User talk:Bettyboots12368

The deletion you keep making on Taylor Russell wiki page is unnecessary. All information is relevant, current, and cited. Further deletion will force me to seek the assistance of an administrator. Sharpeye33 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The deletion is necessary as it contains material that is long and unnecessary to her personal life. It was restored based on what was there originally. Administrator assistance will be sought if you continue to unncessarily edit the page. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are not my edits but that of vetted by long standing members of the wiki community.You created your account 3 hours ago and decided to edit Taylor Russell’s wiki page because there was a certain aspect of what was added that you did personally not like. Sharpeye33 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

you created an account 25 minutes ago. I restored the original content back to what it stated nothing more than that. It was modified recently to be long and unnecessary by another member with 71 edits. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

they are not a long standing member. You amended the content because you disliked that I reverted it to what it originally stated. It was long unnecessary and did not add value to the page. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Russell

This edit war ends. Please work this out on the talk page of the article, not be revert warring and using edit summaries to attempt communication. It's not working. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

they have made long, unnecessary additions to the page. It was restored based on the original content present. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The correct action here isn't to continue to edit war. Please begin discussion on the article talk page. If the edit war continues, blocks or longer protections will happen. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood and will revert to discussion. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi hammersoft can you please extend protection for this page. It will keep getting vandalized. Thanks. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relationships

Highly unproductive discussion addressed by warnings below (feel free to remove either) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of doing when the edit to Harry's personal life section I made was the first edit I've made to Harry's personal page. The addition was sourced appropriately (following in line with the other sources for previous relationships such as People, and confirmed in Taylor's own interviews) and written in the same style as the rest of the section. What are your objections? It is accurate information. Bloopyfloop (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) neither party has confirmed anything beyond her stating they are spending time together as per the source you tried to site. You have tried to change this information on Taylor russells wikipedia page and when you realized that long standing wiki members agreed with my changes you tried to do the same to harry styles wiki page. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Stop attempting to lie. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) I'm not attempting to lie about anything. I haven't edited Harry's personal life section before and added multiple edits to Taylor's page in addition to her relationship status. Harry does not "confirm" his other relationships in the way you seem to be inferring. He has explictly said he doesn't consider himself to have ever dated someone publicly. Vogue, GQ etc have all labelled them as dating. They live together. What is your issue with the fact that they are in a relationship? Are you a Larry? Bloopyfloop (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC) You actually are insane starting an argument about this. You tried to edit taylors page you got caught out long standing wiki members agreed with my edits so you tried to do the same to his page. She labelled it as spendibf time together. Just because magazines label it what they want doesnt mean its true. It also means he was dating emrata. You are kidding yourself if you think anyone is buying what your selling. Also living together? There were articles that came out that clearly said she was living on her own in london. You need to find something better to do with your time. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC) So I'm taking that as you are a Larry lmao. The editing log is easily viewable. I was the one who requested Taylor's page to become semi protected due to the user who was vandalising the page with the names of Taylor's family members. "Just because magazines label it what they want doesnt mean its true" You can't be serious? They have been dating for almost a year. "There were articles that came out that clearly said she was living on her own in london" And there are multiple articles about the two of them living together while Harry had construction on his home, and Taylor is solely photographed around his area with her dog. Bloopyfloop (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC) No Im not and Im not going to argue with a mental hospital escape anymore you psycho. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC) And fyi there are no sources saying they live together. Shut the fuck up and move on you mental hospital escapee Bettyboots12368 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC) No you can clearly see my conversation with the member showing that they protected when it got vandalised and they locked it with my edit. Someone else tried it again with a new account i amended it again and a long standing member again agreed with my edit. I think youre a lunatic and your a mental hospital escapee. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Trying to act mature when your nothing but a five year old hiding behind a keyboard. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC) I dont have a problem with the relationship I have a problem with improperly quoting and citing something that is not confirmed by either party at all. And no Im not a larry. They do not live together they live separately in london there have been a number of articles stating this. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Bettyboots12368. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Enough. Meters (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I didnt attack and my comment wasnt abrasive. You need to stop behaving insanely this is actually getting out of hand. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Tread lightly. The above comment could easily also be considered a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Im trying. But it is genuinely ridiculous. I didnt start a talk page on a celebrity's public talk section attempting to falsely implicate other parties and tell mistruths. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

She was the one who posted the talk in the first place attempting to call out untrue details about why her edits were being redacted and attempting to implicate me in her skewed views too. I wasnt abrasive and i didnt attack anyone. She has tried multiple times to post something that has been redacted multiple times by various parties and long standing wiki members. Be quiet and stop trying to tell me what i should or should not write about on a public talk thread that she tried to use to write things that are untrue. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe try reading the commentary properly first instead of making threats. Enough. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The full thread need not be read. There is no excuse for attacks such as these ([1] [2]). Any recurrence directed at any editor on Wikipedia is grounds for an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Again i wasnt the one who initiated the attack. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if your attacks against Bloopyfloop and Meters were "first-strike" or retaliatory. They are unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine I'll stop. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I do apologise but it is just incredibly frustrating. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Don't comment on other editors. Don't call them insane, or lunatics, or mental hospital escapees, or liars, or very immature. or any of the other terms you have used. And stop using language that implies that you are a "page admin" (Same for this page admin.), or an admin (multiple long standing admins alongside myself). Meters (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

again i never mentioned i was a page admin where did i ever state this and they like yourself attacked me first. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I was calling the other person a page admin. Read clearly. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I said long standing wiki members who act as admins agreed with my edit. I never said i was and i really dislike the inference youre trying to make that i said anything otherwise. You are twisting words. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't attack you. That is, once again, a personal attack by you. Stop it. And I am not twisting words. You wrote multiple long standing admins alongside myself. That can be interpreted to mean that you are a long-standing admin, which is why I asked you to stop using language that implies things that are not correct. If you want to say that you made the same edits as long-standing admins then say so clearly, in a manner that cannot be interpreted as meaning anything else. This is the same issue as with your earlier line Same for this page admin. that I already mentioned. That is not a grammatical statement that you agree with the previous "page admin"'s statement. It is a statement that you are a "page admin" and agree with the previous statement. Meters (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Again it was a grammatical error that you misinterpreted. My intention was to state that I made an edit other wiki members who are long standing agreed with. I didnt mean it in the sense that I was some sort of page admin. I understand that wiki is a free format for editing and no such position exists. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

And for your information that person attacked me first i then stopped after a few back and forths when I realized that the conversation was not going anywhere. And no you keep attacking me. Your language is very inflammatory and unncessary I already explained multiple times that you misunderstood what I was attempting to say maybe it was not well worded but your reaction to it was not necessary. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Harry Styles. You removed the claim that after they were no longer dating Harry Styles credited Kendall Jenner as being his muse on Harry Styles (album) as "conjecture", but that is exactly what the cited source says: "April 18, 2017: Styles confirms Jenner is his muse. In a feature with Rolling Stone, the singer reveals that now-ex Jenner was a direct source of inspiration for his May 2017 debut studio album." Meters (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Again i never said i was an admin. The source doesnt cite it explicitly and there was no prior mention of it previously anywhere. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes the source does state it explicitly. I even gave you the exact quote. Meters (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what i said. I never meant it in that regard. At all. I meant long dtanding wiki members 19+ years. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant they agreed with my edit. Not that I was an admin of some sort. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Again the article itself doesnt state it specifically or explicitly and you are using another wiki page to back up an edit which is incorrect. If i copy and paste something does it make it any more true? Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. I warned you for improperly deleting sourced content from Harry Styles with an inaccurate summary. It is not conjecture. It is properly sourced to an apparently reliable source. I provided the exact quote twice. If you disagree then take i to the article's talk page ort WP:RS Meters (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That edit was never present previously. It was only made today and any time kendall jenner is added she is removed subsequently from his page. An apparently reliable source is not a reliable source. Rolling stone does not reference her explicitly they do more taylor swift than her. And that was the main source. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Taylor Russell and Harry Styles) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Ill be honest I really dont care enough about any of this. I made this account in an unserious way but those edits were wrong so I redacted them and they keep getting redacted by other people too. Bettyboots12368 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)