User talk:Lady Lotus

Archives

May 2012–May 2013 June 2013–December 2013

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]

Hi Lady,

please re-read the articles and the new interview in 2014. She has clearly stated this: "Despite what some magazines write about me, never gave in finance to become a DJ and TV presenter. I quit because I I wanted my business" google translate from Romanian. So please do not revert a new corrected and more reliable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.93.150 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 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]

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]

WP:OTRS. Include the photo you want to upload and a statement that you own the copyright on it or have the author's permission and proof of said permission and an agreement to release it under a free license. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lady Lotus. I got official License To Use Image from Xenia. Could you please help me to find, where(email) I need to send this, to change the photo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenke.by (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as you understand that it doesn't matter if Xenia "approves" the photo, the ONLY thing that matters is having permission from the person who TOOK THE PHOTO. If you do not have permission from the author then you have nothing. If you do then you go to WP:OTRS and email them with proof said permission. Understand? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An imperfect image is clearly better than no image, unless that image is in some way misleading. In this case the image provided a fairly good idea of what she looked like, it wasn't in a 'disparaging light', and was the only one that seemed to be available with a licence we could use. Could you explain why it is better to have no image?

But the image you've now uploaded is clearly much better than the previous one. JMiall₰ 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Michael Gambon credits, Lady Lotus!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice list.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Sockpuppet insinuations without any shreds of evidence against not one but two established users are irresponsible, disruptive and abusive, If you think mentioning "gossip" is evidence of anything beyond having read WP:BLP (which says things like "Avoid gossip" and "Avoid repeating gossip" (not to mention that WP:GOSSIP shortcut), you have no business filing SPIs of editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no business editing wikipedia generally Hullaballoo, your edits to cinema biographies are utterly unfounded, few of us like you mate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep wanting to throw WP:BLPGOSSIP at people then maybe you should understand what it means for it to be actual gossip (which I do remove from pages if it is actual gossip) because according to that, it says is "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true" and when you have 3 reliable sources from NY Daily News, People and LA Times all stating the same thing, then it IS NOT gossip. And when there are 4 new accounts that pop up all of a sudden that all repeat the same exact reason for removing a relationship in personal life as "gossipy" then yes there is evidence that makes you look guilty as well as Fat&Happy.

• Revision by Ag12ent on 10:45, January 21, 2014 (Reverted to edits by award winning Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; Gossipy; Male actor does not say is legit; Section blanking)

"The Award Winning Hullaballoo Wolfowitz?"

They either know you and created the account specifically to back your interest (sockpuppet) or it is you (sockpuppet). Either way, the accounts will be looked at and most likely blocked. YOU should know better. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	A cup of hot cocoa for you!
	Thanks for the barnstar! Here's a cup of hot cocoa. I don't know where you are but where I am it's freezing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend! Yea, it's even cold here in Florida so I can only imagine how cold the rest of the county is lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you don't keep track of articles you've nominated for afd: this article was kept since she is clearly notable, but deleted for reasons I am not privy to. Whatever, I'm sure the recreation will get blown away. As for the recreation, I smelt socks as well. Bet it isn't as cold in Florida as it is in London.TheLongTone (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I first nominated the article, it was like votes all the way around to keep it so I figured it was kept but I saw it had finally been deleted due to socks making it and not being entirely notable enough. These socks are pissing me off can I just say lol And yea 57 here but it's chilly lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figured there was more to it due to the blanking of the page for the first aft by an admin, I really can't see that she's not notable enough, given the pathetically low bar for sportspeople or pop muicians. If she as a 'Korean Idol group' (whatever that may be) the single production at the Arcola would establish notabity. Funny place, Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SinusQueen has just recreated this article....

Sweet jeebus this guy doesn't give up. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like he's already blocked. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you changed this? A partner is a person involved in an intimate relationship. There is no concrete evidence that Aniston and Theroux are no longer involved, other than tabloid and media speculation. The removal of her partner is not warranted, as there is a distinction already in place here in respect to the difference between marriage and partner. It's inconsistent, as you must now change all partner distinctions viewable on wikipedia, not just Aniston's without concrete evidence. I'm going to forward this to Aniston's Public Relations rep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradEver (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partner parameter if for unmarried life partners not boyfriend/girlfriends even if they were engaged. I remove all boyfriend/girlfriend relationships from any article I find, not just Anistons. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have added the (engaged) status, rather than remove the partner designation, as they are still engaged. I have contacted her rep. via email. If marriage is your criteria which designates a partner, you must remove the status from other engaged couples as well. You're creating an imbalanced atmosphere and making wikipedia very unreliable. I have an entire list of engaged celebrity couples who you should also remove the partner status from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradEver (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on the edit summary, the partner parameter is for for unmarried life partners not for boyfriend/girlfriends and yes even if they are engaged. I even said that he could be readded if they get married but not before. Since they are engaged and planned on getting married then it would take them out of the 'life partner' category. A suitable use of the parameter for example would be Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. I don't understand what her "reps" have to do with this, I'm going by Wiki guidelines and per Infobox person, it states just that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lady Lotus. If you have a chance, could you keep an eye on The Lego Movie? One fannish editor keeps adding obsessively, "The film received universal acclaim," a hyperbolic phrase that per discussions at one of the Harry Potter movies and elsewhere we don't use. Lord save us from fans....--Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and yes fans will be the death of me lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here you replaced gay with homosexual, as if the two were perfectly interchangeable. The reality is the source even refers to Fashanu as being gay identified, and homosexual is considered pejorative when referring to most modern gay and lesbian people. Can you see why that should likely be changed back? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pick any movie article and i'm sure it has a mention in the lead of the critical reception. The lead is meant to summarize an article and theirs a whole reception section, that should be summarized in the lead. Koala15 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but don't attach it to the film release date, reword it and it can stay. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what did I do? I don't understand your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanLuck (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are very close to those of numerous sock puppeted accounts in the past. There has been an epidemic of one user making over 12+ accounts under different names to then make the same edit over and over. Just checking to make sure you aren't one of them. If you are, your account will be deleted. If it's a mistake, my sincerest apologies. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, okay. Well, I'm not. But what a welcome in Wiki.KoreanLuck (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because you still edit the same exact articles the other socks did. Conveniently. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Fairyspit has been blocked from editing, just what do you expect to achieve by posting all those notifications on their talk page? Toccata quarta (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I didn't realize that by notifying the sock puppet each time that it notified the sock master (ie: Fairyspit). It just automatically notifies them when the sock is investigated. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just want to report the unnecessary removal of Benedict Cumberbatch's philosophy/religion on his page. The editor reasoned that it's "not much and not interesting" to who? Him/her? It's encyclopedic. It's not trivial as religion and philosophy are always included in wikipedia. It also has several reliable sources like The Hollywood Reporter and Time magazine. How reliable can one get from that?

These are the links I am talking about: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2154986,00.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/benedict-cumberbatch-confessions-fifth-estate-625408?page=2

Thank you. 177.67.82.39 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree about the not being reliably sourced. Some argue that the Hollywood Reporter isnt reliable and you have to have a login or subscription to read the Time link you gave and those arent the kind of links you can use. If you find a more reliable source Id be more than happy to readd it as I find religion notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter is not a reliable source?! It's not a glorified gossip mag like People ( cited repeatedly in Wikipedia articles)! That's one of the oldest publications in the entertainment industry. Together with Deadline, The Wrap and Variety they form the backbone of trade reporting in Hollywood. Every entertainment site references them for they are the ones who break casting news. It's also a quote directly from the actor. How can that not be reliable? http://sabew.org/2012/05/covering-the-entertainment-biz-hollywood-reporter-vs-variety/ I have found scans of the Time magazine here http://cumberbum.tumblr.com/post/64381211521/magazine-scans-of-the-article-about-benedict-in. It's on the second page if you really want to check. 177.67.82.39 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just need a follow up on this. Thanks.

Category:Plays directed by Danny Boyle, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LL, I am wondering about User:Over Hill and Under Hill. He has certainly recently edited many of the same pages as Clueingforlooks and Fairyspit. Account created 9 Feb. Just a thought. Thanks Span (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I know, I've been wondering about them myself. Any new comer that starts adding loads of edits to Cumberbatch all at once I wonder about, because thats what they usually do. So far, their edits have been alright with no reverting of other users but we can keep an eye on them :) LADY LOTUS • TALK

Having another look at their contributions and the fact that they uploaded an nonfree file of Jonny Lee Miller, I have added them to the Fairyspit investigation. You are more than welcome to add any additional comments Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing wikipedia for a while now. That is just one particular article that caught my eye. I didn't realise that providing productive edits that haven't caused conflict with other editors (or focusing on one particular article at a time) is reason to presume that I am involved in sock puppetry. This is a new account that I created and I used to be Jak Fisher. And as you can see if you researched this properly my account was created February 5th, not February 9th. This is the same time that I closed my old account as you will see when you check when it was previously used. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well again if you check from my old account you will see that I have uploaded images before. This is in regards to the Jak and Daxter series, though it hasn't been used and will soon be deleted. -

If you've been "editing for a while" then you would know better than to upload an ARR image straight from a copyrighted website. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Thats going on the assumption that I have an in-depth knowledge of how it works. I don't. I usually use wikipedia for editing articles which is what you are investigating me for, and the few attempts I've made at trying to upload an image or get to grips with what has to be done have been unsuccessful. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than willing to retract the sock accusation if you'd be more willing to follow guidelines, not upload copyrighted images and not be defensive when other users try to help like Span did here. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was the investigation borne out, then? Not sure on the technicalities of what you are looking for and how you know when you've found it. Thanks Span (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did start the investigation but the admin and check user want more info on how they are similar to the sock puppet (ie: similar edits that they make, same summaries for edits, same verbiage and editing styles) Either it's a massive coincidence that he's just mass editing the same exact pages as the socks or he's getting smarter about how he is editing the pages. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for coming across as defensive but I don't think you can cite that as a reason not to retract the sock accusations. In regards to following guidelines on how to upload images to wikipedia I think I have some work to do there alright. Thanks. - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eeks Lady, not sure your adding of the infobox will go down well. It was intentionally without one. I don't want to see another infobox war please weep weep ....♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry I didn't know there was a reason for it not having one. I saw a contribution from an editor adding it with only the birth date so I corrected it by adding the death date too plus other info usually added to an infobox. My bad! I won't revert if it's undone! LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Schrod has reverted. I generally support infoboxes in non biographical articles but I'm not too keen on them in actor articles as they seem a little redundant to me. If we reinstated the old actor infobox with the gold and silver thing and more parameters to convey actual information about the career then I'd be more inclined to support them! Been working on Philip Seymour Hoffman of late which should be ready for GA soon. I miss him badly, he was terrific wasn't he.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have loved him since the first time I saw him in Twister as a kid. He was remarkable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i just want to emphasize that cumberbatch didn't just provided the voice but also the motion capture for smaug and the necromancer. this should be mentioned in the lead. it's highly publicized as seen here, http://www.hypable.com/2013/05/13/benedict-cumberbatch-reveals-how-he-convinced-peter-jackson-to-let-him-motion-capture-smaug/, http://screencrush.com/benedict-cumberbatch-the-hobbit-smaug-motion-capture/, http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2013/12/12/benedict_cumberbatch_sees_smaug_as_sexy.html.

If you want video proof ( around 0.52 mark), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31-XS3tSZcE

i have also an issue about his theatre work in the first paragraphs of the page. there is no proof that he started in 2001, we just know that his first credits appeared and was documented in 2001. that's unreliable and pure conjecture. same with his professional stage debut in love labour's lost. unlike hawking which was explicitly reported as his first lead role in television, his work in love labour's lost is hardly mentioned in his profiles and as i checked in his credits page it didn't even have a reliable source to begin with. cumberbatch was just mentioned in a review. i think it is better to mention his work in after the dance or frankenstein as they are performed in a world-class theatre, he is the lead actor in both, it's highly publicized and are his most known theatre works, and he has also received loads of awards for both including "the triple crown of london theatre" for frankenstein. he talks about both extensively here http://vimeo.com/86804331 and says that the two productions are milestones in his work in theatre.122.100.200.112 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, is this Fairyspit? Just yes or no. Second, if you want the fact that he did the motion capture for smaug and the necromancer also, put it in the body of the article instead of trying so hard to put it into the lead. The lead is more of a summary and it's mainly the voice that people know him for for those films. Yes, the motion capture is important but you can go into more detail into the body of it instead of loading down the lead.

As far as his theatre work, I see no reason to have Love's Labour's Lost because it was his first documented stage work with a source saying it was. But Frankenstein can also be added because yes it is a notable work he was in. You have to understand that sometimes editing Wiki isn't always going to go your way and sometimes things aren't going to be added because other users won't find it notable. You can't edit war with people just to get your way. It's not how this works. There has to be consensus. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no. why are you accusing everyone of being fairyspit?

i just don't get the double standard here. andy serkis has always been credited for his motion capture work but when cumberbatch does it, it's not motion capture but just voice. in reviews, in promos, in profiles he's credited as such so saying that "people know him only for that" is subjective. better put in entire factual work. it's a short description about his work which is factual and yet it's being deprived in this page. it's not an elaboration it's the work itself. this just further proves that motion capture work is unrecognized. also, the children's monologue is simply a charity event and compared to his other theatre work is simply insignificant and should either be mentioned in his theatre section or his charity work and definitely not the lead. after the dance should be included instead of it. i have found an article stating that it's his first lead role in theatre so that's a milestone and much more significant than a one-off event for an organization. http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/starinterviews/benedict-cumberbatch--stepping-into-the-lead-6475519.html122.100.200.112 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fairyspit has an obsession with Cumberbatch and was also really big on emphasizing the need to add the motion capture to his lead. I asked, I didn't accuse.

I added The Children's Monologues because it's when he first worked with Danny Boyle on it along with Frankenstein. Theres nothing wrong with having it in the lead just because it's not the one you are obsessing over. I made an entire paragraph dedicated to his voice AND MOTION CAPTURE in the hobbit series in his film section. Boo hoo that it isn't in the lead. Andy Serkis did full body, head to toe, worked in the film in the motion capture suit, while it's just Cumberbatch's face so that might be why it's more pronounced in Serkis' lead.

Granted I skimmed and didn't fully read every word of the source you gave, but I don't see anywhere where it says it's his FIRST big lead. Just that it's a lead. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's just that i am a motion capture artist myself and i don't understand when people disregard the art form. and if you cared to watch the videos i have provided (to verify facts, of course), cumberbatch also did "full body, head to toe, worked in the film in the motion capture suit" (if that's your criteria of doing motion capture, facial capture is motion capture by the way). the lack of knowledge about it shouldn't be the basis of it not being recognized. here are screen caps: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgwTRx-IUAAY-eQ.jpg:large And here is a moving one: http://24.media.tumblr.com/df78e48ee80e78487cbcdda9d7a3e373/tumblr_n0ume5j79o1scj2tlo2_400.gif

is it really significant to mention the first time he worked with danny boyle? reading it, you didn't even mention it as his first time working with boyle so i don't really get what's significant about having it there. if you check his credits and have knowledge in plays, all his roles before after the dance and frankenstein are supporting roles. come to think of it, it is way better to include hedda gabler in the lead even if its a supporting role rather than the charity gala that is the children's monologue because he was nominated for an oliver award (UK's tony's) for it. and if you cared about the BAFTA video i have provided it mentions after the dance and frankenstein as big turning points in his career. i am just presenting two plays that are more significant and he's more well known at (award recognition, constant attribution in the press) than love labour's lost (claiming it as his first professional role is a leap from just a review, hardly mentioned in the press) and children's monologue (a one-off charity event that didn't even attracted theatre critics to review as a legit play, also hardly attributed to him)122.100.198.237 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. neither are reliable sources. 2. from those sources it looks like just his face. 3. I made an entirely new edit to talk about nothing BUT the motion capture. 4. it's now in the lead. 5. why are you coming to me to change the plays in the lead? why not the talk page? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason I put Love's Labour's Lost in the lead, because it was his 1st professional theatre gig and the start of his professional career. After the Dance and Frankenstein weren't until 2010 and 2011. Frankenstein is added but don't just disregard Love's Labour Lost. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you watch the video he was doing full body work. it's from official promotional material/behind the scenes from warner brothers. how reliable can that get? and he has detailed the process of mo-capping in the interviews (provided, also from reliable sources with actual quotes). it just saddens me that people still have a very hard time accepting performance capture.

i opened this discussion here because you were the one who edited and added the plays (viewing from history). what does it matter if after the dance and frankenstein happened in 2010/2011? it doesn't change the fact that those two are his first and most high profile lead roles (they're both performed a the royal national theatre, you can't be bigger than that in the west end ). he started onscreen in 2000 (no reliable sources either, just pure chronology) and his first television lead didn't came in 2004 and his breakout role didn't happen until 2010. since you're also asking me for concrete evidence to say that after the dance and frankenstein are his more well known plays as they're leads and constantly attributed to him by the press (all provided) i would just like evidence from reliable sources (not just a review) about love's labour's lost being his "first professional acting gig on stage" too because claiming it thus simply based on chronology is a weak argument. especially because he also did a midsummer night's dream in 2001 and the reviews didn't specify the dates. what if midsummer came fist rather than love's labour's? that's misinformation already. we need to be sure about these things. why not just follow the pattern of his TV work for great flow/pattern as well. mention after the dance as his first lead/appearance at the royal national theatre like what you did with hawking and mention his most well-known, most recent and acclaimed work (like sherlock on tv) on stage which is frankenstein. i'm not battling you with this, i just want cooperation for the improvement of the page.

At this point I'm not even sure what it is exactly that you want because I added the motion capture to the lead and went into more detail on it in the body of the article. Frankenstein is in the lead. Why not just create an account and edit after the dance yourself since you are so hell bent on arguing its case for being in the lead? LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid such tag-bombing, it's probably best to just mark an entire section with "unreferencedsection". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point lol Thanks LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]