User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 9

Moving towards a third opinion
I started a discussion on the Fermi-Dirac statistics. If you don't participate, I will follow the third opinion procedure: consider applying to the WP:AN/I noticeboard (see WP:3RR for further guidance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Creation of Wave Mechanics; Early Response and Applications 1925-1926, page 767, Springer. Read it now!

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=-pL56OcVubgC&pg=PA767&lpg=PA767&dq=fermi+letter+to+Dirac+1926&source=bl&ots=jABE5WeLTD&sig=4ESQy3pPYjKXmcALr1uaPjta6eE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YQJFT9fwG--XiAeaqcWqAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fermi%20letter%20to%20Dirac%201926&f=false

Fermi was the first... Now I should really follow all the changes you make, and ask for the sources, and not only the sources, I want the title of the book and the page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Satriani
He is mentioned in many other pages as Italian - American. So either you adapt all others wiki pages, or you change back this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 08:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Westbury, New York, is not in Italy. He was born American, his nationality and citizenship are American. Please read Manual of Style/Biographies, paying particular attention to Manual of Style/Biographies, which I linked to in my edit summary but you apparently ignored or failed to understand. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My daughter was made in Germany, born in Taipei, and she is Italian!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this touching personal story in some way related to Wikipedia's guidelines on how to describe people in biographical articles, or are you merely looking for someone to offer her condolences? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra
Both parents were Italian, what do you need more to be Italian??? He grew up in an Italian family, with Italian education style at home (which is the most important thing)....I really don't understand.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoboken, New Jersey, is not in Italy. He was born American, his nationality and citizenship are American. Please read Manual of Style/Biographies, paying particular attention to Manual of Style/Biographies, which I linked to in my edit summary but you apparently ignored or failed to understand. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He was born in USA, not in America. America is a continent going from Canada to Chile... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your personal understanding of Western Hemisphere geography. Do you know what the A in USA represents? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you didn't write USA, you wrote American....that is why American is not correct. You should have written US people... and the name America derives by the way by Amerigo Vespucci...check where was born... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know the following: - who are you to decide what is correct and what it is wrong? - than try to convince someone from South America that American means someone coming from USA. - last but not the least, Wikipedia defines these people as Italian-American, either you change the definition of Italian-American, or you accept my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 04:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your contentious ignorance of, and refusal to read and conform to, Wikipedia's guidelines for writing articles, as well as your failure to recognize common English-language usage, are becoming tiresome. This discussion on my talk page is over. Take it somewhere else. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the same feeling about you. I based my knowledge not on common usage, but on logic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 04:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian-American
Since it seems "you work" for Wikipedia, I hope you agree with what you write.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American

In my opinion you must be consistent, so either you change the definition in that page, or you change back what I wrote...Moreover, I don't understand who are you to delete my changes....The definition of Italian-American is quite clear, and it cannot be misunderstood... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't understand who I am to delete your changes? Well, I guess then I don't know who you are to insist that your opinion gives you the right to insert changes in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you act consequently, you should go to change that page too...otherwise you are making something inconsistent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Federico Faggin
Where did you get the information that Faggin does not have the italian passport any longer? As far as I know, you can hold both passports, and since man was in Italy till ca 25 years, he is at least Italian.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Riccardo Giacconi
According to what you wrote, this scientist is Italian too. Born in Italy, studied in Italy, he holds an Italian passport. This contradicts what you previously wrote... Please change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In the reference reported (n.1) there no sign of US citizenship acquired, and he has definitely the Italian one. Since you can hold both, what I wrote it is correct. So let me know who is now the ignorant, the one who writes about fact, or the one who doesn't want to listen too. If you don't answer, I will escalate this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fermi-Dirac
If Fat&Happy besides deleting everything I write, had spent some time to read the whole article, it would not appear so ignorant. In fact what I added, it is written few lines after....Just take some time, read, and you can learn something. I am going to find the original papers for you, afterwards I hope that in front of the evidence you will stop bothering me.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So I found. The number 3 in italian publication indicates the month (i.e. March). Since Dirac published in October of the same year, I hope you can agree that October follows March. Correct? ;-). Moreover, Fermi first published it in Italian, BUT some English scientist, more and less when Dirac was going to publish his work, were already aware of Fermi work. Search for "Thomas-Fermi"....I hope you finally stop bothering me, assuming you are the only intelligent one..

Moreover, you didn't wonder why the particles of this statistics are called Fermi's particles, the energy level, Fermi's levels, and so on and so forth....Why didn't they call Dirac's particles, or Dirac's energy? Why? Fermi published the work (still before Dirac) also in German... Fermi, E. (1926). Zur Quantelung des idealen einatomigen Gases Zeitschrift für Physik, 36 (11-12), 902-912 DOI: 10.1007/BF01400221

I am annoyed by you behaviour
Therefore I will escalate this issue. Someone has to stop your dictatorial behaviour. What you wrote is a point-of-view as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

George Q. Cannon
See here. Just so no one violates the 3RR over this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

501 c 3 or 4 versus 527 organization
Given the general public heard the term 501 and colbert unfortunately keeps calling his PAC a 501...I have elected a compromise

This route involves forming one firm, that is usually a 501 (c) non-profit, or 527 organization so the donation can be tax deductible, and then the PAC to receive them. The scheme, commonly known as a "money loop" or "money trail", was detailed in the New York Times, and attracted the attention of the IRS in 2010, and the IRS subsequently advised big donors their tax deductions were questionable.[46]

I have on my to do list to rewrite the 527 page since it really isn't easy to understand why they are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

constant editing
why do u insist on correcting everything that you feel is right. Let me tell you something you are not always right and you seem to spend too much time editing wikipedia perhaps you should find something more productive to do than edit the worlds must un reliable website that seems to be unreliable because of people like you messing it up and not listening to others who actually have more knowledge than you on the matter because their fans or are of that area a specialist. Tell me cos i am keen to know where you get your supposed knowledge from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.76.227 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ewwwwww. I l hate cats they make me sick, ugly buggers they poo all over my home and smell just like me. I would rather have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:21, 28 March 2012‎ (UTC) (talk) 2.124.76.227

POV vandalism to Political positions of Newt Gingrich
Hello Fat&Happy, over the weekend an editor named TimothyHorrigan made an edit that I believe is vandalism to the Political positions of Newt Gingrich article, in the "Same-sex marriage" section. This is not the first time that Horrigan has made a similar change, and the last time you reverted his edit. I wonder if you would mind taking a look at this most recent edit and undo it if you agree this is reasonable? Thanks, Joe DeSantis  Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop
Hello.

Please stop introducing redirects into the article of Jayne Mansfield. The fact that they are not broken is not a reason for introducing them. Introducing redirects will lead to worse performance – as an extra access is required for the linked page – as well as decreased navigability.

If you do it again, I will have to report you to 3rr or WP:AN/I.

Cheers

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel you have the authority to order other editors what to do, but you don't. Given your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to familiarize yourself with guidelines such as WP:CAPTION and WP:REDIRECT, I'm also not sure why I should pay any attention to your opinions on good editing practice. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my edits
&hellip; adding Rick Santorum's age, without so much as even a comment to explain why. Why? — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seemed to be covered by the editor who previously reverted your identical edit to Ron Paul, pointing out that date & age templates don't belong in the lede. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought to look at the Ron Paul page edit log. Thank you — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
If you have the time, would you mind offering an opinion regarding reliable sources and the attribution of opinions and statements provided by Warren Commission critics? Thanks! Location (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm interpreting correctly, your position is that in order to properly present conspiracy theories, it's necessary to present the views of conspiracy theorists, and that they are reliable sources for what they said/wrote even if not for the accuracy thereof. A similar point has been made at the Barack Obama conspiracy theory articles, and in general I agree. However, I'm not familiar enough with Gibson to make a useful addition to the discussion in progress. Scanning the thread quickly, I'm not sure the basic premise I stated here is disputed; it seems to be more an issue of how to clearly convey the fact that the statements are the author's opinions, not necessarily "facts". I've found in some similar cases that a few extra "he said"s sprinkled through a paragraph are adequate for this purpose, but I'm not sure exactly what the other editor's main objection is in this case. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I'll re-examine my wording in the article to see if I can make it clear that I am just noting an opinion about the subject. Sometimes it's tough to balance WP:FRINGE with WP:CLAIM or WP:ALLEGED. Cheers! Location (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm not sure what I did to earn this, but thanks. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism
Hi F&H. Can you please elaborate on the talk page on why you removed the same content three times in like three hours. I think the 1RR rule regarding Arab-Israel topics should apply here, but even if not, your treading far too closely to violating our general edit-warring rules. It would probably be best if you self-reverted pending some sort of explanation on the talk page. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries are not clear? What is it's applicability to the article which required it to be posted three times in like three hours without any discussion following the first revert? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning
All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Anti-Arabism is a broad-based international article covering the issue in multiple countries, not one related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. In addition, Arabs within Israel are generally Israeli citizens, thus Israelis, and discrimination against Israelis by other Israelis cannot be classified as a conflict between Israelis and others. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are proposing wholesale deletions of the Israeli section?
 * That's a rather strange and completely untenable interpretation of what I wrote. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rephrase. Since "Arabs within Israel are generally Israeli citizens...thus Israelis" and discrimination amongst Israeli's cannot be classified as a conflict between Israelis and others, do you approve of my deletion of content when this problem similarly arises?
 * Replying with a degree of specificity equivalent to that in the phrasing of the question: Maybe. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll stop being facetious. Can I copy your objection to the relevant talk page?
 * Since my comments in this section are related to why I don't believe the Anti-Arabism article can be legitimately considered part of the I–P (or A–I) conflict, I don't see it as relevant to the article talk page. If you want to open a new discussion there about the two Arab kids, feel free. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts please Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbo screen persona
Hi FH, before you disappear, I have one question about the content of the section "Screen Persona." You may recall that Lobo 5something-or-other thought that the repeated motif of the "I want to be alone" line in so many of her pictures was misplaced in the "Queen of MGM" section and put it a section she created called "Personal life." I rejected the idea, we discussed the matter for a while, and she came up with the idea of creating a new section, "Screen Persona," in which to put it, which I agreed to. But now, I've been considering whether or not it belongs in separate section with that title. Her persona, I think, is much more complex than just "I want to be alone." I'm not up for writing about her screen persona in a section, aspects of which are woven throughout the article. So I'm inclined to put this stuff back into "Queen of MGM." I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your time, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My initial gut feel is to put it back in "Queen of MGM" instead of having it be the only thing in a section on screen persona (oops, there goes the MH pic), but I haven't looked at it carefully in a while. Let me hold an answer until tomorrow. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we spent days on the MH pic. And it's so perfect. May have to keep the section just to retain it. No, the text is more important. My gut feeling is to put it back to MGM too. But I will await your verdict.

One more brief thing. Can you look at the most recent edit, made by ERJANIK, and tell me if you ustand who it is (why red?) and what the revision is exactly? Gracias,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding a link to the Garbo article in another of Wikipedia's many language versions. There's a list of the two-letter code meanings around somewhere, but I was never curious to locate it. The obvious ones like en=English, fr=French, it=Italian, de=German, and es=Spanish I'm fine with; I have no idea what hy is. (OK, when I post the word into Google Translate, it says it's Armenian...)


 * Oh, and rereading I just realized what else you were asking. I originally thought you were seeing the edit in red, and didn't understand since it showed normally on my screen. But ERJANIK is in red just because (s)he never created a user page, so the link to it is red just like a link to a non-existent article. ...later; It looks like (s)he is a heavy contributor on the Armenian Wikipedia, with a user page there. Seems he (the proper pronoun if Google worked better than it usually does) is a 31-year-old native Armenian mathematician, and a film and football (soccer to us barbarians) fan. He seems to have been trying to create/import a lot of articles from other Wikipedias into the Armenian one. Anything else? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! so i won't worry. Amazing. You tracked it down and got to Armenia.
 * Preoccupied with new stuff, I haven't looked over some of the sections in months. Worked a lot on "Queen" section tonight and it's quite improved, I think. A bit more content and many prose improvements. I wish I could let this thing go but I'm such a perfectionist. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts on Screen Persona text? Back into MGM Queen or stay put?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Looking it over again, I think the separate section is useful; for one thing, the "persona" persisted beyond 1939. But "Screen persona" doesn't seem to be the right title – it's either too broad or too narrow. In a way, the "I vant to be alone" perceptions were a public persona, both on- and off-screen, hence the "too narrow". On the other hand, though we know I'm not the expert here, I can't help but think there are notable aspects of her personae – both screen and public – other than "alone"; hence the "too broad". What I think I'd like to see is a "Public persona" or similarly named section discussing different parts of her on- and off-screen image in greater detail. Does that make sense, and is it doable? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Yes, I agree with everything you say and have thought so since I added the section. But no, I don't have time to flesh out this important dimension of her personae, and mystique, because I'd have to go through everything again to provide citations. It deserves close attention but someone else will have work on it. So that said, moving on. Public Persona (a reasonable idea...certainly better than Screen Persona), but heading still doesn't quite correlate to the text. Seems best to put it back into Queen of MGM. The content comes from her pictures, afterall (all the "alones"), but the joke alludes to both her both public and private lives. First part of section, e.g.--didn't sign autographs, no public appearances and industry functions, etc. clearly applies to both. The solution, I think, then, is to return it to end of MGM and close the section with: "By the early 1930s, the phrase had become indelibly linked to the development of Garbo's public and private personae." I think this would work. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot more coherent than it is now. I'm just going to go ahead and do it and hopefully we can keep the mh pic.If not, poof! Let me know if you think we should change it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, well I guess that's about it for a while. I've pretty much exhausted my knowledge and writing skills. Though it's really strange how, out of the blue, I'll think of a word, or a phrase, or something to adjust or add. Just Randomly comes to me. So I'll probably continue tweaking. I'm assuming you approve of the repositioning and rewording of the personae stuff. I know you'll be happy I added citations for G's depression and moodiness. You've been a superlative editor as I'm sure you are with all the writers you work with. I'll miss having you around because you've become a friend of sorts. We've been working on this thing since the end of July. Unless you find other stuff that needs to be adjusted. My name, btw, is Annie. Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you've done a really good job with the article. Now I wonder if you'll be able to mostly stay away, or if you've become addicted and will start working on another article. In any case, good luck; it's been fun. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. I think I'll be able to stay away though there's one piece of information that I'm trying to decide whether to put in. Mercedes de Acosta was more than a "socialite and writer"; she was an avowed lesbian. New book. Should I put that in, or then does the whole thing tilt td GG as being a lesbian, of which there's no proofl As for working on new articles, nope, not for a while. I have virtually abandoned my own writing which I have to get back to. Since I've got you, perhaps you can explain the last two edits to the page, made on March 5th. They make no sense to me. Scottish something or other.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, also. How do I archive all the stuff on my talk page?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're wild! How on earth did you get involved with Jane Mansfield of all people? And all these other crazy people whom I've never heard of, except Frank Sinatra. Please tell me what motivates you to choose subjects. Your fan,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've not responded earlier. I've had some real-life things to take care of, and sloughed off WP somewhat for a while.

Hah! I see you just couldn't give up cold turkey; one of the early-warning signs of addiction. How extensively are you planning on re-doing the de Acosta article?

Talk page archiving: The simple manual way is to create a new page named User talk:Classicfilmbuff/Archive 1, then just edit both pages, cut/pasting from one to the other. Your page doesn't seem active enough to warrant setting it up to be done automatically by a robot script. Or you could just delete old stuff (especially the notice from the disambiguation bot); after all, it can always be retrieved by accessing old versions from the history page. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there fh, well I found out the de Acosta page was full of many mistakes and full of the same old rubbish, that she was nothing but an annoyance to GG, and everyone else, and just basically a "perverse psychopath," etc. GG’s biographers I read dismissed and condemned her by implication. But as did all my research, I became interested in her and these characterizations. Could she have been as bad as described? Was she completely to blame for the volatility of their relationship? Why did GG stay lovers/friends with her for so long if she was such a pain in the butt, a thoroughly unlikable individual? So gradually, I started to connect dots and concluded that she had to have been something different. Otherwise, she would not have had so many devoted and famous friends and GG would have just permanently dumped her. They wouldn’t have remained close friends for so long. etc., and gg wouldn't have kept coming back. I concluded that their long periods apart was the result of mutual neuroses. I even queried one of the biographers who didn’t write back. So, finally read de Acosta's biography and an entirely different person emerged who I think I’ve objectively portrayed in the page. In doing so, I think I've made a valuable contribution to gay and lesbian history. But no, I have no more to say because she's not important enough a figure, I don't think, for a longer article. What I've said is enough. Short and accurate. I look forward to seeing what happens to it. BTW, the GG page has, with one exception (adding the persona section), held up since I/we began rewriting it. As you can see, I still blabber on with you because I’m so interested in all this, but yeah, I’m through beyond a tweak here and there. No more subjejcts till I develop a new passion.


 * Thanks for answering the archive question. I have another. I added the GG and de Acosta pp. to my “watch list” but nothing happens. I thought I’d be notified about changes to the pp. but I’m not. Have I missed something? Thanks bro,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not. But to clarify... If something new is posted on your talk page, you get a visible notification of this at the top of every Wikipedia page you look at until you read (or at least open) your talk page. Nothing like that happens for the watch list. At the top of a page, there are several links: Your user page (probably just displayed as "Classicfilmbuff"; "My Talk"; "My Sandbox"; "My Preferences"; "My Watchlist"; "My Contributions"; and "Log Out". The placement varies depending on the display interface you're using and they may not be all grouped together, but they should be near the top of the page somewhere. You need to specifically click on "My Watchlist", which will take you to a page showing recent changes to articles on your list. There are a few display options near the top of that page, the most important probably being the look-back period setting (from an hour to a week).


 * By default, only the most recent change to each page is shown (clicking "hist" next to it will let you see any others), and the maximum look-back period is 7 days. By going to "My Preferences" and the "Watchlist" tab, you can change either of these defaults, so all the changes within the last n days would be shown, and n can be as large a s 30. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. Two more question, and certainly the most interesting: When did you learn all the WP protocols and tools? And did you ever write a page yourself?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Over time, just nosing around and checking if I was doing things correctly from time to time.
 * Nope. Attention span is far too short.
 * Not so short that you spend hours working on WP. Just not on the same article. Diff sort of atten span, I suppose.


 * Another question. This is of great interest to me. I went to my prefs and saw this: "Global account status: All in order! Your account is active on 8 project sites." What does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 March 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly. I have a similar blurb except it says 82 project sites. I didn't know there were 82 project sites, and don't know what defines a separate one. "Commons" I'm sure would be one, and the other sites like German, Portuguese, Armenian, etc. Wikipedias, some of which I've visited (but only posted on the German one). As long as it says "All in order!", I guess I'm happy. (Note, too, that a couple of times after visiting an other-language site, I've gotten an email saying some helpful person or robot has established a user page and/or a user talk page for me there. I generally go back and request deletion if I can figure out how for the particular site and don't worry about it too much.) Possibly each "area" requiring a prefix and colon – such as "Talk:", "Wikipedia:" ("WP:"), "Help:", "User:", etc. could be a separate project? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've lost me. But I have other good traits!


 * "what was your last edit, 3/20? Can't see a change in prev/curr. Hope you're enjoying spring!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha. Pretty much the same as your latest edit at 19:07 today, deleting extra blank lines added in the previous edit. On the diffs page, they show as blank lines highlighted in yellow on the left (old) side and pure whitespace on the right (new) side, indicating deletion of the highlighted line. Similarly, whitespace on the left and a blank line highlighted in green on the right means insertion of a blank line. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, got it. Well, who knows when we'll meet again! Soon, I hope.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, who the hell is pixiebot (see history p.) His name (talk p.) is Rich. I queried him about how he finds these minUTE things, like where hyphens should go in isbn numbers, and corrects them! I wrote him on his page asking a series of questions. But I'm interested in your thoughts. Is he "watching" this page? Fascinating!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the friendly little Helpful Pixie Bot (formerly named SmackBot ... I guess the owner decided a kinder, gentler name was needed). It's a robot, or "bot" – a small(?) program running constantly and monitoring all changes, and possibly a defined set of specific articles. (A similar one is ClueBot, which does an excellent job identifying and reverting vandalism.) Helpful Pixie performs a variety of cleanup functions; the one I notice most often is cleaning up newly placed tag templates. Like if I'm lazy (the usual case) and just add cn on a page, HPB will come along a few minutes later and change it to . The program's author (Rich, I guess) apparently changed it recently to also scan articles and properly hyphenate ISBN numbers. (Irritating little thing; I thought I had gone through and done that correctly on Garbo a while ago, but it found two that I missed which had been previously formatted incorrectly and fixed them...) It's been making those changes to a lot of articles for, maybe, a couple of weeks now. (I do wish though, that it would convert old ISBN 10-digit numbers to the current 13-digit versions while it's at it; It's pretty much a matter of prepending "978-" and mathematically recalculating the last digit as a check digit.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ALSO. I see the p. now has 130 watchers. Who are these peopl and why are they watching the page? 2nd, weird thing. I checked into the ratings and they've all been deleted (there were about 25 when I last checked) except the writing which is rated 5.0 (doesn't ring true) with something like 35 raters. Weird breakdown of system? Flummoxed, as usual,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC).Ciao
 * I still completely ignore those ratings, so I don't have any better answer to this one than I have to past questions about it. Oh, and no way of knowing who the other 128 watchers are. (I wonder if some of the bot programs are included in that count.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, professor. Now, go check out my de Acosta page. i think I finished it and it absolutely sets the record straight. I couldn't ustand why she has been usually trashed by Garbo watchers. In addition to reading her bio, I figured out that GG's biographers only looked at the relationship from the perspective that GG was blameless in the troublesome relationship. The never looked at it from MdA's perspective so she just ends up looking like a shit-head. But now, I have introudced the world to a more acfurate picture. I'm really happier with this than the GG page because I think it will contribute more to history. So read it, mess with it if you need to, and get back to me with your evaluation. THANKS Plus, you never reminded me of the general area where you live. Get on it, boy--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As per your last edit how did you know there was something wrong with the del Rio addition and link (which I also said to author should be deleted, or something along those lines)? How did you know that the info came from a blog?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been easy for you not to notice; the editor who made the changes later added a citation to the sentence in addition to the one you already had there. That was done less than three hours before I reverted the whole change set, so there wasn't much time to see it. I mentally questioned the change right away, but don't have a copy of the Chandler book, so I couldn't dispute the implied mention there when the new names were piggy-backed in, but when the blog was added for justification, I think treating it as the only source for the new names was justified. And I think Davis is more important to the context than del Rio and West anyway. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

also made some key adjustments to MdA p. today. But I really have no more to add or say now. Thank heaven. You'r right. I'm an addict and I need to break it.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good. I'm glad you deleted del Rio who was never near being a top star. The editor has written a very long article about her in WP though. Right, I didn't realize that he added West, though she could be included if I had a source. Another editor put in the sentence and I know the information is correct but don't know the Chandler book either. As for the other cit, I don't know what a blog reference looks like, but i guess i do now. Thanks. Hope you have blossoms where you are.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, although I thought you had added or referenced that info and was inclined to consider it accurate, I also re-verified on Amazon's "Look Inside" feature that, although page 119 does not display in full, using searches for the individual names brings up enough snippets to piece together confirmation of the names in the original list. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * right on. Great idea to use the Amazon feature! Glad you wrestled this one to the ground. And you're right. My refs are accurate. Going to making a few other edits in the next few days. Found one problem in particular with another editor's assertion.Later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello FH, I have 4 pp. on my watchlist: the GG and MdA pp, and the talk pp for each. My watchpage doesn't seem to indicate, however which p. the edit's have been made. What am I missing?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're actually looking at... The "My Watchlist" page has the article/page title on the same line as the "Diff / Hist" links and the Timestamp (with a "section break" for the change date)... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just lost. This is an example of what I see when I open my watch p.:
 * 20 March 2012(diff | hist) . . User:ERJANIK‎; 11:46 . . (+71)‎ . . ‎ERJANIK (talk | contribs)

Furthermore, at some pt I inadvertently put your talk p. on my watch list and there was one item only from it on my p (from some other subject you're involved with). Then, when I removed your p., 3 changes to the gg p. were deleted (only 1 by you). I now have only 1 item on my watchlist, above, whereas there should be 3 or 4. Why? I ask myself. You may not be able to help me but I'm just so damn frustrated. I wish there was someone could call, you know, like customer service, to explain these irregularities to me. but if you have a minute and can figure out what the hell my problem is, I'd be very grateful. See ya teach,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, tried to adjust things in my preferences, watchlist. But no go. The changes by others that come up over a period of 14 days in no way correspond to the number of changes that were actually made. For example, when someone used a blog as a reference, there were 4 changes--3 that s/he made, and one that you made. None show up on my watch p. If this is just too boring and tedius for you, might you be able to direct me to someone who could help? I really don't want to have to check 4 pp. everyday instead of just my watchlist. Ahhhh!
 * You have added User:ERJANIK to your watchlist, presumably when you posted to his talk page on February 23. What you copied above is your watchlist notification of a change to his user page, identified as I said between the "Hist" link and the timestamp of the most recent change.


 * To make it work the way I think you want it to, go back to the "Watchlist" tab of "My preferences". Set the number of days to whatever you want (7 should be enough, but you can go to 30). Make sure the first line under "Advanced options" is checked ("Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent"). None of the other choices should be checked. Make sure to click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page. That should work. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It worked. I thought I had tried everything--except I probably didn't click the save changes button. The gods are on my side today. Thanks for summoning them. As I've said 100 times, don't know where I'd be without you.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I find I'm much more likely to forget to click "save" on the preferences page than on a normal edit. Glad it finally worked.
 * Thanks for the strawberries (though I'm sure the kittens [see below] would have preferred them in cream ). Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome! I'm glad you're following these little edits because I don't ustand them. Now, accd to revision 3/30, Masque (is that his name?) added a book to the bib by Carr. but it doesn't show up in the bib. On the other hand, another Bainbridge edition was added that is not indicated in the edit history. what's that about? I'm going to delete it because it's not referenced in the text.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind about Carr. He just didn't put it in alphabetical order. Also, I see that the bib includes sources that are not referenced in the text. I just have to check that it is a relevant source.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazon doesn't say anything abut the book but the scant reviews suggest it's about fashion type of things, and their faces. This doesn't sound like a legit source to me. You? Should i delete it? A, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems to be a picture book for those in the 70s that wanted to imitate the style of 40s stars. Arlington House, the original publisher, doesn't seem exactly major (breaking down the ISBN properly, they were only allocated anough numbers for 1,000 titles). Though it was republished by Penguin in 78 (ISBN 978-0-14-004988-6). I don't see that it adds much value to the article. WorldCat says it's available at Columbia University and NY Public libraries if you happen to be in the area and want to check it. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, this is too much. How did you compile all this research about this publication? Where did you find the information you cite above? I'm REALLY curious. Can you delete its inclusion in the bib by listing your points? Next, what about the addition to the bib of new ed. of Bainbridge bio--and formatted with an ibid line. First, do you think adding the ed. is necessary, and 2nd, if the ibid line is used here, should they be used with every instance of multiple citations of a single author?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, basically I was just having a bit of fun with it, but:
 * You had already mentioned the couple of Amazon reviews; I just expanded on your interpretation of them.
 * Amazon listed the publisher. The linked Wikipedia page for them calls them as "a now-defunct American book publisher that published jazz discographies, as well as conservative, anti-communist titles", hardly an indication they were an academic publishing powerhouse.
 * The ISBN folks publish instructions on how to interpret numbers – what each sub-group delimited by hyphens means,and how to determine the correct sub-group structure for a given number. Having made an MS-Excel worksheet to apply those rules, it's trivial to determine that the three digits allowed for individual publication caps the house at 1,000 works. (They could have an additional "publisher name" component, but it's unlikely that they would have such a small allowance and then become as large as Harcourt before going out of business.)
 * Amazon also listed another version which they identified as the 1978 Penguin one.
 * Then WorldCat can be searched by either title (a bit dicey), ISBN (good), or several other characteristics and will provide additional data such as OCLC number, multiple editions, and "where to find".
 * Oh, yeah, I didn't mention originally but Larry Carr's bibliographies at Amazon and WorldCat didn't look particularly impressive either.
 * As far as Bainbridge, that double listing has been there for quite a while. I may have done it myself; I at least recall making a conscious decision to leave it and to format them with the same-author line several-months ago. I think the issue was one of Verifiability, in that some editor pre-you had referenced two different editions with different page counts, so we couldn't easily just switch everything to one version or the other as you did with another similar case. I'm not sure if they're still both used or not. We could probably get rid of one if it's no longer used. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, what the hell is Mai Oui!'s change? I don't see any evidence of his addition in the text. --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All the categories for an article, of which (s)he added one, are shown separately at the bottom of the page. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are just too amazing and way smarter than me with ths stuff. Thanks for answering and spending all that time but i have no idea what youre talking about in most of it. I do know about worldcat of course and that will be fun to look and also ustand now how isbn numbers can provide information. As for the rest, you might as well be talking in Swedish! :) I don't know what 4/1 edit by Serge means either but I just let tht stuff go.
 * That Garbo should not be included in the category of "People illustrated on Swedish banknotes" because that series of notes hasn't been issued yet and isn't scheduled to be for two years. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So should we keep the Carr book in the Bib?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's supposed to be a bibliography of where people people can go to find out more about her, not necessarily a list of scholarly and reliable references used in the article, though we've sort of masked the differences by having all the Sfn templates link there instead of a separate references section (largely due to my laziness last year). It's not a Kelleyesque "trash the subject" unauthorized bio. I haven't seen the actual content, but since Garbo was known for beauty and style, a compilation and discussion of photos probably doesn't hurt much. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you even seen a garbo picture yet?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Brother, good argument. I'll move the Carr book to where it belongs alphabetically. As for not seeing a GG picture, you're a nut case! If you get Netflix, check out Mata Hari for fun. Unless you never see movies in which case you're wacko. Isn't it cool when readers find these tiny errors and correct them? Like the most recent change in the date of GG's first time in front of a movie camera.

I just got balled out by SergeWoodzing for writing on his user vs. talk p. Ouch! Now that I know the difference, what are user pp. for?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Vanity. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: Bear in mind that all opinions expressed above are those of a person who has never had the slightest inclination to establish a "web presence" on MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter and only briefly considered (but rejected) creating a LinkedIn account... (I do have a user page, but it tells you very little. Check those of some other editors for examples of how they're used in practice. Lobo512, HJ Mitchell, and Richwales are differing examples, as is the one which got you in trouble, SergeWoodzing.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I don't think that I inserted a BLP violation; the statement was sourced. That being said, my cat and I are looking for better sources about Rick Perry, and until I find them, I won't add the information back in.

Bearian (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 
 * Awwww. I love cute kitteh pics. Better than a barnstar... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I learned something new today
Thanks for adding  to the citations for  Greg Smith's resignation letter. I didn't know about that option: it's a great improvement. Please accept this customized barnstar in recognition of your editing skills. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I need to know, is this coincidence or did you design that specific barnstar after reading the post immediately above?

The deadurl parameter is fairly new, added some time last June. I stumbled across it accidentally a while ago while checking proper format for another parameter and really like being taken to the original article instead of the archived version when it's available. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to confess, it was the previous section on this page that alerted me to the thorny problem of how best to reward kittyphilic contributors. You are the first and currently the only recipient of this award, so I hope you like it! I wish people would archive their references more often, and deadurl removes one of the barriers. One day soon I'll go through my contributions history and add that parameter. Thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha. After posting, I looked at the image page and decided from the description that it wasn't a giant coincidence (which was my gut reaction anyway). Definitely cool either way though.


 * I agree that use of the parameter removes a disincentive to archiving references (though I'm not sure places like the New York Times, which maintains archives back into the 1800s, need to be archived – but not every source is that easily retrieved). I admit I started to request archiving for something at WebCitation once, but being just a common peon type, not a professional writer or researcher or such, decided it wasn't worth the effort. Maybe just the mood I was in at the time... Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now updated the description to name-check you;-} The problem with newspaper archives is the risk that in future they may be paywalled. In the UK, which is where I mostly edit from, the Financial Times, The Times and Sunday Times are all high quality sources that were once free online and now restricted to subscribers. That said, I mostly use archiving for more straightforward reasons: either because I think the URL is long-term fragile or where the content describes the current state of something that will change (e.g. a ranking page like Billboard's Hot 100). Anyway I tend to assemble citations by copying-and-pasting the various parameters into Notepad, so copying into webcitation's archive page isn't much extra overhead. Their archiving process is much faster than it used to be, too. - Pointillist (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the update when I was verifying whether it was the image page or the referenced template page I had looked at previously...


 * I understand your point about paywalls; I think Time magazine is another one that has cut back on their free archival web content significantly, and NYT is reducing the number of pages you can see without a paid subscription from 20 to 10 per month as of April.


 * I'll have to take another look at WebCitation, since I don't recall what my concerns were. But I use a similar cut/paste process (except its an Excel workbook, not a Notepad file), so the extra effort might not be significant. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

David Ricardo Article
F&H,

Thank you for fixing the mess I made of the David Ricardo article. I was just trying to correct the DoB in the box. I still don't know how I screwed it up :-). Thanks again, Michael David (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I could tell what the goal was. I think I got it right (note that there was yet a third version in the death date/age template too), but it took two tries. I've seen the same thing happen before, at least a couple of times with very experienced editors. I think I remember a similar event when I was editing once, but fortunately it was in the ~50% of the time I used a preview, so I caught it before saving. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama

 * Hi. I have read your latest response on the Obama talk page and wanted to let you know that I have responded to it. Look forward to further discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, friend
We're taking that question about the 1920 Election info box to the talk page, where it belongs. No sense getting in a stupid edit war. Feel free to chime in. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

new editor on GG p
F&H, someone has started messing with the page, adding information that is erroneous, disorganized, and badly written and deleting stuff I wrote that is accurate. I just wrote a long message to this person (I think it's a guy--the tone of his messages--so I'll refer to him) expressing my concern and then went back and returned my version, with 2 minor (in my opinion, superfluous) additions he made. He's the same person who suddenly changed the top picture with what I think is a terrible one. Spent a long time arguing my case and the original is back up. What's your philosophy about this? I'm very attached to the article, obviously, having devoted ALL my free time to it since July, and think it's excellent. I'm concerned that someone can come and just butcher excellent work. Please do me a huge favor and read my comments to him on his talk p. And then tell me your thoughts on this whole subject. Thanks so much,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's just moved the discussion to the gg talk p., where it rightly belongs.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)