User talk:Loeba/Archive3

Williams

Thanks for the feedback Lobo. I just felt much of the stuff was non-encyclopedia and read more like a magazine. You are welcome to revert and we can discuss on th talk page. I am not really attached to my edits, but felt it improved the article overall. The actress is still quite young, and while she has been ina number fo good roles, it seems to me that there is too much discussion and quotation for each movie. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life

HotCat

• It's a Wonderful Life‎ (1946 James Stewart film) This evening, I reverted an edit by Lobo512 (talk):(removed Category:Films set in the 1940s using HotCat) – My edit summary reads: Wrong! World War II finishes (1945) during the story of this film.

Surely, these quasi-automated revisions may cause many incorrect deletions and should be curbed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Gahh, this is such a minor thing we're "edit warring" over. But I feel the need to persist since I know I am right. ;) If you click on the category page, right at the top there is a line that says: "This category is for films with a significant portion set in the 1940s, but which were produced at a later date." All the "films set in" categories say this. It's quite clear that a film can't be "set in" a decade that it was made in...that's just when it was made. Otherwise thousands of films from this decade would have to go in a category "set in the 2010s". Which wouldn't be very useful! So the category on IaWL definitely needs to be removed, it's misleading and suggests it wasn't made in the 1940s. --Lobo (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Big apology to: Lobo (talk) You are correct; I am wrong.

• What about "fantasy" film ... surely not ... anyway I removed that category last night. What do you think? __ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Category confusion

Hi Lobo! I am not in any conflict with you over this ... I understood immediately after reading your first edit summary that your revision was right. My subsequent editing did not include a revert of yours. Please check. Kind regards, --Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• 00:36 It's a Wonderful Life‎ (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . . Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) (removed Category:American fantasy films using HotCat)

I would not have considered IaWL a "fantasy" film, would you?

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Loeba. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all of your contributions.... Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! --Lobo (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your work with an FA and a GA made me give this.. Srikar Kashyap^<<Talk>>16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message

Hello, Loeba. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message

Hello, Loeba. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 17:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• The {tb} above didn't work because I already had a section headed "It's a Wonderful Life"

• So, I have added this - (1946 James Stewart film) - to our discussion heading – it takes you straight there now. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it really is

You make me laugh – that's good! If you want the whole background, have a read of the first part of my User page!

Actually, when writing my earlier response, I might have included that my one and only neice is in your age group ... expect you can see what I was wondering.

I had never used HotCat before. Agree with you about not being given the chance to add your own edit summary. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry yes I saw this comment, but was heading out last night and didn't get a chance to reply. I suppose Hywyll is even more Welsh actually. Please tell me it's your middle name, that would be perfect. --Lobo (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a middle name, but that was my grandfather's middle name, so it could have been(!) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Katharine Hepburn

This is a note to let the main editors of Katharine Hepburn know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Katharine Hepburn (1907–2003) was an American actress of film, stage, and television. Known for her headstrong independence and spirited personality, Hepburn's career as a Hollywood leading lady spanned more than 60 years. She won a record four Academy Awards, and in 1999 was named by the American Film Institute as Hollywood's top female legend. Hepburn began acting in college, and spent four years in the theatre before entering films in 1932. She became an instant star, but after a series of unsuccessful films was named "box office poison". The Philadelphia Story revived her career, and she subsequently formed a popular alliance with Spencer Tracy that lasted 25 years. In middle age Hepburn found a niche playing spinsters, such as in The African Queen, and became a Shakespearean stage actress. She continued to work into old age, making her final screen appearance in 1994 at the age of 87. Hepburn is remembered as an important cultural figure, as she came to epitomize the "modern woman" in 20th-century America and helped change perceptions of women. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Span (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on today's featured article. I must saw, what a beautifully written article of probably the most amazing actress ever. Had a fantastic read. Cheers. :-) Smarojit (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, I'm delighted you enjoyed the article. :) --Lobo (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

From me to you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Today's featured article, Katharine Hepburn ... brilliant Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I do hope visitors to the Main page click on More to reach the article itself.

Excellent composition, beautifully presented ...

... splendid English, beautifully phrased ...

... you should be feeling very proud of yourself this morning. You certainly deserve to be.

Congratulations!

Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aww this really made me smile, thank you! I am chuffed that I was able to give her this tribute, on her birthday...she was/is so great. Whether people actually click on the page or not, I'm just happy to give her the limelight. It's nice to think it may encourage some new fans as well though. Luckily the page hasn't received much vandalism yet, I hope it stays that way... --Lobo (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So do I. It is on My watchlist now, so look out ill-informed editors! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your wikidream has finally come true!

Hearty congratulations. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shahid. You were actually the first person to encourage me towards going for FA, so you deserve major double-thanks. :) --Lobo (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For making Katharine Hepburn, feature on the main page today! Great work buddy! —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It was my pleasure, thanks! --Lobo (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin

Hiya, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I haven't logged in for a long time! Things have been even more hectic than I thought this spring. I am still very interested in helping you, although I will probably be more available in June :) Anyway, I love what you have been doing so far with the page! I was at first sceptical about the merging of career and personal life sections, but now that I can see the actual article, I think you were completely right, it is much clearer this way.

I don't know exactly how hectic summer is going to be for me work-wise yet, but I would like to try help you out the best I can! I should definitely have more time than I have at present. Is there any particular section or topic that you would like some more help with? Are you going to keep a separate section for politics or merge it with the biography?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Sorry to hear about the nerve problem! Hope you're feeling better soon! I will probably be able to help with adding more sources over the summer. I think I can also start making notes about film making; there's a lot written about that so it will take some time.

As for the already existing article, as I said, it is great :) I think the dividing of childhood and early work as a child performer works well, and you describe his early hardships well. There's only a couple of things about his early career that I would possibly modify. First, the first stage performance in Aldershot; from what I understand, this is debated as at least according to Lynn, Hannah Chaplin's career had long ended before 1896, and there is no evidence in The Era of her ever performing at Aldershot or even around that time. Hence it is quite possible that Chaplin came up with the story. I'd say it should be in the article as it is so well-known a story, but one could add that there's little evidence to verify it. Also, I believe that his success at Karno was more gradual than what he/Robinson have written; I'm sorry I can't remember where I got this from, but I'll have a look in June when I have the books available for me. I think the Louvish book might mention it? Also perhaps one could write about how formative the Karno years are thought to have been; e.g. the mixing of pathos & comedy and simply perfecting each routine forever are thought to have come from Karno.

Perhaps also when discussing his beginnings at Keystone and how the tramp character came about, one could mention that apparently tramp characters were quite popular in music hall (I think this was Lynn or Louvish again), as well as that Chaplin admired Max Linder and probably also drew upon his work when creating the character. I think one could also add something about how Chaplin initially struggled to grasp how to act in film as he was used to the stage. Oh, and also that he continued to play other characters than the Tramp while still at Keystone; and maybe mention that he appeared usually with Mabel Normand and Fatty Arbuckle, as they are comedy legends. As for the bit about Essanay, Charles Maland, in Chaplin and American Culture, also describes how the Tramp was much more crude in the Keystones and the early Essanays, and that he did get some negative criticism for that - the adding of pathos and 'mellowing' of the character was also a response to that. He also writes about how Chaplin was one of the very first film actors that became stars; I think this should be included when writing about his breakthrough at Essanay/Mutual.

But really, all of these are just little things, it is great as it is. I can try adding most of these during the summer. Also, I might be a bit MIA for the next week, I've got uni exams coming up, but I'll get back to this after them ! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thank you so much for the feedback! I love how knowledgeable you are about Chaplin. I'm not able to give a full response right now, the pain has been bad today, but I will whenever my stupid body sorts itself out! I will quickly mention though that I've avoided bogging the biography bit down too much with influences, since I was thinking of doing a brief summary of that under the Filmmaking bit. --Lobo (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiya! Susie's not my real name, but it is fine to call me that – I'm always too paranoid to use my real name (since it is a bit unusual) in online contexts like this where anybody can access this talk page :) And yes, the exams are now over and fingers crossed they went ok! Great to hear you're doing better, but don't overexert yourself with the article!

I have to say that I do agree with your arguments. As for the other roles in Keystone films, I haven't watched that many of them either due to them often being quite bad quality (although the new BFI restorations look great! I wish I had the money to get the DVD) and too slapstick in the worst possible way, so I must have read the bit about him also playing other roles from somewhere. I quickly checked through his Keystone filmography, and besides Making a Living there are three other 'non-Tramp' roles: in Tango Tangles (Chaplin plays a tipsy man causing a lot of mayhem, but appears completely without make-up/facial hair and wearing a very smart suit), A Busy Day (he plays a woman throughout the whole film) and Cruel, Cruel Love (plays a husband?, not wearing the tramp costume and looking quite middle aged.). Then there's Tillie's Punctured Romance and Mabel at the Wheel, in both of which he plays a quite un-Tramplike villain, but to be honest, the costume & moustache is pretty much there. Given that three/four out of 30-something isn't much though, on second thoughts it probably doesn't need mentioning.

I'm going home this week and will then start researching the film making section. I still cannot make any changes to the actual article though, as I only joined Wikipedia for this and the page is restricted to users who have edited at least ten articles; I'm trying to get to that number by editing the stub articles on Chaplin's children/grandchildren as that's quite easy and in a way contributes to the Chaplin article (why does Hannah Chaplin have her own page though?). But in any case, I hope to be able to at least write the filmmaking bit during the first couple of weeks of June. I've already been thinking of the content and which sources to use. If I want to use Unknown Chaplin as a source, how should I reference it? Is that even allowed?

I think the existing filmmaking section is going the right way, it just needs to be referenced and 'fattened' with a little bit more information. I think it is good to have a subsection on him as a composer, but what about the rest of the article, should we have more subsections? You mentioned that one could mention the influences he had in creating his character etc. in this section; should we perhaps then have a subsection about him as an actor if the main part of the article is about him as a director? Also, should I try and incorporate information about the style of his films to this part or do you think having a separate sub-section would be better? Or should we just skip that altogether?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

EDIT: Just checked whether I could edit the Chaplin article, and it seems that I can now! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think that structure looks very good and clear, I'll keep that in mind when researching. I was just feeling slightly confused, as 'filmmaking' can be surprisingly ambiguous and broad as a term. I think it is definitely better not to have a separate section for acting, as there's not that much to say about it; I mean he is not known for a particular method or style. Of course he had his own ideas and his own style, but not perhaps in the same way as for example Marlon Brando, who is known for a certain method.

As for Hetty Kelly, I think it is reasonable not to include her in the article. Yes, she was his 'first love' but I've gotten the impression that without all that space given to her character in Attenborough's Chaplin (and the fact that the same actress plays both her and Oona O'Neill...), she would not be seen as such an important figure in Chaplin's early life. The reason why Attenborough chose to make her such an important character probably had to do with the need to romanticise Chaplin (isn't it weird how, considering how that film seems to want to cleanse Chaplin's name and portray him as quite simply an occasionally moody but completely loveable genius, it is very centred on his love life, the very aspect that you might want to avoid when wanting people to like Chaplin?) and to explain why he went for such young girls as an adult (whereas many people who knew him, such as Roland Totheroh and Louise Brooks, said it was because of his low self-esteem, and most biographers quite plausibly think this insecurity had to do with his childhood and the tragedy of his mother, not with Kelly). Of course everyone remembers their first love interest; yes, Chaplin talks about her in his autobiography (but I think pretty much everybody would talk about their first love when telling their life story in detail) – but does this actually mean that this infatuation of a couple of weeks was somehow formative or a turning point? I don't think any of the Chaplin biographers think it was, it is just portrayed that way in the film.

As for the first divorce, I am not entirely sure, especially as I have no books here with me. I do recall that the lawyers did at some point come to the studio to inspect the accounts or something? I recall reading something about Mildred's lawyers and the First National people working together to get the film material, as Chaplin was having a lot of problems with the company. Obviously, it could be that he was simply being paranoid. I'll have a look at what Maland's book says when I get it out of the library. However, I would pretty much go with what Robinson says.

As we're on the subject of relationships, have you already thought about how to incorporate the Joan Barry case into the article? If you haven't, I can try and provide references from the Maland book, as he is much more objective and thorough about it than Robinson. In general I think Robinson fails when it comes to the 1940s controversies, although otherwise that book is great.

And yes, we will have to wait and see what happens! I might become completely obsessed with perfecting the article :D So great to be doing this together, there's so much to do. I'll try to create my userpage, although I haven't quite gotten the hang of it yet. And also yes, we probably should talk about this in the subject page as well – maybe other people will come up and help us that way? It's quite odd though how small the Chaplin fan community seems to be online, compared for example to Keaton's. And the sandbox idea sounds good, though I will first have to learn how to use that also! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hi, sorry about the hiatus from WP (and the internet in general)! I've started writing the part about filmmaking, hope to continue it today (I always write first on Word and only edit WP once I feel the text is ready). Hopefully I will be able to also edit the article today! I'm mostly working from the basis of the Robinson biography, but I am also going to add other sources throughout the summer, especially when writing about style and themes (I'm thinking of combining them, I think it might work better that way). I really wish I had Eric James's Making Music with Charlie Chaplin when writing about him as a composer though!

And yes, I would warmly recommend the Maland book if you can just find a cheap copy. I think it gave me a different view on Chaplin, and it is especially interesting when it examines his political troubles in the 1940s, especially how the FBI used Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons as informers but also leaked information about Chaplin to them. I think he also offers a very balanced view on Chaplin's political stance (according to him, he was a progressive anti-fascist, who became more radical in the 1940s because of the influence of Brecht, Eisler etc.). It's currently out of my local library, but I'm recalling it so perhaps I could add bits from it to the article during the summer!

As for whether I'm British, I am actually Finnish but I study in the UK. Just flew back to Finland last Thursday, but the weather was indeed glorious last week, I even got sunburn! I didn't want to leave at first, although it turned out to be as warm and sunny here. Oh, and also about creating my userpage; I tried what you suggested but nothing happened? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

It seems I am not as fast as I would wish! I'm sorry I'm taking so much time! I've been working on the filmmaking bit, but I think I still need to get more material. Trying to write the whole section in one go does not seem to be happening as such a variety of sources is needed, so I am changing my approach and will start adding stuff little by little as I go along. Hopefully the first little edits will be in on Sunday (although I have to be done by the early evening, since they are showing The Kid on telly here :D). It's frustrating how slow this can sometimes be; I've got all of this information in my head from reading all these books, but trying to remember from which book each thing is from is another thing! Thanks for the notes, I found them helpful as well!

Also, thanks so much for the advice on editing, it is welcomed in the future as well! I have edited on Finnish Wikipedia, which I guess is a bit lax in its policies, so I am definitely grateful for all advice. When I start editing the article, please don't be afraid to re-edit what I've done; I'd love to see this article getting FA status and as you've already got experience on the Hepburn one I am definitely trusting your judgment. I really am only a beginner at this stage!

My copy of the Robinson book is from 1985, so I don't think there's any difference between that and the one you have been using. I've got one problem though; I see that when you have referenced the same pages for a couple of sentences, you've used 'rob1', 'rob2', 'rob3' and so on as ref names. When I edit the bit about filmmaking, seeing that you have not finished with the biography part, what ref name should I use when referring to Robinson, or does it matter at all? I hope I sound coherent, so tired tonight for some reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHeartSusie3 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(Is it ok if I reply here since this talk has little to do with the actual article per se, i.e. I'm not asking for an opinion on it? Or should be just change everything to the CC talk?) Thanks for the nice words :) I've been feeling so guilty for promising to get everything done quickly and then vanishing for a couple of weeks! Finally felt inspired to continue tonight, fingers crossed this will continue! I will be sans laptop from Thu to Sat, but hopefully I can continue working on this on Sunday after work! Looking forward to seeing your material on the 1930s, but don't rush it if your arm is not ok :)

Also, I was wondering whether you've read the Weissman book yet? I read an article by him and now I am really intrigued by the book. Is it good?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Removal

I thought that I should bring this to your attention:

this edit

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)briefly

Don't worry, the article was just briefly protected while it was TFA and that's a bot removing the lock symbol. Thanks though! --Lobo (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it stay. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spencer Tracy

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Spencer Tracy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lobo, I do have a couple of minor things I'd like to perform on the ST article. Out of respect, I will wait until the review is finished as I don't want to interrupt the flow of things. I'd be greatful for your thoughts on the following:

• Filmography into two columns to reduce white space
• Marriage, family and Hepburn image. IMO, the image might be best placed on the left as it appears Tracy is looking away from the text.
• Change the title of the "Years of illness, death".

I know its been swapped per FAR, but the title of the latter simply doesn't sound right; almost as if there is a word missing (possibly and). Great work by the way! -- Cassianto^Talk 15:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! That's nice to know you have an interest in the article and thank you for the compliment. I've barely done anything to the page since I "finished" adding content in February, so it's a bit weird coming back to it. It's far from polished but...whatever, I'll just be happy to see it pass GA for now (which hopefully it will, I can't imagine any problems with regard to the criteria aren't fixable). Anyway I digress—please feel free to make changes to the article as you see fit. I am however a bit opposed to moving the image w/ Hepburn: I don't much like the way it indents the next subsection if left-aligned. I always advocate having people look in towards the text, but since KH is doing this I kind of feel like it's justified in this instance..? I don't know, if you think it is definitely better on the left I will trust your judgement. Any other comments/suggestions you have, I'm sure Viriditas won't mind you chiming in at the GA review. --Lobo (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for the speedy reply. I do tend to mainly concentrate on English Music hall and Victorian theatre such as this and this which I steered through FAC (with a great review on the latter by yourself btw), but Tracy was of an era which interests me greatly, albeit over the pond! I am also kean to make a few a lot of contributions on Chaplin which I know you're also partial to. I will pose the title change to Viriditas and see if I can persuade him/her to accept the "and" bit. As for the image, I didn't predict the spillage into the following section so in the interests of keeping things tidy I shall leave. Now that your on board, I will go ahead and fill that ugly white space! Best regards -- Cassianto^Talk 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh see I'm a Brit too but I tend to be more interested in American history and culture, for some reason. I find 1910s-1960s America fascinating. Which is a part of why I love watching classic Hollywood: it's like being able to go back in time. :) You want to help out on Chaplin?! Great! I've had very little response to my posts there. I'm enjoying working on the article, but it keeps being delayed by various things (most of all my stupid neck/shoulder/arm pain) and I'm getting through it pretty slowly. Oh well, there's no deadline. Can I ask you a question actually? I don't really understand the subtle differences between music hall/vaudeville/variety etc - is it appropriate to have the heading "Vaudeville" for his Karno years? Or were they not quite Vaudeville? I'm hoping you may know something about them, as a music hall enthusiast. I'm just not sure of how specific one should be in this area, I know Karno were *pretty much* vaudeville, and that's the circuit they played in America, but I don't want to offend any hardcore music hall fans. ;) --Lobo (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K are sitting up straight? Then I'll begin :-) Music hall came first, from around 1830 and was popular from about 1850 up until WWI. Variety took over from there as music hall became "old fashioned" and was considered to be out of date by it's audiences. Variety was essentially the same thing but consisted of a variety of different acts. A lot of the music hall comics such as Harry Champion, Gus Elen, Marie Lloyd, and Little Titch etc could not make the transition from MH to variety and thus it petered out from about 1914 onwards. Together with the Music Hall War of 1907 and the banning of alcohol and liqueur from auditoriums, Music Hall entertainment ceased. A lot of MH's stars commited suicide such as Mark Sheridan who shot himself as a result of not being accepted anymore due to the change in audience tastes. Vaudeville is/was the American equivellent of both MH and variety. Although we still have variety (if you count Britains Got Talent, and The Royal Variety Performance), Vaudeville, I am led to believe, no longer exists today in America. Karno was British and Chaplin was in his English troupe. I would not call it vaudevillian as it's the American term for Music Hall. The minute Chaplin started working in America with or without Karno, then it would be vaudeville. As long as Karno and Chaplin were working together in England pre 1920, then I would call it Music hall. Anything after then in Britain I would call variety. (all that on a bottle of wine on a balcony in Barbados...phew!!) -- Cassianto^Talk 20:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Damn, I didn't realise Vaudeville was exclusively American. I definitely read of Casey's Court Circus described as Vaudeville (I think in CC's autobio), but perhaps that was just catering to international audiences. Hmm. Now I really don't know what would be appropriate, because CC was in comedy troupes at that time...definitely no singing or dancing. So that can't really be called Music Hall either..can it? Maybe something like "Comedian" or "Stage comedy"... --Lobo (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm led to believe it's the American equivellent anyway. If it was performed in America, I would describe CCC as a vaudevillian stage comedy; vaudevillian because it was in America and "Stage Comedy" because it was a series of sketches. Over here, I would call it a "stage comedy". Dan Leno, who appeared singing songs in character form such as "The Beefeater", was not a sketch, just someone performing songs in the guise of a sketch, but it would be classed as music hall. CC may well be called vaudeville by our transatlantic cousins as they had one big umbrella called "vaudeville" which was used to describe everything contained within an era. We are a complicated lot and gave types of entertainment different names such as music hall, variety, et al. Vaudeville was essentially the same but I don't think blighty adopted the term. Was the author of CC's autobiog an American? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh Chaplin wrote his autobio himself. No ghost writer, I'm sure of it. It's written in such a distinctive, rather Dickensian style. Anyway, Casey's Court Circus was in England, and he started with Karno in England but then spent 2 years touring America. So I guess that section is 2/3 music hall and 1/3 vaudeville! I think I'll just call it "Stage comedy and vaudeville" (I don't really want to put music hall here, as he was also doing music hall as a kid). Vaudeville is what gave him his breakthrough (ie, its where the film producers discovered him), so I think it's right to highlight it in the contents. Thanks for your help here! --Lobo (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anytime :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 22:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Joan Crawford

Hi Lobo, I see you have also been having problems with an ip on the above here I reckon we should report to the admin's on this. I will drop Pinkadelica a line to see if she wants to join our consortium.

Incidentaly, Crawford has just been protected which is a shame! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No coincidence, I requested it! I tried to contact an admin but they happened to be inactive (and I couldn't think of anyone else), so went with page protection. I would rather like an admin to have a firm word with the user though, I really dislike how they dealt with the issue. --Lobo (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh good work! Ditto. I left a rather abrupt (but fair I think) message on his/her talk page. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S - have you seen this -- Cassianto^Talk 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, as always, for your comment here. Hopefully that should be the end of the matter now as we have a clear consensus. Still no news on Crawford. I appreciate now your frustrations the first time round. Best as always! -- Cassianto^Talk 10:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know why there's been no feedback on the Crawford issue. My effort was ineffective simply because the person I contacted hasn't been active at all since the 7th June (!), but I don't know why this one has been ignored... --Lobo (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spencer Tracy

The article Spencer Tracy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spencer Tracy for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin

WP is becoming so addictive lately, I will actually have to start limiting myself ! :) I hope you don't mind that I added a couple of lines to the paragraph about A Woman of Paris. Also, great work on writing about City Lights! I cannot wait to see the whole article rewritten! Let's hope Cassianto above will join the effort so we can get it done even more speedily. Anyway, hope you are well !TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Haha, I told you it's addictive! The article is coming together, slowly but surely. Maybe to make things quicker, you could start on one of the bio sections? It might be a bit tricky without knowing exactly what's coming before, but I dunno, I think it could work...It's up to you! One thing I should add is that WP:OVERLINK says that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article". So you don't need to link to films or people or anything that has been mentioned before. As for A Woman of Paris, it certainly was influential and I agree that this should be mentioned, but do you think it might be better under Legacy (whenever that section gets redone, which I'm quite eager to start on actually since its currently pretty weak...)? I don't know, it's so tricky to know what should be mentioned in the bio and what shouldn't! ie, I'm also wondering now if the autobiographic element of The Kid needs to be mentioned early on when it is (rightly) covered in the themes section...hmm. I suppose that in theory, we should keep the details of each film in the bio section to a minimum, especially since they all have their own article? But at the same time, I don't want to deprive the bio of key information. What d'you think? --Lobo (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot promise you anything, but I might be able to take on some of the bio writing; perhaps at least the very last bit about his illness, death & 'kidnapping'. I would love to do it, but I also don't want to become too addicted to this ;) Anyway, there's still a lot that I need to do with the bit about filmmaking and I was also perhaps thinking of starting an overhaul of the Legacy bit. I'm using the K Hepburn article as a template for what it should look like; please let know if you have any ideas!

And I agree, it is tricky knowing how much information to include about the films... Although I added that bit, in general I was thinking of waiting until you have completed the biography section until starting to think about what perhaps should be added. Also the section about Legacy should probably be completely rewritten before that, because like you said, a lot of stuff could go in there! So maybe we will just proceed as normal and once we have a really good structure (like we now have in the sections you have written so far) we will be able to see the bigger picture and know what to include or leave out.

Also, thanks for reminding me about the weasel words! They truly are sneaky. I'll try to look for specific names – the trouble is that in many cases, the sources themselves only talk vaguely in terms of 'some have criticised' etc.

This is completely OT by the way, but I was wondering, what are your favourite Chaplin films?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hi, sorry for disappearing again for a long time! I've actually attempted to rewrite the Legacy section, but it was too frustrating so I gave up. I feel that might be the trickiest section to write, especially in the case of a legend like Chaplin. There's just so much that could be included and 'legacy' can be such an ambiguous concept. I've got some material though, I've been thinking of putting it in my sandbox so that you could have a look & use some of the sources if you wanted; would you be able to see the content? What frustrates me is how much time writing a WP article can actually take; I sit down to write something for an hour or so and end up realising that's not nearly enough time. Given that there are so many people who regularly write these articles, there must be some trick I am not getting! Also, I haven't forgotten about fixing the weasel words; I'm searching for names, and if I cannot find any easily, I will simply edit the sentences.

As for which Chaplin films are my favourites, the ones that I have always liked are City Lights and Modern Times. However, these days I also definitely count The Gold Rush as one of my favourites out of the features, for some reason it took the longest time to grow on me. I also really like A Woman of Paris, I think it ought to be brought up more when discussing Chaplin's work. It's a shame he didn't continue experimenting with drama. Out of the shorts, I prefer the First Nationals; Shoulder Arms, A Dog's Life, The Idle Class, even Sunnyside. I also have a soft spot for Limelight, although in general I have a lot of problems with Chaplin's talkies... I have to say I don't think the world would be missing anything if he had retired after that film (which, interestingly, Charles Chaplin Jr. said he originally intended to do). Although I kind of wish The Freak would have been realised! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Ok, so I put the material I have for the Legacy-section in my sandbox; it's just a list of links & references at the moment, I deleted the little I had tried to written because it was not very good :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Charlie Chaplin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modern Times (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) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for Dan Leno discography

We have put the Dan Leno discography up for peer review here. We would like to improve this to FL and would be grateful for any and all comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never reviewed a list before and know very little about FLC requirements, but I'll try by best to chip in and offer some comments. :) --Lobo (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be great Lobo thanks ever so much. For the record, It's the first list for SS and I too. We wanted to compile a list to support the main article and to keep the tables out of the main article. As it turns out, we thought the end result was actually fairly good (even if I do say so myself being its creator ;) -- Cassianto^Talk 20:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way...

Hello, Loeba. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Cassianto^Talk 21:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC

The article is much improved since it's previous FAC, and your input would be appreciated at the current McCartney FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, at this point, I would rather you just opposed and got it over with. If you've ever taken an article to FAC then you'll know what I mean when I say, I'm not up for the dance, that leads nowhere. You caught me at the end of a very grueling month, and all I ask is that you please be kind. I've put in over 500 hours on the article, and most editors were in general agreement that it was looking pretty decent. No one else, veteran reviewers included, complained about your concerns. Read for Wasted Time R's and Noleander's comments, they are the two best on here right now and they never mentioned these issues. So, I do not have the energy, at the end of this long process, to be nit-picked about each and every phrase. It's been copyedited by at least six individual vets, look at the edit history, some of wiki's best IMO, none mentioned your concerns. Do what you have to do, but someday, please bring an article, as the sole nominator, and on a significant person through FA to promotion, then you'll know what I mean right now. Now I see that you do know what I mean, sorry should have looked first. Was so surprised someone could get to FA within 6 months, impressive. Nice work on Hepburn! ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I called your bluff, and stayed up all night trimming the sections you suggested trimming. Over 11,000 bytes in all. Your move. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly baffled by some of the comments you've made to me here and on the FAC page. At no point did I insist on any changes being made, I just made my observations and suggestions (after you specifically asked me to comment). I didn't threaten to oppose. I didn't "nit-pick over each and every phrase". Neither was I "vague" - I said which specific bits I felt were most in need of trimming (ie, the things that he is not so famous for, which I think is fair). I did, however, fully acknowledge all the hard work you had done, praise the article, and really tried to be "kind" and understanding in my two comments. I resent the implication that I didn't do these things. I know you're tired and frustrated, but the bitter tone (after your first reply) is unfair...If you really resented making those changes, you shouldn't have done them (and to say "I'm calling your bluff. Now what?" as if we're in some sort of battle, is entirely unnecessary). All I said to you was "just think about it" (the football section is probably the only thing I would have followed up).

By the way, I think using article bytes is a bad way to measure article size, since this is impacted by mark-up and media files and all sorts of things. Word count is what matters. --Lobo (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I apogogize for my tone last night. Its been a very long month, not an excuse I know, and I am just really fatigued by this FAC. At any rate, after looking over the sections, I actually agree with you. The article was too detailed in the areas you mentioned, and I don't think we needed that FB section either, never did really. I sincerely apologize, but it seemed like you were saying, "trim these sections" or I will oppose, which, at this point, would completely break the FAC for sure, it's that close. I didn't mean to suggest that this was a battle, but if you look over the FAC comments, you will see that 90% or more, have come from editors who havn't yet, nor will they likely !vote support anyway. Like I said, it was late in the morning, and I wasn't at my highest self. If you could please take the time to look over the article, give some comments, then hopefully, after I resolve all your concerns, you will !vote, whichever way you feel best of course. Cheers! Also, how do you count the words? ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FTR, IMO, you were civil and kind in your FAC posts, I just think that the quibble over "point of relation" was a bit nit-picky at this juncture in the process, as was the suggestion I include Glastonbury because you attended. Perhaps I misread you, as I say, its too hot, I'm too tired, my eyes are getting weak, and this FAC has drained me dry. So, anyway, you were kind to me, sorry I was less so to you. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

New message

Hey Lobo512! My name is Rahul. Ever since I came across Katharine Hepburn's article, I have been a big fan of your work. I am currently in the process of nominating Kareena Kapoor's article for FAC, but before doing so I was hoping for someone to look at it with their fresh pair of eyes. Would you be able to help me with copyediting the article? Your help would be much appreciated! Thanks :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! This is flattering, thank you. :) I can tell you have worked hard on the article. Bollywood is one area of film that I have virtually no knowledge of, heh, but I'll do my best to read through it, do some copy edits (although I'm certainly no expert at this!) and offer some comments. I do have a couple of my own things that I want to get done though, and I can't use the computer too much, so is it okay if it comes in a day or two, and possibly over a few sessions? All the best, --Lobo (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry... take your time! I'm in no rush! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey... what exactly do you mean by "attributing this comment: "Kapoor's performance as "Poo" [...] highlights of the film""? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey!

I've recently added James Dean to my to-do list, as I plan on eventually go through the FA process. I've received the George Perry biography today, so I'm initiating the task as soon as possible. Given your proclivity toward biographies, I was wondering if you would like to collaborate with me. If you would like to do so, you can add info onto this userspace. :) —DAP388 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Apologies for the late reply, it's been a busy couple of days. Thanks for getting in touch, you're right in identifying this as my area of interest. That's great you want to improve the page. I'm not sure I can help in terms of researching and adding content - my hands are already full in that area really - but I'd definitely be happy to help you shape and refine the article. I'll keep an eye on your progress and help out in any way I can. Feel free to get in touch again if there's something you'd like my opinion on. Good luck! --Lobo (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Me again. I'm almost done working on the article (thank goodness!), and I'd like your input on particularly the career section. I modeled the last bit after the Elvis Presley article, and I added a "posthumous" section because Rebel Without a Cause and Giant were released after his death. What do you think? :) —DAP388 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow you work fast don't you! Great stuff. It looks to be shaping up really well. Are you going to transfer some of it to the real article soon? I think you should. As for your question - I actually wonder if it's necessary to have level 4 headings for "Final year" and "Death". I think there's enough information for each of these (although I'm not sure his death should be so detailed as the article has it at present) to have their own level 3 headings, ie:

2 Career

2.1 Beginnings and struggles

2.2 Career revival and theatre

2.3 Rise to prominence

2.4 Death

2.4.1 Posthumous activity

But it's up to you, and I guess it's hard to tell until it is complete. The other thing I notice right now is that the "Public image" stuff doesn't really seem to be talking about that. I'm guessing you're planning to work on that still? Keep up the great work! I will take a close look when you're "finished" and have everything transferred to the article. --Lobo (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Public image" content is still at its infancy. I've moved a lot of the prose to the main article, but I'm not sure it will last, as someone has reverted it once already. :/ —DAP388 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Dear Lobo512, I hope you don't mind the interruption, but I have recently sent Peter Sellers up for peer review. If you have any time or interest in the subject, I would be most indebted if you could have a look at the article and provide and comments or suggestions. It's not a problem if you are unable to comment. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I love Peter Sellers! That's great you are working to improve his page. It looks to be in great shape, and you've even managed to link to an article I created (this little one) so obviously I love that! haha. I will definitely contribute to the review, I can't say exactly when but I'm interested for sure. :) Thanks for thinking of me, --Lobo (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's great Lobo - many thanks indeed for agreeing to have a look, it really is much appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lobo. It will be a joint effort having worked on this for a good few weeks now. I will be helping out at the PR and the GAC. I will also be co-nom'ing with SchroCat at a later FAC. I knew you would be up for it (it was me who recommended you). See you there soon! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

...now at FAC as and when you can drop in. Your comments would be gratefully recieved. :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin #2

Hello, sorry for commenting again in your page but I wasn't sure if you had seen my recent messages :) Anyway, I am going to the countryside for about a week and since there's little to do there except read, I was thinking that if the weather is bad/I'm bored, I could perhaps work on the biography sub-section just before "Death". For that I would need to know how you had planned the rest of the Biography section to be structured so I know which years to write about.

I tried to write about Chaplin's legacy, but once again came to the conclusion that it must be a closer collaboration. I tried to work out the section's structure in my sandbox (if you check it out, please know that it was not meant as a final written version, I basically just tried to sort which quote etc. would go where), but wasn't really happy with what I came up with. Also, I am making a couple of minor edits tonight, including removing the bit about A Woman of Paris that I wrote; it definitely belongs to the Legacy-section, just like you said earlier. I can rewrite it, sans the weasel words, once we get to the Legacy.

Hope you are well :)TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

A barnstar for you!

	The Golden Hollywood Award of Excellence
	For your excellent work on Katherine Hepburn. BTW if you want to help me get Clint Eastwood up to FA status let's work together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, a special classic Hollywood barnstar! That's like the ideal barnstar for me, haha, I love it! :D Eastwood's article is looking great, surely one of the best director articles on here. I reckon you can get it up to FA with a bit more fine tuning. My WP commitments are pretty much taken right now (and I'm not a big Eastwood fan, I'm afraid to say...I like a couple of his films) but I could give it a pre-FAC review closer to the time? --Lobo (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, not many women are big Eastwood fans LOL. He's a man's man, although no doubt has thousands of female admirers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Late Spring FAC

I'm sorry if I seemed a bit too irritable about your comments to the Late Spring FAC. I didn't mean to sound patronizing, though looking over my comments now, I can see where you got that impression. Some reviewers have made me feel very defensive, so perhaps I was reacting to that, but you've been extremely gracious, and my replies to your comments indicate that I plan to follow most of your thoughtful suggestions. You have been very helpful and constructive and I thank you for that. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you

Hey Lobo, I hope all is going well with you. It seems like you are going great guns. I saw this letter recently posted on Letters of Note (fantastic site) and thought of you. Not sure if it's of much use, and you probably know all about it already, but thought I'd drop it by anyway. Hope you're enjoying the North London summer. Best wishes Span (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Span! Ah yes, I absolutely love this clip. I've seen the documentary several times (it's included on the Tracy-Hepburn DVD collection), and that is the best part. She loved him so much, I really think she was unconditionally devoted to him, despite feeling like she could never understand him (she actually says this explicitly in All About Me - which you should seriously watch if you're interested in her). Just fascinating. I'm enjoying my time off thanks (although I'm not sure we've had much of a summer!) Loving the Olympics being here. My use on WP has actually not been that great, but ah well. I show up every now and then and do what I can. :) Really need to get back to Chaplin... How are you? --Lobo (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will look out the DVD. The Olympics are great fun - glad that the visitors are getting some good weather to finish off. My health isn't so good so my WP time is rising again (a clear indicator). It does make me wonder at the proportion of regular editors that struggle with their health. I'd bet it's one third or over. It's how I came into all of this. Keep up the good work and inspiring so many others to give what they can to the project. And good luck with Chaplin. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear you're having health problems. I hope whatever it is clears up soon. You're probably right that regular editors often have some sort of debilitation. I'm the opposite though, ha - my debilitation stops me from being able to edit! It's rubbish. Take care of yourself, all the best --Lobo (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, am I right in thinking that there is no evidence that Cagney was a day-to-day practising Catholic? I think there is no evidence of this given in the article. Ta. Span (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have it in my head he was a Catholic, I think I've read it somewhere. I can't offer a source though. Perhaps ask the article's primary editor, User:Ged UK? --Lobo (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was you. Will check it out. Span (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin #3

I managed to write the whole section about Chaplin's European years (1953-1977), and although it is not great, I think I am going to edit it into the page this weekend. Before I do that, I was wondering whether you could check if Maland has something on Roy Export? I'm trying to find the actual year it was founded and whether Chaplin was completely successful in curbing the illegal distribution of his films in the US or just the distribution of illegal copies of Modern Times, which is the only mention I can find from Robinson. Also, how do you find images to add to Commons? There's only one image at the moment that can be used for the European years-section :( Hope you're well and enjoying the Olympics :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Great! I look forward to reading it. I will see if I can find some info on Roy Export. I know that Brownlow talks about it in Unknown Chaplin. I'll try and get back to you today or tomorrow, but if I don't maybe just update the page anyway (it's up to you). As for pictures, that's a tricky territory since they have to be public domain and you need to effectively show that it is public domain (ie, you need some copyright knowledge...which I taught myself). Perhaps just leave it with me? We won't be able to find much from that era though...one still/poster from A King of New York is likely all we'll manage (along with the portrait of him in his 70s, which isn't great but we're lucky that there's anything of him in old age). I REALLY want to get started on The Great Dictator today. I'm definitely going to, but how much I can do depends on how much my stupid arm will let me. I fear it may not be much (especially as I've already done some typing now). Wish me luck, hah. --Lobo (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think I might have to leave the editing to next weekend, as I am going back to the countryside today. As for the pictures, I wrote the section in the three parts as discussed before, and the first bit about the move & A King in New York isn't very long, so I think if we could just manage to find a still/poster from the film it would be fine. The 'Final works' section is a bit longer, it could even take two pictures, but I know that it might be tricky to find more :( Also, I had another idea about the article's structure (I wrote about this in the Talk-section), maybe the years 1924–37/52 could be titled 'Independence in Hollywood'? I'll be looking forward to the Great Dictator-section, but don't stress about it!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Well we can have the 1965 portrait (that's currently in the article) in the "Final works" section, but I think we're unlikely to find anything else usable. It'll be fine though, don't worry. Adding a quote box can be a good alternative if necessary. As for your heading suggestion - well I do really think the controversies should be separated (1939-52) since his fortunes completely changed in these years. But this means the previous section would be 1924-1938 and "Independence in Hollywood" may still be misleading...Perhaps we'll just have to abandon the "Independence" idea. Something like "Peak years" would be good, but unless we can have that sourced in the text it would be called POV...Gahh it's awkward! --Lobo (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam and Questia

Highbeam is offering their fifth round for free subs and Questia has just started. Credo also. I think you're just about eligible for all. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As it happens my year anniversary is TOMORROW haha, so yep I should be able to apply. Thanks Span! --Lobo (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)