This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
The first African American playboy playmate does not constitute much of a barrier breaking precedent. This information is better suited on the subjects', Jennifer Jackson's article and Renee Tenison's article or preferably on the playboy one. Most of the accomplishments listed on the above article have been of incalculable significance in African American history marking milestones as well as setting momentous precedents for generations of black Americans. Keep this in perspective, before reverting the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.90.1.65 ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Fat I wondered if you might have any suggestions, or input for my article on MSNBC Controversies . You seem to be up on the News artcles, and I thought this might be up your ally. Thanx Jetijonez ( talk) 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, still appreciate the skim though Jetijonez ( talk) 15:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"Comprehensive heading"? It's almost the antithesis of comprehensive -- since there is no mention of L, B or T. It is also not accessible because a lot of people don't know what stands for. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 03:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
this looks a lot like a personal attack. A suggestion would be to revert, and ask the editor/IP nicely, to refrain making those changes. Thank you, -- MST☆ R (Chat Me!) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
George Soros is ethnically a Jew. Sourced in article. Quit censoring Wikipedia faggot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.171 ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about the WP Manual of Style; I now feel rather sheepish for having been preachy in my edit note, and I apologize for that. It grates against every fiber of my being, though. Grandpallama ( talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Wayback link for Obama - for some reason the site kept crashing on me when I tried to get it earlier, so I went with NYT. But having both is good. So annoying when people remove chunks of text just because they don't see a good link. It ain't that hard. Cheers! Tvoz/ talk 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
See, that's interesting, and I actually toyed with earth's or earth's before deciding. I went with the longer one because it includes the 's in the link, rather than changing text colour and cutting off the hover:underline partway through a word. I tend to make decisions like that based on pages as seen by readers rather than editing convenience.
I did something similar, the other way, on Jimbo's Talk Page at New Year, and it got altered by an editor with the opposite viewpoint: [1] (although he "cheated" with a redirect to get the same effect.) I agreed with him, so I've altered my method to include the whole word in the link. If that's wrong, could you point me to where it says so, please, because I'd like to see it to prevent me making mistakes.
I found, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links:
- Plurals and other derived names. When forming plurals, you can do so thus:
[[apple]]s
which includes the final "s" in the link like this: apples. This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text than[[apple|apples]]
. This works not just for "s", but for any words that consist of an article name and some additional letters. For details, see Help:Link. (This does not work for affixes beginning with hyphens, apostrophes, or capital letters.)
which seems to say the technique of extra characters after the ]] doesn't work with a leading apostrophe in the "affix", as here, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. (I didn't look at the single digit dates, though - you are correct.) Thanks. Begoon talk 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't understand you last revert. I removed the mention of the presence of Tony Cimber from the lead, and you discovered the omission of one of her five offspring! I reverted that misunderstanding back. But, looking at you interest, I would really like to ask for some help here, especially about the integrity of the copy. For instance, there are multiple mentions of Mansfield going out of Hollywood and coming back without making the time periods specific, which leads to some amount of confusion. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, Just wanted to thank you for all the work you did helping me get the Garbo p. up to speed. Currently I'm attempting to put in new images. Someone's downloaded some I chose and I was able to insert them. But I'm not sure how long she'll stay with it. But I'm trying! I've added new stuff since you were on board, all of which I hope makes the p. a little richer, a little deeper. Which will continue to be my goal even though eventually I'll run out of gas. Anyway, thanks so much. I'm thrilled you're working on a page about George Soros. He's one of my heroes. Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh my God! I just read the comment someone wrote to you about Soros. How horrible and mean spirited! I'm so sorry.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey man, yeah, added stuff. Also, just uploaded images which the p. desperately needed. Only one other thing I have to do, I think, which is to give cited reasons why she retired, though her decision is shrouded in mystery. Interesting about vandal, trolls, and other evil-doers. :) -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like the N pic. Your thoughts are very, very interesting and strangely peculiar, Mr. F&H. Hmmmm...you have a complex and enigmatic mind. How on earth did you recollect her DOB? And why do you care? You do indeed have interesting interests. Well you were right, the powerful glamour photo in the legacy section was deleted. (Pic by the brilliant Hollywood photographer, Clarence Bull, who did 85% of her publicity stills.) But your caption remains! (Maybe people will just think the blank is a reflection of her elusive mystique.) It looked right to me after Lobo put it on/in the commons. I'm sure she'll spin her magic again when she adds the Camille photo. My hope is that these images suggest some of the expressiveness of her face. God I ramble with you. Forgive me.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff ( talk • contribs)
Sir f&h, your services are required. You have an assignment. User lobo518 has been helping to upload pics and she's made some nice prose tweaks. She thinks that the last paragraph in the Queen of MGM section, about the motif "I want to be alone," should stand alone as a new section "Personal Life--Reclusiveness." It's current location, she thinks, interrupts the flow of her career. Now, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to write about her personal life and decided, fundamentally because of its unknowablility, to state, allude to, what we can say about it in the retirement and relationships sections. The reclusive piece is forshadowed in MGM section. The question is, do you think the way I address (what we can say about) her personal life, including her famed reclusive persona, is adequately finessed in the current organization (as i do)? Or do you think the "alone" motif at the end of MGM Queen is disruptive and needs to stand alone somewhere? (If you choose to accept this assignment--pro bono--you may be interested in the details of our conversation in our talk pp. although there's plenty of my blah blah blah in there to waste your time) I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this, if you have them. Also, what do you think of her Camille photo? We've been discussing that too. I don't think it shows her face to best advantage. But if you like it, it's a go. We could also look for Anna Karenina pics if you too are dissatisfied. You see? I hold you in very high esteem.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As I just wrote Lobo, "Nevermind. As an obsessive, I've gone over and over this in my mind for the last 2 hours... read over and over each section that touches upon the inscrutable complexities of her private life. And I think the way I've handled it works well. The bit at the end of the "Queen" section is relevant to her career because it pertains to the development of the Garbo myth, which was embedded in her performances and her work. I like the way I lace her renowned reclusiveness within the professional and personal (retirement). So I feel strongly it should stand the way it is. I hope you're OK with that.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok my friends. I’ve figured it all out. I’ve been speaking extemporaneously, blabbing on, when I should have worked out my argument in advance, and then stated it succinctly, which I will now do. There are two problems with Lobo’s plan, I think.
So there’s my argument in a nutshell. I hope you're convinced. Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, you can ignore the entire epistle above, as you probably already have. But will you help me find a better pic from either Anna Karenina, or Camille? Would be a huge help. And then I'm not going to to bother you again! I have decided to write one more bit about the reasons why gg retired (no clear reason at all but I can some that others have speculated). Then I'm going to put this p. to bed and end this addiction and get back to my other writing! Hope you're well,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Here are the ones that I've found that I think would add to the p. They're from AK, at same point in her career as C All show the depth and richness of her expression through the eyes which are what set her apart from her peers. First one, which I think is the best, seems to be a film shot so probably not postable? Then, my friend, I promise I won't harass you anymore!
-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are a few I came up with. Interestingly, we have one duplicate, though the site where I found it identified it as Camille, nor Anna Karenina. The page you found that one on has another from my list below also.
The site with the second and third Mata Hari pics also has a few good ones with her co-star,if you prefer. Personally, I like Mata Hari III best for that movie; the one we both selected with the hat for Anna Karenina; and either of the remaining two Camille ones if needed. (My selections for Camille reflect a personal distaste for her hair in most of the images from that pic, so may not be a reliable opinion.) Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Mata Hari in general has the best portraits of all her films, I think. Many very powerful. I like your last M H, but there are even better ones. But the problem with putting one up is that it's another from early 30s, which the p. already has, Anna Christie and Grand Hotel. What the p. needs is something from AK, 1935or C, 1936 (she only did 3 other films after them). I agree with you about the Camille hair. Your second C photo is from A K and is, in my opinion, rather dull (lacks "movement" and expressiveness of the eyes.) Don't you like my 1st and 2nd, AK? Those are my choices, but 1st is film still, so can we post it? If you don't agree, I'm satisfied with the one we both agree on--the hat photo from C. Looking forward to your thoughts. Maybe we could put up 2 one from MH and another from AK or C; but two crowded? We could add one to Relationships section, only one now without a pic. Your thoughts? Only Monday today, so work. Myeh. Hope you're indeed happy!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And – let me hide before you try to burn me at the stake for heresy – I would replace the current Grand Hotel pic with one from the year-earlier Mata Hari, either my 2nd or 3rd one or one of the even better ones you've seen out there.
OK, just looked at a handful of MH pics and I don't think any of them are any better than your 3d. one. So the question now is, if we keep the GH, which, as I say, is important, can we put the MH portrait to left of Screen Persona or Relationships?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm procrastinating. Work. Ho hum. Just checked the Garbo Forever site which has a whole p. dedicated to GG pix from MH; check them out and see if any stand out as more interesting than the one we agreed on. Url: http://www.garboforever.com/Film-Pic-21.htm-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Two of Gilbert might be undue weight to him, but then again he is the one she lived with for a couple of years.
An alternative I don't really like, but will mention anyway, would br to move the existing photo to the Relationships section.
(It's too bad she never slept with Navarro; there are some decent Mata Hari shots with him so we could kill two birds with one stone.)
I agree with replacing the current Camille pic with the Anna K hat shot.
But. Layout is not my forte, but I still try. That will make the section have three portrait (upright) photos and one (GH, top right) landscape (horizontal). May seem off-balance, unlike the current way which is diagonally matched.
Even before noticing this, though, I was thinking Ninotchka could be moved to "Screen persona", since it's mentioned there. maybe that would give a bit more room to play in the crowded "Queen of MGM" section?
(You/we need a test page to work out formatting changes where two or three people can evaluate things before updating the page for the whole world to see.)
Actually, after reading your question about sending just the image links, I realized that for searching purposes the full, extra-long Google link may have an advantage. Google gives you a page with a "similar images" link, so if, e.g., one pic seemed close but not quite there as to either subject or picture quality, it might be easier to find the "just a slight bit better" version. But to cut down on the URL display size, put a single left square bracket in front (same as an internal Wiki link, but one bracket instead of two), then a space, a short description, and the closing right bracket. So: [http...yadyada/ridicously.long.linktosomerandom/googlepage brief description] will just show as "brief description".
-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC) So if we put the N pic in persona, we can put MH where N is now, right? Then we have 4 pics on each side, not including the retirement pic. It would be blocky, but so much of G's fame and mystique was about her face. I dunno. What do you think? Maybe it depends on the size of the mh photo. We might also find a smaller n pic. but unfortunately, we like the one up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
OH MY GOD, f&h--High Alert! I was just poking around the net to see if I could find out more about books about her and found this one, http://www.amazon.com/Greta-Garbo-Handbook-Everything-about/dp/1743040601#reader_1743040601, pub'd in 1911 and discovered that the author plagiarized me in the bio section. I'm shocked!!!! People will think WP plagiarized the book! Check it out.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
May i ask why the issue of Israel is given such prominence in the Background section of the primary article here ? Pass a Method talk 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you changed the reference for an edit I made to the Bradley Cooper page today regarding the film Serena. Could you explain why the NY mag blog site is a preferred source over news on Empire magazine's website? I saw both articles but chose the Empire source as it seemed more reliable (and in the past NY mag had been flagged as spam when I tried to use it). An explanation would help me make more productive edits in the future. Thanks, and I appreciate your time. -- Abadguitarist ( talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Over at WP:RIGHT we could really use your help. Please consider becoming a part of the fastest growing most influential ensemblages of editors in the entire wiki: WP:WikiProject Conservatism/About us. – Lionel ( talk) 06:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I for some reason still have this page on my watchilist, and see you've been quite busy here lately. I subsequently have had the page protected for a while. Hopefully that helps. Calabe 1992 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding your edit here, please note Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language. Will you reconsider? — Eustress talk 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Eva Gabor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for everything you've done, from July to the end of this marathon. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
When you read her biography it states she won 4 grammys now I'm confused how I can source that. This biography she was interviewed for as well. Researchers for shows like inside the actors studio have also stated she has won 4. However the grammy website states 3 which means there may be an error somewhere along the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.76.227 ( talk) 09:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know.... I've started a dispute to get reference to the documentary included in the LDS page. [ [2]] Light Defender ( talk) 07:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Defender ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for removing your edit on the college article, I didn't know you were an experienced editor. Thanks -- GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 23:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy, a few weeks ago you posted on my user page asking for clarification about which state is Newt Gingrich's legal residence. While I realize my sayso isn't necessarily enough for you to go on, I can confirm that Newt is a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I don't think that this registration is online, but I can point you to some reliable third-party sources that are correct. These include WTVR (CBS Richmond), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway and the Washington Examiner. I hope this helps. Best, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, continuing from the "Ciao" thread...
I'm going to try to grab the AK hat pic and upload it to Commons as File:Greta Garbo Anna Karenina 4.jpg. If the link here turns from red to blue, it worked. Then I'll try to fill out the forms copying heavily from the other pics.
Be prepared to send out a distress signal to your friend lobo, though. Back later. Fat&Happy ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I added AK to the "Queen" section, deleted Camille and moved Ninotchka to "Persona". Tried to get a reasonable layout, but like I said – not my area of expertise... If we want to add a pic from Mata Hari to that section, the AK photo would need to be reduced in size to the same as the others; for now, standalone on the one side, I like it as is – but all the disclaimers still apply.
Ninotchka. Two (related) issues. To start, there's not enough text in the section to keep the picture from overflowing at the bottom. I'd like to create a second copy, cropped just above the bust at around the large button on her blouse.
The second issue is one I need your expert opinion on, since you've seen so many photos and movies of her (doubtless including Ninotchka itself). To me, the image seems very unnaturally "stretched" vertically (or squeezed horizontally) – the same effect you used to sometimes get if they played a widescreen film on an old TV set in the days before letter-boxing.
And from what I can see in other pics – even others from Ninotchka – it makes her face/head look too narrow. If you're OK with the cropping off the bottom, I'd like to also "widen" the picture by about 8%. Can you cast a critical eye on that picture and see if you think it represents her normally or could use a small adjustment?
Later. Fat&Happy ( talk) 04:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi--you could be right about the vertical stretching. Can't tell. Meanwhile, I found a superb photo. It's horizontal, but I don't see that as a problem. Do you? It's a good size too. Check it out and tell me what you think. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+ninotchka&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=_lJzM6yQ_W7dnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gonemovies.com/www/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActGarboNinotchka.asp&docid=q4UowMfujHbJ3M&imgurl=http://www.gonemovies.com/www/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActGarboNinotchka.jpg&w=363&h=239&ei=ry4rT4vwJonO2AX8wMz9Dg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=314&vpy=354&dur=109&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=132&ty=99&sig=102070396330840809095&page=3&tbnh=148&tbnw=211&start=52&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:52 -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
I think I'm following you but lamentably, I'm just so deeply dense. I understand German philosphy but I can't understand facebook or twitter. What's really important to me is that I hope you're having fun. Now, look above and you'll see that I have a message that's situated before your most recent post. Somehow, I didn't see yours before I added mine. It's about the n pic. so: 1) What do you think about replacing the current one with this new one? It captures an entirely different side of her so would enrich the photo montage. It would also take care of the problem with odd proportions. But I'm certainly open. 2) Are we still on board with mh? I hope so. 3) as for the WO pic, it's the same size as it came in from the web. Maybe we should shrink that a little? Talk to you tomorrow,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, taking current content in the "Silent films" section first:
Oh, geez. You have no idea how bad I am at making choices. I have trouble deciding whether to have a raisin or everything bagel for breakfast, and you send me to a page with 140 pictures on it to choose which one I like best!!!
I didn't look at the full versions of all of them. Not surprisingly, I still like the one I had seen originally; on the Garbo Forever page it's at the bottom, row 28, column 5. But for this particular one, I think the version from the other site (called "Mata Hari III" in our earlier exchange in the "Ciao" section) is better – less cropping, more contrast.
I also like the very similar row 2, column 2. I think I like the original "Mata Hari III" a bit better; to me, it seems slightly less posed, which I know sounds stupid because they're all fully posed, but that's still my impression.
Now I'm a bit irritated at the website for bait-and-switching. The small thumbnail at row 14, column 4 looks great, but the full image is a much larger shot of her in a mirror and Navarro standing over her. But, I still like it. If we like her in this shot, I think the mirror is used effectively and the photo could be used as is. There are also a couple of ways the picture could be cropped, either to grab just the Garbo mirror-image, or to eliminate some of the furnishings on the sides.
Also, the thumbnail from the main page is good enough quality to use for the small size it would be on Wikipedia (I wouldn't try to blow it up to a 4-foot wall hanging). But I hate messing with the artistic expression of MGM's best by cropping their work. Don't know how you feel.
Which Mata Hari photos do you like best? Fat&Happy ( talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Good Good morning, FH. Well, it would need to go to the left of Persona section (MH pic definitely captures her persona), moving Ninotchka to the right. Otherwise all the glamour pics (except in Legacy section) would be on the right. Nope, no new section.
Now I know you may kill me, but I'm thinking maybe we should forgo the pic all together (I'm trying to escape the darts). There are a couple of reasons. Do you think, first, that the career section has enough pics and that 1 more would make it too crowded? Second, we already have 4 glamour photos. I looked at the pp. of several other glamour stars (Monroe, Bergman, Dietrich, Crawford, A. Hepburn) and they each had only 1 or 2 and included more candids. Now, GG was arguably the greatest of the glamour stars (I'm not saying star in general) and her enigmatic face was intricately blended into her on and off-screen persona, so I think it's appropriate to have 4 up. But 5? To balance out the p. I'm thinking we might consisder adding another candid photo to the retirement section—when she wasn’t at all glamourous. I was under the impression that candids were harder to pass copyright rules but when I look at these other pps, it doesn’t look like it’s a problem to me. Do you know anything about this?
On the other hand, the MH pic is so excellent in so many ways it might work. We could put it up and see what it looks like? What are your thoughts on this? I'll write Lobo and see if she thinks adding a 4th publicity portrait is too much. I hope I’m still your friend. :) -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Just looked at your recent punctuation changes but can't see what they were. I see the same thing in the yellow as in the blue boxes??
Good evening FH. OK, got it. But can't remember why you asked about it. I think the slightly reduced mh photo looks damn good, and necessary, though trade off is it reveals less of the the animated face. Ah well, you can't have everything. Now, wrote Lobo for her feedback about ratio of film stills/glamour photos. She agreed too many glamour. So she sent the following links from Camille which are excellent. So I think we should replace the AK (though wonderful) with one of them. Which do you think is better? Each has weakness: In the first, Taylor may dominate too much (though she says it could be cropped???) and second is too gloomy. So my vote is the first, cropped. Do you know how to do that? Look them over and tell me what you think.
Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I really think the 1st is better. Expression more complex, composition better (though we'd lose that if cropped), and Adrian's costume much more interesting. your thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention above. While I was uploading to Commons, I also did a cropped version of the Gösta Berling Saga picture. Added it to the article and enlarged a bit. It's not optimal, but shows her face a bit better. If you have another suggestion for how to improve it, let me know; if you hate it, just revert my change. Fat&Happy ( talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend, OK. Thanks for getting that up. Now, here's what I think we should do. Delete the AK pic (big glamour) and increase size of AK since her face is so expressive. I'll give it a try now and you tell me what you think. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, what do you think? It's certainly better since less crowded, I think. And slightly larger size suggests expression. But now I see another problem. Her expressions in ghand c are almost identical. What do you think???-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I think this one, below, is terrific; totally different expression; close-up so you can really see her face and so can make it smaller. I know resolution not that great, but good enough, and will be better smaller. Unless you object, I think we should go with it. If you agree, then, the photo montage will be DONE. And you will be FREE of GG. BTW, what do you think of my retirement reasons?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+camille&um=1&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=ayyBfErcNbWUOM:&imgrefurl=http://www.movieactors.com/superstars/greta_garbo_photos.htm&docid=ToUbOCi6x3i7fM&imgurl=http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/greta-garbo-camille-7.jpg&w=533&h=400&ei=B7IxT_7UCIa0gwe5jsGbBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=94&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=162&tbnw=203&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0&tx=109&ty=65 -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey buddy, are you still with me? Or have you gotten bored with photo uploads? I thought maybe you were so I thought I'd try and figure out how to upload the C pic, above, and replace the current C with it. I spent 30 minutes trying to follow the instructions for copyright stuff and uploading to the commons. No go. I simply don't understand the intstructions for either. Are you willing to help me with this? Then, as I say, you can put GG to sleep--unless you're still interested in the p., of course. Meanwhile, I hope you're engaged with other WP projects. Anyway, thanks a bundle-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
well now I REALLY need your help. I kept trying. When I first got the new C pic up, in the preview it seemed to be fine. No red box. Well, when I finally got it up, the no copyright box was/is there. I don't ustand. And then I somehow deleted the old pic formatting for the old one with Robert Taylor. Can you help me get the new one up? I think it looks great. I hope you do. Thanks!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, this one should definitely work because it comes from the same place that several of the others did. Good because close-up so can see her eyes. I think it's as good as any of the gd pics I've gotten before. Soon, -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Camille/Camille-046.jpg
Please note the amount of space we devoted to photo matters. LOL! I wonder, is this typical? As I am no longer devoting time to big edits and additions, I'm going over the p. with a fine tooth comb. Lot's of little, even tiny, stuff to change, small mistakes by previous writer to correct, including some unsupported assertions I've found. I'm checking all the cits to make sure they're legit. But so much easier. How will you spend the free time made available to you now that the major work of this edition of the p. is complete? On Eva Gabor? You are indeed a mysterious person :)-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thought you'd gotten rid of me, eh? ;--) OK, so if someone vandalizes, I have to undo every instance of the vandalism, in each section? I've always known how to do that, (though never heard the term "diffrence" p., I just thought there might be away to revert entire p. to its orignal, though I can see that would be impossible. Or is it? So what WP p or pp. are you fully engaged with, now that we're done. The Virginia Mayo p.? Ha Ha!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh, another problem. At the bottom of the page, there's a red line that says, Cite error: tag with name "Alberge2005" defined in references is not used in prior text; see the help page." It apparently appeared after I finished editing the filmography (as per your argument!). In trying to figure out the problem, I encountered something weird: the first cit number on the page is Paris, which corresponds to the ref associated with the number. Yet in the references edit page, the 1st citation is Alberge. I havent checked the whole p., but find these discrepencies in first few. Went to help desk which told me to seek help on talk page. I thought, well FH is my help page so I'll go to him first. Any clues to his mystery? Should I just bury my head in the sand and leave it alone since everthing seems to match up on the page itself? Ah jeeze. I thought we were done with my writing.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah Ha! I get it now. Thanks. OK, the problem is that Paris, who wrote a bio that is widely considered to be definitive (along with Swenson) says the lost screen tests were rediscovered by two eminent film historians and experts, Basinger and Maltin. He does not say they “were lost for 40 years until they resurfaced in someone’s garage,” and by extension, found by some unnamed person, as Alberge apparently says in the UK Times. (Yes I know it's thought to be as reliable as the American papers you name). This is the reason I first deleted the statement and poked around for a more credible account. I don’t think that “found in someone’s garage” is a legitimate assertion to make in encyclopedia about something important. Do you? Anyway, I found the Times link and could only read the first few sentences without subscribing of course, which I don’t want to do (but will to satisfy YOU ;-). I can’t do it now without my Explorer crashing. (this is the 3d time I’ve written this frickin’ paragraph to you.) So, I’ll leave the citation up there until I get motivated enough to spend the money, and get to the site, to clarify this little factoid. But I won’t put the garage bit back in! And blah blah blah-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting. We were writing each other at the same time. So I received an edit conflict and lost (for the 4th time) an entire paragraph I wrote you. Well DAMN you. Naturally, I couldn't let it go and PAID for a one month subscription to the paper (Oh well, interesting article about Judy Dench losing her eyesight that Iwant to read.) Anyway, so I read the same article and of course we now know that there are at least 2 versions of what happened to the lost tests. So this is what i think we should do, if you agree. Add the following text to the reference (not the page--not important enough to warrant that much text): Auberge2005 etc: In this account, the author alleges that the screen tests were "unearthed in someone’s garage in Los Angeles in 1998 by Jeff Joseph, a film collector.” So I tried to figure out how to add text to cits and naturally couldn't. And then I thought. Wait! Perhaps YOU could since your SUCH a nice man! But on the other hand, YOU are responsible for forcing me to subscribe to--i.e PAY--a British news paper in order get the facts straight about this picayune matter. So you owe me big time.
Finally, I know everything about the tests--how great they were, etc etc but didn't think it was important enough to get onto the p. Do you?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
The first African American playboy playmate does not constitute much of a barrier breaking precedent. This information is better suited on the subjects', Jennifer Jackson's article and Renee Tenison's article or preferably on the playboy one. Most of the accomplishments listed on the above article have been of incalculable significance in African American history marking milestones as well as setting momentous precedents for generations of black Americans. Keep this in perspective, before reverting the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.90.1.65 ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Fat I wondered if you might have any suggestions, or input for my article on MSNBC Controversies . You seem to be up on the News artcles, and I thought this might be up your ally. Thanx Jetijonez ( talk) 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, still appreciate the skim though Jetijonez ( talk) 15:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"Comprehensive heading"? It's almost the antithesis of comprehensive -- since there is no mention of L, B or T. It is also not accessible because a lot of people don't know what stands for. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 03:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
this looks a lot like a personal attack. A suggestion would be to revert, and ask the editor/IP nicely, to refrain making those changes. Thank you, -- MST☆ R (Chat Me!) 06:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
George Soros is ethnically a Jew. Sourced in article. Quit censoring Wikipedia faggot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.171 ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about the WP Manual of Style; I now feel rather sheepish for having been preachy in my edit note, and I apologize for that. It grates against every fiber of my being, though. Grandpallama ( talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that Wayback link for Obama - for some reason the site kept crashing on me when I tried to get it earlier, so I went with NYT. But having both is good. So annoying when people remove chunks of text just because they don't see a good link. It ain't that hard. Cheers! Tvoz/ talk 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
See, that's interesting, and I actually toyed with earth's or earth's before deciding. I went with the longer one because it includes the 's in the link, rather than changing text colour and cutting off the hover:underline partway through a word. I tend to make decisions like that based on pages as seen by readers rather than editing convenience.
I did something similar, the other way, on Jimbo's Talk Page at New Year, and it got altered by an editor with the opposite viewpoint: [1] (although he "cheated" with a redirect to get the same effect.) I agreed with him, so I've altered my method to include the whole word in the link. If that's wrong, could you point me to where it says so, please, because I'd like to see it to prevent me making mistakes.
I found, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Piped links:
- Plurals and other derived names. When forming plurals, you can do so thus:
[[apple]]s
which includes the final "s" in the link like this: apples. This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text than[[apple|apples]]
. This works not just for "s", but for any words that consist of an article name and some additional letters. For details, see Help:Link. (This does not work for affixes beginning with hyphens, apostrophes, or capital letters.)
which seems to say the technique of extra characters after the ]] doesn't work with a leading apostrophe in the "affix", as here, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. (I didn't look at the single digit dates, though - you are correct.) Thanks. Begoon talk 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't understand you last revert. I removed the mention of the presence of Tony Cimber from the lead, and you discovered the omission of one of her five offspring! I reverted that misunderstanding back. But, looking at you interest, I would really like to ask for some help here, especially about the integrity of the copy. For instance, there are multiple mentions of Mansfield going out of Hollywood and coming back without making the time periods specific, which leads to some amount of confusion. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, Just wanted to thank you for all the work you did helping me get the Garbo p. up to speed. Currently I'm attempting to put in new images. Someone's downloaded some I chose and I was able to insert them. But I'm not sure how long she'll stay with it. But I'm trying! I've added new stuff since you were on board, all of which I hope makes the p. a little richer, a little deeper. Which will continue to be my goal even though eventually I'll run out of gas. Anyway, thanks so much. I'm thrilled you're working on a page about George Soros. He's one of my heroes. Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh my God! I just read the comment someone wrote to you about Soros. How horrible and mean spirited! I'm so sorry.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey man, yeah, added stuff. Also, just uploaded images which the p. desperately needed. Only one other thing I have to do, I think, which is to give cited reasons why she retired, though her decision is shrouded in mystery. Interesting about vandal, trolls, and other evil-doers. :) -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like the N pic. Your thoughts are very, very interesting and strangely peculiar, Mr. F&H. Hmmmm...you have a complex and enigmatic mind. How on earth did you recollect her DOB? And why do you care? You do indeed have interesting interests. Well you were right, the powerful glamour photo in the legacy section was deleted. (Pic by the brilliant Hollywood photographer, Clarence Bull, who did 85% of her publicity stills.) But your caption remains! (Maybe people will just think the blank is a reflection of her elusive mystique.) It looked right to me after Lobo put it on/in the commons. I'm sure she'll spin her magic again when she adds the Camille photo. My hope is that these images suggest some of the expressiveness of her face. God I ramble with you. Forgive me.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff ( talk • contribs)
Sir f&h, your services are required. You have an assignment. User lobo518 has been helping to upload pics and she's made some nice prose tweaks. She thinks that the last paragraph in the Queen of MGM section, about the motif "I want to be alone," should stand alone as a new section "Personal Life--Reclusiveness." It's current location, she thinks, interrupts the flow of her career. Now, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to write about her personal life and decided, fundamentally because of its unknowablility, to state, allude to, what we can say about it in the retirement and relationships sections. The reclusive piece is forshadowed in MGM section. The question is, do you think the way I address (what we can say about) her personal life, including her famed reclusive persona, is adequately finessed in the current organization (as i do)? Or do you think the "alone" motif at the end of MGM Queen is disruptive and needs to stand alone somewhere? (If you choose to accept this assignment--pro bono--you may be interested in the details of our conversation in our talk pp. although there's plenty of my blah blah blah in there to waste your time) I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this, if you have them. Also, what do you think of her Camille photo? We've been discussing that too. I don't think it shows her face to best advantage. But if you like it, it's a go. We could also look for Anna Karenina pics if you too are dissatisfied. You see? I hold you in very high esteem.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As I just wrote Lobo, "Nevermind. As an obsessive, I've gone over and over this in my mind for the last 2 hours... read over and over each section that touches upon the inscrutable complexities of her private life. And I think the way I've handled it works well. The bit at the end of the "Queen" section is relevant to her career because it pertains to the development of the Garbo myth, which was embedded in her performances and her work. I like the way I lace her renowned reclusiveness within the professional and personal (retirement). So I feel strongly it should stand the way it is. I hope you're OK with that.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok my friends. I’ve figured it all out. I’ve been speaking extemporaneously, blabbing on, when I should have worked out my argument in advance, and then stated it succinctly, which I will now do. There are two problems with Lobo’s plan, I think.
So there’s my argument in a nutshell. I hope you're convinced. Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi F&H, you can ignore the entire epistle above, as you probably already have. But will you help me find a better pic from either Anna Karenina, or Camille? Would be a huge help. And then I'm not going to to bother you again! I have decided to write one more bit about the reasons why gg retired (no clear reason at all but I can some that others have speculated). Then I'm going to put this p. to bed and end this addiction and get back to my other writing! Hope you're well,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Here are the ones that I've found that I think would add to the p. They're from AK, at same point in her career as C All show the depth and richness of her expression through the eyes which are what set her apart from her peers. First one, which I think is the best, seems to be a film shot so probably not postable? Then, my friend, I promise I won't harass you anymore!
-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are a few I came up with. Interestingly, we have one duplicate, though the site where I found it identified it as Camille, nor Anna Karenina. The page you found that one on has another from my list below also.
The site with the second and third Mata Hari pics also has a few good ones with her co-star,if you prefer. Personally, I like Mata Hari III best for that movie; the one we both selected with the hat for Anna Karenina; and either of the remaining two Camille ones if needed. (My selections for Camille reflect a personal distaste for her hair in most of the images from that pic, so may not be a reliable opinion.) Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Mata Hari in general has the best portraits of all her films, I think. Many very powerful. I like your last M H, but there are even better ones. But the problem with putting one up is that it's another from early 30s, which the p. already has, Anna Christie and Grand Hotel. What the p. needs is something from AK, 1935or C, 1936 (she only did 3 other films after them). I agree with you about the Camille hair. Your second C photo is from A K and is, in my opinion, rather dull (lacks "movement" and expressiveness of the eyes.) Don't you like my 1st and 2nd, AK? Those are my choices, but 1st is film still, so can we post it? If you don't agree, I'm satisfied with the one we both agree on--the hat photo from C. Looking forward to your thoughts. Maybe we could put up 2 one from MH and another from AK or C; but two crowded? We could add one to Relationships section, only one now without a pic. Your thoughts? Only Monday today, so work. Myeh. Hope you're indeed happy!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And – let me hide before you try to burn me at the stake for heresy – I would replace the current Grand Hotel pic with one from the year-earlier Mata Hari, either my 2nd or 3rd one or one of the even better ones you've seen out there.
OK, just looked at a handful of MH pics and I don't think any of them are any better than your 3d. one. So the question now is, if we keep the GH, which, as I say, is important, can we put the MH portrait to left of Screen Persona or Relationships?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm procrastinating. Work. Ho hum. Just checked the Garbo Forever site which has a whole p. dedicated to GG pix from MH; check them out and see if any stand out as more interesting than the one we agreed on. Url: http://www.garboforever.com/Film-Pic-21.htm-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Two of Gilbert might be undue weight to him, but then again he is the one she lived with for a couple of years.
An alternative I don't really like, but will mention anyway, would br to move the existing photo to the Relationships section.
(It's too bad she never slept with Navarro; there are some decent Mata Hari shots with him so we could kill two birds with one stone.)
I agree with replacing the current Camille pic with the Anna K hat shot.
But. Layout is not my forte, but I still try. That will make the section have three portrait (upright) photos and one (GH, top right) landscape (horizontal). May seem off-balance, unlike the current way which is diagonally matched.
Even before noticing this, though, I was thinking Ninotchka could be moved to "Screen persona", since it's mentioned there. maybe that would give a bit more room to play in the crowded "Queen of MGM" section?
(You/we need a test page to work out formatting changes where two or three people can evaluate things before updating the page for the whole world to see.)
Actually, after reading your question about sending just the image links, I realized that for searching purposes the full, extra-long Google link may have an advantage. Google gives you a page with a "similar images" link, so if, e.g., one pic seemed close but not quite there as to either subject or picture quality, it might be easier to find the "just a slight bit better" version. But to cut down on the URL display size, put a single left square bracket in front (same as an internal Wiki link, but one bracket instead of two), then a space, a short description, and the closing right bracket. So: [http...yadyada/ridicously.long.linktosomerandom/googlepage brief description] will just show as "brief description".
-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC) So if we put the N pic in persona, we can put MH where N is now, right? Then we have 4 pics on each side, not including the retirement pic. It would be blocky, but so much of G's fame and mystique was about her face. I dunno. What do you think? Maybe it depends on the size of the mh photo. We might also find a smaller n pic. but unfortunately, we like the one up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
OH MY GOD, f&h--High Alert! I was just poking around the net to see if I could find out more about books about her and found this one, http://www.amazon.com/Greta-Garbo-Handbook-Everything-about/dp/1743040601#reader_1743040601, pub'd in 1911 and discovered that the author plagiarized me in the bio section. I'm shocked!!!! People will think WP plagiarized the book! Check it out.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
May i ask why the issue of Israel is given such prominence in the Background section of the primary article here ? Pass a Method talk 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you changed the reference for an edit I made to the Bradley Cooper page today regarding the film Serena. Could you explain why the NY mag blog site is a preferred source over news on Empire magazine's website? I saw both articles but chose the Empire source as it seemed more reliable (and in the past NY mag had been flagged as spam when I tried to use it). An explanation would help me make more productive edits in the future. Thanks, and I appreciate your time. -- Abadguitarist ( talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Over at WP:RIGHT we could really use your help. Please consider becoming a part of the fastest growing most influential ensemblages of editors in the entire wiki: WP:WikiProject Conservatism/About us. – Lionel ( talk) 06:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I for some reason still have this page on my watchilist, and see you've been quite busy here lately. I subsequently have had the page protected for a while. Hopefully that helps. Calabe 1992 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding your edit here, please note Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language. Will you reconsider? — Eustress talk 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Eva Gabor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for everything you've done, from July to the end of this marathon. Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
When you read her biography it states she won 4 grammys now I'm confused how I can source that. This biography she was interviewed for as well. Researchers for shows like inside the actors studio have also stated she has won 4. However the grammy website states 3 which means there may be an error somewhere along the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.76.227 ( talk) 09:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know.... I've started a dispute to get reference to the documentary included in the LDS page. [ [2]] Light Defender ( talk) 07:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Defender ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for removing your edit on the college article, I didn't know you were an experienced editor. Thanks -- GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 23:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fat&Happy, a few weeks ago you posted on my user page asking for clarification about which state is Newt Gingrich's legal residence. While I realize my sayso isn't necessarily enough for you to go on, I can confirm that Newt is a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I don't think that this registration is online, but I can point you to some reliable third-party sources that are correct. These include WTVR (CBS Richmond), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway and the Washington Examiner. I hope this helps. Best, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, continuing from the "Ciao" thread...
I'm going to try to grab the AK hat pic and upload it to Commons as File:Greta Garbo Anna Karenina 4.jpg. If the link here turns from red to blue, it worked. Then I'll try to fill out the forms copying heavily from the other pics.
Be prepared to send out a distress signal to your friend lobo, though. Back later. Fat&Happy ( talk) 03:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I added AK to the "Queen" section, deleted Camille and moved Ninotchka to "Persona". Tried to get a reasonable layout, but like I said – not my area of expertise... If we want to add a pic from Mata Hari to that section, the AK photo would need to be reduced in size to the same as the others; for now, standalone on the one side, I like it as is – but all the disclaimers still apply.
Ninotchka. Two (related) issues. To start, there's not enough text in the section to keep the picture from overflowing at the bottom. I'd like to create a second copy, cropped just above the bust at around the large button on her blouse.
The second issue is one I need your expert opinion on, since you've seen so many photos and movies of her (doubtless including Ninotchka itself). To me, the image seems very unnaturally "stretched" vertically (or squeezed horizontally) – the same effect you used to sometimes get if they played a widescreen film on an old TV set in the days before letter-boxing.
And from what I can see in other pics – even others from Ninotchka – it makes her face/head look too narrow. If you're OK with the cropping off the bottom, I'd like to also "widen" the picture by about 8%. Can you cast a critical eye on that picture and see if you think it represents her normally or could use a small adjustment?
Later. Fat&Happy ( talk) 04:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi--you could be right about the vertical stretching. Can't tell. Meanwhile, I found a superb photo. It's horizontal, but I don't see that as a problem. Do you? It's a good size too. Check it out and tell me what you think. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+ninotchka&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=_lJzM6yQ_W7dnM:&imgrefurl=http://www.gonemovies.com/www/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActGarboNinotchka.asp&docid=q4UowMfujHbJ3M&imgurl=http://www.gonemovies.com/www/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActGarboNinotchka.jpg&w=363&h=239&ei=ry4rT4vwJonO2AX8wMz9Dg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=314&vpy=354&dur=109&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=132&ty=99&sig=102070396330840809095&page=3&tbnh=148&tbnw=211&start=52&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:52 -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
I think I'm following you but lamentably, I'm just so deeply dense. I understand German philosphy but I can't understand facebook or twitter. What's really important to me is that I hope you're having fun. Now, look above and you'll see that I have a message that's situated before your most recent post. Somehow, I didn't see yours before I added mine. It's about the n pic. so: 1) What do you think about replacing the current one with this new one? It captures an entirely different side of her so would enrich the photo montage. It would also take care of the problem with odd proportions. But I'm certainly open. 2) Are we still on board with mh? I hope so. 3) as for the WO pic, it's the same size as it came in from the web. Maybe we should shrink that a little? Talk to you tomorrow,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, taking current content in the "Silent films" section first:
Oh, geez. You have no idea how bad I am at making choices. I have trouble deciding whether to have a raisin or everything bagel for breakfast, and you send me to a page with 140 pictures on it to choose which one I like best!!!
I didn't look at the full versions of all of them. Not surprisingly, I still like the one I had seen originally; on the Garbo Forever page it's at the bottom, row 28, column 5. But for this particular one, I think the version from the other site (called "Mata Hari III" in our earlier exchange in the "Ciao" section) is better – less cropping, more contrast.
I also like the very similar row 2, column 2. I think I like the original "Mata Hari III" a bit better; to me, it seems slightly less posed, which I know sounds stupid because they're all fully posed, but that's still my impression.
Now I'm a bit irritated at the website for bait-and-switching. The small thumbnail at row 14, column 4 looks great, but the full image is a much larger shot of her in a mirror and Navarro standing over her. But, I still like it. If we like her in this shot, I think the mirror is used effectively and the photo could be used as is. There are also a couple of ways the picture could be cropped, either to grab just the Garbo mirror-image, or to eliminate some of the furnishings on the sides.
Also, the thumbnail from the main page is good enough quality to use for the small size it would be on Wikipedia (I wouldn't try to blow it up to a 4-foot wall hanging). But I hate messing with the artistic expression of MGM's best by cropping their work. Don't know how you feel.
Which Mata Hari photos do you like best? Fat&Happy ( talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Good Good morning, FH. Well, it would need to go to the left of Persona section (MH pic definitely captures her persona), moving Ninotchka to the right. Otherwise all the glamour pics (except in Legacy section) would be on the right. Nope, no new section.
Now I know you may kill me, but I'm thinking maybe we should forgo the pic all together (I'm trying to escape the darts). There are a couple of reasons. Do you think, first, that the career section has enough pics and that 1 more would make it too crowded? Second, we already have 4 glamour photos. I looked at the pp. of several other glamour stars (Monroe, Bergman, Dietrich, Crawford, A. Hepburn) and they each had only 1 or 2 and included more candids. Now, GG was arguably the greatest of the glamour stars (I'm not saying star in general) and her enigmatic face was intricately blended into her on and off-screen persona, so I think it's appropriate to have 4 up. But 5? To balance out the p. I'm thinking we might consisder adding another candid photo to the retirement section—when she wasn’t at all glamourous. I was under the impression that candids were harder to pass copyright rules but when I look at these other pps, it doesn’t look like it’s a problem to me. Do you know anything about this?
On the other hand, the MH pic is so excellent in so many ways it might work. We could put it up and see what it looks like? What are your thoughts on this? I'll write Lobo and see if she thinks adding a 4th publicity portrait is too much. I hope I’m still your friend. :) -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Just looked at your recent punctuation changes but can't see what they were. I see the same thing in the yellow as in the blue boxes??
Good evening FH. OK, got it. But can't remember why you asked about it. I think the slightly reduced mh photo looks damn good, and necessary, though trade off is it reveals less of the the animated face. Ah well, you can't have everything. Now, wrote Lobo for her feedback about ratio of film stills/glamour photos. She agreed too many glamour. So she sent the following links from Camille which are excellent. So I think we should replace the AK (though wonderful) with one of them. Which do you think is better? Each has weakness: In the first, Taylor may dominate too much (though she says it could be cropped???) and second is too gloomy. So my vote is the first, cropped. Do you know how to do that? Look them over and tell me what you think.
Greetings,-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I really think the 1st is better. Expression more complex, composition better (though we'd lose that if cropped), and Adrian's costume much more interesting. your thoughts?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention above. While I was uploading to Commons, I also did a cropped version of the Gösta Berling Saga picture. Added it to the article and enlarged a bit. It's not optimal, but shows her face a bit better. If you have another suggestion for how to improve it, let me know; if you hate it, just revert my change. Fat&Happy ( talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend, OK. Thanks for getting that up. Now, here's what I think we should do. Delete the AK pic (big glamour) and increase size of AK since her face is so expressive. I'll give it a try now and you tell me what you think. -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, what do you think? It's certainly better since less crowded, I think. And slightly larger size suggests expression. But now I see another problem. Her expressions in ghand c are almost identical. What do you think???-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I think this one, below, is terrific; totally different expression; close-up so you can really see her face and so can make it smaller. I know resolution not that great, but good enough, and will be better smaller. Unless you object, I think we should go with it. If you agree, then, the photo montage will be DONE. And you will be FREE of GG. BTW, what do you think of my retirement reasons?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=greta+garbo+camille&um=1&hl=en&biw=1600&bih=724&tbm=isch&tbnid=ayyBfErcNbWUOM:&imgrefurl=http://www.movieactors.com/superstars/greta_garbo_photos.htm&docid=ToUbOCi6x3i7fM&imgurl=http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/greta-garbo-camille-7.jpg&w=533&h=400&ei=B7IxT_7UCIa0gwe5jsGbBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=94&sig=102070396330840809095&page=1&tbnh=162&tbnw=203&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0&tx=109&ty=65 -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey buddy, are you still with me? Or have you gotten bored with photo uploads? I thought maybe you were so I thought I'd try and figure out how to upload the C pic, above, and replace the current C with it. I spent 30 minutes trying to follow the instructions for copyright stuff and uploading to the commons. No go. I simply don't understand the intstructions for either. Are you willing to help me with this? Then, as I say, you can put GG to sleep--unless you're still interested in the p., of course. Meanwhile, I hope you're engaged with other WP projects. Anyway, thanks a bundle-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
well now I REALLY need your help. I kept trying. When I first got the new C pic up, in the preview it seemed to be fine. No red box. Well, when I finally got it up, the no copyright box was/is there. I don't ustand. And then I somehow deleted the old pic formatting for the old one with Robert Taylor. Can you help me get the new one up? I think it looks great. I hope you do. Thanks!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, this one should definitely work because it comes from the same place that several of the others did. Good because close-up so can see her eyes. I think it's as good as any of the gd pics I've gotten before. Soon, -- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Film-Pic/Camille/Camille-046.jpg
Please note the amount of space we devoted to photo matters. LOL! I wonder, is this typical? As I am no longer devoting time to big edits and additions, I'm going over the p. with a fine tooth comb. Lot's of little, even tiny, stuff to change, small mistakes by previous writer to correct, including some unsupported assertions I've found. I'm checking all the cits to make sure they're legit. But so much easier. How will you spend the free time made available to you now that the major work of this edition of the p. is complete? On Eva Gabor? You are indeed a mysterious person :)-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thought you'd gotten rid of me, eh? ;--) OK, so if someone vandalizes, I have to undo every instance of the vandalism, in each section? I've always known how to do that, (though never heard the term "diffrence" p., I just thought there might be away to revert entire p. to its orignal, though I can see that would be impossible. Or is it? So what WP p or pp. are you fully engaged with, now that we're done. The Virginia Mayo p.? Ha Ha!-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 00:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh, another problem. At the bottom of the page, there's a red line that says, Cite error: tag with name "Alberge2005" defined in references is not used in prior text; see the help page." It apparently appeared after I finished editing the filmography (as per your argument!). In trying to figure out the problem, I encountered something weird: the first cit number on the page is Paris, which corresponds to the ref associated with the number. Yet in the references edit page, the 1st citation is Alberge. I havent checked the whole p., but find these discrepencies in first few. Went to help desk which told me to seek help on talk page. I thought, well FH is my help page so I'll go to him first. Any clues to his mystery? Should I just bury my head in the sand and leave it alone since everthing seems to match up on the page itself? Ah jeeze. I thought we were done with my writing.-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah Ha! I get it now. Thanks. OK, the problem is that Paris, who wrote a bio that is widely considered to be definitive (along with Swenson) says the lost screen tests were rediscovered by two eminent film historians and experts, Basinger and Maltin. He does not say they “were lost for 40 years until they resurfaced in someone’s garage,” and by extension, found by some unnamed person, as Alberge apparently says in the UK Times. (Yes I know it's thought to be as reliable as the American papers you name). This is the reason I first deleted the statement and poked around for a more credible account. I don’t think that “found in someone’s garage” is a legitimate assertion to make in encyclopedia about something important. Do you? Anyway, I found the Times link and could only read the first few sentences without subscribing of course, which I don’t want to do (but will to satisfy YOU ;-). I can’t do it now without my Explorer crashing. (this is the 3d time I’ve written this frickin’ paragraph to you.) So, I’ll leave the citation up there until I get motivated enough to spend the money, and get to the site, to clarify this little factoid. But I won’t put the garage bit back in! And blah blah blah-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting. We were writing each other at the same time. So I received an edit conflict and lost (for the 4th time) an entire paragraph I wrote you. Well DAMN you. Naturally, I couldn't let it go and PAID for a one month subscription to the paper (Oh well, interesting article about Judy Dench losing her eyesight that Iwant to read.) Anyway, so I read the same article and of course we now know that there are at least 2 versions of what happened to the lost tests. So this is what i think we should do, if you agree. Add the following text to the reference (not the page--not important enough to warrant that much text): Auberge2005 etc: In this account, the author alleges that the screen tests were "unearthed in someone’s garage in Los Angeles in 1998 by Jeff Joseph, a film collector.” So I tried to figure out how to add text to cits and naturally couldn't. And then I thought. Wait! Perhaps YOU could since your SUCH a nice man! But on the other hand, YOU are responsible for forcing me to subscribe to--i.e PAY--a British news paper in order get the facts straight about this picayune matter. So you owe me big time.
Finally, I know everything about the tests--how great they were, etc etc but didn't think it was important enough to get onto the p. Do you?-- Classicfilmbuff ( talk) 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)