User talk:Spectritus

Archives

2026

January

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eileen Winterton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot I know. For once it was deliberate. Spectritus (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Christopher Baker (director)

Hello, Spectritus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Christopher Baker (director), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carrick edit

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Michael Carrick, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite Sorry, I got confused because a news article I read mentioned him as caretaker. Spectritus (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson edit

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Emma Watson. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.

READ THIS:

See here for the discussion. Seasider53 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I've read it and I understand. But, I would like to note two things: first, I think her modeling is notable and secondly she quit acting so it should say "former actress". Spectritus (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide though. Seasider53 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we not say former when she clearly stated that she has quit acting? Tell me. Spectritus (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for her notability as model it was debated in the original discussion but the debate was never finished so I think it's worth opening a new discussion. Spectritus (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, "retired" is different than "former" since she will return back to the role soon, says https://variety.com/2023/film/news/emma-watson-acting-break-five-years-caged-1235600852/ Q Gravelle (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Spectritus (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]