Jump to content

User talk:31.48.121.128

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

Whitney Dean

[edit]

I'll find all the relevant info that's been decided on it before I get hauled over the coals again. 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, I'll get through this...firstly, I cannot reference every episode with every single mention, but there is a ref in the infobox. And with Jay, he was fostered by Billy.

First relationships. Especially with Tiffany who was believed to be a biological sibling: [1] [2] [3] [4]

I know with the whole Bobby thing, you used episodes and realism. Mine is that Whitney, when she first arrived was 15 approaching 16 and knew her biological parents. She wasn't a little child. And Bianca was the one who was seemingly showed to have these legal rights over Whitney in instances like the court case. Even though Deborah wasn't there, she would have been the one told about all this. Stepparents don't have legal rights, in law, Bianca wasn't her stepmum as she never married Nathan, so some how, something happened. And like when Whitney was taken into care with Bianca's biological kids, Whitney was returned to Bianca's care and not put anywhere else. Grangehilllover (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this fair? I'm trying my best. You get to make your point by using what is said in the episodes and I don't? You get to use references and I don't? And in the end, I get made out to be the bad one. Grangehilllover (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been said in an episode that Bianca adopted Whitney. Your reference is a tabloid article with a mistake in it. Please try to calm down, I'm worried for you. 31.48.121.128 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, you got your wish...you've broken me. I do my best, I copy people, I listen, but no one does me...now just leave me alone...like forever. The one place I thought I was valued, the one place I thought I did something good. It takes little time to destroy. Grangehilllover (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask what's with the removal, it's been discussed and this is an OK way. Grangehilllover (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed Bianca and Whitney from each others infoboxes, I've just moved them to "Other relatives" since they don't fit under the adoptive mother/daughter labels. I will continue to remove Whitney from Liam and Morgan's infoboxes as she's not their legal sister, she is Tiffany's legal sister because her father Nathan Dean is named on Tiffany's birth certificate. 31.48.121.128 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if you take a foster parent-Donna and Claudette, that's how their listed. Foster parents have less rights than guardian and a guardian is bringing up a child in a parental place. Tiffany's birth certificate has never been seen, but with the whole DNA and for Ricky to have rights from that point, he would have had to be named. Grangehilllover (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't know what kind of guardianship Bianca has for Whitney, it's pure speculation to say she has more rights than a foster parent. "Other relatives" works better and I'm not sure why you're so against it. Why is common sense so hard for you to understand? Also it's likely - but not proven - that Bianca got Tiffany's birth certificate changed to include Ricky when she changed Tiffany's surname. So we shouldn't list any of them as "legal" siblings - we don't include siblings-in-law or step-siblings. 31.48.121.128 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AnemoneProjectors suggested the usage of guardian and ward for their relationship. Grangehilllover (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suggested it, he approved it. There's no infobox label for guardian or ward, so they fit under "Other relatives". I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall trying to get you to understand very simple things. Maybe you'd be better off on the Simple English Wikipedia. 31.48.121.128 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How come before you started editing, things were fine and now you're allowed to be awful against me despite me trying? Grangehilllover (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should go under "other relatives" but under one of the parent fields, step or adoptive, whichever seems more appropriate, but with the note afterwards. For example, Donna wasn't adopted by Claudette but is still listed under adoptive because there's no field for foster. — anemoneprojectors 08:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Mitchell

[edit]

The discussion you mentioned appears to be ongoing. Is that correct? If it's ongoing, your edits don't make sense because your summary indicates the issue is settled. CityOfSilver 18:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here but from what I can gather, the discussion has already been had somewhere but the outcome (removing full name from article leads) was never implemented. Certainly this was the justification used for removing the full name I added to the Bobby Beale (EastEnders) article. User:AnemoneProjectors said that he has started making these changes and suggested I should do the same. The ongoing discussion relates to characters being included in another character's infobox. 31.48.121.128 (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion some time ago, I think in the village pump, and although consensus was there, technically it was archived without being closed. But consensus was there, and I've been implementing it slowly in a few places, now this user has decided to help, which I am thankful for. — anemoneprojectors 07:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:31.48.121.128&oldid=1140177233"