Jump to content

Talk:Evangeline Lilly/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Peace Corps

Was she really in the Peace Corps? It was my understanding that its members were US citizens, or at least US residents. RickK 06:17, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was fishy too, because she is Canadian. I called the U.S. Peace Corps press office, she is not listed in their records. -Wayne

POV

This article is not neutral, and never will be. 150.204.49.17 13:40, Aug 19, 2005 (UTC)

In what way? I see virtually nothing other than pure facts on the page. If you have specific complaints, please make them (or clean up the article). Otherwise, your tagging the article as POV is unjustified and I will revert it. I won't do so without giving you some time to respond, of course. --Yamla 15:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
This troll put NPOV tags, and the same meaningless comment, on several (apparently randomly selected) articles). He's intent on disrupting wikipedia, an ambition in which he isn't going to succeed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:02, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lilly and Monaghan as couple

See Dominic Monaghan for a more balanced argument. A contributor seems to either have an unhealthy obsession with rose tinted glasses, or takes anything in gossip papers at face value *face palm* I would recommend everyone follows a logical argument and presents the facts or both sides of the argument rather than personal wishes about the couple.

Logical arguments are irrelevant; that's not how Wikipedia works. Everything in articles needs to be cited from reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Cite sources. This article has too much uncited gossip; the Monaghan article has even more. Both need sources to be cited, or all the gossipy nonsense removed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Very touchy from here on

I'm going to be really touchy about this article to ensure that citations are being given. I am NOT sure whether or not Lilly previously had a husband before her current boyfriend, so I had to revert back to the "Last Good Edit". I'm only going to consider some parts as "Tabloidic" unless I see a neutralic citation within this article. So, I'm going to start watching this page!!! — Vesther 00:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh????

Lilly won 20 dollars from Jorge Garcia who dared her to pee in a garbage can in the middle of a parking lot in Kailua, Hawaii in front of Garcia, Matthew Fox and Dominic Monaghan

Source? I need to know where that came from. If I don't see any sources, then I'm gonna have to erase it. I don't know how you got this trivia onto this article, but don't you guys think that this one is out of touch with an encyclopedia? I'm not going to do any edits right now but I just want to rectify the validity of the italicized text above. — Vesther 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I was intrigued by that addition so google searched it and it is from a credible source [1]. So it shouldn't be erased due to having no source. However, I feel it is a bit of a nonsense addition for an encyclopedia (even if it under the trivia heading.) I'll let others decide if it is worthy of inclusion. --PTSE 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't really think it's really Encyclopedia-legal by its nature IMO, and I think it should be out of the article. Those who want to dispute my request please do so now. — Vesther 02:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Non-encyclopaedic in the extrme. Lose it. Budgiekiller 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Forgot to add a note when I removed it, but it's gone, and I'll be checking in periodically to make sure it doesn't return. Whether it is factual or not is irrelevant. It's not really pertinent, and in really bad taste. Baryonyx 17:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's itemize Evie's credits from now on

Notice that I started "itemizing" things, such as her Vital Statistics (Evangeline is actually her middle name, her full name is Nicole Evangeline Lilly, I'm thinking that she liked the Evangeline name better, that is why she has been working under the Evangeline Lilly "brand-name" since, but I would like to see some itemization of her credits and "other things") as much as we can. Thanks. — Vesther 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo galleries

Is it OK to add an external link to a gallery with pictures of Evangeline Lilly? The site can freely be accessed, no registration is required. -- Ddofborg 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No. I responded to your request for clarification on your talk page. Basically, this is an inappropriate use of external links. --Yamla 22:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Yamla. --PTSE 22:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I get the point. Thanks! -- Ddofborg 14:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that it should be allowed. I don't see what point this violates on the linked page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.232.75 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

"Programme"

Since, in the article, David Letterman's The Late Show is referred to as a "programme," a spelling most Americans would regard as incorrect, I have boldly removed the -me suffix. Lilly as a subject is no longer Canada-specific (if she ever was), being on a nationally broadcast American show. The user who changed the spelling back said that the other word works just as well; so if they work equally well, why not be more precise and call an American show by its American name? Telestylo 21:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

But you are not talking about the name of the show. It's called "Late Show", and there seems to be no dispute over that. You are talking about the word "program/programme". First, on Wikipedia all forms of English are correct, and none is wrong or incorrect. The Manual of Style states that in articles pertaining to a given country the spelling used there should take precedence. However, this article is not about the Late Show, this is a biographic article on Evangeline Lilly, a Canadian actress. Therefore, the fact that the show itself is from the U.S. does not preclude the use of the British spelling of words in general in favor of the commonly used form in the U.S. (again, this does not concern the name of the show). In this particular case, this being a relatively small article, with just one word with a disputed spelling problem, this appears to be a nonissue. Whichever one is fine, but to be fair, the one that was there first should stay, unless there's a need for a broader uniformization of the article. Regards, Redux 13:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree. The article may be about a Canadian person, but she is now famous in an international (U.S./Canada) context. You seem to have mooted your own point here, but even if this is, as you call it, a "nonissue," then why would it be fairer to keep the previous edit? I still support the edit I made for the reasons I've stated above, which I believe have not been prevailed upon. Telestylo 06:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

background and trivia parts are copied from imdb

Thanks for pointing that out! I've temporarily commented out that section. We should replace it as soon as possible with non-copyright-violation material. --Yamla 17:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Rumors

I've removed the rumors of Evangeline Lilly and Dominic Monaghan's relationship and the tabloid links. If the best that can be said about this is that it is rumored, then it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it's speculation. And, honestly, I would think tolerance for this type of information would be at an all time low after recent events. This is a biographical page and rumor should be completely eliminated. Baryonyx 07:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

About the recent unwarranted edits and the reverts

Lately, I have seen a lot of unwarranted edits that had been targeted for revertion by various Wikipedians on this article. I don't know why there has been a vat of unwarranted edits, but from now on, edits have to be creative, neutral, on-topic, serious, shrewd, focused, and positive to the point. No exceptions. By seeing a lot of unwarranted edits and/or edits that may be deemed to be silly and/or stupid, it hurts the integrity of Wikipedia, and makes it hard for Wikipedians to keep the encyclopedia at the quality level of an encyclopedia. The unwarranted/silly/stupid edits really gives more, unnecessary work for Wikipedians aloft. — Vesther 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of the point. You mean you haven't figured out what vandals are doing this for yet? Rogue 9 17:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Rogue 9, I firmly believe that vandals are only here to take revenge against all of us, but there could also be other factors as well, I'll PM you in the future to perceive from my point-of-view why vandals are stinking Wikipedia up. — Dark Insanity 23:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think we have impersonators as well. I've seen about two incidents which someone claiming to be Ms. Lilly vandalize this article, stinking things up for us. Impersonation of celebrities from my point-of-view is a bannable offense right on the spot. — Dark Insanity 23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Status of the Divorce

Murray Hone, Former Husband (Divorced)

I just want to know, did Evangeline ever got the divorce processed? Usually you're supposed to file for divorce if you want to get divorced, and unless I have a citation that Evi DID get the divorce processed, I'm going to have to change the status to "Separated/Divorce Status Unknown".

Otherwise, I'll include it, provided that her birthdate, place of origin, and noticeable roles gets itemized. — Dark Insanity 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for HEAVY Moderation

Due to the fact that there's been A LOT OF SPAM and A LOT OF UNWARRANTED EDITS in this article, it has came to my attention that this article has been severely beaten up to death. I hereby do request that this article be heavily moderated by anyone who knows A LOT about Evangeline Lilly in order to prevent a plethora of unwarranted edits and spams from coming into this article. I'm not gonna edit this article unless otherwise necessary but I am going to be more touchy with this article and because of what I have been seeing over the last couple of months, I do request that moderators and people who know more about Evangeline Lilly than myself (namely Yamla, I'm thinking Yamla knows more about Lilly than myself) to heavily moderate this article so that both spamming and unwarranted edits are being controlled. I'm not going to state messages like this but I really feel that this article has gone WAY OUT OF CONTROL and I think it's time to start getting serious about making this article encyclopediatrical. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've seen Yamla having to go through all the trouble of actually having to revert the article back and forth which is a reason why this article is on beaten grounds. Unless you have something credible to add, please don't do anything. Please don't spam or do any unwarranted edits. It only makes the work much harder for people like Yamla. Thanks.

Good sentiments, but this article is pretty low down in the league table of vandalism and stupid edits! You're better off refering people to the various policies that encourage citeable evidence, reduce external link spam, reduce the number of unlicenced images etc. I'll keep a closer eye on the article for now to ensure it remains encyclopedic and upholds the Wikipedia standards. But don't let it get to you! Budgiekiller 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of "Whatever"

Nicole Evangeline Lilly (born 3 August 1979), better known as Evangeline Lilly, is a Canadian actress. She is best known for her role as Katherine "Kate" Austen in ABC's Lost.

Don't you think it's better to say "Evangeline Lilly (born Nicole Evangeline Lilly on 3 August 1979) is so-so"? Sure we know that Evi has a "real name" but I'm thinking it would be better IMO to rather say the known name first and then notate (if they have a birth name) that they were born a particular name in a particular date in parentheses. I would like to see if it would be better to do what I'm suggesting or to just stay what you guys are doing. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't edit this article, just passing by, but that way is what most bio articles do, if someone's current name is in any way different. So I'm in agreement with you. :) -- Banez 12:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Permission granted?

Image:Evangeline_Lilly_Star.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Evangeline Lilly at Monaco

Did the one who posted the image in this article obtained appropriate permission to post it here at this article? Just wondering. Thanks. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 01:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The person who posted it claims to be an employee of the web site. If that's true, it's licensed. There's no definite answer, mind you. --Yamla 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, that's all. All I'm saying is that I want to make sure he/she has been given permission to do so, that's all, since it was a copyright issue. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 13:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch your editing syntax

It's not just this article that I'm seeing Syntax Errors, and whenever I see space problems with an article, the article looks ugly. Therefore, please do Wikipedia a favor and watch your syntax when you are editing articles, this way you can avoid making the article look ugly. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wha???

Referer for this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangeline_Lilly&diff=62804324&oldid=62402631

I don't know if the modeling pic or if the Monaco pic should be used. I'm not gonna really touch the article (other than minor grammar/formatting/syntax edits), but I'm gonna really leave it up to the Evangeline Lilly fans to determine what is right for the topic. I'm not gonna overly debate here, but I'm just gonna leave it up to the Evangeline Lilly fans here to decide since I want the Evi Lilly fans to take an initiative stance here. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Still I'm gonna be keeping an eye on the topic, though I'm not gonna touch the topic too much since I want the Evi Lilly fans to take initiative of it.

Evi as seen in Lost

However, I'm just wondering how come you guys don't put Lilly's pic as she's seen as the mysterious Kate Austen, since that is the Evangeline Lilly breakthrough? Honestly, I'm gonna leave it up to you, but I thought that literally, I prefer pictures of their breakthrough roles at the front top of the article there. I'm gonna leave the pic descript up to you. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Evangeline Lilly/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs lot of references. Only the Personal life section is a properly referenced section. Other than that, it is quite good. All the best. --soumtalk 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Lost Template

All actors in Lost has this {{lostnav}} template in this page with the exception of this actress. I don't see this as being fair because all other performers on ABC's Lost has this Wikitemplate. I really don't have to put up with an edit war about this, but if you don't believe the reason why the LOSTNAV template has to be in this article, here are some references: Emilie de Ravin, Malcolm David Kelley, Daniel Dae Kim, all Lost performers have this template. It is extremely advisable that you check all Lost performer pages (like the aforementioned for examples) before you even attempt to remove the {{lostnav}} template. Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fort Saskatchewan?

Can we get some proof as to her growing up there until the age of 10? I lived in the Fort myself, and I don't know a single person who ever claimed to know this woman. Ever. As to this information coming from a phone interview with the Fort Record, I'd just like to point out that said newspaper has a less than stellar reputation for accuracy, as they can't even be bothered to run spell check on their articles most times.

But don't take my word for it. Howa0082 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Davies citation?

Article currently states "She has recently been linked to lost co-star Jeremy Davies" but there is no citation, nor can I find any evidence online, except an article that appears on various Lost spoiler sites, stating "Evangeline Lilly and new man Jeremy Davies (Daniel) on set..". The spoiler article contains no suggestion that the two are dating, and in fact contains only photos of the two taken during filming. Jeremy Davies is a "new man" because the photos are from Episode Two of Season 4 ("Confirmed Dead") which is the first episode in which he appears after a brief introduction at the end of episode 1. In other words, he's new to the show, not necessarily Evangeline Lilly's "new man". In conclusion, citation or please delete.

P.S. I deleted a query about Lilly's bust size from the discussion page. Creeps please go elsewhere.

Possible Page Protection necessary

I've been looking at the history of edits on this article and it has came to my attention that this article has been badly messed up by somewhat a good amount of vandalism. I don't know how many vandalism strikes before a VPROTECT is warranted, but if I continue to see a couple of unwarranted edits in this article, I may have to nominate this article for semi-protection. Seriously I look down on unwarranted edits, and this article is no exception. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, don't think so. 30 edits in the past 45 days (or so) with some vandalism does not warrant any protection. You should try watching some really controversial pages like Bear or Duck. They're not protected and get vandalised left, right and centre. Let's not forget what the Wikipedia is all about! Cheers! Budgiekiller 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ha, both of those pages are protected now. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncredited Roles?

Should her uncredited roles, like the Freddy vs. Jason mention, be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scdp (talk • contribs) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

The beginning of the article states that Lilly is a former fashion model. The first paragraph of "career" contains a cited quote: "Despite being signed to Ford Models, she was never actually a fashion model." This is a direct contradiction and very confusing. Let's pick one.

Not fair use

thumb|Evangeline Lilly

Deadlike me.

Is that Lilly in the next booth in the "Dead Like Me" Season 1 outtakes reel? 6:39mins in or so, seen for a few secodns while George moves from the registration desk to the photo area?

just wondering.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Evangeline Lilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evangeline Lilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evangeline Lilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Partner

I find it very odd, absurd, that her partner and father of her 2 children is commented out of the Infobox. If he is notable enough to mention in the article text how is he not notable enough to mention in the infobox.

I was asked to look at Template:Infobox and all it says is "If particularly relevant, or if the partner is notable; "partner" here means unmarried life partners (of any gender or sexual preference), not business partner. Use the format Name (1950–present) for current partner and Name (1970–99) for former partner(s)." It does not make it clear what level of notability is required, nor does it say that someone that doesn't have a Wikipedia page is not notable.

For the sake of consistency I ask that either he be either be included in the Infobox preferably, or that any mention of him also be removed from the article body. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Why shouldn't her partner be included in the infobox? Just because he's not a celebrity? They've been together for 8+ years and have two kids together. It should be in the infobox, didn't it used to be? Why remove it? Emily (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evangeline Lilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Coronavirus Stance

Look guys. I know this is a big deal right now. I don't agree with what she said either. But it is NOT relevant to her life or career. It was one Instagram post. That's it. It's not worth having an edit war over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.99.109 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved." –WP:BLPCOI. I'm not sure if it is significant enough to be included in the lead (WP:LEAD states that prominent/significant criticisms or controversies should be mentioned), but it should be included in the main body. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It is neither prominent, nor significant. It was one comment in an Instagram post. Thousands of which are made by public figures every day, which don't warrant inclusion into their respective pages. I know this is the hot topic right now, but the purpose of adding this info into her page is not to inform, but to direct criticism towards her. Hence my stating of the adding of the information to be opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.99.109 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll agree that having it in the main body is fine, as long as it isn't in the lead. I still don't think it's relevant, but this is a decent compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.99.109 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would understand your point if it was just a throwaway Instagram post which didn't receive any attention, but it's not. Numerous media outlets have reported on it (Evening Standard, USA Today, NME, E!Online, Yahoo, Global News etc). It is a controversy she has been involved in. Including it in her article is not some conspiracy to turn people against her. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad a compromise was found. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, it looks like the incident has reduced her amount of screen-time in Ant-Man 3: [2] 213.93.90.13 (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The user Jake453 is vaguely throwing a "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" line without any actual reasoning or explanation responding to the relevant points made up here. Can we stop the user from unilaterally whitewashing the page?

To recap, relevant points include the following:

  • It is properly documented in multiple media sources. And it is properly cited in the page.
  • It is not insignificant, and in fact has had a direct impact to her career as an actress, with her role in an upcoming work being reduced. This is relevant to her profession and the reduced role would not be possible to explain without explaining why it happened.

2606:6000:60CC:C900:148C:D651:8097:9661 (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha, it wasn't included. I'm satisfied. Gongfong2021 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Why? User 70.113.17.227 removed it, calling it irrelevant, but how is it irrelevant? As stated above, this was reporting on comments that affected her role in Ant-Man 3 which is part of her career, which is definitely a notable encyclopedic material. This is not an attempt to demean her but simply to state notable content about how what she said and did had a notable impact. 2603:8000:B600:4000:3485:C2A6:1AF7:FB80 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Restored by user Abbyjjjj96 as not irrelevant. 2603:8000:B600:4000:C5B5:AB8B:66F9:58CF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evangeline_Lilly/Archive_1&oldid=1149647804"