User talk:82.30.193.7

July 2023

Hello, I'm The Herald. An edit that you recently made to Anne, Princess Royal seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2024

Hello, I'm Prince of Erebor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at British princess, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Note that wives are already covered in the introduction: see the edits by User:Chamika1990 [1] and myself[2]. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I do not have to take instructions from you, Celia. My changes are factually correct. The wife of a British Prince does gain the rank and status as a Princess by marriage and this should be included in the opening paragraph. You are not the expert on all things royal. A relevant citation has now been added. Please do not remove. Debretts, a clearly reliable source more so than you, clearly states that there are two ways a person can become a Princess of the United Kingdom, either by birth (daughter or granddaughter of a sovereign) or by marriage. This citation is correct. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Note that wives are already covered in the introduction: see the edits by User:Chamika1990 [3] and myself[4]." do you not understand? Wives are not mentioned anywhere in the letters patent. We do not need citations in the introduction for content already cited in the article body. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the third bullet point do you not understand??? READ THE CITATION FROM DEBRETTS. As long as you keep removing it then I will keep adding it. It does not matter whether wives are not mentioned in the Letters Patent. By tradition and by law the legal wife of a British Prince takes on the feminine form of all of her husband's titles and styles. That is why both Catherine and Meghan have the status of "Princess of the United Kingdom" on the birth certificates of their children. Stop the condescending and rude attitude. I've added the citation. I will keep making these changes however many times you delete them. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it perfectly, which is why I added that to the introduction a month ago. Note that the paragraph you are re-adding it to is about the letters patent not the criteria for who is or isn't a princess. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed it out of the bullet point listing. Your explanation is misleading. It should be included as a third bullet point. You also deleted all of the other factual insertions I made. What makes you feel you are the authority about this? The Letters Patent and my additions are the criteria. You obviously do not fully understand. Your "Mr John Smith" explanation is also ridiculous as it is not a very good comparison. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not mentioned Mrs Smith anywhere. Nor have I made any changes whatever to your other insertions[5][6]Celia Homeford (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep deleting my factual insertions. Debretts is a verified source. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments of 15:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC), 15:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC) and 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC). Celia Homeford (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a check adding a verification to my citation from Debretts. Debretts is a verified source. Your "Mrs John Smith" has no citiation or verification. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment of 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC). Celia Homeford (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at British princess shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for block evasion.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.