User talk:Lady Lotus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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 LOTUSTALK 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

G5 is not retroactive[edit]

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 LOTUSTALK 20:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


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:

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 LOTUSTALK 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 LOTUSTALK 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)


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 LOTUSTALK 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 LOTUSTALK 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)


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 LOTUSTALK 15:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Arthur William Crawley Boevey[edit]

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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maisie Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophie Turner. 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) 09:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange[edit]

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==


An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)