Talk:Sophie Hunter/Archive 1

Confusing history

From 2014-09-14 06:25:55 to now the 4k byte edits were done at Sophie Ann Hunter. The shorter edits were done at Sophie Hunter (theatre director). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help me here??

@Lady Lotus: Are you freaking serious? Daily Mail is "not a reliable source"? Do you even know what you are talking about? Cumberbatch and Hunter were seen together in French Open and many newspapers and agencies have reported this and this is relevant to the details of her personal life, especially because the size of Personal Details section is way too small and such details can add credibility to the section until the time where we can go on and add more details. I am going to go and revert your changes. My changes were accepted and no one had a problem except you. There is no guideline in Wikipedia that says Daily Mail is not a RS. Don't go about making your own rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.224.133 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Many are mystified that a contributor who posted this article for deletion two times, here and here, continues to actively edit this article, suggesting that some kind of agenda is at work here. Admins should investigate. Personally, I think the Daily Mail is a reliable source for information about celebrities, its information has been confirmed in other reliable sources, particularly since it appears that Hunter and Cumberbatch are now engaged.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many discussions on Wikipedia that have ruled out Daily Mail as a WP:RS. This conversation involving the unreliability of the Daily Mail, and this one about stopping use of the Daily Mail. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh and this one too. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: what exactly is my agenda here? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: What should one think, if there was a contributor that tried to AfD an article two times, in rapid succession, and then, after the community decided to keep it, twice, continues to actively edit the article by removing well-sourced information? One might think that such a contributor had an anti-Sophie Hunter agenda, that is, such a contributor is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to grind one of its articles into the ground.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Lady Lotus has been dealing for quite some time with a persistent sockpuppeteer who's obsessed with document every detail (or so it seems) with the romantic life of a particular celebrity. On occasion she's taken WP:DENY too far, but I agree with her that, so long as Hunter's current relationship had remained in the gossip/celebrity journalism realm prior to any formal announcement, it didn't merit coverage here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So LL "deals with" the sockpuppeteer by AfD-ing the Sophie Hunter article? Doesn't make sense. There is some other agenda going on. And Hullaballoo, since the supposed "gossip" which you've been reverting, well-sourced by reliable publications, has proved to be true since Hunter is engaged to Cumberbatch, isn't it time to put information about their engagement into the article?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Because articles created by a banned user in the form of a sock has grounds for speedy deletion. Fairyspit was banned in April and has made over FIFTY socks. One of them made this article after the ban but clearly this article has passed two AfDs but that doesnt mean I'm going to let thr article suffer with poor edits. You keep saying I'm taking away sourced information when I'm not. The edit you speak of, I took Cumberbatch out of her infobox because dating and engagments dont belong in the partners section. If/when they get married, can he go in the spouse parameter? Of course! I also removed the bit "she's also a film and stage actress" from her lead because it was already addressed once in the lead making the second time redundant. You asked Hulla isn't it time to put their engagment in the article. It IS in the article so I don't what you're referring to. LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe there is a case for the first Speedy-delete, given the sock-history, but after the community decided to keep the article, why did you nominate it for deletion a second time in less than two weeks? Further, why are you removing sources which are clearly reliable since they've been shown (by the engagement) to be true? The idea of the infobox is to quickly summarize key information about an individual; while technically you argue that the "spouse" parameter does not include engaged people, an engagement, which logically leads to two people becoming spouses, is relevant in this context. It is what readers want to know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? I just gave you 3 separate discussions in which Daily Mail has been proven not to be up to par with being a reliable source. Just because it's been proven by other reliable sources, you dont re-add it back. You use the reliable sources. In this case, it's The Guardian and People, the latter of which I added. This whole "agenda" you speak of is bogus. I have only good intensions when editing an article. I have nothing against Sophie Hunter but I do with the socks that made it and continue to edit it. And again, the partner parameter is for unmarried life partners. If there was a need to show current boyfriends and fiances, there would be a parameter for it LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. Perhaps, Lady Lotus, you might be able to gauge how your actions appear to the community, when you try to AfD an article twice and then, after it is kept, keep editing the article. If you believe the article genuinely does not belong in Wikipedia, then why do you keep editing it? To improve it? A reasonable inference is that there is an anti-Sophie-Hunter agenda at work, whether you may realize it or not, which might explain why you removed Hunter's engagement from the infobox while other celebrities, such as Jennifer Aniston, have their engagement prominently displayed there or why you remove reliable references to the Daily Mail (confirmed as accurate by other RS) on dubious grounds.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I would hope that my previous edits, my 5+ years of editing and actions in the Wiki community would tell others that I don't edit out of spite or edit to "grind one of its articles into the ground". I always edit with the best of intentions and as far as I know, there isn't ANY rule or guideline or policy saying that "those who nominate an article for AfD can not edit it after its result is keep" so I don't know why you keep saying that. Yes, I nominated it twice for AfD, guilty. But like I said previously, just because I didn't find her notable, doesn't mean I will let this article be run into the ground by poor edits. THAT'S why I continue to edit this article.

I will not repeat myself over and over about the damn Daily Mail. I didn't make up that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, there have been many discussions about it before and it isn't a WP:RS, so sorry you take that personally, like I removed it from the article to piss you off. But I did, however, replace the DM reference with a reliable source from People, so AGAIN, this whole "anti-Sophie-Hunter" thing is ridiculous and if you continue to say I do, then I would consider that a personal attack, because now you're not just saying my editing it poor and in bad faith but that I have a personal vendetta against her when I've made it pretty clear that I don't. And thank you for bringing up Jennifer Aniston because her engagement shouldn't be in her infobox either, so I changed that. That's also not a good argument to use. X should have this because Y has it too. Just because Y has it doesn't make it right. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will try to think of you as a well-meaning contributor who is even-tempered, impartial, fair and has the best interests of this encyclopedia at heart.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit

Do not edit the Personal Section saying petty details are not necessary. In all fairness, the personal life section is way too small because there is only one line in it right now. The petty detail can be removed if and only if you are ready to add something more eventful and more necessary. Do not edit it until then. I have provided two references for the two lines I have written. Please leave it at that. Post on the talk page before making edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly437 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source or a gossip site and where they were "spotted" isn't relevant to his personal life in encyclopedic terms. It might be one sentence but that fine because it doesn't have to be a whole detailed layout of their relationship and what events they went to. You might want to read on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

External image?

What's the deal with the external image? I've never seen it before and seems to go against the external link policy. I was going to remove it myself but saw edit warring about the image in the page history, so I figured I'd ask first. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You can remove it if you want, I'm not stuck on an image being there, but I originally added it to get a sock to stop posing as a photographer in order to get an image uploaded to the commons to then add it to Hunter's page. Then when I added the external image, they kept edit warring on what link it went to. All the socks have been blocked now.

In regards to the image, I was told that because it's coming from IMDb where they get copyright from the authors of the images, that it's ok to link to. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it for now. I'm not sure about the right course of action. I vehemently disagree with Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_15#Template:External_media, but there was clear consensus for it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Songs for a Boy

Her 2011 album Songs for a Boy is in English. Only The Isis project is in French. Also, I noticed in her directorial credits, that The Rape of Lucretia is considered a European tour, it's not a European tour, it was just a New York production if you check the source and the lead paragraph. Hope someone here amend. Thank you! Babylove0306 (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

The statement "but did not start dating until early 2014" is not fact and is not supported by source 91,92,93 and 94. The media and paps photographed them together in May-June but there is no quote or confirmation by either party involved as to when they started dating. This has already been edited in Benedict Cumberbatch's page and Hunter's page should be edited as soon as possible for continuity and parallelism. 59.152.96.246 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Sophie Hunter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

Addition of two acting credits 1. Strangers (Short Film) in 2008 playing Kate (http://vimeo.com/11290652) 2. Maria (Short Film) in 2011 playing Maria (http://www.tomdarling.com/td/film.html, http://www.writing.ie/interviews/tom-darlings-summer/, http://vimeo.com/56821663) 179.42.224.2 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done - need a more reliable source for Strangers than vimeo. Same for Maria - the tomdarling.com source doesn't mention what role she plays and the writing.ie source doesn't mention her at all. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"First"

They met on the set of the film Burlesque Fairytales in 2009. This should include "first" as in "first met on the set" because if you leave that sentence as is, it just sounds like a random meeting without any significance. By adding "first" you're giving it a milestone, thus making it an important inclusion.66.55.112.20 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, honestly I thought it already said that otherwise I would have added it a while ago. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

She has rather famous relatives so I think there needs to be a section of this on her infobox.

1. Granddaughter of Michael Gow

2. Niece of Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg and cousin to Charlotte Gainsbourg, Anno Birkin and David Birkin.