User:KellyAna/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:KellyAna. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Watch the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article more than usually
- Hey, two editors made different changes to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, mainly in the form of screenshots, but I changed the article back to how it was before, except for one screenshot and a change of side (left or right) for one of the other screenshots. However, an editor has added an image to EJ and Sami's controversy section that you may not like and is most likely to make other changes without consensus that were already agreed upon to remain as they are by you all. So I know that you'll want to head over to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article to check what I speak of out. This message has been delivered to one of the others who have worked hardest on this article and will be delivered to Radiantbutterfly as well. Flyer22 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Flyer22. I don't know why people require this to be such a handful of an article.CelticGreen 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Use of the word Fictional in headings for fictional characters or couple articles
Hey, CelticGreen, when it was discussed about the use of the word Fictional in fictional character articles, it seemed to be more about the wording of Fictional character history as being too redundant.
The wording of Fictional history for the main heading of a fictional character article, however, isn't any more redundant than the wording of Character history for the main heading in a fictional character article.
More so for couples, just placing the wording of History for the main heading of their plot section is seen as too in-universe by Wikipedia. By having the main heading remain as History for a fictional character or couple article, Wikipedia deems that as treating the characters as if they are real.
So I changed the main heading for the plot of the Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady article back to Fictional history, as you can see with this link...[1]... When it comes to these couple articles, once I fix them up, I rename their History heading to Storyline. A History heading should detail real-world context, such as how the couple was created and such by the show's writers or producers...or both. If you'd rather re-word the Fictional history heading to Storyline or Plot within the Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady article, then that'd be fine, of course. Flyer22 08:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I was reading other discussions about the use of the word and its redundancy so I thought it was settled differently but that was obviously a discussion, not a Wiki based formatting principle. I do like Storyline better than History or Fictional history. Thank you, again, for your help.CelticGreen 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Other pages
- Suck my cock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.84.104 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The preceeding comments, prior to your invitation, were not directed to you. However, your comments have been reported. While it is likely impossible for you to be banned because you change your IP constantly, your behaviour has been noted and you are being watched. CelticGreen 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- CelticGreen, it is not worth waisting your time with people like this. They are the type of people that make great websites like wikipedia shut down. They make me sick. Hen55 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stefano 190x143.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stefano 190x143.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not my image. I have not purposely uploaded any pictures of Stefano DiMera that I am aware of. If I did it was by accident and I wanted EJ Wells or Santo DiMera. I do not have one on my computer. Delete it. I don't care. It's not my image.CelticGreen 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why whoever removed that image removed it. It is better to have an image of what a character currently looks like than one that does not look all that much like that character anymore. This image shows this character in his older appearance, but it is how he currently looks, as opposed to the significantly younger image that is in that article now at this moment. Flyer22 22:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- In all honesty I don't even remember uploading the image. I would suspect that the changed image is from the editor that keeps changing all the articles about the DiMeras. I was practicing at one time uploading and I could have uploaded it, but it isn't on my home computer so I didn't realize that I did it. I agree that it doesn't make sense for it to be removed, when I did look at it, it's a great picture and far better than the one currently in the article. Is there a way we can keep it?CelticGreen 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, just add it back to that article, in the place of the one that's currently there. And, in your edit summary, explain why you're replacing the image that's currently there, of course. Flyer22 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I had not realized that you had already done that. I went ahead and removed its orphan tag as well. Flyer22 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did it just after you said we should do it and why. It is a much better image. I misunderstood the bot warning. I thoubght it was because the image was unauthorized and I was sure I hadn't uploaded any unauthorized images. You've been great about helping me with that. Under your advice I added it to the Stefano article. Hopefully our "friend" won't remove it or do other things with it. Thanks for all your help. CelticGreen 23:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
I wasn't trying to be a thorn in your side or anyone else's. I just accept the scene as it was presented or rather how I interpreted it. It was jarring to me that he wasn't on the list. I'll admit I still believe he should be on the list (at least temporarily), but I understand why he isn't. It is all up in the at the end of day, and the opinions will be varied, I should of realized this. I honestly don't understand how anyone can interpret it another way but the reality of the situation is that people did and still do. And I don't really want him to be there either (not a fan of Lucas), I don't even like Sami being on the list, lol. I do see what you're saying and I'd really like to thank you for responding and explaining it to me and your position rather than telling me to 'get with the program' or something similar, a response I've encountered on Wikipedia before. In regards to joining, some users here have tainted my view of this place so I don't look favorably at it. But I'll think about it now as you're one few rational people I've spoken with on here. (I can count them on one hand)70.19.29.65 01:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Tony 190x143.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Tony 190x143.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Guideline
That's something the WikiProject needs to make a guideline, and I say now. I agree with you. How long have you been watching Days? I've watched since 1993, when Carly was buried alive by Vivian. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since 1967 although admittedly I was an infant. My mother raised me on Days so I've watched all my life. I still remember her freaking out over Marie leaving the convent. I'll do whatever I can do. I know that I encountered a Bold and the Beautiful page that's been just as bounced around as the Sami page. I do believe we need a guideline for characters names. Truth be told, there needs to be one on ages too. I'm sick of the assumed age thing.CelticGreen 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Tyler palko promo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Tyler palko promo.gif. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Working on it. Trying to get help. Please don't immediately delete.CelticGreen 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Images that don't meet Wikipedia's content policies can be deleted 48 hours after notification is given. There's no immediate need to have a photo - plenty of articles don't - so there's no huge problem if it goes a few days without a photo. But we legally cannot just take someone else's photo and call it fair use. There are several photos of him at flickr - http://flickr.com/search/?q=Tyler%20Palko&w=all. All of them are tagged "all rights reserved", so we cannot use them, but it is possible that if asked, some of the authors might be willing to change their license. For us to use a flickr photo, it needs to be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. (The no derivatives and non-commercial licenses are not acceptable.) But a lot of times, if we ask someone "did you take this photo" and "would you be willing to make your license CC-BY or CC-BY-SA so that Wikipedia can use it in ____________", they will answer yes. --B 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm more confused now than ever. Maybe I should just call my aunt and have her ask his dad for a photo. Flyer22 is helping me sort this out. I just don't want to be in violation of Wikipedia policy since I know that gets users banned.CelticGreen 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Images that don't meet Wikipedia's content policies can be deleted 48 hours after notification is given. There's no immediate need to have a photo - plenty of articles don't - so there's no huge problem if it goes a few days without a photo. But we legally cannot just take someone else's photo and call it fair use. There are several photos of him at flickr - http://flickr.com/search/?q=Tyler%20Palko&w=all. All of them are tagged "all rights reserved", so we cannot use them, but it is possible that if asked, some of the authors might be willing to change their license. For us to use a flickr photo, it needs to be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. (The no derivatives and non-commercial licenses are not acceptable.) But a lot of times, if we ask someone "did you take this photo" and "would you be willing to make your license CC-BY or CC-BY-SA so that Wikipedia can use it in ____________", they will answer yes. --B 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Working on it. Trying to get help. Please don't immediately delete.CelticGreen 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The reason that image was tagged in that way is because it can so easily be replaced, as it was released by a company, unlike most of the screenshots of fictional characters, which are mostly captured by viewers, meaning that since viewers are the ones who capture most of those screenshots, those screenshots are more difficult to replace...without those viewers. I answered your other question on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 01:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you're wondering why fair-use applies to fictional characters when it's a promotional photograph released by its company, it's different rules for fictional characters, of course. Flyer22 02:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The reason that image was tagged in that way is because it can so easily be replaced, as it was released by a company, unlike most of the screenshots of fictional characters, which are mostly captured by viewers, meaning that since viewers are the ones who capture most of those screenshots, those screenshots are more difficult to replace...without those viewers. I answered your other question on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 01:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you do go the route of asking his dad for a photo, take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It's important to keep in mind that simply having "permission to use the image on Wikipedia" or permission to use "non-commercially" is not sufficient. Wikipedia images need to be released under a license compatible with the GFDL. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission gives a sample letter requesting permission that explains our licensing needs. For us to use the image, it needs to be released into the public domain, under the GFDL, or under a free Creative Commons license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). It's also best to see the part in there about forwarding your letter of permission to OTRS so that they can verify it. --B 02:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeffree Star edits
hi, Myspace and other less encyclopedic sources are not encouraged but they certainly are allowed and in the case of Star are self-referential sources backing up what reliable sources assert per WP:RS. The See also section, on all articles, should be thought of as a waiting room for wikilinks awaiting inclusion in the article. They are related just not added yet. ideally the section would go away when all the terms have been incorporated. Benjiboi 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not true. It also falls into the class of original research another not allowed source. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. While I do not necessarily care about the Jeffree Star article, if it links to articles I do care about, i.e. PHS then it needs to be accurate. The article has been up for multiple deletions which tells me that it has never been compliant and is not a notable source but rather a self promotion tool. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a magazine with free add space. The rules state you must have verifiable sources, and myspace is not verifiable sourcing. You are also not allowed to self promote by adding "store" pages. CelticGreen 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, You are mistaken. Per WP:SELFPUB - "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
- This is not true. It also falls into the class of original research another not allowed source. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. While I do not necessarily care about the Jeffree Star article, if it links to articles I do care about, i.e. PHS then it needs to be accurate. The article has been up for multiple deletions which tells me that it has never been compliant and is not a notable source but rather a self promotion tool. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a magazine with free add space. The rules state you must have verifiable sources, and myspace is not verifiable sourcing. You are also not allowed to self promote by adding "store" pages. CelticGreen 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- it is relevant to their notability;
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources." Benjiboi 02:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- What you don't seem to understand is that the article is OVERSOURCED. That's what I saw removed, and rightly so. You don't have to reference every other word. It makes the article look tacky. I ran across it last week and just rolled my eyes. It would serve you better to allow CelticGreen's changes, that removed all the unnecessary reference tags and at least let the article be clean. Right now at first glance all you see are reference tags and it looks just awful and all those tags, they just aren't necessary. In it's current state I would support it being deleted. Clean it up, removed the reference tags (i.e. the one to date of birth linking to myspace) and the rest and I'd change that opinion.IrishLass0128 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Please explain on the articles talk page why you reverted to a version that contains huge amounts of fan speculation couched in weasel words. 24.6.65.83 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Weasel words" ~ I don't need to explain my actions to an IP address with an agenda. The article has been discussed and has been deamed neutral and accurate. You made changes based on your opinion. Please discontinue vandalizing the article.CelticGreen 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply to you and your base accusations on the articles talk page, where I requested you reply. 24.6.65.83 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have asked another editor to come in on this. I will not get into an editing war with you/any unidentified IP user.CelticGreen 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not add any further comments to my talk page. I've stated I will not get into an editing war with you, yet you continue to harrass me. I have called in a neutral third party. Until then, there is nothing more you need to say to me.CelticGreen 19:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Grant Chuggle and sockpuppets blocked
I have blocked him for three days and the SSP IPs for a week. Yes, it was a complicated situation best reported to WP:AN/I, but you provided enough information in the AIV report to investigate properly.
Keep me (and/or AN/I) posted if this becomes a longterm problem. Daniel Case 03:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- He's back and has bypassed the block. I left a message for Daniel Case. He has also created a new user name of Hen55 to get around the block.IrishLass0128 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was futile. Hen55 has been blocked indefinitely; I have extended Grant's original block to a week and similarly blocked the other IP. Daniel Case 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying. If I see him again, I'll be sure to let you know.CelticGreen 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This morning, I blocked all the socks you and IrishLass reported, then decided to semi-protect both Santo DiMera and Tony DiMera so he can't use more. His original block has been extended to a month.
Hopefully this will slow him down. Daniel Case 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked that sock, extended his and protected Stefano. He has a very penitent unblock request up now, claiming he always forgets he's blocked and goes right back to editing. I'm not doing it, but I can't speak for other admins. Daniel Case 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are other editors allowed to counter his request. Yesterday he was putting up pictures of naked women and using vulgar language again. That's not being very sorry for your sins. CelticGreen 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Drake Hogestyn
Please explain why the article was reverted again? The changes I made, contrary to what you may think, ARE CORRECT from a stylistic standpoint.
First, titles of television shows and movies should be italicized. Second, Days of Our Lives is a soap opera. There is no harm whatsoever in clarifying this. Thirdly, there is redundant Wikifying of Soap Opera Digest Award. Does it need to be Wiki-linked six times? Does Deidre Hall need to be Wiki-linked three times? And all in the same section? Also, dates should be Wiki-linked. And lastly, there are grammatical errors which my revision addressed.
I stand behind my changes, and I have reverted back. Rollosmokes 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously have a lack of familiarity with Drake and his John Black character along with certain decisions by the Soap Project. Please do not continue to edit the page without discussing it first. Example: "killed off" ~ there's a reason for the quote marks because the show has a 40 year reputation of never killing off a living actor and the show has not officially confirmed Drake's exit. Your other edits are not necessary or not within the Soap project. Let's talk before you do anything again. Okay??
BTW, I have been watching Days of Our Lives since 1987. Before you accuse someone of being unfamiliar with a certain character, ask them first. Rollosmokes 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I guess you aren't as familiar with Wiki as you claim. Nor do you understand the concept of working together. Sorry, but you aren't completely right and you are not an editor who knows how to play well with others. If you want to leave me a reply, do it here.
Watch it, because you could be treading on incivility here. BTW, I've asked an administrator for assistance in this "irrelevant" issue. Rollosmokes 06:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Celtic,
- At Rollosmokes' request, I did take a look at this article, which could use some clean-up. I'm not sure why you reverted back to this version of the article, which contains spelling errors ("it's" instead of "its") Manual of style issues (such as repeatedly linking the same page over and over, which is officially discouraged), and removed italics from the names of films and TV series. Why are you reverting like this? Whatever your reasons, I don't think these reverts are truly necessary. Rollosmokes is trying to improve the article just as much as you are, and these reverts (at least the spelling and italics reverts) aren't helping the article. My hope is that some sort of compromise on the other points of contention in this article can be reached, but the spelling and italics that Rollosmokes introduced to the text are correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
use of speedy
Please see WP:CSD A7. speedy deletion for notability is available only for real people, not fictional characters. For characters in video, etc., the correct procedure is WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I agree that the people you have been tagging are probably not notable, but this criterion for speedy is deliberately set narrowly, so more than 2 people will have a chance to look at it, because it is frequently hard to tell & it articles might get deleted due merely to unfamiliarity. DGG (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well I just can't do anything right, can I??? Sorry, it's been one of those days. If you could help, I just want to do it right the first time, not the twenty-first. Thanks so much!! CelticGreen 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sami Brady move
It's been done (first time in my adminship I did that sort of thing). You may want to add back in the two edits you made to the article ... I hope you can remember what they are. Daniel Case 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see another admin took care of it. If this is going to be a continuing problem, we may want to move-protect the page. Daniel Case 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think blocking it from moves would be a good idea. CelticGreen 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald
The Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald article's talk page that User:AugustAugust moved needs to be moved back to the current title of its article. It's stuck (and I'm not a Wikipedia administrator...at least not at this time), of course, or else I'd move it back myself. I'm not sure if you want to ask Daniel Case to move it, since he's helped you and IrishLass0128 out a lot lately and you may feel as though you need to ask another Wikipedia administrator at this time, so I'll have someone move it, most likely an administrator from Wikipedia:Requested moves, if you'd rather not ask Daniel about this or rather not go request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves yourself.
Also, it seems that you and AugustAugust need to talk out this matter of the move of Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald from her married name. AugustAugust claims that Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane is just as common a name for her as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald is. If you haven't already, you can read more on this matter on AugustAugust's talk page and on my talk page. Flyer22 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Flyer22, that user is moving articles left, right, up, down, over, and under for no reason and without cause. According to NBC she is Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald nee Crane. In the last 3 months she's been married twice and then her dead ex-husband showed up so she's been Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop Crane in three months time. In the last few days, AugustAugust probably moved 10-15 articles just "because" s/he's figured out how or something. Not sure. I would love to show good faith, but so many of her moves have no basis in what is seen on screen. Additionally, Daniel tried talking to her and she got snippy with him and told him to back off and stay out of it. I've left messages in the past regarding why things shouldn't be moved, but she continues to move them. The Sami Brady page is just one other page s/he's moved and we all know how bounced about that one has been. Daniel is going to block it from being moved. I'll try speaking to AugustAugust and see what happens. CelticGreen 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved your archive
I took the liberty of moving your newly created archive from the main article space to your user space. I fixed the links below as well to reflect that. Thanks for understanding, and I hope I did it right. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks you. I just created it per someone's instructions. Your help is appreciated.CelticGreen 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome, no worries. Now that I look at it, maybe it should be in your talk page space: User talk:CelticGreen/Archive 1 instead. I'll let you do as you prefer though, with respect to that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added table of contents (TOC)
I put your archives at the top after a table of contents, feel free to revert if that's not what you were looking for. Benjiboi 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I like the TOC, thank you, but I think I prefer the archive box on the bottom but I'll probably play around with it a bunch. Thanks CelticGreen 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Supercouples
I've only alerted two other editors of this due to my feeling that, besides myself, you three are the most active with the topic of supercouple, as I am, and you should know about this. I'm about to go list this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas now, since alerting anyone else individually of this topic might get me accused of Wikipedia:Canvassing, although I'm only about alerting editors relevant to a topic when this kind of issue arises, not any editor. Talk with you later. Flyer22 00:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I hope the other editor is RadiantButterfly, if not, I'll make sure she contributes. Supercouples have been a way of life since I graduated, about the time you were born according to your profile, but that's cool. I also have a few internet friends that are registered users here that would insist upon keep for the catagory. If you don't object, I'll ask them to weigh in. CelticGreen 01:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would advise against asking editors who are not regular contributors to the supercouple topics to weigh in on this; that could definitely be seen as canvassing. Flyer22 02:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason I asked about RadiantB is because she's contributed so much to the EJami page. I only, so far, have asked her to weigh in because of her love for EJami. I will not ask anyone else, I hadn't thought of canvassing and I understand the concern. Beyond RadiantB I will not ask anyone else. CelticGreen 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, I greatly understand asking Radiantbutterfly. The only reason that I didn't myself is because Radiantbutterfly isn't here at Wikipedia as much as you and I. If I'm mistaken in that, Radiantbutterfly is lurking here a lot of days then. I felt that it may be a while before Radiantbutterfly got my message. I was only going to alert two or three editors of this matter individually, and felt that it was best to alert someone else instead of Radiantbutterfly, considering what I stated above. Flyer22 05:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we talk via email, she's the one who got me started on Wikipedia because of her interest in EJami. But I watch a lot of television and enjoy more than just Days, I also enjoy writing (even if I'm a terrible speller sometimes). I figured since I email her outside of Wikipedia and she has a vested interest, it wouldn't be canvassing. She's the only one I've asked at this point. CelticGreen 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that wasn't canvassing. Plus, as noted above, Radiantbutterfly is involved with the popular couple topic of EJ Wells and Samantha Brady (EJami, as we also know them as). Flyer22 19:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we talk via email, she's the one who got me started on Wikipedia because of her interest in EJami. But I watch a lot of television and enjoy more than just Days, I also enjoy writing (even if I'm a terrible speller sometimes). I figured since I email her outside of Wikipedia and she has a vested interest, it wouldn't be canvassing. She's the only one I've asked at this point. CelticGreen 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, I greatly understand asking Radiantbutterfly. The only reason that I didn't myself is because Radiantbutterfly isn't here at Wikipedia as much as you and I. If I'm mistaken in that, Radiantbutterfly is lurking here a lot of days then. I felt that it may be a while before Radiantbutterfly got my message. I was only going to alert two or three editors of this matter individually, and felt that it was best to alert someone else instead of Radiantbutterfly, considering what I stated above. Flyer22 05:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason I asked about RadiantB is because she's contributed so much to the EJami page. I only, so far, have asked her to weigh in because of her love for EJami. I will not ask anyone else, I hadn't thought of canvassing and I understand the concern. Beyond RadiantB I will not ask anyone else. CelticGreen 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would advise against asking editors who are not regular contributors to the supercouple topics to weigh in on this; that could definitely be seen as canvassing. Flyer22 02:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of editors who are directly involved with the topic of supercouple, we should have...and should alert IrishLass0128 about this. There aren't too many of us directly involved with the topic of supercouple, and considering how often IrishLass has worked with us on this topic, IrishLass should definitely know about it. One of us should just refer IrishLass to your talk page; no need to type up a new message explaining what's going on. As for the discussion now that's going on there, I almost did a double take when one editor felt that there were/are no household names within this category. I don't know if that editor meant the characters, or the actors/actresses of the characters, or both, but this editor was surely wrong about there being no household names within this category. I would think that this editor was not talking about the celebrity supercouples, considering how famous they are, but you never know. As for the characters and the actors/actresses who portray them, I mean, Luke Spencer (portrayed by Anthony Geary) or other such iconic characters and notable actors or actresses on soap opera not household names? No way. There are people who don't know who The Rock from WWE is, but that does not mean that he is not iconic and is not a household name. Flyer22 05:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will put in for a Keep to the catagory. Sorry, been away from the computer, been working weekends at an event that computers do not exist at. IrishLass0128 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- How ridiculous!! I can't believe it was deleted. I mean, seriously, what a waste.CelticGreen 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes...but at least Category:Soap opera supercouples now exists — a category that I created, if you didn't already know. Flyer22 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you haven't yet read the discussion I had with the administrator who closed it as delete, here's that discussion. Flyer22 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Saw the new category today. I actually like it better but I also agree with you that there was a consensus just not one that the admin liked. CelticGreen 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you haven't yet read the discussion I had with the administrator who closed it as delete, here's that discussion. Flyer22 16:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes...but at least Category:Soap opera supercouples now exists — a category that I created, if you didn't already know. Flyer22 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- How ridiculous!! I can't believe it was deleted. I mean, seriously, what a waste.CelticGreen 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Cane ep list
Please re-read my initial edit summary. List of Cane episodes still redirects to the main article, so the ep information is basically lost to anyone who doesn't know how to circumvent redirects (read: please check the links you want to use before removing information ;-)). And in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Life is Wild episodes, it was decided that four episodes are not sufficient to sustain an article, and it was merged back into the main article. Five is not much different, especially when the list is in such a poor shape as Cane's, and it is unlikely that it will receive more attention in a separate article. That's what User:Thedemonhog, a pretty experienced editor, might have thought too when he merged the ep list into the main article the first time about ten days ago. I won't edit war over this, but if you feel my views don't hold up, we can discuss this further on WP:TV. Cane may not be cancelled during Season 1 and have a full season after all, making an ep list valid; however, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no it does not. And don't wink at me or assume I don't check links. I have two computers running. I checked the links and they direct to the episode page from the other computer just so I could KNOW I was right. I'm not sure where YOU are seeing the list of eps link "back" to the main article, but you must be doing something wrong. The list does not redirect to the main article. I created the ep list, and don't assume how long someone's been an editor either. And FYI, Cane's already been picked up for a full season with a guarantee. And there are already 8 episodes, not 5. I'm not sure where you're looking but from my screens, the link goes to the ep list. Did you even bother trying it? And if the list is "in such poor shape" then it shouldn't qualify to be in the article at all. Have you even bothered to actually look at the ep list page?CelticGreen 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize, I used the link in the infobox, which (per convention) has the correct name List of Cane episodes (compare List of Lost episodes and List of Heroes episodes; this was also the former episode list page), and I just assumed that you didn't check. And the infobox still redirects to the main page. So again, sorry for that. And unless you're a sockpuppet, which I am not accusing you of, your time of account creation suggests you have been an active wikipedian for about two months; knowing how long it took me to get used to the wikiway, I'll put the experience of a 1.5 year wikipedian who has proven his knowledge to me countless times, over an account that is just a few months and whose name I don't recognize, any day. Sorry if you take it the wrong way when I tried to help out a seemingly newbie who may not know everything immediately. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you are seriously proving to not be worth arguing with. Your assumptions are ridiculous and based on you never seeing my edits. You see a list under a name of edits, I edited for a long time under my IP address until someone explained the benefit of registering. So since you are more likely to judge someone based on what you perceive rather than fact, I don't think I'm the one with the problem. I did it just as the Las Vegas article, sorry you didn't like that. I fixed the one link I missed so it all works now. You really need to stop assuming things. Seriously. CelticGreen 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- And FYI, you SERIOUSLY need to stop all the accusations. A sockpuppet is someone who has been banned and then created a new account to get around that block or ban. I am not a sock puppet and that's a severe accusation to throw at someone. And knowledge comes to people in different ways, I'm a computer person who works with them all day so I pick up things in 3 months that it takes others to pick up in 3 years. So watch the accusations and assumptions, it shows a severe lack of good faith. CelticGreen 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you are seriously proving to not be worth arguing with. Your assumptions are ridiculous and based on you never seeing my edits. You see a list under a name of edits, I edited for a long time under my IP address until someone explained the benefit of registering. So since you are more likely to judge someone based on what you perceive rather than fact, I don't think I'm the one with the problem. I did it just as the Las Vegas article, sorry you didn't like that. I fixed the one link I missed so it all works now. You really need to stop assuming things. Seriously. CelticGreen 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize, I used the link in the infobox, which (per convention) has the correct name List of Cane episodes (compare List of Lost episodes and List of Heroes episodes; this was also the former episode list page), and I just assumed that you didn't check. And the infobox still redirects to the main page. So again, sorry for that. And unless you're a sockpuppet, which I am not accusing you of, your time of account creation suggests you have been an active wikipedian for about two months; knowing how long it took me to get used to the wikiway, I'll put the experience of a 1.5 year wikipedian who has proven his knowledge to me countless times, over an account that is just a few months and whose name I don't recognize, any day. Sorry if you take it the wrong way when I tried to help out a seemingly newbie who may not know everything immediately. Greetings, – sgeureka t•c 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Who's an admin and who's not
See the official list. That's maintained by the bot. Daniel Case 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.CelticGreen 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections
It certainly seems annoying, and it's sort of drive-by, but policy is on his/her side. I'd prefer it if people did the hard thing (integrating any trivia that was worth putting elsewhere in the article into prose sections) rather than just tag and feel pleased with themselves, but the fact of the matter is that we are trying to get rid of them.
I'd go to some of the articles and either:
- remove the material if it's unsourced (let's face it; most of it is) or at least
- tag it with {{fact|date=September 2007}} (Or October, when we get there. There is a bot (SmackBot that takes care of dating these tags, but it's always nice to do it yourself), look through the edit history to see who added it and ask if they have a source, then remove it after a few days if no source is forthcoming. This, IMO, is the good-faith way to do it.
- remove it if it's just so genuinely trivial as to not really rate a mention (a judgement call, true, but a lot of stuff in trivia sections meets this standard) and say so in the edit summary.
- integrate it into the article if it's sourced and relevant (or if it's just relevant, at least. But try to get a source).
Then you can remove the tag. Daniel Case 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Episode lists
Could you point me to a specific example you have in mind? Do you mean one with tables?
Thanks for the compliment. And don't worry about homeopathy, I reviewed its GA candidacy a while back so I am familiar with it (failed it, but that's a different story). Daniel Case 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't have anything in mind. I saw a rather heated debate at the admin report section and it was scary. I did Guy's Big Bite page with ep links and recipe info. Just want Guy's page to be right. It's my fav show beyond Days. CelticGreen 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Las Vegas Title Screenshot
Thanks for the heads up. I thought someone "accidentally" removed it or was just being an ass. Any idea why the images keep getting removed? Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the rationale, etc? I basically copied the same format of tagging images from other screenshots on articles, so if it's wrong, ALL my tags are wrong! :/ Pinkadelica 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was bit a peeved that the image was removed without explanation. I actually think a editor is removing the images. When images are removed by a bot, they tend to leave you a message about why it was removed, etc. I didn't get one of those. In fact, I got a message about it being orphaned some eight days after someone edited the page. Weird. I'll watch the page as well and see what happens to it. I've seen crappier screenshots on articles with the exact same rationale so I don't see why that one keeps getting deleted. Oh well, another Wiki mystery. Pinkadelica 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did it have a Fair Use Rationale (see WP:FURG)? If not, that's probably your answer right there. Try uploading it again, then, in its description, include a FUR. -- azumanga 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it had everything, it's just a odd thing that keeps happening. It's actually managed to stay this time. CelticGreen 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did it have a Fair Use Rationale (see WP:FURG)? If not, that's probably your answer right there. Try uploading it again, then, in its description, include a FUR. -- azumanga 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Apology
I would like to formally apologize for the conflicts and problems that I have caused you. I acted in a very rude, immature manner, and I showed no respect towards you as well as Wikipedia. Please except my apology. Thank you for helping me to realize the indecency of my actions. Roaster101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaster101 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
A controversial topic...and the help with deletion nomination topic
Hey, I was wondering what you and IrishLass think of this. It's the most controversial topic for deletion that I've ever seen since I have been here at Wikipedia.
And on an unrelated note (well, if you ignore that this is about a deletion topic as well), IrishLass seems to be great at nominating topics for deletion. Perhaps IrishLass could perfect your deletion nomination skills better than the page that discusses nominating articles for deletion can. I have never nominated an article for deletion while at Wikipedia...yet...so you guys are ahead of me on that front. I feel that I have a pretty good understanding on how to, but if the page about nominating articles isn't helping you get it just right, maybe IrishLass can help out better on that issue. Flyer22 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow!! Yes, I am getting the hang of nominating for deletion. Not that I go looking for articles to delete, but some certainly scream DELETE ME. I'm going to take that debate home with me (print it out) and read through the whole thing over the weekend, maybe even hit a wi-fi spot to comment. That is an intense debate. As a mother, the gut reaction is "delete" but that would be POV not logic. Thanks for the heads up. IrishLass0128 17:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know so much about it not being logic. As for nominating topics for deletion, do you feel that you can help CelticGreen out on her skills with that? Flyer22 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will try. Is there a particular topic you want deleted, CelticGreen? The last one I nominated is just going in circles Ashlee Holland, maybe if you (Flyer22) could glance at it, offer an opinion. She won I Want to Be a Soap Star and has done essentially nothing else. I think she lacks notability but the author really seems to be trying and wants the page to stay. IrishLass0128 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll pop in over there and see what's up with that. Flyer22 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting article and AfD argument. I'm going to look it further, just skimmed it. It's actually kind of creepy in a way but I understand a need for it on some level. BTW Flyer22 thanks for moving that apology to where it's supposed to be. I tried to help the young ?man? but was essentially attacked. I guess he figured out I wasn't attacking him, just trying to help and follow Wiki guidelines. CelticGreen 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll pop in over there and see what's up with that. Flyer22 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will try. Is there a particular topic you want deleted, CelticGreen? The last one I nominated is just going in circles Ashlee Holland, maybe if you (Flyer22) could glance at it, offer an opinion. She won I Want to Be a Soap Star and has done essentially nothing else. I think she lacks notability but the author really seems to be trying and wants the page to stay. IrishLass0128 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know so much about it not being logic. As for nominating topics for deletion, do you feel that you can help CelticGreen out on her skills with that? Flyer22 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Celtic,
Please do not make personal attacks as you did here ("rather that being a cry baby that can't handle a woman.") Comment on contributions, not the contributor. I went into this hoping that some sort of compromise could be made, but it is clear with your ALLCAPS writing and use of bolding that you are upset. I understand why you would be upset to see your work changed, but that is part of building a collaborative encyclopedia. You have made several misstatements in your messages, but I don't honestly want to reply to you right now in the state you are obviously in. Please calm down, think about how a compromise might be reached, and consider that personal attack won't help the article in any way. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let's get something straight RIGHT OFF. I am upset that my user page was violated, not that my edits were undone. I'm upset that the words "watch it" were used as if I were a 2 year old talking back to my little brother. I'm upset that I asked him to talk and instead he reverted (adding back the trivia section, not considering the word changes, and not following project guidelines, instead putting the entire article back to HIS last edits, ignoring what was done) the article and went crying to an admin rather than him talking to me. But mostly I'm upset being called a MAN. The compromise is he damn well better clean up the article and make it compliant with the projects it's associated with and stay the hell off my talk page. I'm fine with you Firsfron of Ronchester of coming here, because that is your job. But I'm not fine with someone putting things on my talk page after I've archived them and been done with the discussion or asked them to keep it in one place. He cleans up his mess, and stays off my talk page. That's the compromise. You should really look at the last edits I did before you take his side.CelticGreen 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note, Celtic. It is clear you are a good user who has made excellent contributions to the project. I have looked at all the edits, and I have not taken anyone's side. I have asked you not to make personal attacks as you did a few minutes ago; these will never help the encyclopedia, or the article in question. I can see no sign of Rollosmokes having made any personal attacks, or I would have warned him, too. I did warn him not to violate Wikipedia's rule on reverting more than three times. I am asking you again to remain civil with this user; do not make personal attacks and avoid making insults such as "went crying to an admin". Comments like this will never calm down the other party, and will only incite further anger and accusations. You have every right to archive comments on your talk page, and he was incorrect in replacing them, but you cannot make demands about where the comments must be kept if you continue the discussion (as you have been doing). Each user has his or her own style in making talk page comments: many users copy the messages to both pages, while others prefer keeping them on a single page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let's get this completely clear so we both understand, I'M DONE WITH HIM. He can clean up and/or ruin the Drake article to his little smoking heart's content. My opinion is what it is. I don't like him and he needs to stay the heck off my talk page because I will not respond and I will continue to archive any comments. Since your warning, I have not acted incivily toward him. Nor will I again. All comments were made before your warning. I will abide by it, but I will also make sure the unsourced info tag remains on the Drake page until HE fixes the page. CelticGreen 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note, Celtic. It is clear you are a good user who has made excellent contributions to the project. I have looked at all the edits, and I have not taken anyone's side. I have asked you not to make personal attacks as you did a few minutes ago; these will never help the encyclopedia, or the article in question. I can see no sign of Rollosmokes having made any personal attacks, or I would have warned him, too. I did warn him not to violate Wikipedia's rule on reverting more than three times. I am asking you again to remain civil with this user; do not make personal attacks and avoid making insults such as "went crying to an admin". Comments like this will never calm down the other party, and will only incite further anger and accusations. You have every right to archive comments on your talk page, and he was incorrect in replacing them, but you cannot make demands about where the comments must be kept if you continue the discussion (as you have been doing). Each user has his or her own style in making talk page comments: many users copy the messages to both pages, while others prefer keeping them on a single page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- And I further reitterate, you should look at the last version Rolo reverted because the italics, they were there, the word "it's" was completely replaced, the trivia section was incorporated into the article, and the accurate title of "daytime drama" was added. He reverted all of that which was done by me just because I did it. That's wrong. So look at what I last did before the tags, then tell me my reverts were wrong. I revert and then edit things, might want to look at the final version, not one edit.CelticGreen 23:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Celtic,
- Let's get something straight RIGHT OFF. I am upset that my user page was violated, not that my edits were undone. I'm upset that the words "watch it" were used as if I were a 2 year old talking back to my little brother. I'm upset that I asked him to talk and instead he reverted (adding back the trivia section, not considering the word changes, and not following project guidelines, instead putting the entire article back to HIS last edits, ignoring what was done) the article and went crying to an admin rather than him talking to me. But mostly I'm upset being called a MAN. The compromise is he damn well better clean up the article and make it compliant with the projects it's associated with and stay the hell off my talk page. I'm fine with you Firsfron of Ronchester of coming here, because that is your job. But I'm not fine with someone putting things on my talk page after I've archived them and been done with the discussion or asked them to keep it in one place. He cleans up his mess, and stays off my talk page. That's the compromise. You should really look at the last edits I did before you take his side.CelticGreen 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm at a loss trying to understand your points of view on this article. Twice now you have accused me of "taking sides" in this dispute. I have not; I've warned both of you not to continue disruptive behavior. You have stated that I need to explain my actions allowing Rollosmokes' edits to stand. I haven't edited the article at all, so my actions have been quite limited up to this point (such as asking you why you removed the correct italics and spelling, and re-inserted redundant wikilinks. You told me you "didn't REVERT squat" but this is untrue: your edit summary here is "Undid revision 165772224 by Rollosmokes (talk)Reverted to CORRECT version." The version you reverted to is not correct: it contains typos and Manual of style problems. You have stated repeatedly that you are done with this dispute. And then you continue to:
- What's important here is the article. You have stated repeatedly you're done with it. That's unfortunate (because I was hoping to seek your input on this article), but if you're truly done with the article, then stop editing it and stop leaving accusations on other editors' talk pages. If you really are interested in continuing to edit this article, review the guidelines covering use of italics on titles of television programs, use of possessives, and use of Wikilinks. When you reverted Rollosmokes' changes with the inappropriate edit summary "Reverted to CORRECT version", you were damaging the content of the page (re-introducing spelling errors and such) in a silly edit war that only harmed the article. When you left six consecutive notes on my talk page telling me you were done with the dispute (and then continuing to edit the article and leaving further demanding talk page notes), demanding that talk page comments be left where you put them, and making blatant personal attacks... this is all behavior that worries me. Please go back to editing the encyclopedia and put this dispute behind you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Semi neutral third party here. Okay, I looked at the Drake Hogestyn page and I see what CelticGreen is saying. Her final edit that Rollosmokes reverted had considerable clean up and incorporated the italics and the bold where they should be but that was never acknowledged while you were scolding her. Yes, she left things that were also visual and "frowned upon" (but not completely unallowed), but she cleaned up a lot and Rollosmokes did just revert to his last change "just because." You need to look beyond the edit summaries to what the final edit was. Yes, these two don't get along, aren't going to in all likelihood, but as an admin, you did appear to take sides by appearing to not truly look at the page. I tried to reach a compromise adding back good changes, such as the removal of the trivia section and leaving the information incorporated into the article. But I also left the citation needed tags because the article sources nothing. That's never good. Some people make an edit, save the page, make another, save the page, see an error, make an edit. You can't be a stickler and count that as "6 edits" when in reality, it's a total process. If I'm on a frequently changing page, like the admin report page, I save a couple of times so the typing I've done isn't lost.
- You, Firsfron of Ronchester, and Rollosmokes kept harping on the "it's" verses "its" issue but did either of you notice that in her final edit the sentence read: There is no official word from the show's producer or the production company, NBC/Sony, on the current status of Drake's contract or position with the show.?? I have no computer on the weekends so I've learned to look at the whole and not just a piece. The whole issue in this, it seems to me, is that no one looked at the whole, just the pieces. Enough said, I've cleaned up the page a bit, but, like I said, it needs citations. Many, many citations and references because CelticGreen was right, there aren't any. Place nice now, CG and RS. IrishLass0128 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Soap infobox
I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your concern about my mass-implementing the new infobox. I am honestly just trying to "Be Bold" and not sneakily trying to get my way. Sadly, more discussion usually occurs over individual articles than Project-wide issues.
I want to reassure you that when "applying" the new infobox I am simply switching {{Infobox character}} to {{Infobox soap character}} and adding the series name where I can. There is really minimal visual and functional difference between the two templates on a basic level. I will not be removing relationship lists or anything like that on a mass basis, and particularly not in Days articles, which I believe is your area of expertise and not one of the shows I regularly edit.
Also, keep in mind that having our "own" template in the Project gives us more control; so if we decide we want a "step-great-grandchildren" parameter or something, we only have to debate amongst ourselves and not a larger group; the regular character template has to apply to film, television, book and play characters (among others) and so many potential changes are attacked form all sides. — TAnthonyTalk 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm working on incorporating it into the Days pages. Apparently someone didn't like it because it was deleted from the Sami Brady page all together. I put it back and tried it on the Hope Williams Brady page, which I'm also trying to expand (saw your comments on the other talk page). I also finally added my name to the list of participants in the project. Thanks for the encouragement. CelticGreen 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
ANI
Of course he meant thread :) We do move threads to their appropriate places. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had a tough weekend with an aggressive editor and I can be a little too literal sometimes. I had no clue that that talk page existed. I guess you just have to learn what you can the more you come here. CelticGreen 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- i understand your situation. There's no need to feel stressed. Just drop me a line if you need help. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The order of events of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article
Here. Flyer22 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I hate it when people don't even know EJ's birth name, it was never Elvis DiMera Jr. I would just revert it all back, but having seen these types here before, I know what will happen. I'll look it over and remove some of the crap. CelticGreen 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, CelticGreen. Yeah, I've edited the article since then, so I wouldn't revert it all back. But, anyway, thanks again. Flyer22 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the biggest problem, the article is now completely false and based on someone's assumption, not fact. It has never been proven that EJ did any of the black glove crimes, yet this person rewrote the entire article to appear as though he was tried and convicted. That's not true. All the black glove information has to come out, it really makes the most sense to just revert the whole thing, but I'll go about it the long way at this time. CelticGreen 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- See, this is yet another reason why I am thankful to have you and IrishLass around. I watch Days of our Lives, but as you know, I'm not as familiar with certain things about it as you and IrishLass are...and I haven't watched it as regularly as you two have. If you really need to just revert it all back to before that editor showed up, then go for it. I can re-add my newest edits to it afterwards. Flyer22 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I went and grabbed the storyline section from the last edit before the new editor came in and I left them a message. As much as I hate the storyline, I wouldn't have a problem if the crimes were incorporated into the EJ Wells article as "suspected" or "possibily part of" because they keep going back and forth on what he did and what he didn't do. I just watched 5 hours to catch up and all of the sudden EJ didn't shoot John. Okay but that's not what we wanted changed about that episode. We want the "rape" to go away, not "who shot John." The other problem was they adjusted the backstory and included current in the backstory instead of in the current section. They also removed some romantic moments, I guess just because. It does need the section added as to why Sami's marrying EJ, which I do believe will happen, but I think we have to be careful of spoilers. That seems to be a huge problem lately. Thanks for the heads up. I was home today resting up for a long run of 7 day work weeks between tomorrow and the weekend before Thanksgiving. So if you don't see me much, that's why. The advantage is extra money for the holidays. The disadvantage is I may go through computer withdrawal. Thanks again for the heads up on the article. CelticGreen 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, about that editor putting the current happenings in the storyline out of order was my biggest concern about those edits at first, as the heading of this section suggests. But now I see there were more problems.
- I went and grabbed the storyline section from the last edit before the new editor came in and I left them a message. As much as I hate the storyline, I wouldn't have a problem if the crimes were incorporated into the EJ Wells article as "suspected" or "possibily part of" because they keep going back and forth on what he did and what he didn't do. I just watched 5 hours to catch up and all of the sudden EJ didn't shoot John. Okay but that's not what we wanted changed about that episode. We want the "rape" to go away, not "who shot John." The other problem was they adjusted the backstory and included current in the backstory instead of in the current section. They also removed some romantic moments, I guess just because. It does need the section added as to why Sami's marrying EJ, which I do believe will happen, but I think we have to be careful of spoilers. That seems to be a huge problem lately. Thanks for the heads up. I was home today resting up for a long run of 7 day work weeks between tomorrow and the weekend before Thanksgiving. So if you don't see me much, that's why. The advantage is extra money for the holidays. The disadvantage is I may go through computer withdrawal. Thanks again for the heads up on the article. CelticGreen 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- See, this is yet another reason why I am thankful to have you and IrishLass around. I watch Days of our Lives, but as you know, I'm not as familiar with certain things about it as you and IrishLass are...and I haven't watched it as regularly as you two have. If you really need to just revert it all back to before that editor showed up, then go for it. I can re-add my newest edits to it afterwards. Flyer22 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the biggest problem, the article is now completely false and based on someone's assumption, not fact. It has never been proven that EJ did any of the black glove crimes, yet this person rewrote the entire article to appear as though he was tried and convicted. That's not true. All the black glove information has to come out, it really makes the most sense to just revert the whole thing, but I'll go about it the long way at this time. CelticGreen 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, CelticGreen. Yeah, I've edited the article since then, so I wouldn't revert it all back. But, anyway, thanks again. Flyer22 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, this paragraph... On June 29 2007, EJ is informed that he is the father of Sami Brady's twins. However, during the same episode, it is revealed that the DNA test was never actually done because Kate blackmailed Nick Fallon, the lab tech, who was supposed to run the test. Eventually, Nick had the test run and a current test result indicates Lucas Roberts is the father of the twins, not EJ.
- That paragraph belongs before the mention of John being killed, of course.
- And thanks for letting me know where you'll be these upcoming days if I don't see you much then. Yes, the money you will get from that will be worth it at least. Flyer22 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it does. You know, I think I'm sticking to the soaps. Look above this conversation and see the trouble I get into when I try and branch out. The problem is some are blaming EJ for John's death but Andre did it. Yes, it is a factor in Sami marrying EJ, but EJ didn't do the deed. CelticGreen 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for letting me know where you'll be these upcoming days if I don't see you much then. Yes, the money you will get from that will be worth it at least. Flyer22 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look here
- Just to let you know...CelticGreen is a she. So you might want to change that pronoun of he. And she really didn't take being called a he too well before. Flyer22 11:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's kind of cool, and definitely surprising. Yes, I do get a little "bent" when I'm called a guy when it sounds like an insult. I guess, I hadn't thought about the Celtics basketball team when I picked my name. I guess guys think that or something. I should get one of those banner things like from the soap project that say "This user is female" to avoid confusion. Thanks for showing that to me. CelticGreen 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lol. Sorry about that, changing it now...D3av 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. I now have a little banner thing that says I'm a female to avoid confusion. CelticGreen 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lol. Sorry about that, changing it now...D3av 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You probably read this.
You probably read this, but thanks for what you said in relation to Flyer22/Flyer. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)