User talk:Bettydaisies/Archives/2020

hi! this is an archive of all messages left on my talk page from the year 2020. if you have a concern, please leave a message on my active talk page.

Bettydaisies, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bettydaisies! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Earthshot Prize (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Snowycats were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Earthshot Prize and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Earthshot Prize, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Snowycats (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Bettydaisies, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Getting personal

I would appreciate if you would refrain from making familiar personal remarks about me in our discussion re: Grace of Monaco. As per talk page guidelines, we are not there to analyse, interpret & discuss each other, nor to drift off topic with wordy irrelevant comments. It does not look like you understand what that discussion is about. If that's the case, I respectfully suggest you do something else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Good evening! Thank you for your feedback. This is an anonymous editing website, and even if I was aware of any personal information, I would never do anything so unethical as to bring up personal information. Please, let me reiterate: the article we were discussing was Grace Kelly's biographical page, and the opinion you were expressing was that, as Princess consort, she was also known as Grace De Monaco/Grace of Monaco. Your argument was that this title/alternative name was well-known enough that it should be included in her primary form of address at the top of her Wikipedia page. I disagreed that the latter nickname was just as famous as the former in her lifetime - but additionally, my opinion was that, as she was a consort, her page should be in line with all other consort biographies - for instance, Mary of Teck, is undoubtedly better known to the British public as Queen Mary, yet her biographical name on this website remains, Mary of Teck.

Whether it had to do with your argument or not, Wikipedia precedent is very rarely not relevant, especially here. I also noticed that on your page, you expressed your own opinion regarding the format of consort pages, which happened to be in line with the argument you were making - albeit for a different reason. I brought this up to further underline the importance of the protocol that unifies categories of Wikipedia pages, as I knew it was something you were already aware of. In my opinion, publicly available information and perspectives written on public profiles didn't constitute as personal remarks, and clearly they are available on your public profile for the expression of thought and review from your fellow editors. I apologize if you feel this invaded your privacy or was a personal attack. I hope you are aware that I never would've commented on a subject in an ignorant or unprepared manner, and do not take such allegations lightly. Thank you for respecting this in the future. I believe I have made both my knowledge and reasoning within and for my responses quite clear. I hope this matter is resolved for the integrity of the page. Have a wonderful week.

As per guideline, we are to address the article's issues on article talk pages, not the other users.

All of your comments, here and on that talk page - every one of them! - have been completely irrelevant. The question is about an a.k.a. being prominent in her life story, not about all this other wordy and repetitious stuff. Sad to see that you do not, or refuse to, understand that. What a waste of time and effort!

Also surprised to see how you "discuss" by trying to put words in my mouth that were never there, such as "Your argument was that this title/alternative name was well-known enough that it should be included in her primary form of address at the top of her Wikipedia page." I never said anything like that part I put in Italics. It should be mentioned there in bold type, that's all, just like any other very well known a.k.a. is, according to WP guidelines & precedent. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your feedback. If you feel affected enough by my contributions to simply mass-label them as 'irrelevant', feel free to do so. However, it is an opinion, not a legitimate talk-page critique, especially in this scenario. This is why. I stated multiple times, regarding her 'life story', that the alternatives titles of Grace of Monaco/Princess Grace of Monaco were respected on her page. You dismissed that. I brought up your public opinion on consortial precedent to underline my statement regarding the article, since it clearly wasn't hitting home - but I tire of repeating myself. I stated that you said it should be included in her primary form of address, not replacing her primary form of address. I am fully aware of my former testimony and I will not allow you to allege my lack of knowledge on the subject with baseless claims. Again, me referring to Wikipedia precedent regarding consorts is not irrelevant, as I've provided evidence to in my last response with links - however, it seems that every single statement of mine goes in one ear and out the other. May I also add, that my so-called "irrelevant statements" have little to do with the claims of me violating your personal information? I hope you can reconcile your thoughts in a way that doesn't jump to conclusions or blindly dismiss the contributions of a Wikipedia editor just because she doesn't agree with you. Have a great day.

I respectfully suggest you learn a more accurate meaning of the the word "irrelevant". When one comments on a suggestion or issue brought up by someone else, while completely ignoring, over and over and over, what that issue simply and actually is about, then all of one's comment are per definition irrelevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I will remain cordial as long as you remain cordial - but I must confess, your statements have repeatedly been toeing the line. You've thrown the claim that I supposedly use your personal information in an argument, and when that foiled, your responses have been reduced to "that's irrelevant", no matter the accuracy in my statements. This is simply unreasonable. I've justified myself multiple times, on both pages, with sources to both of these claims, for which I have received no substantial, unaffected reasoning or even refutation on your part. I see no benefit in rising to your echoing front of accusations in response to my rationale. I respectfully suggest that you refrain from making baseless, repetitive statements and giving unsolicited advice. Simply put, your allegations are not significant or pertinent enough for me to take action on, and I remain secure in the integrity of my contributions toward the original topic of discussion. Have a pleasant week.

Irrelevant, here's what it means. I have not attacked you. I've asked you not to use info from my user page for irrelevant reasons (there is not a thing on my user page about well-known a.k.a.'s), and I've asked you not to go on and on with irrelevant comments, polluting that discussion and clouding the actual issue so that it becomes unrecognizable . --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous comment: I've justified myself multiple times, on both pages, with sources to both of these claims, for which I have received no substantial, unaffected reasoning or even refutation on your part.....I respectfully suggest that you refrain from making baseless, repetitive statements and giving unsolicited advice. Simply put, your allegations are not significant or pertinent enough for me to take action on, and I remain secure in the integrity of my contributions toward the original topic of discussion. Have a pleasant week.

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taylor Swift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Maria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wedding of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, and Grace Kelly has been accepted

Wedding of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, and Grace Kelly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wedding of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, and Grace Kelly.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wedding of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, and Grace Kelly.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Monegasque Red Cross Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Monegasque Red Cross Logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 07:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anne Shirley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cavendish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Frogmore Cottage. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello ~ ToBeFree. A guest IP user is continuously rolling back factual sources edits and not abiding by talk page requests. It's impossible to initiate discussion and preserve the integrity of the page. I've left a request to protect the page and I'm contemplating approaching the administrator's noticeboard, since I don't know how else to resolve this.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It takes two people to edit war, and I expect you to have a closer look at WP:EW before making any further reverts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

Hi Bettydaisies,

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

The essay WP:DISCFAIL can be very helpful to resolve a lack of discussion.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! The links are genuinely helpful. The edits I made are in accordance with news reports and even corroborated by the user engaging in the edit war - the only difference is that they keep reverting a key fact within the report. Thank you. --Bettydaisies (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Bettydaisies! I just wanted to clarify: edit warring to keep reinserting correct content is still edit warring, and honestly you can be blocked for it the first time you do it. It doesn't matter if you're right and your information is correct and well-sourced; you still can't edit war to keep that information in the article. Honestly, ToBeFree could have blocked you for it instead of trying to help you understand.

The best thing to do is revert once, open a section on the talk page, and if the other editor doesn't stop/won't discuss, you can revert 2 more times, then ask for help. You can do that at WP:ANEW, or you can ask for the page to be protected at WP:RFPP, but in all cases you yourself should not be edit-warring either. Again, it does not matter that you are adding back correct information. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bettydaisies! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, lack of response on talk pages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal Foundation Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Foundation Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sean Hepburn Ferrer

Just a friendly reminder that biographies of living people have Wikipedia's most stringent verification and citation policies. You added two wives to Sean Hepburn Ferrer, Marina and Giovanna, plus marriage dates without any citations whatsoever. If I might suggest, please read the policy at WP:BLP. Also, Wikipedia is disallowed as a reference citation, particularly for biographical articles. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cornelia James Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cornelia James Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LA Ballet Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LA Ballet Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Bettydaisies! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, reopening a rfc, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Louise and Victoria

Hi. First of all, I just wanted to let you know that it's great to see a user interested in historical subjects, especially in parts related to royalty. :) I didn't find time to welcome you properly but you have already made wonderful contributions and I hope you intend on carrying on with the great job that you're doing. I wanted to mention that it's been a while that I've been thinking about expanding the articles about the daughters of Edward VII: Louise, Princess Royal and Princess Victoria. The articles about his sons, as well as the one about his other daughter Maud of Wales, seem to be in good shape but these two in particular need improvement. I thought maybe you might be interested in helping as well and perhaps even add them to your own list. Anyway, I'll be looking forward to collaborating with you on various topics. Have a good one. Keivan.f^Talk 06:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad to be here, thank you so much for your message and warm welcome. :) I'm very grateful for your compliments, and would love to assist in expanding those pages. Thanks again for your kind words, as well as your informative and comprehensive edits across the board. Have a great week!--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Marjorie Finlay infobox

Hi Bettydaisies, I removed the name of the spouse and child because the do not meet WP:N as mentioned in the infobox parameter, "Number of children (e.g., 3), or list of independently notable names." Andrea Finlay Swift is not independently notable so she shouldn't be separately named in the infobox. Same with the spouse. TJMSmith (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

H i@TJMSmith! It wasn't me originally added the Andrea Finlay Swift mention for that reason, and thank you for your contribution. But I find the notability application to the infobox regarding spouses a bit ridiculous. Off the top of my head, I remember Misty Copeland's, Amy Adams's, and Katharine Hepburn's non-notable spouses without articles being mentioned. I'm pretty sure it qualifies as a biographical/encyclopedic fact.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Archewell has been accepted

Archewell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Los Angeles images

Hi Bettydaisies, Seeing as you are based in LA, and you may have mentioned somewhere that you are quite accessible to Beverly Hills, I have a suggestion / request. That is, for a non-copyrighted external picture of 9665 Wilshire Boulevard Sampajanna (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reaching out, that's a really good idea. Lockdown restrictions are especially intense these days, but I'll put it on my to do list and upload it to the Wiki when I can.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Thank you so much for your improvements to the Samuel Goldwyn Estate. I created an article on Grace's funeral which could certainly use your expert eye, as well as a delightful look at Monaco. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! It was my pleasure, thank you so much for your kind words. I'd love to look those over! You did a fantastic job of your own in curating those articles.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep an eye on ref sections

Hi, I've been watching the major edits you've made today to Gregory Peck, and while I think most of your changes have been good, in the process you also removed references that were called in other parts of the article. If you look at the ref section after one of your edits here, you'll see quite a few cite errors. You should always preview your edits and check the ref section to avoid causing that problem. Please be more careful! Schazjmd (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Helpful hint: Whether it is/is not appropriate to delete sourced material rather depends, I think, on whether it actually contributes anything to the article; a matter frequently sorted out on the article Talk page. If the information bears a citation with the prefix <ref name=xxxx>, that suggests that there is likely additional, perhaps more pertinent, information elsewhere in the text which cites the same source WP:REFNAME. If the original entry is deleted, the others drift away out into the void connected to nothing and no one, and the latter references mean nothing. This can be avoided by copying the full citation and pasting it in place of the next cited mention (generally designated as "b"). Happy Solstice. Manannan67 (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gregory Peck

added a link pointing to 1963 Academy Awards

List of official overseas trips made by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

added a link pointing to Bellevue Palace

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You have now repeatedly reversed material in articles to your own liking instead of trying to reach consensus on the talk pages of those articles. We don't do that. You also do not follow formatting such as indentation in discussions. Why do you consider yourself exempt from basic Wikipedia procedure that the rest of us respect? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that you yourself put under discussion in the talk page, and mobile formatting does not allow indentures. Happy holidays.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I edit almost entirely on Android smartphones using the desktop site. If you want to be a serious, productive Wikipedia editor on mobile devices, then I suggest you scroll to the bottom of any Wikipedia page and select the desktop site, which is fully functional on almost all modern mobile devices. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I dislike being crass; your feedback has been noted, unsolicited as it may be. Happy holidays.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to make an entirely productive suggestion and how exactly did you respond? Are you aware that this is a collaborative project? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In the kindest possible terms: while engaging in a detailed debate with me in a separate forum, you inserted yourself into a conversation without experience with the specific dispute in question or request for third-party comment, offering feedback on my personal editing. It felt irksome. WP is a collaborative project, and I don't believe my edits have been unproductive or in violation of policy, while the originator of this concern has not commented toward my rebuttal in the first place. Again, your feedback has been noted, unsolicited as it may be. Have a great day.--Bettydaisies (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328, your "unsolicited" comments (bad Cullen, bad, bad boy, baAad admin!) are most welcome, by me and I'm sure by a few others who sincerely (sincerely) believe in collaborative work. What's even more irritating in dealing than the I'm-always-right-and you're-always wrong attitude? The sarcastic Happy-Holidays and Have-a-great-day sign-offs. Of course whoever wants to be bothered with indentation, can indent. The smartphone scapegoat was so preposterous that I decided not to reply at first. But "Have a great day" directed at you (I've had my fair share before from this one) was just too much. I really hate sarcasm, but sometimes it's so blatant and challenging on the part of someone you're trying to reach constructively, that I find the temptation too great not to fight sarcasm with sarcasm. One can be very good at something one hates. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If you truly have a legitimate behavioral issue with my editing disrupting the integrity of the encyclopedia, by all means, take it to the noticeboard. Assume all you want; I've never tried to hide behind weak reasoning or use tones in my writing that could be interpreted as aggressive, but I've also never accepted such from anyone else. All two of your concerns on my talk page have not violated WP policy or interfered with the quality of the pages we have edited on. I wish you luck in your future collaborations. Have a wonderful week.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral issues are supposed to be brought on a relevant user's talk pages, before additional action is taken. If a user proves h-self not reachable, either technically or in attitude, one can go on from there. Doubling up on your sarcastic sign-offs doesn't help you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's my prerogative to sign off in a cordial manner. Again, you are free to make the assumptions you would like; I have been irritated on this page, sure, but I have never been blatantly crass or unkind. Again, if you have legitimate issues with my behavior and feel that it is compromising the integrity of this encyclopedia, feel free to take it to the noticeboard to resolve your qualms. So far, the only actions that have been taken are comments on the indentures of my entries (you can go to the basic mobile format yourself to double-check my claims) and the reversions of edits, which again, you yourself brought on the talk page and I have not debated against since. The third comment you left doubles-down on earlier remarks left by a separate user. I'm failing to see what the behavior issue is here; my apologies and best wishes.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)