User talk:Lady Lotus/Archive 3

Greece

I AM GREEK AND I KNOW PERFECTLY THAT ANNA PANAYOTOPOULOU PLAYED MADAME SOUSOU IN 1986 NOT 1982!!!!!!--Ιων (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so source it. There is no original research on here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can it be sourced by reciting the original videos in Greek state television website which refer t the production year? --Ιων (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Any reliable source that states what the year was, then yes. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Help!!

Lady Lotus Hello, sorry to bother you but I have a problem and I would like you to help me. Anyway, I think the page Bionic Tour Christina Aguilera, and the user Status what is erasing me all the time, that is, this is already an edit war, I will put a message on their talk page, but neglects reasons, indeed, everything that I said I erase demanding not to talk on your page ... this is a serious problem, its argument s that as the tour was canceled, is not relevant to Wikipedia and should be deleted ... I of I really do not understand anything ... please say something ... Thanks.--SergiSmiler (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been nominated for deletion, you cannot take the tag off of the page, it can only be taken off by an administrator. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galipatam

Hello, Lady Lotus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galipatam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article has been improved to show filming as completed and project moving into post-production. Might you consider an !vote at the AFD? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nom has withdrawn per improvements. Might you also reconsider your stance? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do I need to reconsider if he withdrew his nom? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the AfD cannot be closed early as withdrawn if there is still a delete vote on the books. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shane Cyrus, only in there seems to have been an act of impersonation. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ASK

Hi, Would you please explain why did you change my edits on Miley Cyrus page? I added reliable source, take a look at this: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/miley-cyrus-mn0000551762

I already explained why I reverted it, when a hidden message tells you that "GENRES ARE SOURCED IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE.", it's there for a reason and yet you added a source and changed the genres anyway. No. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can read. I don't know What source you are talking about. What does this mean? :"GENRES ARE SOURCED IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE." I said "EXPLAIN" that. And please give me a reliable source that says Miley Cyrus is ROCK and COUNTRY. I see NO reliable source on that page. --Androktasiai (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It means don't put a source in the infobox, only put a source about her genres in the body of the article. And you put a source in there which is why I reverted it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your respond. --Androktasiai (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

HELP! Hello it's littletfiosfan6614 again. I'm really sorry to bother you but I'm confused! Why do my edits keep being removed? I'm new to Wikipedia. Only been on 2 days so don't really understand much. Please help. Need explanation.

Khadijah Haqq

What about her? More notable than her sister? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done She, too, is nominated :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Shailene Woodley

Hello Lady Lotus. I don't see what my edits are doing! They are all the truth! I don't see why they are being removed if those are the movies and characters. Please explain. -Littletfiosfan6614 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littletfiosfan6614 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

1. It's not worded properly or grammatically correct

2. None of the links you even added go anywhere

It's not that she wasn't in those films it's just how you are wording it. It's just not proper way of adding things. I will add the films she was in, but you have to think, that if you keep getting reverted, it's for a reason so don't keep redoing it. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

HELP! VERY CONFUSED!

Hello Lady Lotus. Why do people keep changing my edits??! I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I've only been on Wikipedia for about 2 days. Please help very confused and upset. Need explanation! Littletfiosfan6614 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littletfiosfan6614 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Because your edits are inaccurate. Like on Ansel Elgort, you made the edit that he is a "miniature artist", that doesn't even make sense as that isn't even a thing. And he's not a singer, he's a DJ and a music producer. If he is a singer than reference it, there is no original research here. If there a language barrier then take it to the articles talk page and make an edit request, otherwise you will keep getting reverted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Clooney

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Clooney 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) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yay! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, but have bad news here. Sorry..... :/ Snuggums (talk • contributions) 10:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I said this on one of (several) GA reviews for Yoko Ono that Snuggums and I got involved with, and I'll say it here. All this means is that the article is not ready for GA yet and needs substantial work to improve. I don't like the word "fail", I prefer "not listed" as it implies it is simply not up to GA level yet. As you can see, Yoko Ono had several goes round the block, but it's now reached the criteria and is rightly listed as a good article. So don't give up hope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think Yoko had a hard time, Ritchie, you should look at the article history for Christina Aguilera (which I see you once reviewed) and Mario. You are right though in that it does have hope, just isn't up to par yet. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 10:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I managed to get away with quickfailing Christina Aguilera for stability as I was getting bogged down in it and never got to the end of the article, although I think Madonna (entertainer) and Sega Genesis (which I both passed) were worse - they were week long slogs. Still, it's worth giving these high profile articles a go at improving, as all things being equal people are likely to get a better impression from Wikipedia if the good writing is in the stuff they read. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Clooney failed

The article George Clooney you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Clooney for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Teen Choice Awards

Hey Lady Lotus! I noticed a few of your recent edits and got a bit confused. Why are you linking award titles with the year of the award show? Those aren't really the same thing. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to link the year the award was given if wasn't linked to anything previously. That way a user can go to that year and see the noms. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Julianne Hough

Hello. I just wanna ask out of curiosity...why do you consider that Rocky is not notable to be added on the article? He is also member of the group and a cousin of Julianne's like the others. Thanks. TeamGale 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He is by wiki standards not notable, basically if he doesnt have his own article, hes not notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Maggie Siff

I changed years active to "1990s–present" because she stared acting in theatre in the 1990s, unless you are only counting her screen work, then yes, she started in 2004. QuasyBoy (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going by the second paragraph in the "Early life" section, which says she won a theatre acting award in 1998. QuasyBoy (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello Lady Lotus. I wanted to stop by and discuss the reverts you made to some of the articles I reviewed and their infoboxes. You continue to cite notability on added brothers and sisters in the boxes. I believe that you are taking the notability aspect a little too far in reference to this definition. Notability when it comes to an inclusion to a brother and sister is simply the fact of being able to verify that they exist. In the instance of the Kardashian's and the slew of brothers and sisters/half brothers/half sisters/cousins/dogs/cats and everything else they seem to produce, it is clear evidence through a simple google search that these individuals do pass the notability of being a sibling to the subject of the article. When wikipedia is speaking of notability for the infobox it is simply trying to make sure that this information can be found if looked for. Thank you for being diligent! --Canyouhearmenow 13:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

By wiki standards, they arent notable, meaning if they don't have their own article then they arent notable and thats what the template refers to. Add relatives, if notable. Its not like I'm picking and choosing who goes in there. If they had articles then by all means, add them. But no one knows who they are so what purpose does it serve to have them in there? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument, however, there are people on Wikipedia that do not fall into a classification of highly notable and yet they are still notable. There is no set rule that says to be considered notable you have to have a page on Wikipedia. If so could you please point it out to me because I have been an editor here for a long time and I have yet to see this rule. If that be the case would there be no reason to add new articles to wikipedia? But I digress.. Simply because these individuals do not have their own wiki pages does not mean that they are not a notable addition to the information. These individuals are listed in the media on several web pages such as this one>[1]. My brothers and sisters are not listed in the media and so I would agree with you that they would be consider non-notables and should not be listed in the infobox if they are not spoken about in the article body. However, I certainly have to disagree with you on the issue of them having to have a wikipedia page to be considered notable! I also noticed that a few days ago you also removed an addition that one of the Kardashian girls was dating Will Smith's son and claiming it not to have been announced? They cited a major magazine for that inclusion so how could you say it had not been announced? Even in the header or the magazine article it says he gave his "girlfriend" a necklace. Maybe I am way off base, but that seem to fit the 3rd party sourcing. Again, thank you for your diligence.--Canyouhearmenow 14:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that can't be mentioned in the article like they are, just not in the infobox because if by that logic, youre going to get people who are going to add non-notable uncles and cousins and step siblings, all people who no one knows but just because they are related and mentioned on google. By the template saying notable only, its just so there wont be clutter of non notable names, names that dont go anywhere or dont have an article to link to.

If the Jenner and Smith addition had been worded like "Jenner has been dating actor Jayden Smith since ....." thats one thing but the fact that theyve never officially stated it and the way it was word was like a gossip mag, which Wiki definitly is not. LADY LOTUS • TALK|

That template says notable because it is there to reduce clutter. But you have to admit that the Kardashian's as a whole are people who cannot sleep at night without having themselves and their relatives in front of people. Their whole lives revolve around how they can be in the public. So, I do not find these brothers and sisters to be less notable just because they do not have an article on wikipedia. This by no means is an ordinary family!

As far as the article about dating. I agree with you that it was written in a press release sort of way. My question was simply that should it have been removed or simply rewritten to be included into the article since there was evidence of 3rd party sourcing rule?Canyouhearmenow 14:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Debicki height

Regarding your edits at Elizabeth Debicki removing the parameter |height= from her infobox: as I wrote in my edit summary when I reverted your edit, Debicki's height is a widely discussed subject in reputable sources and thus falls well within the requirements for this parameter mentioned at {{Infobox person}}; the article itself contains 2 sources to support this (1 behind a paywall), and there are oodles more that can be supplied. I can't find any support for your assertion that "height is only for athletes, models, dancers". Further, you ought to know that there is the principle of WP:BRD for contentious edits, and the third stage of that process is "discuss", not "revert again". I suggest you restore the previous version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:COMMONSENSE is that an actors height is not relevant to their career UNLESS they are notable for it, like the examples I already gave you. In the case of athletes, models, dancers, their height and weight are all relevant to their career and why it's in their infobox. Again, just because an article brings it up, doesn't mean it has to go in the article. This isn't a fan website where the actors stats have to be listed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the need to guard against fan-like edits here. In this case, the examples you provided confirm that Debicki falls into the category of actors whose height is sufficiently often mentioned to make it a relevant part of her profile. When many reputable sources mention her height (+"Elizabeth Debicki" +(height OR tall)), it's more than "an article brings it up"; common sense suggests it's significant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not "reputable sources", it's that just because they are reputable sources, doesn't mean it has to go in the article. She isn't known for her height. Her career doesn't evolve around her height, her height doesn't affect her career. That's the problem. It's not notable and doesn't belong in the infobox, as all other actors who don't have their height listed for the same reason. It's not pertinent to their career. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Chris Hemsworth

To what extent does he have to involve himself in Australian football for it to become notable? Seems really arbitrary to me. And I used Eric Bana as an example because it's a featured article. How is that not a valid precedent? - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been on Bana's page to begin with. Some things are added to featured articles after they are featured, doesn't mean it should stay. And anything about their favorites, or hobbies, it's not notable, this isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia, and unless it's about significant relationships, children, charity work or anything relating to his career, then favorites need to stay out of the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but this isn't merely fandom, it's related to his career. He has lent his voice and name to a sports campaign, seems notable to me. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Then put that in his career section, and not the personal life. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Well,I accepted your reason.It's easier to read.But your format is very different from that in Demi Lovato ,Lady Gaga ,Christina Aguilera and Taylor Swift.The original format (see here) is also the same. —U990467(talk) 12:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at how I have done Cyrus's discography table now. You brought that to my attention that is indeed not in a discography table format. So thank you for that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You are so hard-working!The original format is also used in Beyoncé ,Avril Lavigne ,Ariana Grande ,Shakira ,Lil Wayne ,Jay-Z ,Nelly Furtado , Fergie,Britney Spears ,Kelly Rowland ,Nelly ,Rita Ora ,Big Sean ,Jennifer Lopez ,Selena Gomez ,Justin Timberlake and Katy Perry —U990467(talk) 12:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on those when I can :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected, since there are separate pages for each of these artists, the proper way of formating was the link you sent me to begin with just the album names and years. But you're still right, it shouldn't be in that basic table format either. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never reviewed an article, let alone one to become a featured article so I wouldn't even know where to begin lol I would suggest maybe Jaguar or SNUGGUMS. They have reviewed several of the articles I nominated for Good Article status, so I trust their judgement. Good luck! LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the mention! Yeah I'll review the FA nom later today if you want? Sad to see that you're semi-retired by the way. Hope all is well. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not fully retired, just semi, I had a horrible day yesterday of being a crap editor and it made me want to just slow down for a bit. No worries, I'm still here :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's good to hear (that you're not fully retired LOL!), if it's any consolation I retired for a year and a half after hell at ANI. But I understand. Things will get better :) ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol! Well thanks for that, yea, maybe a much needed break is in order. :) Take care! LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Miley Cyrus' article

According to you, Cyrus is NOT a singer-songwriter. However, songwriter has been listed as an occupation in articles of singers like Katy Perry and Lady Gaga who have primarily co-written most of their songs like Cyrus. If they can be considered songwriters (despite not having written a single song solely by themselves and having a huge list of co-writers in their song credits), Cyrus is a songwriter as well. She has co-written most of her songs from her studio albums. Also, I fail to see what "poorly worded" sections you were talking about. Please do not revert verifiable edits because of your personal opinion of Cyrus. Thank you. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Look at singer-songwriter, it states "As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition". She is not folk-acoustic. Thus, she is NOT a singer-songwriter. She is a singer, and a songwriter. Not a singer-songwriter. There was an edit war previously involving the same exact thing, of a user trying to add singer-songwriter.

• I got the Cyrus article to Good Article status so don't presume to think I am reverting your poor edits based off any "personal" opinion I have of her. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, thank you for adding songwriter to the occupation. I would like to know what "poor edits" have been made by me, just so I don't make these "poor edits" again in the future.CyrockingSmiler (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all of them are bad, a lot of good information added. It just takes time and knowledge of guidelines and MoS to know what does and does not go in articles, I'm still learning. But try not to do huge edits all in one, it just makes it harder to go through and instead of reverting it all when some of it was good, try to do simpler one at a time edits. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Sorry if I'm annoying you, but I just wanted to know why the names of all the charities that Miley supports were removed and only a few kept? Because in Taylor Swift's article, the name of every charity she supports has been added. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Listcruft, not every charity has to be listed. Swift's article isnt really like that, not like how Cyrus' article was. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Skye McCole Bartusiak

Re this edit: whatever one's opinion of TMZ, they broke the story, a good 30 minutes before Variety basically repeated it. It seems incorrect at this point to link to the Variety article and ignore TMZ's. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And wikipedia isn't a news source, it doesn't matter who "broke" the story first. TMZ isn't a WP:RS and shouldnt be used. LADY LOTUS • TALK 07:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There remains, after several years of debate, no consensus that I can find wrt the reliability of TMZ; nevertheless, the Variety story is now gone from the article as well. Also, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this had to go, too, sorry. Cheers. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully object...

to your reversion[2] of my revert[3] on the Miley Cyrus article. Other musicians who have acted in films or television have a small section in their articles, and most have a link to a "main" film or musicography, so I was simply following standard practice. I ask that you undo your reversion so that the article will fall in line with other similar articles.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the whole point of having that information on another page is to not have it on the main page. Look at George Clooney or Julianne Moore. They have separate articles and only listed the films they were in. That's quite standard. I redirected the filmography to her videography as both articles weren't that long and like Justin Timberlake videography, it too includes his filmography. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

But if you look at other musician's articles who have acted (Madonna is pretty prominent), you'll see that isn't always the case, and most of them have the info in both places.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

And that's exactly how Madonna's looks, she doesn't have a full table, she just had the year and the film listed. That's how Cyrus' is. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Livia Firth Deletion

Hello! I have just logged in after a long break here on Wiki and am very disappointed about the deletion of the article I wrote about Livia Firth. I didn't even have time to contest it. I didn't know that there was a previous page about it and my article was in no way a repost of that article, which I haven't even seen in the first place. My article was carefully researched and curated. I am also rather confused that such factor is a criteria for deletion as Livia Firth is notable and has been written about by respectable and popular publications, not to mention honored by United Nations for her work in sustainability. There seems to be a prejudice about spouses/partners of higher profile celebrities here on Wikipedia. Livia Firth is not merely the wife of Colin, she is, in her own right, a respected figure as an activist and businesswoman. The page wasn't even about her personal life but rather her career and her contributions.

In line with this, I request for the article to be reinstated. GreenEcoFashion (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing to contest, the article was deleted per an AfD discussion and you recreated it months later. That is in line with a speedy deletion policy - G4. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can just ignore the discussion and recreate the article anyway. It was discussed and she was found not notable. Like I have said over and over again on this subject, the company she works for probably meets WP:GNG so I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were to become an article but she herself isn't notable. The references were about the company or her being Colin Firth's wife. That was it. And notability isn't WP:INHERITED. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are accusing me of conciously REcreating the page when I DID NOT. I created this account to create the page for her as I noticed that she doesn't have one. I AM NOT AWARE THAT A PAGE EXISTED PRIOR. And if you actually check and read the references I cited it was ABOUT HER and HER WORK in both headline and content. Just because she was mentioned as Colin's wife (in passing!) in some doesn't mean that the articles aren't focused on her and should be "disqualified" as proper source. This is open to another discussion as new evidence of notability is being presented here. Oh, and she is not just an employee of Eco Age, she is co-founder of that company.

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/livia-firth-in-conversation/id765608169?mt=2

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2012/07/livia-firth-oxfam-newest-global-ambassador

http://www.trust.org/item/20140214160743-e2tw1/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/206/livia-firths-travelling-life.html

http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/people-parties/people-and-parties/livia-firth-met-ball-2014-diary-pictures#slide-2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/livia-giuggioli/

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/livia-firths-my-london-7496642.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/livia-firth-fashion-has-to-be-a-moral-issue-8139201.html

http://www.redonline.co.uk/red-women/interviews/livia-firth-red-cover-interview

http://www.modernconscious.com/view/livia-firth/

http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/eco-minded-livia-firth-rallies-young-london-to-the-green-carpet-challenge/

http://www.greenawards.com/about/best-green-celebrity/nominees/livia-firth

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fash-track/colin-firth-livia-green-carpet-challenge-360906

http://thefrogblog.org.uk/2014/04/16/livia-firth-founder-of-eco-age-the-green-carpet-challenge/

http://missowl.com/livia-firth-example-followed/

http://www.wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-features/livia-firth-blasts-fast-fashion-players-7656471

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/26/showbiz/livia-firth-fashion-green/

http://flightsofnancy.myshopify.com/blogs/news/9219513-livia-firth-enlists-beckham-co-for-green-carpet-challenge

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fash-track/colin-firth-livia-green-carpet-challenge-360906

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEagX88vHlc

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/columns/tamsin-blanchard/TMG10765035/Roll-out-the-green-carpet-for-Livia-Firth-the-queen-of-sustainable-fashion.html

How much more evidence of notability does she need?GreenEcoFashion (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I counted at least four sources above that would be considered unreliable.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything, I don't think you maliciously recreated it, but it was still much the same as the other article that was up for deletion. You keep spit references out at me all you want and demand that she's notable but the discussion thought otherwise. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Then can we open the discussion again? Also, ArcAngel can you give examples of the sources you think are unreliable?GreenEcoFashion (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus Filmography/ Awards & Nominations

I worked so hard on making this page perfect but at first, you deleted almost half of my work because "directors, distributors and notes aren't necessary". I accept your edits but I want to know why the above-mentioned things have been included in other filmographies, for example, Leonardo DiCaprio filmography. Furthermore, you deleted the entire page and shifted it to videography. The videography page is long enough already and Cyrus' filmography is extensive enough to have a page of its own. I object to your edits. In the awards page, you deleted Billboard Mid-Year awards although it has been included in the pages of many musicians, like List of awards and nominations received by Iggy Azalea, previously you also deleted We Love Pop awards and J-14 awards in Cyrus' page which have been included in many musicians' pages, like List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Also, the Swift awards page has a list of achievements in the bottom. Previously, when a similar list was added to Cyrus' page; it was deleted because it was considered "trivia". List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber, List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé and List of awards and nominations received by Rihanna are just a few of the pages which are overflowing with "non-notable awards" (according to you). My question is why you only delete awards in Cyrus' page and leave other musicians' pages alone. Either these aforementioned awards be deleted in the other pages as well, or I add those awards into Cyrus' page without the threat of you deleting them. Thank you. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the videography wasn't that long to begin with and neither was the filmography so combining the two was fine. Look at Justin Timberlake videography for example. A featured list and his filmography is present. I appreciate all the time you put into it but a lot of what you had wasn't necessary, like doing a summary of short films in the notes when that isn't what the notes are for.

The "We Love Pop Awards" and "Billboard Mid-Year awards" don't have their own page and thus are considered not notable. And because of that, they are removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not every award they have ever been nominated for needs to be present, thats pretty much what WP:INDISCRIMINATE says. I have deleted awards from Taylor Swift, Demi Lovato and Justin Bieber for example because a lot of their fans will add every single award possible on their articles when most of the "awards" aren't notable.

For the record, you can't keep using "it's on other peoples pages" as an excuse to add awards to hers or to add distributors and directors to her filmography per WP:WAX. If they don't have an awards page then you are more than welcome to remove them yourself instead of trying to add the same awards to Cyrus' page. Wikipedia isn't an endless list of awards that no one has heard of and hold no merit to her career. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand about the filmography. But since you haven't deleted We Love Pop and J-14 awards as well as the list of achievements in Swift's page, I'm going to add them on Cyrus' page soon. From what you said, awards that don't have a Wikipedia page are not notable, so I will delete all those awards from other musicians' pages. Thank you again, for your time. CyrockingSmiler (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well for the longest time the J-14 awards only redirected to J-14 magazine, if it has an awards page - it stays, if it doesn't - it's removed. We Love Pop doesn't have a page so they will get removed, please don't add it her awards page. It just makes more work for the rest of us having to remove it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

High-Rise

I stated that I am an executive on High-Rise purely to draw your personal attention to the fact that I have accurate knowledge of the film, as historically you have undone every single edit that I have made to the page.

FilmFour and the British Film Institute are financiers, not producers, as referenced in 3 articles and counting. Therefore if there are no parameters for financiers in the infobox, they both need to be deleted and only referenced in the body of the article.

By all means delete unsourced statements -- they'll be in the press soon enough.

p.s. It's spelt *you're* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarrant on Wiki (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We have no proof that you are who you say you are, and if the statements are in the press soon enough, they will be added. It's not a race here, we add information if it's verifiable, not necessarily if it's true. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if you are an exec on the film, it's still no original research. Just because you say it doesn't make it fact, you have to have reliable sources to back everything. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove reliable sources, do not redo edits that I specifically went over on your talk page. Now you are being disruptive. Stop. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady Lotus, I am working on updating the page for High-Rise, can you stop undoing my edits? It's a work in progress and will by properly cited by the time I finish. I am working on the production need to update this page asap. Thanks. Jtparkinson (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not how that works. It needs to be properly cited and not just thrown together. The one reference you did have, i09.com, isn't reliable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will explain each of my edits in the talk section as I go - they will be properly cited as I save them. Please stop undoing my additions. Jtparkinson (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Then stop doing edits that are against policy. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong is wrong with with my edits. I have cited my sources. How can we get this resolved? Jtparkinson (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not continuously stated anything, and have only been provoked to mention my involvement with the film twice out of frustration at your constant refusal to accept edits. Frankly, the page was so crappily worded it was offensive. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My constant refusal to accept edits stems from your clear misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works which I have continuously tried to tell you but you won't listen. You JUST now started adding reliable sources, but my point remains that you can say you are an exec or you do this for a living, still doesn't mean anything if your edits are incorrect. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you come back to the AN/I?

A lot has happened since your initial comments, and I feel like I'm getting to the point where I'm bludgeoning the argument. I'm getting insanely stressed out over this whole thing, which is ridiculous, and I just need a breather. Would you be willing to look through the new discussions and leave a reply of some kind? Thank you. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your message to me

Hello Lady Lotus - I note your message to me, and its subsequent removal. If there is an open SPI, one of my colleagues will be able to assist you. I'm currently at Wikimania, and thus very limited in ability to help out right now. I trust you will understand. Risker (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, the case was closed and the IP's blocked, which is why I removed my discussion from your talk page, didn't want to bother you with something that was already dealt with. :) Thank you though LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus awards

Lady Lotus, can you review User:SergiSmiler's edits for the Miley Cyrus awards page and remove anything you find irrelevant? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

High-Rise (film)

Just wondering(I'm sure you didn't do anything wrong), what is up with this article? What website was it copy pasted from? I got a user on #wikipedia-en-help wondering about this. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the website they put with it, it's to the production company website, it's straight copy and paste from their summary of the film. All they did was add the names of the actors next to the characters. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.recordedpicture.com/wordpress/?p=45 LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you see if there is problem with your 3RR report at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Jtparkinson reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: ). You appear to be citing a dispute about the deletion of Comic and curious cats from 2007. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Yea I don't know what happened there, I didn't click that link, I just chose the two warnings I had given him. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lady Lotus, per WP:COI, both Jtparkinson and Tarrant on Wiki cannot be allowed to edit the film article, especially if they state that they are directly involved. It is directly inviting a future POV violating content addition. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Then what's the next step of telling them they can't edit? I have told them that it's a WP:COI and I have already removed edits that weren't neutral. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a conflict of interest if what we are stating is neutral and correctly sourced. Many people contribute to Wikipedia on their chosen topics who are experts in their fields. The article is completely neutral, and we have added some interesting facts, which we're sure other readers will appreciate. For example, we would eventually like to improve the synopsis as it omits the second lead, Richard Wilder, and thus skews the idea of what the story is.

All we are trying to do is prevent incorrect information entering the public sphere, for everyone's benefit including people with an interest in the film, as you obviously share. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a Conflict of Interest noticeboard like ANI, maybe leave a note there. Although I myself have never filed a request there, it seems like the proper venue for issues like this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]}

I have already removed edits between the two of you that weren't neutral and what information was incorrect? You haven't corrected anything, more so just pushed your edits until you edit war. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio:, wouldn't it also be considered meat puppet? As Jtparkinson didn't start editing until I kept reverting Tarrant on Wiki unsourced and disruptive edits. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only person waging an edit war is you. The original Production section implied that the film was mounted by the director, and I just added relevant information about the previous versions of the film. People have been working hard on this film for many years and information on the page should reflect that. You've repeatly removed information without cause and without explanation. I tried to engage with you politely in the talk section and asked you to let me know if there was anything you thought wasn't relevant or properly cited - but you just simply reverted the edit. A lot of people use wiki for basic research and if the information is incorrect is will be repeated elsewhere perpetuating falsehoods. There is no good reason to stop other poeple from updating the page. Who is in a better position to provide information about the film than the people who are actually making it? We are not playing games or trying to show the movie in a particular light. We just want the page to be accurate. That is all. Jtparkinson (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you keep reverting edits after they are repeatedly explained to you as to why they are reverted - that's WP:EDITWARRING. And what edits have I removed that I haven't explained? When you came to my talk page, I told you that the one edit you added wasn't reliable and the rest was unsourced. And you two keep saying that what was on there was incorrect, what was incorrect? That Wheatley started the film? It ALSO said it led him to see who held the rights to the film where he met the producer who had wanted to make the film since the 70s. How is that wrong? And for the third time, you both can keep saying that you know better about this film because your execs and you do this for a living, that means nothing here if you can't back it up with reliable sources and exclude your original research. Again, it's a conflict of interest. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes definitely meatpuppetry. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

When I first began editing I wrote out the text first and was in the process of adding the citations when you started undoing them. I explained that I was in the process of adding them, but you said that wasn't good enough. I therefore explained my edits in the talk section and added citations before saving any edits. I asked you to let me know if there was anything you objected to, but instead of entering into a dialogue you just reverted them again - writing "source it first" is not an explanation when you're just deleting everything. It's in nobody's interest to have inaccurate info on the page. We are very grateful for all the work you have done creating the page, but just wanted to clarify a few points. I don't think that's unreasonable. We are obviously not experts on Wikipedia like yourself, and if we did thing the wrong way we apologise. Jtparkinson (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.72 (talk)

Regarding what was incorrect, I'd like to continue to clarify some inaccuracies on the page. As I've mentioned, the synopsis omits the second lead, Richard Wilder, thus not giving a full portrait of what happens in the story. When an actor is 'announced', it means that the producer has put out a press release to confirm they are in the film. This happened in the case of Luke Evans and Elisabeth Moss who had a joint press release (why all the articles about their casting talk about them together). James Purefoy and Augustus Prew were not announced, however press picked up on rumours of their involvement. This is why there aren't sources about the announcement of their casting, but just Prew's agency website stating he is in the film. Like the book, the film takes place in 1975. Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister four years later in 1979, so rather it's on the eve of her rise to power. I'd like to be able to make these clarifications, with sources, without getting into some kind of dispute about conflict of interest or otherwise. I do not have an agenda except making sure the correct information is out there. As you say, if it is sourced, there should be no problem with adding to the page, whoever is editing. Thank you. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone adding to the summary or adding the plot to the page, of course, but not when it is a direct copy and paste from the production's website which is what Jtparkinson kept doing over and over again. If you have reliable sourcing and want to add information, by all means, but when other editors revert you and tell you WHY they are doing it, don't keep undoing there edits. That isn't progress. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

Hello, just here to ask about one edit you have made on Priyanka Chopra filmography. I've seen you have edited out awards and nominations which are considerable in Indian cinema. The page passed featured category with these details and also many other bollywood actors filmography includes these details. (Including FA) If this page can not have these details I think you should consider removing such content from all pages and pages can be found on filmography template. Anything talk back. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the whole point to have a separate awards page is to NOT have it on other pages especially not in the filmography table. And from what I saw the majority of the awards I took out didn't have a wikilink which means that aren't notable and thus would have been removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you would like remove them from other pages per both of these arguments feel free, but it should be better for a FL if they don't have the awards since it has a separate page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me correct you there all most all the awards you took out wiki linked. Daan0001 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well my first argument still stands, since there is an entirely separate page for awards then there is no reason for them to be on her filmography page. The filmography page should be strictly film and her acting credits. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Can ypu please have a look at this when you time please. Someone people trying to own artcles. [4]. Also can you please comment here regard awrads on filmography please. Talk:Rani Mukerji filmography. Daan0001 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello thanks for your time and comments for the request I've made. Would you please consider adding the content of Priyanka Chopra filmography until consensus is finalized?. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry seems it's already done. Was checking coming out from gym. Sorry have a good weekend. Daan0001 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bacall

Hi Lady, I see the radio section has been removed on the advice of the other reviewers. Depending on the importance of the series in Bacall's life, you could add a line in the lead to cover it, if you think it's worth it? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I think it was SNUGGUMS that removed the section. Since it was only one radio thing, but 50 episodes, do you think it would be worth putting in the lead? How would you word it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd keep it short and sweet, probably added to para 2. "Bacall/She also performed in over 50 episodes of the radio drama Bold Venture as Sailor Duval (1951–52), alongside with Bogart.

Hi Lady, I think the Harper's Bazaar cover is considered iconic because practically everything that is well-known is now referred to as 'iconic'. But as you want to retain it it's still worth pointing out that in your particular reference it is the actress, and not the cover, which is being described as iconic. So at the very least you need another reference. Cheers Dick Shane (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Principal photography

It would be considered pre-production, not principal photography, under just about any definition. Cheers, All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mukerji

Apologies for this revert on Mukerji's bio. After seeing it again, I realise that it was a much superior way of saying things, so I have added it back here. Thanks for the edit, and my apologies once again. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol no worries. I used to like the tables but I saw the titles and years on another page and liked how clean it looked. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Btw, excellent work on Bacall's filmography. I'd be happy to comment on its FLC whenever you want to nominate it. Do keep me informed. It's in excellent shape, and should pass without a hitch. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's my first featured anything, I'm actually going to take it to nomination within a few minutes, thank you for reminding me haha ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lauren Bacall on screen and stage/archive1. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll comment there soon/ :)-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies.

Well, that's depressing - I actually thought GreenEcoFashion was a legit user. Seemed pretty convincing. So I'm sorry about assuming you had a vendetta against them (like I said I don't have access to logs and whatnot). I'm guessing you thought I was connected to them (I'm certainly not!) hence the tone you took with me over Livia Firth so I'm prepared to forgive and forget. Bit of a shame though - I really thought we'd got someone prepared (and potentially qualified/knowledgeable) to deal with eco fashion and related topics on here, was taken aback at the response they were receiving, and now finding out they were a fake is really disappointing. Mabalu (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a feeling about them based off who he was editing and his user name, all the socks' user names are similar in style. It is depressing. I've been dealing with the sockpuppeter for a while and it's just sad that this user has now been banned and continues to make new accounts to try and beat the system. I didn't think you were connected, I figured you were just an innocent bystander who was trying to a help a new editor. That's what the socks do though, they create entire pages of people who aren't notable and after I had just got the page deleted, it's up again with what I guessed a sock, so yes I was a little annoyed. And again, I didn't mean to sound like I was yelling, I use caps sometimes because a lot of people don't read the edit summaries and when it's in caps they are more likely to read it. It's just an unfortunate circumstance all the way around. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

G5 is not retroactive

Please be more careful with your speedy deletion tagging. G5 allows (but does not require) deletion of articles by banned/blocked users, but only when the creation of the article in question violated the user's ban or block. G5 does not apply to articles created before the block was imposed, or to articles created after the expiration of one block, and before the imposition of a subsequent block. Typically, G5 applies to sock/IP contributions of an already-banned user, not contributions from their primary account -- if the block/ban were in effect, they wouldn't be able to edit from that account. (There may be some exceptions to this rule of thumb in unusual circumstances, but the speedies I've been removing today appear to be clear-cut no-goes.) Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, I actually just left you a message on your talk page about just this thing. I've actually never encountered this before, as I have always done the speedy to his other accounts, so it's always been in line with the request. But I see what you mean. Revert away! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Please explain how the edits I have made are a problem. Are you saying that every album, book or movie title has to have a reference? That is clearly not the way Wikipedia works. If it is, please point me to some documentation. Your edits look to be nothing more than abusive.

None of the other titles on this page are sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Alan_Banks

None of the other recordings on the pages I've edited have references either.

Kirkmc (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Most everything that you've added, which is pretty much just a sentence on them recording with Pentatone is unsourced. And yes, everything you add needs to be sourced. Read more on that at WP:V and WP:RS. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Most every page that lists books, recordings, films etc. does not have references for each item. Please explain why that is the standard way things are done, and why you're telling me that I'm doing something wrong.

Kirkmc (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But they should ALL be sourced, but I'm not talking about things that pre-existed before your edits, I'm talking about your edits. The standard is to source EVERYTHING. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I'll go back and try and source the changes. I'm a fan of the label, and felt that a lot of their artists were poorly represented. Is it enough to add a link in External Links to the label's page for that artist? I'm sorry, I really didn't expect that this would be a problem, since I've never seen such things sourced.

Kirkmc (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bacall

Nice work on the list, it provides a great summary/reference of her works. Should you have any free time and want to try something a bit different, Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 (not exactly the sexiest topic) is my FLC nomination. Any comments would be appreciated, but do not feel any obligation please. --Godot13 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Bacall, just letting you know that you should probably wait until her FLC concludes before nominating Downey's filmography, which I've left input for here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Any reason why? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll double-check with FLC coordinators, but once heard that one can't solely have multiple FL nominations at once, co-nom being something else. However, I do know that after an unsuccessful FLC, the nominator(s) must wait at least two weeks before renominating that list or nominating any other list for FL. In any case, check Downey's PR again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you can't start a second FLC until there is no more substantial work to be done on the first. (not stalking, this section is watched because of my comment above).--Godot13 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just came to note that I added my comments to the list. Not a co-ordinator but yes, it's discouraged to start a second FLC until substantial support and concerns are resolved for the previous list. However as the list has already got three supports, I don't think this will be a issue as long as the peer review is closed before submission to FLC. Cowlibob (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13:, @SNUGGUMS:, and @Cowlibob:, thanks so much for all your help and input. But having a peer review for Downey is ok though right? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all with PR Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's just that you shouldn't have the same article at PR and FLC at the same time. Cowlibob (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cowlibob. If you think it needs another look go with PR, if not FLC, but not both at the same time.--Godot13 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats on the list promotion!--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Krimuk90:, @Cassianto:, @Cowlibob:, @Crisco 1492:, @We hope: thank you so much! Thank you for all yalls help, couldn't have done it without you!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Shucks, I just made you sweat a bit. Always nice to have a new face at FLC, though. Don't be a stranger! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You did Crisco, but it was for the best, and We hope did a great job with the images! LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fairyspit

Hey there, I've just submitted a report about a possible Fairyspit sockpuppet, but someone with a suspiciously familiar IP blanked the page shortly after. I restored everything, but wonder if there's a way to protect the page until the reports can be evaluated. If not, please be aware that someone's trying to interfere with the investigation. Avianax (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Avianax: I have just requested a page protection for the very reason that those IPs keep blanking the page. I've had to deal with the majority of Fairyspits socks and it's just so annoying and especially with them hiding behind IPs. Which is why he's banned now. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arthur William Crawley Boevey

Hello Lady Lotus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arthur William Crawley Boevey, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Given that the subject is deceased and there is a minimum claim of importance, AFD might be a better option just in case. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FLC: List of accolades received by Marvel's The Avengers

Just letting you that I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Marvel's The Avengers/archive1. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sophie Hunter

Hello Lady Lotus, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sophie Hunter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Created *prior* to ban, and has susbstantial other edits. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. the panda ₯’ 12:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: the page was created by a sock of Fairyspit, way after their ban, all the other "substantial" edits were made by the sock IPs. This page was created solely to link to Benedict Cumberbatch because he is dating Hunter, they did not create her for notability. Please reconsider. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• @DangerousPanda: I will remind you that BelleJournee1991 isn't a puppeteer but a sockpuppet of Fairyspit, clearly in line with WP:G5. The article was created in September 2014 when Fairyspit was banned in April 2014. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the motives for creating the page, the subject appears notable and the content appears appropriate. WP:Blocking policy "does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)". And the assumption that everybody who edits from the same metro area as the sockmaster, and has crossed paths with him/her, has already led to the apparently incorrect block of one longtime, productive contributor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: they did this once before with Lyndsey Turner, it got so bad that Turner contacted the OPMS team and told them that because of the socks stalkerish and obsessive behavior, she didn't want a Wikipedia page about her. THAT'S how bad they are. The article hasn't nothing to do with whether or not Hunter is notable, it's to keep them for getting their way and continuing this behavior and to continue editing the article under IPs, which you're allowing them to do with keeping it up. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with LL, and I think some of the people voting on the current deletion discussion are more socks. TheVerge0000, created just days ago, is fervently defending Hunter's notability and all edits have been connected to her in some way. Socks created the article, socks are voting to keep it, it's just not right. Avianax (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Cheban article

Hi Lady Lotus,

I am the creator of the article on Jonathan Cheban. I have been trying to source it credibly. But I see there is a box on top which I believe you put on that says:

Can you please tell me what are the issues?

Thank you,

ToppDogg10458 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@ToppDogg10458: it means that the article needs more references for verification, everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced otherwise it can't be verified. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus:Lady Lotus,

I understand this, but are there any issues with verification now?

Also, why are the Daily News and MailOnline not reliable sources?? THe Daily News is one of the three daily papers in NYC!

Thank you,

Robert

ToppDogg10458 (talk)

@ToppDogg10458: there have been numerous discussions that have ruled out Daily Mail as a reliable source, as well as Daily News which isn't reliable as it contains gossip. As of now, there are tags for citation needed that need to be filled with reliable sources. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: Lady Lotus, I can understand the Daily Mail, but not the Daily News! I live in NYC and can attest that this paper is read and relied on widely. It is not a gossip tabloid! It contains real news. Is there any way I can challenge this? Thanks.

(talk page stalker) I'll say this: NY Daily News isn't the worst of sources (certainly more reliable than the gossip-filled New York Post), but I'm not confident it would pass in if going under WP:FA or WP:FL nominations when things like NY Times can be used in place. Daily News might pass for a WP:GA, though. Admittedly, I had some doubts when I heard about "tabloid wars" between Daily News and NY Post, but am less worrisome now after looking deeper into the case and more pieces from each. In some cases, it depends on the author and his/her background. Daily Mail on the other hand is absolutely unacceptable in any circumstance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Lady Lotus, sorry for the echoes I've been removing the G5 tags on Exec's files. Also please don't archive cases, that's something which the clerks and checkusers need to do to ensure that everything has been done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Opps my bad on the archiving, didnt know that. And thank for removing the tags. LADY LOTUS • TALK 05:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Hunter protection request

You may wish to comment here [5] . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Emily Blunt lead image

Because the French premiere lead image of Emily Blunt is not a "natural and appropriate visual representation of the topic" per WP:LEADIMAGE. Maybe take a second look. Bede735 (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bede735: it's a headshot of her at a premiere, she doesn't have ungodly amounts of makeup to where you can't recognize her, it's an appropriate image of her. You boldly changed it, you were reverted, so take it to the talk page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion

...Before I take THIS live. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's live: How to be a Redhead. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: opps sorry on not responding in time, but congrats on making it live :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

marilu henner image

Hola - MH says she prefers the older image, so I hope you don't mind that I reverted to it. Ubinyc (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ubinyc: Actually I do as "MH" doesnt get to pick which image "she" prefers. Infobox images don't necessarily need to the most up to date but they do if the person has changed, and she has aged since 2011. I would also be careful "speaking" on behalf of someone that related to the article as it is a conflict of interest. LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Lady Lotus:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Also, congrats on Robert Downey, Jr. filmography becoming FL! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snuggums!!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Sophie Hunter. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Even a cursory review of the relatively new editor's comments quite clearly shows no evidence of any connection to Fairyspit, and quite different editing behavior. Unilateral action was clearly inappropriate. And it should be obvious I don't want you modifying my talk page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: fine but please archive your page. seriously. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman on screen and stage

Lady Lotus, we've never really had problems with each other before. Let's not start now. Please follow the rules about reverting and discussion -- if for no other reason than to get along with other editors and avoid big conflicts. When you made your reversion you also reverted my second edit (WP:ROWN) -- with no explanation (which is another issue that you need to work on - giving edit summaries) (also see WP:OAS, particularly the Featured articles section).

Unlike almost every featured list -- Filmographies and Career histories, the way you had the lead was (and really still is) basically a list (in prose) of titles. If you look at the featured lists (other than the 2 you helped get featured status), you'll see that they list very few titles, and usually if they do, they're only in one of the 3 or 4 paragraphs. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: You were right, it was a little listy (it's still very much going through the editing stage) but there's a difference between tweaking it to not be listy and then completely rewriting what I wrote and even deleting 2 paragraphs. I just didn't find that helpful. At this point, I'm just trying to get the references all in order and then I will go back to tweak the lead. Any suggestions would be great. Seriously not trying to own, the article just needed a lot of work lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, sorry about the edit summaries, the majority of it is just adding references, thats what all the large edits are anyway. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well, the main change I made (in my 2nd edit) was putting the sections in chronological order (by the 1st year). All (but one) of the "Career histories" featured lists are in chronological order -- not to mention that the majority of Wikipedia in general is done chronologically. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've left comments here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: I figured since he is known for his film roles and not his theater, it didn't make sense to put theater first but I didn't mean to undo that edit. Thanks Snuggums LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Same thing as months ago

Well, I though it was good to be back after several months. But now the same editor who drove me away before with his repeated "fuck offs" and the admin who says it's OK to tell other editors to fuck off are it again. I just wanted to explain to my friends here, in case this is goodbyle, that I was minding my own business, not even thinking about that foulmouthed person, and just trying to put it behind me. But within days of my return he's on my talk page, poking me a stick. And the admin is saying, literally, that if I don't like being told "fuck off" that all my past good work means nothing and that I should leave Wikipedia.

I don't know what my future is here. I've started an ANI here, and hopefully something will come of that. I just wanted to let some of the good and responsible editors here know, and that if they're interested in following what's going on, that's the link. I am disheartened as hell. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I voiced my opinion there, I think it's an unfortunate situation and it's sad that it's spiraled into this but I would hate to see you leave :( LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Benedict Cumberbatch

I am just reply to your comment on my talk page. I read your comments, and I wanted to let you know that everything I do here at Wikipedia is collaborative in spirit, and I look forward to working with you and any other editors who are involved on the page. I have a lot of experience as a peer editor, GA assessor, and have brought articles up to GA and FA status, as well as brought abysmal articles to a level that is closer to WP standards. It's with that spirit that I approached the Benedict Cumberbatch article. I assure you, my edits were not meant as a criticism of what was there previously. While I have to problem with people critiquing or even reverting specific edits I make, a wholesale reversion of what I copyedited was unfortunate for a few reasons: (1) Even though the article is a good article, and strong in many ways, I'm sure you would agree that it could be improved. Much of it reads like a filmography list in paragraph form, and is. I was hoping to improve the pose. (2) Throughout the article, I added some references to unreferenced statements, and was beginning to add more, since I have online prescriptions to several reference sites, however, those were reverted as well. (2) The current lead, as it is now, simply does not summarize the article. I know you feel that the info about his early life should not be in the lede, but that opinion doesn't match the policy at WP:LEDE. Additionally, his source of notability is not established in the first paragraph. According to the policy (and what I've observed and worked on in many other FA articles): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The current lede just doesn't do that. I put some effort into trying to remedy that, and while it no doubt was still in work in progress, I feel like a total reversion was a step backwards. (3) I didn't completely change the lede, which was full of useful and great information. Much of the same information was retained, I just sought to put in in a stronger chronological order, and improve the prose. Also, many of the wikilinks didn't go to the best article (links went to plays or books instead of movies, for example), so I improved that as well. There were also some grammar errors which I fixed, all of which have been reverted back into the article. (4) I am in no way claiming to be a Messianic editor, and again, I humbly welcome feedback, critique, and collaboration, since that is how Wikipedia works at its best. There are things about the article I hope to improve (for example, the formatting of the references and finding references for things that have fact tags) because I try to make every article I touch a little closer to FA status.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You were right, his early life belongs in the article so I added that back. I think the biggest problem I had with your edits were the way they were sourced, not saying the sources were reliable because they were but it was how they were sourced, and then how it was worded. It just didn't sound neutral. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Picture in lead

I have no comments about the user who does edits relating to a picture in the Sophie Hunter article, but I did comment on the use of external links in the lead at Template_talk:External_media#Use_with_infobox_in_lead_for_biographies. I thought you might be interested. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

you remove a post and my reply from my talk page

Yesterday (November 30) you removed a post by TabulaLarva, and my reply. I assumed the request was in good faith, and spent the time to look at request, check the article, make explanations in good faith. Please do not revert entire messages and replies from my talk page. You knew that TabulaLarva had been banned as a sock-puppet of User:Fairyspit; I did not.

In the future, in similar circumstances, simply add a note stating that TabulaLarva is a banned sock. I will confirm the ban and decide what changes are necessary in my talk page. Had you sent me such a note, I would have edited the request to show it was a request from a banned sock of the banned master User:Fairyspit, removing most of the content. I keep up with my messages, checking several times per day. But now I will have to reverse you deletion and handle my talk pages as I think best help building an Encyclopedia. By the way, how did you know of the sock-puppetry and ban? Was Fairyspit working in your areas, is there a banned puppet feed?— Neonorange (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Neonorange: you're right, I shouldn't have removed that post without telling you why or just telling you what happened. I deleted it because I didn't want you to have to deal with a sock when it was such a bogus request from them, so yes, please believe it was in good faith. Do whatever you feel is necessary to your talk page, that's completely up to you.

I have the unfortunate pleasure of dealing with the majority of Fairyspit's socks as they have an obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch, which is a page that I watch. They have made over 50 socked accounts and counting. They have a pattern of reaching out to editors to get them to do work on Cumberbatch's page or his girlfriends. I hope you don't have a continuous run in with them again. Sorry for the inconvenience. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem - warning me was a good thing. I'd guess the sock master choked when I recommended contacting you B^) —Neonorange (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol oh I'm sure, I'm sure they had a moment of "oh crap" lol otherwise I wouldnt have known LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lady Lotus. You have new messages at Talk:Robin Williams.
Message added 06:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not really the right template, but I thought you'd like to know about the discussion there. Musdan77 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch performances

Despite our minor disagreement over the article title, I just wanted to tell you that I think you have done a great with the page. Cheers!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Aw thanks! :) I wouldn't call that a disagreement, I just don't see a lot of separate filmography pages with that title so it'd be odd seeing it by it's lonesome but I wouldn't fight it if it did get changed to that. You know I trust your judgement :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Robert Mitchum filmography

Have gotten a start. :) File:Robert Mitchum Tommy Rettig River of No Return 1954.jpg Let me see what else can be coaxed out that's PD and as I find them, I'll post the links here at your talk page. We hope (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're awesome!! Thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@We hope: I obviously don't know the rules of copyright but what about these two: [6] and [7]? I don't see a copyright, is that usable? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The first one is from The Winds of War (miniseries) where he played "Pug" Henry; this was after 1977. The second one doesn't show who took the photo or when it was published. Sometimes what will happen is after I go into the "Lantern" website at the University of Wisconsin, the old magazines will show us that a photo we couldn't place before was published in one of them. Then we can use the photo and if there's a larger or better quality copy available, we can take that. We hope (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one that's turned up so far. :) File:Robert Mitchum Jane Russell His Kind of Woman 1951.jpg We hope (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

These are perfect!!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have another one :) File:Robert Mitchum Deborah Kerr Heaven Knows Mr. Allison 1957.jpg We hope (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're so good :) Any luck finding a headshot? The one on his main page now doesn't have an exact date and I know how they feel about that in FL lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't have a legal headshot as yet, but am still going through the listings for films. After that, we have another chance to "score" when I go to Lantern with all of the old magazines. ;) We hope (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It took some doing but here we go: File:Robert Mitchum 1949.jpg. There are a lot of headshots out there but either the film was renewed or they have no identification. For some reason, the film magazines didn't print a lot of head shots of him; there are plenty of still photos from the films, but very few Mitchum headshots. We hope (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's awesome! Thank you so much!! :D LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And one from the 1940s: File:Out of The Past 1947.JPG ;) We hope (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressed with the list of articles you've created

Wow, you have done an amazing amount of article creation! I am very impressed with the list😊OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol thanks LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Lady Lotus, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, Sock (tock talk) 18:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2015 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I Come to wish you-

	I Come to wish you-
	a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! We hope (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Notification of FLC comments

Hello, Lady Lotus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Morgan Freeman on screen and stage/archive1.
Message added 16:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cowlibob (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I also have added comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Lady Lotus!

Happy New Year!

Lady Lotus,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks SNUGGUMS!!! Same to you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		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