Please explain your revert to Meghan article. "Celebrity philanthropy" is a judgmental expression. "Philanthropy" is objective. See [1] Charlesjsharp ( talk) 11:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
On your user page, you may care to use this {{Userboxtop|Information}}. View in edit mode. Sampajanna ( talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it not obvious that the two halves of your edit reason here conradict each other? If it were true that "readability remains the same", there would be no need for a distinct RF standardized phraseology. Mere mortals are patrons of charitable organisations, whereas the exalted few must have a distinct phraseology to clumsily indicate the same thing? If I thought for one second that any of the RF themselves subscribed to such nonsense - I would become a Republican! Pincrete ( talk) 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, in your edits last night to Gregory Peck, you removed the ref definition for ref #240. Please go back through your edits, find the ref definition, and restore it to the article. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello there - I just noticed that you are making substantial changes to the article on Gregory Peck (which you can probably tell, I wrote a huge portion off). I do see that you had a brief discussion on its talk page with 2 other people, although the comments they made seem to be based on quick observations, not actually reading much of the article in any detail. Without doubt it is good when people try to work hard to improve an article either by adding text or making things consistent. By looking at 2 sections of changes I did not immediately find it clear what the aim/intent of your changes is. Perhaps you can please let me know what your overall plan is. Informed analysis ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Easier to read - you've got 8 footnotes in a row in some spots - how is that easier to read? That is crazy in anyone's opinion. All the stuff from before was within one lettered footnote they could open and then it would lead to more details and numbered footnotes for the link to the critic. I discussed and tested out this format with other people and we agreed upon it. You could easily have just put the critics comments in the hidden footnotes instead of deleting them. With the way things are moving, many of the comments (i.e. New York Times and other) may end up in pay windows soon and not reachable - that is why the key comments were extracted, just like someone told me to do. The comments I had included in the body were the most interesting ones from the most well-known sources often.
It was discussed with my ex-partner 204.40... (we still kept in touch a year ago but not now) and a friend at work 2607.. both of whom (if you look way back in 2019) helped do some of the research and made some of the changes, but I took most of their research and did the bulk of the writing. And this Larry Hockett guy...he changes his opinions left and right. He would give me heck for me deleting some info I had added previously when I thought maybe it was was too detailed (look at Nov. 10, 2019) and then argue it was wrong to only have one or two critical comments as that is only 1 or 2 points of view. I could never figure out what the heck he wanted...I just knew whatever I did he would say it was wrong. All I know is that just saying "X critic said Y" and not giving any other views contravenes the point of view directives. That is what I get told often, even just recently when trying to add info on the "hard rock" page.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
Suki Waterhouse, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Bait30
Talk 2 me pls?
01:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
On 16 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marjorie Finlay, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Taylor Swift's 2020 song " Marjorie" has been described as "a heart-rending tribute" to her grandmother, opera singer Marjorie Finlay, who inspired Swift's musical career? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Marjorie Finlay), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The only person who has had a WP: IUC behavior. And who constantly reverts edits just don't agree with in the article Kaia Gerber is you Bettydaisies, the introduction to that article was consensual and perfectly well written for the last year, the only person who has been deleting the Edits with reliable sources in Kaia Gerber's article are you, from that attitude I deduce that you have a certain bias and the mere fact of threatening me on my TALK PAGE is sufficient proof for me. I could also approach the Wikipedia board of directors if you continue with this behavior, I remind you that I did not know of its existence until you began to delete each edition of the Kaia Gerber article, I agree that some photos should be checked that they are available for use regardless if authors and copyright credits are given and thank you for doing that, but lately you have been reverting each other's and mine's edits throughout the Kaia Gerber article simply because you don't like or agree with others.-- Tammaravon89 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Really appreciated your edit summary. :) S0091 ( talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This actually isnt an overlink. If there is a link in the lede, it does not affect the need to link in the body - which is edited as though it stands independent of the lede. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wedding_dress_of_Catherine_Middleton&diff=prev&oldid=1001874821 See MOS:DL. This is the first occurrence after the lead. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:8496:96B1:6FAE:A341 ( talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I’m doing a biography project for class on Natalie Portman and learned that her real first name isn’t Neta-Lee, it’s just Natalie from a podcast she was on where she seemed to debunk it lol. I want to be helpful with the wiki community, but can’t make the edit myself. I saw you were her last editor, so I thought this might be good for more people to know :)
This is the source (starts around 6:25) www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/race/awards-chatter-podcast-natalie-portman-jackie-950574 TokyoSpain ( talk) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
You seem to like Old Hollywood and music. Would you be interested in helping me fix the article of a classic song? MagicatthemovieS ( talk) 05:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)MagcatthemovieS
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Cherry Wine (Hozier song) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kyle Peake --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
08:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The article
Cherry Wine (Hozier song) you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Cherry Wine (Hozier song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kyle Peake --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Valentine Greets!!! |
Hello Bettydaisies,
love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of
Wikipedia, spread the
WikiLove by wishing each other
Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The article
Cherry Wine (Hozier song) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Cherry Wine (Hozier song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kyle Peake --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I was watching over Harry’s page and I noticed that you made an edit, saying that he gave up his role as the Commonwealth youth ambassador in March 2020. I was wondering if that’s precisely true, because back in March 2020 it was announced that he was required to relinquish several appointments and patronages but nothing was ‘confirmed’ until February 2021. So should we change March 2020 to February 2021 in that sentence? What do you think? Keivan.f Talk 22:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
How? Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
How? Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Daniel in Arabic/Islam is Daniyal دانيال. Jacob in Islam/Arabic is Yaqub يعقوب Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok dear, thnxs ☹ Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thnxs dear, same to u 😎 Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
True Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thnxs! Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Daniel - Daniyal
Zechariah - Zakariyya
Lot - Lut/Loot Noah - Nuh/Nooh Elias - Elyas/Ilyas Solomon - Sulaiman Etc Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Solomon - Solaiman Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Adam in Arabic is Adam Styy4fvtd ( talk) 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Sarah in Arabic is Sarah Styy4fvtd ( talk) 01:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Your view would be appreciated here /info/en/?search=Talk:Royal_Marines#Photographs -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion there, I found three photographs that could be added to 7.1 Uniforms. I provided links to them. Before adding one, which do you think should be chosen? -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for co-operating in this. That's been helpful in that section, 7.1. Wikimedia Commons is a great source of illustrations, photographs and videos for use in articles. You can ask for any other co-operation if you ever need it. -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
oops, I was wrong. Thank you for fixing my error. Romanov1918 ( talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
'Adding context' is not the function of the lede, which is to summarise the notability expounded in the article. Valetude ( talk) 00:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bettydaisies! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.
Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:
Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:
I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The most comprehensive RS summary I've read yet. [2] No Swan So Fine ( talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did you delete my edit? Read the lyrics first, it is clearly about an atheist ALI ANSARI85 ( talk) 19:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bettydaisies,
you removed the red links to Tom Ackerley which I had placed in the article Margot Robbie. I have reverted that based on the guidelines at WP:REDLINK, especially paragraph 3:
In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject.
It was my determination that Tom Ackerley is certainly notable enough for an article, and unless you vehemently disagree with that assessment, please don't remove the red links. They encourage the creation of such an article, and help with working lists such as:
All the Best from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 10:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Huh? HUH??? Just kidding lol. Anyway, I looked up "Kate Middleton" on Google, and it returned 88 million results, while "Catherine Duchess of Cambridge" yielded 93.5 million. Google Trends has locked me out with HTTP error 429, so I couldn't tell you about the search trends, but I think calling her "Kate Middleton" is mostly a US American thing - at least, that's what it is in my experience. What do you think? Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bettydaisies, why did you change the infobox image of Gregory Peck? The infobox image of him in 1973 looks much better and also is colored than the 1945 one. Anyway it was this user Jing Chen of Texas who changed the infobox on this day 16 July 2020 from the 1973 image that was present on his article . Thank You 58.71.195.179 ( talk) 06:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a ref. and polishing the clarity – I was about to do it myself, but the way you've gone about it is just fine. It'd have been better to leave you a personal mail, but I don't really know how to, so feel free to erase this, after reading. Cheers. Król Maciuś II ( talk) 19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for adding that
Courtney Stodden incident with reliable sources. I had initially thought that was garden variety vandalism. --
GRuban (
talk)
23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to stop by and say thanks as well! I knew the situation would be notable and suitable for inclusion, but the necessary coverage in reliable sources had not been there at the time of my reverts. Your timely resolution could not come sooner. Cheers! KyleJoan talk 00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have to "establish consensus" for the image I added. You, OTOH, have to explain why you reverted my change on my talk page. The discussion on the talk page was erroneously closed. The supporting arguments claimed that their proposed image should be recent (the image I added meets that requirement), higher quality, higher resolution, and at a good angle. The fact remains, you removed an image that meets those requirements and added one that does not. The image you added back into the article is of a lower quality, lower resolution, and poorer angle. In other words, you promoted a false consensus based on false claims. Viriditas ( talk) 02:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Very nice work on Hold Still: A Portrait of Our Nation in 2020, and all around! Thanks for your contributions. --- Possibly ( talk) 05:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, can we agree on some better wording instead of what you tapped on the end of the opening section?
There are no citations in regards to the sentence describing her death back in 1997 and the global attention it had at the time you have pretty much said that all over again, plus your comments are non neutral regarding the long term deep feelings in the UK regarding the matter which is now nearly 25 years ago?
Kind regard,
Juanpumpchump ( talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there Bettydaisies! I think our paths have crossed more than a handful of times now, so it's nice to speak with you again. I wanted to say that I really appreciate your contributions to actors' BLPs; in fact, I'd like to discuss one with you. I've nominated Christian Bale ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a featured article candidate, and I wanted to gauge your interest in leaving comments on the nomination page given your ample experience and knowledge. Users normally leave statements of support or opposition later on, but there's absolutely no obligation to do this; simple comments would suffice. Along with that, please feel free not to respond to the nomination if the article is not of interest to you. Thank you in advance! KyleJoan talk 04:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I liked your reply to my question on the talk page, as far as I can tell you'd be capable of making a really nice edit. I have mixed feelings and can't be sure of my own feelings are neutral or if I'm making such a recommendation for the right reasons or not, but being confused about the contents was probably incrementally worse so I'll leave it up to you or if you want to seek more competent advice before trying to clarify the early section of the article. Createangelos ( talk) 02:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
What is happening here? [3] A user added a third image in the #Public life section. Then, I adjusted the placement myself because the presentation is not very attractive. The image of "Ottawa, 2011" is too low compared to the text, it must be above. You reverted my edit which was ok, saying that "Two high-quality images are more than enough to illustrate the section" .... but the third image ("Catherine and Shaheen Afridi playing tape ball cricket in Lahore, 2019") that User:Gpkp added is still there. If you don't want the image then delete it, or else let me place them correctly in the section, because it's not looking good at the moment, there's a clutter. Oroborvs ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A Crown for you! |
For continued excellence in the editing of articles related to the British monarchy. Peter Ormond 💬 05:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC) |
Thank you! The sentiment is returned.-- Bettydaisies ( talk) 23:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Could you make a draft similar to Draft:Fashion of Diana, Princess of Wales, Draft:Fashion of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, about the Queen's fashion, titled Draft:Fashion of Elizabeth II. The Queen is also considered one of the most popular fashion icons of all time. You can add some information if you like, and I will try to expand it. Regards, Peter Ormond 💬 05:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bettydaisies, I’ve just created Draft:Fashion of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Because you’re interested about royal family, can you help me adding contents? Definitelyduke255 ( talk) 02:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what the reason is for reversing clearly relevant and referenced information. The reason for this has not been specified at all. I am not a regular user of the English Wikipedia, so please cite the guidelines to understand it. Otherwise, I will revert your last edit for unjustified reason. Regards, -- KajenCAT ( talk) 16:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on Young English Actor's talk page: Not only does that user never use edit summaries, but also has never used a talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that user does not collaborate. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mirrored7 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you.
Amaury •
08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Fantastic work on Red dress of Julia Roberts. When I spotted the article in the New Page queue, I chuckled but, upon reviewing it, I was very impressed. Nicely done! DocFreeman24 ( talk) 04:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
For Cream Dior dress of Princess Margaret. Wonderful article. Best wishes, Peter Ormond 💬 23:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) |
Great article! A very interesting read. — Mainly 01:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to quickly say I've been absolutely loving the dress articles you've been creating/improving over the past few weeks. Keep up the good work :-)-- Changedforbetter ( talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please pay close attention to what reliable sources say when you say "her name is really Dolly Dean". Statements to check for would be like:
She uses that name for all non-public purposes, and all people who know her independent of her public profession know her by that name.
What statement did you find?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Please explain your revert to Meghan article. "Celebrity philanthropy" is a judgmental expression. "Philanthropy" is objective. See [1] Charlesjsharp ( talk) 11:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
On your user page, you may care to use this {{Userboxtop|Information}}. View in edit mode. Sampajanna ( talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it not obvious that the two halves of your edit reason here conradict each other? If it were true that "readability remains the same", there would be no need for a distinct RF standardized phraseology. Mere mortals are patrons of charitable organisations, whereas the exalted few must have a distinct phraseology to clumsily indicate the same thing? If I thought for one second that any of the RF themselves subscribed to such nonsense - I would become a Republican! Pincrete ( talk) 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, in your edits last night to Gregory Peck, you removed the ref definition for ref #240. Please go back through your edits, find the ref definition, and restore it to the article. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello there - I just noticed that you are making substantial changes to the article on Gregory Peck (which you can probably tell, I wrote a huge portion off). I do see that you had a brief discussion on its talk page with 2 other people, although the comments they made seem to be based on quick observations, not actually reading much of the article in any detail. Without doubt it is good when people try to work hard to improve an article either by adding text or making things consistent. By looking at 2 sections of changes I did not immediately find it clear what the aim/intent of your changes is. Perhaps you can please let me know what your overall plan is. Informed analysis ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Easier to read - you've got 8 footnotes in a row in some spots - how is that easier to read? That is crazy in anyone's opinion. All the stuff from before was within one lettered footnote they could open and then it would lead to more details and numbered footnotes for the link to the critic. I discussed and tested out this format with other people and we agreed upon it. You could easily have just put the critics comments in the hidden footnotes instead of deleting them. With the way things are moving, many of the comments (i.e. New York Times and other) may end up in pay windows soon and not reachable - that is why the key comments were extracted, just like someone told me to do. The comments I had included in the body were the most interesting ones from the most well-known sources often.
It was discussed with my ex-partner 204.40... (we still kept in touch a year ago but not now) and a friend at work 2607.. both of whom (if you look way back in 2019) helped do some of the research and made some of the changes, but I took most of their research and did the bulk of the writing. And this Larry Hockett guy...he changes his opinions left and right. He would give me heck for me deleting some info I had added previously when I thought maybe it was was too detailed (look at Nov. 10, 2019) and then argue it was wrong to only have one or two critical comments as that is only 1 or 2 points of view. I could never figure out what the heck he wanted...I just knew whatever I did he would say it was wrong. All I know is that just saying "X critic said Y" and not giving any other views contravenes the point of view directives. That is what I get told often, even just recently when trying to add info on the "hard rock" page.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a
Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in
Suki Waterhouse, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Bait30
Talk 2 me pls?
01:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
On 16 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marjorie Finlay, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Taylor Swift's 2020 song " Marjorie" has been described as "a heart-rending tribute" to her grandmother, opera singer Marjorie Finlay, who inspired Swift's musical career? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Marjorie Finlay), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The only person who has had a WP: IUC behavior. And who constantly reverts edits just don't agree with in the article Kaia Gerber is you Bettydaisies, the introduction to that article was consensual and perfectly well written for the last year, the only person who has been deleting the Edits with reliable sources in Kaia Gerber's article are you, from that attitude I deduce that you have a certain bias and the mere fact of threatening me on my TALK PAGE is sufficient proof for me. I could also approach the Wikipedia board of directors if you continue with this behavior, I remind you that I did not know of its existence until you began to delete each edition of the Kaia Gerber article, I agree that some photos should be checked that they are available for use regardless if authors and copyright credits are given and thank you for doing that, but lately you have been reverting each other's and mine's edits throughout the Kaia Gerber article simply because you don't like or agree with others.-- Tammaravon89 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Really appreciated your edit summary. :) S0091 ( talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This actually isnt an overlink. If there is a link in the lede, it does not affect the need to link in the body - which is edited as though it stands independent of the lede. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wedding_dress_of_Catherine_Middleton&diff=prev&oldid=1001874821 See MOS:DL. This is the first occurrence after the lead. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:8496:96B1:6FAE:A341 ( talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I’m doing a biography project for class on Natalie Portman and learned that her real first name isn’t Neta-Lee, it’s just Natalie from a podcast she was on where she seemed to debunk it lol. I want to be helpful with the wiki community, but can’t make the edit myself. I saw you were her last editor, so I thought this might be good for more people to know :)
This is the source (starts around 6:25) www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/race/awards-chatter-podcast-natalie-portman-jackie-950574 TokyoSpain ( talk) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
You seem to like Old Hollywood and music. Would you be interested in helping me fix the article of a classic song? MagicatthemovieS ( talk) 05:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)MagcatthemovieS
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Cherry Wine (Hozier song) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kyle Peake --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
08:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The article
Cherry Wine (Hozier song) you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Cherry Wine (Hozier song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kyle Peake --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Valentine Greets!!! |
Hello Bettydaisies,
love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of
Wikipedia, spread the
WikiLove by wishing each other
Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
The article
Cherry Wine (Hozier song) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Cherry Wine (Hozier song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kyle Peake --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I was watching over Harry’s page and I noticed that you made an edit, saying that he gave up his role as the Commonwealth youth ambassador in March 2020. I was wondering if that’s precisely true, because back in March 2020 it was announced that he was required to relinquish several appointments and patronages but nothing was ‘confirmed’ until February 2021. So should we change March 2020 to February 2021 in that sentence? What do you think? Keivan.f Talk 22:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
How? Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
How? Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Daniel in Arabic/Islam is Daniyal دانيال. Jacob in Islam/Arabic is Yaqub يعقوب Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Styy4fvtd ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok dear, thnxs ☹ Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thnxs dear, same to u 😎 Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
True Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thnxs! Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Daniel - Daniyal
Zechariah - Zakariyya
Lot - Lut/Loot Noah - Nuh/Nooh Elias - Elyas/Ilyas Solomon - Sulaiman Etc Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Solomon - Solaiman Styy4fvtd ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Adam in Arabic is Adam Styy4fvtd ( talk) 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Sarah in Arabic is Sarah Styy4fvtd ( talk) 01:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Your view would be appreciated here /info/en/?search=Talk:Royal_Marines#Photographs -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion there, I found three photographs that could be added to 7.1 Uniforms. I provided links to them. Before adding one, which do you think should be chosen? -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 21:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for co-operating in this. That's been helpful in that section, 7.1. Wikimedia Commons is a great source of illustrations, photographs and videos for use in articles. You can ask for any other co-operation if you ever need it. -- Dreddmoto ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
oops, I was wrong. Thank you for fixing my error. Romanov1918 ( talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
'Adding context' is not the function of the lede, which is to summarise the notability expounded in the article. Valetude ( talk) 00:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bettydaisies! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.
Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:
Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:
I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The most comprehensive RS summary I've read yet. [2] No Swan So Fine ( talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did you delete my edit? Read the lyrics first, it is clearly about an atheist ALI ANSARI85 ( talk) 19:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bettydaisies,
you removed the red links to Tom Ackerley which I had placed in the article Margot Robbie. I have reverted that based on the guidelines at WP:REDLINK, especially paragraph 3:
In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject.
It was my determination that Tom Ackerley is certainly notable enough for an article, and unless you vehemently disagree with that assessment, please don't remove the red links. They encourage the creation of such an article, and help with working lists such as:
All the Best from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 10:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Huh? HUH??? Just kidding lol. Anyway, I looked up "Kate Middleton" on Google, and it returned 88 million results, while "Catherine Duchess of Cambridge" yielded 93.5 million. Google Trends has locked me out with HTTP error 429, so I couldn't tell you about the search trends, but I think calling her "Kate Middleton" is mostly a US American thing - at least, that's what it is in my experience. What do you think? Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bettydaisies, why did you change the infobox image of Gregory Peck? The infobox image of him in 1973 looks much better and also is colored than the 1945 one. Anyway it was this user Jing Chen of Texas who changed the infobox on this day 16 July 2020 from the 1973 image that was present on his article . Thank You 58.71.195.179 ( talk) 06:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a ref. and polishing the clarity – I was about to do it myself, but the way you've gone about it is just fine. It'd have been better to leave you a personal mail, but I don't really know how to, so feel free to erase this, after reading. Cheers. Król Maciuś II ( talk) 19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for adding that
Courtney Stodden incident with reliable sources. I had initially thought that was garden variety vandalism. --
GRuban (
talk)
23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to stop by and say thanks as well! I knew the situation would be notable and suitable for inclusion, but the necessary coverage in reliable sources had not been there at the time of my reverts. Your timely resolution could not come sooner. Cheers! KyleJoan talk 00:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have to "establish consensus" for the image I added. You, OTOH, have to explain why you reverted my change on my talk page. The discussion on the talk page was erroneously closed. The supporting arguments claimed that their proposed image should be recent (the image I added meets that requirement), higher quality, higher resolution, and at a good angle. The fact remains, you removed an image that meets those requirements and added one that does not. The image you added back into the article is of a lower quality, lower resolution, and poorer angle. In other words, you promoted a false consensus based on false claims. Viriditas ( talk) 02:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Very nice work on Hold Still: A Portrait of Our Nation in 2020, and all around! Thanks for your contributions. --- Possibly ( talk) 05:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, can we agree on some better wording instead of what you tapped on the end of the opening section?
There are no citations in regards to the sentence describing her death back in 1997 and the global attention it had at the time you have pretty much said that all over again, plus your comments are non neutral regarding the long term deep feelings in the UK regarding the matter which is now nearly 25 years ago?
Kind regard,
Juanpumpchump ( talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there Bettydaisies! I think our paths have crossed more than a handful of times now, so it's nice to speak with you again. I wanted to say that I really appreciate your contributions to actors' BLPs; in fact, I'd like to discuss one with you. I've nominated Christian Bale ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a featured article candidate, and I wanted to gauge your interest in leaving comments on the nomination page given your ample experience and knowledge. Users normally leave statements of support or opposition later on, but there's absolutely no obligation to do this; simple comments would suffice. Along with that, please feel free not to respond to the nomination if the article is not of interest to you. Thank you in advance! KyleJoan talk 04:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I liked your reply to my question on the talk page, as far as I can tell you'd be capable of making a really nice edit. I have mixed feelings and can't be sure of my own feelings are neutral or if I'm making such a recommendation for the right reasons or not, but being confused about the contents was probably incrementally worse so I'll leave it up to you or if you want to seek more competent advice before trying to clarify the early section of the article. Createangelos ( talk) 02:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
What is happening here? [3] A user added a third image in the #Public life section. Then, I adjusted the placement myself because the presentation is not very attractive. The image of "Ottawa, 2011" is too low compared to the text, it must be above. You reverted my edit which was ok, saying that "Two high-quality images are more than enough to illustrate the section" .... but the third image ("Catherine and Shaheen Afridi playing tape ball cricket in Lahore, 2019") that User:Gpkp added is still there. If you don't want the image then delete it, or else let me place them correctly in the section, because it's not looking good at the moment, there's a clutter. Oroborvs ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
A Crown for you! |
For continued excellence in the editing of articles related to the British monarchy. Peter Ormond 💬 05:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC) |
Thank you! The sentiment is returned.-- Bettydaisies ( talk) 23:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Could you make a draft similar to Draft:Fashion of Diana, Princess of Wales, Draft:Fashion of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, about the Queen's fashion, titled Draft:Fashion of Elizabeth II. The Queen is also considered one of the most popular fashion icons of all time. You can add some information if you like, and I will try to expand it. Regards, Peter Ormond 💬 05:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bettydaisies, I’ve just created Draft:Fashion of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Because you’re interested about royal family, can you help me adding contents? Definitelyduke255 ( talk) 02:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what the reason is for reversing clearly relevant and referenced information. The reason for this has not been specified at all. I am not a regular user of the English Wikipedia, so please cite the guidelines to understand it. Otherwise, I will revert your last edit for unjustified reason. Regards, -- KajenCAT ( talk) 16:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on Young English Actor's talk page: Not only does that user never use edit summaries, but also has never used a talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that user does not collaborate. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mirrored7 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you.
Amaury •
08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Fantastic work on Red dress of Julia Roberts. When I spotted the article in the New Page queue, I chuckled but, upon reviewing it, I was very impressed. Nicely done! DocFreeman24 ( talk) 04:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
For Cream Dior dress of Princess Margaret. Wonderful article. Best wishes, Peter Ormond 💬 23:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) |
Great article! A very interesting read. — Mainly 01:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to quickly say I've been absolutely loving the dress articles you've been creating/improving over the past few weeks. Keep up the good work :-)-- Changedforbetter ( talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Please pay close attention to what reliable sources say when you say "her name is really Dolly Dean". Statements to check for would be like:
She uses that name for all non-public purposes, and all people who know her independent of her public profession know her by that name.
What statement did you find?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)