User talk:Loeba/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sad news[edit]

Sad news has reached me that Shirley Temple has died today. Another great gone! CassiantoTalk 21:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been so many major-actor deaths the last few months.. The memorial section at the Oscars is going to be quite something. Nice to hear from you anyway, how's things? --Loeba (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed it will, I've heard the memorial montage will be so long, that it comes with it's own sponsor ;-) I'm very well, Barbados in a weeks time with the Mrs and it can't come soon enough. You? -- CassiantoTalk 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, amazing - lucky you! I'm fine, very much looking forward to half term next week...I'm not doing anything near as exciting as going to Barbados, but I'll be very happy just to have a lazy week at home! If I don't speak to you before then have a wonderful time, best --Loeba (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip Seymour Hoffman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blockbuster and My Boyfriend's Back (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) 09:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

I'm trying to create a proper userpage for myself since it seems I'm here to stay, but trying to place a photo next to the userboxes is driving me crazy! I don't know how to code and the instructions I've found are rubbish. I've also tried to look at how you've done it, but it still doesn't seem to work... as in, the image is visible, but it's either too close to the userboxes or below them, making the whole page look very awkward. Any ideas on what I should do? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Hmm that's strange, if you've copied the same format I used I'm not sure why it doesn't work! Maybe the picture is too big? Which one are you tying to add, I'll see if I can fix it --Loeba (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's any picture! I even tried with all the example images they had in the instructions, no luck :( I'm pretty sure I just don't understand which code to use, I'm sure it's something really simple. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie¨[reply]
Oh, and would be lovely if you could have a look, thank you so much! I haven't completely decided which picture I'm going to use, so any picture is fine, I would just like to get the code right first.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I think you must've just been putting the image code in the wrong place. I've put the one from my user page for now, hopefully all you have to do is change the file name and it'll work fine. --Loeba (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the help, you're the best :)TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Template:Bibliographies of film directors[edit]

Started Stanley Kubrick bibliography and:

Can you think of any other directors which probably have a lot of material about them? Those were the ones which immediately came to mind. I think they'll be very useful when it comes to researching for directors and films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm looks like a worthy project! There are definitely some important ones missing that will have lots of literature: Ozu, Godard, Lang, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Dreyer, Eisenstein...I recommend using this list to help: [1] --Loeba (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Godard and Bresson before I saw this. Obviously they have to be ones with plenty of material unlike contemporary notables like Alexander Payne and Paul John Anderson etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exasperating at times isn't it. And Sinden tried to delete the above template within two hours of creation and is certain that it is I who should assume faith in his actions!! Just been polishing up Pinocchio (1940 film), not sure if you feel like giving it a read/copyedit. It was already nommed for GA when I got to it. It has a rare 100% rating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly find it crazy when such long discussions, and eventually arguments, can happen over just a few words in an article! I even said I didn't care that much about them. It's all really silly. Aww Pinocchio, that's one of the best Disney films. Shall I take on the review? The article looks very solid, I can't imagine much will be needed for it to pass GA. About the template by the way, if you're still inclined to make articles for it (brilliant job by the way) then Antonioni definitely stands out as missing...Resnais, Visconti and Mizoguchi should probably be there as well? Fair enough if you're done though :) --Loeba (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's how most things on wikipedia start though isn't it over one individual who can't accept other people editing and that from time to time people disagree... Unbelievable! I know Pinocchio is really cute! I loved it as a kid. As Disney films go it's definitely one of the best! I've asked the person who did most of the writing to find the page numbers for one book but that shouldn't hold it back from GA. By all means take on the review or reserve it for when you're ready if you're up for it. Don't go too hard on me though LOL, I'm just the passer by who happened to embellish it a little! Will add those directors later. I'll gradually flesh out the pages, I created them with the first 5 books for most to get them up and running.I'm considering eventually doing one for actors but I probably won't use a nav template for those as there's likely to be a very large number!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I know I have the potential to be picky in reviews but I wouldn't do that for a GAN - not unless someone asked me to. Cool I'll claim it then, might be able to start it tonight but no guarantees (and then it's back to work tomorrow, so I'll inevitable be less active here but I'm sure I'll get it done soon). --Loeba (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It'll give you a break from Hoffman! What did you think of The Postman Always Knocks Twice? I watched that last night. It was like a cross between Double Indemnity and A Lonely Place. Quite good I though but not brilliant, the tension in it wasn't great but there was a good twist at the end. I'll continue with those director bibliographies this week but I'm strongly thinking about requesting a set of books for Ava Gardner. By no means my favourite but Liz and Audrey's articles are already bloated and Gardner's is rather meagre at present. I think she was probably a bit overrated but she definitely had that aura about her much like Sinatra had who she was married to in the 50s. I think it would make interesting reading anyway and I'm sure they'd have a lot of interesting angles on 50s films and relationships!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually hoping to finish my run through of Hoffman today. What do you think of what I've done? I hope you like it, and if not please don't be shy to change/revert anything...On the whole I think it's turned out really well. It was definitely a worthwhile project. Yeah Postman is a good noir - I found it pretty pretty predictable but it's fun. I like John Garfield. Ava Gardner eh? That's an interesting choice! Not really one of my favourites but she's a big name and I think you're right that she'd be interesting to read about. She was married to Mickey Rooney though who I kind of despise! --Loeba (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) For what it's worth I actually don't think Audrey's article is in that bad shape - it mostly needs a major improvement in the sourcing, then some trimming of the personal life and style stuff...I can imagine you bringing it up to GA pretty easily. --Loeba (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh me too. Gardner's not one of my favourites at all, a bit horsy looking to boot, but it's the sheer lack of content in the article and the likelihood of those books being very interesting as a piece of Hollywood from that period which might convince me. Yeah I really don't like Mickey Rooney, he always looked a nasty little shit to me, and from what I've read of him I was right! Audrey's probably my favourite. I was out off though by the size of the article as it is and starting the research from scratch. Perhaps I could get it up to GA without too much effort but I really prefer to write articles myself from scratch as I think they tend to be better quality at the end with better sourcing. I'll keep it in mind. Great job on Carole Lombard BTW. Love her and Rosalind Russell especially in screwballs. That one would be worth it too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the first part of the message. Oh you've done a terrific job on it! Virtually every one of your edits was exactly what I would have done or was thinking of doing from what I've seen. I don't think I've yet seen an edit which I would seriously dispute. Looks considerably better I think now. I think we can afford to keep some detail but some of the films definitely had a bit too much commentary. I always expand articles like that though as you can chisel away at them then and be assured that they're really comprehensive.Let me know when you're happy for it to be nommed, I think I'll see if Krimuk90 can review it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'm glad you agree that it looks good. Thanks for the compliment on Lombard - I haven't touched that one in a while now, it's been a very intermittent process...not too much left to do though: just the death, some sort of legacy section and the lead. I've kind of decided I may as well get Thompson out the way first though, but that's now been interrupted by PSH (not that I mind, I've enjoyed it), so it might still be a while until I get back to Carole. I really shouldn't do more than one article at the same time, especially when I'm so slow at it, but oh well! --Loeba (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah with film it's best to concentrate on only one at a time otherwise it's headache material. Let's get Hoffman through GA first and then we can talk about another one! You've encouraged me though to consider Audrey's article. I might need some support to take get it there though! BTW can you find The Mortal Storm online anywhere? One I found didn't work on some Russian site.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try ... but I do find that sometimes stagevu videos won't fully load. Go for it with Audrey! I think there are a couple of users who watch the page closely though so probably best to announce your [good] intentions on the talk page first. I was hoping to finish Hoffman by tonight but I haven't quite managed it and I want to sign off for the evening now...very nearly done though! --Loeba (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at it and it needs more work than you think. It needs a complete overhaul. Awful structure and weight on certain things, I'm tempted to work on it from scratch in my sandbox. It would need a lot of work before I'd be happy taking it to GA. I just watched The Bank Dick instead. Rather daft really but funny at times, the car chase was crazy! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stagevu doesn't work for me, it says plug in needed. Then when I add the plugin it still says the same thing, and most of the external links are to silly dodgy sign up websites and long and tedious downloads which probably won't work..♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when Hoffman's ready for GA and I'll ask Krimuk to review it. I could nom now and him reserve it and work can still continue with it. Whatever you're happy with. I'm off out now for a nice run! Will be back in a while..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to work on the Master paragraph and the one after, but yeah we could nom it now if you want and just ask him to leave the last section till I'm done. I really don't mind, you choose :) --Loeba (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will nom tomorrow then... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nommed. You're welcome to suggest some books for User:Dr. Blofeld/Books. Just created Audrey Hepburn bibliography... You were right BTW, The Lady Eve is a terrific screwball comedy, a classic and the best film I've seen of Sturges and with Stanwyck.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool about the nom. I'm afraid I won't be able to do the work I wanted on the article today, but hopefully tomorrow... --Loeba (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I realized that William Wyler is one of my favourite directors. I've loved everyone of the dozen or so of his films that I've seen with the exception of Best Years. Interestingly the Academy nominated him almost twice more than any other film director with 12 noms so they basically consider him to be the greatest American director, although John Ford had 4 wins and 5 noms. Wyler had 15 in total though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh I ended up doing work on PSH anyway, even though I really wanted to "have the night off"...I hate when wikipedia does that to me, haha. Anyway I really love Wyler too! He's actually somewhat unappreciated by film buffs these days, I'd say, but his films always have such a crisp, simple but mature quality to them that I really like. Don't miss my two favourites if you haven't seen them: Dead End (1937 film) (with lovely Sylvia Sidney, so underrated) and The Little Foxes (film). --Loeba (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wyler's films have a great warmth to them I find and as you say crisp in delivery. Roman Holiday and Ben Hur are in my top 10. I've seen The Little Foxes, will make a note to see Dead End. I saw Battle Cry (film) earlier and was surprised how great it was, one of the best war films I've seen. Ploughing slowly through the 1001 book, have you seen this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S03Aw5HULU short film? Weird, but I've come to realize that the shorts included are usually peculiar avant garde type ones. There's some very questionable entries in it, I mean they included Cat People (1942 film) but not One of Our Aircraft is Missing when it's not even 1/5th as good. See my user talk page, we've lost another genius this month.. My hero...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing Pinocchio (1940 film). Koala15 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, much appreciated thanks! I hope you're not angry with me Loeba! LOL honest truth I hadn't even realized you'd begun the review Loeba or had promoted it as I didn't nom it and it wasn't on my watchlist list. It will be from now on!! I only realized you'd promoted it on seeing the barnstar here!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no no of course not! You already said thanks and I really wasn't angry anyway - but I do strongly believe that people should always thank/be thanked when it comes to reviewing, so I thought I would "enlighten" Koala to this. I wasn't looking for a barnstar, heh, but thank you :) --Loeba (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This website really is the world's biggest time sink. It pisses me off how much work needs doing and that I'll never be able to tackle 0.5% of what I want to. It's very difficult at times to only spend an hour or two on here isn't, everywhere I look solid work needs doing..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Loeba do you want to do the review for Fantasia (film) too? Koala also nominated it and I've added to it. It's on the AFI 100 at least the 1998 edition. I remember how frightening some of the scenes were particularly towards the end and wondered if Disney and his team were smoking something they shouldn't be! I can imagine kids having nightmares LOL. Do you think you or @We hope: could find some more free images from the theatrical trailer to illustrate it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to do it can you let me know and I'll ask somebody else? No worries if not!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be up for it, but also can't guarantee when it would happen... If you're eager to get it done maybe best to ask someone else? As for what you said on here last night, I hope you don't put too much pressure on yourself. Overall this place is an amazing resource and you've already done an incredible amount for it. Give yourself breaks whenever you need them and don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it :) --Loeba (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the points, just waiting for Krimuk now...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how irritating are certain people at times. I saw that comment on the Hoffman talk page about it being a memorial. Always by people who do bugger all for wikipedia! If it was a memorial it would have dozens of quotes from celebs which were widely reported and the death section would be half the article.. I shouldn't listen too much to him. Saw Ikiru a few days back, you know at least in terms of humanity it is probably the greatest film I've ever seen, very moving film. Guessing you've seen it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey welcome back. I think taking a break from this place when you're fed up is a very sensible (and healthy!) thing to do. I'm feeling a wikibreak coming on myself, but we'll see. As for the Hoffman stuff, I don't blame them for having different opinions but it does bother me how quick some people are to resort to a snarky and hostile tone...it's really not necessary. And yes I love Ikiru! My favourite Kurosawa (although I still have some of his big ones to see). --Loeba (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the trolls (Twinkelvi) etc turn up and add fuel to the fire "Oh I must agree it's shrine-esque". Maddening. You'd be sensible to take a break!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Seymour Hoffman[edit]

You can withdraw nomination by closing it; the actor's death was already part of headlines in Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that has any relevance to the hook why exactly? See my comment Loeba on my talk page...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emma Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beautiful Creatures (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) 09:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Codger III – You’ll wish it were only a nightmare[edit]

I have John Gielgud at peer review, and if you can find the time and are so disposed I'd be very glad indeed of your thoughts there. Tim riley (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Yes absolutely. I may not have time this weekend but I'll definitely be there at some point. Hope you're well Ol' Codge --Loeba (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
Just a heads up for your decency on the talk page over the Hoffman article given the hostility. I hope I didn't offend you with my comments about the Emma Thompson article. If it had not come at such a fuming bad time with Banner I'd probably not have said anything at all and just watched it evolve.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba I really don't think they're the type you can appease. Tim riley has promoted articles on actors to FA with more quotations and boxes. I'm concerned with some of the recent changes. Don't forget that neither of these editors have ever worked properly on actor articles. Both myself and Krimuk who passed the article have FA experience with actors. I agree that there was a bit too many quotes but I think its reaching a stage where there is a good balance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's tricky, I thought it was fine before as well, but I don't really like doing the whole "they've never written recognised content, so their opinion matters less" thing...the fact that several editors felt the quote boxes were problematic made me think we can't just ignore it. I don't think that would be fair (the other two are speaking reasonably now - I don't get the impression they're being difficult for the sake of it). And I looked again at the theatre quote and thought "to be honest, it is a bit la-di-da and unneeded"...and the work ethic quote was pretty easy to move into the text, so I thought "may as well do that"...but change them back if you definitely think it was better before (and are prepared to defend it, heh). No don't worry you didn't offend me - I like the way we're always honest with each other haha. We may not always agree but we're definitely always honest! I'm off work, sick, but doing some stuff on here anyway... --Loeba (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that their opinion doesn't count for anything, but when it comes to writing featured articles each of us know what is acceptable and I actually think with a bit of work and a lot of minor fixing Hoffman could be promoted to FA. I don't want to go into it yet. But Jamie's comment implying the article is a pure memorial is rubbish. If they were offering constructive criticism then it would be OK. Winkelvi is just trolling and only commenting because he feels hard done by. That sort of criticism is to be ignored. I know you always do your best to respond to criticism on here, but there are certain people on here who will always criticize however good it is and will place too much weight on minor issues and blow them into something huge. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of Lincoln? I'm guessing you thought it was great. Obviously Daniel Day Lewis was very good and looked like him but to me he really didn't feel like an American who cared about the country's future and in a way it felt to me like he didn't want to be there. I'm genuinely struggling to think of a film I found more boring, The Greatest Story Ever Told probably just beats it but I just found the film to be almost purely about politics and uninspiring. I wanted to see a proper biopic of him with a myriad of different locations and scenes and a greater balance of issues. Even the ending was bland! I can't say it was an "awful" film, it wasn't, it had some very good scenes, just the thing as a whole I just found mind numbingly boring. I see quite a few top critics agreed but most gush about the film. It's one of those rare ones I completely reject the main consensus for. The again I didn't think much of The Iron Lady either even though I thought Streep was amazing as Thatcher. The comment at the bottom of here sums up exactly my thoughts on it. Imagine the entirety of Schindler's List in Neeson's office. Spot on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news for film addicts..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yeah they're seriously cracking down. There's still ... though (and I think there will always be new website appearing to replace the banned ones). And yeah I enjoyed Lincoln (very un-Spielbergian) but I don't think anyone liked The Iron Lady outside of Meryl's performance! --Loeba (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All they have to do really is just change the website address! Although I have a feeling that the movie execs traced the source as they reportedly sent "letters" to them. I think Viooz was based in Bulgaria. Lincoln could have been an amazing epic if it was a proper biopic from birth to death with a healthy balance with Daniel in that role. I'm not into politics so the fact that most of the film was boardroom discussion it really didn't float my boat! That comment about imagine Schindler's List being all Neeson in his office saying he would help the Jews is really me feeling on it. I loved the period look of the film of course and obviously nobody could have played Lincoln better than Daniel though. BTW I'm in the midd of trying to promote Annie Hall and Ben-Hur (1959 film) but I'm encountering problems with Ring Cinema on Annie Hall, see the history and talk page. The article needs to be stable before we can progress. He removed a paragraph from the lead too which really needs to be there for a decent summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, that Annie Hall stuff looks tricky. I'll keep an eye on it and weigh-in if necessary, but I do try to avoid drama as much as possible! Especially while I'm still sick and feeling sorry for myself, ha. Ben-Hur looks pretty good but I've always thought it seems pretty bloated. I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe any film article needs to be 12,000 words (which it almost is)...what do you think? --Loeba (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been through Ben-Hur and trimmed the writing a bit. It's long, yup, but it's incredibly resourceful. The writing section mainly could be further trimmed a bit as it is a bit of a petty subject which leaves you thinking "I'm not sure I care who joined writing the script after who", but I don't think the others need much trimming if you actually read it. It is Ben-Hur after all, one of the greatest epic films of all time. Have a read of it anyway. I'll nom when Krimuk is online to review it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally put in my request here: :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hiddleston[edit]

Thanks for fixing up some details on his page. I probably should've noticed them when reviewing for GA, though now it's in good shape :). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: That's okay. It looks better but I do still find it extremely brief on his career details, it's lacking a personal life section, and the organisation could definitely be improved...lots of people demand too much during GA reviews, and I don't like that, but maybe next time be a bit more careful that it definitely meets the criteria. Looking at other GA articles in similar categories can help with this. I hope you take this as friendly advice rather than rude :) Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, this was quite helpful! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

Ben-Hur (1959 film)[edit]

Greetings master cutter. Feeling any better? I've split Production into a 75kb article of its own! As you do a great job with cutting I wondered if you would like to continue my condensing of it which has been highlighted as a major problem by Krimuk at GAN. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of it, trimmed it down to 99kb. It looks a more reasonable length now although could sitll be trimmed and polished in parts. It should be OK for GA, but you're welcome to read and copyedit it and trim further if you have a problem with it!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better to me, good job! --Loeba (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although Tim1965 has just said something which indicates he's annoyed that I cut it. I did say to him that multiple people were concerned with the length. I understand how he might be feeling though. Just seen The Tree of Life. Excellent film although IMO the kids scenes were too long but the first 30 minutes and last 15 minutes were incredible!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Satyricon (1969 film)? I find it a bit creepy!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, it's on my hypothetical-list! --Loeba (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like it. It's rather camp I thought! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Thompson and have begun a style section. Tough to write and summarise in the lede but I think it's a good start and along the right track. I doubt you'll agree with all my edits but I think it's clearly GA quality. Excellent work, it was already much improved before I began from before! I think we can nominate it when you're ready/happy with it and it should pass without any difficulty. I'll ask Krimuk to review it, he's up on her work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've actually been telling myself all week "There's only a few things left that I want to do on the article, I really should just get it done." I was hoping to finish up this weekend, nominate and then ask Tim to review (since he's been wanting to "return the favour"). Nevermind, my wikipedia-incentive is currently really low anyway so I'll leave it with you and you can nominate. I did have some notes saved for potential use in the article - I'll paste them here in case they're helpful (some of the refs may already be used for other things, I can't remember):

  • [2] and [3] - Stuff on activism/human rights work (I actually hadn't worked on that section yet at all)
  • [4] - human rights, acting technique, specialises in "good woman in a frock"
  • [5] - Portraying "reticent" women
  • [6] - Writing peter rabbit (hadn't worked on that section either)
  • [7] - Best actress of the 90s
  • Particularly excels in winning empathy - ref name: "queen"
  • [8] - "the best actress of our times on suffering borne with poignant dignity" " conveys great feeling with little movement. It is all in her wonderful face."
  • [9] - Always seems ironic, funny
  • Mark Kermode's Brideshead Revisited review (ref already in article), he says: "there is something about her which is - you just trust her. You just think 'I'm in proper hands here.' ... She's up there with the great, I mean really great, British female performers". Right yeah, I'm gonna continue my wikibreak - it's been rather nice! Take care --Loeba (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: That Blyton revert was a major touch-screen accident, sorry! Was just trying to undo it but you got there before me. Tablets are so annoying like that! --Loeba (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

e/c LOL you just hit rollback on 33 edits for Blyton, I gathered you'd hit the rollback by mistake on tablet! No worries. Eric and I are preparing it for FA. I'm currently doing the final "bulking". No rush with Thompson, feel free to add the content when you want. I think it's already easily GA level though, but I know you like it to be all there before GA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lobes, I'm trying to convince @Krimuk90: to watch 10 Rillington. I told him it's one of the greatest (and creepiest/realistic) crime films I've ever seen! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've nommed Emma Thompson for GA. I've added material from most of those linked sources. Either Krimuk or Tim can review it if he said he owes you one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Lombard also now at GAN.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Donen[edit]

Hey, sorry for not responding for a while on this article. I've just been busy. When I get around to working on the article again are you still interested in it?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Yes in theory I'm still interested, but I'm also in a phase of not wanting to do much on wikipedia...that could end at any time though, I'm unpredictably on-and-off! Let me know when you've done some of the stuff I mentioned at the PR :) --Loeba (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
For all of the great work you did on helping promote Emma Thompson, Carole Lombard and Bringing Up Baby to GA!! Miss you about on here and discussing films like The Elephant Man and Julia with you! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
It can't have been easy to bring Emma Thompson to GA-status, so nice job! It's a nice complement to her seminal project, Sense and Sensibility. Keep up the great work! Ruby 2010/2013 14:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014 GA Thanks[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Christopher Nolan.

This user helped promote Christopher Nolan to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

@Dr. Blofeld: in response to your email, I'm still enjoying having time off from wikipedia. I go through phases where it just doesn't feel like a good use of time and [mental] energy and that's where I'm at right now. I'm trying to have a completely clean break, and had disabled my email notifications and logged out, but I didn't want to be rude and ignore you so here's a quick response....and now I'm going to log out again, heh. Sorry if I'm letting you down or anything but I'm just not feeling it at all right now! Take care though, --Loeba (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I've been feeling the same the last couple of weeks! I haven't worked on a GA in a month or so, must get back to Althorp. I do miss having you around though and our film conversations and did wonder if it upset you me taking those articles to GA without you. I've seen almost all of the 40s films in my 1001 book now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy watching films too Loeba and haven't been feeling too enthusiastic of late but come back!!! I miss you!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

film actresses
Thank you for quality articles on intelligent performers such as Katharine Hepburn Julianne Moore and Charlie Chaplin to the pleasure of millions of readers, for your love of your subjects (shown in your first username), for reviewing, clean templates and diplomacy, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 681st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Return[edit]

(Message to Dr. Blofeld, but commenting here because I think a lot of people watch your talk page, and it's not really something they'll be interested in...mine is more private)

SURPRISE! Here's a wiki-bolt out of the blue for you. Well well well...For some reason, today I was compelled to log-in for the first time in months (I haven't even looked at my talk page in that time either), and saw that you left me a message recently. It's nice that you still think of me, heh. As is pretty obvious, I needed a complete and total wikibreak and gosh, it's been ages now, hasn't it? I think I last edited in March. That may be my longest absence ever. Part of the reason I've been thinking about "coming back" is the Julianne Moore article: it will be getting a lot of attention in the coming months (she's about 98% guaranteed to win the Best Actress Oscar in February) and I wanted it to be up-to-date...but I just looked, and actually Krimuk90 has been on the ball! That's good.

How's it been? I saw from my notifications that I've been mentioned on the Kubrick article, and that you're beginning an overhaul? And inevitably butting heads with Light Show at the same time? You're brave taking that on, ha. It's one article I've always wished could feel smoother though, so good on you.

As for whether or not I'm "back", well...I don't think I want to be properly editing right now, but I feel like I've had enough of a break to come and do some little things, and say hello again! I have such a weird relationship with this place, don't I? We'll see, we'll see...I just looked at your contributions and see that you're editing right now, so maybe I'll get a prompt reply? *cyber-wave* --Loeba (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!!! LOL, you've been away a LONG time. Light show is banned from Kubrick, I've been working on a draft at User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick but it's still in early research stages. I've already chopped 70kb from the original while adidng new info!! Yes Krimuk is a big fan of hers and has been updating it. I do hope she'll get an Oscar for the new one!! I've not been working much on quality with films and actors of late, more filling in stubs of some of the 20s-40s films and actors. Really missed you! So hoping you'll stay at least for Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banned? How did you manage that?! --Loeba (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I announced that I was resuming work on Kubrick again and Light show turned up with the usual Sellers stuff. He removed about 15kb of text I wrote the same day, as if to try to deter me. He basically brought it all on himself by reporting us for incivility at ANI and Jaguar had had enough of him and basically posted at least 10 examples of his Sellers vendetta. With 24 hours he was banned from it, a lot of people were scrutinizing his activity anyway as he had been banned from uploading images not long before it. Sad that anybody has to be banned from a topic but I did try several times to get him to work with me amicably but it was pretty much impossible to move on with him from the Sellers article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow..that's kind of sad, since I know he's been contributing to that article for years, but it does look like he was being very difficult so he brought it on himself...It also looks like he was trying to use me to support his work on the article, whereas my contributions (3 years ago now) were entirely aimed at reducing the size of the article, and then a few months later he started added loads of stuff again (mostly quotes, and an excessive amount about his personal life and directing style - of course I think there should be sections on these things, but he took it too far). So he's definitely skewing things there. Good luck on the rewrite, that's really cool you've decided to do that. I took a look at your sandbox and I can tell already it has far more of a sense of "story" than the article's ever had. It bodes well.
By the way, I noticed a couple of months ago that you can no longer view an article contributors? When did that happen, and was it explained why? Strikes me as a weird change, I always found that useful...
Also, I was looking at the PSH article - I think we did a really good job there! In a way I still can't believe he's dead, it's still so sad...did you see A Most Wanted Man? It was bittersweet being able to see him in a new role, to say the least. --Loeba (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've mainly only read the Kubrick article and removed stuff. A good chunk is still haphazard but I think you can tell I've written early life to early career. Follow the Duncan source. hope to get going again this week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can no longer view an article contributors? Since when? Just click history. Seen any great films of late? I remember our conversation about creepy films. 10 Rillington is the best one you ever suggested, that's one of my favourite films ever now!! One I recommend which you might not have seen is The Housemaid (1960 film). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant "Top contributors", which used to be at the top of every article near page view stats etc. It was useful for finding out who was primarily responsible for an article's content...although I suppose it was also misleading, as many people prepare articles in sandboxes. Anywayyyyy, yeah I've seen lots of great films. The one that stands out the most is probably Les Amants du Pont-Neuf - such an amazing film to me and Leos Carax is a genius. I've been getting into Chinese films, especially Wong Kar-wai (who is one of cinemas greatest geniuses IMO). No I haven't seen The Housmaid, sounds interesting! --Loeba (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the foreign directors I've been most impressed with are Tarkovsky, Godard, Ozu and Mizoguchi who are all definitely right up there. I've been getting into Bresson lately too. Tarkovsky especially was a genius, even Nolan copied Solaris and The Mirror in Interstellar!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Tarkovsky's Stalker at the BFI a couple of months ago. His films were definitely made for a dark room and a massive screen, it was great. --Loeba (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On A Most Wanted Man, definitely, great espionage film I thought and once again another brilliant performance. I loved his accent in the film! LOL I thought for a while it was Haydn Christensen in it after sleeping rough for a month or two but it was Grigoriy Dobrygin! They look so alike!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of Django Unchained? The first 45 minutes were brilliant, greatest ever film material but it simply got worse and worse. After Don Johnson was killed on his horse it degenerated into little more than silly "nigger" slanging match and excuse for bloodshed. Leo DiCaprio I thought ruined it and Waltz was really wasted after 45 minutes and overshadowed by Di Caprio. If it had been Waltz and Foxx all the way through in a GBU like format with mainly the two of them going through town to town with various escapades like the early ones it could have been up there with the greatest films. Overall some of the scenes make it at least a fairly good film but I am rather disappointed that it didn't pan out like the first 45 minutes and that Waltz was wasted throughout the last 2/3 of the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found it entertaining but it definitely gets pretty silly at times, which stops it being a great film. QT's three '90s films are among my favourites of all time, but he's gone up his own arse a bit in the 21st century, if you know what I mean! He's got way too carried away. Have you seen Interstellar yet? I was surprised by quite how many flaws there were; it's not like I was expecting a masterpiece or anything, but still...Nolan's another one in need of some restraint. --Loeba (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I mean, it got distasteful at times didn't it, I mean the "nigger" fight and skull scene and the hammer I thought was in appalling bad taste. I get that it's a satire of racism in US history but still. With some changes and a better script with some more adventurous locations and scenarios centering on mainly Waltz and Foxx without the self-indulgent silliness it could have been an all-time masterpiece. Waltz was terribly wasted in the last 2/3 mainly sitting at a plantation table twiddling his thumbs. First half hour he gave one of the best performances I've ever seen, well-worth his Oscar but still.. Tarantino's last truly great film was Jackie Brown (my personal favourite of Tarantino's) I think but I did think Inglorious was a great film, especially the early cinema memorabilia in it. Waltz again though I think was a major influence in the film, I honestly think he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. Yup I've seen Interstellar. I consider it a flawed masterpiece admittedly. Some of the natural elements at times were breathtaking I thought but I thought that the dialogue at times was a little monotonous and I'm still not convinced McConaughey was right for the role. I think it's the sort of film which has to be seen a couple of times to really appreciate. I do think that he was trying too hard to be like Tarkovsky and Kubrick though, but I guess it was a labour of love for him. It was a film I thought a lot about and pondered over hours after viewing though and that's very rare that I do that so it definitely had something special IMO about it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Tarantino and Jackie Brown, I had to check out Coffy which is on Tarantino's all time top ten list of great films. I think it tells you a lot about his mentality!! It had plenty of bad ass Grier moments and quite good but all time greatest movie? Nowhere near it! Still, I guess he could have always cited the Female Vampire as one of the greatest movies ever made!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW John Barrymore is at FAC if you're interested in viewing. I was very impressed with him in Bill of Divorcement with Hepburn on her debut! I've also raised concerns about Judy Garland on the talk page and was thinking of beginning an overhaul..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have Coffy on dvd (I actually won it in a film quiz, heh) but haven't got to it yet. I reckon QT is citing it as one of the films he loves the most, rather than saying it's the best of all time or anything. I rather like when people have quirky top 10s, with a personal touch. Barrymore is an interesting choice..! TBH I really dislike A Bill of Divorcement, but I've liked him in everything else I've seen: Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, Twentieth Century, True Confession, Midnight (< one of the best screwball comedies ever)...he was great at comedy. Anyway it looks like the FAC has plenty of support without little old me. --Loeba (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His performance in Counsellor at Law is right up there too IMO! Not bad The Sea Beast either, I worked on it not long ago. Recently created Daddy (1923 film)..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I remember you saying ages ago that it would be nice to get Hoffman on the main page for the anniversary of his death (Feb 2nd). I was just looking at the article and thinking that would be a nice tribute...do you think it could be done, or is it too short notice? IMO the content is pretty much perfect, and it would only need a bit of smoothing out and MOS perfecting, etc. I wouldn't want to do it if it would need a lot of work, but I kind of think it might be worth putting through FAC just as a "Why not, let's give it a shot" type of thing...what d'you think? --Loeba (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs much either, although you'll always get awkward people. The only thing I saw is that it would be nice to have a bit more on his stage work, but we can only run with the sources we have. Sure, let's go for it! BTW saw I Know Where I'm Going! yesterday and it's one of the best British films I've ever seen, stunning to watch. More Powell and Pressburger magic!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's exactly 6 weeks until Feb 2nd...we may well be pushing it, but I'm glad you think it's worth giving it a shot. It doesn't hurt to try and if it doesn't pass (or doesn't pass in time), never mind! I'm trying to think what the best approach is...given the limited time, I'm thinking it may just be best for us to give it a run over and see what we can improve, and then skip PR and go straight to FAC and ask a few people to review it there? I'd be up for that as I'd quite like to keep it as simple as possible. I guess it would be good to get at least one person's opinion before hand, if there was someone able to review it in the next week...I could try asking Tim, since he always said he "owed" me a review, heh. Thoughts? As for I Know Where I'm Going, yeah it would make my top 3 P&P films, great stuff! "Magic" is definitely the word for them: even their simple films have this slightly fantastical quality. --Loeba (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, perhaps ask Tim to look at it and leave some comments on talk page and then go for a nom. Seems as it's only 6 weeks away and FAC can take a long time I think it's best we nom it as soon as we can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've gone through it and honestly think it's really good - on the long side, but I'm pretty sure it stays engaging. Maybe take a look and see if there's anything you want to add/remove/change. Anyway I've gone ahead and asked Tim, but my thinking is that if he doesn't have time we should just nom anyway... --Loeba (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

Hi, Loeba! Nice to meet you. I ended up on your talk page a day after your return, which is pretty funny. I actually came here to say thanks for putting together such a great article with Julianne Moore... which again, I find funny since that's supposedly why you've returned!

I'm currently working on Josh Hutcherson's article and trying to get it through its' second FAC but I've had a very hard time getting reviewers (nobody seems to have any interest in reviewing it, and those who have, have disappeared and I had to hunt down to ask for closure).

Anyways, while getting the article ready, I've heavily looked to Moore's article to help guide me, and the FAC it passed also provided a lot of help. You did a great job, and User:Dr. Blofeld's review seems particularly helpful. If either of you have any free time and would like to help me out by reviewing the article and leaving some feedback, I'd greatly appreciate it! :) You guys seem pretty knowledgeable about actor/actress bios. Gloss 19:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Oh man, I know exactly how frustrating it is to wait for reviews - especially after working hard on an article - so I don't want to leave you in the lurch, but...I kind of only wanted to come back to WP for a couple of days to check-in on articles I'd worked on and catch up with a couple of people. If you really really can't find anyone I'll try and do it, but I'm going to take the liberty of pinging User:Krimuk90, who has taken several actor articles to FA - perhaps he'd be up for a review? From scanning I'll say that it looks like a solid article, although I do notice there's very little information about The Kids Are All Right, which is one of his biggest films? And I remember reviewers saying that he had proved he was more than just a child star with that film, etc. So I'd recommend expanding that. Thanks for the compliments on Moore anyway and sorry to let you down! I hope you can appreciate why I'm reluctant; I'm just really not committed to a return to editing right now :) --Loeba (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good tip. You're not letting anyone down, I totally understand! But I hope you do return to editing at some point, more actively. Looks like you produced some good work! Gloss 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say Josh really interests me as an actor but I may look at the article later in the week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Loeba. I'll probably review it this weekend. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk90 - Thank you! And Dr. Blofeld - No worries, if you can, I'd appreciate it. If not, no biggie! Gloss 04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2015 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same to you and - hi! --Loeba (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. What a lovely Christmas present for the project! Cassiantotalk 00:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks! I really wasn't sure how much I'd want to stick around, I'm still not really, but for the time being I'm enjoying doing little edits again. Clearing my massive watchlist has helped with that - no more temptation to look at silly arguments and things I don't really care about! Merry Christmas for tomorrow --Loeba (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not dumping the FAC for Hoffman all on me, don't you dare :-) Merry Christmas BTW!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no don't worry, I do want to try and see that through. In case you haven't seen, Tim said he'll review it some time this week. So no going back now! If there was anything about his theatre work you wanted to add, probably best to do it soonish. Happy crimbo (really should get on with wrapping those presents...) --Loeba (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you haven't wrapped yet? Your a woman, you should have had all that done by the stroke of midnight on the 1st of December! It's only us blokes who leave it until the roast potatoes have come out of the oven on the 25th! -- Cassiantotalk 12:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell anyone, but I only started my shopping on Sunday and was still finishing at 4pm yesterday... --Loeba (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think this is better?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit torn, but decided it was nice to have such a recent image of her; plus it meant the previous one could move down and replace the really bad one of filming Last Chance Harvey...I think it's a good picture(especially since ALL our options show her facing sideways, so that's not a negative), the only problem is the people in the foreground and background. But the graphics guys might be able to fix that? --Loeba (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed? Let's nom Hoffman for FAC tonight!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through about half of the sources checking for consistency and stuff (probably the most annoying part about going for FA! So anal!), but want a break and we've got some friends coming over soon. Are you able to finish off? Otherwise I'll try and get to it later (of ir not, on boxing day)...but yeah once that's done I'd say we're good to go. --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phew well it was a bit of a task, but I finished it off in front of the telly. --Loeba (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba and Tim riley, thanks I've nommed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philip Seymour Hoffman/archive1...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come online and seen this - nice! --Loeba (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find anything on his paternal/maternal ancestry? I always think of him as Dutch, he looked it too. Given that it is categorized as such I think we should probably mention it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it was there but I removed it in my copy edit the other day. Maybe I'm letting my own bias in, but I just never find ancestry worth mentioning. If their parent(s) came from another country, then sure (and maybe if the grandparent(s) were foreign), but when you're just talking about heritage going back generations I wonder if it's necessary...I won't object to it being put back in if you want; although I just went to find a previous version, and remembered that it also had a poor source: [10] Either we find a better source, or we decide it's not too important and remove the categories. I don't mind - your call. --Loeba (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh the source is dodgy though. If it's like Dutch, English, Irish, German etc then probably not worth mentioning. A good percentage of Americans are something similar! BTW what's your favourite Hoffman role? I think Doubt is his best film but my personal favourite performance was Love Liza I think. Happiness and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead also rank highly I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah exactly - the fact that he has four makes me think it's just a hodge-podge mixture going back a few generations, and really wasn't a part of his identity. Like you said, it's just a part of being "American"! Anyway I have to go: my dad's booked us a family trip to see Exodus, the new Ridley Scott film, which I'm actually very wary of (and it's nearly three bloody hours long)...hopefully it's okay, eek. Edit conflict: My favourite of his roles are Boogie Nights, The Master and Happiness. He was literally never bad though. --Loeba (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I loved him in Boogie Nights but sadly he didn't get a great deal of screen time. That car scene though when he hits on Walhberg goes down as one of the all time cringeworthy moments!! Capote might have been the most brilliant with the voice and mannerisms but the film itself wasn't brilliant. Yeah Love Liza I think might just be my favourite, tough call. It might be something to do with the vulnerability of his character and substance abuse which struck a chord with the real PSH. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting at some point for a biography on Hoffman to be published which might be used to further improve the biographical coverage. We can only go with what we have currently though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His role in Boogie Nights is small but I just find him so memorable in it....and I'm sure the simple fact that I LOVE the film, one of my absolute all-time favourites, helps. I guess realistically I'm just listing my three favourite films of his, heh, since his performances are always brilliant (that's what I should've said before, "never bad" was an understatement). I suppose objectively speaking, The Master and Capote are his most impressive. He is excellent in Love Liza as well though - he really induces sympathy in that role, a quietly tragic film. Exodus wasn't too bad in the end! --Loeba (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lobes, if you have time over the next few days can you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shah Rukh Khan/archive1. He's a huge movie star in Asia and Indian diaspora but not many people in US and UK really know him that well. It needs a few pairs of western eyes to review for neutrality and clarity. I made some major changes to it and I think it's at least close now, but still needs that bit more which will get it there from some decent reviewers I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm "hero worship".. Pleasant. Problem is he was acclaimed for probably something like 30 films. Perhaps saying acclaimed thirteen times is too much but do we hide the truth purely for neutrality purposes? And I'm pretty sure most actors who knew Hoffman reading the article would find it accurate. We don't want it to read as a tribute or puff piece though? What do we remove without affecting quality and accuracy? Can you find any negative reviews about him, I couldn't. Believe me I tried all sorts of key words to try to pick up something!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've done a good job, cheers. To be honest it annoys me a bit that it was even necessary, since all the acclaim mentioned was accurate and covered by a source, but that's wikipedia for you. I call it "peacock paranoia". The Encyclopedia Britannica has no qualms about explicitly reporting someone's popularity/success, so I'll never understand why WP does...oh well. --Loeba (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There were a few quotes perhaps which weren't of essential use and a couple of negative reviews worth quoting but generally I really think we'd be affecting the accuracy of it if we start introducing negative quotes for highly acclaimed roles just for the sake of it. Then it would be "bad egg" picking! I'm really reluctant to change much else. I didn't really want to remove mention of the cult classic for Lebowski, I did so only because we said that for Booge Nights and didn't want it to seem repetitive. To not say Capote or The Master was highly acclaimed or whatever would just be a lie. The majority of critics praised it, and it's not as if we don't mention the Oscar bait thing for Capote which I think was most of the negativity about it. I might still try to look into his stage work a bit more though, I have access to newspapers.com now not highbeam. I may try to see if it picks anything up. I really did ransack google books and highbeam at the time though, and I'm pretty sure it's generally accurate and a fair reflection of what is said in sources. I do think it would be nice to have more biographical information, and I hope at some point there is a biogaphy to further improve it, but you can only go with the material you have at the time, and it's more than well researched in that respect.

BTW did you see the top 50 list? Hehe, John Wayne and Gregory Peck better actors than P.S. Hoffman or Edward G Robinson, Henry Fonda better than Brando and De Niro etc... I'm pretty sure most working actors would scoff at some of the ordering on the list! It rather reminds me of the Rolling Stone greatest guitarist list, Keith Richards in top 5, yet no Paco de Lucia or Barney Kessel in top 100!! Anyway I'm off now, I may very well catch Les Amants du Pont-Neuf this evening :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, did you watch it? Make sure you see Mauvais Sang and Holy Motors as well! --Loeba (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yeah! A fascinating insight into the Parisian homeless, it felt surreal at times like with the subway chase and the waterskiing. Not quite the greatest film of 1991 I've seen though but not far off, that accolade of course goes to Barton Fink! Have you seen Mondo cane? Fantastic film IMO but really quite hard to watch at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love the slightly surreal quality; the other two I mentioned have it even more (well, Holy Motors is completely bonkers). I actually find it really hard to pick a favourite of 1991: Lovers, Fink, Europa (film) and Raise the Red Lantern all blow my mind pretty much equally. I haven't seen Mondo Cane yet - it sounds interesting but not something I'd rush out to see either, heh. --Loeba (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mondo cane in parts rather reminds me of Tarrant on TV, it's brilliantly made and fascinating but I think it's the sort of film you'll either love or loathe. Some of the scenes are really brutal clouting animals and stuff but overall it's a masterpiece I think. I totally get it, the way the directors use nature in parts as a satire of humanity is quite ingenious. But you really do have to have an interest in world culture and the bizarre. I rank it as the best film of 1962, although Lawrence, Manchurian, Jules et Jim and Days of Wine etc are very close! Good job on the stage work BTW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blo, what do you think of my comment about the "prolific" sentence? I didn't want to add it back myself in case you definitely don't like it, but either way I think the current wording needs to be altered to avoid the repetition... --Loeba (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said it needed further tweaking. I think Ssilvers has a point though, Hoffman really wasn't that prolific compared to some, but still pretty productive. Perhaps something might be replaced stating how many films and plays without saying prolific. My goal is also to get Hoffman to TFA on Feb 2, but I do think Ssilvers, given what I've seen of him copyediting on articles like John Barrymore should have been given a chance to look at it. He works pretty quickly too. The danger I suppose was that he'd remove something which breaks the understanding of Hoffman as an actor. I just hope his comments don't put off some of the others from feeling comfortable with supporting it. If that is the case then the nom is likely to be stalled a lot longer than it would have if Ssilvers had have looked at it and come around. Ssilvers is regarded as highly as even Tim and Brian by many around here I believe. He seems to be a lot happier with the neutrality now though, so hopefully they'll see that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He said "if you'll be very patient" and "I'm not promising a timetable" though, and also implied he'd rather not have to copyedit, so...considering that we had three, and now have four, supports I didn't see it as worth the risk (or worth his time). I still think it's fair to call PSH prolific but will relent. The main thing I want is to communicate that he was a regular presence in films for 20 years, so I'll have a play around (maybe I'll just put that?)...
Yeah I changed it to "He was a regular presence in films from the early 1990s until his death at the age of 46, after which..." it would be good to mention theatre at the start but all the options seemed clunky, and it is mentioned in the final para of the lead that he was very active in theatre so maybe this is fine...what do you think? --Loeba (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine I think. I am worried you're going to run off again after this (hopefully) passes FAC though!! Wikipedia is hardly a lovely place to be though is it, I hope I at least make it less hostile :-) Judy Garland badly needs an overhaul I think, I raised concerns on the talk page. Not sure if you're interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie, it's definitely possible...there are just too many things about this place (when you get "behind the scenes") that bother me or I don't agree with, and I always feel a bit annoyed when it takes up a lot of my time (which it inevitably does because it gets addictive: I swear I need it to be all or nothing!) It would be ideal if I could just drop in for a bit every few weeks, so I don't feel like it's a big part of my life but am not completely abandoning it either, but once I've had a few weeks away I tend to get a complete aversion to the idea of logging in. It's weird. And even after being here for a couple of weeks, I haven't felt the urge to do any "proper editing" (writing content) - only going over articles I'd already worked on. Part of me wants to add the stuff I had on Lombard that isn't there (since I own the major biographies which you didn't have access to) but I'm not completely decided yet if I can even be bothered to do that...! I think it's party because I work SO slowly, literally like an hour to write a paragraph, and scrutinise myself to death at the time so it's not exactly appealing...I'm pleased with the contributions I made here, but kind of feel like I'm "done". Even Jane Fonda, who has become one of my obsessions - I don't feel inclined to put the time and effort into her page...I'm sure I'll always pop in occasionally, and maybe in the future will want to do proper editing again, but for the time being I just don't have the drive...And I'm not going to lie, I did enjoy being free from the drama of this place. I've cleared my watchlist to try and avoid that aspect, but I still find myself coming across it and getting irritated and then thinking "man, why am I back here..." You do make it less hostile, and even if I do "disappear" again I'm pretty sure I'll be back to say hi and check in, just like this time round :) --Loeba (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much, I can detect it! Yes, it is a bit annoying at times to get roped into disputes or editing articles when you could be watching a wonderful 60s French realism movie or an early 30s pre-Code comedy!! I almost quit back in November when I got seriously annoyed with Jimbo Wales and his bone idle attitude towards content and content contributors. I lost all motivation and took a fair break, nothing in comparison to your break of course though :-). I do wish though your love of film and actors would at least give you some sort of motivation, these articles are seen by thousands of people each week of course. My love of film is a large part of what keeps me here these days, I do very little work on geography and all that like I used to. My lists like List of jazz standards and List of American films etc are ones I use frequently for my other hobbies! Yup, I love Jane Fonda too, particularly 70s Fonda. Julia is one of my favourites of hers and I know a lot of people hated it! Her and Robards were amazing together I thought. It did have its flaws though as I think Ebert pointed out, particularly towards the end. Wasn't too keen on Cat Ballou though! The Electric Horseman and China Syndrome were pretty similar roles as a reporter which I loved her in too, and of course Klute etc.

Should Hoffman pass anyway, I do hope you might be willing to get Emma or Carole to FA! Perhaps you can see far more missing than I can though... Emma's writing I think would need a fair bit. To be honest, I just had a gut feeling you'd hate me editing them and hate me for taking them to GA without you. Sorry about that, but you weren't here :-(. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you had every right to work on them, as did anyone else. Going for FA again, eek...maybe with Carole if I do get round to making the edits, but not with Emma: these contemporary actor articles just get criticised too easily, I've had it with Moore and Hoffman and it's just disheartening. They're really difficult to put together, because you don't have a biography to go from, but harder to make sound interesting and so get criticised. I forgot before suggesting PSH that I'd already sworn never again to put such an article through FAC, ha. Anyway, it seems there are quite a lot of people working on actor and film articles at moment, which is good. I saw that The Rules of the Game has been fully developed, for example, which really pleased me. Have you seen They Shoot Horses Don't They? That's my favourite Fonda film and performance. She's an amazing actor but I also just find her so interesting and inspiring. Her autobiography is probably the best I've read (and I've read quite a few). What did Jimbo Wales say? --Loeba (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like that one too! I liked the big guy in that one, can't remember his name his name though. Not Sarrazin, the guy who was staging the show I think or was it the other one. Last few months I've taken a shining to Sissy Spacek in films like Badlands, Carrie, 3 Women etc. Not exactly conventionally beautiful but something enchanting and cute about her I think which makes her a delight to watch. She rather reminds me of one of the rag dolls you see in animated films which come alive LOL. I've still not seen most of her 80s or 90s films though. You like Clouzot at all? Last film of his I saw was Quai des Orfèvres, every film of his seems to be a masterpiece.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see it? Not bad is it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I watched a Spacek film two nights ago: Missing (film). Twas good (and an eye-opening, real-life story). And yes, nice list! I'll recommend you one of my personal favourites that isn't there: The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover. It's not for everyone, but check it out (and then if you like that, more Greenaway). As for Clouzot, I've only seen his two big films, Les Diaboliques and Wages of Fear. I will definitely see Quai des Orfèvres and Le Corbeau at some point. --Loeba (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Missing and Coal Miner's Daughter are on my imminent to see list. I'm watching Mauvais Sang now :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, loved that one too. The closeup of the guy being shot in the car in the window was one of the greatest I've seen! Realised how tiny Denis Lavant is! I began adding a bit to his article, needs a LOT of work. Interesting looking chap!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's honestly become one of my favourite actors, he's so cool! Along with the Carax films, he's amazing in Beau Travail as well (and just wait till you see what he does at the end!) Glad you liked the film. I love the Carax style: quirky and full of vitality, but also with real humanity and insight. Like I said before, he's a genius (BUT of course the collaboration with Lavant is essential, don't want to ignore his impact in making them such great films). --Loeba (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's awesome to watch, agreed, I think I'll watch Boy Meets Girl next (of his) though. It's a pity he was never in a David Lynch movie, I think he'd have been absolutely fantastic in one of his films. I might work on his article over new year. If I can do a career coverage based on filmography perhaps I might find some magazine or book material and get some help from French readers to add a bit more flesh to it. Coal Miner's Daughter I'm aiming to watch tonight.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just scanning over Sock's comments, not sure I agree with many of them to be honest. I mean ones like indie and AP for instance.. Indie is broadly used genre isn't it. I'll let you address them! I've disagreed with two already. Much appreciate his time spent reviewing and comments though, some points might be valid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld Just want to wish you happy new year! The party I'm going to tonight has a movie characters theme, perfect eh? I'm going as a Clockwork Orange droog :-D Talk to you in 2015 (and where the hell are our hoverboards, like Back to the Future II said we'd have??) --Loeba (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You too Loeba!! Haha you as a droog!!! Yeah it's weird isn't it? I remember even ten years years ago thinking of 2015 as really quite futuristic and we're here already!! When I was a kid I really did imagine we'd all be driving in the sky, riding hoverboards and blowing up pizzas into big ones in 2015!! Have a good one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this 2:01 on the video :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, a second in the sun! --Loeba (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld Looking at that article by John le Carre, I actually think the bit that would be most useful in the article is this stuff: "Philip took vivid stock of everything, all the time. It was painful and exhausting work, and probably in the end his undoing. The world was too bright for him to handle." That would fit very nicely at the end of "Work ethic", and be quite a moving conclusion to the article. The quote you added is nice but very long and doesn't really flow, you know? Okay if I change it? --Loeba (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been pondering over the best way to integrate it while watching Smoke Signals! That might work better! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We did it!! What did you want to change with the lead? BTW somebody just asked me by email who I thought the greatest actors and actresses were and ones off the top of my head were like Jack Nicholson, Lawrence Olivier, Daniel Day Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rod Steiger, Cary Grant, Edward G. Robinson, John Barrymore, Jimmy Stewart, Robert de Niro, Al Pacino, Frederic March etc. Greatest actresses? Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Thelma Ritter, Margaret Rutherford, Julianne Moore, Judi Dench, Katherine Hepburn, Emma Thompson, Jane Fonda, Carole Lombard etc. Who did I miss hehe? Obviously there's lots, but who really stand out for you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is all changed now - I did ping you about it (twice) to try and get your opinion beforehand. Hopefully you like it. Some of my favourite actors not mentioned - Male: Charles Laughton, Dirk Bogarde, Tom Hanks, John Gabin, Tony Leung, James Mason, Spencer Tracy, Marcello Mastroianni, Alec Guinness...could go on! Female: Gena Rowlands, Geraldine Page, Julie Christie, Liv Ullmann, Juliette Binoche, Sylvia Sidney, Gong Li, Shelley Winters, Ginger Rogers, Giulietta Masina, Kate Winslet...I'll stop there ;) --Loeba (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah Gena Rowlands especially, love watching her. Ellen Burstyn too. Mmm, not too happy with your edits to the lead. I felt it was important to give an insight into the sorts of roles he played and higlight some of the most memorable ones. Why did you change it when we already had 6 or 7 supports?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to run off again and return in 2016 hehe, or did you at least get something positive from the FAC? As FACs go I think it was definitely one of the more pleasant ones. I think you have a point about avoiding taking living people to FAC. I do have a book on Meryl Streep though and will be probably be getting her up to GA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a compromise with the lead now. So are you off or are you going to stick around?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I basically agreed that it would be better to try and mention his typical roles at the start, and expand on that a bit more (which I tried to do in the last para), but that meant it had to be removed lower down to avoid redundancy...as I started playing around with things, I found a version that I felt was better. I genuinely did want input over it, and pinged everyone from the FAC but no-one gave me anything. So ultimately, I just did what I perceived as a good idea! I suppose I just decided that the character descriptions were superfluous if we already state, at the beginning and end of the lead, that he generally played weirdo/horrible characters. The problem with your change is that now we don't have any mention of his Oscar win or nominations...I don't know what the solution is now - I guess we need some third opinions (which is what I was hoping for all along!) As for my plans, I don't feel inclined to do a complete disappearing act, but there's also only a few things left that I want to do (some tweaks to Moore and Lombard). I really have no idea, we'll see how it goes! --Loeba (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead though should be fairly informative about the career of an actor. Describing what some of his roles were I think is essential. I don't think it's too redundant as the roles described are more than just losers. If other people think differently then so be it. I see wikipedia as an essential part of the film watching experience and study. It's an amazing resource for films in general and the fact that people like us can work on people like Hoffman or Katherine Hepburn etc I see as a privilege. Using it to develop film by country and year I think is incredibly valuable for film buffs. You just have to ignore a lot of the BS that goes on on here! Why not try to promote one or two of Carax's films to GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen another actor article that describes their characters in the lead, it's definitely unusual...I did like the previous version, don't get me wrong, but since finding "another way" I personally preferred it like that. Either way, I think it needs to be one or the other. The compromise right now can't stick because we definitely need to mention his Oscar roles (and this is definitely the longest I'd be comfortable with, so don't want to add them on). Shall we try asking people's opinions again, and hope that they reply this time? And yeah, WP is a great resource but...to be frank, I can't be bothered to do the work right now! I already work full time, and would basically prefer to use my free time in other ways...I've never been the most dedicated editor I'm afraid, that's just the way it is... --Loeba (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you edit it in the first place? None of the great editors who supported it before you did saw a problem with it. I can't believe that you removed mentions of his Oscar winning roles! It was fine as it was I thought, although there is an argument for moving the NYT quote to the end for neutrality purposes, although that would leave the opening a bit too short.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't remove the Oscar roles, I'm saying that the recent change you made resulted in them being cut. Read my version carefully: [11]. I've already said - I changed it because I thought it was better that way. I'm going to ask for more opinions, that's the only way it's fair as we both think one version is better than the other. --Loeba (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that two people did request changes to the lead. --Loeba (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well see what the others think, personally I think the one with examples of his roles does his overall career more justice and is far more informative to the reader without having to read the article, that's most important IMO. Most Indian actor bios I've worked on describe some of the roles I think. Perhaps though it could be trimmed a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, sorry I thought you'd also removed mention of his awards which I was a bit alarmed at, I should have taken the time to read it more fully. BTW I intended watching some Wong Karwai later on, which one would you most recommend?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal favourite is 2046 (film), but definitely start with In the Mood For Love, which is his most acclaimed and most accessible. That was my first Wong film and it's a good introduction. Chungking Express is his next most famous and is more typical of his quirky, disjointed style. You're making me want to watch some of his stuff now! --Loeba (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might get hold of a load on DVD if they're that good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered some Wong DVDs, perhaps I'll watch a few later in the week! Have you seen Even Dwarfs Started Small? I love it!! If not really watch it asap, and that goes for Krimuk90 too! It's just genius!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No haven't seen it yet, but it was on my mental watchlist. I love me some Herzog. I believe you that it's great, will definitely watch it soonish. Really glad to see PSH has been scheduled, I was getting worried for a minute that it wouldn't. That would've been bloody annoying! --Loeba (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only just noticed that I was behind the scheduling the February 2 last year as well - Chaplin was exactly the same day. Funny coincidence! --Loeba (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange coincidence!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loeba/Archive8&oldid=1151014455"