User talk:Loeba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Woman of the Year promo image.jpg

Sad news[edit]

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

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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)
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¨
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
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)
Thank you so much for the help, you're the best :)TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Try the Stagevu one here (alluc is a good site to use btw), 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Will nom tomorrow then... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for addressing the points, just waiting for Krimuk now...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Ooh yeah they're seriously cracking down. There's still alluc 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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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)

@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)
No worries, this was quite helpful! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Looks much better to me, good job! --Loeba (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
Have you seen Satyricon (1969 film)? I find it a bit creepy!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, it's on my hypothetical-list! --Loeba (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't like it. It's rather camp I thought! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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)

April 2014 GA Thanks[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Christopher Nolan.
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Christopher Nolan to good article status.
.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)