499:
minute). I am interested in prodigies and have written (and published) a number of articles (not in Wiki â in
Russian press, if you are interested) about them. âPromotingâ? This word has an exact meaning that is not applicable here. Well, itâs not âpromotingâ, itâs reflection of the reality. Or you mean that the article contains only positive material and for some reason you are not happy with that? Well, if you think there is shortage of negative stuff about Holland, then find a properly attributed source with negative or critical views and cite it! No problem. For the record: I donât know personally Tom Holland â although I saw him in theatre (on the stage) and â recently â in cinema (on the screen). However, his father (whom I never met in person) is a celebrity in his own right, so one can easily reach him â e.g. through his site. Two times â first, at the time of creating the article about Tom 3 years ago, and then at the time of premiere of âThe Impossibleâ I asked him to look at the article and check the facts. I also asked him whether the family objects to publishing any personal information that already was there. I didnât ask about approving or disapproving any views, and he didnât ask about any additions. Of course, I wanted the article to be detailed enough to let readers get a truthful (ideally â comprehensive that is to say - encyclopedic) image of the subject. Is it âpromotingâ? I think itâs Knowledge mission.
493:
properly attributed content â then do it! Who can object? Certainly, not I. But what I meant was something different: a number of times you removed an existing content on the ground of your subjective views. The pattern has been alarming: you needed just a minute or two to make a decision and then without any doubt or discussion removed a portion of content. I would say (to me it's common sense) that such cavalier actions are only possible if you are an expert in the subject. I have no doubt there are many subjects in which you are an expert, and I am not. But in this particular case you are not, even if you have a greater experience in Wiki than I. I am the expert because of a very simple reason: I know about the subject more than you â just because I have been gathering information about him for a number of years. It is reflected in this article which was created by me and almost all its content was written by me too. I think I know why a particular fact or a view is there. Given that I believe that when somebody removes a good chunk of content he should have a clear reason to do so, and needs to present that reason before that heavy editing. And the obvious rule: do not compromise a factual correctness of the article. I will give in due course some examples to show the results of some your edits which were at odds with that rule.
1417:. The reason for that is simple: I don't have time for Wiki as I'm very busy in a real world. In addition, I'm not a native English speaker. However, even if I've been concentrating on the single subject (apart from occasional other activities) I still expect that my content (not me as a person!) is judged fair. Why have I created Holland's article and then contributed to it? For the record: I've never met him or talked to him (the same is true regarding his father - you can easily find info about my contacts with him through only email in this very page, and I have no relation to showbiz whatsoever). I saw him on the stage, was impressed, then wanted to read about him in WP, discovered that there's no article about him (in distinction from many boys performing Billy Elliot's role) and decided to create it. I did my research (as a scientist with PhD I know how to do it - in addition I am an experienced journalist who published a lot of articles in my country; moreover, I am an editor at the very popular specialised site. If we continue the matter in a more formal way according to WP regulations I'm prepared to disclose my identity and to prove every claim I've made). For that matter, I don't understand your derogatory comment: "argued over and over⊠such as
1090:
procedure. On a more general note: I might be a less experienced
Knowledge editor than you and others (I don't have enough time to be active here, in addition I am not a native English speaker) and by any means I can make mistakes - including those concerned with a proper understanding what should be present in a good encyclopedia article as well as concerned with a proper style of discussing; however, I believe that any disagreement should be resolved on the basis of the arguments and their quality rather than inconcrete "Knowledge speak" of the pattern you just demonstrated; the editors should respect what other editors do - in particular, this means that before doing radical editing of a negative sort (e.g. removing in a whim the results of somebody else's long research) it's better to discuss things and convince your counterparts that you are right. Actually all the quarrels in which I participated here were about exactly that. At the end we all want to make Knowledge (and this particular article) better, and there is no exact science to do that.
1843:
applied to WP article. It seems that for
Tenebrae any mention of a film, award, interview, book is "promotional" - whilst this is just factual information (or reference to the source with such info) important in the context of actor's career. Tenebrae (and some other editors) claim that the article is written "to promote" Holland because it includes only positive information which is "unbalanced" coverage. The problem with Holland is that there is no negative info about him in public domain whatsoever! Does this mean that for the sake of "balanced approach" we should omit any positive info? That's ridiculous. In fact, there are sound criteria: if that positive piece of info is truthful, if it reflects the reality then it's worth to be included into the article. Of course, some info is just not important (and as such can be omitted) but that's another matter that has nothing to do with "promotion" accusations.
1865:
he insinuates that
Dominic Holland is the major contributor here which is ridiculous. I am not Dominic Holland!). This matter had been discussed in length in this very page before; at the end fellow editors have agreed that those references to the sources written by a professional writer and showbiz personality/expert in his own right are useful for those WP readers who want to know where to find more info about the subject. The references were mentioned in a purely fact-of-the-matter manner, without any praise or other "promotional" flavour. What I find completely unacceptable is that Tenebrae wasn't interested in the previous discussion of his fellow editors; he just removed what he thought appropriate in a whim. I think this cavalier approach is a demonstration of utter "disrespect to other editors of the project" (
1151:. I'd personally never heard of Tom Holland or Dominic Holland prior to Tom's Young Artist Award nomination, but there's sufficient sources demonstrating that his father is notable in the UK, which, I'm just guessing, explains the coverage of his self-published blog/book about his son. As I said, I don't know that it needs an extensive mention or its own section, but a simple sentence like "Dominic Holland has written a blog and authored a book entitled "Eclipsed" which chronicles his son's rise to prominence." in the "Personal life" section would appear acceptable to me. I agree with you that there is quite a bit that could be trimmed or removed altogether, but keep in mind, when a subject's notability is challenged (as this one was a couple of years back), it tends to inspire editors to begin tacking in
1789:
Maybe they're right but is it appropriate to do that without any discussion, on the basis of purely subjective (as will be shown shortly) beliefs? Tenebrae's main claim is that the article is extraordinary ("extremely", "egregiously", "unbelievably", etc.) inappropriate in many respects: the lead included promotional info such as mentioning awards, the fragments of interviews of the subject as well as of his co-stars have to have no place in such articles as they are "puffery", references to the sources about the subject and to the book about him (written by a relative) are not acceptable as they are promotional, too many details that are not important,etc. In general, Tenebrae finds some sections (and even the entire article) "unbelievably" promotional, and as such in need of radical rewriting.
232:
outstanding of them should be present in Wiki - otherwise it is not "encyclopaedia" reflecting this reality! Whether or not a child performer deserves to figure in Wiki should depend on significance of his/her role (even if it was just one and only role). The potential to become an outstanding performer in future is also a factor: knowledge about prospective talents is important part of the encyclopaedic knowledge. For instance, the title role in Billy Elliot the
Musical at Broaday and West End is so big and difficult that no additional evidence is needed. The patronising remarks like "Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and taken other major roles" in relation to those who already proved that potential are unfortunate and can be perceived as unjust and offensive.
996:
fansite (their information is usually reliable as it comes from the people in the know including parents) - but of course it's not a proper refering source. There was an implicit reference in the blog (like "the other day..."). As I declared above I wrote to his father (I don't know him personally - did that through his site) on two occasions asking to check the facts (it's my principal position that parents should have a right to control what information about their children is publicly available), and he confirmed that everything's OK (although I didn't ask specifically about birthdate). So I also hope that the date pops up in three weeks or so - although I am not sure that despite all Tom's awards he is already big enough to get mention of that in the mainstream media.
899:. I donât understand the comment as âthisâ IS about Tom Holland: the removed fragment included the mention of the book about Tom Holland (as well as a blog about him). The book is a legitimate and most authoritative source of reliable information about this young actor and as such is essential information. Itâs written by the most knowledgeable and notable (in terms of Knowledge) author. If there is a Knowledge policy explicitly banning any mention of the book about the subject in the subjectâs Knowledge article, then cite it. After that removing can look justified. But not before. If there are issues with the presentation of the removed section then suggest corrections which can help to reach consensus. To remove essential information in a whim is hardly acceptable.
379:
and their "notability" in the context of the art and entertainment. The judgements in this context are quite subjective by definition, including your judgements, and the criteria you were referring are just guidelines, not exact laws, and writing articles (even those focusing on the facts) is a creative process, not mechanical one. The policies and criteria are subject of a gradual elaboration and should be applied carefully and thoughtfully. This is common sense, and a great deal of Wiki articles are written according to this common sense. I probably will follow your piece of advice and will try to initiate discussion on how to make the notability criteria more perfect (if I manage to understand how to do it). Thanks for your time.
1694:) it's now a master plan to gang up and attack you? YOU obviously don't understand what I meant or you're trying really hard to make it look like we're picking on you. I've been in correspondence with Tenebrae for over a year, he's a respectable editor. This converation is ridiculous considering it all boiled down to me removing awards that you are still dancing around the topic of. Look at the how the facts look to me: the only article you hardly EVER edit is this one and every edit another editor makes you revert. It looks like you have a special interest in the article for some reason that would fall under the category of a partisan editor. You took that one comment and have fully blown it out of proportion. Congrats.
2258:) and consistently kept that line of behaviour that is an obvious violation of WP regulations (âComment on content, not on the contributorâ, etc.) Your motives in this hatchet job are so openly expressed here and so in conflict with any unbiased editing that Iâm puzzled. In real world incompetent bullys face the consequences of their behaviour. Perhaps you have a good reason for thinking that you are untouchable and can do anything just to indulge your swollen ego (good connections in WP?). I donât care about myself in WP context. But I do care about WP content that should not be so related to personal features of individual self-important editors even if those editors are so decorated. Weâll see what happens.
1202:) comments about the blog devoted to him and about his father? Or he wanted to make a point that Tom should have noticed him and his earlier tweets to him and respond? I don't know and don't want to know. What I do know is that such a bully-ish tweet (that was removed after my challenge) aiming at 16 y.o. schoolboy is clearly unethical. The editor responded that he "did not violate any Knowledge policy in any way". Well, it's surprising to me if this is true. Anyway, it's seems that some editors might have their own agenda beyond a fair and neutral editing. Almost certainly I am not right in my worries but I don't like what is going on lately around this article that gets up to 2000 viewings daily.
535:. You can be right that the fragment in Wiki article was quite long â but given that Holland have had only one significant role in cinema and it was characterised by Watts (who as a superstar and a co-star was the most trusted person to talk about the young actor, so her opinion has that very âweightâ), itâs only adds an interesting detail. When Holland gets other roles in future and they are described in the article, then the fragment will be shorten without problem. But for the time being it provides a proper answer the question that many people (numbers of visitors of the page are not bad) can ask: why this young actor got so many prestigious awards and such an acclaim from the critics.
136:
entertainment world (Elton John, etc.). That role is considered by some experts as "the most difficult role ever created for child" and this fact alone should be enough to give young performers of that unique role a credit of being "notable" - actually, more notable than some adult actors who were not lucky (or talented) enough to get a role of a similar calibre during their long careers (a lot of them are happily present in Wiki, though). The very fact that first boys who had performed that very role both in West End and
Broadway received the highest theatre awards (Laurence Olivier and Tony) as best performers (in adult categories!) speaks for itself.
1626:?! You are either extremely naive in disregarding the basic ethics (including specifically WP ethics) or just don't care; You really don't understand at all that what you did WAS exactly arranging "an coordinated attack" from editors who know each other ("gang of two" - I'm being deliberately over-dramatic here as you both were earlier) against the 3rd party do you? Thanks again. I thought I finished wuth my comments here completely but you did manage to inspire me again. "Tene" (as you call him/her that friendly) is probably sharing my feelings and without doubt will be grateful to you too.
1064:
interviews could be cut and co-stars' words of praise could be trimmed, etc), however, aside from his father and co-stars, the subject appears to have received numerous awards and praise across the board from critics for his performance (and I've never seen the film; I'm not a "fan"; I'm just giving my objective impression from the sources provided), so again, it's not
Knowledge's responsibility to try and find a way to tone it down when every source is unanimously giving the kid glowing reviews, but I agree we could try and cut some of the extraneous info out. ---
949:, thanks for your constructive opinion. In fact, before the book was published, the mention of the blog was located in the "Personal life" section (blog had mainly been covering the current events whilst the book - which includes some material from the blog - is much wider). Perhaps, to give the blog and the book less emphasis in the context of the whole article one should move "Eclipsed" into the "Personal life" as a subsection(?) there. Although, I will postpone this until listening to other opinions if they appear one of these days.
1551:
Regarding your "cite" over the Justin
Timberlake videography, I was simply following what I considered to be MoS of filmographies and removing content that I did not see relevant to his filmography when I had another editor disagree. But I have NEVER been blocked. I've had numerous conversations with editors where we don't agree with each other, sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. I admit when I am wrong but when another editor completely disregards policy, it's another thing. Tene was the very one who educated me on the
1968:. The question is whether other editors who are experts in the theme are available to do a proper job here? I don't think it's appropriate job for myself in the circumstances - and I don't want to be involved into "editing war" (obviously, Tenebrae is in an infinitely better position to win it irrespective of his competence on the subject). I don't know how unbiased and knowledgeable in the particular theme editors can be brought here. I should probably learn how to do that - but I have very little time for that. We'll see.
2011:
personal attacks on the work of others. In my experience, this sort of thing tends to happen at ANI, the DYK forum and others forums on here which attract mean-spirited ogres, ungrateful wretches, and wiki dinosaurs with long-standing grudges who have nothing better than to tell other editors that their working is shocking and that they're somehow inadequate. However much good work and enthusiasm you put into the project there's always a group who fails to recognize this and uses examples of your worst work.
346:"The article subject is one of 60+ actors who have taken the role." Once again, "60+" is not exact number - please do your research before jumping to conclusions. It's 45 for the entire world (UK, USA, Australia, S. Korea). 23 performers in West End from UK, USA and Ireland during 5.5 years - not big number. In addition, what this number has to do with the essence of our discussion? Some roles (e.g., take Hamlet) have been performed by hundreds actors and many of them who are the most outstanding are in Wiki.
2296:"We'll see what happens." Is that a threat of some sort? Every other editor on this page takes issues with your violating Knowledge policies and guidelines by adding puffery and uncited or poorly cited information. And I've reached my limit on your name-calling and wild, unfounded personal accusations. If you continue to post such temperamental diatribes, I'll ask an admin to look at your posts and get an opinion as to whether we should do an ARB or take other action. Your behavior here is unacceptable.
972:
used to source what's in the article already (I wouldn't use it as a source for Tom's resumé or awards he's received, but I think most people would agree the boy's father would be an acceptable source for date/place of birth, etc). I noticed the ancestry.com source was questioned, so I took a few minutes to look, but couldn't find an independent 3rd party reliable source for an exact DOB (lots of mentions of the same date that's listed here, but the sources look like they could be the result of
1898:
if no source appears. This would be a normal and proper action. Not
Tenebrae - he's not an expert in the subject and doesn't want to do research but he immediately removes the info under question which was actually correct. In fact, it was somebody's (maybe mine) technical mistake of confused references: the wrong one (ref name=sct) instead the right one (ref name=est). Yes, that's simple! Both sources had been referred to a few times in Holland's article. One can easily find that the latter (
616:â. Fine! The only problem was that the journalist got that fact wrong â in reality they live in Kingston-upon-Thames! As you are not an expert in the subject, you just believed that ill-informed source not bothering to find the second one. In fact, there are quite a few of them. A little later (revision at 19:10, 3 February 2013â) I, having spotted that incorrect fact (I knew that it was incorrect as I was an expert in the subject :)), did found the proper sources and after that (see
1938:(which is as WP points out "an area within the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, London"). Of course one can mention just Kingston upon Thames (a number of sources confirming that Holland lives there exists) but to remove it completely?! As to "overdetail about brother" - well, I don't mind but isn't that small detail that brother Harry performed the role of Prince Harry was interesting? Anyway, Harry is not "actor brother", he just played one small role...
2361:, the removal of certain text with well stated explanation, and the way this page is worded and referenced. We, as I see from previous conversations on this talk page, are not the only ones that think you have a special interest in this article more than just a beginning editor. So, without going into another mindnumbingly long retort, why don't you just simplify what you think the problem is and what you would like to see happen and we'll go from there.
505:
cannot publish positive views. I can only repeat that âoverviewâ should be truthful - this is paramount. If you can find the sources that can provide negative opinions, then add them to the article. I also believe that citations have to be exact rather than described using âyour own wordsâ. Readers are not that interested in my or your words â they prefer original words by known authorities. And in this particular case Naomi Watts is such an authority.
31:
213:
then there is a very simple way to do it altogether (one proper letter to YouTube administration would be enough. There are quite a few precedents). However, they don't care - perhaps because they see clear benefits of that "clear copyright violations" for themselves. So why do you care about their copyright more than the holders do? By the way, there is a lot of Wiki articles with similar links. Anyway, this is just a remark.
487:, the title "Excessive quotes" is misleasing. You may be right regarding particular fragments or (as I think) not that right - but the point I am trying to make is not about that; it's about the manner in which you do your editing that - it seems to me - does not respect your fellow editors' efforts. Sorry if my input is too long but I want to present my arguments, not just declarations. I start from some general points.
1902:) includes the following: "After the shoot Tom dutifully returned to Wimbledon College to finish his GCSEs, following which he enrolled in the BRIT performing arts school". The only non-attributed words were "two-year course" which is a standard duration for BRIT school (as well as for other similar courses in UK). If you think there is a need to confirm literally any word then there's such a source in the article -
2225:. Everybody can see that you have nothing to answer those principal questions and can draw the conclusions. Now as your latest edits show you went even further and removed even references to the citations from the leading critics published in leading newspapers. These and many other your decisions turned the article with some issues into a complete stub failing to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject.
1369:, I had to stand up while reading your astonishing rant about imperfection of the world as it seems to be the only proper posture when a top evangelist's enlightening us poor souls from his heaven. I believe (and WP regulations confirm that), WP is a community of equals rather than a sect with gurus adopting such a patronising and offensive tone. All I did was challenging a concrete editorial decision by
1555:, (a section in wikipedia that not many editors are aware of because most seem to think that every award an actor is ever nominated for should be present when that section CLEARLY states that it shouldn't be). The National Review Board is the ONLY one that I have retracted from being removed so what was my "claim" again. And please do not accuse me of making "abusive" statements when it was far from it.
1186:, thanks again for your balanced approach. I have reduced the stuff about the blog and the book and moved it to "Personal Life". Hopefully, now it's OK. You are right that I (being a creator and a main contributor) am worrying about this article. Unfortunately, there are challenges even in terms of the established notability. Actually, all this quarrel started when very recently a certain editor
1781:, assessment to be too general and not concrete; you are also keen to use sweeping generalisations along with loud adjectives - although the matter could be just technical and easily correctable. Some your edits here were helpful (e.g., you "toning down" of "Charity Work" section or estimation of "Awards" section as too verbose), others are problematic - and I am going to prove that below.
2003:. In my experience the behaviour of certain individuals in discussions on here indicates a distinct lack of good faith towards the goodwill of editors who edit here without compensation. I've seen many very decent editors forced out of the project by constant berating and lack of good faith in what they do. We can't afford to treat constructive editors who produce content in this way...
1509:
859:
is no pleasure to be at the receiving end but that's life. I find it astonishing that you, who has strong opinions how others should do their Wiki work, is not prepared to take even slightest responsibilty for your own practice that has not always been up to high standards. Sorry about this rant but I believe it is up to the point of this discussion.
769:
You don't even understand that your recommendations (that can well be worth considering) cannot be credible if you cannot even acknowledge your own well-documented oversights on editing this very article. This is a pity because the blunders as such are not big deal, but the attitude to them is. OK, probably our talk came to a conclusion.
682:
attitude: you thought that you knew better and that itâs all right to remove an existing portion of content in an reasonably well-research and well-maintained article without undertaking a proper own research. I hope now you understand what I am talking about and why Iâve been not happy regarding some (not all!) your interventions.
1847:
to find there any interesting and novel information beyond common-knowledge-wise. There is second approach: encyclopedic knowledge by its definition assumes richness of detail: for instance, the article about Tom
Holland should answer not only basic questions about him (who is he? When was he born? What roles he played?) but also
357:"when the subject has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied." This means that actually no child actor (who by definition cannot demonstrate "lasting abilities" until they grow up) can be subject of Wiki article which contradicts the current practice.
1814:. If you, Tenebrae, think WP is not "required to give them credence" then go and delete them. I'll watch what happens after that with interest. Secondly, every award under the question can be found in a great number of articles about actors. Let's look at the articles about actors mentioned in the Holland's item -
1198:) tweeted about that to Tom Holland (whom as he claims he doesn't know personally). It's difficult to be certain what the editor meant: did he want Tom to look at the article to recognise that now, after those edits, there is no mention of the book about him there? Or he wanted Tom to see a rather derogatory (
2158:
story reads, "Itâs a long journey from Norbiton to Hollywood but one that Tom Holland is getting used to." Did you really mean to be so insulting as to suggest that a grown man can't read the word "Norbiton" in the first sentence? Now, as a journalist, I'd like to point out that this article suggests
1958:
My comments are already too long and I apologise for that. But how else I can defend my stuff in reply to those sweeping ill-informed general accusations - only by a clinical detailed analysis. I know I am not completely right in everything I was deliberating about but I believe the paper is a victim
1851:
That's why info about awards as well as opinions of the experts (who are experts in his case? Obviously, his directors and co-stars with big names such as Naomi Watts) are critically important. Accordingly what's wrong in exact citing of those experts? This IS NOT "puffery"! Tenebrae had removed in a
1797:
So I doubt that his/her personal subjective views should be prevailing without any discussion because they clearly contradict to the established practice. Later I will elaborate this claim using the concrete fragments of the content as well of Tenebrae's concrete edits of it that are not that perfect
1772:
This article can be problematic and definitely needs to be improved. I can also acknowledge that some problems could appear due to me as a creator and main contributor - I don't have much WP experience and I'm not a native English speaker. At the same time, in real world I have enough experience as a
1660:
No. Asking another editor to look at a page is perfectly fine. No one "conspired," since by simple definition that would mean we had gotten together, talked about a strategy designed to thwart and frustrate someone and launched a coordinated effort. No one did any such thing, and it is both repugnant
1421:". Yes, it was suggested that the article to be deleted, I didn't agree, presented my case and fellow editors supported me. Now as Holland career proceeded it's clear that I was right. What 's wrong with such arguing? It's completely within WP regulations. At the end, what you are doing here? Arguing!
1251:
I would like to see how the notion of "promotion" can concretely be applied to the mention of the book (as well as a blog). The legitimate purpose of those mentions (which're purely factual, without any assessment, and no superlatives there) is to give readers the references for further reading about
854:
Sorry, but there you go again too. I also thought that the topic is closed as our views were articulated enough but I don't agree that your point of view has prevailed. One can continue to argue what the very word "balanced" can mean in this context but I don't see any sense in that. Input from other
504:
3. More about your declaration âThere is a duty on Knowledge to give a balanced overview of what has been said about the subject of an article.â Yes, this is a general rule. But âbalancedâ cannot mean that if there is absence of negative views on the subject (just because they do not exist), then one
212:
states: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube... Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis." There are thousands and thousands videos owned by TV channels like BBC, ITV and FIVE at YouTube. If these copyright holders really want to remove them from YouTube
135:
Tom Holland had been playing the title role in the major award-winning West End show for almost two years (not "ten months" - please do your research; although ten months is long enough) with great success acknowledged not just by thousands of spectators but also by some famous figures of theatre and
1846:
Another general issue is: how detailed the article should be? Widely, there are two different approaches - both of them are adopted in WP. The first one: the article should include only facts and short neutral dry opinions. In my opinion, such articles can look as stubs and WP readers are struggling
1168:
come to Knowledge to edit their pages (I've seen it happen lots of times), however, I, myself, have been accused of being the subject themselves and/or a "paid editor" when I was starting out, so we need to be careful when accusing other editors of having a conflict of interest (particularly when it
980:
famous Hollywood stars' birth dates aren't usually mentioned in the mainstream media unless/until that date rolls around each year, whereupon their DOB is briefly mentioned in a "born on this day" type of section in magazines/newspapers, so we may have to wait until his birthday rolls around in June
750:
Put you "on trial"?! Really? That's some claim. I am not talking about you. I am talking about the concrete instances of edits of the article about Tom Holland. This is exactly what this Talk page is for by its definition. You are again repeating misleading lamentations that I am against editing "my
378:
On a more general note: you are consistently refusing to discuss matters per se. Instead you time and again refer to the "policies" assuming they provide exact receipt for everything. Of course the policies should be followed; however we are discussing here not exact sciences but human personalities
2356:
So what exactly is your main point to all of this? I've lost sight of it in your long winded rants of how your "journalist" experience trumps our editor experience and how it's all a well planned conspiracy by Tenebrae and myself. I would like to see another editor agree with you on this "bullying"
1897:
What does normally WP editor do having spotted (rightly) that indeed the source doesn't confirm the info? He/she would either try to find a proper source herself or to tag that unfortunate info to let other editors do the job - and only after some time expires one can deal with the matter decidedly
1864:
concerned with Dominic Holland's blog and book about Tom Holland (his "conspiratorial remark" is also worth to cite: "Judging by all that detail about Dominic Holland, who is not the subject of this article, there certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence of who this article's WP:SPA is". I.e.,
1809:
what National Review Board award is - which speaks for itself. Tenebrae has dismissed quite a few awards which Holland got or been nominated for ("Knowledge is not in the business of promoting actors or anyone else through indiscriminate laundry-listing of every minor or regional award. Anybody can
1581:
And for the record, the so-called "coordinated attack" between myself and Tene is me simply asking Tene to explain to you the way he explained to me about the use of INDISCRIMINATE, look at his talk page. No where does it say "I have this annoying editor reverting me, please help me gang up on him"
1289:
quite hard. Blogs, private websites, user edited sites etc are generally not used as sources. In this case, even if the book is self published, there is enough mainstream press of it to merit inclusion. Re an above comment, I don't think this article stands any chance of deletion now. Notability of
1243:
are legitimate forms of publication with many bestsellers in both categories (some classic books in past were also self-published). Recently self-publishing became a global trend which's visible not only in literature but in other industrues as well, musical in particular. In the particular case of
971:
I'm not sure it needs a section or subsection at all, but, like I said, I don't want to get in the middle of it, so I'll let others sort it out. One note: If you (or anyone else) has read Dominic Holland's Ebook, there might be a mention of Tom's exact date and/or place of birth, etc, which can be
858:
I am forced to repeat once more that your "editing history" IS the topic here - it was this history that had served as a starting point of this exchange in the first place. Of course, it's always more pleasant to discuss the failings of other people (and my work here is by no means ideal) and there
321:
As I wrote earlier if removing links to YouTube videos is dictated by the policies then I was not going to argue. I do not know whether these two videos are available elsewhere, so the point is not that I don't care; I just cannot immediately find other links instead those removed. These videos are
1950:
of this page will understand the irony. On a more serious note: earlier Tenebrae had removed any mention of awards from Holland's article lead ("Removed completely inappropriate laundry list of awards from the WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of what a subject is best known for,
1856:
one can find numerous (a few dozens!) citations from hew own interviews (e.g.: "She said of the nomination, "It's far beyond what I ever dreamed for â that would have been too far fetched" - isn't it "puffery", Tenebrae? Maybe you will remove this - and many other citations from Watt's article? If
1842:
Now about that "promotional" spirit of the article. It's quite convenient to throw out negatively colored words without referencing to their exact definition. Tom Holland is an actor; in his industry (and in showbiz as a whole) the notion of "promotion" has its precise definition. It can hardly be
1550:
I'm on shaky ground? Really? You consider me saying "what kind of editor you are appearing to be" after agreeing with Tene over you seemingly being a partisan editor on behalf of Holland as you have edited virtually no other article since March 2010 a rant? I would say that's a little far fetched.
1263:
is: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject". I believe that all the nice words about the subject are properly attributed and their sources are proper and authoritative. Their purpose is to let readers understand what is special about the subject (which is an
1110:
Jakk, do you mean that 'every newspaper in the UK is reporting' the blog? Several other editors have also had issues with it. I am looking at the history of the article over the last six months and seeing editors adding puff. The book looks like it was self-published. I have no problem at all with
1063:
I hear what you're saying. I ordinarily wouldn't be in a hurry to add info regarding a doting father's blog/book about his own son to a Knowledge bio either, but when every newspaper in the UK is reporting it then it's difficult to ignore. Admittedly, the article could use some cleanup (lists of
768:
I don't have "an issue" with "verification of his personal detals". I do have an issue with some problematic practices you had demostrated here. I provided an evidence, you prefer to ignore it completely. To point out one's concrete mistakes doesn't mean to "put one on trial", don't be ridiculous.
161:
Overall, Tom Holland is without doubt one of the most talented young British actors with a great future, and I do not understand why the article about him (written according to the guidelines with all the appropriate references) does not deserve to be in Wiki. In fact, I find the very fact of this
1788:
edits here. In actually few minutes spent they made very radical, if not brutal, dissections&cuttings down having removed in a whim a good part of content that was there for a long time and required many hours of research; moreover, it has been scrutinised by other experienced editors before.
723:
As you point our, Holland has starred in one film and one stage production. There's no justification for repeating everything that's been said about him - that's not the point of Knowledge. The sentences quoted from Watts still retain the main essence of her strong praise. There was absolutely no
424:
I'm responding to AdVal, the original author of this article, who left a long post on my Talk page today. Firstly I'd like to point out that anyone can edit Knowledge. It is a bit rich to ask why I "pay so much attention" to the Tom Holland article (in fact, I rarely edit here) when it is AdVal's
2237:
You keep accusing me in arguing with editors here but this very page is by definition for discussing the issues of the WP article. Issues rather than persons! The result of all those âarguingâ (there were not many of them anyway) was positive in terms of improving the content. You started from a
1792:
My general reply is simple: Tenebrae seems not to read many WP articles about actors. Of course, my WP experience is limited, especially in comparison with his/her. However (in addition to my extensive relevant experience beyond WP) I'd been reading a lot of WP articles about actors and tried to
1347:
helpful to this beautiful, altruistic project to help bring free, egalitarian knowledge and reference materials to the world, and if I were AdVal I would certainly think about whether his or her actions are appropriate or respectful to other editors or the project. This is not the type of editor
1244:
the book in question it was written by a professional author who is in addition a reasonably known specialist in the area the book describes. What's wrong with that? It can be bought from Amazon (a lot of reviews can be found there). The same is true regarding such a modern form of journalism as
1089:
going on in this article." I should also add in my turn that I believe that one of the editors (not you) who happened to deal with this article does have COI of a negative kind - but this my conclusion is based on some concrete evidence and I hope to present it in due course using an appropriate
1010:
He might get a little birthday mention since most of those little blurbs simply state "born on this day" and then a list of names like "Todd Holland, actor - 17", etc.. One thing we know for sure is that he was born in 1996, since I found reliable sources stating that he was 16 back in December
492:
1. Of course, anybody can edit Knowledge. No need to caricature opponentâs arguments refering to "exclusive activity". As I already pointed out on your Talk page, I did find some your interventions helpful. If you see a factual error, inappropriate stuff, an invalid link or you can provide a new
403:
I think the whole article is written by daddy... More than bright and not a bit balanced or neutral. All interviews (first interview in a news broadcast, The Impossible interviews), other promotional TV performances, reviews for "leading" appearances in the B.E. musical (he was not the only lead
226:
Let me make another remark - about the very notion of "the notability". This is a very principal and difficult matter. Creative personalities (authors, performers, etc.) from Art and Entertainment world cannot be judged on the basis of "numbers": sometimes one role (book, song, etc.) can be more
2125:
Having now looked in detail to the beginning of this page, I've realized you have been arguing with editors over these same issues since 2010. Every other editor on this page disagrees with you and sees through your obvious non-disinterested puffery. Your only role in WIkipedia appears to be to
995:
Yes, the birthday date remains an issue. I am 100% sure it's exact but I didn't see any proper source explicitly confirming it. The refering to the ancestry.com was inserted by the other editor, not by me. Initially (when the article was being created) I had taken the date from the Billy Elliot
681:
8. Of course, we all do mistakes and the collective efforts of Wiki fellow editors normally help us to correct them without fuss. Sorry that I did make one. However, I believe that your mistake (I can argue about some other examples too but it's obviusly enough) was a direct consequence of your
498:
2. Your words: âwhy they are paying all their attention to promoting the Hollandsâ? Strange question. As any contributing editor, I have the subjects interesting to me, so I do pay attention to them doing a proper research (as a scientist I know how it should be done - it takes much more than a
1963:
After the latest interventions it looks like a stub - yes, I believe the article became much worse than a month ago. I don't think it's fair to leave all the decisions regarding this particular articles to editors like Tenebrae who are so good in imposing their subjective views: he/she is very
2010:
at times rears its ugly head and offers the worst of humanity. Often disgruntled editors relish the opportunity to attack to work of other editors or support their buddies who they feel that have been insulted in issues they really don't care about. This often results in pointless sniping and
926:
production the subject has appeared in. It seems a brief mention of a proud father's blog/book trumpeting his son's accomplishments would be an appropriate addition to the "Personal life" section, but that's just my opinion. I don't have any intention of getting into the middle of this. ---
530:
4. Now â specifically about Wattsâs words. First, Flick and Bits is not just âblogâ â itâs well-known and reliable online outlet famous for its interviews with showbiz stars. Many established media use its materials on a regular basis â for instance, that very Wattsâs interview (including the
231:
notable films, television shows, stage performances". Tom Holland is a simple case: he is so exceptional that "multiple significant roles" are just a matter of time. Many of child performers will not even become professionals. However, these prodigies are a modern reality and as such the most
1713:
Some Familytreemaker page on a genealogy website is hardly reliable proof of Holland's personal info, for example date of birth and full birth name. Private pages on Ancestry are always littered with mistakes! Neither are the birth registration indexes proof of place of birth (they only give
671:
7. In addition, information about Tomâs brothers (that was also completely correct) was just lost altogether and restored (with a proper reference) by me later. Meanwhile, instead of removing that fragment in a whim you could have left it there for a while marked by âbetter source neededâ or
282:
is clearly not addressed. The article subject is one of 60+ actors who have taken the role. As I noted before, when the subject has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied. Meanwhile much of the article verges on
1264:
important part of any Knowledge article devoted to a creative person). If there is something that is beyond that, then of course it should be removed. If there are negative comments about the subject from a proper source then they should also be cited. So far I wasn't able to find them.
207:
Thanks for understanding and prompt reply. If you are definitely certain that the references to two YouTube videos "are clear copyright violations" then why you tagged them instead of plain removing? It is difficult to argue with it and I am not going to. Although, the guideline from
1319:. Knowledge 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.
1906:. I hope it's obvious now that the already cited dramatic ("the rest was put in my someone who knows him personally and is violating WP:COI") remark by Tenebrae is not correct at all, and the information should be restored (with the correct reference) as it was before his/her edit.
1330:
to be a partisan editor on behalf of this child actor. It might not be his publicist, mother or other self-interested party, but he or she certainly gives that impression. He or she has edited virtually no other article since March 2010, and as argued over and over, regularly
1489:. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Knowledge community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to
1838:
I'm afraid, without a clear answer your edits here cannot be treated as indisputable. And once again I suggest you to start your mission of removing "indiscriminate laundry-listing of every minor or regional award" from articles about more prominent than Holland
451:
weight to these sources and, for that reason I shorted the quotes significantly to give the essence of what was said. Generally you should summarise, in your own words, what others have said. It gives more credence if well-known, reliable sources are used too.
1941:
I can continue - but will limit myself with the following Tenebrae's edit (the remark: "...the WP:LEAD is a summary of the subject, not a place to promote his next movie."). The removed sentence mentioning Tom's forthcoming movie was inserted not by me but by
709:
The subject of this Talk page isn't me, it's the article about Tom Holland. Rather than put me on trial for editing "your" article, please address the subject of this section. If you have an issue with verification of his personal details, please discuss that
1081:, do you mean my activity here? Well, instead of substantiating and defending your problematic "summary" you decided to make a vague smearing statement aimed at a person who challenged your editorial decision. I would like to hear the concrete evidence of "
1373:. Why that "action" is not "appropriate or respectful to other editors or the project"? Why do you think that it's appropriate - instead a normal discussion about concrete issues of the article - to lecture me using those ridiculously pompous statements ("
1751:
This article is extremely problematic. It certainly is not written like a neutral encyclopedia article. I've placed three tags. I know there's a "multiple issues" tag, but this article's vios are so egregious I wanted to make them as clear as possible.
227:
significant contribution "to a field of entertainment" (and to culture as a whole) than hundred of others - this is a nature of the field. One should be especially careful with "child actors". They by definition very rarely have "significant roles in
1527:
More specifically, some your edits concerned with awards had also been disputed by other editors - which is not surprising in the light of your claim regarding National Review Board's and other awards. So please restrain from abusive statements.
1194:(he didn't mention the book in the summary but removed a reference to it anyway). Then this editor (who acts under his real name and maintains a number of Knowledge articles about Billy Elliot-related young stars with many of whom he - I cite -
1163:
musical appears to have garnered an extremely avid "cult" fan base, which may have also contributed to some of the edits over the years. Of course subjects of Knowledge bios (or their friends, families, professional representatives, etc) often
2220:
You did try hard to find the most trivial out of all issues and even there you needed that demagogic equilibristic. This tactic shouldnât work. You can ignore the major questions concerned with your problematic edits and incompetence but
1985:- maybe he can look at here? I didn't see before such a thorough analysis of the WP problems, and I understand even stronger now that my content is far from perfect. One could reproduce the entire text here. In particular, in the section
1582:
Please. It sounds like you are REACHING and when you are accusing us of these "malicious" attacks, you yourself are making abusive statements. I have no need to delete this article, only to follow guidelines and all I did was delete
1015:) and again, 16 in January, after the film's release, so we at least know the year, but like I said, some reliable entertainment sites, or possibly his "hometown" newspaper, etc, might mention his birthday when it rolls around.. ---
1928:)" with the accompanying remark ("cited source said none of that. Toned down overdetail about brother -- not the subject of the article"). So his version inserted at once is: "He has an actor brother, Harry, who appears in the film
2233:
and many, many others) but you feel itâs safe to strip the article about a young actor of any significant content to give an intimidating lesson a fellow editor who happened to legitimately ask explanations about your problematic
581:â. This was true and well spotted â the link (previously correct) was no longer valid. It happens â in this particular case Billy Elliot the Musical official site had been radically re-designed, and the reference became irrelevant.
1793:
model this article on a basis of a number of well-established ones: I assume that articles about popular actors are properly written by experts and observed by a high number of experiences editors. Now I will make my major claim:
819:
who's noticed the tendency to include in the article everything that's ever been said about Holland. My main point still stands, that Knowledge articles should be a balanced summary of what has been said about the subject.
751:
article" - I had articulated quite clearly that it's not true. I am against edits, especially those performed in a cavalier manner, that do not improve the article (or even worsen it) - this is my only interest.
2084:
This incredibly overlong attempt to bludgeon experienced, longtime editors who have been following Knowledge policies and guidelines for years and know them well is what's inappropriate here. So are all the
1823:
1426:
OK, enough about personal issues. Of course, we should discuss the article, not me or you, and our main concern should be how to make it better. I have already posted a detailed reply to your opinion â see
1377:
helpful to this beautiful, altruistic project to help bring free, egalitarian knowledge and reference materials to the world")? How does this full of unsubstantiated insinuations attack corresponds to the
353:
is clearly not addressed." This is your subjective opinion. In my opinion "unique ...or innovative contributions" are present, and this is confirmed by some references to the sources citing some prominent
145:
He does have a decent fan base - e.g., there are hundreds of messages in special threads devoted to him and his performances on two Billy Elliot the Musical fan forums, quite a few videos at YouTube, etc.
1140:
1836:
why it's not acceptable to mention these awards (that in your personal opinion are "minor" or "regional") in Holland's article and it's perfectly fine to have them in other well-maintained articles?
2167:
state is where he was born â and did you know that sometimes people are born in one place and raised elsewhere? Gosh. Why in one of those Knowledge actor articles you say I don't know, I find that
1892:". He accompanied that with rather conspiratorial: "Personal life: That's ALL that the cited article says. Clearly, the rest was put in my someone who knows him personally and is violating WP:COI"
1964:
experienced but I think it's established enough here that their experience is not exactly related to actors and showbiz. I would propose to revert all the latest edits and start again from, say,
801:
There you go again, discussing my editing history rather than the topic at hand. Considering another ediotr has chipped in to agree with the general principle, I'll assume this topic is closed.
1951:
and NOT a promotional blurb"). Once again, he is wrong: virtually any article about actors (including already mentioned) includes some award-related info in the lead. Why doesn't he know this?
922:
appears appropriate. I'm not sure it needs its own section "Eclipsed". In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't since it can/will encourage other editors to begin creating a separate section for
266:
is clear enough. You cite that currently the subject "is filming in America. It is a big part in the major production. The news has not been publicly released yet but will rather soon." Per
1410:â. Then here she in her turn supported your rant: "I completely agree with Tenebrae regarding AdVal as a user and what kind of editor they are appearing to be." Something wrong here...
1810:
create an "award" and start giving it out. That doesn't mean en encyclopedia is required to give them credence or an imprimatur"). The problem with this claim is two-folded. First,
1827:
544:
5. Now itâs time to move from general statements to a concrete editing practice - to illustrate what I mean. I am going to consider the very first (to my knowledge) edit by
1256:
anything that applies to the mentions in the article. Although, of course one can perceive any line of any Knowledge article (especially related to showbiz) as promotional.
2394:
605:
1661:
and inaccurate for you to make such an accusation. You, on the other hand, seem not to understand that Knowledge is not a place for press-release puffery or fan pages.--
439:
of the Palm Springs Film Festival. There is a duty on Knowledge to give a balanced overview of what has been said about the subject of an article. In these instances,
291:, if you cared, but you have indicated that you do not. Suggest you read up on Knowledge policies, if you disagree with them start threads on the relative talk pages.
1248:. Some of them are more popular and more influential than traditional outlets. Once again, it all depends on the author. We don't talk about an amateurish blog here.
2459:
2437:
1852:
whim all such citations about Holland and by Holland. I don't agree. Once again: a lot of WP articles about actors have numerous citations of that sort: e.g., in
1450:
I completely agree with Tenebrae regarding AdVal as a user and what kind of editor they are appearing to be. As for the awards, I will remove them once again per
1155:
mention that appears in reliable sources in order to protect the page from being deleted (notability is sufficiently established now, so we don't need to keep
181:
OK, please note I have tagged two references to user submitted YouTube videos. These are clear copyright violations and should not be linked to, please see
1982:
436:
532:
154:
At this very moment he is filming in America. It is a big part in the major production. The news has not been publicly released yet but will rather soon.
1899:
1798:
as he/she seems to believe. Note that I am going to argue in concrete relevant terms and facts (with appropriate references), not in general words.
1471:,You are on a shaky ground here. With your rant ("regarding AdVal as a user and what kind of editor they are appearing to be") you clearly violate
724:
need to copy-paste the report of his speech at the Awards event. Suffice to say it was well received and returned the compliments to Naomi Watts.
1849:
the fundamental question: Why is he special (and what his roles are special and why) and what distinguishes him from a myriad of other actors?
2417:
510:
These were my general points. Next time I will present my arguments regarding some your concrete edits to illustrate what I am talking about.
566:
He lives in Kingston-upon-Thames with his parents and three brothers - Sam, Harry (who are twins), and Paddy, with all of them being younger
2329:
if you think I'm "a typical coward bully will not do similar edits in WP articles devoted to more prominent actors." Just stop, please. --
1934:)"). He is wrong regarding Norbiton - the same article from the Evening Standards (this time properly referenced) does include mention of
1144:
262:
You are welcome to your opinions, but what matters here at Knowledge are policies and guidelines established by the consensus of editors.
1777:
was valid and supported by a proper number of references to the reliable sources. Having said that, I have also to add that I find your,
2126:
promote Tom Holland, and your reaction when editors call you on it is to write longwinded rants. Methinks thou dost protest too much. --
1148:
1795:
every aspect mentioned by Tenebrae as utterly inappropriate can be found in a great number of well-maintained WP articles about actors.
2188:
I'm not going to give you a step-by-step lesson in journalistic research. But this one haughty assertion of yours really bugged me. --
1831:
1733:
404:
actor) and so on are mentioned. And a lot of advertising for dad's e-book. This is more a press kit than an article. my two cents...
1588:
awards NOT ALL OF THEM and you have turned it into these glorifyed witch hunt with me and Tene as the hunters. Have you even read
322:
not that important in the article context, though. So I suggest to leave this article as it is now after your editing for a while.
1159:
of it, but it's just one possible explanation for why so much of it was added in the first place). Also, keep in mind that the
425:
exclusive activity! I would turn the question around and ask why they are paying all their attention to promoting the Hollands.
79:
No, not yet - ten months in Billy Elliot, a few promotional TV performances. This does not satisfy the notability guideline of
1769:
I am forced to provide a detailed substantiated reply - otherwise no sense to answer at all. So my comment is going to be long.
1498:
I am also not sure that you are in a position to give spiteful characteristics to other editors. As a superficial look at your
1516:. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Knowledge, as you did at
1038:
Given the article and its history, I suspect this is all promotion for the father's blog, book and website. There's too much
2097:
guidelines, it is not worth the time to plow through this transparent attempt to shout over other editors from a soapbox. --
1812:
actually every of the awards dismissed (and removed from the Holland's article) is represented in WP with a devoted article
855:
editors is always welcome but it can only be convincing if they provide arguments rather than unsubstantiated declarations.
1517:
429:
2163:
it be might suggesting he was raised in Norbiton and now lives elsewhere, such as, perhaps, Hollywood. One thing it does
1513:
662:. In other words, you have compromised the factual correctness of the article. I am interested in your comments on that.
1252:
the subject. Similar things can be found in almost every properly written Knowledge article. I was not able to find in
1413:
I know, I'm an easy target, especially for you: indeed, you are a very active and highly productive editor and I'm a
1918:, Kingston-upon-Thames with his parents and three brothers â twins Sam and Harry (who is to be seen in the role of
634:, Kingston-upon-Thames with his parents and three brothers â twins Sam and Harry (who is to be seen in the role of
66:
38:
1903:
2229:
As a typical cowardice bully you will not do similar edits in WP articles devoted to more prominent actors (e,g.
1521:
1686:
You're joking right? Because I asked another editor for help in maybe better explaining to you the relevance of
90:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2358:
1687:
1589:
1552:
1451:
1316:
2154:
And just to respond to one particularly bothersome thing you wrote, yes, clearly, the first sentence of the
1784:
Before going to the essence of the matter let me define what I find astonishing about recent Tenebrae's and
1737:
1691:
2382:
1834:
and many others. The same is true regarding articles about many and many other actors. So I'm asking you:
472:
2171:
is almost always referred to as "from Massapequa," where he was raised. Guess what? He wasn't born there.
1976:
1919:
1174:
1069:
1020:
986:
932:
635:
350:
296:
279:
263:
190:
125:
124:
Notable? - Yes, and very much so. There is enough evidence to conclude that the notability guideline of
111:
80:
2227:
What you are doing is at utter odds with well-established WP practice on writing articles about actors.
2366:
1715:
1699:
1597:
1560:
1499:
1459:
1290:
Holland is very firmly established by virtue of winning major awards and having much press coverage.
660:
you removed a piece of information that was completely correct and inserted instead the incorrect one
2325:
And for heaven's sakes, do not make any more blatantly untrue statements about my editing. Look at
2094:
2086:
1872:
Let's now look (in a reasonably clinical fashion) at some other Tenebrae's edits. Let's start from
1253:
2334:
2193:
2131:
2102:
1757:
1666:
1353:
1296:
1125:
1082:
1052:
1039:
973:
284:
2259:
2254:
begins from "Hello dear :)" and being happy after your intervention: "Thanks so much love! :)".
2012:
1627:
1529:
1432:
1339:, and generally not seeming interested in being a productive member of Knowledge but being here
1323:
1265:
1203:
1091:
997:
950:
900:
862:
772:
688:
604:
Obviously, you, Sionk, looked through the article, spotted the reference that was already used (
513:
382:
249:
168:
1832:
Phoenix Film Critics Society Award for Best Performance by a Youth in a Lead or Supporting Role
2045:
1930:
1924:
1884:. Having successfully completed his GCSEs, in September 2012, he started a two-year course in
1881:
640:
468:
267:
209:
182:
1877:
1332:
1183:
1170:
1065:
1016:
982:
946:
928:
409:
292:
186:
107:
47:
17:
2362:
2263:
2251:
2243:
2090:
2016:
1943:
1802:
1785:
1723:
1695:
1631:
1593:
1556:
1533:
1490:
1468:
1455:
1436:
1407:
1403:
1395:
1370:
1312:
1269:
1236:
1207:
1095:
1001:
954:
904:
866:
825:
806:
776:
729:
692:
517:
457:
448:
386:
253:
172:
104:
Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and taken other major roles.
2395:âSchoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami dramaâ
2246:
as she herself naively, if not foolishly acknowledged above; also it's worth to look at
287:. I shall remove the copyvio Youtube links, I tagged them so that you could source other
2326:
1116:
610:
Holland was spotted in a local dance class in Wimbledon where he lives with his parents
275:
1975:
Finally, I'd like to cite the following fragment from a very interesting article by âŠ
1622:
Thanks for your reply. You seems not to understand what you've actually acknowledged.
1139:
There are numerous UK news sources reporting the blog and/or the book, as can be seen
2330:
2189:
2127:
2098:
1815:
1778:
1753:
1662:
1414:
1366:
1349:
1292:
1286:
1260:
1121:
1086:
1078:
1048:
1043:
892:
1472:
1379:
2168:
428:
But the general problem I addressed yesterday was the excessive quoting from (1) a
288:
271:
100:
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
2405:
672:
something like that. That would have been a proper editing manner, in my opinion.
443:
that Watts said about Holland in the (unattributed) blog interview was repeated;
162:
discussion rather strange. So I object the deletion of the article very strongly.
2370:
2338:
2267:
2230:
2197:
2135:
2106:
2058:
2020:
1889:
1885:
1853:
1819:
1761:
1741:
1727:
1703:
1670:
1635:
1601:
1564:
1537:
1463:
1440:
1357:
1301:
1273:
1211:
1178:
1130:
1099:
1073:
1057:
1024:
1005:
990:
958:
936:
908:
870:
829:
810:
780:
733:
696:
521:
476:
461:
413:
405:
390:
300:
257:
194:
176:
115:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2239:
1990:
1947:
1866:
1719:
1690:(take this into account seeing as how this is where he first told me about it
1428:
821:
802:
725:
556:. In particular, here is the sentence in the version before that intervention:
545:
484:
453:
2089:
accusations in the final paragraph's diatribe. Until this editor understands
1822:. You can easily find there a lot of awards (including "regional") - such as
1876:. Before his intervention the text was as follow: "Then, after a successful
1714:
registration district). This sort of stuff should be zapped on sight, per
1935:
1915:
1394:"? I have to say that I'm uneasy about this coordinated (between you and
631:
86:
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
1806:
1503:
1399:
579:
Personal life: Billy Elliot source doesn't have bio or brothers' names
2247:
1192:"rm not notable blog by not notable subject. only through association"
1240:
1119:, not the presentation of verbatim coverage by the mainstream press.
447:
said by the Hitfix article was pasted into Knowledge. This is giving
895:
has removed the section âEclipsedâ of the article with the Summary:
550:
Revisions as of 23:59, 2 February 2013 and at 00:02, 3 February 2013
1986:
1773:
scientist, journalist and editor, and I think in terms of research
1857:
not, then why did you remove every Holland's word from his item?).
1961:
Now the major question arises: what to do with Holland's article?
245:
Sorry for such a long note from non-native speaker. Thanks again!
1801:
Let's start from the awards issue. I am not going to argue with
1245:
612:â and then inserted a new sentence into the Hollandâs article â
531:
fragment about Holland with words removed by you) was cited in
1888:". After his edit: "As of December 2012, he was attending the
1196:âhave either a close personal or professional relationship toâ
25:
2418:
Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots '
974:
websites repeating the information supplied in this article
1398:) attack. The citing is very telling: she started on her
1959:
of a biased and over-dramatic attitude of some editors.
1965:
1911:
1873:
1861:
1774:
1418:
1406:
could not have put it better", and here âI concur with
1336:
1187:
816:
815:
I've also just noticed the comment further up the page
617:
553:
95:
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
1890:
the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology
1886:
the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology
1828:
Saturn Award for Best Performance by a Younger Actor
1454:, leaving National Review Board on there however :)
1993:
in which I feel I am (and this Holland article is):
1479:
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Knowledge.
1384:
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Knowledge.
654:6. Perhaps too many words. Let me stress once more
2250:to see how it all started: asking for your help,
1169:comes to "teen" stars with a young fanbase). ---
1502:shows you have had a number of problems such as
981:and then check again for reliable sources. ---
976:). From experience, I've found that even the
914:A mention of the blog/book as reported in the
1914:was concerned with the sentence "He lives in
644:), and Paddy, with all of them being younger.
8:
887:Removing info about "Eclipsed" book and blog
1190:all that "Eclipsed" stuff with the summary
2223:those questions are not going to disappear
1966:the version of the article of 29 Sept 2013
1624:"simply asking Tene to explain to you..."
1259:The definition of "puffery" according to
1200:ânot notable blog by not notable subjectâ
1824:Broadcast Film Critics Association Award
590:Here is the same sentence after editing:
2458:was invoked but never defined (see the
2436:was invoked but never defined (see the
2375:
594:He lives in Wimbledon with his parents.
2385:Billy Elliot The Musical Official Site
1692:Talk:Scarlett_Johansson#Awards_section
614:He lives in Wimbledon with his parents
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
270:that information, whih appears to be
7:
2001:Wikilawyering and lack of good faith
1983:WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
2450:
2428:
2420:BroadwayWorld.com, 28 August, 2008
2159:that he's living in Norbiton now.
1111:reviews, glowing or otherwise. It
620:) the sentence looks as it should:
24:
1900:article from the Evening Standard
1592:to see where we are coming from?
1473:a very fundamental WP regulations
1335:at the Notability board, such as
658:of that your session of editing:
608:), found out there the sentence â
2242:(on the request of your protégé
2043:(2821 words!! Just sayin'... -
1869:) and is a bad editing practice.
1507:
1343:to promote Tom Holland. That is
274:is of no relevance to establing
29:
1981:- who seems to be a founder of
1862:has removed a chunk of the text
897:âThis is not about Tom Hollandâ
1:
2371:17:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
2339:17:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
2268:14:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
1518:Justin Timberlake videography
2198:23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
2136:22:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
2107:21:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
2021:18:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1762:16:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
1732:So what are we doing then?--
1728:00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
1704:21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1671:21:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1636:21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1602:20:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1565:19:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1538:18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1464:15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
1441:19:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
1358:15:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
618:Difference between revisions
554:Difference between revisions
414:22:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
2357:accusation. We have stated
2256:This is just beyond belief!
1232:Let me tackle your points.
391:02:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
301:00:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
258:21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
195:14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
177:01:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
116:01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
2481:
2383:Meet the Boys: Tom Holland
1046:going on in this article.
871:19:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
830:12:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
811:11:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
781:19:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
734:17:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
697:15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
522:03:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
477:17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
462:12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
2059:22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
1742:17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
1380:fundamental WP convention
1115:for editors to tone down
552:). Let us have a look at
1302:20:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
1274:22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
1212:11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
1179:02:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
1131:19:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
1100:19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
1074:17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
1058:16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
1025:15:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
1006:14:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
991:13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
959:13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
937:12:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
909:02:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
2248:your personal talk page
1912:Another Tenebrae's edit
1880:, he became a pupil at
1867:citing Tenebrae himself
1322:I would also note that
1287:self-published material
1011:(before the release of
577:Sionkâs Edit summary: â
343:Concrete minor remarks.
1904:"UK Stars of Tomorrow"
1402:and you wrote there: "
1285:WP generally examines
548:of Hollandâs article (
432:of Naomi Watts (2) a
42:of past discussions.
2454:The named reference
2432:The named reference
1948:the previous section
1946:. Those who look at
1522:blocked from editing
467:I agree completely.
2406:Harry Holland (III)
1514:disruptive editing
1348:Knowledge needs.--
1235:In our times both
533:Daily Mail article
2359:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
2055:
2008:hostile community
1882:Wimbledon College
1807:doesn't even know
1688:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1590:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1553:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1512:Please stop your
1452:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1317:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
1315:' edit regarding
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2472:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2457:
2449:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2435:
2427:
2421:
2415:
2409:
2403:
2397:
2392:
2386:
2380:
2156:Evening Standard
2053:
1979:
1878:eleven plus exam
1709:Unreliable WP:OR
1511:
1510:
1300:
1129:
1056:
420:Excessive quotes
289:reliable sources
278:. Criteria 3 of
83:, which states:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
18:Talk:Tom Holland
2480:
2479:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2455:
2453:
2451:
2446:
2433:
2431:
2429:
2424:
2416:
2412:
2404:
2400:
2393:
2389:
2381:
2377:
2240:personal attack
2051:
1987:"Site problems"
1977:
1749:
1747:Multiple issues
1711:
1508:
1506:(I'm citing): "
1309:
1291:
1237:Self-publishing
1120:
1047:
889:
422:
349:"Criteria 3 of
77:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2478:
2476:
2467:
2466:
2444:
2422:
2410:
2398:
2387:
2374:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2327:Clint Eastwood
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2235:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2050:
2047:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2004:
1995:
1994:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1953:
1952:
1939:
1908:
1907:
1894:
1893:
1870:
1858:
1844:
1840:
1799:
1790:
1782:
1770:
1748:
1745:
1710:
1707:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1525:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1475:(I'm citing):
1446:
1444:
1443:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1411:
1311:I concur with
1308:
1305:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1257:
1249:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1013:The Impossible
964:
963:
962:
961:
940:
939:
888:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
860:
856:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
813:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
770:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
702:
701:
700:
699:
686:
683:
676:
675:
674:
673:
666:
665:
664:
663:
656:the net result
649:
648:
647:
646:
624:
623:
622:
621:
599:
598:
597:
596:
591:
585:
584:
583:
582:
572:
571:
570:
569:
560:
559:
558:
557:
539:
538:
537:
536:
525:
524:
511:
507:
506:
501:
500:
495:
494:
489:
488:
480:
479:
430:blog interview
421:
418:
417:
416:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
380:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:WP:ENTERTAINER
347:
344:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
280:WP:ENTERTAINER
264:WP:ENTERTAINER
246:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
200:
199:
198:
197:
167:Kind regards,
164:
163:
158:
157:
156:
155:
149:
148:
147:
146:
140:
139:
138:
137:
130:
129:
126:WP:ENTERTAINER
120:
102:
101:
97:
96:
92:
91:
81:WP:ENTERTAINER
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2477:
2461:
2448:
2445:
2439:
2426:
2423:
2419:
2414:
2411:
2407:
2402:
2399:
2396:
2391:
2388:
2384:
2379:
2376:
2373:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2060:
2057:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2009:
2005:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1992:
1991:the situation
1989:he describes
1988:
1984:
1980:
1978:Dr. â Blofeld
1974:
1973:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1949:
1945:
1940:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1927:
1926:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:this his edit
1871:
1868:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1816:Saoirse Ronan
1813:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1780:
1776:
1771:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1746:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1716:WP:BLPPRIVACY
1708:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1526:
1523:
1520:, you may be
1519:
1515:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1488:
1485:, not on the
1484:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1390:, not on the
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1333:wikilawyering
1329:
1325:
1320:
1318:
1314:
1306:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1294:
1288:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1250:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
993:
992:
988:
984:
979:
975:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:
942:
941:
938:
934:
930:
925:
921:
917:
913:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
886:
872:
868:
864:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
831:
827:
823:
818:
814:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
782:
778:
774:
771:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
735:
731:
727:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
698:
694:
690:
687:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
670:
669:
668:
667:
661:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
645:
642:
639:
637:
633:
628:
627:
626:
625:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:
601:
600:
595:
592:
589:
588:
587:
586:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
567:
564:
563:
562:
561:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
534:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
512:
509:
508:
503:
502:
497:
496:
491:
490:
486:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
431:
426:
419:
415:
411:
407:
402:
392:
388:
384:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
356:
352:
348:
345:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
248:Best wishes,
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
211:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
166:
165:
160:
159:
153:
152:
151:
150:
144:
143:
142:
141:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:is satisfied:
127:
123:
122:
121:
118:
117:
113:
109:
105:
99:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
87:
84:
82:
74:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2452:Cite error:
2447:
2430:Cite error:
2425:
2413:
2401:
2390:
2378:
2355:
2255:
2226:
2222:
2169:Alec Baldwin
2164:
2160:
2155:
2095:WP:BIOGRAPHY
2046:
2044:
2007:
2000:
1960:
1929:
1923:
1922:in the film
1920:Prince Harry
1848:
1835:
1811:
1794:
1750:
1734:88.104.131.9
1731:
1712:
1685:
1623:
1584:
1583:
1504:this warning
1486:
1482:
1478:
1445:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1374:
1344:
1340:
1327:
1321:
1310:
1307:Minor awards
1284:
1254:WP:PROMOTION
1199:
1195:
1191:
1165:
1161:Billy Elliot
1160:
1156:
1152:
1112:
1037:
1012:
977:
923:
919:
915:
896:
890:
685:Best wishes!
659:
655:
643:
638:in the film
636:Prince Harry
630:He lives in
629:
613:
609:
606:scotsman.com
593:
578:
565:
549:
469:Stuartyeates
444:
440:
433:
427:
423:
228:
119:
106:
103:
85:
78:
60:
43:
37:
2238:unprovoked
2231:Naomi Watts
1854:Naomi Watts
1820:Naomi Watts
1775:the content
1487:contributor
1481:Comment on
1392:contributor
1386:Comment on
1188:had removed
1184:Crakkerjakk
1171:Crakkerjakk
1083:coatracking
1066:Crakkerjakk
1040:coatracking
1017:Crakkerjakk
983:Crakkerjakk
947:Crakkerjakk
929:Crakkerjakk
916:Independent
817:from RIMOLA
710:separately.
293:Jezhotwells
285:WP:FANCRUFT
187:Jezhotwells
108:Jezhotwells
36:This is an
2363:Lady Lotus
2252:Lady Lotus
2244:Lady Lotus
2234:decisions.
1944:Lady Lotus
1803:Lady Lotus
1786:Lady Lotus
1696:Lady Lotus
1594:Lady Lotus
1557:Lady Lotus
1469:Lady Lotus
1456:Lady Lotus
1408:Lady Lotus
1404:Lady Lotus
1396:Lady Lotus
1371:Lady Lotus
1326:certainly
1313:Lady Lotus
920:Daily Mail
445:everything
441:everything
276:notability
268:WP:CRYSTAL
210:WP:YOUTUBE
183:WP:YOUTUBE
2460:help page
2438:help page
2087:bad-faith
1860:Tenebrae
1400:talk page
1117:promotion
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
2408:IMDb.com
2331:Tenebrae
2190:Tenebrae
2128:Tenebrae
2099:Tenebrae
2091:WP:ACTOR
1936:Norbiton
1916:Norbiton
1779:Tenebrae
1754:Tenebrae
1663:Tenebrae
1367:Tenebrae
1350:Tenebrae
918:and the
893:Spanglej
632:Norbiton
354:experts.
272:research
229:multiple
1805:as she
1483:content
1388:content
891:Editor
75:Notable
39:archive
1839:names.
1491:blocks
1415:WP:SPA
1341:solely
1261:WP:PEA
1241:E-book
437:review
434:Hitfix
406:RIMOLA
2260:AdVal
2054:child
2013:AdVal
1931:Diana
1925:Diana
1720:Sionk
1628:AdVal
1530:AdVal
1433:AdVal
1429:below
1365:Well
1328:seems
1324:AdVal
1266:AdVal
1204:AdVal
1153:every
1092:AdVal
998:AdVal
951:AdVal
924:every
901:AdVal
863:AdVal
822:Sionk
803:Sionk
773:AdVal
726:Sionk
689:AdVal
641:Diana
546:Sionk
514:AdVal
485:Sionk
483:Dear
454:Sionk
449:undue
383:AdVal
250:AdVal
169:AdVal
16:<
2367:talk
2335:talk
2264:talk
2194:talk
2132:talk
2103:talk
2093:and
2049:WOLF
2017:talk
1818:and
1758:talk
1738:talk
1724:talk
1700:talk
1667:talk
1632:talk
1598:talk
1561:talk
1534:talk
1500:talk
1460:talk
1437:talk
1419:here
1354:talk
1337:here
1297:talk
1293:Span
1270:talk
1246:blog
1239:and
1208:talk
1175:talk
1149:here
1147:and
1145:here
1141:here
1126:talk
1122:Span
1096:talk
1085:and
1079:Span
1070:talk
1053:talk
1049:Span
1042:and
1021:talk
1002:talk
987:talk
978:most
955:talk
933:talk
905:talk
867:talk
826:talk
807:talk
777:talk
730:talk
693:talk
518:talk
473:talk
458:talk
410:talk
387:talk
297:talk
254:talk
191:talk
173:talk
112:talk
2456:ind
2434:est
2165:not
1382:: "
1375:not
1345:not
1157:all
1087:COI
1044:COI
945:Hi
2462:).
2440:).
2369:)
2337:)
2266:)
2196:)
2161:Or
2134:)
2105:)
2019:)
2006:A
1830:,
1826:,
1760:)
1752:--
1740:)
1726:)
1718:.
1702:)
1669:)
1634:)
1600:)
1563:)
1536:)
1524:".
1462:)
1439:)
1431:.
1356:)
1272:)
1210:)
1177:)
1166:do
1143:,
1113:is
1098:)
1072:)
1023:)
1004:)
989:)
957:)
935:)
907:)
869:)
828:)
809:)
779:)
732:)
695:)
520:)
475:)
460:)
412:)
389:)
299:)
256:)
193:)
185:.
175:)
114:)
2365:(
2333:(
2262:(
2192:(
2130:(
2101:(
2061:)
2015:(
1756:(
1736:(
1722:(
1698:(
1665:(
1630:(
1596:(
1585:9
1559:(
1532:(
1493:.
1458:(
1435:(
1352:(
1299:)
1295:(
1268:(
1206:(
1173:(
1128:)
1124:(
1094:(
1068:(
1055:)
1051:(
1019:(
1000:(
985:(
953:(
931:(
903:(
865:(
824:(
805:(
775:(
728:(
691:(
568:.
516:(
471:(
456:(
408:(
385:(
295:(
252:(
189:(
171:(
110:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.