography (as per your argument!). In trying to figure out the problem, I encountered something weird: the first cit number on the page is Paris, which corresponds to the ref associated with the number. Yet in the references edit page, the 1st citation is Alberge. I havent checked the whole p., but find these discrepencies in first few. Went to help desk which told me to seek help on talk page. I thought, well FH is my help page so I'll go to him first. Any clues to his mystery? Should I just bury my head in the sand and leave it alone since everthing seems to match up on the page itself? Ah jeeze. I thought we were done with my writing.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey man, did you think you could get away with fixing the problem and not explaining it to me?! 1)What happened? Was it something i did or was there some kind of break betw one thing and another that could happen at any time? 2)Why did you add the Alberge reference to the rediscovery of her screen tests? S/He should be deleted since his/her version of the finding was incorrect (I deleted the assertion, corrected, and cited the correct information); 3)Why don't the references in the page correspond to the references in the edit section? You're a doll to help with this. Have a grand weekend--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The error message showed up back around the 11th of the month when you deleted the (only) use of the citation that is in list of named references. I added it back because The Times of London, like The New York Times, Time magazine, or The Washington Post, is considered a very reliable source. There's no good reason to delete sources unless multiple other reliable sources show them to be a generally disregarded viewpoint. The citations in the list of named references are in order of their name, to allow them to be easily located when editing; footnote numbers are assigned by the software in order of first appearance. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah Ha! I get it now. Thanks. OK, the problem is that Paris, who wrote a bio that is widely considered to be definitive (along with Swenson) says the lost screen tests were rediscovered by two eminent film historians and experts, Basinger and Maltin. He does not say they “were lost for 40 years until they resurfaced in someone’s garage,” and by extension, found by some unnamed person, as Alberge apparently says in the UK Times. (Yes I know it's thought to be as reliable as the American papers you name). This is the reason I first deleted the statement and poked around for a more credible account. I don’t think that “found in someone’s garage” is a legitimate assertion to make in encyclopedia about something important. Do you? Anyway, I found the Times link and could only read the first few sentences without subscribing of course, which I don’t want to do (but will to satisfy YOU ;-). I can’t do it now without my Explorer crashing. (this is the 3d time I’ve written this frickin’ paragraph to you.) So, I’ll leave the citation up there until I get motivated enough to spend the money, and get to the site, to clarify this little factoid. But I won’t put the garage bit back in! And blah blah blah--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now this is getting strange. When I first started looking at your original problem yesterday, I clicked on the Times link to see what it said. It instead brought up the current-day home page, but without the usual popup telling people to subscribe. I took it as a normal dead link, and searched (using their own search box, not web-wide Google) for the article title, Why Garbo just wanted to be alone; several results came up, the first being Alberge's 2005 article. Clicking that actually brought up the entire article, unimpeded by subscription ads (which I mentally noted as odd at the time), so I could read the entire article (which gives a single [male] name for somebody it calls a "collector" as having found the tests in that garage; it also, and I paraphrase loosely here, commented on her showing a great sense of humor and comedic timing in the screentests; said they were silent/video only but at some points you could read her lips, as in asking if it was all right to smoke; commented that, having never received any before TFW, she couldn't take negative criticism well; said that MGM, even though the screentests were good, decided not to spend a lot of money promoting a "comeback"; and probably other stuff I don't recall just now). Today, after reading your comments above, I went back, both to the original link and the new link I substituted from yesterday, and also the main Times page repeating the search; nada; the search shows the same results as before, but now the page is hidden by their "pay or subscribe" block. Go figure. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. We were writing each other at the same time. So I received an edit conflict and lost (for the 4th time) an entire paragraph I wrote you. Well DAMN you. Naturally, I couldn't let it go and PAID for a one month subscription to the paper (Oh well, interesting article about Judy Dench losing her eyesight that Iwant to read.) Anyway, so I read the same article and of course we now know that there are at least 2 versions of what happened to the lost tests. So this is what i think we should do, if you agree. Add the following text to the reference (not the page--not important enough to warrant that much text): Auberge2005 etc: In this account, the author alleges that the screen tests were "unearthed in someone’s garage in Los Angeles in 1998 by Jeff Joseph, a film collector.” So I tried to figure out how to add text to cits and naturally couldn't. And then I thought. Wait! Perhaps YOU could since your SUCH a nice man! But on the other hand, YOU are responsible for forcing me to subscribe to--i.e PAY--a British news paper in order get the facts straight about this picayune matter. So you owe me big time.
 * You're thoughts?

Finally, I know everything about the tests--how great they were, etc etc but didn't think it was important enough to get onto the p. Do you?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * went ahead and deleted cit of Auberge for reason I stated in the edit box. But, can you explain the edit previous to that by some person who doesn't have a talk p. I have no idea what it is because no section indicated, or anything at all. Just seems to add another GG somewhere.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)