Lady Lotus (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
:::::{{ping|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 <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">[[User:Lady Lotus|LADY LOTUS]]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">[[User talk:Lady Lotus|TALK]]</span></small> 11:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC) |
:::::{{ping|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 <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">[[User:Lady Lotus|LADY LOTUS]]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">[[User talk:Lady Lotus|TALK]]</span></small> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Days_after_my_return_to_Wikipedia_after_months_away.2C_cursing_editor_returns_to_bait_me 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. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 10:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:06, 5 November 2014
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)
- @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.
- @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)
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 [1] . 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!
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)
- @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)