User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Charles Kushner

I've started a BLP Noticeboard thread and a plea on the talk page to refrain from editing it any more until BLP-savvy, nuetral eyes have looked things over there. Please join the discussion, but on the article talk page and/or BLP Noticeboard. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Kushner meeting with Mayor Wilda Diaz confirmed Helga Van Eckert, director of the city’s office of economic/community development and redevelopment, urban enterprise and Business Improvement District; and Perth Amboy Redevelopment Agency attorney Joseph Maraziti have both confirmed that Mayor Wilda Diaz and Charles Kushner met personally during the extensive conference between city officials and representatives from the development company. It occurs to me that this information may be trivial in the larger context, but for the sake of defending against unwarranted accusations of 'hate' and defamation, I want to set the record straight. XLR8TION has made several insulting remarks and accusations, which cannot be good the the Wiki community.

Mayor Wilda Diaz and Charles Kushner met personally during the extensive conference between city officials and representatives from the development company. 68.46.70.19 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Garbo V

Hi FH, I noticed in the ratings of the page that "objective" was at 4.0 (out of 5). Might this be from reviews of the previous version? How far back are the reviews measured? What I wrote was objective. But perhaps there's something i can do to make it appear more so. Any ideas? Thanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't help much on this one. I haven't read up on the ratings, which I think are relatively new, and though I've seen the voting boxes at the bottom of some pages, I never looked at any of the results (until now). Primarily because I'm not particularly concerned with what others think. If I were concerned, I'd be happy the "well written" rating was so high. Bear in mind, it's less than 10 people participating so far. As far as "objective" goes, I think the article does sort of gush all over her with "icon", "superstar", "biggest star", "greatest", "victim of MGM internal politics"... (I see we dropped "Goddess" somewhere along the way). Even though all the encomiums are cited and probably deserved, they tend to give an impression of bias to the casual reader. Again, if you're happy the article is fair and balanced (to coin a phrase...), I wouldn't start looking for places to change unless someone makes a suggestion on the talk page. `Fat&Happy (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

right, right--exactly. Just as I thought. The internal politics thing comes fromthe other writer and should be deleted. i'll go through and get rid of some of the "gush." thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DONE! Thanks for your analysis.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You were quick. I was writing this while you were apparently making the changes:

Whatever you think is desirable. Beyond my overall tendency to not care what everyone else thinks, I'm especially unimpressed by a minute set of anonymous ratings on a scale of 1–5 with no comments indicating a reason for the rating. Policy says we should assume good faith, and in general I do. But based on experience, I also recognize that there is a certain segment out there which will not consider the article "objective" unless it contains an extensive separate Criticism section, detailing every negative thing anybody ever said, alleged, or rumored about her acting, her looks, her relationships, and her entire personal and professional life. Best would be something to the effect that she was a personal friend of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and considered a person of interest in his crime. But if you honestly think that trimming some "gush" will improve the article, not just its ratings, then go for it. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you make a very persuasive case. Yes, they were deserved, but maybe the superlatives are intrinsic to the info and don't need to be stated overtly. May add back a word or two, but better to say that, e.g., in 19 blahdeblah, she represented 13 % of MGM's profit, which she did but I'd have to read through the stuff again to identify the dates and cite it. I'll do that for fun as soon as I can. Now, one little question. How do you know that someone has made a comment on your talk page? thanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain the message by Charles Kusher, who's name is in blue, after the G V section?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MLK, Jr. article

Hey, I did some concision work on MLK, Jr. yesterday; more of that can be done to tighten up the article without losing the factual and historical points of the man and his times. If you have the time, I would welcome your input and work as to same. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you were doing some work on it. I'll take a look and see if there's anything I can do to help, bearing in mind my usual role as follow-up gnome... Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Diaz> Chrystal

Please see the message left on the talk page. For some reason it did not save when I undid/revised your changes on Mayor Diaz's biography AmboyBeacon (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

DO NOT edit or modify the talk page comments of other editors. If you continue then you will be blocked from editing. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Second Warning DO NOT edit or modify the talk page comments of other editors. If you continue then you will be blocked from editing. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate posts combining shouting, site insults and statement of intention not to follow standard procedures, especially when they have no redeeming social value in the form of any discussion of improving the article, can be legitimately removed. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry

I know I reverted your edit on the GOP primaries. I understand where you were coming from, and I must admit I was misled. Bachmann is the only candidate who has pledged to a PAC-written contract that she will repeal Obamacare. However, all the others have vowed and made it clear that they will have it removed. I also want to dispute the notion that a president cannot repeal a law. A president absolutely can repeal a law, symbolically and with the support of the other branches. I am not sure if the president can repeal a law with only the supreme court, but that may be possible. The president can launch an executive order and do all sorts of unconstitutional things as long as the other branches don't object. (The Clinton Administration had a number of such orders, but I won't fault Clinton ; let's not forget that the Vietnam war was never a declared war with the U.S. Congress) Also, even if the president cannot repeal the law on day one, he/she can take many steps starting immediately : make a speech on the floor of Congress, galvanize the Party to do a repeal, go on TV and make a media blitz to ensure that Congress gets the message, refuse to fund it, go on a hunger strike :-), I mean, the list of possibilities is endless.--Screwball23 talk 06:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Would you please stop reverting at Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas? I'm doing my best to reach a compromise on the issue (e.g. adding sources), but remember that it's not me trying to add the material in question against consensus, it has been there for quite a while and another (anon.) editor removed it, putting us in the "Discuss" phase of WP:BRD. Reverting away from the previous consensus version before a new consensus is reached just serves to make everyone involved agitated and defensive. It's not conducive to collaboration. joe•roe^t•c 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Garbo VI

Glad to see you again. I've been cleaning up some prose. Did you change the states from, e.g., North Carolina to NC, or the other way around?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Short form. I started out here using the full name for anything I added; even then, I was fine with Ohio or Utah, and even New York or New Jersey were OK, but Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Xoxth Carolina just seemed almost a distraction when used only as disambiguation for a publisher's city. Then I noticed that, e.g., WorldCat uses shortened states in their listings, and when I read the template documentation I mentioned, I switched my style to the short form advocated there. I suppose if there was an article that consistently spelled out all the states, I'd leave it alone, but with all the editors here very few articles (I've found) are internally consistent, so...

I just noticed your most recent deletion – "unprecedented eroticism" or something like that. Seems relevant (especially considering the times she worked in); are you sure there's nowhere earlier in the article it could be re-added?

How's work going? You seem to have a bit more time to keep improving the article than you originally expected. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep poking through the page for 1/2 an hour or so and seeing places where the prose can be improved. There were several in the first 3 sections but everything else looks pretty good. When I have time, I'm going to write in the legacy section about a couple of things. First, her acting technique which was unique back then and, accd to many, ahead of its time. In general, "her legacy" needs to be beefed up. She really was a cultural phenomenon in her late silent and early talking period and caused a kind of mania. Horse ridden police officers had to keep order during her openings at the Capital Theatre in NYC, for example. Most of her early period, her movies broke all box office records at big theatres around the country. You know, stuff like that needs to be in there in order to convey the magnitude of her impact. No other star before or after has electrified the movie-going public the way she did. All part of her legacy. I wish some scholar would spend time on the GG page. She was also very eccentric--odd, in fact. All sorts of fears (paranoia, really), anxieties, and oddities. But I suppose this isn't so important. I'm trying to find another classic star and watch everything, read everything, etc. I went throug Bette Davis last year but her Wiki page is complete and excellent. Barbara STanwyck a couple of years back but unbelievably, there's no decent biographer of her. For some reason, I'm more interested in the women.

So here I am writing you instead of grading tests. Any pages you're involved in at the moment? Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically just playing hop-scotch around a bunch of articles.

What's the story on the Romance (1930 film) article? I restored the link; did I misunderstand your reason for deleting it?

I checked a few articles; Bergman, Bow, Colbert, and West all have fairly extensive articles, so using the old "drop the papers down the stairwell" grading approach, I'll assume they're not in much need of help. Veronica Lake, Hedy Lamarr, and Virginia Mayo, on the other hand, look like they could use some additional expert attention. Just a suggestion... there are sooo many possibilities to choose from, those were just names that popped into my head over a 10-minute span. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for returning link to Romance! The first mention of Romance didn't include the entire link. Just linked to the term romance so I removed it in both places. I'll add it to the first instance now.

My problem is that I'm not engrossed in the work and lives of many stars (even if I think they're fabulous), including the ones you mention. These figures need film scholars and historians to write about them, you know, writers who study them in their profession or as a passionate avocation. Don't know why they're not building articles to tell the stories of these great artists. Virginia Mayo? What in hell made you think of her! Thanks again for Romance correction, Mr. Hopscotch.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha! Somehow I missed the deletion of the first occurrence and only saw the one from the filmography table, That explains it. I freely admit to being far from perfect, but I'm 90+% sure I had verified all those "common word" links (Romance, Love, Torrent, Inspiration, Grand Hotel, Wild Orchids) along with Camille, Mata Hari and Anna Christie a couple of months ago when we started cooperating here. Oh well, looks like you've now gone through and picked up any strays.

I have no idea why I thought of Mayo, but I think I saw her mentioned somewhere recently, like on TCM. I do know her inclusion was a perfect example of erroneous thinking gone amok. I was trying to remember who the super-star married to Gable was, and wondered (heaven forbid I should look it up directly!) if it was his It Happened One Night co-star; probably since I had seen the name recently, I thought of Mayo and checked her article. Since it wasn't, I broke down and went to the IHON article (which is how Colbert got on the list). By now I was distracted from the original goal (related to why I hop around articles so much), and it wasn't until I was typing this response that "Lombard" hit me, and I confirmed that I had finally answered my original question a few hours late. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that I know what IHON is? Well, I don't. Please tell. You will see that I tweaked some more. Prose keeps improving, I think. ButI MUST stop. I'm neglecting all sorts of necessary tasks I have to complete. I checked the the ratings for the page today and you'll be interested to know that as of now, each category is a 5.0 except for "complete" which stays at 4.0. And I agree with that numbber. Now Lombard. SHE's a fascinating and truly wonderful actress. Good commediennes are extremely rare. She's the best. Absolutely hilarious in To Be or Not to Be, which I recently saw, with Jack Benny. Check it out. Splendid picture by the great Ernst Lubische. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

IHON was a refer-back to It Happened One Night. Sowwy.

Do you have any works about Lombard? I'm curious about the accuracy and tone of this sentence (emphasis added):

Upon arrival in Albuquerque, Lombard and her companions were asked to give up their seats for the continuing flight segment, to make room for 15 U.S. Army Air Corps personnel flying to California. Lombard insisted that because of her War Bonds effort, she too was essential, and convinced the station agent to let her group re-board the flight. Other passengers were removed instead, including violinist Joseph Szigeti.

which is in the TWA Flight 3 article, not her bio. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As for cooperating, I thought we've cooperated since the beginning. The only dispute was about need for citations and page numbers and you were right. I can't imagine the page without your second pair of eyes. Radical improvements.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Collaborating" might have been a better choice of words, but I saw it as overly formal and toned it down a notch. Besides which, my memory is that – right or not – I was being quite a PIA (pain in the, um, neck) when you first started before I recognized you really were making significant improvements. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Grazia. Made two other edits tonight correcting assertions etc. with faulty evidence.See ya--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; suddenly there are no ratings for the page. is that because I didn't click, "this is a minor edit"? Do you think what i edited was in fact minor? Pls see my last two edits. Thanks, as usual, for your help.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand anything about how those ratings work. Maybe they get reset periodically? I do think it's still something in test mode.

Actually, I think the removed comma belonged there, but I tend towards heavier than absolutely required comma usage. Seems like what I think they call a non-restrictive clause, the type that would still require "which" rather than "that" even if the preposition weren't there. But not worth debating, either.

As per commas, I prefer using them sparingly but feel free to add it back in if you like; "non-restrictive clause"! How the hell do you know what that is? You're a terrific editor. Yeah, which and that. My rule? Always use that unless another is needed in a sentence and also when it's obvious it's the right word.

I tried a quick Google search for Karlekens Ögon and A Scarlet Angel. Seems like a lot of movie-oriented websites think Garbo was in it, but none that referenced any useable sources. Perhaps tellingly, it's not listed in her filmography on the Swedish Wikipedia. (Click the link there and take a look at the article... They use a colorized version of the same picture we have. I don't like it as much as the B&W, but thought I'd point it out for a second opinion.

I'm shocked the Swedish G page is so short? The portrait is by Clarence Bull and much better artistry in B&W.

While on the Swedish site, though, I saw a couple of external links. You're such a Garbo fan and expert you may have seen these long ago, but I thought they were interesting. The one page here has a short video and links to several others "from the archives". The "Google translate" version converts the captions to English, but doesn't help with either the audio (where present) or subtitle cards. Wondering if you thought one or more of the video links were worth including in "External links" of the English article.

You can find all these links easily on Garbo sites; none particularly interesting so no, don't think should be added.

Is it just me? Looking at the first two of those videos, what struck me was that she doesn't look like someone from the 1920s and 30s. It's a hair thing, I think. Unlike other women in the same video, she looks completely up-to-date. (Well, not the wardrobe – but do you know what I mean?)

I can't even find G in the 1st link (on the boat) The second video includes actresses who are playing Garbo!

Can you do me a favor? After we discussed it a bit, you made some corrections about the making of the German version of Anna Christie based on your sources. Can you take a look at Anna Christie (1931 film) and bring it into line with the facts citing your sources; mostly on the timing of the production and the release. Then I'll have justification for changing the title qualifier from (1931 film) – inaccurate – to {German version) – or some better alternative if you have one. It's not a major change, but since you have the books and I don't, it will be more verifiable if you do it. Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure I u-stand you but will figure it out and get to it tomorrow. Anon!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, on ratings: they suddenly popped up again; with only 1 reader I think, trustworthy dropped from 5-3! (Objective stays at 5.0, so go figure); Writing goes from 5 to 4. I think there is only 1 additional rater. So Iv'e decided to ignore the damn things.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

upon thought, probably some are uncomfortable with, or mad about, the gay/bi info (including her niece and family). But what can I do about that? It's the biographers, not me. The hetero me could care less. could write more about her flings with men but they were all very short and not definitively romantic/sexual. so what's to say? Maybe I can say more about relationship with the primarily gay Cecil Beaton. Evidence of sex (his diaries) for brief time but some dispute it. Clear inference is that it wasn't "romantic" and that it quickly turned to friendship. The recent biographers deny she had romances with Hauser (gay) and Schlee (married) and one asserts she didn't with "the much-published affair" with STokowski. Virtually no one (biographers and those they interviewed, etc.,) seems to think she was hetero. I don't really know how to edit this without emphasizing her alleged bi or lesbian preference even more. So I just tried to keep it balanced. Your thoughts?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

SHIT! I looked up all the production and release dates of Both Anna Cristies and Romance, sent it and see now that I forgot to sigh it AHHHHH!!Now this took some time so I'm going to have to go through all the stuff again at some point but don't know when I can do it. With repeat of first word, I bid adieu.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC) --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to panic. It sounds like you just missed the fact that I broke this up into a new thread again. Look below in the Garbo VII section; looks like it's all there. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

PHEW! I'd written it in the other G section (need to get rid of one of them at very least. Here it is:

American AC: production begins 10/7, 1929 (Vieira, p 107); Premieres 1/30, 1930 (Vieira, 110)

Romance: production begins 3/13, 1930 (Swensen, p 233; Released 8/22, 1930 (Paris, 572)

German AC: Production begins 7/9, 1930(Vieira, 117; shooting ends 8/16, 1930 (Vieira, 117); opens in Cologne, 12/2, 1930 (Vieira, 118).

Garbo receives academy award nominations for both AC and Romance in 1930.

Can you correct errors in Wikipedia? I don't know how to change the Title, you Know, "Anna Christie, German film, 1931," or something. Don't ustand the other thing you wanted to do. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was all there which is how i could whip it into shape for this section (I presented it in an easier format for you to read and also added a Swensen p. number for Romance that I had neglected to put in.) Now, what do you plan to do with this information?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

--- Moved latest comment to next section to let this thread die out --- Fat&Happy (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Chris Christie

Nice job on formatting the citations of Chris Christie. Just remember to mark such edits as minor next time. Thanks! Chris (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Garbo VII

Hey man, don't know how long we'll be writing but perhaps we should dump this endless thread (though fascinating) and start a new one. Here's the information you requested. Vieira (2005) is the definitive expert on G's films so most of this comes from him, though oddly, he doesn't provide date for start of production or release date for Romance but Paris (1994) does. Here we go:

--American AC: production begins 10/7, 1929 (Vieira, p 107); Premieres 1/30, 1930 (Vieira, 110) --Romance: No date given for production start; Released 8/22, 1930 (Paris, 572) --German AC: Production begins 7/9, 1930(Vieira, 117; shooting ends 8/16, 1930 (Vieira, 117); opens in Cologne, 12/2, 1930 (Vieira, 118).

Garbo receives academy award nominations for both AC and Romance in 1930.

Can you correct errors in Wikipedia? I don't have time at the moment. I'm going to try now to find information from Swensen (1997) on Romance but will get back to you on that. Don't want this page to shut down before I send it--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Swenson, 1997: Romance begins production 3/13, 1930. Cheers,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Since there is no citation for date of German AC, I could correct it but don't know how to edit the big title. But I know you can!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

just saw your most recent edits. It's fascinating to me that you go through this page and find the most minute little errors, often inside the citations, and correct them. You should work for a publisher becasue they're always looking for good copy-editors. They're as rare as good tenors and commediennes.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think it's probably what I need to make the fix (and more). Don't really need anything on Romance, just German Anna Christie. What you listed above seems in line with the Deutsche Wikipedia content.

I had been planning on breaking the thread when I replied anyway; quick & dirty for now, may move to bottom later...

What did the "don't want this page to shut down before I send it" comment mean?

I was spending a lot of time finding and writing the citations about Anna Cristie and didn't want the comuter to crash or something which would have deleted the work.

Going back: Actually I use "that" all the time also – and try hard to control a tendency to overuse it – but I've seen several edits here where someone switches from one to the other citing "grammar", so I looked it up. Same with "due to" vs. "because of". But I always need to recheck.

I couldn't find it on the talk page just now, but I recently saw a comment somewhere commenting (critically) that Garbo's relationships with men are presented as facts but the relationships with women are presented as allegations and claims. I haven't reviewed to check this, but it came to mind reading your earlier comments. OTOH (on the other hand), I did see an older section on the talk page suggesting the article should be included in one of the LGBT categories. Oh! I just looked again and saw the first comment I mentioned is the last entry in the section I saw; it's not indented and tends to blend in with the comment before it. See:Talk:Greta Garbo#LGBT. As far as article emphasis, absent a well documented self-identification or a clear preponderance of scholarly consensus, I'd not go much further given sensitivities on the topic, but if evidence is clearly there, i wouldn't hesitate to include it (given converse sensitivities). A true place to emphasize reliable sources and neutral point of view.

Good. I think I handled the issue perfectly. The reason that her relationships with men are stated as fact (whereas with women I say "speculate" and "allege," etc.,) is because these relationships were well documented. But interestingly, she denied having a "romance" with any of them. One of her manny oddities. So actually, EVERY relationship, man or woman, is speculative. The only person who actually said he had a physical relationship with her was Cecil Beaton in his diaries. And some people think he wrote this in order to enhance his posthumous reputation. I think a couple of them spoke about a brief tryst but other than that, zilch. As for women, obviously she would never say "I am a lesbian," etc. You're rarely going to see movie stars out themselves; it's a career destroyer.Moreover, she was a product of the conven5tions and mores of her generation. Now, as for the women, the circumstantial evidence that she had a long-term romance (if "volatile and sporadic")with Mercedes de Acosta is overwhelming. Virtually none of the people the biographers interviewed said she was heterosexual. Always bisexual, lesbian, or asexual--whatever that is. Acosta was a brazen, out lesbian, which was extraordinary considering when she lived. It seemed clear to all three of the recent biographers spoke about them that the relationship was romantically wrote about it accordingly. In one of the documentaries the narrator makes it explicit. But still, there is no definitive proof. Blah blah blah. Why am I spending my time writing you about this. You probably care not one whit! but it seems to me it's part of her enigma, the so-called "mystery." She had a lot to conceal, as Paris says.

Finally, where did you find this talk page? It's all about the old version. When does this stuff get deleted?

Just looked back to see if I'd missed responding to anything. One of the clips I watched was the silent 2:45 "modeling" short that cut to a picnic or something; on the ship arrival back in Sweden, was the woman in a sort of trench coat with her face half hidden by a medium-sized floppy hat brim, walking down the gangplank and getting into the back of a car not her? Those scenes were the main basis for my "modern" comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

who knows if it was her. whoever it is, she was in it for a milisecond. Later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually two guys talked about brief trysts with her. Other than that, zilch--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We were both typing here at the same time. I've tried to make the result semi-intelligible by cut/past/revise indents... Below is my response toyour earlierposts...

I modified the AC "1931" article. the changes can be reviewed here. If you get a chance, can you check to see if I got anything wrong? It's really a pitiful little article in any case. I put a {{Citation needed}} tag on some pre-existing content about using the same sets and costumes. Does Vieira say anything about that,either way?

Generally I don't re-scan entire articles, just browse the differences from changes, which are shown in bright, bold red like in the link above.

And thanks to getting caught up in your Garbo obsession, I have now made two whole (entirely miniscule) edits to another Wikipedia version... The German Wiki article on Anna Christie had the wrong name linked for Hans Junkermann, and then today I noticed that they had spelled "Marthy" as "Marty" two of the four times the name was mentioned. So you've turned me into a multilingual international editor. (I'm sure people are rolling on the floor laughing all across Bonn at my literal-Google-translation attempts to provide edit summaries). They have an interesting system over there, though. It looks like all articles, not just specifically protected ones, need to have changes by newer editors reviewed by another before they "take" on the article. Sort of like the "pending changes" experiment they tried here for a while; I think it was discontinued before you signed up.Fat&Happy (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest question missed above: I see you found the talk page. It's not supposed to ever get deleted, but when it gets big someone will move older threads to an archive. On some pages, that's set to happen automatically after a set time; the Garbo page doesn't look all that active, and the last (only) archive page is from two years ago. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I also meant to mention, I only changed the content on the Anna Christie article, I didn't move/rename the page yet. Reverting renames can be more difficult than reverting edits, so I wanted to see if anybody contests the changes before renaming to reflect their content. Also, I can't come up with a good article title I consider "best". I have been told I overthink things too much; example:

• Anna Christie (1930 film) – already used for the English version
• Anna Christie (German version) – German version of what? (but this is what the German Wikipedia uses)
• Anna Christie (1930 German film) – it's not a German film; it's a German-language U.S. film
• Anna Christie (1930 German-language film) – Arrgghhh! it's an article title, not a Tolstoy novel!!

and other permutations get even worse... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll check out all the AC stuff by and bye. In the meantime, I'm still trying to sort out all this sexuality stuff. Actually, the latest talk is October 12 and it's about this subject. Will you read it, my response, my paragraph in the Garbo page, combine it all, and tell me if you think I write about it differently? It's true that all her relationships with men are speculative too except that with Beaton. Or should I just let this f-ing thing go? Grazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... First, off-topic but somewhat related. Does "never married, no children" really need a separate paragraph. It seems like it could be a lead-in sentence in the following paragraph.

To begin, Hi there F&H. All fascinating, valid questions, suggestions, points you make. Some I'll ponder but have something to say about each at this point:

No, I think it's a stand alone fact; should not be connected with her sexuality--affairs, romances, etc.

Is the John Gilbert romance the "most famous"? Or the "most widely reported", or perhaps "most widely speculated"? Real questions... you have all the truly reliable sources.

Gilbert was absolutely her most famous affair. By all accounts they were mutually infatuated on the Flesh and the Devil set; the erotic intensity was astounding; (When i first saw it I said, I've been watching movies for 53 years or so and I've neverseen anything like this. you should check it out.) They started quasi living together before the end of the shoot. Audiences went wild. It was a smash it; they wanted more Gilbert/G pairings and mgm gave it to them. But it was always questionable whether G was in love with him too. It lasted about 2 years.

Based on what you said above and on the article talk page, it seems not to be so much a question of "alleged" being used too much with the women but too little with the men. (Although perhaps a synonym substitution somewhere would be better too.)

You're absolutely right. Just spot on. So I think I'll rewrite the section but I don't know when. Can you think of other words, phrases that are synonymous with "alleged,"speculation" ? "Conjecture" comes immediately to mind but I'll ponder this. I'll really have to finess this paragraph because the question of her sexuality was/is a big part of her enigma (since she was uniquely and powerfully alluring on the screen). I mean, I could fill half the article on this subject So I need to present current thinking on the subject very concisely. For one thing, it's fundamentally unimportant since it has nothing to do with her cinematic and cultural contribution.

I can never think of a word when I'm just trying to think of it. If I'm lucky, the "right" word will just come to me as I'm writing, or proofreading. If something comes to mind, I'll make a change someplace.

Do "her biographers discuss her affairs and friendships", or do they discuss "her friendships and possible affairs"?

Very interesting question. The latter. I'll get this in. The Gilbert thing was definitely a relationship; Beaton, on the other hand, was an affair (if we are to believe his memoires which we must. It's "concrete" evidence in an inchoate mysterious world--so it might not be true but what can historians do?)

Getting back to commas, I would drop the one in "bisexual, or lesbian"; it seems to add an emphasis that might not be intended. (Actually, I'd make it "lesbian or bisexual", but it's a "feels right" thing that's hard to explain.)

Good point. I'll say "bisexual or lesbian" since most (but not all) say she was probably bisexual.

"Claim" is a Wikipedia "use with caution" word. It may not apply here, but maybe say "Louise Brooks wrote that..."

Right. The problem is that she didn't write it; she said it in an interview. I'll try to find the source and so the right word. (What the hell's wrong with "claim"?)

My misunderstanding, but you got the point. Click on "use with caution" above for the official rationale, but the short version is that "claim" tends to raise doubt – or imply that Wikipedia itself as a neutral encyclopedia has doubts; "reported" is also avoided, but for the opposite reason. "Said", "stated", "wrote" and probably a few others are viewed as more non-judgmental.

What's the story on Salka Viertel? There's nothing in her article about any interests except her husband, but the Mercedes de Acosta article says the two were lovers. And commentaries on the German Anna Christie attribute Garbo's more relaxed demeanor on the set to Viertel's presence.

No evidence whatsoever that they had an affair. Just a baseless rumor. Should be struck from the MdA page. What commentaries on the German AC? I don't recall reading this anywhere. Where did you read these things?

To be clearer, the Mercedes de Acosta Wikipedia article says that de Acosta and Viertel were lovers, not Garbo and Viertel. (Just click anything blue here... I've sprinkled links pretty liberally.)

That MdA and SV had an affair is even more redicuouls. At least with SV it's been mentioned as a rumor elsewhere. If anything, the two didn't like each other.

meant to say that at least affair betw SV and GG has been mentioned (unreliable sourses) elsewhere--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article on the German-language Anna Christie, very poorly and mechanically translated but still able to give the overall gist, says:

Garbo turned immediately after completion of the English version, directed by Jacques Feyder a German version, which differs in several aspects. Such a procedure was in the early days of sound film is not unusual and other established stars such as Maurice Chevalier occasionally produced remakes in their own language. Garbo's German pronunciation is a bit difficult, but overall, the dialogues are less liquid and charged with pathos. The actress acts already dissolved and has a less tense. In some scenes she laughs very heartily. In private, Garbo has repeatedly emphasized, it would have been in the German version of Anna Christie, one of her best acting performances ever.

Clarence Brown directed the English version, Jacques Feyer (he was French), the German

Yeah, I knew that; it's probably what the actual German says too – disadvantage of using that pidgin-English mechanical translation. I've seen enough of them to know what it meant (and fortunately the punctuation helped).

To the relaxed attitude of the fact Garbo certainly will have taken account of her mentor and good friend Salka Viertel took over the role of Marthy. District [Viertel], which is under her maiden name Salka helmsman [Steuermann] guided the credit was several years younger than Marie Dressler, who had played in the original Marthy, but she gave the role more warmth and vulnerability.

This all sounds like interpretation vs fact, which is fine. Criticism is just as important as history.

Unfortunately, it seems that German Wikipedia has different rules than this one. Nothing seems to be cited.

The shooting took place in spring 1930, with most of the sets were reused.

Why is this important?

It's not. It was just the last line of the section, ans since I was including everything else, I left it. Also, it agrees with the part of our article on the German film version that I was questioning, though like everything else without sources.

I ran across a similar analysis somewhere else while I was trying to track down details about Anna Christie, but since my concern at the time was the production details rather than the stars' sexual habits, I didn't make a note of the source, merely a mental note of the similarity to the earlier German comment. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think that's about it for now. Do you feel picked-apart enough, or do I need to give it another go? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all picked apart! Thrilled to be working with someone on this page. Anon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did this conversation get added to "View History"?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Duh.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking at. What "View History"? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already forgotten.

As for the German AC page, are you planning to change the date in the section title which says 1931 like you did below? You probably told me you were going to do this but I've been caught up, as you know, with other matters.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. If you mean the actual article title, that would be covered by this post, copied from above:

Oh, I also meant to mention, I only changed the content on the Anna Christie article, I didn't move/rename the page yet. Reverting renames can be more difficult than reverting edits, so I wanted to see if anybody contests the changes before renaming to reflect their content. Also, I can't come up with a good article title I consider "best". I have been told I overthink things too much; example:

• Anna Christie (1930 film) – already used for the English version
• Anna Christie (German version) – German version of what? (but this is what the German Wikipedia uses)
• Anna Christie (1930 German film) – it's not a German film; it's a German-language U.S. film
• Anna Christie (1930 German-language film) – Arrgghhh! it's an article title, not a Tolstoy novel!!

and other permutations get even worse... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you really mean section title, I probably missed something. Which article, what's the full section title? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking about the title. I see your reasoning. Glad you rewreote the German AC page. Very good. As for all the rest of the stuff your're talking about, directly above, I have no idea what you're saying but I'm sure it's important. Bravo to you. Check out the GG discussion page, LGBT section. Someone thinks what i wrote was right on, but I'm going to tweak it, as we discussed. Meanwhile, family crisis will prevent me from rewriting the section for a while. I want it to be perfect, by which I mean air-tight and unbiased, representing the research and analysis of the 4 GG bios I cite.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&H, this is the older section. Recently we wrote on the other one. Did you write anything on that one that I might have missed?--156.111.60.154 (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Garbo V" and Garbo VI" have been moved to an archive (deleted, for all practical purposes). The last post in VI was October 20, so I doubt you missed anything there. I'm about to archive this section ("Garbo VII"), but left it because I made a few minor responses above since your last post. I started a new section below ("Garbo VIII" – what a surprise) with just your one last post (requesting a section break) in it. Clicking Garbo VIII on the TOC listing takes you there quickly. After your first actual post in the new section, I'll go ahead and archive this one. Fat&Happy (talk)

Hi F&H, can't find the few minor responses since my last post so unless you think they're important, go ahead and archive this damn thread. See you by and by, after i rewrite the personal section which I don't know when that will happen. Greetings--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Key of Tirana

Why have you removed from the honor title "Key of Tirana" in Wikipedia? Pope Benedict XVI, George Soros, James Belushi ecc and other had received a copy of the key of the city of Tirana. This is the official website of the Municipality of Tirana. http://www.tirana.gov.al/?cid=1,181,1888 Source is 100% sure as accompanied by photos. Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The "sources" given – photographs with no explanatory stories, or even captions – are not reliable sources. But even it there is an article on the Tirana web site, there is no indication, such as coverage in non-local media, that these "honors" are of any significance worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia's biography. Cities all over the world present "Keys to the City" to visitors of note. It's usually no big deal, and there is nothing to indicate these events are more noteworthy than the many similar events which take place annually. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry edit:

Just wondering why you tagged my edit to the death penalty as "original research" - All the citations were from the websites of the Texas Constitution, the Board of Pardons and Parole or the Texas Administrative Code? Patapsco913 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what makes it original research. I understand your point, but you really need a secondary source relating the law and constitutional provisions to Perry. Perfect would be an analysis piece, or even a "blog" in a reputable newspaper, saying something like "Even if Perry wants to commute X's death sentence, he is prohibited from acting unless the Board of Pardons recommends he does so." With a legitimate crack in the door like that, you might be able to bring in your primary sources as additional validation and explanation, but the "mitigation" needs to originate outside Wikipedia. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wells Fargo

My apologies...when I was viewing the Wells Fargo page from work, it was not displaying, so there must be a filter on it. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem... I just know they seem to prefer svg files for that type of image, so when it looked OK on FF 7, IE8, and Opera 11.5, I figured it was some type of individualized issue and switched it back. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:User interest US

I moved the userbox Template:User interest United States to Template:User interest US to accommodate template maintenance. Please also see the expanded userbox options at Template:User in the United States. Please let me know if this causes you any problems. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I just noticed that the response I wrote yesterday isn't here; I must have neglected to click "save". The gist, skipping extraneous verbiage I don't remember accurately, was that yes, the new template – and the comments pointing to it in the documentation of the old one – is fine. Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Garbo VIII

Can't you delete these sections and start a new one? It takes 20 minutes just to scroll down to the end! Meanwhile, I'm really enjoying our conversation and hope it continues. take care, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. (Some recent replies posted simultaneously in old section though). Fat&Happy (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've changed Acosta back to de Acosta, which is fine since that's how she's identified in the Wikipedia entry. Vieira refers to her as Acosta. Other biographers refer only to Mercedes. Anyway, many surnames in the romance languages derived from places--locations, like towns or territories. So it's like referring to her as "of the seashore" instead of just "Seashore." Anyway, I suppose both will do so I'm untroubled by your reversion. Don't really care.

The Acosta page needs to be updated based on a new biography of her by Bob Shanke, interestingly, a theatre historian. There there is also at least one major error in Wikipedia. The author says, "The two [Garbo and de Acosta] were introduced to one another by de Acosta's lover at the time, author Salka Viertel." This assertion is simply false. Accd to the authors of the 3 biographies I read of G, Acosta didn't even know Viertel before she met G. G asked Viertel to introduce them and Viertel called Acosta up out of the blue. Oh well, at this point it's someone else's problem to correct. Well, maybe I'll correct this one thing since I'm at it here. I'm not interested in reading a bio of Acosta--at least for the time being. I learned enough about her from the G bios. I'm trying to find time to rewrite the section agbout G's affairs but I have to read about them all over again for accuracy. Happy to see your anal self back at work! I know you're always there to review my revisions!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just made some changes and corrections to the Acosta page but it was stupid since the page is absolutely terrible. Hopeless. No citations, terribly written, completely untrustworthy. Author of new bio demystifies what he considers to be unfair characterizations of her (as basically an obnoxious irritant in G's life). She's not an insignificant figure in Hollywood and gay circles and deserves a better article. greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew the de Acosta thing was questionable, which is why the unusually detailed (for me) edit summary. I first checked her article here, but didn't rely on it too much (probably would have stopped there for consistency if it had used just the "Acosta" form though). Then various discussions on the MoS pages about da, de, di, Mc, Mac, van, and von ... the substance of which was "it varies", so that's when I hit the NYT. Mostly the issue got fudged by referring to her throughout articles as "Mercedse de Acosta", but two articles about her and one about a daughter (niece?) getting married used "de Acosta" alone. Then the coup de grâce was when I decided to look at the Spanish Wikipedia. where I figured they should be able to handle Spanish names correctly, and they used "de Acosta" also (I was actually a bit surprised). Of course, a quick skim of parts of the article looked like it might be just a translation of the English article, but still. So then I just went off half-cocked and added back the two letters.

Oh,and after the fact I was looking for confirmation on her burial place and ran across this article by Barry Paris that uses the full last name too, though I was so interested in reading the article itself I didn't notice for a while. It's stuff you probably already know from his book about her and Garbo.

Yeah, I remember reading that article a while back. Paris says in the article that the two had a one year affair. But there's plenty of evidence from Vickers' bio with a title , Loving Garbo: [and something like]Cecil Beaton and Mercedes de Acosta. that suggest otherwise. Same with Swensen's bio. Also, if you connect the dots, it becomes pretty clear that they engaged in, as I say, a "sporadic and volatile" affair. But I make sure to say "alleged" because in the end, that's what it is. As for the dots, it becomes clear that if she didn't have a relationship with de Acosta or other women, she was celibate for at least 14-16 years between between age 23 and 37 or 9, and then again after about 45 till her death. This strikes me as impossible. But I suppose it could happen! Just highly unlikely. As for the "de," Swensen and Vieira refer to her as Acosta so I guess it can go either way. There's a new bio about her by Robert Shanke who apparently debunks the myth that she was essentially an obnoxious person and a pain in the ass in G's life. But G wrote d A 97 letters in the 50s (Swensen) (and only some were chosen for the public) So they were friends for just less than 30 yrs. An important friendship indeed.

I was going to "chastise" you for not providing sources for all your changes – under the theory that, hey, the article should have some sources – but I see you've noticed already. (The "she showed no particular talent in her professional field" probably does need one though.) L8r. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No need for chastising. As I say, the entire page is a disaster--no citations at all. So I just corrected some false assertions, tweaked some absolutely dreadful prose and let it go at that. Why spend a lot of time researching and writing a legitimate, well-cited article. That's for someone else to take up but it really should be done sinces she's actually a fascinating figure in the 20th C.

Ahh, but I repeat myself! Greetings, I can see to sign this. A blue box shows up. What's that?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, that box shows up whenever you accidentally leave a space at the beginning of a line. I fixed it. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&H, what's this business about "pang"? did someone just add it to be obnoxious? A kind of spam?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my take. I just treated as vandalism. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey F&H, here's a draft of a revised section of the men in G's life. None of this is cited yet. Will you read this over and tell me your thoughts?

Garbo had documented affairs with John Gilbert, with whom she lived for [little over a year in the late twenties], and Cecil Beaton, who wrote in his memoirs about their relationship [in the mid-forties]. In his diary, Erich Maria Remarque discusses a short-lived affair with her in [date]. She was friends with Leopold Stokowski [between date and date] that some suggested involved romance and allegedly had brief liaisons with George Brent, her co-star in The Painted Veil, and Reuben Mamoulian, her director in Queen Christina.

This is the extent of what we know with the exception of two possible trysts which seem too insignificant to mention. Look forward to reading your response. THanks!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to Gaslight me, right? I started to reply to your first version, and was searching through the edit box for it; nowhere to be found. Then I checked history and saw you deleted it. A "was it something I said" moment.

Both versions looked good. I'm curious why you trimmed the information about Gilbert when you added the extra identification of the last two; I don't think the blurb would be excessive with the Gilbert/MGM/casting restored.

The new version has a bit of a grammatical problem in the Stokowski sentence; "that some suggested involved..." has no noun to which it's clearly referring back, like "friendship" in the original.

In any case, it seems more informative than what's in the article currently. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Molto Grazia. I added the Gilbert and fixed the grammatical error. More importantly, I elaborated on her relationship with George Schlee and added another relationship with Mimi Pollak. (I think I had omitted the Pollak exchange because I didn't want to seem biased toward the lesbian/bi side.) So here is the penultimate draft (without the guy cits) which I think is finally thorough and complete:

Her most famous romance was with her frequent co-star, John Gilbert, with whom she lived for [little over a year in the late twenties]. She had a documented affair with Cecil Beaton who wrote in his memoirs about their intimate relationship between 1946 and 1948. In his diary, Erich Maria Remarque discusses a short-lived affair with her in [date]. Some suggested that her friendship with Leopold Stokowski [between date and date] was romantic. It was thought that she had brief liaisons with George Brent, her co-star in The Painted Veil (date) and Reuben Mamoulian, her director in Queen Christina (1933). In [date], Garbo met the Russian-born millionaire George Schlee who was married to fashion designer Valentina. Schlee, who split his time between the two, became Garbo's closest companion and advisor for twenty years.

Recent biographers and others speculate that she was bisexual, or lesbian, and that she had intimate relationships with women as well as with men. Garbo was introduced to stage and screen actress Lilyan Tashman in 1927 and allegedly had an affair with her; silent film star Louise Brooks stated that she and Garbo had a tryst the following year. In 1931, she befriended the writer and socialite Mercedes de Acosta, introduced to her by her friend, author Salka Viertel, and the pair allegedly began a sporadic and volatile romance. They remained friends—with ups and downs—for almost thirty years. When de Acosta published her controversial 1960 memoir, Here Lies the Heart, they became permanently estranged. In 2005, Swedish actress Mimi Pollak, her close friend in drama school, released letters from Garbo that suggest she was in love with Pollack throughout her life. In a letter to Pollak in 1930, Garbo wrote, “We cannot help our nature, as God has created it. But I have always thought you and I belonged together.” In 1975, she sent a poem to Pollak about “not being able to touch the hand of [her] beloved friend with whom [she] might have been walking through life”.

All editing changes welcome and appreciated. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am curious about the rationale behind eliminating:

Her romance with Gilbert was highly publicized after their first hit, Flesh and the Devil, and MGM capitalized on the relationship by costarring them again in Love and A Woman of Affairs.

I just found the tie-in between personal life and career to be interesting, though certainly not unique for Hollywood.

Yeah, I'll bring back the MGM pairing. Can't remember why I deleted it. Mistake?

Nit-pick. Second line, comma in "Beaton, who"; (just saves me an after-the fact extra edit). And I just noticed above, per MoS the curly quotes (“ ”) around the poem (and anywhere else) need to be changed to straight quotes (" ").

Thanks for deleting the Beaton comma? I don't know why the quote marks are coming up curly. Any ideas? NOrmally, I just do "shift + quote mark" Oh I know. I must have written the paragraph in a word doc and then copied and pasted

I didn't remove it... I was suggesting it needed to be added. Re-reading, I see that was ambiguous.

And yes, copying from Word will do that. I needed to change my default Word auto-correct options in two places when I started editing heavily here. Also, a lot of the time copying from a web page does the same thing...and it's hard to tell in standard reading mode, a lot easier in edit.

I haven't cross checked to the existing article; I assume any of the people not mentioned previously elsewhere will be linked. And the one link included points to a dab page; it needs to be [[Valentina (fashion designer)|Valentina]]. (After typing this, I just checked, it's correct in the article currently.)

now F&H, you know how little I know about wikipedia formatting protocols. What on earth makes you think I know what a "dab page" is:)

A so-called "disambiguation page". Click this link Valentina and see where it takes you.

In looking through the Internet as we've been talking about this the last few weeks, I see several mentions of Garbo and Dietrich, apparently heavily denied by both of them. Anything legitimate there worth including?

no credible evidence whatsoever. Nonsense some people have cooked up. what's her name McLellan insists they did but she's not a legitate chronicler.

Yeah, "McLellan" sounds familiar, probably who I encountered. One of the arguments I read did have a sort of "This proves space aliens built the pyramids" feel to it as I recall.

"Recent biographers and others speculate..." – the "and others" probably needs to be either dropped or fleshed out to forestall anyone attaching a {{Who?}} tag. (Technically, the same would apply to "Some suggested..." re Stokowski, but refs for the sentence should be enough.) Rereading before saving, I also think a verb other than "speculate" might be preferable. It's longer, but how about "say there was evidence that..."?

I'll wait till someone attaches {{Who?}} before I do that. Unless you can tell me how to cite evidence that's within an article or book. The Stokowski thing also a problem. The biographers themselves don't get specific. Anyway can you think of to handle that?

See below, after your P.S. [which I decided was a good place to start a new section, so =it's in Garbo IX]

As for "there was evidence that..." There is no concrete evidence. Only speculation. I'll say conjecture. Haven't used that term.

Let it go then; see if you rattle anyone's cage.

Now, what was that Latin term you told me about that let's you cite several non-sequential pp.from a book or article, e.g., pp.48-49, 52-58, latin term. Greetings, as always,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Et seq.? I know I've seen it; I have no idea where, but hey, go for it. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell I didn't see anything I considered a serious problem. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What's my P.S. Section? And, what the hell is a "disambiguation page"? You've answered my question with another incomprehensible term. Think of me as a 4 year old.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

You are asking for "Original Research" to prove that George H.W. Bush followed Ronald Reagan into the White House, or that he was the first Vice President directly elected to the presidency since Martin Van Buren 152 years earlier? How about an Encyclopedia Britannica, or and Encyclopedia Americana, or is that not a reliable enough source for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribberboy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2011‎ (UTC)

No, I'm asking for sources that say this particular trivial factoid was important enough to Ronald Reagan's life to be included in the lede of his biography. Honestly, if any mention of this historical anomaly can be found in reliable sources, I would expect it to be in regard to Bush, not Reagan. What was your actual source? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fat and Happy: Nah, that's all right. I promise I'll leave your article alone from now on. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribberboy (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)