User talk:Lady Lotus/Archive 2

Runner, Runner (film)

I reverted your mass revert to this article. Your edit summary cited "unexplained removal of content and references". If you review the individual edits, however, the removals were all explained. If you disagree with all of the edits, please discuss on the talk page. If you disagree with individual edits, please address them individually. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Spencer Grammer

Hi. Please see Talk:Spencer Grammer § Relatives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch...

...at Chris Hemsworth. Mark me down for a "D'oh!"   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL it's all good, everyone has a "D'oh" moment! :P Lady Lotus (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlene’s religion

It may seem redundant, but irreligion and atheism are not the same thing? Has Seth MacFarlene specifically pointed out that he doesn’t have a religion? Or has he specifically pointed out that he’s atheistic? 〜Britannic124 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Cobie Smulders

Changing the picture might not have been a good thing. There was a massive debate over it. Rusted AutoParts 20:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bah! Editors! Thanks for the heads up, I switched them to where the old infobox pic is back and the new one is in the article. Compromise? Lady Lotus (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Names in plot section

Regarding your Looper (film) reverts: If you can show me a consensus or MOS guideline on this, I'd appreciate it. As far as I'm concerned, the first mention of a name should always be the full name, not last name only. I would even argue that WP:LASTNAME strongly implies this. The explicit scope of that guideline is biography articles, of course, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply in general. Otherwise, to an average reader, it can be disorienting. I don't see why using the full name (or, removing the names completely, which is also fairly common practice here for articles with good cast sections) is a problem. I wasn't trying to start a fight, but I feel pretty strongly that the current plot section needs to be changed one way or the other. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found that over the years of editing film articles, when it comes to the plot, when it should only be 400-700 words, using full names isn't totally necessary and it's redundant to put full names with wikilinks when there is a cast list right below, if there wasn't then doing full names and wikilinks in plot is fine but most of the time there is a cast list. Names should only be wikilinked when "proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." and when there is a cast list, it doesnt need to be linked in the plot. And the WP:LASTNAME (I think) doesn't really apply to film articles but more to biographies. It would be silly to do full names in the plots and then last names only for the cast list. In WP:CASTLIST, it states 'Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic.' and if necessary to get consensus but I don't find this type of thing necessary to get consensus for. I find that doing a cast list serves a reader better to then explain who is who than to just do names in the plot, that way they can read the plot for what it is and then if they have questions about the actors they can just go straight to the cast list. I find it all easier in the long run. Lady Lotus (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. We could also do it your way of omitting the names all together from the plot and having ONLY a cast list, I just found it easier for the reader to have the names, especially for films like Looper, because the "old joe"/"new joe" gets kinda confusing Lady Lotus (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Agreed that it would be silly to use full names in the plot and last names in the cast section. I suppose I'm inferring the general guideline from LASTNAME, but it makes sense to me -- though a cast section would be a perfectly reasonable exception even if it were a general guideline. I see your point about redundant full names and wikilinks as well, but while it all seems to make logical sense, last names only on first mention still just looks "wrong" to my eyes, and it's not something I've noticed much elsewhere on Wikipedia either. I'm also not fond of the idea of a reader potentially being initially disoriented (what if the actor's last name were something common?) and needing to know to look in another section to "disambiguate" someone's full name - in essence reading the article "backwards". I would love to get consensus (and maybe a clearer MOS guideline somewhere). I might go ask at Wikipedia talk:MOSBIO just to see what others think (if anyone's paying attention). --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not that concerned by it, if you want to do full names and wikilinks in plots, I won't stop you or change it in the future :) Lady Lotus (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

ROWSPAN in filmography tables

Thank you for undoing/removing them! A more specific explanation about the way these tables should be formatted is WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I have seen editors say "well, the multirow looks nicer, so it's just a choice among preferences". Having a specific consensus guideline for this type of content makes it clearer that all the competing preferences and their rationales have already been discussed. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Hey, I was wondering if I could get you to chime in at Talk:The Avengers: Age of Ultron#Renner. There's currently a discussion there about whether Jeremy Renner should be noted as being in the cast of this movie. Thank you for your time. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy and IMDB

Is there anything wrong in using IMDB as a source on Cillian Murphy? You removed a lot of references on that article that linked to IMDB. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

IMDb can be edited to have incorrect information; majority of it is correct but you cannot use it as a reference. A film that isn't wikilinked needs to be referenced by another credible, reliable source. Lady Lotus (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So, which sources are you planning to include that will replace IMDB? If there are not enough sources I will tag the article with {{Refimprove}}. Note that this is a good article and I will reassess the article if it continues to be poorly cited. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a featured article, my mistake. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 15:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all good, I knew what you meant, I didn't plan on replacing the references, just removing them to then cite with a {cn}. Lady Lotus (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom Holland

Hello, you have removed the majority of Tom Holland's awards from the summary in Filmography. Why? It looks very arbitrary. I don't think that the reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant: all the awards are well-established (there are articles about them in Wiki, for that matter), prestigious and meaningful, especially for a young actor whose career started from the much-praised role. If you would like to discuss this issue please use Talk page before undertaking such a significant edit. For the time being I am reverting your edit. Thank you. AdVal (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

All the National Board of Review Award, Chicago, Kansas City, Toronto are all awards that aren't "prestigious", not like an Empire Award, Academy, Bafta, Golden Globe, etc. It's the whole reason behind WP:INDISCRIMINATE is because you don't need to put every award he's every been nominated for, except for ones that have real value in the film industry. Takeing out those awards helps keep the clutter of awards to a minimum. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lady Lotus could not have put it better. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting actors or anyone else through indiscriminate laundry-listing of every minor or regional award. Anybody can create an "award" and start giving it out. That doesn't mean en encyclopedia is required to give them credence or an imprimatur. (I would, though, say that the National Board of Review is a venerable organization that was one of the first to champion film as art, and even if there influence isn't as strong as it was, it remains historically important). --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hepburn image

Hi, it's ridiculous that we keep reverting each other so I'm going to talk here! How strongly do you feel about right-aligning the Katharine Hepburn image? I feel really strongly about it being left aligned, it looks so wrong to have her facing right into the edge of the computer like that! I definitely think the "facing into the text" preference of WP:MOSIM overrides WP:STACKING...both are legitimate, guideline-based reasons, but I don't think stacking is much of a problem here (in what way does the page look "lopsided")? If you don't feel strongly about the issue, I'd be grateful if you'd agree to me realigning it to the left. --Loeba (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As strongly as you feel about it facing text, it's as strongly as I feel about not having 3 pictures all being on the left. The page looks better balanced when images are staggering left-right or right-left. I've never really had another editor feel so strongly about the image facing the text as you. Are you sure your just not being sensitive about it since it is one of your feature articles ;) Lady Lotus (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I am extra-sensitive about it, given that I worked extremely hard on the article and care about it. Well, how about I move the first image of "Hollywood stardom" to the right instead? Then there's more variation in alignment (left, left, right, right, left...) but I won't go crazy every time I look at the article? --Loeba (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol works for me :) Lady Lotus (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I think I like the alternative even less. --Loeba (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ewan McGregor Awards and Nominations page

Hello Lady Lotus! Can I just ask why you removed the awards and nominations I added, except the Teens Choice Awards? Is it because they are no references? I was pretty shocked (and devastated, actually) to see that they were all gone when I logged in this morning because I worked so hard on adding those awards :) Happyica99 (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Vanessa Redgrave & Ewan McGregor

Hi, what is your reason for removing the Tony Awards and the Olivier Awards from Redgrave's awards page?, since they are the most important stage awards in the US & UK. Also, not everyone who looks at awards tables will be familiar with the awards, so what is the problem with briefly explaining who presents the awards. Surely one of the points of having a separate page for a performers awards, is that there is room for explanations and more than just a handful of awards. For the record, I agree with many of your edits that remove numerous critics award nominations and wins, but I do think there should be a place for major critical wins. I also had no problem with the teen choice awards being there, but if almost every award is seen as indiscriminate, then what would be the point of awards pages?, which personally, I think are good additions to wiki. L1975p (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That must have been a mistake, I would not purposefully remove a Tony or Olivier award so I promise that was not intentional. The explanations would be fine if the award itself didn't have it's own wikipedia page to explain all of that but since all of them do, a user can click on the separate page and see all that info, so it just is simply not necessary and you don't see it on other highly acclaimed awards pages. I do believe your edits are in good faith, so don't think I'm reverting you just to be a troll lol Also, you left a few brackets up when removing the wikilinks, which I understand why you did as to not repeat a link but just make sure you get all the brackets before you do it. The main awards I have problems with is the numerous film critics awards (Phoniex, Houston, Kansas City, etc.) and any award that doesn't have a separate awards page for their awards like Golden Globes has a Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy because then I feel that it's lack of notability is in line for removal for WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But the British Academy Scotland Awards don't, and I don't find them as prestigious as the BAFTAs, if you want to add the Goya Awards that's fine. I just try to keep awards that aren't as prestigious out due to the indiscriminate as to not list every award an actor has ever been nominated for. Lady Lotus (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. So you have no problem with me putting back the Tony's, Olivier's and 1966 BAFTA? as well as her BAFTA Fellowship. Also, are you OK with me putting back the information about her being one of the few actresses with the triple crown, (Oscar, Emmy and Tony) in the lead section? L1975p (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Beat ya to it :) However, are you sure you're not talking about the 1966 bafta that's already there for Morgan? The article I referenced said she was nominated for one in 1966 but then 20 years later got one for Prick Up Your Ears Lady Lotus (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the Morgan nomination was for Best British Actress in a film (losing to Liz Taylor), but in the same year she won Best Television Actress. The reference I provided took you straight to Vanessa Redgrave's page on the BAFTA site. L1975p (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Whew

Hello LL. I almost had a mild stroke when I saw this edit today. I couldn't imagine why such a good and reliable editor had removed so much info. Naturally, when I looked at the edit I realized what you were doing and was glad that you had been bold moving the table to a separate article. You certainly are under no obligation to leave an edit summary but you can help this old codger of an editor from panicking if you do. I know this reads like I am moaning and I apologize for that its just that I've used up seven of my nine lives and I thought I was losing another one :-) Cheers and thanks for all that you do here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL it's ok and I'm so sorry for nearly causing you to lose another life ;) When I do edits like that (take an entire section away to then move to another page) I usually don't do a summary for it because I figure editors will look at the difference and see what I was trying to accomplish and but from now on I will to save you from stroking out on us :) Lady Lotus (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply and your understanding. Best regards and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Age of Ultron

I appreciate the sentiment, but please stop trying to force a discussion closed that you're really not even involved in (other than seemingly trying to close it). If you have something constructive to add, please do, but so far your comments have not been helpful. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And you consider you and Rusted going back and forth and just repeating yourselves and now just making it personal constructive? Like I said, take it to each others talk page if you want to continue that conversation but it's not being beneficial to editing Avengers: Age of Ultron. You wanted Renner added, he's added, youre just upset that it wasnt with one of your sources. There are better things to do than go around in circles. All of what you said on that talk page is your opinion that has been continuously debated with numerous editors but it still continues. I closed the discussion as it was going nowhere. If I need to get administrators in the mix i will. Lady Lotus (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of how the discussion, which again you were not involved with, was unfolding. And please don't threaten to "involve" an admin, two can play at that game, and I think you'd lose. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how YOU were the one that invited me to the Renner discussion in the first place, it's funny that because I don't agree with you you are telling me to get lost. You have 3 editors telling you to let it go. 7 editors telling you that your sources weren't reliable and here you are...continuing it even though your whole discussion about adding Renner is a moot point. If you chose to get an administrator involved, I think you'd be surprised at the outcome. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And you contributed helpfully (you disagreed, but you contributed) to the initial discussion. That latter discussion (the "Frustrated" discussion), in so far as your contributions were concerned, amounted to "this discussion is over because I say it is". You never responded to the issues I presented, namely that a mass of editors there are engaging in OR, you chose to push it under the rug instead. I like that you totally ignore the five editors that supported inclusion, BTW. As for being surprised, I truly doubt it. This place stopped surprising me long ago, lately it's just been disappointing me. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The latter conversation 'frustrated" having been inappropriate for that specific talk page in the first place. If you were frustrated with the lack of use of your sources and disagreed with editors when they said it wasn't sufficient enough then you should have taken it to their talk pages but not have continued the debate on the Avengers talk page. And I only commented on it saying this conversation was over because I wasn't seeing anything constructive to the page other than you repeating yourself over the fact that you gave numerous "reliable" sources but they weren't used and another one was used instead. And then it became a back and forth between you and Rusted that slowly dwindled down into just throwing accusations at each other. I'm not saying shut up, all I said was to take it to another talk page and off of the Avengers. Lady Lotus (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Amanda

Hi, Lady Lotus. Please know you have my utter respect as a fellow editor, and I wouldn't undo an edit of yours lightly whatsoever. At Amanda Bynes, the issue of the image has been brought up in the past, and the feeling was that a full shot of the subject is more encyclopedic than a partial image. I hope you understand and don't take offense; it's not a new issue on the page. With thanks and regards, Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's all good dear, I figured if it were reverted it's not a big deal because it's the same picture, I'm good with the image either way. I don't take offense if you revert me because I know if you ever do, it's for a good reason. :) Lady Lotus (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You are a kind and generous spirit. Working with you is always, sincerely, a delight. With best regards, Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You are so lovely, I always love working with you :) Lady Lotus (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Gopichand Lagadapati

Hello Lauren! I really appreciate your effort in editing the article Gopichand Lagadapati . The citations you have asked for would be quite difficult to provide. The creation of articles over the internet became popular only after 2003 in andhrapradesh. Try to google you get the list of films but not supporting articles. There is lot more information waiting to be updated in cinema.TV articles are far behind to get written about.I will only be able to provide video links . The schools or colleges don't have any websites of their own so I doubt i would get some references yet i would try .As an example Here is reference page of one of the famous stars from Andhrapradesh Akkineni Nagarjuna. You will find his details while he studied in Usa.But you won't find a supporting citation while he studied in India..Its quite complicated to provide references because of internet usage back then. Hope you understand my concerns..Thanks, Rock talk 21:33, 22 November 2013

If there isn't any supporting evidence or references to verify he went to those schools then why is it in his article? Lady Lotus • talk • contribs 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would still try because i like myself the articles to be clean. Thanks. Hope there is no time limit . Rock talk 21:39, 22 November 2013

Photos

Hi, LL! I'll look for it. Guidelines do evolve and change so it's possible I may be remembering something old. Gimme a few mins. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's possible this has changed. I've found a reference to the permissible use of purely decorative images here. I want to look a little more, but if I'm reading this correctly, it looks as if decorative images may be allowed. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well that's just confusing, changing guidelines and whatnot lol That doesn't make any sense, I understood not using decorative images because then you could have 5 pictures up from the same event and it'd be fine. I really appreciate you looking though! Thanks Lady Lotus • talk • contribs 17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait: It gets more confusing: Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers."

I've asked an admin who knows image issues to see if he can clarify. I swear, Wikipedia policies and guidelines get more extensive by the day. I imagine it'd be harder for a newcomer to learn than it was for use back in the relatively early years. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LL. Looks like I was wrong — free-use images are OK for decorative use. Here's what User:Magog the Ogre, an admin who knows image-use well, says: "In terms of copyright, you may indeed use free use images in a purely decorative manner. You're probably getting confused with Wikipedia:NFCC#8, which says that fair use images must serve an educational purpose beyond decoration (paraphrasing)."

Straight from the Ogre's mouth!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol thank you so much! Lady Lotus • talk 18:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

David Labrava

I'm rather surprised that an experience editor would make the faux pas of interpreting a subject's life and drawing conclusions about it. None of your sources say he is a "former" Hells Angel, on the contrary. The first one says he is, regardless of the age of the interview. Your assertion that he must not be a Hells Angel because he's a Buddhist is problematic at best. Find a source that explicitly says he is no longer with that group, and use that. Until then, he's a Hells Angel. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even read this before I left my comment on your talk page lol but fair enough :) But you're right, I shouldn't just assume that by him practicing means he's no longer a member. I'm all about WP:RS so he's a current member until something else comes along. My apologies, I didn't mean to come off as controversial Lady Lotus • talk 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we crossed each other in the talk page road :) Don't worry about it, no biggie. Nothing controversial. Best, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr. Bio

Hello,

I suggest changing this sentence: "His father, a drug addict," to "His father, a former drug addict,", or a drug addict when Robert was __," or something resembling that, as Robert Downey, Sr. is not currently a drug addict.

Thanks! 69.37.220.160 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would discuss this on the RDJ talk page but I can look into changing this. Thanks :) Lady Lotus • talk 00:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Rudd

Hey, I know you're great with articles about living actors and filmmakers so if you get a chance you might want to take a look at Paul Rudd. It could really use the attention from an editor of your caliber. If not, its okay. Hopefully someone will come along. I tagged the most glaring problems but it probably needs to be rewritten entirely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You are too sweet and I thank you, and I'll go look at it right now, see if I can help :) Lady Lotus • talk 16:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you wanna go look at his "Career" section and tell me what you think, edit whatever you think needs it. I basically had to rewrite it like you said lol Lady Lotus • talk 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Great job! The only thing it needs now is additional referencing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks!

And a happy holiday and Merry Christmas to you, too, Lady L! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

False removal? What is your problem?

You are repeatedly editing and removing factual and accurate information from the Katia Elizarova page. Including maliciously removing images from commons that I own and have uploaded as the owner. It is clear that there is some kind of issue you have with the page and personality, which has resulted in your being blocked in the past. Please stop it. I appreciate this may be challenging for you, but perhaps engage the owner of content before you remove it and cause undue problems. Merry Christmas. I appreciate having to now un do you efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

They licensing and ownership of the images I uploaded were all valid. Hence I cannot fathom your assertion they are not. they are 100% shot and owned by me. And any such attempt to fabricate multiple account use is entirely incorrect. Is it appropriate to edit and remove content without first investigating? On what basis do you claim they are invalid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am the owner of those images. Please do not make allogations of false ownership. The ownership is incontestable. I suggest you investigate before making any undue edits. Please refrain from making accusations without grounds. And also from abusing edits. I shall be forced to report you for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

My investigation has led to prove the images are not yours. Like I said, if they are, prove it. Otherwise, do not re-add the images. Lady Lotus • talk 16:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no proof they are not mine. This page and images are regularly removed and edited beyond my control by people such as yourself who fail to investigate ownership before delition. Again you have demonstrated this is the case. I invite you to investigate thoroughly, and yet you have not. I am the owner of the images, there is no other claim to them nor will there be, and if you are making a claim in behalf of someone then please let me know as that would be someone falsely claiming rights over my images. Otherwise you are falsely accusing me, the owner if content, of not being the owner. Also. Please note that images were supplied to mail@katiaelizarova.com for use on Facebook page. Why not contact the page to varify if you are so diligent. Don't assume that I am the owner have not freely offered the images for use by others. I find your actions rather uncalled for and suggest investigation of ownership in future before simply removing content I choose to freely offer to commons.

When a photographer claims ownership, they have proof to show for it, example: Gage Skidmore. You keep saying that both images are yours yet that's all it is, is just your repeated cries demanding that they are yours. You have uploaded multiple images to Commons saying there yours and have been removed and not just by me. If you wish to have an administrator step it and investigate themselves then by all means go ahead. I think you might find the outcome not in your favor because when an image is reported to the Commons, that's what they do is investigate to see if the image can be found elsewhere and when it can, then the image is deleted. Lady Lotus • talk 17:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would welcome a proper investigation and vindication for false removal and accusation. I fear your I don't think they are yours so what I say goes attitude is totally unacceptable. And childish. I own the images. I invite that investigated if you so desire. Feel free to send me an email address to send further examples to etc. However, stop removing my content, particularly accusing me falsely of not owning my images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Your recent editing history at Katia Elizarova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

nomination for deletion of Lyndsey Turner

I can see you have a maybe legitimate issue with the editor who created this article, but that is no reason to AfD it: she has a drop-dead CV & is clearly notable, with shows at both of England's major subsidised theatres, as wellas shows at places like the Royal Court Theatre and the Almeida Theatre. A quick internet search would have shown this.TheLongTone (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I only nominated the article because the user was known to upload images or create articles soley based for fan purposes. I have never heard of her, and thought they only created the article because they were somehow connected to Benedict Cumberbatch. I didn't nominate the article just because of who created it and youll see that I havent argued anyones comments when they debated her notability. Don't assume bad faith. Lady Lotus • talk 23:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, & if an editor is doing questionable stuff it's only natural to furtle around to see what else they are up to. What I am saying is that if you had read the article before you nominated it at AfD you would have seen that it clearly established notability if one knew anything about English theatre (& of course if the content ws true). Since you're American it's understandable that you don't. But we're not in Kansas, Dorothy, and nobody knows anything like everything...I myself do not know the name of a single American 'football' player... so you should have done a quick search: if you had put "Lyndsey Turner director" into Google you would have got not the usual slew of dreck but a page more or less full of links to major coverage in mainstream media such as The Times, The Guardian, the BBC....

what I am accusing you of is laziness. I actually try to spend most of my time on wikipedia adding content, but when I do nominate stuff for deletion I always do some kind of check first. Only takes a couple of minutes.TheLongTone (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I cant debate the laziness but it's really only because I've been on vacation for 2 weeks and still am and the only thing I have is my phone and not my computer so ordinarily I would do a search but it's rather exhausting doing it on a small screen. I figured if she wasn't notable, other editors would find it so and delete the page, or if she was (in this case) then other editors would say she was and remove the nomination and we'd all move on. I've only ever nominated like 5 pages for deletion, it's not as though i go around nominating pages. Lady Lotus • talk 01:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, enjoy the rest of your vacation you young person you, can't stop fiddling with you mobile telephones any of you! But do do a bit of work before you delete tag: I think any activity on wikipedia, especially its murky underbelly, is best done on a big screen & keyboardTheLongTone (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lol agreed! Happy editing :) Lady Lotus • talk 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A personalized New Year greeting

Hope you have a bright 2014! Acalamari 23:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady Lotus, Happy New Year! It was good to meet you in 2013; I look forward to our future interactions. :) Best. Acalamari 23:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Aw thanks so much! Same to you! Lady Lotus • talk 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Katia Elizarova

D'oh! Would you mind if I did it? I'd feel less off-the-ball that way. Gooooood catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, wait, turns out I'm not so oblivious: The cite is from The Times of London, which is a subscription site. I can only see the first couple of paragraphs. If you can access the rest and add to the quote in the footnote with ellipses, that would be great. Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see where the confusion stems. I was referring to the Times cite in the lead ("Katia Elizarova (also credited as Katya Elizarova; born Ekaterina Igorevna Elizarova, circa 1985-1986)[2]) and you're referring to the London Evening Standard cite in the infobox. Okey-doke ... got it now. I'll go ahead and do the grunt work — you did all the detective work! — :-) — --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, credit where credit is due! With great regards as always, Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Cumberbatchstagedoor.jpg

Can you provide a source URL or a print source for the image? Your comments at my talk page are a good reason for deletion at FFD, but they're not enough for speedy deletion as a copyvio, so you'll need to give me a URL or a print source. Please note that F3 isn't for images of this sort: it covers images whose uploaders licensed them too restrictively, and images taken from other sources that licensed them too restrictively. It's not for images tagged with free licenses, since they're either free or they're out-and-out copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this specific image was uploaded three other times by the same user, I listed the link onto the other images pages and all the other images the user uploaded got deleted I don't know why this one didn't get deleted with them. Easy google image search will pull up all the other images that came from a tumblr. Lady Lotus • talk 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva's year of birth

Hi Lady Lotus. I've reviewed your edits to Xenia Tchoumitcheva. I'm not sure how carefully you've looked at references concerning Xenia's year of birth. Would you mind having a look? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I never looked at her talk page and that was like the only English reference regarding her birthday. But thank you for pointing it out :) Lady Lotus • talk 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady,

please re-read the articles and the new interview in 2014. She has clearly stated this: "Despite what some magazines write about me, never gave in finance to become a DJ and TV presenter. I quit because I I wanted my business" google translate from Romanian. So please do not revert a new corrected and more reliable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.93.150 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Contact

Dear Lady Lotus - is there a way to contact you via email? It's regarding some changes on Xenia Tchoumitcheva's profile

Kindest Regards, Alex

I don't give out my email unless it's to users that I've known and worked with for some time. Anything you would like to talk to me about concerning Tchoumitcheva's page you can talk to me on here, it's what it's here for LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ok I understand, could you please contact us using xeniacontact@gmail.com please?

thank you very much for your good work.

Heads up - to start a new section of a talk page, the newest addition must start at the bottom not the top. There is even a button next to the "Read" and "Edit" tabs called "New Section" designed for this purpose. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding email, the best thing to do when discussing articles is to right here on wikipedia so the discussion can be cemented into talk pages and history for users to refer back to and so other editors can give their opinions if need be. Also, if discussions get out of hand, administrators can step it whereas with email they have no jurisdiction. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Annajamesphoto.png

Unfortunately, I can't quite understand your rationale. Do we have any images that were definitely taken by this uploader that couldn't have been taken by the guy in the picture? False claims of authorship mean that this is less likely to be by the uploader, but they don't mean that the uploader's a woman. Meanwhile, it's possible to take a photo of yourself with a camera that's out of arm's reach, using a Self-timer, so there's no reason to assume that this is a copyvio. Reason to guess that, yes, but (unless I'm missing something) not enough for a speedy deletion. Please correct me if I've misunderstood something. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that uploader and also under the accounts of other names (sockpuppeted accounts) uploaded numerous files. If you start here at Files for deletion at the File:Cumberbatchtheatre(cropped).jpg and work your way down all the way until File:Cumberbatchstagedoor.jpg, you'll see that the user was uploading pictures left and right of Cumberbatch under a false claim to ownership. The user (now blocked) was uploading them for fan purposes, Anna James was a girlfriend of Cumberbatch, and uploaded it under a false claim also. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva main photo

Dear Lady Lotus, I am representative of Xenia. I changed the photo by direct demand of Xenia. This photo is owned by me and Xenia. You can contact her by Facebook or email on the site to check, she is ready to prove it. Also, this photo is from real life, not from photo sessions, we do not need any copyright or license agreements as described in Wiki Commons upload rules: 'public figures and people photographed in public places'. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Previous photo was uploaded by Xenia's competitors to harm her image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenke.by (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless if you represent her or not, you need proof that you have rights to the image, the image from her website has an ARR license at the bottom meaning even the pictures are under that license, otherwise you look like some fan that downloaded it for her. I would be careful stating you represent her per WP:SPA and the previous photo was just a image for people to identify her by, nothing of her "image" was being harmed just by having the picture up. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

PS. and the rules stating "public figures and people photographed in public places" is if YOU took it, not just any photo in general. You either took the photo yourself or have the author who did take it's permission. Both of which you have to prove. Unless she took a picture like Grey DeLisle did for her infobox photo. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how she can prove my words? Phone call, Skype call, Message, Official email? Any way, she is ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenke.by (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTRS. Include the photo you want to upload and a statement that you own the copyright on it or have the author's permission and proof of said permission and an agreement to release it under a free license. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lady Lotus. I got official License To Use Image from Xenia. Could you please help me to find, where(email) I need to send this, to change the photo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenke.by (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you understand that it doesn't matter if Xenia "approves" the photo, the ONLY thing that matters is having permission from the person who TOOK THE PHOTO. If you do not have permission from the author then you have nothing. If you do then you go to WP:OTRS and email them with proof said permission. Understand? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Aisling Bea

An imperfect image is clearly better than no image, unless that image is in some way misleading. In this case the image provided a fairly good idea of what she looked like, it wasn't in a 'disparaging light', and was the only one that seemed to be available with a licence we could use. Could you explain why it is better to have no image?

But the image you've now uploaded is clearly much better than the previous one. JMiall₰ 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Michael Gambon credits) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Michael Gambon credits, Lady Lotus!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice list.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Utterly unfounded sockpuppet insinuations - you should know better

Sockpuppet insinuations without any shreds of evidence against not one but two established users are irresponsible, disruptive and abusive, If you think mentioning "gossip" is evidence of anything beyond having read WP:BLP (which says things like "Avoid gossip" and "Avoid repeating gossip" (not to mention that WP:GOSSIP shortcut), you have no business filing SPIs of editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You have no business editing wikipedia generally Hullaballoo, your edits to cinema biographies are utterly unfounded, few of us like you mate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you keep wanting to throw WP:BLPGOSSIP at people then maybe you should understand what it means for it to be actual gossip (which I do remove from pages if it is actual gossip) because according to that, it says is "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true" and when you have 3 reliable sources from NY Daily News, People and LA Times all stating the same thing, then it IS NOT gossip. And when there are 4 new accounts that pop up all of a sudden that all repeat the same exact reason for removing a relationship in personal life as "gossipy" then yes there is evidence that makes you look guilty as well as Fat&Happy.

• Revision by Ag12ent on 10:45, January 21, 2014 (Reverted to edits by award winning Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; Gossipy; Male actor does not say is legit; Section blanking)

"The Award Winning Hullaballoo Wolfowitz?"

They either know you and created the account specifically to back your interest (sockpuppet) or it is you (sockpuppet). Either way, the accounts will be looked at and most likely blocked. YOU should know better. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you!

	A cup of hot cocoa for you!
	Thanks for the barnstar! Here's a cup of hot cocoa. I don't know where you are but where I am it's freezing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend! Yea, it's even cold here in Florida so I can only imagine how cold the rest of the county is lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner

I assume that you don't keep track of articles you've nominated for afd: this article was kept since she is clearly notable, but deleted for reasons I am not privy to. Whatever, I'm sure the recreation will get blown away. As for the recreation, I smelt socks as well. Bet it isn't as cold in Florida as it is in London.TheLongTone (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well when I first nominated the article, it was like votes all the way around to keep it so I figured it was kept but I saw it had finally been deleted due to socks making it and not being entirely notable enough. These socks are pissing me off can I just say lol And yea 57 here but it's chilly lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Figured there was more to it due to the blanking of the page for the first aft by an admin, I really can't see that she's not notable enough, given the pathetically low bar for sportspeople or pop muicians. If she as a 'Korean Idol group' (whatever that may be) the single production at the Arcola would establish notabity. Funny place, Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:SinusQueen has just recreated this article....

Sweet jeebus this guy doesn't give up. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like he's already blocked. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston Partner status

Why have you changed this? A partner is a person involved in an intimate relationship. There is no concrete evidence that Aniston and Theroux are no longer involved, other than tabloid and media speculation. The removal of her partner is not warranted, as there is a distinction already in place here in respect to the difference between marriage and partner. It's inconsistent, as you must now change all partner distinctions viewable on wikipedia, not just Aniston's without concrete evidence. I'm going to forward this to Aniston's Public Relations rep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradEver (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Partner parameter if for unmarried life partners not boyfriend/girlfriends even if they were engaged. I remove all boyfriend/girlfriend relationships from any article I find, not just Anistons. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You could have added the (engaged) status, rather than remove the partner designation, as they are still engaged. I have contacted her rep. via email. If marriage is your criteria which designates a partner, you must remove the status from other engaged couples as well. You're creating an imbalanced atmosphere and making wikipedia very unreliable. I have an entire list of engaged celebrity couples who you should also remove the partner status from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradEver (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I explained on the edit summary, the partner parameter is for for unmarried life partners not for boyfriend/girlfriends and yes even if they are engaged. I even said that he could be readded if they get married but not before. Since they are engaged and planned on getting married then it would take them out of the 'life partner' category. A suitable use of the parameter for example would be Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. I don't understand what her "reps" have to do with this, I'm going by Wiki guidelines and per Infobox person, it states just that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Movie

Hi, Lady Lotus. If you have a chance, could you keep an eye on The Lego Movie? One fannish editor keeps adding obsessively, "The film received universal acclaim," a hyperbolic phrase that per discussions at one of the Harry Potter movies and elsewhere we don't use. Lord save us from fans....--Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely and yes fans will be the death of me lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Fashanu

Hi, here you replaced gay with homosexual, as if the two were perfectly interchangeable. The reality is the source even refers to Fashanu as being gay identified, and homosexual is considered pejorative when referring to most modern gay and lesbian people. Can you see why that should likely be changed back? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Movie

Pick any movie article and i'm sure it has a mention in the lead of the critical reception. The lead is meant to summarize an article and theirs a whole reception section, that should be summarized in the lead. Koala15 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but don't attach it to the film release date, reword it and it can stay. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Sorry, what did I do? I don't understand your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanLuck (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are very close to those of numerous sock puppeted accounts in the past. There has been an epidemic of one user making over 12+ accounts under different names to then make the same edit over and over. Just checking to make sure you aren't one of them. If you are, your account will be deleted. If it's a mistake, my sincerest apologies. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, okay. Well, I'm not. But what a welcome in Wiki.KoreanLuck (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's funny because you still edit the same exact articles the other socks did. Conveniently. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about your notifications

Considering that Fairyspit has been blocked from editing, just what do you expect to achieve by posting all those notifications on their talk page? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize that by notifying the sock puppet each time that it notified the sock master (ie: Fairyspit). It just automatically notifies them when the sock is investigated. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of philosophy/religion

Hello! I just want to report the unnecessary removal of Benedict Cumberbatch's philosophy/religion on his page. The editor reasoned that it's "not much and not interesting" to who? Him/her? It's encyclopedic. It's not trivial as religion and philosophy are always included in wikipedia. It also has several reliable sources like The Hollywood Reporter and Time magazine. How reliable can one get from that?

These are the links I am talking about: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2154986,00.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/benedict-cumberbatch-confessions-fifth-estate-625408?page=2

Thank you. 177.67.82.39 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree about the not being reliably sourced. Some argue that the Hollywood Reporter isnt reliable and you have to have a login or subscription to read the Time link you gave and those arent the kind of links you can use. If you find a more reliable source Id be more than happy to readd it as I find religion notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is not a reliable source?! It's not a glorified gossip mag like People ( cited repeatedly in Wikipedia articles)! That's one of the oldest publications in the entertainment industry. Together with Deadline, The Wrap and Variety they form the backbone of trade reporting in Hollywood. Every entertainment site references them for they are the ones who break casting news. It's also a quote directly from the actor. How can that not be reliable? http://sabew.org/2012/05/covering-the-entertainment-biz-hollywood-reporter-vs-variety/ I have found scans of the Time magazine here http://cumberbum.tumblr.com/post/64381211521/magazine-scans-of-the-article-about-benedict-in. It's on the second page if you really want to check. 177.67.82.39 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I just need a follow up on this. Thanks.177.67.82.39 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Plays directed by Danny Boyle

Category:Plays directed by Danny Boyle, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fairyspit

Hi LL, I am wondering about User:Over Hill and Under Hill. He has certainly recently edited many of the same pages as Clueingforlooks and Fairyspit. Account created 9 Feb. Just a thought. Thanks Span (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No I know, I've been wondering about them myself. Any new comer that starts adding loads of edits to Cumberbatch all at once I wonder about, because thats what they usually do. So far, their edits have been alright with no reverting of other users but we can keep an eye on them :) LADY LOTUS • TALK

Having another look at their contributions and the fact that they uploaded an nonfree file of Jonny Lee Miller, I have added them to the Fairyspit investigation. You are more than welcome to add any additional comments Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing wikipedia for a while now. That is just one particular article that caught my eye. I didn't realise that providing productive edits that haven't caused conflict with other editors (or focusing on one particular article at a time) is reason to presume that I am involved in sock puppetry. This is a new account that I created and I used to be Jak Fisher. And as you can see if you researched this properly my account was created February 5th, not February 9th. This is the same time that I closed my old account as you will see when you check when it was previously used. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? Well again if you check from my old account you will see that I have uploaded images before. This is in regards to the Jak and Daxter series, though it hasn't been used and will soon be deleted. -

If you've been "editing for a while" then you would know better than to upload an ARR image straight from a copyrighted website. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Thats going on the assumption that I have an in-depth knowledge of how it works. I don't. I usually use wikipedia for editing articles which is what you are investigating me for, and the few attempts I've made at trying to upload an image or get to grips with what has to be done have been unsuccessful. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to retract the sock accusation if you'd be more willing to follow guidelines, not upload copyrighted images and not be defensive when other users try to help like Span did here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Was the investigation borne out, then? Not sure on the technicalities of what you are looking for and how you know when you've found it. Thanks Span (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I did start the investigation but the admin and check user want more info on how they are similar to the sock puppet (ie: similar edits that they make, same summaries for edits, same verbiage and editing styles) Either it's a massive coincidence that he's just mass editing the same exact pages as the socks or he's getting smarter about how he is editing the pages. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for coming across as defensive but I don't think you can cite that as a reason not to retract the sock accusations. In regards to following guidelines on how to upload images to wikipedia I think I have some work to do there alright. Thanks. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Lee

Eeks Lady, not sure your adding of the infobox will go down well. It was intentionally without one. I don't want to see another infobox war please weep weep ....♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry I didn't know there was a reason for it not having one. I saw a contribution from an editor adding it with only the birth date so I corrected it by adding the death date too plus other info usually added to an infobox. My bad! I won't revert if it's undone! LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's OK. Schrod has reverted. I generally support infoboxes in non biographical articles but I'm not too keen on them in actor articles as they seem a little redundant to me. If we reinstated the old actor infobox with the gold and silver thing and more parameters to convey actual information about the career then I'd be more inclined to support them! Been working on Philip Seymour Hoffman of late which should be ready for GA soon. I miss him badly, he was terrific wasn't he.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have loved him since the first time I saw him in Twister as a kid. He was remarkable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mocap work

hi. i just want to emphasize that cumberbatch didn't just provided the voice but also the motion capture for smaug and the necromancer. this should be mentioned in the lead. it's highly publicized as seen here, http://www.hypable.com/2013/05/13/benedict-cumberbatch-reveals-how-he-convinced-peter-jackson-to-let-him-motion-capture-smaug/, http://screencrush.com/benedict-cumberbatch-the-hobbit-smaug-motion-capture/, http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2013/12/12/benedict_cumberbatch_sees_smaug_as_sexy.html.

If you want video proof ( around 0.52 mark), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31-XS3tSZcE

i have also an issue about his theatre work in the first paragraphs of the page. there is no proof that he started in 2001, we just know that his first credits appeared and was documented in 2001. that's unreliable and pure conjecture. same with his professional stage debut in love labour's lost. unlike hawking which was explicitly reported as his first lead role in television, his work in love labour's lost is hardly mentioned in his profiles and as i checked in his credits page it didn't even have a reliable source to begin with. cumberbatch was just mentioned in a review. i think it is better to mention his work in after the dance or frankenstein as they are performed in a world-class theatre, he is the lead actor in both, it's highly publicized and are his most known theatre works, and he has also received loads of awards for both including "the triple crown of london theatre" for frankenstein. he talks about both extensively here http://vimeo.com/86804331 and says that the two productions are milestones in his work in theatre.122.100.200.112 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, is this Fairyspit? Just yes or no. Second, if you want the fact that he did the motion capture for smaug and the necromancer also, put it in the body of the article instead of trying so hard to put it into the lead. The lead is more of a summary and it's mainly the voice that people know him for for those films. Yes, the motion capture is important but you can go into more detail into the body of it instead of loading down the lead.

As far as his theatre work, I see no reason to have Love's Labour's Lost because it was his first documented stage work with a source saying it was. But Frankenstein can also be added because yes it is a notable work he was in. You have to understand that sometimes editing Wiki isn't always going to go your way and sometimes things aren't going to be added because other users won't find it notable. You can't edit war with people just to get your way. It's not how this works. There has to be consensus. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

no. why are you accusing everyone of being fairyspit?

i just don't get the double standard here. andy serkis has always been credited for his motion capture work but when cumberbatch does it, it's not motion capture but just voice. in reviews, in promos, in profiles he's credited as such so saying that "people know him only for that" is subjective. better put in entire factual work. it's a short description about his work which is factual and yet it's being deprived in this page. it's not an elaboration it's the work itself. this just further proves that motion capture work is unrecognized. also, the children's monologue is simply a charity event and compared to his other theatre work is simply insignificant and should either be mentioned in his theatre section or his charity work and definitely not the lead. after the dance should be included instead of it. i have found an article stating that it's his first lead role in theatre so that's a milestone and much more significant than a one-off event for an organization. http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/starinterviews/benedict-cumberbatch--stepping-into-the-lead-6475519.html122.100.200.112 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Fairyspit has an obsession with Cumberbatch and was also really big on emphasizing the need to add the motion capture to his lead. I asked, I didn't accuse.

I added The Children's Monologues because it's when he first worked with Danny Boyle on it along with Frankenstein. Theres nothing wrong with having it in the lead just because it's not the one you are obsessing over. I made an entire paragraph dedicated to his voice AND MOTION CAPTURE in the hobbit series in his film section. Boo hoo that it isn't in the lead. Andy Serkis did full body, head to toe, worked in the film in the motion capture suit, while it's just Cumberbatch's face so that might be why it's more pronounced in Serkis' lead.

Granted I skimmed and didn't fully read every word of the source you gave, but I don't see anywhere where it says it's his FIRST big lead. Just that it's a lead. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

it's just that i am a motion capture artist myself and i don't understand when people disregard the art form. and if you cared to watch the videos i have provided (to verify facts, of course), cumberbatch also did "full body, head to toe, worked in the film in the motion capture suit" (if that's your criteria of doing motion capture, facial capture is motion capture by the way). the lack of knowledge about it shouldn't be the basis of it not being recognized. here are screen caps: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgwTRx-IUAAY-eQ.jpg:large And here is a moving one: http://24.media.tumblr.com/df78e48ee80e78487cbcdda9d7a3e373/tumblr_n0ume5j79o1scj2tlo2_400.gif

is it really significant to mention the first time he worked with danny boyle? reading it, you didn't even mention it as his first time working with boyle so i don't really get what's significant about having it there. if you check his credits and have knowledge in plays, all his roles before after the dance and frankenstein are supporting roles. come to think of it, it is way better to include hedda gabler in the lead even if its a supporting role rather than the charity gala that is the children's monologue because he was nominated for an oliver award (UK's tony's) for it. and if you cared about the BAFTA video i have provided it mentions after the dance and frankenstein as big turning points in his career. i am just presenting two plays that are more significant and he's more well known at (award recognition, constant attribution in the press) than love labour's lost (claiming it as his first professional role is a leap from just a review, hardly mentioned in the press) and children's monologue (a one-off charity event that didn't even attracted theatre critics to review as a legit play, also hardly attributed to him)122.100.198.237 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

1. neither are reliable sources. 2. from those sources it looks like just his face. 3. I made an entirely new edit to talk about nothing BUT the motion capture. 4. it's now in the lead. 5. why are you coming to me to change the plays in the lead? why not the talk page? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the reason I put Love's Labour's Lost in the lead, because it was his 1st professional theatre gig and the start of his professional career. After the Dance and Frankenstein weren't until 2010 and 2011. Frankenstein is added but don't just disregard Love's Labour Lost. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

if you watch the video he was doing full body work. it's from official promotional material/behind the scenes from warner brothers. how reliable can that get? and he has detailed the process of mo-capping in the interviews (provided, also from reliable sources with actual quotes). it just saddens me that people still have a very hard time accepting performance capture.

i opened this discussion here because you were the one who edited and added the plays (viewing from history). what does it matter if after the dance and frankenstein happened in 2010/2011? it doesn't change the fact that those two are his first and most high profile lead roles (they're both performed a the royal national theatre, you can't be bigger than that in the west end ). he started onscreen in 2000 (no reliable sources either, just pure chronology) and his first television lead didn't came in 2004 and his breakout role didn't happen until 2010. since you're also asking me for concrete evidence to say that after the dance and frankenstein are his more well known plays as they're leads and constantly attributed to him by the press (all provided) i would just like evidence from reliable sources (not just a review) about love's labour's lost being his "first professional acting gig on stage" too because claiming it thus simply based on chronology is a weak argument. especially because he also did a midsummer night's dream in 2001 and the reviews didn't specify the dates. what if midsummer came fist rather than love's labour's? that's misinformation already. we need to be sure about these things. why not just follow the pattern of his TV work for great flow/pattern as well. mention after the dance as his first lead/appearance at the royal national theatre like what you did with hawking and mention his most well-known, most recent and acclaimed work (like sherlock on tv) on stage which is frankenstein. i'm not battling you with this, i just want cooperation for the improvement of the page.

At this point I'm not even sure what it is exactly that you want because I added the motion capture to the lead and went into more detail on it in the body of the article. Frankenstein is in the lead. Why not just create an account and edit after the dance yourself since you are so hell bent on arguing its case for being in the lead? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Janie Dee

To avoid such tag-bombing, it's probably best to just mark an entire section with "unreferencedsection". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point lol Thanks LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to be presumptuous or creepy, but...

Who are you? I keep running across your contributions on popular, albeit niche interest pages I frequent like Kenneth Branagh, but I even find your edits on obscure articles I wouldn't think to find any recognized user (June Squibb? Donald Pleasence? Eva Gabor? These names are hardly within the modern pop-culture lexicon). Today's crossed path was a template on Woody Allen up for deletion I only happened to notice while perusing his filmography. Needless to say I'm understandably curious. Would it be presumptuous to send you a Facebook friend request? Jg2904 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly a first but it's not creepy :P It's nothing personal but I don't know anyone on here (even editors I've known for years) outside of Wiki. Just like to keep the two separate. But I'm a cinephile and go to any actor article page I can think of to see if it needs to be cleaned up at all. So my horizons are broad ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, keep up the good work! I'm sure I'll inevitably cross your path soon on the next obscure film article I edit. Jg2904 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Justin Timberlake videography, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMOGRAPHY isn't a Wikipedian policy, it's a style guideline (a suggestion). If you feel so strongly about such things, feel free to either take it up on the talk page. Just removing content is counterproductive and is not the way things should be done. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Status and Tomica, are the two of you absolutely kidding me with this? Every good faith edit I try to make to that article you two have reverted and you keep claiming that it's FLC and guidelines aren't rules and shouldn't be changed ever. Neither of you WP:OWN this article and since when did consensus not get considered? That entire conversation is strictly about the Justin Timberlake videography. You two keep ignoring it, and revert pretty much any edit that you don't make. Do NOT send ME a warning on disruptive editing when it's clearly you two that are abiding by your own ways to do things LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take some time to review WP:BOLD. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Good faith? You are messing up the articles and also remove sources for the movies which are crucial (not talking about the ones about budget and box office). You are basically a filmography table killer! And as Status said it's style guideline, not a policy. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? I didn't just remove content on a whim, I referenced the conversation to remove the columns at the Filmmakers discussion board where pretty much everyone agreed that those columns do not belong in a filmography. THAT is consensus. What's your excuse? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved the references so they wouldn't be deleted into the main text of the lead. YOU weigh filmography tables down with useless crap that belongs on the films page NOT the actors. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me where the consensus is, please? Because I read the discussion and I did not get that impression from it. Various users shared their opinions, and some varied. A couple of weeks after the discussion went stale, you decided to just go ahead and do whatever you please. Is it a coincidence that neither myself or Tomica were even made aware of the discussion in the first place? True consensus requires the viewpoints from both sides, which includes that of the users who do not see things the same as you. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't just ask those who I knew were in favor of it, I asked anybody with an opinion. And again you don't WP:OWN the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed you did. Neither Tomica or I are claiming ownership of the article. These aren't "minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording", it's distributing the article's status as a featured list. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New Del Toro film

Hi, it's not that it's Collider, it's that the author himself is saying it. We need a third-person outside the film to place genre on it (per WP:SUBJECTIVE, which states "articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive.[...] it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public.".

Since the film isn't screened anywhere, we can't get a third-party source from someone who is highly knowledgeable on film. Per WP:RS, we need a third-party source discussing it as an artist is there to promote it, not provide critical commentary like genre. I think the average user can imagine themselves what's happening genre wise from the brief plot description. I wouldn't remove Del Toro's comments about how he describes it, but I wouldn't use it as an opening in the lead. Sound good? :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miley Cyrus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miley Cyrus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miley Cyrus

The article Miley Cyrus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miley Cyrus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it failed. I don't know how the bot posted that it has passed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett

Hi, Lady. Just wanted to throw my two cents in on ScarJo's pregnancy. I'd have to agree with those who say nothing was "announced" — all it is so for is unconfirmed reports in, granted, reliable sources. But even with RSs, unconfirmed reports of pregnancies, engagements, etc. can turn out to be wrong. IIRC, Penelope Cruz, for example, was reported as pregnant long before she ever really was. We have no deadline and we're not a news source; my feeling is an encyclopedia should only state incontrovertible fact as best we humanly can. You're a good colleague, and I wanted to talk about it here with you rather than on the article talk page and rather than join the reversions. With best regards, Tenebrae (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry I undid his revision before I saw this. I figured with 4 reliable sources it would be fine to add to her article. If you revert me that's fine, Hullaballoo however calls everything gossip so I don't take his argument seriously lol. Thanks for the heads up though :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, The Big Bad Wolfowitz reads the sources carefully and edits accordingly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As do I, I don't add anything from non-reliable sources. Not everything is gossip. If you didn't revert things that were straight out of people's mouths then maybe I would take your gossip argument more seriously. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

I understand you're just trying to add some breaking news, but at the same time it's an unconfirmed claim from someone who isn't part of Johansson's press team, or Johansson herself. As there are many sources claiming several different things "she's five months pregnant, she's no longer part of Avengers 2,etc", it seems they're making assumptions made from one person. I'd prefer to wait until its confirmed. Rusted AutoParts 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No I know, and I honestly didn't see your post on her talk page before I added it, otherwise I wouldn't have. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talking things out collegially, discussing differences politely ... love you guys (and HullaWolf)! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

About Amanda Abbington page

Hello, You send me this message: February 2014

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Amanda Abbington. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I just add her birthdate and my source was the IMDB page about Amanda Abbington. I don't think it's defamatory or something like that, besides the year of her birthdate was wrong (1975) and it had been corrected (1974) be someone (maybe you).

Hope it's the right place to talk to you about that. I don't have any intention to be rude or something.

Have a good day.

HeleneSwood (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source on Wikipedia per WP:CITINGIMDB as anyone can go in and change it. Her verified twitter is a better source as it is straight from her mouth or her PR's mouth. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Hiddleston

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tom Hiddleston you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom Hiddleston

The article Tom Hiddleston you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tom Hiddleston for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"That's not consensus"

If more people oppose an image being in an article than support it, it shouldn't be in the article! (Anywhere!) I don't quite understand why that is such a difficult concept for you and Stemoc. If there is text in an article and a majority of editors who express an opinion on it express displeasure with it, it is removed. So to with images. That's consensus, and if you and Stemoc don't like it, too bad. pbp 20:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised you have the user rights you do when your agruments make you sound like a child. You're crying about this image and your only argument is "i dont like it" when that argument holds no weight to it which then means you dont get consensus if thats all any of you or the other editors arguments are. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your only response to my argument is you don't like my argument. And no, my argument (and everybody else with me) is that the image doesn't look enough like Offerman to merit space in the article. That is more than enough rationale to remove an image. Again, not all free images belong in articles. Add the image again and it's off to ANI. pbp 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, IDONTLIKE it is neither a policy nor guideline, is meant to apply to AfDs rather than content disputes, and in any case gives examples that are considerably more pedantic than the reasons I and others have given pbp 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Compromise? There isn't anything to compromise about! If a majority of editors want an image removed from an article, it doesn't get kicked down the page just because a minority wants it kept. You're essentially holding the majority hostage by demanding it be kept somewhere in the article. Majority rules, please accept that. pbp 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad you're being mature about the matter. I've tried to see it from both points where as you only see your way and your way only. It's sad that you won't budge to see a compromise or think that there is no compromise to be had. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, please be aware that editor consensus is the only thing that can decide which images belong in the article. You and User:Purplebackpack89 have both participated in the edit war. This should not continue. One option for closing the 3RR report would have been to block *all* the edit war participants. See WP:Dispute resolution for other steps that are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The compromise is have no image until a proper free image comes. For looking at both points, you are very dismissive of mine and others' arguments, even when they constitute a majority. That's flat-out disruptive. So is posting inaccurate comment after inaccurate comment on the 3RR board. pbp 20:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As for looking at both sides, consider the amount of time that passed between the first time I posted that the image should be removed and the first time I edited to remove the image. It was three months, and by that time, other editors had expressed similar tendencies in their comments or editing. And then you put it back for another month. An image a majority of edits didn't want had been up for four months. You can understand why I don't want it up there for one minute longer. If you think I'm immature, take me to some noticeboard. You'll soon find yourself drawing much deeper ire than I pbp 20:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, I did not participate in any edit war. I reverted an edit only once nearly 4 months ago when this first came to topic. And then again recently to put it into the body of the article TRYING to compromise. This edit was to simply remove the ARR image.

Yet the same day, you added back the image two more times in a 24-hour period. You technically didn't violate 3RR (because each of your edits was different), but then again, neither did I, because I never made the same edit three times in a 24-hour period. Stemoc is, as of now, the only person to violate 3RR. pbp 20:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As for PB, the very first post I agreed that the picture wasn't the best and I have agreed that yes he's not normally blonde but it's better to have an image to give users a sense of what he looks like than nothing at all. I think the way you handle yourself in arguments is petty. And you'd think after being blocked twice for harassing other editors you'd learn how to address your concerns better. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the way you claim that consensus isn't consensus is petty. I think the way you claim that arguments aren't arguments is petty. I think the way you claim edit-warring isn't edit-warring is petty. I think the way you claim canvassing isn't canvassing is petty. So I guess we're even. pbp 20:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What I did was not canvassing, I was not involved in your edit war, the time I replaced the ARR image with the blond one I had no idea that the blonde image was an issue, I never said "all" arguments arent arguments, I said saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT isnt an argument because it isnt. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Tom Hiddleston (estimated annual readership: 2,788,334) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Tom Hiddleston to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! And again, congratulations! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Holbrook

I'm sure you're right and it was only my lousy math. I won't even bother to go look — I trust your judgment implicitly. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Christina Ricci and Angelina Jolie

A secular philosophy is not a hobby any more than a religion is. That said, you are perhaps correct about referring to a favorite book.

If you want to remove fansite-like information, perhaps you might consider "Ricci has tattoos of a lion on her right shoulder blade (a reference to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, a favorite novel of hers as a youngster)".Renren8123 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As for Angelina Jolie, "Jolie holds a private pilot license and owns a single-engine Cirrus SR22 aircraft" is truly a statement about a hobby, and is far worthier of deletion than what I added. Renren8123 (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying she's "interested" in the philosophy is very different than saying she practices a philosophy like Buddism or Taoism. It's different, and inserting a single sentence about it is trivial. Tattoos are tricky, if they a significant part of the person's appearance, like Angelina, then I would keep it, a single tattoo, not so sure. And I agree, that the pilot license could probably go. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Hi - my apologies in replying to your query. The most recent discussions I can find are [1] and [2]. They seem to say that the Daily Mail can be accepted as a RS but should be used with caution. As for the Wayne Bridge/Frankie Sandford relationship, this is now also cited to the BBC, so the DM source is irrelevant. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So what I got from that (the first discussion was all over the place in terms of if it's reliable or not) was DM is ok to use when dealing with sports, shouldnt be used if other RS can be used, and it's not reliable when dealing with celebrity gossip. Yes? LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that sums it up well. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, that partly depends on the definition of gossip. X is dating Y is gossip, but X and Y have had a baby together is probably not, IMHO. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to step in here- WP:RSN has repeatedly declared Daily Mail an unreliable source. There is a long-standing consensus not to use it for anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

World Music Awards - Miley Cyrus

Hi, because I delete this section? If it's true! They are a real prize! Beyonce, Gaga, Perry ... are all nominated and won the award several times, not some fake awards or anything, if not, look at the official site, and there are true, organization is something bad, because they take a couple years not held but now seems to have already begun a process to return.

In short, you do not delete it, play it again, some are a real major awards nominations are not anything, are important and deserve to be in the article, please put it, hang it myself but as I do not bloquearías will do, but please, do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergiSmiler (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an endless supply of lists per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not every single awards she was ever nominated for needs to be present, especially ones that barely have an article page. You want to add it to her page, then fix the main awards page for World Music Awards, add more info with WP:RS and you can re-add it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• I really do not understand anything ... are some great prizes! Are each either! They deserve to be in the article! I understand not wanting to put long lists, but if you want that Wikipedia is a source of accurate information, we must put things as they are not?

Please, there is nothing wrong with including these awards article, are not bad or anything like that, if Razzie are taken into account I think these too, or perhaps in the pages of Gaga or Madonna deleted some to avoid seem to have many? Come on! Do not be stupid and add him ... please ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergiSmiler (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I need your help. An edit I made to List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus isn't coming in a tabular form. Can you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that the claims made by SergiSmiler at List of Awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus are not perfect. I would suggest not to edit war. You had reached 3RR on that page but I know how good of an editor you are so I didn't report it. Always try to stay safe from 3RR. Best wishes, Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about him reporting me as he is known to be a very disruptive editor as I am not. Yes, there is no excuse to 3RR and I always try not to but his edits are unnecessary and is fan editing. And next time, try to make a 'new section', it's really hard for me to find your new discussions amongst old conversations. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. You know you can archive data from crowded talk pages :) Shane Cyrus (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I have 2 archived pages already. It's easy to make a new section by clicking "new section" by 'read' and 'edit' :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Hum ... must see a solution to this, you can not delete something that is important to the article just because you consider it's a long list of reported unimportant because these really all gone wrong, you know the honor that comes from being nominated these awards? It seems that no ...

They are a very important international awards, although the organization this kind of bad now, can not delete it because you feel like you, do you understand? You can not do what you want, is a section very, very important, and can not be erased, are awards that they deserve to be there, and I will not let the blurriness without reason, because that list does not is no reason Wikipedia should be a fairly complete source of information, and this should be articulated.

I hope you to think and forget to delete, please put it back, because if I put a lock I will do my own and do not want that ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergiSmiler (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Choice of words

Would just like to talk about your edit on Benedict Cumberbatch. You replaced "headlined" with "appeared". I think "headlined" is indeed an unusual word to use on the matter but "appeared" suggests that it was just a guest appearance or a supporting part. It's like the word "featured" in film lingo. In reality, in those two plays mentioned he was the lead actor. For further official confirmation regarding this, he was nominated and won for Lead Actor awards for the two. I think the most appropriate and objective word is "led..." or "played leading parts..." It's to avoid confusion and misdirection. Thank you! 196.29.199.186 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice for would-be admins

Hi Lady Lotus. I saw your query on DGG's talk page about advice for would-be admins. If you haven't already seen it, you might find Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates helpful. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look in that! LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Hi, re this question which you later withdrew - you're on page 2 at position 7423 - for the next few hours, anyway. The lists are rebuilt early on Wednesdays (UTC) or late Tuesdays (U.S. time). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

re: Amanda Abbington

No problem at all, and I thank you for bringing the missing information to my attention.Bjones (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Scarlett Johansson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 April 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Bieber twitter

Hehe there actually used to be a whole article dedicated to Bieber's Twitter account! I was the one who condensed it and merged it into the main article. Given its popularity I think it's worth mentioning but I agree it's hardly "encyclopedic"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See, that's why I wanted to hide it instead of deleting it because I didn't want to delete the whole thing because it seems somewhat worth mentioning but at the same time hardly notable. If you want to unhide it, I'm fine with that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're not a belieber then? :-) LOL. I have no qualms about you nuking it but the beliebers might come out in force and hunt you down! I think it's probably OK to have a paragraph on it, but I think it should be retitled media image or something and included with other stuff. It does have several zillion followers, not that it really means anything in the sugary spoon fed pop world of music.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can honestly say with conviction that I am NOT a belieber LOL ;) Yea, it should be renamed and incorporated with other subjects. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Image Question

You've stated in edit summaries that images can't be used in the top-left corner of sections. Is there any particular reason for this or policy/guideline speaking against it? I'm just curious. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For the longest time, it was strongly discouraged to have a picture at the start of a section on the left because it "dissected text from the previous one", something like that, but just recently they decided against it here at the MoS for images. So I guess I can quit re-enforcing that lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd ask. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Scarlett Johansson, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Heads up

I'm not that au fait with sockery, but I thought you might be interested in User:Slice Price: new editor, just created Blacks (Private members club) headed by a photo of Cumberbach, & their other edits are Cumberbach-related.TheLongTone (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

These socks I swear. Thanks for the heads up, I'll look into it :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Let the Right One In (film)

I noted your revert of my edit. You are correct; however the reason I looked there in the first place was to get rid of the cite error which was caused by your previous edit. This cite error is still there as I write.  Jodosma  14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miley Cyrus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miley Cyrus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things

1. Please do not remove film awards from bio articles that you personally consider non-notable but have a Wikipedia article. If you wish to see them deleted and then references to them removed, please use WP:AFD.
2. Please follow info box template instructions, e.g. Template:Infobox musical artist, to understand what is correct markup and what is not.

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally consider them non-notable, any awards that doesn't have an article page is by Wiki standards "not notable" because it doesn't have sufficient WP:NOTABILITY to have it's own article. And awards that aren't notable are removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Second, the Infobox musical artist template for imagesize has no effect, I tried multiple sizes and it stays the same size, thus why I changed it the way I did. Otherwise, I never go outside how the templates are made up. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In this edit you removed an award which was linked to an article. There is no need to do that at all. Thanks. Secondly, please follow the instructions for infoboxes carefully, that's why they're there. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then that is my bad, for the longest time the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards just redirected to Blockbuster LLC, and not an actual award page. So my bad. But again, I also follow infoboxes, but the parameter for infobox size doesn't adjust the size of a picture at all, it stays locked on a default size. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Hi, just letting you know I finished the review of Miley Cyrus and have put it on hold for seven days. The comments are on its review page. The only minor problems I found with the article were a few copy editing issues that need to be clarified and once they're done it has a good chancing of passing the GAN! Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited the article along with comments about the edits on the review page, if that's what you were looking for as far as the edits that I made, then we should be good but let me know if I need to do anything else to help :)! LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for speedily addressing those concerns! A couple of users have pointed out a few problems with the referencing still and since I mainly focus on copyediting issues I had been recommended to close the review, but I think that once those referencing issues have been addressed to then it has a good chance of passing the GAR. The review is still on hold by the way, so there's a good chance that it could still pass. I'd hate to see this not achieve GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also willing to help with reference replacement if need be. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for coming back late as I've been so busy these past few days!! You'll be happy to know that Miley passed the GAR. I want to congratulate you both on replacing and finding new sources as it couldn't have been easy. It was pretty a pretty fun article to review actually, I have probably learned a bit more about Miley Cyrus than I ever wanted to know LOL! I can imagine the article as being FA soon, it is achievable. What do you think? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! And thanks for your patience! I think her article could make it to FA no problem, what more would it need? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Before nominating FA, the article should definitely go through a peer review. We'd have to see what they say..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree - I've only reviewed a couple of FA articles so to be honest I wouldn't know much about the process. I would say take it to a peer review soon, expand on Miley Cyrus' content and make sure all references are reliable and well placed! I can help with taking it to FA if you want? We'll take it to a peer review first and see what they have to say... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Lady Lotus for your contribution to the article. I am a big fan of Miley, just wanted to thank 😊😊😊!--Shane Cyrus (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Miley Cyrus for a peer review. Please comment on the PR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Miley_Cyrus/archive1 , Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your name heavily suggested that, Shane :P XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, My user name is inspired by her. :P Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miley Cyrus

The article Miley Cyrus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miley Cyrus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

I saw your recent edits at Ian McKellen, roles and awards and thought you might be interested in a related discussion at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Requested move. It has been proposed to change such titles to "List of roles and awards of [name]" and this would affect the article you edited, too. If you are interested, you may wish to comment at Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#List of roles and awards of John Gielgud. —sroc 💬 02:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Miles Teller

How did you get the author to change the permission from All Rights Reserved to CC-BY-SA? I looked through all of their other images, and all are fully protected. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We have an arrangement that he lets me chose images and he changes the licenses to be used for on here :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's awesome, and I'm jealous. He had some really good pictures of Ansel Elgort and Zedd that would've been good, as both articles are photo-less. I was just curious. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can ask him if he'd release those :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

...is very pretty, but the code is kind of long. I don't personally have an issue with it, but you never know, somebody might. You can make it 16 characters shorter by losing some whitespace and using short color names, like this:

LADY LOTUS • TALK

It's up to you if you do or not, but I thought it was worth suggesting! Best wishes, — Scott • talk 22:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I changed it :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ginger Alden AfD

Sorry that you had to face attacks from Julie. I also left a comment on the SPI you filed, where I recommended reporting the user to WP:ANI. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snug (can I call you Snug? lol) I've never had to deal with a user before that says I'm a "troublemaker" on here and on Facebook. It was such a lie that it made me laugh lol Thanks for your help :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like, go ahead :P (though I'm more often referred to as "Snuggums"). Let me know if things like this happen again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I will, thank you :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for improving Miley Cyrus :) Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benedict Cumberbatch

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Benedict Cumberbatch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Judd Apatow table

I do like that table. I had assumed there already was one, so this one is definitely a good idea. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think both templates should be used? They serve different purposes. I would personally take out the word "Most" from the second one. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Benedict Cumberbatch

The article Benedict Cumberbatch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Benedict Cumberbatch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch

Hi, congratulations on the recent GA! I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Benedict Cumberbatch. Thanks, Matty.007 18:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My Response

You are aware that this does not make any sense? Why ... well ... I do not understand anything, awards that are new, with a televised gala attended by artists like Rihanna are added, have the support of important people and delete ... that argument that Wikipedia is not a place of no lists I served in this case, because it has no relationship for the simple fact that they are neither a survey nor a magazine awards people are some real prizes! So I'll turn to the discussion, because these very wrong ... The iHeartRadio Awards are a new and important awards that must be present in the article, more so by the fact that one of them was won by Miley ... this does not it will be so, and must be many things that you say, you're wrong.--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no page for the iHeartRadio Awards, it redirects to the iHeartRadio channel page. When there is no separate awards page, then it is by Wikipedia definition as not notable, and is removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you want to make a well sourced, separate awards page for the iHeartRadio Awards, go for it and THEN they can be re-added but not before because all it does it clutter her page with awards that have page to go to. You have stated that every award she is nominated for is "important", if it's not notable then it isn't. This is an encyclopedia. Not a fan page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

LadyLotus, although it has no page on Wikipedia, that's no reason to delete awards that many things you say, if they are important for a simple reason: the career of Miley Cyrus. In conclusion, two things to say: you can create the page perfectly, is not so complicated, so there will be no discussion, and second, to see what happens with the message that I put in the discussion page of the article.--SergiSmiler (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• AH! I just saw that if a page! Problem solved! : D--SergiSmiler (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Frequent collaborations

Hello, good job on the navbox but I think it needs to be moved to a more specific namespace. "Frequent collaborations" is generic name and might lead people to believe that its intended scope is meant to be frequent collaborations in general and not specifically those of Apatow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and yes it is very rough at this point, I figured if anyone wanted to better it, they could. I tried to get opinions from different editors before uploading it but I figured I'd give it a trial run. Anything you think could be changed for the better, please feel free to do so :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok I moved the template and made some minor adjustments. Hopefully you're okay with the new name.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course! I was going to do that originally but didn't because not all the movies are Apatow films so I didn't want to confuse people. But if you think that works best then I support it :) Thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

deleting unused parameters

Please explain the point of deleting unused parameters, such as you did (twice) on Kelly Brannigan's page. All this does is force people to go look for the proper parameter when they want to add information. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

All those parameters are not to be used in one person's infobox. Per Template:Infobox person, it even states "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". She's not going to be using the parameters like honorific suffix, native name, native name lang, disappeared date, disappeared place, disappeared status, resting place, resting place_coordinates, monuments, citizenship, employer, organization, agent, style, influences, influenced, term, predecessor, successor, party, movement, opponents, boards, criminal_charge, etc. And it's not that hard for users to go to the template and pick a parameter they wish to use. And removing all those parameters removed over 2,000 characters of unnecessary information and it declutters the infobox. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Do not use" all of the parameters means "do not fill in" all of the parameters, not "delete all that are blank." You have no idea which of the parameters might be used in the future, so all you're doing is making it hard for users to make quick updates to pages as circumstances warrant. Please stop making these unneeded deletions. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And like I just said, she's not going to use many of those parameters. Those parameters is for a wide range of people, not all people. You're not supposed to add that entire template and expect to add information to all of it. And again, it's not hard for users to go to the template and select which parameter they want to add. You're only cluttering the article when people want to edit it with blank parameters. They have to wade through all of that to get to actual information. Again, unnecessary. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't running out of space. Why should users have to go to the template page to look for parameters when they're built into the template to begin with? Unless you have the ability to see the future, you have no idea which parameters might be needed on any given page. Kelly Brannigan, for example, works in the entertainment industry, yet you deleted the "Agent," "Employer," "Birth Name," "Image," "Image Size," "Caption," "Television" and "Notable Works" parameters, plus those for "Residency," "Education," "Citizenship," "Ethnicity," "Spouse," "Date of Death," and "Place of Death." (Everyone dies; why in the world would you delete the death-related parameters from a Bio template?) All you're doing is creating confusion and a hassle for users. Please stop. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get consensus over this I welcome that but otherwise I'm not going to keep 67 blank parameters just in the off chance that a user might put some information in one of them. That is nothing but a waste of space since that is what the template is there for. And I think you're missing the fact that the long list of parameters in NOT for one person. "Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people." LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(I was invited to comment, via my talk page). It's sensible to strike a balance, don't leave all the blank parameters in, but don't remove them all, either. Think about which are likely to be completed - leave them in, so that they can serve a similar function to a red link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, leaving the ones that are normally used; like birth name, education, image, spouse, etc. but having like 50 blank ones that she'll never use: term, predecessor, successor, party, movement, opponents, boards, criminal charge, there is literally no point to have them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, relevant blank parameters should be left in. If something is completely not useful (criminal charge for a deceased person who never was criminally charged with anything, say Pope John XXIII) it can be removed, but things with potential to be added should be left. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Benedict Cumberbatch

Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett residence

That parameter is more suited for politicians and such. That's why I removed it. Rusted AutoParts 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to where it says that? All I have found is from the template that residence is for "Location(s) where the person notably resides/resided, if different from birth place." Nothing about it being just for politics. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But its not something we use on celebrities. You don't see Natalie Portman being listed as living in Paris on her infobox. Or Chris Hemsworth living in LA. It's fine for the article body, but not important for an addition to the infobox, Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You know about the whole wp:3rr thing right? I've opened a section for discussion at Talk:Scarlett_Johansson#infobox_residence NE Ent 20:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lol yes but they were different edits and I don't think I went over 3 but we talked it out :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

On edits

Hello! I don't really want to involve myself with so called edit wars on here. So, I'll explain my edits thoroughly. I did remove the quote box from Benedict Cumberbatch's charity section as I have also found it over the top after reconsideration.

About the auction of his artworks, if you check, it has already been mentioned in the first paragraph. "He has also donated his blah blah for charities and fundraisers". Thus my merging of the new paragraph you added about the Coram foundation. With that, I also mentioned the other foundations and causes he has donated his artwork to. I didn't disregard your addition at all. I simplified it to avoid confusion and redundancy.

I also added his affiliation with the Royal Marsden, it's not just his attendance with the fundraising and awareness gala but if you read the articles, they mention that he is indeed a supporter of the hospital. I also added the highly publicized campaign about Stephen Sutton, The Telegraph and other publications covered his involvement with the initiative. I added the necessary references, of course.

I hope I have explained my case well. I didn't mean to disrespect you or cause unnecessary changes to the article. I believe my edits are fit for Wiki, they are properly sourced and are substantial to the article in question.GreenEcoFashion (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

SergiSmiler sock

Sergi is already sockpuppeting as SebastianDumitrescu lolllzz. Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they have already been blocked but keep a look out, I'm sure he's not happy he's been blocked and due to the language barrier, I'm sure he doesn't understand why. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes - Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Geronimo Awards

Hi! I understand that you want the awards to have a separate awards page. Seeing your recent (major) edit on Sarah Geronimo's awards page, however, I noticed that you deleted most of the awards that are notable enough. I won't talk about most of the awards that got deleted on the page anymore since the page is not part of my watchlist. Nevertheless, I would still want to ask you to at least look at the awards that actually have separate pages for them. I am recently working on the GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards, particularly creating its yearly award-giving ceremonies and redirect the pages from the winners list (and related pages)...which includes Geronimo's page list. Making my long story short, I re-added the GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards section to her awards page, just to let you know. Again, I understand where you're coming from, but try to be considerate to other editors and their genuine edits as well. I hope you're not going to be offended by my remark; I only mean well. Thank you! :) 001Jrm (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Miley Awards

The article is up for peer review. Please give feedback. Thanks, :) ;) --Shane Cyrus (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crimson House (2013 Film)

You did well to find sourcing, but not for a film. "The Crimson House" being share in New Zealand is a dance piece choreographed and directed by Lemi Ponifasio at a dance and theater fest called the "New Zealand Festival". Ponifasio has nothing to do with American horror short films shot in Cleveland. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well shoot! Lol ok thanks! LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Contentious?

What? Place and date of birth is contentious? Think a little. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh yea? Contentious is a disputable issue. I find birthdays on there disputable. What part of IMDb is not a reliable source do you not understand? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)