Lady Lotus

Some very nice specificity and very nice footnoting at Tom Hiddleston. Always good to see a solid Wikipedia editor doing such a fine job. Just extending a sincere compliment. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

And again, very nice footnoting of all those awards. That must have taken some time. Bravo! It's good to have such a conscientious fellow editor around! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's very kind of you, and collegial. You're probably right ... I think I even did so when I reverted myself!   : )   I guess the whole craziness at The Avengers (2012 film), which appeared to have been a settled issue, is aggravating. Plus, I'm working both days this weekend and etc. I appreciate your noticing I might not have been myself for a bit there. Calm discourse is, of course, always best. Thank you. I do sincerely mean it. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I just think of you as a very knowledgeable and gracious editor and I always think if you ever revert anything I edit it's with good reason ;) So when I see you slowly losing your calm over histories, I think to myself that someone or a collection of someones must have royally pissed you off lol I hope everything is good again, try to ignore any stupidity over the internet, that's a never ending battle lol. Take care xx Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've added a second-warning template, and I'll keep watching that page. Hope it helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, L.L. Just wanted to chime in to confirm what Fat&Happy said on the Demi Moore page. If you go to the talk-page archives, you will see a literally months-long and figuratively stomach-churning debate over Demi Moore's name that resulted in the compromise that was finally arrived at. I can't imagine any aspect of the issue that wasn't covered in agonizing detail over that period. Equally credible sources the likes of The New York Times, Time Inc., Encyclopedia Britannica and many others are divided as to Moore's name. Honestly: You'd be doing yourself a favor by looking over the archived debate before jumping into the maelstrom! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know where you have seen the opposite, but from all the articles I watch, it is standard practice to write "2008–present", e.g., for current projects. Here are two examples: Aubrey Plaza and Christina Applegate. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you'd like to reference WP Manual of Style: Filmography or Filmography tables, no where does it list, reference, or suggest using through dates; I'm assuming it's due to interfering with accessibility. Lady Lotus (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will address this at WT:ACTOR, to me it seems more like an oversight by the MOS writers than a rule against. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

if you think it's worth addressing, I personally don't and don't like how it widens the row just to put a through date in it, but I can be ocd about organizational things like that lol ;) Lady Lotus (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

1) That is just an example, a guideline to go by. It's not saying that all Filmographies need to be just like that one. 2) The example given is of an actor who didn't have a regular role in a series, so that's why there's not a year range given. I understand how you feel about the row being too wide, but "–99" doesn't make it much wider, and when it's "–present" (or 1999–2000), I put a break in it so it's not so wide. But year ranges really are needed for continuous roles -- and it is done for every TV filmography table that I know of. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions. I recently reverted some of your edits, please see Talk:Mitt_Romney#Restructuring_reverts. Regards —Eustress ^talk 16:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Second that. Please discuss high-visibility structural changes you want to make to the Romney article on the Talk page first and get consensus for them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont really care either way, I figured I'd make the personal life section to make it easier for people to navigate but if you want to keep it the way it was then thats fine too. No big deal to me. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Details about his wife, his children, his parents, and his religion are spread throughout the article in chronological order, because that's the way it occurs in real life and in real biographies. "Marriage and children" is part of a section title so it's easy to find the text where he gets married and where his children are named. These facts were also in the infobox, at least until you removed them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Children and relatives are only to be listed by name in an infobox if they are notable, his sons are not so then it is to just list how many he has. Template:Infobox person Lady Lotus (talk)

Can you point me to the WP guideline that says this about children and infoboxes? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, missed your link. That page says "Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names, in which case, separate entries using Reply

or . For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." In this case, privacy reasons are not at issue; all five sons have been campaigning for their father, both in 2008 and this year. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

right, "independently notable", which none of his sons are. i'll use Bruce Willis as an example: he has several daughters but only Rumer is listed bc she is independently notable. you seen now? Lady Lotus (talk)

The other children of Brfuce Willis (Scout and Tallulah) are named later in that article, so how does it promote their privacy to remove them from the infobox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont know about the privacy issue or who Brfuce is ;) but i know they mainly want to keep all names of children unless notable out of the infobox bc the infobox is used to just summarize the person or article its being used in. "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject." Listing all his kids isnt necessary for the infobox and kids are most always talked about in the article anyway. Lady Lotus (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well at least I spelled the kids' names right!  :-) And I agree with you that Van Gogh's Starry Night is beautiful. But I really wish you would revert your edit at Mitt Romney until we get some consensus about it. You're more than welcome at the talk page there. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

bah oh alright but only cause you sweet talked me with your starry night comment. I'm a sucker for van gogh lol Lady Lotus (talk)

Thanks, sweet talking is my specialty, but it rarely works at Wikipedia.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lady Lotus. I noticed that you recently shuffled around the images at Mitt Romney. However, we were trying to follow MOS:Images which includes the following guidelines:

"Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar."

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."

Also, images should not force a heading to be indented. I think it would be a good idea if we follow these guidelines. I'm not sure I understand why you have rearranged the pictures, and I hope that you will participate in the talk page discussion about it, at the Mitt Romney article. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

does nobody read edit summaries anymore?? i clearly stated that i moved the pics to avoid stacking (having them all on one side). doesnt take consensus to move pictures if it's something like that and betters the page and follows guidelines Lady Lotus (talk)

What about the guidelines that I just described for you? Also, co-aligning images is fine; see Wikipedia:STACKING#Co-aligning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any chance you might revert the picture shuffling too, for the same reason? Incidentally, I noticed the article you wrote about Nymphomaniac (film). There are some big stars in it, which is surprising to me. Are there many porn movies that have big mainstream stars?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The pics i'll just give to you bc I don't care that much about it plus they werent too bad off to start with.

Relating to the film, it isnt just porn but its a new style that this director is ballsy enough to try and give "method acting" a whole new meaning by having them really have sex but i guess it is technquially considered porn. there are really big names in it so i hope it's done well and wont be some b-list movie with raunchy sex Lady Lotus (talk)

Okay, thanks. Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is a really good question. I've seen so many back-and-forth reversions through the years on whether to include birth dates for celebrity's children — which major outlets such as People, Us Weekly and Entertainment Weekly cover, often with frikkin' cover stories. Given that, my feeling is that this is legitimate biographical information. I do understand concerns regarding minor children, though, so I basically sit out this debate. I wish I could be more help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, here you go: Elizium23 has posted a helpful below your post on my talk page. Now that's community! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Lady Lotus. I know you and I know you operate in good faith, so I didn't revert your edit though it runs afoul of WP:BLP. Instead, I'd just to ask you to add citations on all the birth dates you've just added at United Bates of America. Where did these birth dates come from? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Opps sorry love my bad, but i fixed it, they each have a ref to them :) you better be happy too bc i did all of that from my iPhone. i'm going to bed now before i go blind! ;) xx Lady Lotus (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are, as always, exemplary! : )   And jeepers, don't hurt yer peepers on my account! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Always for you dear :) Lady Lotus (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Always an unexpected pleasure! But more importantly, it's a much-appreciated show of support from a peer. Thank you, dear Lady! With best wishes, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lady Lotus, if you have a moment, please see here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lauren, you didn't give a link or address to the "manual of style for filmographies". The only thing I know of is WP:ACTOR#Filmography tables, and your edits don't really reflect that. I don't really have a problem with your edit (for the most part -- though I think that most of the removals are unnecessary), I just wanted to know where your MOS is. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

All the 'lead' or 'minor' roles are unnecessary for a filmography table, same for the whole 'replaced madonna/miley cyrus', those kind of details belong on the film or shows article page, not in the actors filmography table. Lady Lotus (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

hey, i noticed that you edited rooney's page

don't you think that the old form is better (the awards form) coz the old seems more neat and the new kinda so repetitive when looking at it, and distracting. whatever the most actors' page use the old form, hope you consider it :)

Regards--hosam007 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks for explaining it i understood what you mean and thanks again for editing for wiki too :) --hosam007 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lauren, The reference you gave for reverting my edit was WP:FILMOGRAPHY. While I appreciate you wanting to adhere to WP MOS and guidelines (I do too), (1) it doesn't say not to use breaks, (2) WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers isn't an MOS, it's just a guideline to go by, and even if it was, an MOS is not set in stone. Consensus found on an individual article can override what is on an MOS (unless it's actual policy). Now, the reason I believe breaks are sometimes necessary in years is, when it comes to year ranges for TV series, they are supposed to be like "1998–99" (or 1998/99) unless it's in a different century from that of the first year, like "1999–2000" (per MOS:YEAR), however, this causes the year column (I know I said row before, but I meant column. Sorry for any confusion.) to be too wide -- especially when there's a table above or below (or both). To have one table one way and the next much different is inconsistent and just looks bad. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand where you are coming from and to be honest, I hate that year spans are used at all because it affects the width of the column but then putting breaks between the years I don't see as a good alternative either. Also, by using breaks in the table, it affects WP: Accessibility when breaks in a table aren't necessary, which they aren't in this case Lady Lotus (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, so I wouldn't use it as a reference. However, I know that there are reliable sources out there that state that she was born Jessica Howard. There was a long discussion about her birth name and date on Talk:Jessica Chastain. In short - and I know all this can't go in the article - it appears Jessica's then-unmarried mother gave birth to Jessica, in 1977, and thus Jessica was born under her mother's maiden name. Later, she took on the surname "Howard", the last name of a stepfather. I am not sure who Jessica's biological father is - it may have even been the man surnamed "Howard". I just don't know. The California Birth Index shows a Jessica M. Chastain born March 24, 1977, but no Jessica Howard born on that same day. That's why I took out the Howard part - it is just a mistake that will repeat itself around the net if it's kept in the article. She was raised Jessica Howard, but she was born Jessica Chastain. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it is now publically known who Jessica Chastain's biological father is - see this. I thought it would possibly come out before the Oscars - or at least if Jessica ever runs for President. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, LL. I agree with you that only notable children should go in the infobox, but when I made a similar change elsewhere as you did recently to Stanley Tucci, another editor reverted me and I couldn't find the MOS to back up my edit. Could you point me to it? It would help me out. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello dear, yes on the Template:Infobox person, where it talks about parameters, underneath children it states

"Children: Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names, in which case, separate entries using Plainlist or Unbulleted list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable."

Hope that helps :) Lady Lotus (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove the award summary. The sub articles have full lists but it is very important to document his most important awards in a summary and the GA reviewer and Nehrams my co-writer on the whole article agree. I founded WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and have as much experience editing actor articles as most and you've definitely got the wrong end of the stick over MOS. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because a good article on him should mention clearly the Academy Awards and other high importance things. We have articles split on his politics and personal life too, does that mean we should completely obliterate the section just because they have separate articles? The awards section is one of the most important parts of the article. The list mentions all of the minor awards lots and lots of them. The main article doesn't need to mention every one but a decent summary of the most notable ones is very important. I'm not particularly bothered with kids names in the infobox, I'd personally rather not have an infobox. Please don't get into an edit war. Leave the award summary as it is, names in infobox I don't really care.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your insertion of this on Eastwood's page was reverted. The women he cohabited with are basic common knowledge, but apparently one of the editors on there has a problem with it being listed in the infobox (see the revision history). If you think they should be listed in the infobox, look on the revision history of popular Wiki pages like Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt, where there is a lot of activity, and request input from several of the editors on there so you can gain "consensus." Helliea (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I just want to people see how the kind of accolades the actor won or was nominated for each film. I tried different forms, and all of them were erased. Now, I'll be creating another page, which will be separate from "Meryl Streep Filmography" or her profile. And just add a link to it in the profiles. Is that okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santy960529 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker)Hey Santy, you might want to take a moment and see this article List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep which already accomplishes what you are saying you want to create. There is a link to it on both her profile and filmgraphy pages, which we explained in various edit summaries. Lady L the one think we might want to consider is changing the "See also" section on the filmography page into a hatnote or to put the link in the lead so that readers and editors do not have to scroll through the whole article to find the link. Let me know what you think when you have a moment and I have your talk page on my watchlist so I will look forward to your reply. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi again LL. I see that you have already made Santy aware of the other article. Thanks for you efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear sir/Madam, the external links to Katia Elizarova Facebook page is locked and official and her Twitter count is official also. Both widely sourced and credited as well as stating official nature. I shall return those links to the page. Particularly since you moved to attempt to quote one in an image dispute, indicating your acceptance that the page is reliable. I question your editing of this page and motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You were JUST told to not add them from another editor and here you are saying youre going to do it anyway. Your behavior is confrontational and bothersome. The fact that i found the images on her facebook only prove that the images can be found outside of wikipedia, as I found them on other pages also. This does not constitute using the links as an official link on her article. Refrain from making edits before reading MoS. Lady Lotus • talk 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Similar circumstances at In a World..., where an apparent fan is insisting on adding WP:PUFFERY. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kindest Regards, Alex

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

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

thank you very much for your good work.

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Authors Anonymous, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chris Klein and Jonathan Bennett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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