User talk:Loeba/Archive1

Thank you
Hi Lobo, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks very much for your work on Katherine Hepburn, it's important work that's long over due. Just a small point to note. In your page refs, could you add the year of publication. If using, for example, the ref might read. If the book is not listed in the bibliography a ref might show It's needed as there are often many editions in various years of one books and the page refs no longer make sense. There's more info at WP:CITE. I hope that's helpful. Happy editing. All best wishes Span (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The full details are there in the bibliography, and it is the only book by Hepburn, so I thought it would be adequate just to give the author surname and a shortened book title? That's how I was taught to reference at university (ie, the year only needs to be included if there is more than one book by the same author in the bibliography). --Lobo512 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The tricky bit comes as others add other sources. It's the only book now, but as a collaborative project that holds over time, editors will add and subtract text and sources over the years, articles, essays, interviews etc. Have a neb at WP:CITESHORT. It helps if all editors ref in the same way over all articles so that confusions don't happen later on and the adding editor isn't around to help explain. Thanks for all your time and effort you have given. It is appreciated. Best wishes Span (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay yeah I will make the changes. Thanks. Lobo512 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Register
Hi there Lobo, It's great work you are doing with Katherine. It's all really coming along beautifully. Here is a gently offered thought. You might want to back up a little from La Hepburn herself. Published biographies often have their own register, which tends to be very close in, and the work is often written by someone who adores or at least feels very intimate with the subject. Having got immersed in writing from biographies, I know it's easy to get caught up 'in-universe' (as it were). The encyclopaedic register is somewhat different. I suggest writing about Hepburn as you would about diabetes or water filtration systems or the life cycle of the mosquito. I don't mean to say that the prose has to be dry or without juicy detail, that is what will draw the reader in, but that we see her objectively, from all sides, aiming for a dispassionate neutral point of view. Imagine an editor rocking up tomorrow and wanting to add in lots of warts to the profile, all the critical view points, which may be very valid, how would that sit with you now? Maybe have a look at FAs Bette Davis and Ernest Hemingway to ref the tone. It seems to me that since this is mostly your work and you are in mid-flow, you are in a better place to sculpt your own prose (which is very accomplished), although I am happy to tweak later if you wish it. I hope this helps. I'm sure Katharine would be delighted to know she has someone is giving their time to support her in posterity. I'm away for maybe 10 days now, finally getting a holiday (off line). Have fun! Happy editing and best wishes Span (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello! Yeah that's fair, writing in an 'encyclopaedic tone' certainly doesn't come naturally to me. I'm still trying to gage exactly what it is (and isn't). I'll see what I can do, but I'm *very* happy for you and other users to edit what I've done and improve it. And if someone were to come along and write all the critical points of view on Hep, well...that would be ideal because I guess I feel a bit bad writing them, haha. No, I do fully understand that she was a weird and difficult person (all adds to my fascination with her) and I want that side included in the article. I guess I just haven't been adding it much because the books I'm working from are pretty biased. It's just about finding the sources.
 * Thanks for the compliments and the guidance. It's good to know I'm not doing this alone. Hope you have a nice holiday. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. Hepburn would definitely tell me I was a complete moron for doing this, haha.

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Lobo512, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Lobo512/sandbox.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cary Grant picture
Good call on the Cary Grant photo! The Bringing Up Baby shot is much better plus it's a much better movie on top of that. Upsmiler (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mrs Delafield Wants to Marry.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mrs Delafield Wants to Marry.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:photos on hepburn page
Hey there. You're right that there is no "maximum number" of non-free images allowed on any one page, but I am afraid that you are wrong that "it is fine to use a screenshot so long as it is relevant and low quality". All non-free images used must meet the deliberately very strict non-free content criteria. The important point here is criterion 8- "[n]on-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Obviously, this is a far higher bar than content being merely relevant. I also appreciate that a lot of the images are free- you are, of course, welcome to use as many of the free images as seems fit. However, a number of the images are currently tagged as non-free.


 * File:Katharine Hepburn Little Women.jpg. Clearly an important role, but why do we need to see an image of her in role? By all means, talk about the role, but unless her appearance as the character is in some way highly significant, we don't really need to see it.
 * File:Hepburn Alice Adams.jpg. Again, clearly an important role, but it's not clear why we need to see what she looked like. It's telling that she looks pretty much the same in this role, and other roles, as she did normally- it's hardly a transformation.
 * File:Hepburn Stewart Philadelphia Story.jpg. The rationale of this says it all; "There is significant discussion of the film in the article, as it was the film which revived Hepburn's career, so it is beneficial for the reader to see an image from it." That's not true. Yes, there is discussion of the film, and yes, the film was important for her career, but that does not mean that we need to see an image. At most, it's possibly an indication that an image is a useful addition, but only if the image itself is necessary to understand the article is an image used.
 * File:Hepburn Fonda On Golden Pond.jpg. Again, the importance of a film is not proof that a non-free image is needed.
 * File:Katharine Hepburn in Love Affair.jpg. This is the one non-free image which seems potentially legitimate; the article discusses her appearance in role, and, obviously, she looks vastly different in this role from other images. A slightly tighter rationale, and perhaps a slightly sharper pic, and this one is perhaps a keeper.

I hope this helps you understand the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, trailers aren't automatically PD. You really have to assume that things are non-free unless you know otherwise- the copyright laws of the United States are anything but simple. I appreciate your effort to compromise, but the thing is that the compromise already exists- the non-free content criteria are the compromise between those who want to use non-free content, and those who do not; we can't then compromise between that and your position. Basically, you're going to have to explain what any of the images that you're leaving in adds to the article; merely being from an important film doesn't mean that it adds to the article, and, unless you have sourced commentary in the article, claiming that "the way she looked was important" or something doesn't really hold much water. I'm sorry, I appreciate that I may be coming across as a real hardliner here, but our non-free content criteria are unabashedly strict. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For my two cents, the article is looking great and has some great free images to support the text. The copyright rules are pretty tight on Wikipedia. It's a shame, Lobo, after you went to the trouble of gathering and uploading them. I guess we all learn as we go. All best wishes. Span (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah well I genuinely thought it would be okay, but I guess I can see now that I was getting carried away. It would be a big shame to have them *all* removed...I paricularly feel like the On Golden Pond one is justified as there's no way of getting a free shot from the trailer (apparently), and it shows her at a very different stage of her career. I'd really love the Philly Story one to stay as well...maybe I can write how the gowns were designed by Adrian (costume designer) and that can justify it?! That is quite legit actually - Scott Berg makes a point of mentioning the higher production values at MGM compared to RKO, so I could write about that.--Lobo512 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning your Only Fools and Horses comment; there are badly used non-free images all over Wikipedia- there's actually a discussion on the non-free content talk page about FAs with unwarranted screenshots right now. That doesn't mean that it's OK for you to misuse non-free content. Concerning your plan to "write how the gowns were designed by Adrian (costume designer)"- that's really looking at it the wrong way. You shouldn't say "I want to use this image, how can I justify it?", you should write the article, and add images if they are genuinely needed. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Project ratings
Mu understanding is that project ratings are done by members of the project themselves. Someone from the biography project would have come by to evaluate. I am not an active member of a project corps so I haven't ever been involved this way. I would drop the Women's project a note and ask them to swing by Katharine. Span (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the project talk page. The theatre link is not an RS as it's a fansite, but yes, it's a good thought to expand the filmography page. The page would need a title change. Are you going to knock out the unlicensed images and remove the tag? Span (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 'Instant success in Hollywood' section it says "Hepburn chose not to attend the awards ceremony, a decision she would stick to for the duration of her career, but she was thrilled to win". Does this mean she never went to awards ceremonies or she never doubted that it was right to not go to that ceremony? About the pictures, the controversial ones are not out of copyright yet. They are someone else's property. By the way, you can reply on this page. I'll answer you here to keep the convo together. Span (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It means the former. I'll reword it if it's not clear (or you can go ahead if you like). Well like I said about the pictures, I'm basically just not going to be the person to make a decision or remove them. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty easy to get a title changed. You request it, admins do it. Span (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're a female in London who likes film. Just like me! The article's looking good. Span (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, no way really?! Where abouts in London are you? I'm north (camden/islington). The article is coming along nicely (thanks for doing some copy editing btw). I just have some personal life and legacy stuff I want to add, and then that theatre table, then I think I'll be happy with it. --Lobo512 (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Finsbury Park. Would you want to go for WP:GA? Span (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, we're practically neighbours. It's a small small online world. Umm I dunno really. It would be nice to get that recognition, and I do want the article to be as good as possible, but it does seem like a bit of a tedious, nitpicky process... What do you think? Do you think it would be do-able? --Lobo512 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never been GA-focused and shied away from them generally because it did seem like an anal nitpicky process but you've done so much work here and it all seems very thorough. It would be good to see you and Katharine get some recognition. I've just bitten the bullet just started my first on Keats (after some encouragement). If the article were not far off it might be possible - all your referencing, for example is immaculate, the prose is sound (it seems to me). Anyway, mull it over. I would hope to help out if you did go for it. You can ask for a peer review to invite other eyes to see what they think and give feedback, if you ever fancied that kind of thing]]. Happy editing, neighbour. Span (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's nice to know I'd have your help. I suppose the article probably isn't that far off GA now, so I may as well try and push it to that point. Hepburn does deserve a top-notch page after all, hehe. When I feel like I've done everything I want to do, maybe I'll ask for a peer review. It would be good to know what people think of the page anyway, there might be some problems that I wouldn't pick up on myself. Good luck on your process - I suppose it must be nice to take that step when you've put the work in. I'll have a read through the page and see if there's anything I can suggest on the review to help you out (but I'm probably not the best person to help, I'm far more relaxed than most of the wiki rules ask for!) --Lobo512 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I feel a bit intimidated by it but it seems good to move on to a new level - something fresh. I would not have gone for Keats, except a long standing editor said it was nearly there so I thought I'd go for it. Your eyes would be very welcome. Span (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ce
"Hepburn was nervous about every performance, 'wondering what the hell I was doing there.' " I'm not sure this line at the end of the 'continued success' section scans. Not sure it's needed. Span (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm I rather like the little quotes that come from Hepburn herself, they bring the page to life, but if it doesn't read well I don't care too much.
 * I like how you've added subsections in the legacy bit, good idea. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine quote, just the scansion seems a bit off. I/she, here/there, tenses, that kind of thing. No biggie. Span (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC

PR
Good for you for putting the article up for review. Did you decide against going through the central review process? Span (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I just did it through the wikiproject without seeing what else was available, doh. Uhh, do you think I can make a central review as well?! --Lobo512 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've just made a central review and removed links to the old one. I can't imagine that's a problem (hope not anyway). --Lobo512 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good move. Good luck with it. I'm in the middle of a review for Jabberwocky and John Keats on the central review page but will help tweak Katharine, if I can re the feedback. Did you put in on the Women's Bio project PR too? 26oC in London they say, this coming week. Enjoy. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look as soon as I get time, and thanks for asking! Upsmiler (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your filmography summaries are just fine. It's all good work. You might want one or two refs to offer confidence to the reader and as it's so easy for vandalism to creep in via some arse screwing with the numbers. The dates refs are added give a set benchmark to revert to. (I've been having some problems with 5 year old stat vandalism recently - so hard to trace back.) Span (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
Isn't the sun lovely! I hadn't clocked about the autobiog use. Sorry, I would have flagged it up if I had been clear about that. I can understand that, re restrictions on primary sources in a GAs. Can you keep in the current refs and add to them with other sources? Seems a shame to ditch them after all that work. There are a couple of things I'd flag up in the Legacy section. One is that inset boxes are not encouraged (as I understand it) for other people's commentary on the subject. That is to say, boxes featuring Hep's own words are fine, but to box other's opinions is to give them undue weight/editorialising - a bit like highlighting the bits you want to foreground. We are going for NPOV. I think the legacy text reads like it's trying to big up Hep. The beginning reads like so many other WP biographies - "she was the best, most famous/successful/influential/ la la la". I would take out the predictable Hepburn was one of the most lauded American actresses of the twentieth century,[218] and is widely regarded as one of history's most influential and iconic actors, a 'true Hollywood legend'.[1][219][220] Upon her death, American president George W. Bush declared Hepburn "one of the nation's artistic treasures."[216] even if though it's well sourced. See WP:PEACOCK for more details. The last para before Memorials reads a bit like a hagiography too. I would try and stick to facts. She was so ahead of her time and groundbreaking that she doesn't need inflation. For famous people it's always going to be easy enough to find quotes to support any kind of argument. Perhaps cite and quote people who specifically name her as the reason they went into acting, say if she's featured in university/academic/women's history texts, more on Bryn Mawr College... that seems to the meat, to me - hard and fast stuff. Again, WP tend to favour secondary and tertiary texts over primary quotes, so "I think she's fab" soundbites will only take you so far. More here. It's all looking pretty great, to me. Big congratulations on getting so far so fast. I hope these ideas and the PR is useful. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm gonna stop for tonight, but I will mull over them. If you feel up for it, please go ahead and delete anything that you think is definitely inappropriate. I'm too much of a fan and too new to wiki, heh. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just one bod's opinion. I have not worked up a GA before (though am currently trying). The PR might think differently. You've put too much work in and it's all too well written for me to go hacking about in it. I'll mull too. FAs Elvis, Michael Jackson and Madonna (entertainer) have a fair amount of floofing about them. Maybe it's a matter of personal taste. I don't think you count as new any more. Sleep well. Span (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, I was kind of going for the approach of clarifying her legacy completely from scratch, even if it is a bit obvious and predictable. Like, as if it's for written for someone who has never even heard of her. I will take away some of the fluffy stuff, but then let's see what the PR says (hopefully I'll get some comments), if they agree that it's too much then I'll make more changes then.
 * I do still feel like a newbie here, even though I'm picking stuff up fast I still keep finding all sorts of stuff that is considerered inapproriate and whatnot. I've been casually using wikipedia for years but I never realised how anal it is before now, haha.--Lobo512 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Spanglej, you posting the Madonna page made me to look at her legacy section, and it led me to some great references that also mention KH (and I was able to access one of them on Amazon). Yay! I've added them to the page and taken away a lot of the other stuff, I think 'Reputation and legacy' is looking MUCH better now - what d'you think? --Lobo512 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll have a gander. It seems that the longer WP goes on the higher the GAs and FAs reach. They say a standard, bog standard article was enough for an FA a few years ago. The article is great, whether you go for recognition or not. Just so you know. Span (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardcore! That academic-based, fact-based stuff feels irrefutable. The more like that, the better, I'd say. I added in a hidden edit for your consideration. I'm off to bed. (Btw, my email is enabled if you need it, via my user page.) Span (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Katharine Hepburn Little Women.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Katharine Hepburn Little Women.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hepburn
You are welcome. There's no requirement that you include every book ever written about her, and I believe you when you say that the other biographies largely echo the ones you've cited. If you've read them, you're in good position to reply if a future reviewer asks, "Well, what about X's biography"? As for the prose, I thought it was generally fine. I noted a few glitches that I included in my PR suggestions, though I'm sure I didn't see everything another editor might see. More eyes almost always help. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts
It's all lookin' good. A couple little points that strike me Hepwise on rereading:
 * I would avoid brackets where possible or minimise their use. They can usually be replaced by comma'd clauses.
 * I would again suggest taking out the non-free images, I don't think will help your GA case.
 * I don't think the cites in the lead are needed as you ref them in the article body. Cites are not req'd in the lead.
 * I've toned down some of the adjectives as I think the facts stand for themselves and don't need the qualification, but feel free to revert if you think this buggers about too much with threads running though the article.
 * In the lead "[The public embraced Hepburn in these roles], and gradually adapted to her rebellious nature". I'd say the gradual adaptation bit was pretty POV - to suggest we can surmise the thinking of a global public.
 * In early years "Her parents were criticized for their progressive views, which stimulated Hepburn to tackle the world head-on." I'm wondering - criticised by whom and was it the criticisms, the critics or the progressive views which stimulated Hep, or all three? A bit more dev needed, maybe.
 * Hep also has a record for the longest time span between first and last Oscar nominations, apparently (on List of Academy Award records (no ref given), 48 years from 1932/33 to 1981. Not sure if it's worth mentioning or if you already have.
 * "The young Hepburn was a tomboy who liked to call herself Jimmy and who often shaved her head." I'm wondering how often she called herself Jimmy, through all her young years or now and again; did she sometimes shave her her head or was it pretty standard? I delinked the Jimmy and the shaving as I assume they are not connected.
 * In 'Breaking into theatre' "After only two weeks, Hepburn quit to be married." May need to say more here - marrying whom?
 * In 'Instant success' "Hepburn chose not to attend the awards ceremony, a choice she would follow for the duration of her career, but she was thrilled to win." Any more on this - why, via what inspiration?
 * In the same section "One journalist predicted that one day 'Katharine Hepburn will be our greatest actress.'" Not sure this is needed, again an odd syntax with the tense.
 * In 'Continued success': "for the second year running Hepburn won the Oscar for Best Actress (tied with Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl), an unprecedented occurrence.". Which is unpresidented, the tie or winning two years in a row?
 * In the same section "what she lacked in euphony she made up for in guts". Did she say this herself?

I have done a little work on Rita Hayworth (pretty much contemporary) and their differing fortunes and choices are striking. Hayworth wound up a broken alcoholic regretting many of her career choices and relationships. I wonder if it's worth mentioning a line about the now defunct studio system which dictated to actors which films they had to do, when and for how much. It might help explain why Hepburn fought the studios so hard to make her own choices. Just a thought. Span (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Wow, that was like a whole other peer review. And you've done a big copy-edit, you are a *STAR*. Thank you so much, I honestly love that someone else cares about this article. :) Comments:
 * "I would again suggest taking out the non-free images, I don't think will help your GA case." > I actually went to the relevant talk page when this issue came up and asked about the images, and the only one they said was definitely not allowed was the On Golden Pond one, which I removed. The other two are linked to the text with sourced commentary, which makes them pretty acceptable. There might be some opposition, but there might not be. But I did recently come across this image, which is similar to the Philly Story one I added but looks like it is a publicity still. If that's the case, then it's free and I'll change the image to that one. I think it must be a publicity still - it's such good quality, looks staged, and I don't even think the movie ever films them from that far away at that point. I'll watch the scene to check.
 * Well, great.
 * I've toned down some of the adjectives as I think the facts stand for themselves and don't need the qualification, but feel free to revert if you think this buggers about too much with threads running though the article. > Nope, that's fine.
 * "In the lead "[The public embraced Hepburn in these roles], and gradually adapted to her rebellious nature". I'd say the gradual adaptation bit was pretty POV - to suggest we can surmise the thinking of a global public." > Well that was me rephrasing what is said in the referenced links, which is precisely why I thought I should reference the statement. I felt like there needed to be some explanation of why the public's attitude to her changed, even while her behaviour/personality didn't..? Now I think of it though, it does pretty much go without saying, do you think? There's no other explanation for it after all!
 * See what you think of my edit.
 * In early years "Her parents were criticized for their progressive views, which stimulated Hepburn to tackle the world head-on." I'm wondering - criticised by whom and was it the criticisms, the critics or the progressive views which stimulated Hep, or all three? A bit more dev needed, maybe. > Yeah, this sentence bugs me too every time I read it, but I keep staring at it and not being able to think of another way of phrasing it! I'm trying to say that her parents were criticised and shunned by other members of their community, but this only made Hepburn want to fight against anything trying to hold her back. If you can reword it please do.
 * Just wondering. No biggie, I think.
 * Hep also has a record for the longest time span between first and last Oscar nominations, apparently (on List of Academy Award records (no ref given), 48 years from 1932/33 to 1981. Not sure if it's worth mentioning or if you already have. > Yeah could mention that in the awards bit. I'll see if there's a source anywhere.
 * "The young Hepburn was a tomboy who liked to call herself Jimmy and who often shaved her head." I'm wondering how often she called herself Jimmy, through all her young years or now and again; did she sometimes shave her her head or was it pretty standard? I delinked the Jimmy and the shaving as I assume they are not connected. > I have a suspicion that Hepburn may be exaggerating a bit when she mentions this, I'd be surprised if she did it that often. She never clarified, so I don't know, but she talks about it as if it was a pretty standard thing. And the two things were connected, both of them her wanting to be a boy (that's how she talks about them). To be honest, I think how it is in the article now is fine though.
 * See if my edit works.
 * In 'Breaking into theatre' "After only two weeks, Hepburn quit to be married." May need to say more here - marrying whom? > Okay I'll tag on a little bit.
 * In 'Instant success' "Hepburn chose not to attend the awards ceremony, a choice she would follow for the duration of her career, but she was thrilled to win." Any more on this - why, via what inspiration? Yeah it would be interesting to mention that (she hated public events, and also later admitted that she was scared she wouldn't win. She said she didn't approve of her own behaviour, that it was cheap). I just didn't want to clog up that section. Could maybe put it in 'personality' where it talks about her shunning the celebrity life?
 * Sounds good.
 * In the same section "what she lacked in euphony she made up for in guts". Did she say this herself? > No that is a quote from Scott Berg. Do you think it should just be reworded?
 * Maybe mention Berg said it.
 * I wonder if it's worth mentioning a line about the now defunct studio system which dictated to actors which films they had to do, when and for how much.> That's a good idea, it would help put things in context. Lots of readers may not even realise that's how things were done back then. The only question is, where. In the lead?
 * If it was a big enough driver for Hep, then yes, the lead or else at the time she has her first big studio clash.

I have a couple of questions if you don't mind, things that I've been thinking about. What do you think of the current level of detail in the article? And I've been worrying about how the article covers her changing popularity. I wanted to summarise the public's changing attitude towards her in the lead, but then is it okay that this is never explicitly referenced in the main text (you aren't meant to mention anything that isn't expanded on later)? I mean it was just a gradual process, there's no definite point when it happened, so do you think it's okay to just let the facts speak for themselves and let the statement in the lead summarise it all? Maybe I should just mention in somewhere in the later sections, and then I can use those references which you said probably shouldn't be in the lead anyway? I know that I'm rambling, sorry, basically if you have any opinion on all this please share as it's been bothering me.
 * I think you cover her changing popularity and the reasons very well. The headings make clear there were great shifts through her life.

Well I have a week off work now, I work in a school and it's half term - woo! So I'm gonna work on it a bit more (I just ordered that Star as Feminist book in the further reading section, which should give some interesting stuff), and there are lots of related articles I want to improve as well. I like Rita Hayworth too btw, have you seen Gilda? That's a top-class film, I love it. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Gilda was on a few months ago again on the Beep. It caused a riot at the time and is still pretty raunchy today, eh? She caught the flack Rhianna is catching now, perhaps. Nobody's done significant work on Rita for about 5 years, and it shows. But there's some good material to work with. Rough to read about it all going south for her. Not a happy life, it seems. They were both pioneers, eh? One hammered by the press for not being sexy and revealing enough, one hammered for being too much so. Plus ca change. Congrats on all your good work. Enjoy your week off. Don't spend it all in front of a hot computer. Span (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

re: Bette Davis
As I pointed out in the edit summary, we are not here to show her desperation, the readers can make their own conclusions but only based on notable facts. Three poor guest appearances do not really merit a mention there. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I concede the point because another editor agrees with you. Nice to see your work on other articles. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Name change
Re your message: You should be able to move the article back as the redirect at Peter Bogdanovich has not been edited. You need to use the Move button on the Petar Bogdanović article, not the Undo on the edit history. You only need an admin if the redirect had been edited. See WP:MOR. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Biography Barnstar
Thanks, Lobo. I'd always check out the guidelines, for yourself, though. I'm no great expert. Happy travels. Span (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest some photographs?
Hello, I just had to come to you page and tell you how impressed I am by your work of uploading photographs of vintage stars. I just wanted to tell you that some pages I think your talents could be used are Laraine Day, Jane Greer, Loretta Young, Dorothy Lamour, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Alan Ladd, Orson Welles, Arlene Dahl, Mary Astor, Van Johnson, Jane Greer, and Robert Mitchum. I just wanted to throw some suggestions your way because you are so talented and I am a big fan of your work. Keep them coming and I look forward to more beautiful photographs on the pages of Golden Hollywood's greatest stars.66.194.51.34 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn
I'm enormously impressed with your work on this article. Do you plan to take it to WP:GAN or WP:FAC anytime soon? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely, it is incredibly well written, researched and sourced. I have no doubt it is going to pass GA. I just enjoyed reading it (though I've not read it all yet). I still would suggest though to take it to WP:PR because my sole opinion does not really make a difference, and that would prevent surprises during the FAC process. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really, really hope your Wikidream does come true. The FA I have contributed to (a BLP about Indian actress Preity Zinta), was featured on the main page after I had retired from WP. I came back and it saddened me because I had spent a huge amount of time and energy working on it. But then I found this page, and it was really heartwarming.
 * I will read the article in entirety and if I find something that needs to be fixed, I'll let you know.
 * But overall, as I said, you don't have much to be concerned about; the article is excellent, and so is your writing. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey friend, I am still watching closely the article's progress, and your hard work is as impressive as it can get. I did read through most of it and there are some sentences here and there which I would reword (for one - the On Golden Pond para has a sentence which reads as, "showcased how energetic the 74-year-old actress still was, as she dived fully clothed into Squam Lake and gave a lively singing performance." - it sounds a bit of a personal opinion, and to start it with something like "was noted for showcasing" might make it sound more neutral, though it might actually be more effective to reword it completely; I'd suggest something like, "..., and 74-year-old Hepburn was noted for how energetic she still was, as she dived...").
 * Having said that, the article is still pretty excellent. What I find more amazing though is the fact that no one bothers to review it on GAN, and it's frustrating that it is being overlooked for so long. Are you sure this step is necessary at all? I mean, it is well worth submitting for FAC already, and I think it is better to withdraw the GAN and have it up for a peer review first instead of spending so much time waiting.
 * Please let me know about what you decide to do. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey don't worry, the article is very neutral throughout and I do not see any problems with the tone at all.
 * I see your point about GAN, let's see how long it will take. Of course I'm a Kate fan, I've seen lots of her pictures. There are probably three Hollywood acresses of that time who are my favourite, other than Kate the other two being Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, though each one I like in a different way. Just the other day I rewatched Bringing Up Baby. Still great fun. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I like about Kate the most, if we are at it, is the fact that in spite of attaining such great fame, she was never a "diva". She loved her privacy and, apart from having a successful career, lived life to the fullest. As she once remarked, even when she was already seen as a legend, it never made her look down to others or forget the importance of her craft, and she always struggled to do her best. A fascinating lady, indeed.
 * I will go through the section in question, let's see what can be improved. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall the section is excellent. I removed some mentions of "legendary" in reference to some of her co-actors. Also, though I'm impressed that you try to keep everything neutral, I did not really agree with the way her fourth Oscar was described ("widely regarded a sentimental win"). At the end of the day, the fact that some saw it as a sentimental choice remains just a speculation, so I tried to reword it. Also, I think it must be mentioned that it was a record. So what we have now is, "For her performance, she won a second BAFTA and a fourth Academy Award, the record amount of Oscars for a performer, though at the time many considered it a sentimental win; a tribute to her enduring career."
 * Let me know what you think of it and feel free to revert it if you think it is not that good. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Sheen
That will definitely be an issue with this article then - I have a habit of quoting a lot! I'll continue to tidy it and then send it for PR. Thanks again Popeye191 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Maria
Hi there. Good to see other people enjoying your writing! I see you have have Maria as a reviewer. She is a star, I think you've lucked out. Good luck with it all. Holler if you need a hand. x Span (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I came here to congratulate you on bringing Katharine Hepburn to GA-status, and saw this -- thanks, Span! And congrats, Lobo512!  Great job, it's an enjoyable read.  If you have any questions down the road, let me know. :) Take care, María ( yllo  submarine ) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, Maria. Useful comments. Congrats Lobo. I raise my mug of PG Tips to you and all your hard work. Span (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! Span, you have done lots of work on the article as well and deserve a share of the congratulations. It certainly would be in worse shape right now without your help. :) --Lobo512 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

CONGRATS!
Hehe I knew it - now come on go ahead and make your wiki-dream come true!!


 * Thank you Shahid, that is very pretty and I'm going to show it off right now. :) I work with a kid called Shahid by the way, haha. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hepburn
Very smart looking article. It feels in every way like an FA to me. Small thing: Surely Morning Glory, for which she won an Oscar, should be in the "Select Filmography", yes?

I'm afraid this month is terribly busy for me. I'm traveling on business the 9th through the 19th, preparing for that now, obviously dealing with holidays afterward. I'd love to help out, and could do so—would happily do so, your image selection is excellent and deserves a top-notch defense—beginning in early January, but perhaps you were planning to nominate much sooner. Either way, salutations. You've done a superb job.—DCGeist (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Katharine Hepburn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Stock company


 * Spencer Tracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Captains Courageous (film)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

re: Quick question
Hey! So sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now; it's the end of the semester, so the last few days have been obscenely busy. Things are finally settling down. In a nutshell, I know exactly what you mean. Probably the most befuddling criteria for FA is that the article should have "brilliant" prose. What does that even mean? Everyone has their own style, and some topics lend themselves toward gorgeously writing more than others -- I wouldn't expect plutonium to be written in the same way as John Keats, for example. The best advice I can give is read it carefully, and cut judiciously, as you seem to be doing. Tony1's guides are a great help in removing redundancies (my greatest weakness). As I said before, Hepburn's main issue is the editorializing/peacockiness. I believe the main point is show, don't tell. Rather than saying "With a promising future seemingly ahead, RKO signed the actress to a long-term contract", it's more correct to say that "RKO signed the actress to a long-term contract." However, perhaps some of the original intent (that she had a promising future) could be reworded, so it doesn't seem like an editorial addition. If the source agrees, perhaps: "Believing she had a promising future ahead of her, RKO signed the actress to a long-term contract"?

Another: rather than "The play was another grand flop, and Hepburn was slated by the critics" (changed to "Hepburn was slated by the critics"), how about "So-and-so deemed the play 'another grand flop', and Hepburn was slated by the critics". If the "another grand flop" is your original wording, and not from the source, then you could always substitute it with some scathing remark from a notable critic/actor/Hepburn himself, etc. By attributing it, with or without quotes, you couch it as someone's opinion. The point is still kept, but it doesn't jump out as editorization on Wikipedia's part.

Does this help? I hate to hear you're feeling discouraged, since you've done such wonderful work to get the article where it is now. In a lot of ways the polishing stage is harder than the researching/writing one -- made harder by the fact that you've taken on such a major subject! My second FA (Emily Dickinson) was similar, and I haven't really done something that heavy since. Then again, I'm super lazy. I still have my eye on Hepburn, and since I have more free time now I can help out where needed. If you'd like, I can go over your copy-edits and note some suggestions (similar to what I did above) on the talk page? Sorry for the rambling, btw! :) María ( yllo submarine ) 13:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. :) It is a very good article, but I understand the need to step away from something to concentrate on other endeavors.  Plus, FAC is crazy-town. ;)  If you need any other help in the future, just let me know! María ( yllo  submarine ) 16:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope my image pedantry didn't put you off. I never found FAC that daunting to be honest (though I was last there in antediluvian times). On the other hand, I also decided that the little star often doesn't add any value to an article, so you won't get an argument from me about changing your mind. Yomangani talk 17:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yomangani's quite right. The thousands of people who read Hepburn's article every month won't care if there's a star in the right-hand corner of the article.  If you decide to pick it up again, cool.  If not, you may run into more of these -- just take them as compliments. ;) María ( yllo  submarine ) 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah I noticed that! How weird. What did the random editor say on the candidate page they created? I never got to see because the page was deleted straight away. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was the usual: article fits the criteria because it's well written, has lots of sources, important subject, praise, fawn, etc., etc. They meant well, but non-contributor noms typically end badly.  My first GA was nominated by someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with the article; I stepped in after a few days, when it became obvious that they weren't going to answer the reviewer's questions.  You just never know. María ( yllo  submarine ) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Spencer Tracy, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Robert Taylor (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) 11:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Katharine Hepburn
Template:Katharine Hepburn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Non-free images
Thanks, I got rid of them. Anything to do with images/copyright confuses me! Pictures definitely make the article look less imposing Popeye191 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Spencer Tracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Father of the Bride (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) 10:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn
Thank you for your note about Katharine Hepburn. I've just taken a quick look; it's a long article, which has clearly received some care and devoted attention. I doubt I'll have time to give it a detailed review, as I have several pressing wiki tasks at the moment, but I'll read it through over the next couple of days or so, and give you my general opinion. I'll also try and indicate what if anything needs to be done to make the article a viable featured article candidate. The FAC process can seem intimidating if you've not been through it before, but if you have prepared your work carefully then you'll find it a lot less scary. It would be very nice to see this article make it, as Hepburn is a legendary figure, though more my parents' generation than mine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have started to post comments on the article on its talkpage, in the form of an informal peer review (though not quite as detailed). I'll continue doing this over the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ownership
Didn't mean to sound bitter or mean-spirited, if I'm bitter about anything, it's that I'm so addicted to writing for Wikipedia myself that it interferes with my own writing. I want to simply drop it altogether and years ago hit on the gambit of changing my password to gibberish so I can't log back in under that Username, but now Wikipedia has made that technically impossible and I honestly think I've written more for Wikipedia than anyone else, much to my chagrin, to the point that it's one of my few real regrets in life). Recently I was banned for a year, I think for having two simultaneous identities, and I was relieved. (Is that sock-puppetry? the Wikipedia rules and FAs and GAs and FUs don't interest me in the slightest, any more than looking at yet another Hollywood Walk of Fame picture.) I wish that I could somehow get permanently banned. There should be a "suicide clause" with Wikipedia wherein you can ban yourself for life. Well, before I received your response, I ran the numbers on the Hepburn article and it dwarfs the James Stewart article, clocking in at 22,802 words, meaning that under the 200-word formula, it could accommodate 114 pictures; since you have 20 up, that means you could fit 94 more.  Moot point, though, of course.  Touching back on the Philadelphia Story screenshot, I think the champagne picture is much less representative of the movie than the one of Hepburn and Stewart boisterously drunk by the pool, the scene for which Stewart won his Oscar and the one everyone remembers, and no shot I've seen captures her beauty so well even though it is a screenshot rather than a studio portrait. But in any case, rest assured that I didn't mean it the way it sounded and I had no idea that was you. My actual response when you asked me, and I do remember that (just not the username without looking), was as gracious as I felt, and it's been on my list of things to get around to ever since. Hey, while we're talking about Hepburn, is it true that she verbally skewered her ultimate competitor to reporters and so on, Margaret Sullavan, so often and so harshly that it seems to have permanently damaged Sullavan's reputation? Upsmiler (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And also, don't forget that the FA and GA nonsense means nothing, really (the decisions, after all, are probably made by a panel of 13-year-olds and deranged shut-ins), what counts is that if someone looks up Stewart or Hepburn or anything else, they'll get an informative and entertaining article. Upsmiler (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, with the story I've gotten, it wasn't personal in the least, it was high-velocity professional. If you think about it, they were sort of twins in playing extremely similar roles in extremely similar movies, and Sullavan and Hepburn were always competing for the same kind of part, with Sullavan arguably ranking slightly above Hepburn during much of the 30s.  I think Sullavan's best movie is Borzage's The Mortal Storm (oh god is it ever going to be suppressed in a few years!!) and for Stewart, I rank it right alongside my own favorite Stewart film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (although that's really more of a John Wayne movie).  But for me The Mortal Storm is both Sullavan's and Stewart's signature film.  By the way, Scorcese's The Aviator is one of my unsung favorites, and wasn't Blanchett smashing in that one? Upsmiler (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think finding someone to play Tracy is the biggest stumbling block in the world. Who could take that part on? Blanchett would have to repeat her bravura work as Hepburn (if she weren't in it, I would assume that the script was faulty).  I'd be curious to see how they handle this recent "gay" controversy, probably something some writer dreamed up.  You know, there's a library of books indicating that Cary Grant was gay but, based on what I've read and the people who actually knew him, I intuit that he wasn't, not that it matters.  I've seen a lot of Tracy's early films on full-sized movie screens lately and he was even more incredible earlier in his career. The board meeting scene in The Power and the Glory remains electrifying and it's no wonder that Tracy was paired with Clark Gable as a team; of young leading men of that time, no one else had their force and power (for more of that, you have to look to an older actor named Wallace Beery, contractually MGM's highest paid actor in 1933, and for extremely good reason).


 * You mentioned just getting into early films. If you happen to live in New York, by all means be sure to join the Museum of Modern Art.  They run double features in two huge theatres every night, often with the director and cast introducing the movie and taking questions afterward, and run films all day on weekends, seldom showing a film more than twice in a week, if that, unless it's one that they're showcasing for some good reason.  The movies are from every time frame and nation on earth, and they run all sorts of festivals and retrospectives.  The annual Indian retrospective knocks everyone's socks off (the best of India's gargantuan film output will turn you into a different person by the end of the week) and they've done retrospectives for Janet Gaynor and Isabelle Huppert that I've loved (Huppert attended and introduced the long version of Heaven's Gate, which is a truly great film when not hacked down, believe it or not, and the whole cast delivers superb performances; Gaynor couldn't make it to hers, probably because it would involve exhuming her corpse).  The mammothly comprehensive Hitchcock retrospective even included the early silent films for which he'd written the intertitles! The membership fee is only $75 per year and includes the galleries and bringing friends to see and tour everything for $5 apiece (for your friends, everything's available to members for free).


 * Like Bogdanovich before me, I've cultivated a love of the "transitional" films, those from 1927-1929, often with orchestral soundtracks and no dialogue. Bogdanovich has always preached that the transitional period aces out 1939 as the best era for films, and he is so very right.  I now prefer silent film to sound film anyway (it's true that it's a different art form, like opera or ballet) and it's where you'll find the best performances ever recorded on film, like Lon Chaney, Sr. in The Unknown (with 19-year-old Joan Crawford). F. W. Murnau's Sunrise is my favorite film, the damndest thing I've ever seen in my life, and Seventh Heaven and Street Angel, which altogether comprise the three films for which Gaynor won the first Best Actress Oscar, are also rapturous to behold.  Gaynor continued an entrancing career when film shifted to sound and remains one of America's most compelling film actresses--and no matter whom she worked with, she was always top-billed during the sound era, partly a reverberation of the stunning greatness of Sunrise.  Whatever you do, be sure to try to explore her work under the best possible circumstances.


 * Oh, at your request, I did put back a couple of Stewart photos (I get so tired of Wikipedia Photo Wars that I had simply removed the dozen or so that I'd earlier put in). I also expanded the directors list in the "Legacy" section.  Somebody had left out Borzage(!!!), De Mille, Lubitsch (!!!), George Stevens, and Don Siegel.  By the way, I'm not that much of a devotee of The Shop Around the Corner (I actually like the remake, You've Got Mail, better but don't tell anybody) although I have seen some earlier work by Lubitsch that set my brain on fire.  For Sullavan's finest film, don't miss The Mortal Storm.  Upsmiler (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen The Artist but I think they ran it at MoMA (the Museum of Modern Art) lately or maybe they will very soon (I neglected to mention that they run a lot of first run movies once, and also premiere a lot of films there--you never know whom you'll run into in the halls). It's also playing at the Paris Theatre right behind the Plaza Hotel, one of the loveliest places for seeing a film, aside from having to spring for full price. I think I'll make a point of seeing it somewhere, though. You know, I've had many opportunities to see The Passion of Joan of Arc but somehow never have. I know all about it, though, and will catch up with it eventually and be enthralled when I finally do.

Oh, I left a lengthy new message in the Stewart/Talk section. It's amazing to me that our correspondent somehow detects no difference between those starkly different photographs yet advocates using a Hollywood Walk of Fame photograph, the most definitively repetitive and meaningless picture that could possibly be uploaded anywhere.

This recent business about Tracy being gay echos the Cary Grant phenomenon. As I mentioned, there's a cottage industry of books by gay writers claiming that Grant was gay but those who actually knew him debunk it, as did Grant himself (Grant would say, "There's nothing wrong with being gay, I'm just not"). It's impossible to be in the entertainment business, or even to have much of any sort of life, without having gay friends, and Grant was anything but an exception. I think there's something unique about Grant that makes people want to claim him for some reason: some Jewish people seem to resent that he somehow isn't Jewish (practically all successful modern actors are and a huge percentage of the earlier ones were, of course, even Paul Newman and Harrison Ford), many gay writers insist that he was gay and offer baroque constructs verifying it, and so on. It all stems from the real phenomenon that people have presumably been discussing since The Awful Truth first hit theatres: everybody wants to be Cary Grant. It's true of him like no other actor ever: everybody wants to be Cary Grant.

I just saw the new Tracy book you're talking about in a bookstore window and I'll definitely have a look at it. I'd also like to read the most recent George Raft biography (no longer very recent) since he led a really fascinating life, complete with a humiliating career decline of almost Shakespearean intensity. His stunning dancing talent, for which we have too little film, really sets him apart as a major talent and he was wonderful with great directors like Raoul Walsh. God, I really like The Bowery (1933), and it doesn't hurt that my favorite sound era actor, Wallace Beery, was the lead in that one. Upsmiler (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our Stewart/Talk correspondent keeps insisting that there's no discernible difference between those three drastically different trailer shots of Stewart that I re-uploaded. Hope he doesn't drop by the Bette Davis page, he'll lose his mind. ;=) Upsmiler (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait til you see the lengthy exchange I had on the Stewart/Talk page while you presumably slept over in London. He simply can't see any difference in those pictures nor does he grasp how they connect to the text in the article, and that's all there is to it.  To him, they're all the same picture and that's that.  Head shots with Stewart's name superimposed over them, exactly the same thing repeated three times.  And he knows about the Bette Davis page and will doubtless campaign to take out all those various Davis faces, so different that it's hard to believe they're the same woman, and easily the most valuable aspect of that page, but he'll be unable to perceive any difference at all nor how they exponentially enhance the article.  I'm trying to figure out some way to simply give up writing for Wikipedia altogether, I did it on January first several years ago and it actually worked until around October but then I started again and that was it.  I remember my last post then was on the Mabel Normand page (how I love her!), which flew way under the radar at the time since nobody but me knew who she was, but in later years was subsumed by the nastiest and most brutally energetic coven imaginable, eager to fight anybody over anything all the time, including each other (especially each other, and me).  Since Wikipedia is a palimpsest to begin with, it's tailor-made to break anybody's heart who's fool enough to sink a lot of time and effort into it.  Wait til some 13-year-old (how old do you think our Stewart/Talk correspondent is? I finally broke down and asked him/her [I'm a man, by the way] that question out of sheer frustration) lays waste to your Hepburn article, jumbling sentences, deleting paragraphs, shuffling and resizing pictures, ripping out anything he/she doesn't like for any reason or no reason and replacing it with gibberish, bringing aboard a monkey-barrel of prepubescent Wiki-"friends" (or middle-aged shut-ins raging at the entire world--who knows who anyone actually is on Wikipedia?) to merrily join in the melee, and arguing feverishly and uncomprehendingly with you every step of the way about every single thing, mostly because his/her reading skills are lacking and he/she has the comprehension skills of a, well, 13-year-old....  Hepburn's a woman and so high-profile she makes actress/comedienne/screenwriter/director/producer/Chaplin mentor Mabel Normand seem positively unknown by comparison, so it's bound to happen sooner or later, you can count on it: you'll be descended upon by what will seem like a torrent of counterparts to our friend, loathing photographs and destroying text, you can rest assured that it will occur eventually.  And they're not vandals, they're serious editors furiously operating on a 13-year-old level.  That AFI nonsense sealed our fate on that one, I'm afraid.  Upsmiler (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How long have you been writing for Wikipedia? Like life itself, it's as much a site for bullying and gang-banging as it is for following "guidelines."  To begin with, I have other things to write and should never under any circumstances be putting anything into this palimpsest, which appears to be largely run by 13-year-olds and shut-ins, who also help concoct the "rules," which are mostly brain-dead.  The purpose of most of the "guidelines" is to immediately remove any good writing with the least bit of flair and replace it with "encyclopedic" (i. e. awful) writing instead.  The most famous encyclopedia in the annals remains the 1910 Encyclopedia Brittanica, recently reprinted.  I used to own an original set and believe me, colorful writing was its mainstay rather than the bone-dry approach favored by those today who know no better.  I've been writing for Wikipedia for more than six years, and believe me, if you actually think that "That's the key, you see, just keep everything within the rules and then you're safe. ;)," you're breath-takingly naive, as you'll eventually see. Your allegiance to the sanity of an organization will be sorely tried by Wikipedia before you eventually ruefully discard it as part of a learning process.  As for the importance of images, no, I certainly don't favor images over text, and the image from Philadelphia Story on the Hepburn article is in fact blurrier than any of the trailer shots on the Davis article, now that you happen to mention it.


 * And no, as I explained at length in our first communication, I most certainly do not want to "carry on posting here." It's an idiotic addiction that I've been trying to break for years since it's an inordinate amount of time spent to no good end, and if I made a list of ways in which I intend to spend my time, looking at "guidelines" would be at the absolute very bottom. As for it being "cool" to have an "FA" or "GA" article on "Wikipedia's home page," only beginners on Wikipedia ever see that page since it saves time to just input what you want to see in your search engine to begin with, in full (i.e. "Wikipedia Bette Davis").  It's New Years' Eve as I write this and I suppose this is the ideal time to stop, swear it off for good, and write strictly for pay instead of pissing away too much time on Wikipedia.  In fact, I'll do that.  I can't deactivate my password the way I have in the past but I will soon forget it if I try (it's all I can do to remember it now and I've been using it almost daily for quite a while).  This'll be my last Wikipedia post ever and I'd like to take this final opportunity to thank you for reminding me that it's something I need to do forthwith, and to do so on New Year's Eve is perfect.  Best of luck with your future endeavors here and everywhere, and I hope, as always, that 2012 turns out to be a superb year, and one that is pristinely free of any Wikipedia entries whatsoever on my part. (No need to respond, I won't see it.) Upsmiler (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)