User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Comments from the anti–Tea Party intelligentsia

Teabagger! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhdfhd (talkcontribs) 00:17, 27 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Fi fo fildi fum.. Eh fatso is stil a teabagger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwfjkql (talkcontribs) 00:57, 27 October 2011‎‎ (UTC)

teabag teabag teabag teabag gooooo teabaggers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjfklas (talkcontribs) 01:04, 27 October 2011‎ (UTC)

tEABAGGER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjsdf (talkcontribs) 18:20, 5 November 2011‎ (UTC)

D-o-UCHE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjsdf (talkcontribs) 18:31, 5 November 2011‎ (UTC)

D-o-UCHE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjsdf (talkcontribs) 18:33, 5 November 2011‎ (UTC)

D-o-UCHE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjsdf (talkcontribs) 18:35, 5 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting the age Byron would have been in ship-years (37). Some people never read and understand the written text.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirswindon (talkcontribs) 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. When I first looked at birth and death dates, I figured it was a good fix to a typo, but the phrase "ship years" struck me, and after reading the section three more times I understood the point being made and reverted. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


BLP/N it is -- amazing how my keyboard acts up sometimes <g> Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just figured if anyone wanted to see the discussion, I'd save them the five minutes or so it took me to locate it. No big deal. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Garbo IX

I Should have reread this before I sent it. What I meant to say, above, was, "Unless you can tell me how to cite evidence given by not by the biographer, but someone the biographer interviewed, I'm not sure how to do this. Now, I could figure this out for a typical scholarly article (footnote or endnote), but don't know protocol for wikipedia." Suggestions?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a few minutes and look at the Mitt Romney article. It's an example of one that has a rather extensive "Notes" section in addition to the citation footnotes in the "References" section.
Thanks. I will indeed.
Or, depending on the specifics, you might be able to use the quote= parameter of the long-form {{Cite book}} template. It would give a result something like:
Film-Buff, Classic (2013). The Authoritative Garbo Reference. Waltham, MA: Academic Press. pp. 57–59. ISBN 978-0-12-345678-6. In my interview with Acosta, she said Garbo told her that she had realized she was bisexual at age 19. 
Where did you get this interview with Acosta? Did you make this up? Not credible. If true, would be common knowledge by now. Where did you find this book?
Um... did you notice the author, year, or even ISBN of the "cited work"? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me know if you want to use either of these approaches but need any help in setting it up. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
you bet I'll ask you for help. Will work on the citations over t-giving break

Glad you started a new talk section! The previous one is the longest correspondence we've had. Check previous. Have a couple of responses there.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Answers from prev section:
  1. P.S. is the standard meaning, the little note (transported here) you added at the end of your previous post.
  2. A disambiguation page is a pseudo-article consisting of a list, with internal links, of articles a particular term could be referring to if the desired subject is not intuitively obvious. Again, click here→Valentina←here for an example.
Later. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally missed your joke about my book, The Authoritative Garbo Reference and interview with Acosta! LOL! (What a dumb response to it I wrote)

About 1/2 way through citations for the boyfriend/girlfriend lullaby. Will have something up for you to tear apart in a few days.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I forgot to tell you--here's the definition of et. seq. I found: et seq. abbreviation. Et sequens (and the following one or ones). Seems opposite to your conjecture, no?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not as I remember describing it's use, though it's not totally unknown for my explanation of something to not clearly convey what I mean. Reading this reminded me, another (possibly more frequently used) abbreviation meaning the same thing is ff. See the Wiktionary links Wikt:ff. and Wikt:et seq. (Although I knew, even if it slipped my mind, that the singular of ff. is f. Wikt:f., I never knew that the plural of et seq. is et seqq. Wikt:et seqq.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Help! I've got everything ready to go but i can't format the last citations about her relationship with Mimi Pollak correctly. However I think I did do so in the draft I posted on Garb VIII. Can you retrieve that for me? thanks thanks thanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just had a feeling I should wait another day before archiving that long thread!
The citation you used, if I looked at the right thing, was:
<ref>''The Observer,'' [,6903,1567211,00.html ibid.] Retrieved November 7, 2007.</ref>
which would display as:
The Observer, ibid. Retrieved November 7, 2007.
However, Wikipedia doesn't really like to use ibid. in refs. A better format might be:
<ref>{{Cite news|title=Lonely Garbo's love secret is exposed|url=|date=10 September 2005|first=Alex Duval|last=Smith|work=[[The Observer]]|location=London|accessdate=17 November 2011}}</ref>
Which would display as:
Smith, Alex Duval (10 September 2005). "Lonely Garbo's love secret is exposed". The Observer (London). Retrieved 17 November 2011. 
If I looked at the wrong thing and you want to review the whole Garbo VIII thread, you can go to it buy clicking on →this link←.
In my suggested format above, I treated the author's last name as "Smith". If you have reason to believe her last name is actually "Duval Smith", it's a quick change in the template parameters. If you need to use the same ref in two places (as your draft indicated you might), just copy the same thing in each place for now and I'll do the easy-to-do but harder-to-explain combination afterwards. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Voila! It's posted. What would I do without you? Tell me what you think and feel free to copy edit or make suggestions on how to improve the "feel" of it. Everything I wrote is accurate (except that I left out scepticism about Beaton's assertions based on his avowed homosexuality. Should I add that?) Thank you for taking care of the "harder to explain." How is it that you have such an intimate knowl of Wikipedia formatting and protocols? Your admirer,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks great to me. Was grammar the only reason you removed "turbulent"? If it was important, wouldn't either "and turbulent" or "though turbulent" work grammatically, using either commas or maybe dashes to offset?
Problem with "and" is that the relationship was not necessarily the most "turbulent" and I think "though" is just as grammatically problematic as "if." I'll ponder use of dashes more.
Hmmm. I tried out a few variations but didn't really love any of them. Too much info to neatly squeeze into a short space. Best I could do so far was:
Her most famous romance was a turbulent [relationship/affair/other?] with her frequent co-star John Gilbert, with whom she lived in 1926 and 1927.[1][2] MGM capitalized on her relationship with Gilbert after their huge hit, Flesh and the Devil, by costarring them again in two more hits, Love (1927) and A Woman of Affairs (1928).
I needed to fix some of the sfn templates; putting pp.=101–102 instead of pp=101–102 causes the page numbers to not be displayed at all, but that's was no real problem. While fixing those refs, I did notice that the two refs to Vickers (1994) are missing page numbers, as is the ref to Brooks' autobiography. Any chance?
Thanks for fixing pp. formats. What an eye you have. I didn't reference Vickers pp. numbers because his entire book is about her relationships with Acosta and Beaton and the book is listed in the bibliography. Should I ref the entire book here? As for the Brooks autobio, this was a previous writer's cit. I can either dig up the autobio or cite relationship in Paris's Garbo bio (very easy of course so my preference); Paris also authored a bio of Brooks. Do you think the primary source (autobio) is more legit in this instance?
If that's the case on Vickers, just leave it as is. (That's the kind of situation that would get me gigged by an administrator for putting "pp. 1–333" if anyone insisted on a page reference.) I'd leave the Brooks autobio; I think having it as a source is good, but if you can easily add a ref to Paris as substantiation of its acceptance, that would probably be a bit better.
Take a look at the change I made to the Pollak citations; you'll see why it's one of those things that's easier to explain by example. (Note the subtle difference of adding the / [slash] in the second use.)
Brilliant. Some of your work here is still unclear to me however Face-smile.svg
Well, the true brilliance is with the software authors. I'm not even sure if that id native HTML or a Wiki refinement.
Too much time on my hands... Face-smile.svg Fat&Happy (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Lucky for readers of Wikipedia that you spend a lot of free time improving pages and articles. This p. would been messy indeed without your vigilent attention--edits and formatting corrections and changes. All of it. I cannot thank you enough for your attention to my writing. I'll doubtless continue tweaking prose. When I'm really interested in getting something done, I can be quite obsessive/compulsive, as you have observed. Remind me which state, or part of the country, you live in? I want to get a better picture.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC) NY.
See a new variant on the topic in the new section below. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Presidential election articles spam removal

I came across those links before but wasn't quite sure (and still ain't) where this should be brought up (ANI, blacklist, etc.). It seems to me pretty clear that the IPs adding the spam trace all back to the owner of the blog they're trying to promote on Wiki and
shows that there are plenty of them still alive (and counting). Maybe you have the time and expertise to pursue a definite solution? Thanks, TMCk (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it should be added too the spam blacklist, which I remember reading a bit about some time ago, but I don't know the procedures for getting it there. I don't know all that mush about the various disruption-fighting tools available (even turned down rollback a while ago in favor of just using the simplest popups functions) and am not even sure how to generate and properly read the report you show above. Simple manual grunt work mostly here. For now, at least I think I've cleared all the linkspam left by that one IP on en:WP. Or in other words, referring to your last sentence, I probably have the time, but not the expertise. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I see but thanks for your input. Re the link above: Just click on (linksearch) en and you see a list of where the link appears on English wiki.TMCk (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Maybe it's my monitor (or aging eyes); the en there looked black, not blue, so I tried the WP: en below it, which just brings up the same (slightly obsolete) list I get if I enter a standard search. [And re-doing it just now, I realized it's neither my monitor nor my eyes, it's the way my head reacted to the lighter blue used for interwiki links...]. Looks like it's down to 33 now, including this page. Is the COIbot report (#3 on the list) useful? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
For me it would've been my aging eyes :))
I tried to figure out this COIbot and gave up (too?) quickly, but I think it's meaningless since unfortunately it doesn't prevent or remove those spam entries.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


...for clearing up the "iconic" issue. I could say more, but suffice it to say I appreciate you taking charge of the situation - this way, the endless nit-picking that could have ensued was nipped in the bud. Quite refreshing, actually. :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully. (We'll see). But the two additional refs should slow down objections. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cory Maye

Hi, I saw that you took out a link I added to the external links by the Cory Maye-article, with the note 'rv linkspam'. First time in my life anything I did was classified as 'spam', oh well. My question is: what makes it spam? Don't articles often contain links to books written, and have for easiness a link to Amazon, or am I wrong? And what is the difference between a normal external link like an activist website or a book written? Maybe there is a section about this on Wikipedia, but I'm not very familiar with the extended explanations of writing articles on WP. Thanks, Majesteit (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Using that canned edit summary probably wasn't the best thing to do in this particular case. I was reacting to the specific link and realized afterward that you didn't intend to spam. The edit, though, restored a link to a commercial listing for what appears to be a non-notable, self-published work that had earlier been spammed across several articles by an anon IP, and I just knee-jerk reacted. Sorry, no offense meant.
(I will note as an aside that I've seen other links to Amazon for even highly notable works changed to Google links to avoid preferential treatment for one of many book vendors, which I understand but dislike because Amazon has, IMHO, a much superior listing format. And Google is also now in the selling business for at least some electronic works.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
For taking the time to find additional references for use of the phrase "iconic" as well as using common-sense as an argument in (yet another) silly dispute borne out of <who knows what?>... Your assistance is appreciated. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


I'll get back there. That whole section as problems. I'm removing all the language that has been structured in a biased way. Will check all the references but it takes more than two minutes. Need coffee.Amandajm (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. At least it looks like you're providing some experienced adult supervision. My sole dip into the article was originally just to restore statue quo ante on the recent obvious POV/opinion insertion. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Garbo X

When you have a little time to read, check Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles, quality designations by "the community". The normal progression is GA first,then FA after more improvements. Somebody nominated Greta Garbo as a Featured Article back in '06. It failed. The – extremely brief – discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greta Garbo/archive1. Any interest in trying for Good Article at this time? If nothing else, it would give you the benefit of other pairs of experienced eyes to suggest other improvements that might be made. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Will read. What do FA and GA stand for. Yes I am interested in nominating it as a featured article. More latex.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it's better to start off with the lower-level Good Article first. I think the article shows a lot of improvement over the last few months, but contrary to any impressions I may have given, there are lots of rules, guidelines, and generally accepted standards around Wikipedia that I know nothing about. And it's even remotely possible that I've misinterpreted some that I do know about... Fat&Happy (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
well, what you know about W protocols is a hell of a lot more than I do! (which is to say nothing except what i've learned from you) Ok. I get Good Article but what's FA? Fantastic Article? Fabulous? When I go to bed, I'll all of a sudden realize I've written something unclear. Then I'm back tothe computer to correct. Some how, I've got to let this this thing go. Can I or can I not make the leap? That is the question.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Featured, maybe? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, featured. I've thought more about submitting but I still think the profile of her achievements, and her movies, is incomplete. Little things like her work with Adrian, her costumer, set international fashion trends. There's all sorts of stuff about her impact in Hollywood. Most importantly, I've said nothing about her acting technique which was unique and ahead of its time. She was a great artist--a stylist and a true original. I haven't discussed this. To do so I'd have to re-read everything and i've got to get back to my scholarship if I want a promotion at my university! I wish her biographers would weigh in. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey brother, can't figiure out what you did. I thought I had added the Stokowski link. What did you change? Thanks.

Now onto et seq: I contacted a doctoral prof of mine who knows absolutely evertything about citatiion saaid this: "if it's et sec, the et doesn't have a period after it because it's latin for and. the way i always solved that problem was l-2, 5-7, 9 ff. which means 9 and scattered following pages." So you were right about ff.

Have yet to get the accurate word for "I want to be left alone or let alone. Diff sources say diff things. I had it as "let," then changed to "left," and now I think it was "let," which makes more sense. blah blah blah--have a good tgiving.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stokowski was already linked about 6–8 lines earlier in the article, so I removed the second link.
Thanks. You must be, I think, extremely talented at something because of your extraordinary attention to detail.
As to the word she actually used, you're on your own. (Any possibility she said both at different times?)
Very interesting possibility. The TCM documentary, narrated by Glenn Close, says "let." So I think I'll poke around and probably revert to "let."
Thanks. Enjoy your turkey (tofu if you happen to be vegan). Fat&Happy (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Not vegan though philosophically I think that's where we should all go (inhumane farming practices) but it's a utopian fantasy.

Decided to check the ratings for the page. No longer there. Any ideas why? The page seems to be holding up with only minute copy edits, which pleases me. I'm very grateful that you forced me (!) to cite most of my assertions since who can argue with cited facts? Yours,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


you wrote: 23:03, November 26, 2011‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs)‎ (5,108 bytes) (ce, cleanup (tried to avoid ec issues)) (undo)

What is ec?


Skywriter (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict. You had made changes while I was working on the article, and the parenthetical in the edit summary was an indication I had tried to catch and incorporate them (principally the deletion of the Steele paragraph), but might have missed something. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

lied about your deletions to Bill Frist page which were clear whitewashing

You lied about what you deleted: his taking a position in a private equity firm that invests in for profit healthcare. You lied about deleting the clearly referenced documentation of his legistaion while in senate that favored his family firm HCA.

both were clearly referenced with impecable sources . you also delted those refereneces - conveniently. you lied and called your changes removal of "Absurd POV"

Documented Facts are not points of View —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Your additions were reverted again by another editor due to poorly-written WP:BLP violations; just as Fat&Happy did. Also please refrain from personal attacks as you have made herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Hi Fat&Happy. You made a deletion in 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference [1]. I do not doubt that this can be improved, but in my opinion it deserves place in the article. I will argument this later in Talk:2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference. In short, professor Christian Azar is an expert in climate change calculations. He has actively participated the debate of climate change in Sweden. I was impressed by this comment by professor Christian Azar that it may be even dangerous to accuse the private persons of their emissions if this discussion will focus the problem solution in a wrong way away from the political decisions. Watti Renew (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)



Thank you for the undo on Ivanka's page - I'm still getting my feet wet on Wiki in regards to keeping her information up-to-date and accurate. Will keep trying!


Michael Martin Mmartinnyc (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perry presidential campaign

Hey, I noticed you removed the data about his YouTube video being disliked by over 200,000 people (and FYI, it's over 300,000 now). Why? I consider the fact that Perry's video has turned into an internet meme that is one of the five most disliked videos in the history of YouTube to be significant, especially since it only took a couple of days. Also, the edit summary you used in removing it was inappropriate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, last night, other editors (not me) have added the dislike data with reliable sources back into the article. I'm starting to see an emerging consensus that the "dislike" data is significant. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012#Catholic charities and war on religion

I have made recent changes that may interest you. Your perspective is appreciated. --Screwball23 talk 02:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied... Fat&Happy (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


THere seems to be something wrong with the end of the GG section. I write stuff but it's not appearing in the preview p. Also, the GG section seems to be connected to the Perry section. Here's what i wrote:

I can't copy/past the line. Will you check the p., just below references, and let me know what you think?

Also, I still don't know how to find out if someone's left a message on my talk p. You had said I'd get a message at the top of any W p. I went to. I just left a test message but there is no indication anywhere that someone wrote to me. How do you find out? Also, how do I get rid of all the crap above the new sections where people actually "talk" to me? I hope I'm not being confusing.Thanks--Fat&Happy (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like when you pasted in the error message from the G. page, parts of it got interpreted as being a new references section here and got hidden. I think I got it fixed.
Give me a while to recheck whether I can find anything more about the talk-page notification messages. As far as getting rid of all the crap, you can delete from your talk page just like any other page. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

New message test

To see whether self-created new posts trigger notification. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Mormon Tyranny

As usual you can always count on the mormon meat puppets to keep up the facade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back tommorrow with even better cites and content. See ya. Gonna write up the desecration of the catholic shrine in Colorado in 2007 by mormon missionary terrorists along with even more cites... stay tuned. better get all the meatpuppets in SLC ready to police the article.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Garbo page

Goodness, Fat&happy, it seems you are a lyer and all around terrible person. Maybe the worst person in the world. Had I only known this all these months!

Question about the G p. A lot of people have been rating the p. recently and it is now rated 4.3 for both trustworthiness and objectivity. With all of the citations, why do you think they're not ranked higher? Especially with all the citations. Anything I've written that suggests I haven't been entirely objective? Perhaps the selected comments made by others in the legacy section? If you think they're too glowing, perhaps I should remove them. Anything else? I tried to be scrupulously objective. Your thoughts will be appreciated but please don't lie, you beast.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't motivate myself to worry about it (applies to both of your paragraphs).
As far as the ratings go, take a look at the four actresses above her in the Top 100 list, as well as Marilyn Monroe (who I include because she's a bit more mass-media pop-culture-y than the others). Or for a real laugh, featured article Barack Obama, which just displayed mathematically impossible ratings of 70409 for the first two categories but 3.3, 3.6 for the last two.
I haven't read the whole article through top-to-bottom recently, but watching as it developed I think you've brought it as close to neutral as a superstar's article can be. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey FH, Poking around gg page to delete anything that might smack of subjectivity. (only my number is posted--forgot to relog in) At bottom of p., below references, this line came up, in red. Any idea what it means? Help link is of no help.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

forgot to give you the line: "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "TCM-GarboProfile" defined in <references> is not used in prior text;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 21:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. When you deleted "radiant", the reference used to cite it was no longer used, so it complained about feeling unneeded. I commented out the ref to quiet it down. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes! I got a notice that I had messages waiting! Perhaps because the test message i wrote was for me and so it didn't post? Thanks too for fixing the error thing. You're brilliant.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's the sending-to-yourself thing. See my posts below in "New message test". Fat&Happy (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

He FH, what's sinebot? And bots? There's something about it on my Watch list, along with something about Mormon tyranny, which is connected to you somehow.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there...
  • A bot is a small program which usually runs constantly in the background and is designed to make small, frequently required fixes to posts and edits.
  • Sinebot, in particular, looks for comments left on talk pages without being signed (~~~~) and applies a signature based on the log files.
  • If a page is on your watchlist, any change to the page will be reflected. In the case you noticed, the poster who left messages in the section below that they titled "Mormon Tyranny" didn't bother to sign their comments, so Sinebot came along and fixed it.
why did something about Mormon Tyranny show up on my talk p.?
I thought it was your watch list, not your talk page. That would be because the change listings include the name of the section changed (if it was a section edit, not a full-article edit) in a lighter color and preceded by an arrow (→).
  • And if you read the referenced posts, you'll probably wonder:
    • A "sockpuppet" is a 2nd (3rd, 4th, ... nth) logon name used by the same person, usually to avoid their being identified; this can be done to evade a block, to make it look like many people share a point of view in a discussion, or for other reasons. Using sockpuppets is a violation of Wikipedia rules, though there are also legitimate reasons on person might have two IDs if they disclose the fact.
Well, ok; don't understand what you mean by "logon name used by the same person"? Isn't that what we all do?
We all (supposedly) use one'. And maybe occasionally and accidentally forget to log on so our IP addressis used. We aren't supposed to use multiple different names.
    • A "meatpuppet" is a member of an organized cabal of editors who post so much in sync (on one or more topics, not necessarily everything) that they might as well be sockpuppets of one person. (Also against the rules, though probably harder to prove.)
  • (And if you're interested, the triggers for the comments in question can be seen at the history page for the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)
Fat&Happy (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't understand this because understanding of most of WP protocol still eludes me. As I've said, I count on you to take care of all that for me! :) Thanks for your help.
When does your Christmas break start? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In re G's personal life, I reread information about G's so-called affair with C. Beaton (the only person who documents an affair with her) and except for one source, everyone the biographer interviewed, or cites, doubts or denies it ever happened, attributing his claims to ego and desire for posthumous fame. (Moreover, He was a self-described homosexual.) Do you think I should add a sentence about about all this or would WP think I should stick to what's written? (If I do add , all the het fans will cry bias!)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a case where you might want to actually attribute statements to the specific biographer(s) in question. Is it one biographer raising the doubts,or several? If one or more of the widely accepted biographers question the affair, it probably should be mentioned. And even though the Cecil Beaton article doesn't bother to provide a citation for the paragraph:

The great love of his life was the art collector Peter Watson, although they were never lovers. He had relationships with various men. He also had relationships with women, including the actresses Greta Garbo and Coral Browne, and the British socialite Doris, Viscountess Castlerosse.

I think you'll want a good source if you want to add something like "he was a self-described homosexual". But if you could show it's a significant opinion that he was (cough) exaggerating, I think it should be included. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, one (possibly two) of G's recent biographers (both highly credible but emphasize and talk about different things, of course) discusses both things very specifically and thoroughly. So when time, will make this adjustment too. You may wonder why on earth I continue to tweak. What happens is that I'll be falling a sleep or something and all of a sudden, a better, or more accurate word, or phrase, will pop into my head. I figure if 70 thousand people a month are reading the thing, it should be absolutely correct, and the prose precise. I'm looking, meanwhile, for another obsession. I can't keep up with politics any more (bad for my mental health) and lamentably, my scholarship is boring me now.

I have only one more thing to add, to legacy section, which is about her unique and original acting technique--a precurser to contempory realism. Don't know when I'll have time to research that. The best source for this comes from the 3d recent biographer (the film expert who only covers her life during the period of her film-making so nothing on Beaton) who discusses it in detail in a features section of one of her DVDs. I have no idea how to cite that. Any ideas? Once I do this, I will be happy that the page is complete to the limits of my knowledge. Once again, thanks, thanks for continuing to put up with me!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two templates you might be able to use to format the ref, either Template:Cite video or Template:Cite interview (if that's what it is). I really hate to refer you to these template pages, though. I find the write-ups terribly confusing and frequently with superfluous or inaccurate parameters listed and others not explained at all. And I actually consider myself pretty good at using them. But in general, you would want to have the title of the video (presumably the film title); who produced it (the DVD, not the film; e.g. TCM, Disney, Warner, etc.); the commentator/biographer's name; the second-level title (e.g. "Commentaries") if one exists; probably most importantly, the beginning and end times of relevant statements in lieu of page numbers; the date the DVD was released. If you have that information, you can probably let someone else worry about correctly formatting it for inclusion.
(And if there's a legitimate copy of the comments on the Internet somewhere easily checked, the URL would be wonderful, but I somehow doubt it.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. When I get this done (whenever that is), I'll get back to you and perhaps, if you're feeling very generous, you would help me accomplish what you've explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 23:11, 20 December 2011‎ (UTC)
naturellement Fat&Happy (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Something else. On the revision history page, one of the links is to "Number of watchers." What does this refer to? It always says 127.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be the number of editors who have the article on their watchlist. Probably doesn't change too frequently. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
why would there be so many editors watching the p.? Why not just one? And what do they do? Fact check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 23:11, 20 December 2011‎ (UTC)
Well, you and I alone represent two, so for "Why not just one?", which one of us should remove it from our list? From all the editors on WP, I don't think 127 watchers is all that many (hell, I checked when you first asked and this talk page has 40; Katharine Hepburn has 156, Lady Gaga 722, Britney Spears 985, and Barack Obama 2,160 – whatever that tells us). Some may just have an interest and want to see if any new information has come to light; some are probably left over from editors who have become inactive, or, like many of the articles on my watch list, saw something and made one change auto-adding it to the list and haven't gotten bored enough to bother deleting; some are undoubtedly people – especially for a biography – who watch several articles to be able to quickly fix vandalism or just plain stupidity. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool. How does someone become a watcher? Someone who repeatedly checks the page? Can't be, otherwise the number would change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Just by adding the article to your watchlist. I thought from previous comments that you had done that. If not, assuming you're using the default user interface, at the top of the article next to the "Edit" and "History" options there's a small tab/button with a star on it. If the star is colored light blue inside its outline, the article is already on your watchlist; if it's white, you add the article by clicking that tab, and the star will change to blue. Clicking a blue star removes the article from your list; there may be an intermediate confirmation screen.
Or, next time you make an edit, there's a check box above the "Show changes" button to the far right of the "Save" button. Choices made there are retained until specifically changed.
(As an aside, since you're really only following one article, it's probably just as easy to check the article history periodically as to review the watchlist periodically. As opposed to me, who pretty much uses my watchlist as a home page.) Fat&Happy (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm just too dumb to understand what you're trying to explain. I can follow German philosophy but not this. But it doesn't mean I'm ungrateful for the time you spent trying. But if you could just answer 3 small questions: First, If I'm "really" the only one following the article, as you say, why does it say there are 124 watchers? Who are these people? Second, I added the article to my watchpage but nothing shows up. Finally, it says there are 7 pp. on my watchpage but I don't see anything. If you could answer these questions, I would be eternally grateful, which I suppose I already am, so it would have to be beyond eternal. Do you suppose such a reality exists?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich introduction

Hello Fat&Happy, you may remember me from the Newt Gingrich discussion page earlier this year. I'm Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. You have been a positive force on the page before, and I wonder if you would be interested in helping to resolve some issues I have raised on the discussion page. These pertain to the introduction, which has previously been the focus of some discussion, yet still appropriately carries a warning tag for POV. Your input would be very welcome. Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, I thought you may be interested in looking at some similar questions I have posted on the article about Mr. Gingrich's campaign. If you have any responses or agree and choose to edit the page, it is on my watchlist so I should see them. Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Marbury v. Madison

Hello, Fat&Happy. I hope I am not bothering you, but since I noticed you had recently edited the "Marbury v. Madison" section of Political positions of Newt Gingrich article, it seems the logical thing to point out to you that I've posted a request to change this section. Simply put, The Hill article mischaracterized Newt Gingrich's views on judicial review. I have explained how, and provided sources. I have also suggested an alternative that is correct. If you would look into it and consider fixing it, I would appreciate that. Thanks. Joedesantis (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the article talk page. Just for the record (and as implied by my original edit summary), I wasn't being overly concerned with the subtleties of his position as much as the seeming anachronistic absurdity of "overturning" the actual 200-year-old decision. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I appreciate your responding. I am looking forward to seeing it corrected on the page. Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Will you take a look at what User:PassaMethod is doing to the featured Elvis Presley article?[2] Additionally, see this edit.[3] Is there no one who can stop this user's reign of terror?

I'm coming to you because I noticed you at the Elvis Presley and Priscilla Presley articles. To see why I don't like any of this user's editing, see these discussions or topics.[4][5][6][7]. He is a horrible, horrible editor, often including WP:OR or outright falsehoods (as seen at the Virginity article where he was reverted[8]) or misrepresentation of sources. (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed his latest edits. The only ones who can do anything other than revert edits after they occur are administrators. I see someone has reverted his edits at Elvis. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Cuban's Minarchism

In the Austin American-Statesman (May 19, 2006), Cuban said his politics are "independent, leaning to libertarian. I vote for the candidate who I think will do the least." On his blog -- -- he described himself as "a libertarian at heart" (March 8, 2006). On C-SPAN, Cuban said he is a "less is more" kind of libertarian. "I think there's room for government," he said. "I'm not an abolish-all-government type guy. But I think, you know, less is more..." On his blog, Cuban has expressed strongly libertarian-sounding opinions about government and politicians. Some examples:

• "I don't have a favorite politician. I don't donate money to politicians. I think any cause is better than getting a politician re-elected." (December 31, 2004)

• "As a country, our politicians are spending taxpayer money, OUR money, as if there is no limit to how big a deficit they can run. Left to their own devices, politicos will do what they always do, spend more money. That is the culture in our government today." (January 8, 2005)

• "I hate politics. My experiences in that world range from slimy to slimier." (September 4, 2004)

However, Cuban holds other views that are well outside the libertarian mainstream. He opposes privatizing Social Security ("I personally couldn't think of anything more threatening to our future..."), supports foreign aid ("We have taken on the responsibility of helping...others around the world... It's a good role."), and supports the invasion of Iraq ("I think we're there for the right reasons."). Abel (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We would need something more than your interpretation of his positions – which he describes as "libertarian" and which, except the "paying taxes" comment, are not in the article – to categorize him as a minarchist. Secondary reliable sources discussing his political positions would be nice. Of course, a self-identification would be helpful too. But as it stands, the article content doesn't support addition of any political category. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't call him a libertarian, I called him a minarchist: "Cuban said he is a 'less is more' kind of libertarian. 'I think there's room for government,' he said. 'I'm not an abolish-all-government type guy. But I think, you know, less is more...'" Abel (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not a valid citation, that's original research. He must call himself a "minarchist", you can't call him that based on your personal opinion that that's what he meant when he said that. That is, you may not interpret primary sources. Yworo (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly. He did not call himself a minarchist. No reliable source included in the article calls him a minarchist. We don't add people to categories based on our own interpretations of what they said. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"'I think there's room for government,' he said. 'I'm not an abolish-all-government type guy. But I think, you know, less is more...'" is saying "I'm a minarchist." Abel (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, he's saying "I think there's room for government ... I'm not an abolish-all-government type guy. But I think, you know, less is more ...". Saying "I'm a minarchist" entails saying – "I'm a minarchist". Fat&Happy (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will, from now on, only use exact word for word statements people make as proof of their positions. Abel (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
In trying to comply with this word for word system I immediately run into a problem. Someone needs to remove the category Christian religious leaders from Jesus since he never called himself a Christian. I have a suspicion that such a removal won't go over well. This makes me think the word for word strategy might need to be reconsidered. Abel (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course the preferred method of adding Wikipedia content is secondary sources; only because the minarchist assertions are woefully short on secondary support do we need to keep reiterating that interpretation of primary sources is not acceptable sourcing. I daresay the editors of the Jesus article haven't encountered the problem of absence of secondary sources identifying Jesus as a religious leader of Christians. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I've never tried to add a category before and only did so because a project page asked for people to do so. I would very much like to understand. So Mark Cuban must specifically call himself something for that something to be a valid category, but Jesus need not call himself something because the Jesus page has plenty of secondary sources. I am failing to follow the logic. Abel (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources through a couple of times. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Garbo XII

Greetings; on my watchlist, there's a message to you about another p. you're working on. ??? huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicfilmbuff (talkcontribs) 20:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. If you (consciously or not) added my user and/or talk page to your watchlist (they're treated as an inseparable pair), it will show the most recent change made to each of the pages. Which seems to resolve the issue above about your watchlist not showing anything. How much appears depends on the choice selected near the top as to whether to look back 1, 3, or 7 days or only 1, 2, 6, or 12 hours. A change made longer ago will drop off the list, even if it's the most recent change to a page. (There was a change to the Garbo article at 17:41, (GMT) on 23 December 2011, so if you're setting is at least one day it should show up, at least when I wrote this.
I don't think I said you were the only one watching the Garbo article; I did say it appeared to be the only article you were really watching. And as far as a I know, only an administrator could find out who the other 120+ people are. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Makes sense. Now, it seems i unconciously added you to my user and/or talk p. to my watchlist, how do I get it off? (with due respect, FH) Also, last change was the addition to her legacy of an Austrialian song in 1988 which was a tribute to her. is that considered by WP to be "trivia"?-- (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
At the top of this page, click either the word "Unwatch" or the blue star tab (depends on the user interface you're using). The default user interface's (which I assume you haven't changed) blue star removes the article immediately. Others pop up another screen to click a "yes, I really mean it" box.
Or, near the top of your watchlist itself, there's a line of three options. Selecting the center one, "View and edit watchlist" brings up a list of all the articles on your list with check boxes allowing multiple deletions by clicking one button at the bottom. Just in case there might be other accidental additions.
Merry Christmas! Fat&Happy (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings FH, I've been away for over a week. Thanks for your explanations and Christmas greeting. And a happy new year to you!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And to you to. Welcome back. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi FH, there is suddenly a formatting problem at the end of the TCM documentary directed by kevin Brownlow. I tried, and failed, to fix it. Can you? Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Looks like when you deleted ", narrated by Julie Christie<", you accidentally zapped one extra character (the "<") which broke the reference tag. (Then, trying to fix it, you removed the rest of the tag ("ref>") instead of restoring the one missing character.)
There's a discussion on "trivia" going on at the article's talk page if you'd like to give an opinion. As happens entirely too frequently, I can see merit in both sides. (Just noticed, you had asked about that subject above, but I overlooked it while answering another question. Now's your chance.) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey friend, thanks for fixing formatting mistake. Actually, I had only wanted to delete Lauren Bacall, not J. Christie. So I'll go and return that. THanks, too, for sending link to the trivia discussion. Will check in. What do you think about the animation citatations? Seem stupid, boring, and irrelevant to me. Think I'll just junk 'em myself. If the person who put them in thinks they're a really important part of her legacy, he or she can put 'em back. Will be working on writing up something about her acting technique and some other odds and ends. Will solicit your support in citing a "features" discussion on a DVD of one of her flicks. Later,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

mmm... I was wondering about that, especially since only Bacall was mentioned in the edit summary. (Actually the main reason I so explicitly reproduced the change involved Face-smile.svg.)
We could probably live without all the cartoons, especially since they're mostly cited to IMdB). If some independent book pointed this out as extraordinary it would be different.
The discussion at talk (sort of lapsed) is about the World War II spy recently added, and I pulled in the other recent song addition. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bon giorno fh, check out discussion page, trivia section. I state my opinion, which is strenghtened by another interested party. I'm ready to delete all the trivial stuff now on the p. I want to bolster the section with stuff I've read about, which is all seamlessly blended into the bios. but no time for this project, which will be time consuming. His/her ideas, however, maybe I could tackle more quickly. In any case, I hope someone else will add to it some day soon. Greetigs,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comments. Thinking about them afterwards, I increased my initial, somewhat ambivalent, opposition to inclusion; the trivia is more along the lines of what Wikipedia calls a coatrack for the lesser-known others involved than a commentary on Garbo's legacy. Go ahead and remove. It's good that someone else interested in the general area is taking an interest, even if (s)he doesn't have time to contribute directly. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, you say, a coatrack. Please explain what you're referring to when you say, "for the lesser-known others involved than a commentary on Garbo's legacy." btw, we always seem to have interesting things to talk about. I consider this our page now, with me as the writer and you as the editor. And you haven't even been interestd in her movies. Or classic films in general. Perhaps you are fascinated in the editing proces???--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you follow the link to the coatrack article there's a more detailed explanation/rationale, but the short version in this case might be called "fame by association", sort of a converse corollary to "guilt by association".
By the way, I meant to mention before that I noticed you had no cite for the recently added idiosyncrasies; oversight I'm sure. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothin' gets by you babe! I've read it in every sourse I've read or seen so I think I'll let it stand. Unless someone requests it. Just recently read it in NYT obit. Which, by the way, has lots of stuff in it that I can add to her legacy. Same with Wash Post but naturally the Times is the richest and most insightful so that's the really important one. No other complete obits I don't have to pay for. So Lobo whoever had a great idea. Also he suggested searching articles, books on significant women in the 20th C. but that will require deep research that I have no time for anymore. Anyway, notice I've added some interesting details recently. All of these things, I think, enrich the text. More little things like these from the obits. I'll cite 'em all. When I get to the acting tecnique, I'll ask for help citing a features section on a DVD of one of her silents that discusses it at length. I have to do all this stuff in 2 days before I have to prep for classes. Thanks as always for trudging through this stuff with me.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty much on autopilot for that. I don't know if all browsers act the same, but FireFox treats the edit-summary box like like a search field and saves previous phrases entered; whenever I click the box, one of the top three choices is rv unsourced.
Not sure what you're referring to. Pls.explain.
Not important. Just saying zapping unreferenced additions (usually by anonymous newbie editors, though) has become almost a reflex. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, with your original phrasing you might have been fine, but now that you put in the direct quote about her face won't do things, I think it technically needs some cite; the rule might just apply to quotes from living people, but I think it's for everyone. No rush, though.
Yeah, was thinking the same: get the thing out of quotations. I'm on the case.
Uh huh. I saw an edit summary saying you did that; haven't read yet. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, just so you realize, the NYT obit is already in the references (as well as a 1936 article in the paper). Since they don't have authors, they can be cited by using {{Sfn|NYTimes|1990}} and {{Sfn|NYTimes|1936}}, respectively. Do you have a URL for the WaPo obit? If so, I can pre-add it to the ref list and you'll be able to just use {{Sfn|WaPost|1990}}. (I assume the year's the same...) Fat&Happy (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm amazed you went through the damn thing to find the NYT in the refs. Anyway, So this is all I have to do to cite the Times and the Post? But there their may be authors. Don't I have to get his/her name in the cit? Thanks for all,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's in the bibliography so there wasn't that much work involved. Also some specific references commented out, so it was used for more at one time. From the names on the refs, it looks like stuff you expanded with better refs from a bio. I just remembered seeing them there once, so that prompted me to check.
Adding: I was only referring to the two specific, uncredited NYT articles already in the bibliography and the WaPo obit, which I assumed would, like most obits, not have a byline. Yes, articles with authors need to have them mentioned. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist confusion again: Surprise! I was notified of a post on my watchlist. Got to it, read it, and started to respond. Victory! Now, when I go back to the page again, I see his/her name, but can't get back to what he/she wrote. All is see is "(diff | hist) . . Talk:Greta Garbo‎; 20:56 . . (+584) . . Lobo512 (talk | contribs). Any suggestions for the technical numskull (sp)? once i figure all this out, we can communicate this para-subject material on our watchlists, no?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the question correctly, clicking on the word diff will show you the before & after version from when the post was made; it's in the "Trivia or relevant?" section of Talk:Greta Garbo. And yes, probably a lot of the article discussion should probably be on the article's talk page where others can weigh in (the watch list is only a notification – you can't actually post anthing there)Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've written a blurb about her acting tecnique which I want to add to the legacy section. Now comes the formatting question, that we discussed earlier. I'm going to experiement with it myself. I'll send it to you and then follow your instructions. Here's the citation: Jeffrey Vance, presented by TCM, distributed by Warner Brothers. See you soon,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. No luck. Lost. Here's edited version of what should be included: DVD/Jeffrey Vance/(Maybe special features?/The Garbo Silents Collections/TCM Archives. I'm depending on you, man.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot over the weekend... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
superfab. Oh, and the date of release was 2005.Your Wikapal--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, we're now on Garbo XII. Who would have thought it would be so long? We should publish it as an article in WP.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news. I don't think you need to figure out how to cite a video commentary. THis fellow Lobo (seems like a he but I'm probably being sexist)showed me an example of something similar. So I reqorked it and it looks like this: Vance, Jeffrey (2005).  Missing or empty |title= (help) The Mysterious Lady, The Garbo Silents Collection: Audio commentary, DVD. (TCM). How's it look to you? I'll go ahead and add the the change to legacy section. If you think I should change it, gimme a shout.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC) :I'll add Archives to TCM.

Well, turns out i can't figure what to put before and after to attach it to a footnote. If you don't know, I can ask Lobo. Argggg! Will I ever be able to leave you alone in peace?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

<ref>Vance, Jeffrey (2005). ''The Mysterious Lady''. The Garbo Silents Collection: Audio commentary. DVD. ([[TCM]])</ref>
(There's really no need for the {{Cite journal}} template just to get a name and date in, unless you plan to use the same ref in several places with an {{Sfn}}, in which case you need to also include a "|ref=harv" parameter along with last, first, and year.) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I had actually done that but just now realized the preview dosn't show the content of the fn. I am very stupid and will stop bothering you for a while. Will nix the cite journal.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL. The preview shows footnotes if you're editing the entire article by clicking at the top right of the page. When editing individual sections, a lot of editors, myself included, sometimes check changes to footnotes by temporarily inserting {{Reflist}} at the bottom of the section, then removing it before saving the changes. The problem is that a lot of editors, myself included, sometimes forget to remove it. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
my dear fh my life would be a barren desert, with perhaps an old tire on it, without you. :) I'm about to add some new stuff once I get the cit formatting accomplished. I look forward to any feedback you might have or corrctions you think I need to make. Afterwords, do me a favor and delete the bit about the war person who called himself Garbo. Definitely trivia (or maybe you think otherwise). But I'm gotten rid of all the other trivia and this person might be indignant with me.Then, I have only one thing to elaborate on, which is the unprecedented eroticism bit. I found some bits and peices about it but can't get to for a while.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's me again. yadi yadi yadi. Well, it's all complete now except except for eroticism thing (though I'll check in and probably tweak-to-improve pose). BUT naturally, there is one problem. At the bottom of the reference sectio there's a red error line that I can't make heads or tails of. Any ideas about what's wrong and how to fix it? THen, you'll be pleased to know, i won't harass you any more! (unless you have things to say about my recent changes. If so, why don't we switch over to talk page for some fresh air? (i went ahead and deleted the war thing)--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I just figured out what the the frickin' red errors refer to. This will take me forever to fix (I trudge through the foratting stuff through trial and error) so I can't get to it for a while. Very interested to hear your thoughts on all my changes!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Some kindly individual fixed this for me and right away! Thank God! I was envisioning a nightmare scenario.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)