User talk:Loeba/Archive9

So I watched The Master
Thanks for pushing me to do that. I'd been meaning to for a long time and had completely forgotten about it. It was absolutely fantastic, and my hype for Inherent Vice has grown even more now. Great work on Hoffman's article, I'm sure it'll be passed as an FA any day now! Sock  ( tock talk)  20:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'm glad you liked it. Thanks for the encouragement over the article; we've had a bit of dissatisfaction expressed, so that might get in the way, but given that we have quite a few supports I'm hoping it'll be okay. Cheers! -- Loeba (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Günter Lamprecht page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=642016859 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F642016859%7CGünter Lamprecht%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günter Lamprecht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Streetcar Named Desire. 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) 09:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Very kind words, thank you!! -- Loeba (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WT:TFA
Just a ping; looking for as much input as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think some good suggestions were made there. If you have access to the source, please check it again. The main problem with "mainly known" is ambiguity, I think. You were quite right to make an edit, btw, I forgot what I was doing when I wrote "also". - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, it can happen to us all! I've changed the sentence now. Best, -- Loeba (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me, no objection. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 *  Precious  again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oscars
Some interesting nominations. Glad to see Birdman is nommed. Have you seen it? Love it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I went to see it on Tuesday and thought it was bloody brilliant! Boyhood is still my #1 of 2014, but yeah I loved it. -- Loeba (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great wasn't it. The vein of it reminded me of All that Jazz at times. Ed Norton is surely in with an Oscar shout. Boyhood surely has to win Best Picture though. No Interstellar nom, a lot of people like yourself weren't too fussed on it. I thought it had flashes of brilliance at times. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Boyhood does look like a shoe-in for BP, which is very rare for a film not released in Oscar season. It's also hardly ever that I agree wdith the Academy over the best film of the year, so that's nice! I don't think Norton has a chance to be honest, Supporting Actor is going to Simmons. The key categories seem set in stone to me: Boyhood/Linklater/Keaton/Moore/Simmons/Arquette. Screenplay is harder to call. It's a shame Gyllenhaal didn't get in for Best Actor, have you seen Nightcrawler? He was brilliant in it. -- Loeba (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Will try to see it within the next month. Yeah I don't think Norton will win it either, I'll be watching the Simmons one in a few days. I saw Selma this afternoon. Good but not great, it felt like Oscar bait to me. I think Brad Pitt in all honesty is on a hunch that films about black American history will attract Oscars! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just noticed than Vivien Leigh is at FAR...Bette and Judy are bound to follow suit soon :-/ -- Loeba (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think intended working on Vivien after Olivier and has ordered a book. I may try to edit any of them, but it might be more rewarding to have it delisted and go through a proper peer review and FAC again.♦  Dr. Blofeld  18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen Whiplash yet either; I don't love the look of it to be honest, but it's getting so much acclaim (from people I respect) that I have to see it. Will probably go next week. Bette Davis is one of the very few articles that I can imagine being enthusiastic enough about to work on - I love learning about her! I've already read her autobiography and watched all the interviews available...seen about half of her films as well. The current article has good stuff, but I'd want to restructure it so that there is a seperate personal life/public image section (basically the same as the K. Hepburn article). There's very little overlap between her career and personal life so I don't see much benefit in combining them for her... -- Loeba (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm up for working on Bette if you are, although I plan on getting Meryl up to GA first as I have a book on her. Won't bother with FA though for the reasons you said about Emma. Waldorf Astoria New York which has an interesting history and association with film and actors I've been working on since the New Year. I love hotels like that and their history with the rich and famous. Last Bette film I saw was one she did with Richard Todd in 1955, The Virgin Queen, perfect casting! I love bald Betty! I've only seen about 15 of her films, sometime I really must go through her filmography so many to see. I've been seeing a lot of Kurosawa's of late, I've seen about half of his now I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What did you think of American Sniper? I was a little disappointed. Bradley Cooper was very good but I didn't like Sienna Miller in it and the film felt a bit jarring between home and Iraq. I preferred Eastwood's Jersey Boys, but it was very well made overall and a good film. Not sure it was really Oscar worthy though, but I do think Cooper gave a great performance and deserves to be nommed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen it yet. I think I've told you before I'm not the biggest Eastwood fan, although he's made a couple that I really like. He's pure Academy though. I'll get to American Sniper before the Oscars. As for Bette - in theory I'm up for it, I've always wanted to work on her article (have already done some stuff over the years: organising, copyediting, and I added most of the images (although they need their explanations improved)). But when/if it will actually happen...we'll have to see. A lot of her films are very mediocre to be honest, I've just sought them out because I love watching her so much.Kurosawa: I actually have a bluray of his sitting in front of me right now, Kagemusha, which I just got from LoveFilm. I'm hoping it will be similar to Ran. -- Loeba (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes I saw both very recently, have them on DVD, I liked Kagemusha and Ran pretty equally actually. Roger Ebert's comment on Kagemusha having some striking scenes and art or something is spot on I think. The irony with Eastwood is that he was very much a loner and outsider in Hollywood, much like his western characters, and liked to do things his way, much like Kubrick I guess, but he's now sort of become the Academy prototype. Have you seen Tarkovsky's Stalker BTW? I'm going to watch The Sacrifice later.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah Stalker is one of my favourites, and I got to see it at the BFI a couple of months ago (which I think I mentioned to you). The Sacrifice is my least favourite Tarkovsky but it's still interesting. What did you think of it? -- Loeba (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I rated Stalker top 50 ever material but just rated The Sacrifice a great film. Very Bergmanesque, but like you the least favourite of the Tarkovsky ones. Ones which I really enjoyed recently are Au Hasard Balthazar and Cleo from 5 to 7, both masterpieces, Balthazar especially.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

J. K. Simmons is amazing in Whiplash, he really made the film!! A dead cert for Best Supporting I reckon. His performance was comparable if not better than R. Lee Ermey's in Full Metal Jacket, I wonder if he was an inspiration to Simmons. For me Eddie Redmayne is more deserving of Best Actor than Michael Keaton, he really nailed Hawking, but I think you're right it'll be Keaton.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally got around to watching The Killing of a Chinese Bookie today, I remember you saying about that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm not sure that was me...unless it was me saying I'm not keen on it, heh. -- Loeba (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I said I disliked Husbands and you recommended Faces and Killing of a Chinese Bookie I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, Chinese Bookie is a complete misfire for me. His ones that I really like are A Woman Under the Influence, Love Streams, Faces, Shadows and Opening Night (although that one does go into "dragging on a bit" territory). -- Loeba (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A Woman Under the Influence is the best I've seen followed by Faces and then Shadows. Hated Husbands. Bookie was a bit sleazy I thought but a lot better than Husbands!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So Redmayne won the SAG award, looks like Best Actor is more open than I thought. I agree that he's probably more deserving than Keaton, who was great but the role wasn't especially challenging. It's a shame Cumberbatch isn't really getting a look in.  Loeba (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup that's what I said, I'll be disappointed if Keaton wins and Redmayne doesn't. He really nailed Hawking.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cumberbatch was great yeah, can you believe what happened here though. It's absurd. My parents often use the term "coloured" to refer to a black person and refer to people of mixed race as "half cast". They're not even remotely racist and regularly invited a young Kenyan lad to dinner and helped support his education. The reaction to such things annoys me, if he'd referred to them using the n word, then they might have a point.. OK, it's no longer politically correct to refer to them as such, but it's easily done, and he shouldn't haven to grovel for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an antiquated term but he obviously didn't mean offence by it...in these days of social media you can get ripped apart for the tiniest things! It's one area where I don't envy celebrities in the slightest. By the way, I've surprised myself by deciding to work on an article. I genuinely meant it when I said I didn't feel like putting in the work, but then out of nowhere, at the weekend I realised "actually, I'd really like to read and write about Wong Kar-wai"...so that's what I'm doing :D -- Loeba (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the most amazing film ever last night in my dreams LOL, and  should also know!. It was pure psychological horror thriller genius. In fact when I woke up I was ready to give it the full four stars and then realised that I'd invented it. It was amazing, it was called something like Confessions of a Quarterback, shot in around 1968 judging by the gaudy decor. Basically it was about a well known US footballer who confesses to be the serial killer and rapist, a notorious one in the New England region, which has puzzled the police for decades. He murders each victim and leaves them in a trademark condition each time. Basically his final victim, while keeping her hostage throughout the film, he boasts about his crimes as a young man and how he cleverly deceived everybody by being a publicly warm-hearted likeable hero and in private an absolute monster. The film is a series of flashbacks recounting his life and crimes. Well it reaches a violent climax, with the dread of something like Texas Chain Saw, but there's a double twist at the end. In the final scene he's riding his motorcycle through a canyon and as he passes the spot where he killed his first victim he feels a supernatural presence on his bike and looks in the mirror and sees the girl grinning at him. There's this big flash of light and a bang, which causes him to drive over the edge and plummet to his death and the film ends with the girl's laughter echoing throughout the canyon and walking off along the road with an evil satisfied smile on her face. Then the end credits roll with upbeat country music in the 70s style, in direct contrast, almost celebrating his comeuppance. The supernatural aspect was rather like this in a way. The twist comes from something earlier in the story in which he boasts about the way in which he killed her. The film was out of this world in execution! It was sort of a combination of films like Repulsion, Rosemary's Mary's Baby, Texas Chain Saw and Psycho (think of the bodies in the chairs for the shock element), Peeping Tom etc with the poetic brilliance of something like Tarkovsky's The Mirror or something by Ozu. Think of all the greatest elements from such films into one film with many twists! It was like the perfect film IMO, I can't believe I made it up. If I could get it to be made in exactly the way I pictured it would be considered one of the greatest films ever!♦  Dr. Blofeld  11:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! But too bad, Blof. I am going to plagiarise this and make it in Bollywood, and with song and dance! Imagine your protagonist breaking into a song after every kill. Now wouldn't that be something? -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  12:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha LMAO that would be ideal :-)!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't wait for the Bollywood version! in your search for a studio please go the independent route - a major studio would change it until your original idea would be unrecognizable :-) As to actors, initially, I thought Redmayne and Cumberbatch would split the "British actor" vote so it has been interesting to see R win so far. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised as there is a long tradition of awards for performances involving physical or mental handicaps - Cliff Robertson, Danial Day-Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Patty Duke to name a few. Ricky Gervais did a funny riff on this in the episode of Extras that featured Kate Winslet. Speaking of Benedict there is a very funny ref about him (by him) towards the end of this interview. Cheers to all who have added to this thread. It is wonderful to read everyones comments. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there's a reason why some of the more independent films are often better to watch. Look at a lot of Kubrick's films for instance with him doing exactly what he wanted. Spartacus was the last straw for him, and look what happened after it, the films were a sensation. It must be really annoying for a perfectionist director to have it chopped and rehashed. I was more impressed with the Best Supporting ones this year, but Redmayne I think is most deserving of Best Actor.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well Doc, sounds like you should get on with becoming a filmmaker! Funny, I've never had my own "film" dream. Hi Marnette, nice to meet a fellow film enthusiast :) -- Loeba (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever had one either! It really is an awesome treat to watch a film in your sleep! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had another one last night!! This time it was in the 30s French style. A romantic comedy based on a couple making a riverboat trip. It was really good, very Boudu Saved from Drowning/L'Atalante-esque! In one scene they were seated in the cafe and the guy was throwing peanuts at the bald mayor and he couldn't for the life of him work out what was happening! This one though had too much of an early 30s French film influence though to be invented by me, but I enjoyed it all the same!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Must be nice to have your own cinema in your brain :D -- Loeba (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I wish there was some way I could tape them for you, you'd have loved the last one in particular! Saw Pépé le Moko earlier which was very good. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget tomorrow :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I haven't! I thought the article was semi-protected, but just saw that it's not anymore...that's a bit annoying, it would've been good to know it was safe from vandalism (and too much fiddling with). I won't be able to do much in terms of "protection" until after 4pm, just so you know. I'm totally expecting someone (or two) to turn up and complain about blah blah blah...it feels inevitable with this sort of article, but we'll see! Sad to think it's been a whole year tomorrow...His death definitely hit me harder than any other celebrity's. I know some users said this TFA was too soon, but personally I'm glad to be reminding people about him (since he won't be on the average person's mind anymore) and getting them to think "Wow, it's been a whole year?" etc. We're good fans to have done our bit! By the way, if you liked Pepe le Moko I recommend checking out Duvivier's La belle équipe, which I like even more. -- Loeba (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We made it!! Yes, there's always somebody, this time is seems to be Softlavender who is "jarring" (rather than the article :-) ) They don't realise how irritating it is when they do that after an extensive review. Tim/Brian's advice is to simply stay away from it on TFA day and wait a day or two and then undo the damage caused by the loonies and trolls by reverting back. I think it's a lot less stressful if you don't watch it like a hawk. I think it's best to just ignore it but that's me. TFA has a way of attracting people who want to pick holes in it because it got in the spotlight.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Nightcrawler was a great one. Jake was incredibly creepy in it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

La belle équipe was a wonderful film BTW, has probably seen it, if not it's well worth a watch!♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's cool you watched it! About your email - I've not been active much lately, but I haven't got my "wiki aversion" or anything heh. I'm actually really pleased with the balance I have at the moment - I've always said it would be ideal if I could just do wiki things every now and then without it being a big part of my life...it was always "all or nothing" before, so this is much better. -- Loeba  (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We talked a while back about disturbing or extraordinary films.. The last 15 minutes of The Three Faces of Eve are really in that category, the moment where she crawls under the house and starts screaming is really quite chilling to me!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again Loeba and . I am glad you enjoyed Lbé DB. Although they are different films I think it makes a good twin bill with Waking Ned. I am glad that you have found a nice balance L. Enjoy your weekends. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the BAFTAs went largely as expected, largely what I'm predicting for the Oscars, although I think Michael Keaton is in with a good chance. If neither of you have seen Ida I strongly recommend it, it's a real masterpiece, the sheer quality and clinic way it's shot and the feel of it is fantastic. It's really a personal experience watching it with plenty of time for reflection and a lingering poignance which is quite special. It won't be everybody's cup of tea though. My only criticism really is that there feels like there's something missing in terms of a climax, like 20 minutes are missing from it or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw Ida at the cinema. It's a very good film and it looks incredible, but there was something stopping it from becoming a full personal favourite...I think I wanted it to explore the characters and stories a bit more. I never quite got that "poignancy". My expectations may have been too high though; I should see it again . And yes the BAFTAs went as expected, but some on the internet are saying Birdman will win BP because it got the DGA, PGA and SAG. On paper that does make it sounds like the winner, but I still think Boyhood is more the sort of film Oscar would go for...it's interesting that it's opened up though. -- Loeba (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it looks stunning but it was lacking that something wasn't it, like I said it was like 20 minutes were missing from the end. With some more exploration of the characters and story and more depth, perhaps something along the lines of The Pianist/Schindler's List with some more assets to the film with flashbacks or something and a better climax, it could have been even better. I still thought the feel and look of the film was amazing though. Yes, if the Academy go for Birdman I would be a little surprised as typically they don't tend to go for the more quirky ones. Something like Boyhood you'd strongly expect, but you never know.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking back on Ida more, I think the main "block" for me was actually the character of Anna/Ida. She could have been fascinating, but Trzebuchowska just played her too cold and flat. I could never care about her. Wanda was a great character and played brilliantly, but I think you need to connect with Anna to really love the film. The photography alone was enough of a reason to watch it though, sublime. Leviathan is the other main contender in the foreign category and that completely worked for me. It's extremely cynical, almost too cynical (!) but brilliant. Definitely one of my favourites of 2014. -- Loeba (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, better character and story exploration perhaps would have made it a true masterpiece. It was the cinematography and feel to the film primarily which I was raving about after seeing it! It's not often I get that feel from a film, it's still quite special I think. Leviathan is the next foreign film I've been meaning to see, probably tomorrow! Did you see Whiplash afterwards?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I totally understand people raving about it - it's rare that a film like that comes along these days (it felt more like a '60s film). Yeah I saw Whiplash - it's good, well directed. -- Loeba (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it felt similar to Polanksi's Knife in the Water in some of the outdoor car scenes, which was 1962. Whiplash was good yup, but it was Simmon's performance which was great, you see what I mean about the military guy from Full Metal Jacket? I bet he was an influence.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, I got around to watching Missing earlier and I was going to say in watching it that it felt a lot like Z at times with the footage of cars outside embassies and ambassador meetings. Same director (Costa-Gavras)! I suppose Argo could have been one of his too!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lovers of Paris another of Duvivier's, only 20 years later is another good one. Lovely looking film. Gosh, Moore is really scooping up those awards!! Birdman does seem to be winning a lot, it could really go either way, although I think more chance of Boyhood.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that one, thanks for the recommendation. I really wish the Oscars would be on a saturday so that I could stay up and watch them, grr... -- Loeba (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a DVR L. A couple years ago I had to be away from home on Oscar night. I DVR'd the show and watched it the next morning. Great thing was it only took an hour to see the parts that I wanted to. HeeHee Have a good evening anyway. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What channel are they on in the UK? Yes Loeba I think you'd like Pot Bouille, set in the 1850s-1860s, love the period furniture and horse and carriages on the street and all that.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's showing live on Sky Movies, which I do have but I don't have a DVR in this flat. That's not a problem though - there will be a streaming version online by tomorrow, I'm sure - I'd just like to watch them live..! Hey ho. -- Loeba (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny isn't it how the likes of us really feel part of the film industry isn't it, like we're closely connected somehow!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the Academy shunned Boyhood!! Finally the "cool" film wins Best Picture! The others went pretty much as expected. Finally Moore is rewarded with Best Actress though!! LOL check out this What a load of nonsense. The Lego movie aside, thinking those bubblegum high earners are superior films to the Oscar nommed ones is just laughable. They get nominated because they really are among the year's best films. Obviously there's ones which perhaps should have been nommed but got overlooked but to think that the gross of the film equates to quality or fine filmmaking just illustrates a complete lack of intelligence. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review/Enthiran/archive1
I have opened the peer review for the film. Please do suggest any changes that I should make before I go for FAC. — Ssven2  speak 2 me 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm going to have to turn this down - I wish you good luck though! -- Loeba (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bowers etc
Wikipedia does not take personal opinions and perceived personal offense into account. Bowers' claims have been met with mixed responses, some which support your criticism, while others support Bowers. This I have mentioned in a supporting note. Still, Bowers' claims have left a huge impact and this should be addressed to some manner. Also, the claims forwarded by Bowers have not been substantially refuted by other than subjective opinions. (talk)
 * It's not that I think it's "offensive", I just think it's ridiculous to include such a poor source - especially in the level of detail that you included. I appreciate that you showed both sides of the argument, but ultimately it's just giving way too much weight to a poor source. A general guideline for WP is to follow what other third party sources do; the Hepburn rumours usually are mentioned to some degree in books about her, which is why I think it's appropriate to give that some coverage in her article. Since the Tracy rumours began there's been an excellent biography written about him, and the author felt that the rumours were too insubstantial to mention. So that's why I don't think our article should say anything about them either...but if we do, it definitely shouldn't be more than a couple of sentences. -- Loeba (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up about this at Holanthony's talk page. If you feel inclined to remove mention of Bowers from ST's page, that'd be fine by me! ;) I was flexible to stop him reverting me, but still can't see why it needs any coverage (even small)...Anyway, yes it's surprising quite how much Boyhood was ignored the Oscars, but hey, at least it means there's less chance of there being a big backlash against it (as often happens with Oscar winners)! When it was released I didn't think it had a chance anyway: it was only all the December build-up that made it seem possible...I feel sad for Linklater though, because I'm sure he began to believe the hype, then in literally the last couple of weeks Birdhood took the lead. That's got to hurt a bit! Absolutely thrilled for Julianne, even though there was no chance of her losing. Love that she got a standing ovation. She sounded so emotional and delighted - I'm not gonna lie that I teared up a bit! -- Loeba (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Birdhood LOL? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the Sterile Cuckoo? Minelli looks like a cross between Ashton Kutcher and Anne Hathaway in it LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bowers
Your opinions on Bowers have been noted, but the point in question is that his story has been supported by other people. Gore Vidal claimed in "Page Six" in 2012 that Bowers' recollection was indeed true and that he had never caught Bowers in a lie during the 60 years he had known him (http://pagesix.com/2012/02/10/sex-tales-true-vidal-says). W. Mann (of whom you speak) also used the very same Bowers as a source in his biography, but then credited him solely by his first name "Scotty". This article in Variety was published in 2006, in other words, six years before Bowers' book was published:

http://variety.com/2006/more/reviews/kate-the-woman-who-was-hepburn-1200512464/

Thus, Mann mentions Scotty as a Hollywood "male madam" who set Hepburn up with female clients, as well as Scotty's dealings with Spencer Tracy. W. Mann elaborates in a Huffington Post article in 2014 that Hepburn actually preferred the company of women. He also admits to the claims purported by Bowers of Tracy being his client as well Hepburn's women affairs. Mann claims that she had sexual affairs with Laura Harding and Phyllis Wilbourne

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-j-mann/producers-of-kate-hepburn-biopic_b_4802940.html

Moreover, Bowers and Mann are far from the only ones to peg her as playing the other side of the fence. If you have read David Hernandez's "Broken Face In The Mirror (Crooks and Fallen Stars That Look Very Much Like Us)" published in 2010, he blatantly states on page 286 that Hepburn was bisexual.(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , you're not telling me anything I don't know. The fact that William Mann, Scotty Bowers, David Hernandez, David Porter or anyone else has called Kate gay means nothing. The fact is that no woman has said she had an affair with her, no letters or anything have surfaced, and no-one who knew her has reported any suspicions. This is unlike other stars from the era - like Greta Garbo, Rock Hudson, Dirk Bogarge, John Gielgud, Ramon Navarro, Charles Laughton - where there is definite evidence. I really hope that a biographer is given access to Kate's personal diaries at some point and the whole issue can be confirmed either way. But at this point, we've no reason to believe she was bisexual (definitely not lesbian, as there's too much evidence supporting her genuine love and passion for Tracy). I'm amazed you believe these people so freely. I mean, you must know that people publish sensationalist things to make money... -- Loeba (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaplin
Hi, as you are an active editor on Charlie Chaplin I thought we should tell you about this Saturday's editathon at the Cinema Museum in London. The main focus will be the Tramp as it comes up to the centenary of its release, but other Chaplin related articles may well get changed, especially as the Chaplin Association has promised to allow us to photograph some of the exhibits that they have loaned to the museum. There will be some film experts and several experienced Wikipedians at the event, and there is a talkpage for any queries, special requests for photographs or things to check in the reference sources available at the museum. And of course if you are anywhere near London you would be very welcome to come along. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Red Desert (film)
You weirdo LOL, you removed even your email address link. How odd. I knew you'd do a runner after promoting Hoffman, what happened to Karwai Wong? Well I was going to email you and recommend this as I do to, seems as you liked Levithian. Reminds me of both Stalker and Levithian at times the feel of it. It really feels like a Tarkovsky film.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Random - I genuinely haven't checked in here for a month or so, then I took a look and you'd messaged me only yesterday. Anyway, why is it odd that I removed my email link? I never even replied. The only reason I had it open was to receive email notifications about my talk page, but I'd cancelled those ages ago anyway. So no need for the email option. I'd actually cancelled it before I stopped editing. I really didn't just come back to get PSH promoted and then disappear, all my actions on here (or lack of) seem to happen spontaneously and unpredictably, but I've explained this before and don't think I should have to again. Wong could still happen in the future - I really don't know (see previous comment) - but I don't feel like it at the moment. As for Red Desert, I'm afraid I didn't like that one! I often have issues with Antonioni, although The Passenger and Blowup are very good. -- Loeba (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think it's strange that you don't like emails, even if you create a wiki one to hide your identity!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I Am Cuba is just a fantastic film! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1
Pavanjandhyala has opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film to be attempted for FA class. Like how Mughal-e-Azam is to Bollywood, Mayabazar is to Telugu cinema. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 04:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback?
Hiya, I think you might be on a hiatus from WP, but if you see this and would be interested in giving me feedback for an article I'm trying to improve, I'd be very grateful! I'm overhauling Marilyn Monroe's article and have so far re-written the section about her career (here), but am hesitant about adding it to the article without feedback (not a formal peer review necessarily) from others first :) No worries if you don't see this or don't have time, Dr Blofeld says he can take a look at it, but I would also be very happy to hear your thoughts as I like what you did with Hepburn and Lombard. Hope you're well! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * TrueHeartSusie3 Hiya! Just logged in for the first time in awhile and was pleased to see a message from you. It looks like you've been working hard. Monroe is a great subject to take on, and I must say it's looking fantastic! Especially your sandbox version, where I see developing legacy and image sections. Well done you! Her life is fascinating so I'm sure I would enjoy reading through it properly. How close are you to "finishing"? I've been good, making some changes in my life and all that. Hope you're well? Has there been any more drama over Chaplin?! All the best -- Loeba (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's ping properly - I've forgotten how to work this place apparently -- Loeba  (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Loebs. LOL I forgot about Monroe, sorry Susie, where are we with it, I've been busy promoting Rod Steiger and Stanley Kubrick!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Howdy ho Dr Blo -- Loeba (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yo Lobes! ;-) Started on Frank Sinatra for the centenary on Dec 12th!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hiya, so glad to hear from you and that you're well! I'm ok as well, in that 'unemployment-and-complete-aimlessness-after-graduating' stage though :D I decided to improve Monroe's article in order to get some structure to my days; thank you for the compliments by the way :) I'm not a fan of hers (if you had asked me at 13–14 though, the answer would have been very different!), but I find her interesting as a popular culture icon, especially in how she seems to be easily adapted to any interpretation. My primary goal is to simply improve the article, but I might be taking it to GA... maybe. We'll see. My plans at the moment are to finish and publish new 'death', 'star image' and 'legacy' sections this week, and perhaps write a new lead. Then in the coming weeks I can continue researching and fine-tuning without the pressure to draft entirely new sections. I would be very grateful if you could give the article a look – so far, I've added a new Life & career section. If you're interested, I wrote about some of my concerns to Dr. Blofeld on my talk page, but would of course be happy to hear your thoughts as well! As for Chaplin – well, one of our 'old friends' keeps getting 'interesting' ideas on how to 'improve' the article every now and then, but nothing much ;)  Oh, by the way, have you noticed the Bahá'í faith edits on Carole Lombard's page? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I hadn't noticed the Lombard edits but I'm rather dubious. Perhaps Loeba can revert?♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha, we're actually at kind of similar places! I decided to leave my job, otherwise I felt like I'd be stuck there forever, but am now also unemployed (well, I'm going to do agency work still). Trying to get into something film-y though, and have already done some work with the BFI and will be working with them full time during the film festival so that's a start. Hope you find something soon, and congrats on graduating. But yeah WP is a good place to come when you're feeling unproductive...so here I am with you, ha. I will read through what you've already done on Monroe (probably tomorrow). I'm not the biggest fan of her either but there's no denying she's a fascinating case...and she could occasionally be very good, such as in The Misfits and Bus Stop. I will take a look at Lombard later, but I'm pretty sure none of the bios I have mention her being that faith (whatever it is?!) -- Loeba (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Loved her in The Misfits, Some Like It Hot and Seven Year itch, but Bus Stop was a piece of pants, one of the most irritating films I've ever seen! Don Murray in particular. Hated Marilyn in Bus Stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, working for the BFI sounds wonderful Loeba! I think going for what you love, even if it means that at first you'll struggle a bit, always pays off. Best of luck to you! Thanks for the Monroe review – you're definitely not too nitpicky, the comments are exactly the kind I was looking for. As for Monroe in general, I must confess that it's been probably ten years since I've last seen one of her films, except Clash by Night. Writing this article has made me want to re-watch all of them though. Even if I can't really have an opinion on her acting skills, I must say that she was an extraordinary model. It's a cliché, but she had this extremely photogenic quality that makes her photos almost appear 3D? There are many classic Hollywood actresses who were much more beautiful than her (Ava Gardner, Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly...) and posed for absolutely gorgeous photos, yet Monroe's photos just seem to have something different to them. Especially in her photos taken by the Magnum photographers and Andre de Dienes.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

User:Dr. Blofeld/Great films Getting pretty good isn't it? You can see the 30s and 80s are weak for me, but the 40s to mid 70s quite strong. I'll get there eventually but may have to split it! ;-) The top 100 star really is for films in a given year you might at least consider when mentioning the best films of a given year, but a good percentage wouldn't of course really make your top 100 ever list!! I'd be interested to see your top 20 greatest film list! Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah you've got loads there now! You've definitely seen more from the 60s than me. It's clear from looking at it that your focus in on classic cinema (ie, pre 70s). Which is totally fine of course, but don't neglect the recent decade and 2000s too much as there is so much great stuff! As for me, I've always found it really hard to narrow down my favourites but I did recently put together a loose top 100 on imdb...do I want to share though, hmmmm -- Loeba  (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This list is great for exploring the 21st century: -- Loeba  (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think my 60s has overtaken my 1950s, though 1955 and 1957 are the two strongest with 60 odd films. Oh it's not that I intentionally neglect post 2000, it's just part of the reason I love films of the classic period is the look of them, I watch a lot of them because it takes me back to an era which just seemed so much cooler than today and I love how the actors looked, the decor, (particular the gaudiness of the 1966-1973 period), the classic cars, the glamour etc. You rarely get that from the 2000s period unless it's a period film. So that's why I largely tend to be drawn to films of the 50s, 60s and early 70s and indeed contribute to articles like The Stork Club, Waldorf Astoria and Sands Hotel and Casino!, but overall I don't intend neglecting any period, overall it's probably a lot more even than most people's would be with a fair few early silents etc. It's just I haven't got around to watching more 21st century ones! The intention eventually of course is to cover most of them! I've still seen a fair few glancing at your 21st century list though!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah don't get me wrong, it's great to see someone who watches films from all periods and regions (which the list shows) and I think you've only been "seriously" exploring film for a couple of years, that right? So you're doing great! I was mostly giving advice based on my own experience tbh; for a long time I was so consumed with exploring films of the past that I barely bothered with more recent (especially foreign) films. I've spent the last year or so largely making up for that! Alright alright I decided to share what I currently have as my top 20 personal favourites. Here ya go: Children of Paradise, Lovers on the Bridge, Pulp Fiction, The White Ribbon, Nashville, Bringing Up Baby, L'Atalante, Blue Velvet, Cabaret, Days of Heaven, 2046, Brokeback Mountain, Citizen Kane, The Great Dictator, The Cook the Thief His Wife and Her Lover, Distant Voices Still Lives, Cria Cuervos, Once Upon a Time in America, Farewell My Concubine, Europa. But there are tons of other films that could be there instead, and I feel like it could be completely different in a year, you know?! But it's interesting to force yourself to come up with a list, and that's what I have at the moment. -- Loeba (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll get around to more recent foreign films :-). As I say I've mainly been going through the 1001 book chronologically, so as I go through a certain year I'll watch a few others not in it too. I've reached 1972 at the moment. So in a few months I'll get around to 80s films, during which I'll watch a load of foreign ones haha! Interesting top 20, some of those I still haven't even seen! Two of those anyway are common to my own top 20! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said it's a personal list, which I'm more interested in than trying to choose objective "greatest" (although I do genuinely think all those films are great). Several from your top 20 make my top hundred: 2001, Rear Window, Titanic (one of my nostalgic favourites!), Mirror, Mulholland Dr, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather II...Sunset Blvd and Ikiru could easily be included as well, it got so hard to chose the last 30 or so, heh. I've got hundreds that I consider favourites (ie, rated 9 or 10 on imdb) now! -- Loeba (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw Titanic again a few months back and really marvelled at it. The strength I think is the last 3/4 of it, technically and emotionally. Some people like Marnette don't think much of it, it's easy to think of it as commercial mush, but it's a wonderful film IMO. All of my starred films are worthy of mentioning, but the real great ones have two or more! I think I need to see L'Atalante again, I preferred Boudu on first viewing. The newest top 20 entry is Marketa Lazarova which is just awesome, like Tarkovsky, Kurosawa and Bergman in one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Super Fly? It's the most 70s film ever!! Everything stereotypical about the 70s is has LOL. I mean the film poster is a dead give away! Quite good but not great, but the look of the film and cool cats in it are very entertaining!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, The Cook and the Thief was freakin awesome!! Gambon's performance is one of the greatest film performances of all time. And fulfilled a secret fantasy of mine with Helen Mirren too (as I'm sure most men) ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah cool you watched it! Peter Greenaway is a genius, his films are so stylish and clever. The Draughtsman's Contract and A Zed & Two Noughts are both brilliant as well (and just as dark). Completely forgot to reply to the comment about btw, sorry, no I haven't seen that one. -- Loeba (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Superfly wasn't exactly "great", my point was that it is the most 70s looking film ever!! Yeah, I loved Cook, it's stolen Kiki's Delivery Service's crown as the best film of 1989! The Draughtsman's Contract is on my to see list yup.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Lobes, if you can spare two hours I highly recommend this from 1931. A beautiful film, one of the best silents I've seen! Amazing how the water and wind conditions can influence your emotions. It's really an "elements" masterpiece if you get what I mean. would love it I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced claims
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Julianne Moore, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this was well-intentioned, but templates like this are slightly patronising to people who've been editing here for years and written recognised content...just an FYI for the future - check the editor's userpage beforehand. Cheers. -- Loeba (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. On the other hand, someone who has been editing here for years, should know the drill about adding unsourced claims as you did here. I found the edit summary "it's worth highlighting this to readers - it's not bias or POV it's just fact" is a bit disturbing. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even more seasoned editors sometimes find the wikirules annoyingly stringent and prefer to let common sense prevail! It is essentially sourced through the information in the 2014 section of the article, and just plainly obvious that it was an important year in Moore's career. No-one would deny that. That's what I was getting at in the edit summary. -- Loeba (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed wholeheartedly. Common sense is the only rule we need. See Excessive rule citing in User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, common sense can go ahead and prevail. To me the phrase "it's not bias or POV it's just fact" sounded needlessly defensive, and almost agressive. Perhaps I misinterpreted that, for which my apologies. - DVdm (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If it sounded defensive it's because those words had recently been removed and I wanted to justify their inclusion. Didn't mean to sound aggressive. Anyway, cheers -- Loeba (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was not aware of the history. If someone else had removed it as well, perhaps this is another reason to look for a little source. As you know, sources provide more solid justifications here than assertions in edit summaries, right? Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I still maintain that it is sourced through the various facts in the 2014 section of the article (leads don't need sources if it is sourced in the main text). Anyhoo let's move on! -- Loeba (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1
Dr. Blofeld's next FAC of which I'm a co-nominator. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC page. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 02:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright boys, I'll try and look in this week. -- Loeba (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sven asked you, not me, I'm scared at what you might say of it ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha seriously?! You've got more formidable reviewers than me involved, surely! No it looks really good :) -- Loeba (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, we appreciate all the reviewers we can get at FAC to ensure it's the best possible article!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Bed and Board (1970 film)? Definitely one of my favourite Truffaut films to date!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I've seen 7 Truffaut films but only The 400 Blows from his Antoine series, which is a bit odd! I should get to them. -- Loeba (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen all of his earlier ones now, will try to see them all. Godard too but there's a lot of films in there to really get through!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're getting tons of support and seem entirely safe, so I'll probably leave doing a review - I'm not needed. Hope that's alright! -- Loeba (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quite alright, Loeba. Do let me and Doc know if you change your mind. :-) —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 03:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Julianne Moore awards
Hey there! I just saw that you want to take it to FL. And considering that I love this actress, would you mind if I give you some help with references and table? --  Frankie talk 12:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Howdy. By all means, if you can find more references or can improve the tables - go ahead. Some of the early awards seem impossible to source though, so unless we can convince FLC to accept IMDb as a ref (which I believe it should for awards, but that may be wishful thinking) it may just have to stay a "regular" list (which is okay by me tbh; I mostly just wanted to merge all the separate tables, which is done now). -- Loeba (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the awards do not seem to be very early. Although it is difficult to find sources for em, but I believe some deep research on them will not disappoint. I had the same thoughts with List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio in fact I thought it would be impossible to make it an FL due to lack of sources, but after an extensive research, the result paid off. Anyway, I will try to find some sources regarding her awards for her early work. If we are lucky enough, we'll be able to find. BTW one more thing: I am going to remove the three-line sentences from it for now, and we can expand that with a professional prose (also for the sake of DYK ;)). --  Frankie talk 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The earliest nomination goes back to 1989 (one for As the World Turns). I really can't find mention of that anywhere. I dunno, we'll see. is a researching genius actually, maybe he can find something! As for the lead, we may as well keep it until it's been fully rewritten, no? It was absolutely fine for the time being. -- Loeba  (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaving other awards for now, here is a very good source for As the World Turns. As for the lead, yes it can stay, but I removed it only for DYK, which is not very much necessary. --  Frankie talk 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That mentions her Emmy for the show (which already has a ref) but not the Soap Opera Digest nomination...which okay, is not a major award by any means but I think it's interesting that she was getting noticed so early on. I'd ideally like it to stay on the article. I also can't find her NYFCC nom for Safe referenced anywhere, which is another one that demonstrates a growing awareness/appreciation of her work and would be good to keep... -- Loeba (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that Bustle is a good source to use. As for the 2002 NYFCC Award, I found a source from Google books. And a source for 1999 NYFCC Award is from the Los Angeles Times. :) --  Frankie talk 16:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra
I can't interest you or Susie to help write this for his centenary on December 12th can I? We hope has left the project in disgust and it's a bit too daunting even for me to do alone. I have books from the grant which any of you could receive if you're up for it and share the reading. It needs at least two solid editors on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, another one bites the dust eh? Hopefully s/he just needs a break. I'm not sure I can commit to researching and writing Sinatra though - it's a lot of work, I want to finish Wong (which will happen slowly anyway), and I'm not expecting to have much online time in October: I'll be working full time at the BFI and hoping to catch lots of festival films. Sorry...but I may be able to help with polishing etc if you'd like that. Hope you can find someone! -- Loeba (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you get the job with BFI?♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I started volunteering with their family learning department, then got some paid days with them during the summer, then while I was doing that they were recruiting for the LFF. I'll just be a Visitor Services Assistant and only for 3 weeks, but I'm hopeful that it's a step on the ladder to something better! And I love the BFI Southbank, so I'm excited about it. -- Loeba (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. Check out this. Thought it might interest you, I still think half of it is BS though, as much as I love Brian Blessed!♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a nice read, thanks! I'm sure it's true that they became friends but we all know what the Daily Mail is like: they will have exaggerated it to the heavens. They've included quotes that she "told him" that are lifted straight out of other interviews, heh. -- Loeba (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's that. I think he was being honest about how he saw her though, and I agree with him, that's my perception of her. She was so special.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW I see Ebert only gave 2046 2.5 out of four stars which for him is mildly negative or average at best. I generally agree with him on most reviews but he didn't always get it right. He gave Allen's Take the Money and Run an average review too and I think it's a brilliant comedy. I'll try to watch 2046 later, I'm guessing he's wrong about that one too!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No I don't think Ebert was the biggest Wong fan. Which is fair enough, he has a very specific style and it won't be for everyone. Have you seen In the Mood For Love? I recommend watching that first as 2046 is a sequel. With both you can marvel at the talents of Tony Leung, simply one of the finest actors ever. I'm becoming a bit obsessed with him; watched Cyclo (film) last night and that was another brilliant one. -- Loeba  (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In looking I've only seen Wong's first two films. I thought I'd seen Chunking. On your recommendation I'll continue watching in order of release later in the week. I intended to before but got distracted!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The weird thing Loeba is that I was actually about to suggest Scent of Green Papaya to you, I didn't recognize the Cyclo title. I saw it about two weeks ago, did you notice it on my list or something or is it a weird coincidence? I loved it, superb wasn't it? I never thought even a girl washing her hair could be so sensual!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen Green Papaya yet (two separate films by the same director) but will do. Pure coincidence though, I watched Cyclo because I'm seeking out Leung films. I've fallen a bit in love with him! -- Loeba (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I looked straight at the poster, not even the page and just saw "Scent of Green Papaya" in quickly looking. Do see Scent, that's beautiful. Minimal, but Ebert's review sums it up perfectly at least on that. One which always springs to mind in the minimal is Honey (2010 film). The use of the forest and silence in that is comparable to Kurosawa's Dersu at times. Have you seen it? That's a wonderful film. Christina Tilmann's review is the perfect description. User:MarnetteD should see it, he'd love it.♦  Dr. Blofeld  14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No I've heard of it but not seen it. So much to see all the time! Cyclo isn't really "minimal", there's a lot that goes on and it's pretty tense, but it's confusing! I may even watch it again tonight, I loved it despite the confusion but feel like I'd get even more on a rewatch. I actually think Tran is quite influenced by Wong - the fragmented style, and the way he used lighting and music at times felt very reminiscent of WKW (based purely on Cyclo, anyway). I've been to Ho Chi Minh City so I found it really interesting to see a film set there. It definitely captures how hectic it is. -- Loeba (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite different from Scent, my mistake! I'll have to see that some time. As you say though, too much to watch. Bal is available on instant here here BTW Marnette. Well worth it. Scent I think was actually shot in Paris, which astounds me, it felt like Vietnam to me. But what do I know? Even Full Metal Jacket fooled me ;-), (I'm kidding LOL). ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FMJ is pretty convincing! -- Loeba (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It did fool me until the last drawn out major scene of course, the urban warfare which looks a bit bizarre in Vietnam as most of us think rural villages and rivers and Napalm like Apoco Now for the Vietnam War. It really does look like the London industrial estate that it is! I think that was the point of that though, Kubrick messing with the viewer. The imported palm trees though earlier on are passable for Vietnam though! I started Mad, Mad 83, betcha haven't seen that one!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony's first film! Ha, nice one -- Loeba  (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can just imagine the haircut he had in 1983 haha. I used to be into Hong Kong kung fu films of the 1970s and 1980s, sometime I should try to work out what I've actually seen, I can barely remember the titles given how similar they are. I must have seen a few dozen Golden Harvest and Shaw Studio productions, you know the sorts where there's that old guy with the long grey beard and eyebrows and the master taking on a hall of martial artists, same old scenario, they're too similar a lot of them!! Doens't help that the titles are all so similar, "The Duel of the Century", "Perils of the Sentimental Swordsman" etc.. I love looking at old posters and screenshots from them too. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See that's one area of film I've never ventured into. I haven't seen seen Enter the Dragon or a single Bruce Lee film, heh. -- Loeba (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Haven't seen Enter the Dragon? Do so, asap!  —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Monroe
It is Marilyn Monroe, a huge personality, did you really expect me to straight pass it with "Brilliant, it'll pass FAC immediately"? I had to assume a critical stance on such an article during a review. I was the one who promoted it to GA, don't forget that. I think sometimes you take criticism too strongly and literally. I of course am aware that Monroe was never treated as a classically trained serious actress, but I do think with relying heavily on one biographer you can sometimes reflect their views and focus on something and miss what else which might have been said at the time. Given that it is Monroe, I would expect more reviews and commentary from Life magazine and others from the period, and I don't think in places it would be too difficult to focus a bit more on her as an actress and focus a bit more on her acting at times than the scandal. She had a massive amount of material written about her during her lifetime, I'd just like to see more from the time that's all, is that too unreasonable? I know it's Monroe and that scandal was a big part of her life, but you've taken moderate criticism of it too harshly I think. I did say that I thought Susie did the right thing with merging it and that it's what you'd expect on somebody like Monroe. I urged Susie to open a peer review immediately because I suspect others may think it's fine to rely on Spoto and that the balance is adequate, so you'll get a better overall outlook. Perhaps my "I think it needs a lot of work before FA" didn't really reflect my true feelings on it. I think it is comprehensive and approaching FA level, if I didn't I'd not have suggested a peer review before she proceeds. But I do think in places the prose could be tightened up and some Spoto sources could be replaced with primary news/magazine sources from the period. For somebody as big as Monroe you'd expect IMO a broader range of sources. So apologies if either of you think I was harsh, but I did have to air my thoughts on it in reviewing it. I thought at least that you'd have taken my passing of it and suggestion to open a peer review for a fairer response more positively. Fine, you think it's "silly" to suggest introducing reviews and commentary from Monroe's lifetime. I'm just airing what I think could be improved upon. It's not my place as a reviewer to reap praise upon it, so I'm sorry if my positivity towards the article didn't come across during it. Please upon a peer review on it and then you can see how others respond to what is covered.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Writing this on my phone during a break so it's not the easiest way of replying, but I'll try. You think I interpreted your comments too harshly, but I think you've done the same with mine. I really didn't think "Gosh, he's being so unfair and critical" - not at all. I just saw your comments, which I know are there to be constructive (as I indicated at the start of my reply) and thought I'd give my perspective to see if it could change your mind (which is essentially what we're all trying to do in wiki discussions all the time, I don't think I was being arrogant with that...) But I'm sorry for putting it on the GA page, I'll move the comments to the PR if THS opens one (obviously I'm not going to start one, she's the author and it's totally her choice/entitlement). As for using "silly", I thought you were saying other reviewers would comment on the sources so that was directed at "them" (hypothetically) and not meant to criticise you. It's a shame I've pissed you off but there's no bad blood on my end.  Loeba  (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did certainly think it was a bit off that you turned up on a review which had been closed and promoted calling my comments "silly", but I can understand you seeing it on the talk page and thinking it part of the page. I know you were just saying what you thought and didn't mean to be anything but constructive so don't worry about it. With somebody like Monroe I guess I would expect to see a broader range of source material used, as I think a lot of the biographers, even the definitive ones do write a lot about scandal to sell books. That's why I thought some reviews from the time period might help balance it a bit as I think a lot of authors largely ignore that side of things. It would have been different if I was stalling passing it because of those "concerns" and you commented, but it did look a bit odd given that I'd passed it and urged her to take to peer review to see what others think. I guess I didn't make myself as clear as I could have, I know Monroe was never treated as a serious actress, but I do think she'd have got some commentary during certain roles. Anyway, others may disagree that it needs some more primary material from her time period to balance it out more. This is why it's important to open a peer review now and you can see how others generally perceive it. It may be the case that people think it's ready to run FAC. I do tend to be more critical with the core personalities like Monroe though because I know just how much material has been written about them. That's why with Sinatra I've tried to research a broad range of sources as I find it impossible to ignore so much material. I have a lot to do on Sinatra now condensing it as its 190kb currently and during writing it I already had to condense down about 35kb of material! An article like SInatra though is always going to be very long because of his big careers and related things like politics and the mafia which all need covering. Monroe wasn't in a large number of films and there should be a definite focus on the scandal and her public perception (which there is) as that's largely what she's remembered for.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's it - I was reading through the talk page, felt like I had something I wanted to say, so did. I think I also felt it was relevant to the GA page because of THS's comment: "I don't mind the article just being a GA at this stage. I've been working on this since July, and am not sure I want to commit to it for many more weeks." I wanted her to see that to my mind there is still potential for the article as it stands. I could be wrong about that, that's why more input would be good (as you say), but I didn't want her to give up quite yet. I really didn't "call you comments silly" either, I said one aspect was "a bit of a silly complaint" (and that was in response to you saying "there is some concern about the heavy use of Spoto, given the massive amount of material written about Monroe which I think others might bring up at FAC". So I was targeting it at those hypothetical complainers, not you). Sinatra is shaping up very nicely, well done. Last day of the festival today, I'm bloody knackered now! -- Loeba  (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Loeba. Yes it is a great article and THS deserves a big pat on the back for taking it on and getting it up to decent status. And for skilfully sorting out the tricky personal life stuff around career. I've taken a few days off of Sinatra until I get the 800 page Kaplan book, which is probably the definitive biography, I didn't realise at first though! So once I've gone through that I can add some finishing touches and try to condense it again but it's never going to be under 75 kb of readable prose. I think Ronald Reagan is comparable, his is like 84kb of readable prose though. I think around 80kb of readable prose is ideal for him and would be acceptable, even 85 for GA but for FA people might start to complain if it's too long. I'm planning on Ava Gardner and Cary Grant next. I plan on working on Grant with Sven next month. When Sinatra reaches GA I'll probably put it at peer review and get on with Ava Gardner if I can be bothered. I'm reducing what I do on here to the core articles now, aside from the odd article with Rosie/SusunW for the women/intertranswiki projects.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've started watching Cary Grant's earliest films. I don't know about you but I absolutely love the look and feel of films from the early 30s in the Pre Code era.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I never look at prose by kb, always word count, so that didn't mean much to me I'm afraid, ha. But looking at words Sinatra is currently 13,700 while Reagan is 13,800. That hasn't had an FA review since 2009 though, and back then it was 10,300. I personally have a vague belief that articles should ideally not exceed 12k words, and you've got lots of subarticles so hopefully that will be possible with FS. But yes, it's always going to be long! I don't know much about his life, but scanning the article the sections that I imagine could be trimmed are TV & Radio and Political activity? Up to you though. Glad you're planning to work on Grant! I may help out in some way, will see. Yeah pre-code films are really fun. The "raunchiest" I've seen are definitely Baby Face and Three on a Match (I found the latter unintentionally hilarious, but in a good way!) Haven't seen a whole lot of early Grant, but my favourite is definitely Thirty Day Princess (how could you go wrong with Cary and Syvlia Sidney). By the way, now the Monroe PR is open shall I move my initial comments there and delete the stuff after it, to keep the GA page clean? -- Loeba (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think 12,000 would be more reasonable, that would be a good target. You can see that a number of the sections have already been trimmed to a reasonable length. Yes, I think I can take a bit out of the Politics and TV career and the 50s-70s of his career could be trimmed a little. Somewhere in 12k range should be OK. Is there a word count tool on the web somewhere? You can move your comments from the GA review to the PR if you like and start a thread there on "Is the sourcing satisfactory"?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You use this tool to measure word count: User:Dr pda/prosesize Funny that you've been using WP for so long and never come across it! I love it, such a handy tool. -- Loeba (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added it to my script but where to I get it to number of words?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * On the left, under "Tools", your last one should be "Page size". Click on that while viewing an article and it gives you lots of stats including word count. -- Loeba (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Golden Hollywood
Hey Loeba and True Heart Susie check out this. Either of you can potentially be a part of it with me. I'm guessing Susie wants a big break after Monroe though and you're busy in RL Loeba but it's a long term thing, so if either of you want to pick a bio or film and order books whenvever without paying it's possible. The WMUK have been so supportive.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool idea That's great that the foundation does that. I actually haven't minded buying books for articles in the past, as you get them so cheap on amazon and they've always been subjects I'm passionate about. I have about 10 books each on Hepburn and Chaplin haha but quite like owning them. Good to know this is a possibility though. By the way, 1,681 views! Not too shabby! -- Loeba  (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you like hotel articles right? Any interest in creating Waldhaus Flims? It gets 250,000 google hits Don't mind if you're not up for it, of course, I just thought it may interest you. -- Loeba (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the barnstar Loeba!! Yes Sinatra and Monroe at GA within a few days, we're finally making some progress! Will try to start the hotel later in the week!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Chungking Express was great but Ashes of Time blew my mind, an all-time masterpiece, the spiritual elements and feel of that film are very special indeed. Reminded me of Bergman, Tarkovsky and Kurosawa at times, but very much the director's own stamp. I've rated it Top 20 greatest material.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! It's certainly a great film, although it actually doesn't make my own top 5 Wongs because, well, they're all great to me (apart from the most recent two, which are only good). I'm glad you found one that you love anyway.  Loeba (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not even top 5? Wow there's some good ones to come then! Beautiful film! The first one of his I've seen which I thought was a masterpiece. Four down. Six to go.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Only noticed this now, the fund looks interesting! I've decided to give Liz Taylor a mini-overhaul next month; I'm not intending to take it to GA/FA level, though. If either of you are interested in helping or know someone who'd be interested, please let me know! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Great idea, although you should probably know - I'm pretty sure an old friend of ours has worked a lot on that article in the past! Hopefully it won't be too rocky sailing... -- Loeba (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, whenever there's quotefarm on a film article, you know who has been there... luckily he doesn't seem to be actively editing it at the moment, and most editors are able to see that he doesn't have a clue about how to write a good article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * LOL! I was going to work on Liz Taylor sometime in the future. If you get it up to Monroe level then Sven and I can do Cary Grant next month! I'm going to be spending less time on lots of different articles now and focusing more on the ones which really matter. All of the ones in the AFI 25 actors should be minimum GA by now. Those are the ones we should really be concentrating on I think. The two books which exist for Maureen are on their way through the post. BTW Loeba have you seen Claire's Knee? When I watched it I thought it would be your sort of film. It was in Ebert's top ten list for 1971 I think. Always one idiot who has to spoil the perfect 100% rating♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've seen Claire's Knee, I liked it but didn't love it. -- Loeba (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see The Babadook on your list? I just watched it last night, highly recommended. Purely as a horror film it is super creepy and effective, but it also has deeper meaner and is very powerful and intelligent (don't read the wiki page beforehand, it gives it away). Perfect for Halloween! The best horror film in years, even though It Follows was great. -- Loeba (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Will try to watch it this evening, "super creepy" sounds good, having an Ealing comedy run at the moment, Hue and Cry and Another Shore so far. I should probably watch some horror films like that later on to get in the spirit of things though haha! Have you got any other horror films you highly recommend which I've not seen? I'm thinking of watching The Innocents (1961 film).♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah The Innocents is very good. Without checking your list (as I need to get offline!): Eyes Without a Face is one of my favourites (although it's more disturbing than scary, and is also very beautiful)...The Skin I Live In could be described as horror and I think that one's incredible...It Follows, as I said...Suspiria...umm, I'm not one of those horror nuts but I've heard all of these are really scary: Audition, The Descent, The Curse, Pulse. -- Loeba (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seen Eyes Without a Face and Suspiria, Audition was one I was thinking of anyway so I'll see that too if I can. Have a good day!♦ Dr. Blofeld
 * & Loeba : Oh wow, have you seen what's happening with the Taylor article? I started improving it (got as far as one section), and Light show appears making his bogus claims again... and has now nominated the article for GA!!!! If this isn't WP:OWN then I don't know what is. Makes me so angry; someone would actually be ready to spend the time in improving the article, and he absolutely cannot take it because in his view WP = a collection of Light show's opinions and ideas. Do you know if I can take this to an admin (Light show has a lot of admins already against him – he recently got into trouble for defying his image loading ban again), or should I just wait for his GA nom to crash and burn? Surely it should be quite obvious that since no one has made major changes to the article in ages, and his nom follows a new editor arriving to the article and a dispute erupting (for the most ridiculous reasons, btw – it was again clear he wasn't there to discuss, but to argue), he isn't actually taking it to GA for the right reasons. Although maybe, maybe already the fact that this article is not ready to pass GA in a million years will make him think – more likely he'll just claim everyone else is biased though... I just don't understand this person. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie

Sorry I didn't see this yesterday. Eek, tricky situation. I did suspect that he might get particularly resistant/disruptive over Taylor since he's the top contributor for the article. Umm, you could go to WP:ANI and explain everything...I'm sure they'd agree (especially considering the history) that he is nominating for GA for the wrong reasons and as a way to keep you off the article...whether or not they can actually intervene, since he does technically have the right to nominate it, I don't know. I've never gotten involved there either. But he does have a history of being banned from film articles, which would work in your favour. The other option would be to let the GA review pan out, then hope that he'll "back down" or at least cooperate and try and produce the article together...But it's hard to imagine that - he'll probably continue to complain about the changes - in which case you'll most likely end up going to ANI at that point. I kind of think it's worth mentioning it to the admins now, at least to see what they think and so the situation can be monitored. I know that's annoying drama to enter into though! -- Loeba (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries! I just got so irritated and hadn't had my morning coffee yet so had to vent somewhere ;) I've decided to wait for LS to go through with his GA nom before resuming with the article; it will hopefully make him look at his actions in a different light (yes, I'm an eternal optimist). If he then still continues claiming that I'm ruining the article and adding trivia, I'll probably have to go the ANI route, although I really dislike the idea. ANI seems so dramatic, and internet drama is so unnecessary and exhausting! We'll see, hopefully it won't be necessary. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Oh I'd be really frustrated in your position as well. At least the GAN has been picked up quickly, it normally takes ages. I completely agree about internet drama so hopefully it can be avoided...surely LS won't want to end up back at ANI either, so with a warning he might be more cooperative. Btw, I remembered the other day that I never uploaded that Clash by Night image, sorry! I can still do it if you want? If so then I think it should be cropped - any preferences? -- Loeba (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I kind of envy Snuggums for being able to review it :D That image would be a wonderful addition! But yeah, it probably needs to be cropped, as I think it's also nice to have the Monkey Business still there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Sumi Jo
 * added a link pointing to Youth (film)


 * Youth (2015 film)
 * added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mayabazar
I've nominated this article for FAC which also happens to be my first attempt. It is also the first Indian Telugu film article to be nominated for such status. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A gentle reminder! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to respond to but don't want to ignore you. I'm afraid I have to decline this, I'm quite selective about what I do on WP these days and stick to personal interests. But I sincerely wish you the best with the nomination, I remember what a big deal my first FAC was! Good luck, it looks likely that it will pass. -- Loeba  (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Loeba. At least you did that, most of the remaining didn't respond. Out of three reviews, one began very much after my request and the other two (Jaguar and Dr. Blofeld) are kind enough to review it. I think their love for this film was also one of the reasons. If interested, please try to watch it. It will not disappoint you surely. Happy editing! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum FAC
Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 09:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Psycho
LOL Loeba, and anybody else, check out this. Hehe, that's a good one. Could not look more different to her mother!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a nice tribute, I'm sure she loved doing that. "When Alfred Hitchcock Janet's shower scene he shocked audiences by killing off the world's biggest female star early in the movie" - Uhh, slight exaggeration there, Daily Mail (and clearly missing a word, god they suck!) -- Loeba (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The shoddiest quality journalism yeah, but in fairness often have some interesting articles. "Early on" is a bit of an exaggeration, Janet was the film for at least a third of it and Janet Leigh was never close to being the world's biggest female star LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Making good progress with the Maureen O'Hara biography. It's an excellent book, so much useful info on every page haha! Added some recent interesting stuff about John Farrow making a pass at her and bullying her once she rejected him and her punching him and putting an end to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You and User:TrueHeartSusie3 have both got those articles done so quickly, I don't know how you do it! Great work both. -- Loeba (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not even close to being done yet! A decent expansion since the original though!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Liz Taylor's nowhere near finished though! :) Don't worry – whenever I'm most active here means I'm going through a boring, slow period in my real life... continued unemployment and horrible November weather equal productivity on Wikipedia ;) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Question: before nominating Monroe for FA, should I ask the people who peer reviewed whether they are happy with the changes I've made, or can I just assume that they're fine with it being nominated if it's been a couple of weeks since their review and my replies? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Well even if they do want to raise a couple more points during the FAC that's absolutely fine and you may as well allow them to happen there (odds are a new reviewer or two will turn up there anyway). That's my view anyway! Go for it! -- Loeba  (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eli Wallach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page How the West Was Won. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Karwai Wong
Curious, what are your top five films of his? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say: 1. 2046, 2. Fallen Angels, 3. Chungking Express, 4. Days of Being Wild, 5. In the Mood For Love (been meaning to rewatch that one though, and Happy Together). Awards season is starting up this week! I can't help getting caught up in it haha. Looks pretty certain that Leo will finally be winning an Oscar in February. -- Loeba (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fallen Angels "I'm going blonde" ;-) was excellent. I didn't think it was as good as Ashes of Time though. There's definitely something special about his films and their conception.I'll watch Happy Together later, I'm watching in order! Currently seeing Cary Grant's early 30s films to complete the lot. I'd forgotten how filthy Mae West was LOL, that voice too, sounds like she's got something stuck up her arse. She's the female voice equivalent of Brando ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of awards and nominations received by Wong Kar-wai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Happy Together (film). 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) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Loeba as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times and many wonderful films. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, happy Christmas and new year to you too :) -- Loeba (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)