User talk:Bettydaisies/Archives/2021

Revert
Please explain your revert to Meghan article. "Celebrity philanthropy" is a judgmental expression. "Philanthropy" is objective. See Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the matter has been resolved on the talk page. Happy holidays!--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Userboxtop
On your user page, you may care to use this. View in edit mode. Sampajanna (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll look it up, it does sound useful. Happy New Year!--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See my page for example Sampajanna (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

holds patronage within ?
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! What I was referring to is not that "holds patronage" is "official RF phrasing" but that the similar phrasing appears across RF WP articles, such as Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Anne, Princess Royal. Personally, I think both phrases virtually mean the same thing, with one perhaps more formal, but I don't think it interferes with reader accessibility or understanding of the concept. --Bettydaisies (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Broken ref on Gregory Peck
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)
 * Hello Informed analysis! Thank you for your contributions. I decided to make substantial revisions to the article after noticing that its readability was compromised by the amount of excess information, specifically in the "Career" section. See this talk section. WP uses a summary-style as to not bloat pages and improve their accessibility to the average reader. Much of the information I trimmed did not belong on the page of the actor, as it wasn't incredibly biographical - the nuances of a film production should, more times than not, be included on the page for the film itself instead, as seen in the featured articles for most actors (for instance, this could include a complete summary of the film's plot, the exact amount of money it grossed, paragraphs of reviews centered around the film rather then the performance itself, etc.) I also reworked the lead and rephrased sentencing to sound more "professional". Most of my edits focused on the "Career" section, although I did touch upon some others and add media/images where they were appropriate. I hope this clears some things up for you, have a great week!--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. So you haven't explained exactly what you had done.  Have you moved certain information to another page or just deleted it? Frankly, many articles give some comments on what critics thought about the actor's performnce in a movie - that is very related to the actor.  However, often they only give 1 critics view - that is not objective. So I tried to add the comments of 3 or 4 critics, but someone complained it wasn't an unbiased point of view, so I therefore surveyed virtually ALL the same recognized critics/publications, if they were available.  In that way you could see if certain critics who may often laud his performances, did indeed find certain ones lacking.  I was basically forced by other commenters to do what I ended up doing and spent literally hundreds of hours on it. One person said, for exampale, it was wrong to just give a link to a review, that it was required that you include the key quotions so people did not have to go elsewhere. Lastly, when I first started working on the Peck article it was to make a better lead, but someone said I had to add more detail in the main article first so by the time I did that, I was exhaused and never got to improve the lead. Informed analysis (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Informed analysis Hi! Once again, I have substantially trimmed and reworded multiple paragraphs for encyclopedic relevancy. The information I removed can still be founded on those revisions and placed on pages for those films by any user at any time. The point I made was that critical feedback is relevant - but placing three or four quotations on the review of a film in general is detrimental to the integrity of the biography. Your hard work is obviously noted and appreciated, and there's plenty of reasons for why the reasoning of commentators doesn't track - take articles Katharine Hepburn or Leonardo DiCaprio. Typically, the feedback for a performance is stated generally, with a few handpicked quotations from notable and reputable publications for clarification. There's very little WP policy that states including key quotations, and including virtually all criticism is deterimental to WP's writing style. Based on this feedback stating that the article's readability was struggling due to the bloating of reviews + aforementioned WP:V, I decided to make radical changes for the sake of the article and its subject. Its biographical content remains intact thanks to your contributions. If people want a specialised, detailed description of Peck's life and times, it's more suitable to purchase a book on the matter. I hope this helps. --Bettydaisies (talk) 01:43, 17 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.
 * @Informed analysis I had repeatedly been advised against deleting sources, and it's difficult to sort and place each one properly during revision due to their sheer number. Was there talk page consensus on this format? I understand the pay-window debacle, but most reputable sources do have pay windows, that's not an issue singular to this page. While I of course acknowledge the good faith and intention in your comments, please understand that the original content on the page was repeatedly cited as difficult to read because of the amount of commentary. "Key comments", means a mere small handful of the most significant reviews to the performance, not multiple paragraphs devoted to a single film. It's not needed to establish clarity for the reader. --Bettydaisies (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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.


 * For Spellbound I had key comments of the only 4 critics comments from 1945 that I could find in a massive internet search and based on those 4 I said the reviews were favourable. Now you have said they were favourable based on only 2 comments from the time - Larry Hockett should be saying how can you make that conclusion - you only have 2 critics comments and cannot make that conclusion.  That is what he said to me back then. Beyond that, was there anything achieved by cutting out the comments of those other 2 critics - they were in the lettered footnotes - no one had to read them if they did not want to. And Jennamires was the one who told me I should insert the actual comments of the reviewers so people could read them easily. I kept making changes to what I was doing to satisfy their complaints and then at the end, they still complained.  You have taken what was essentially the most thorough assessment of Peck's work and his film's ever done in history and started to destroy it.Informed analysis (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Informed analysis Hi. Again, your substantive edits were incredibly well-researched thorough and provide for the majority of content on the page. I'm sorry you went through such a difficult period of collaboration, that sounds frustrating to experience. On the featured articles I have previously mentioned, there are typically three reviews mentioned at best, with general statements pulled from other referenced reviews. This is the norm for most pages I have seen. I would like to repeat that while your research is tireless and valuable, WP just isn't the place to go to for incredibly thorough assessments - it's to provide a concise, quality biography that summarizes their life and work.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
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)
 * @:Bait30 Good evening! Many notable articles, such as Katy Perry, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Taylor Swift, Grace Kelly, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and Joe Biden include a full birth-name at the beginning of the "Early life" section. While I understand the tenets of the Manual of Style, this has been precedent on many featured and ordinary articles; I doubt that this interferes with user readability or startles a sense of inconsistency. Thank you for your feedback.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Marjorie Finlay
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
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)

Lewis Capaldi
Really appreciated your edit summary. :) S0091 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @S0091 haha, thank you! have a great day :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Overlink
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/w/index.php?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 @2603:7000:2143:8500:8496:96B1:6FAE:A341! I see your point, but typically in an biographical article, when a person's full name is mentioned in the lead, it's not repeated. See MOS:SURNAME.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see what you are referring to. I think there is a bit of ambiguity in that mos. When it says after the first mention, I think it should say (and a common understanding is) after the first mention in the body of the text - but excluding of course the infobox and the lede. We certainly do not only have one mention of the full name in the lede, and therefore not have it in the infobox, for example. Generally, the three are treated separately for purposes of the rule you point to (though I agree that there are wayward instances that don't adopt this approach). So, just to pick some random names in the news, look at Donald Trump and Joe Biden. --2603:7000:2143:8500:A0DF:D5A:7DC:B0C5 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I see what you're saying, but those are for biographical pages and typically use the phrasing "XYZ was born on ____ in ____". The styling isn't typically used on non-biographical pages - Engagement announcement dress of Catherine Middleton, Wedding dress of Grace Kelly, Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer, etc.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I think that is a distinction but not a difference. There's nothing in the rules I can see that require different treatment for those two groupings. And I don't see a logic that would call for it. Perhaps it is helpful to look at "Good Articles", which go through a more rigourous review. So we see Benjamin Franklin inlined in both the lede and the text in Declaration of Independence. Same with Henry II and University of Oxford. Same with Edward Coke and the Magna Carta. Same with Andrew Loog Oldham and The Rolling Stones. And those were simply the first few "good article" level articles I checked, avoiding bio pages. The pages you pointed to were rated Start or C, and did not go through the good article review process. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C0E5:FAA8:A6E4:B20F (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The good articles you refer to are for the most part, institutions, events, and documents requiring multiple people - for instance, there is a presumable warranty in stating their full name, in the situation of holding band members, founders, writers, etc. to distinction - in this case, the full name of the subject is stated in the title of the article itself, as well as the infobox and lead-in. There's no reason for over-clarification in this situation, and it serves best to have consistency within the "genre" of each page. For instance, take featured article List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams. The page considers one person and a subject pertaining to them, with their full name registered in the lead, infobox, and title, but not repeated throughout any other pertaining sections.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true. But see - to the contrary -- the featured articles List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars and List of accolades received by Enthiran. Plus, I don't see that narrow "exception" or "rule" anywhere. At the same time, to your point, there are certainly examples and counter-examples on this - no uniformity. But also as you point out, the infobox is inlined. Given that the infobox, leded, and text are seen as three separate sections for purposes of inlining, I wonder if that isn't supportive of the notion that inlining would be proper in the instance that you reverted. But you know what - life is short. Whatever. I leave it to your best judgment. 2603:7000:2143:8500:CC54:B8AB:43B4:765D (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Natalie Portman
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)
 * @TokyoSpain Thank you for your findings! It's incredibly really helpful, especially for such a prominent and thoroughly-expanded page. I'll bring it up on the talk page before making any changes - for future reference, if you ever wanted to request an edit, that's typically where you go :) Best wishes on your project!--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey
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
 * @MagicatthemovieS Hi! Sure, I’d love to help out. Which one?--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Return to Sender (song)"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Sounds wonderful, I’ll give it a look over this week. Do you have any particular concerns you’d like to work on within the article?--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Biggest concerns: Lead and charts sections. Lessor concerns: Beefing up what is there if possible. Maybe adding a sample to the track would be nice as well, or an explanation of the scene from Girls! Girls! Girls! which uses the song. Thanks so much!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * @ MagicatthemovieS Fantastic, I’ll get to work once my laptop comes back from the shop. I look forward to collaborating!--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not meaning to piggyback on a thread, but a while back I had an offer of a whole bunch of Audrey Hepburn books from WMUK (see here). I haven't followed this up yet as I'm still not sure I have enough time to commit to sitting down and thoroughly researching the subject in order to improve coverage of her and her works on here. Is this something you'd be more interested in? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie333 I’ve been meaning to look over Hepburn’s article - that sounds wonderful! Thank you very much for asking. I’m unfamiliar with the process of WMUK lending books to editors, but I do have the time and ability to research and improve related subjects with such resources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me ping so she's aware of this. AFAIK, the books are sitting somewhere in WMUK's offices at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  11:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping @Ritchie333! Bettydaisies, with these books, since we already got them for a previous project, I'd be happy to just post them to you! Do get in touch with any questions and next steps: daria.cybulska{@}wikimedia.org.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cherry Wine (Hozier song)
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)

Your GA nomination of Cherry Wine (Hozier song)
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)

Your GA nomination of Cherry Wine (Hozier song)
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)

Commonwealth youth ambassador
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)
 * @ Keivan.f  Hi! I haven't yet been able to find RS's that include the Commonwealth ambassadorship as part of the relinquished roles, but it was reported back in March of last year. If there is a source that confirms it, though, I agree the date should be rectified. Have a wonderful day!--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe
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)


 * @Styy4fvtd Hi! Unfortunately it’s unsourced, is not the language of his birth name, and is not a name he’s ever appeared to go by on the record, so a translation isn’t applicable here. See WP:ENGLISH as well. Have a wonderful day, I hope this helps.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Styy4fvtd (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok dear, thnxs ☹ Styy4fvtd (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Styy4fvtd no problem, the edits were in good faith and everyone’s still on their learning curve :) have a great week!--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:02, 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
Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Marines#Photographs --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, thank you for letting me know!--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:53, 24 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)
 * @Dreddmoto I just put in my response, but I also trust your judgement. Best wishes!--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:35, 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)

Woodward
oops, I was wrong. Thank you for fixing my error. Romanov1918 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Romanov1918 you're welcome, have a wonderful day :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Princess Mary
'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 @Valetude! you're correct, but i don't think the "early life and education" section is a part of the lead - biographically, it's relevant information pertaining to that topic, in my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction taken re lede. But notability is the point of wiki, and I can't see any significance in what reign you're born in. Mary could never have got to know her great-grandmother. It's really a so-what mention (in my opinion). Valetude (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valetude Personally I think it's significant that Mary lived through the reigns of quite a few separate monarchs, but it also provides context for the following statements e.g "Duke and Duchess of York", better known as George V and Queen Mary, in terms of where they were in the line of succession at the time. It's not a life-or-death issue to her biography, so I'll leave it to your judgement.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer!
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:


 * A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
 * A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
 * Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
 * You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
 * Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:


 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
 * Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
 * Protection policy, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

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)
 * Oshwah Thank you so much! I'm very grateful to have received this tool in such good faith, and I'll use it to the best of my ability. I'm very glad to play a part in the ongoing care and keeping of this encyclopedia. Thank you for your help, and for all that you do. Have a wonderful week! :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I hope you have a great week as well! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Telegraphed
The most comprehensive RS summary I've read yet. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a comprehensive and extensive piece - very on brand for The Telegraph. I'm not entirely sure if this constitutes as news reporting the same way, say, the charity review (containing confirmations and independent statements) was; a lot of it echoes The Times allegations and there's currently a lot of back-and-forth by various commentators and representatives on the veracity of those claims. Thanks for sharing a version not behind a paywall, which is very helpful. Have a wonderful day!--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Take me to church
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)
 * @ALI ANSARI85 You've violated WP:NPOV and WP:OR four times.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Red link for film producer Tom Ackerley
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:
 * Most-wanted articles
 * Requested articles
 * WIR/REDLIST (This one is focused on women, but you get the general point.)

All the Best from --Sprachraum (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for letting me know, I wasn't aware of this policy before and I apologize for any inconvenience caused :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How DARE you revert me?!?!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_George_of_Cambridge&diff=1017431743&oldid=1017429856&diffmode=source 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 &#124; fings wot i hav dun 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry for the late response. I agree with the opinion that "Kate Middleton" is generally an American vehicle, but generally on royal biographies the mother is listed by her maiden name, hence why on Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, his mother is listed as Lady Diana Spencer, if that makes sense.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image change of Gregory Peck from the 1973 to the 1945 one
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)
 * Hi! Personally, I think that since the article isn't a BLP, it's not required to put the most-recent image taken, and the "younger" image of Peck is more recognizable. If you feel strongly about this issue I encourage you to start talk page discussion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Amy Adams
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)
 * Hello! Happy to do it. I'm not sure how to leave personal mail either, but I appreciate you taking the time of day for the little things. Thank you for your graciousness and consideration! :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Chrissy Teigen addition
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)
 * My pleasure! Anything to avoid WP:DAILYMAIL haha. I hope you have a wonderful day.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:59, 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)
 * Of course! Thank you for both protecting the page from deprecated sources and for refining the addition as well :) Best wishes!--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway
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)
 * And you're edit warring at this point. This is the second time you've added your preferred image based on a false consensus supported by false claims.  The image you added is not of a higher resolution than the former image discussed on the talk page.  This is an objective fact. Just because someone makes a baseless claim and someone else fails to verify the claim, doesn't make the claim true because the discussion was closed. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas Hi. Thank you for bringing the discussion to my talk page. I reverted two edits to restore the previous image - one for the caption, one for the file. I don't think that meets the requirements for edit warring. I'm not a fan of either pictures, truthfully, (respectively: one is poor quality/unflattering angle & the other is an excessively airbrushed advertisement) but its hardly a novel concept to establish WP:CONSENSUS for infobox images on high-traffic, prominent articles. If you believe someone's own assumption regarding a discussion is mistaken, perhaps starting a new, fruitful one according to Wikipedia's collaborative ethos could be considered a productive course of action --Bettydaisies (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed the previous image and added another image. I then added an altogether new image.  Then, you reverted back to the old image you added.  That's edit warring.  Nobody needs consensus to make an edit or to add an image.  And you are falsely demanding that I find consensus for an edit that doesn't require one. Please restore the image I added. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas I was not the original person who added the previous image; initially, I simply replaced the identical image in the body to maintain visual diversity after the change was made. Later, when you disagreed and added a separate picture, I reverted it back because of the previous editor's comment regarding consensus. I'm not "demanding" anything of you. Furthermore, while the integrity of the original consensus remains under an apparent dispute, the fact remains that the infobox image is a subject of evident discourse. Per WP:BRV and WP:EW, consensus building and conflict resolution is the natural next step. WP:CONS is generally "accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals", per that policy page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how things work. You have to take ownership for your edits.  Defending a nebulous, ambiguous "consensus" from two editors last year isn't a good argument.  Anyone can add an image.  There is nothing preventing anyone from doing so.  If you object to the image that is added, then you can start a discussion on the talk page about your objection.  But just blindly reverting to an old image for no good reason isn't valid. Otherwise, nobody could edit without getting permission first, and that's not how a wiki works.  You're trying to shift the burden of reverting to me, when you're the one who is reverting for no reason. Furthermore, if you look at that old, brief discussion, you will notice that the overriding concern had to do with using a recent image, in this case, an image from 2018.  My edit met that requirement. Without lodging an actual objection to my edit, you are introducing bureaucratic and legalistic requirements for editing that simply don't exist. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas I assumed WP:GOODFAITH in the editor who decided to close the discussion. I myself did not see or participate in said discussion, as evident. The sole opinion of one editor in terms of their personal criteria is not consensus. WP:CONS is not a novel legislative concept, as I have previously linked. It is Wikipedia's most acceptable of decision-making, requesting an editor to reach consensus before a major edit is not unusual. I am fully within my rights to disagree with you, especially when you flatly ask me to restore a brand-new, undiscussed image you added without attempting to build consensus.


 * Unless I am mistaken, WP:CONS doesn't appear to have a limit on how many users makes a consensus - regardless, that is determined by the quality of the arguments. There is no reason why your argument outflanked the others, nor did any users move to contradict each other's arguments into further discussion. the discussion itself was closed by an uninvolved editor. If you have an issue with the way it was closed, please approach that editor. I'm willing to start a discussion on the talk page for the sake of the page's stability, but I am not trying to shift any such burden, nor am I shirking any responsibility, nor am I demanding anything of you, nor am I edit warring. I merely suggested that you build consensus - again, not a tall order for a collaborative wikipedia - before asking editors to restore your version of the page against the opinions of other editors.


 * Your opinion was countered by two other editors with arguments of equal weight. If you disagree with the closing of that discussion in favor of your arguments, then surely, the other two arguments must be given the same weight. If anything, the article should be reverted back to the original infobox image until consensus is reached. --Bettydaisies (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that is entirely incorrect. My "opinion" was not countered by anyone. The image was not of a higher resolution nor higher quality, but it was newer.  In any case, an informal, local discussion involving several editors over several years is not any kind of "consensus".  You're only recognizing it as a "consensus" because your friend decided to "close" the discussion and you removed the image as a result.  An actual consensus would depend on a non-local discussion, or at the very least, an advertised, centralized discussion involving or notifying a wide sampling of the community.  This was no consensus of any kind as far as I can see.  But all of that is again, irrelevant.  You keep distracting from the fact that you restored and reverted to an image that you admittedly don't like, and which I've described is problematic for many reasons in three separate discussion pages.  And yet, when I added a new image, you reverted, claiming that the old consensus needs to be upheld.  No, it doesn't, and it's not a consensus of any kind.  There's nothing wrong with adding a new image, and you yourself haven't lodged a single objection.  That's not how Wikipedia works.  We don't have to find consensus for every change we make, and you can't revert back to an old image simply because you are upholding a decision made by several editors several years ago based on faulty data. Now, you are welcome to start a new centralized discussion, since you are the one who objects to my new image.  Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas For your information, a WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS is different from a WP:RFC and requires no community-wide sampling. Two arguments countered your opinion in favor of the 2018 image, in fact, and it is not up to you to dismiss those arguments (i.e calling them "faulty data" based on your own judgement - WP:GOODFAITH) instead of engaging with them. I restored and reverted an image because a. I assumed good faith in the editor (whom I have never encountered before) and b. because I felt like achieving a consensus on the infobox image would be better reasoning than relying on the sole opine of an impassioned editor. It is perfectly in line with Wikipedia practices to do so, as I have repeated several items to no avail. It's impractical to ask editors to revert back to the image of your preference because you refuse to start discussion. We do not have to find consensus for every change we make - just changes that face substantial discourse. Again, see WP:BRV. Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To recap, I've conceded the image should be newer, which is why I added an image from 2018. But the other arguments were completely false.  The image you added back in is not of higher quality nor of higher resolution. I will concede this argument if you can briefly and simply show me that it is.  As for BRD, you are the one refusing to discuss your changes.  Arguing "I'm upholding consensus" when I've repeatedly explained why that's a problem isn't an argument. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas The arguments made by the other two editors were in relation to the original infobox image, not the one supported by you. Therefore, it could be said that their option was higher quality than the one used at the time. If you wished to disagree and further the consensus discussion, you might've considered doing so there. Again, each opinion varies, and this debate belongs with those other editors, not with me. But respect for other people's contributions should remain.
 * I've discussed my changes when you asked thoroughly using Wikipedia policy. Process: Image contradicting opinions of multiple editors is placed on the sole opinion of one editor -> subsequently reverted and asked to establish consensus -> this is where the discussion should've taken place, not on my talk page, but on Talk: Anne Hathaway. The previous image had already been discussed, even partially, while the other was unsolicited. Again, it is perfectly acceptable to ask for consensous. I've linked and explained almost every precedent relating to this matter. I've also posted an RfC you are free to partake in.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "it could be said that their option was higher quality than the one used at the time." Yes, that's the exact question I asked you to answer directly, and you refuse to do so. How was that image of higher quality? How was it of a higher resolution as they seemed to claim?  I looked at both images carefully in this regard and find no evidence supporting it. No idea why you started an RFC. You reverted me for no reason, and restored an image based on a bad close of a discussion featuring unsupported opinion from a few editors.  There is zero reason why anyone should use this "consensus" as a rationale for preventing new edits.  This is not a question of process, this is a question of common sense. I'll let you have the last word, as I've removed the article from my watchlist. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas Because again, my opinion doesn't matter. I wasn't part of the original discussion. It was your prerogative to serve or withhold a rebuttal at the time; you didn't, and subsequently, the discussion succinctly concluded out of your favor. "No idea" why I started and RFC - even though I have repeatedly reiterated Wikipedia's policy of resolving disputes by consensus. WP:NOCOMMON might interest you. I don't know how to persuade you to understand that the opinion of three other editors, regardless of the time stamp, holds just as much weight as your own. I don't know how to persuade you to understand the fundamental notion that WP:CONSENSUS is again, Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making. Whether you're right or wrong is completely beside the point. What matters is engaging in discussion with others on the relevant article, which you have refused to do. Again, feel free to participate in the RFC. Best wishes.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My very first barnstar! @Possibly thank you so much, I'm very humbled and your praise is much appreciated. Have a wonderful weekend!--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that is the first one! Keep it up. --- Possibly (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do! :D--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Diana, Princess of Wales
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)
 * @Juanpumpchump Hi! As I previously said, citations for the global attention for her death and her effect on the British monarchy and society can be found per WP:CITELEAD in Diana, Princess of Wales. Cited phrases include "He had reportedly said that she had shown the nation "a new way to be British".[323] Her sudden death brought an unprecedented spasm of grief and mourning,[334] and subsequently a crisis arose in the Royal Household". The wording wasn't mine - I simply restored a different version of the page - but I'm curious to know how you feel this meets WP:POV, given the text in the body. The section you cut out - "Her legacy has had a deep impact on the royal family and British society." - wasn't in reference to "long term deep feelings in the UK regarding the matter", but mostly the immediate aforementioned "deep impact" her death and legacy had on those subjects, if that makes sense.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian Bale FAC
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 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 KyleJoan! Thank you for your kind words - I'd also like to return the sentiment for your consistent quality edits and curation of multiple exemplary articles. Wonderful job! I have little experience with Bale's work, but I'll try to add constructive commentary if there's anything to add, and I'm excited to learn, if anything. Thank you for seeking out my perspective, and have a great day!--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're very kind. Thanks for even considering commenting! That aside, I was looking at your user page (just out of pure nosiness), and I must say that Audrey (2020 film) is very close to meeting the GA criteria, so if you ever nominate it in the future, I would be happy to do the review. KyleJoan talk 04:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! I hope it served to the benefit of the nomination. And thats very exciting to hear, thanks for checking it out! I'll definitely have to keep that in mind (and clean it up a bit!) thank you for offering :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make your edit to the Archewell article...
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)
 * Hi! Thank you for saying so. If the article isn't clear enough on the functions of the organization, that should definitely be rectified. I'll try to look for a reliable source that explains it as transparently as possible. Thanks again for bringing up the issue :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Images
What is happening here? 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)
 * @Oroborvs Thank you so much for letting me know, it was plain oversight on my part and I'm so sorry for the inconvenience. I'll go ahead and fix those changes (unless you want to discuss their inclusion?) but thanks again.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Ok, then everything is back to normal. The two images into the section #Public life, should change sides, given the direction of her hand and her gaze; "Ottawa, 2011" should be on the right, and "Stockholm, Sweden in 2018" on the left. Also, "Ottawa, 2011" should be at the top of the section, with the corresponding text in the first paragraph. This is only my opinion. I let you know that I will do a clean-up soon by removing sources out of the lead and put info in the body; the aim is to improve the quality. Oroborvs (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the positioning - honestly I think the current formatting would be neater then moving up the Ottawa image, as its still in a relevant enough position to comply with MOS:IMAGELOCATION, but I'm definitely open to discussion with other editors. I think its fantastic that you're doing a clean-up, the lead has been burdened for as long as I can remember with far too many sources. Best of luck!--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A Crown for you!
Thank you! The sentiment is returned.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft
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 &#128172;  05:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. If that one ends up being successful, I think a case could be made for Princess Margaret's as well.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft is available here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a little heads up about royal fashion collboration
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)
 * Hi, sounds wonderful! I’d love to help out whenever I can, especially with this subject.--Bettydaisies (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Emma Watson
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)
 * Please see the note under the “Personal life” section - previous consensus located in the archives of the article’s talk page has determined not to include the Panama Papers. Cheers.--Bettydaisies (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Y.E.A.
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)


 * I know! It’s incredibly frustrating. I’ve commented (alongside many many other users) on warnings and ANI posts before and this user has simply, throughout their blocks, refused to communicate. Warnings feel futile, but it’s difficult to think of anything else to do at this point, other than simply let them continue to be unwieldy. Bettydaisies (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if the user engages in more disruption and the account will be indef-blocked. Editors have been indef-blocked in the past for failing to communicate while causing work for other editors. Most of that user's edits seem constructive, but it's frustrating when there's a dispute and the editor refuses to communicate. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist Some of their edits have been constructive, or harmless, but many of their contributions constitute as disruptive editing. They've made seemingly null edit summaries, provided unsourced OR, and, for the most part, have continued to ignore warnings on their talk page and abandon the use of summaries in a great deal of their edits.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Amaury • 08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for the incorrect warning earlier. I miscounted your number of reverts. I have, however, submitted a report on Mirrored7, if you're interested in commenting. Amaury • 08:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Amaury Hi! I was offline at the time so no harm done, you're totally understood. I'm very glad that this situation has finally been resolved, thank you for reporting!--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * @DocFreeman24 Thank you so much for your kind words, I'm glad I changed your mind :) Have a wonderful day!--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! The love is very warmly returned for your creations as well.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Cream Dior dress of Princess Margaret
Great article! A very interesting read. — Mainly 01:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mainly Thank you very much! I'm so glad you think so :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Dress article kudos!
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)


 * I also wanted to say great work with these articles. It is great to see more work being done on fashion articles in Wikipedia. You, along with Changedforbetter, really do inspire me to work on some of these articles myself in the future. I hope you are doing well, and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, it's so kind of you both to say so. The sentiment is returned and I wish you both happy happy trails!--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Dolly Dean
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)
 * @Georgia guy In this article, Parton states that the name on her passport is Dolly Parton Dean. According to the U.S State Department, a person must obtain a legal certificate of name change in order to display a name different from their birth on a passport. Therefore, we can ascertain that her legal name is Dolly Parton Dean, and describe it as such in the lead (similar to the pages of Sophie Turner, Salma Hayek, etc.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)