User talk:Beaconboof

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sheila Carter with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that on October 26, 2012 you added a quote to Sheila Carter to the Conception section. I want to thank you for your contribution, and at the same time notify you that the source for the quote wasn't done properly. I've fixed it, but in the future when adding a source to an article, please read WP:Verifiability to learn more about sourcing a reference. Thank you, and happy editing. Creativity97 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genoa City (The Young and the Restless), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Another World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Carter Article

I understand that Sheila Carter-related storylines on the 'Young and the Restless' from late 2006 and onward have not been quite well received by fans... It still doesn't change the fact that those storylines were written and did happen onscreen. Wikipedia articles on such works of fiction must reflect exactly what was said and seen onscreen, not viewers' wishes and speculations.

I do not want this to turn into an endless edit war, nor am I trying to win or anything. I just want the Sheila Carter article to be an unbiased reflection of what transpired onscreen and was confirmed by actors, headwriters, executive producers and so on. More on the 'Talk' page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Carter#Regarding_storylines_from_late_2006_and_onward... Israell (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

I am now notifying administrators. Israell (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Israell (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Critical reception' section

Once again... The 'Critical reception' section addresses ALL of your concerns as well as concerns voiced by others. I just edited the article so it presents and resumes storylines the way they played out onscreen. I know you've read the 'Critical reception' section since you've edited it. All of your concerns are raised there! Other editors have shortened it but all your and others' points are still highlighted there, so what's the matter? Israell (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more I can edit for now besides adding in sources. The 'Critical reception' section does state that many viewers believe that Sheila might not have had that surgery to look like Phyllis, that Sarah might have been an imposter and that Daisy & Ryder might not have been Sheila & Tom's (in spite of what was seen onscreen). IF 'The Young & the Restless' or even 'The Bold & the Beautiful' end up saying that Sheila did not have that surgery etc., we'll edit the article accordingly. But for now, all viewers suspicions, speculations, presumptions can only be voiced in 'Critical reception'. Israell (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Williams (Example)

One more thing, Beaconboof. Was Patty Williams ever as tall as Emily with the same voice? No. But that's what happened in recent years after her plastic surgery to look like Dr. Emily Peterson. Same thing with Sarah; she ended up looking and sounding exactly like Lauren, only her hair and make-up were a bit different. That's a soap opera, not a Mel Gibson picture!

There must be a reason why those executive producers, head writers & writers were hired by CBS/Sony. Many viewers would agree that they've completely ruined the character of Patty Williams. She was somewhat tormented and hurt by love, even shot Jack in the early eighties, but after a 25-year absence, they've had her come back and turned her into a very violent MANIAC even hurting animals and children! She even kept Jack from performing CPR on Colleen (who eventually died) and ended up shooting both Victor and Jack... She's very smart in the sense she fooled everyone when posing as psychiatrist Mary Jane Benson or housekeeper Myrna Murdock, and when playing pranks on everyone after Diane had died. Patty even filmed all those involved in altercations with Diane prior to her death, but Patty would always revert to a creepy child-like state when caught...

You see! Patty's character was also ruined but her Wikipedia article still presents facts as shown onscreen. Are you part of the 'Kimberlin Brown/Sheila Carter Fans Place'? Israell (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She/Bren/Jen

One last point, Beaconboof... I think that the Sheila character started going downhill ever since she came back to 'The Young & the Restless' as She/Bren/Jen (Sheila/Brenda/Jennifer) in 2005. Sheila had spent 17 years raising Mary in oftentimes tough conditions (off-camera) on 'The Bold & the Beautiful'. She's then had Diana, a child she named after the Goddess, and went to great length to get some of that gold from Massimo so she could better care for her newborn daughter. Lauren, Scott & Scotty were ancient history at that point. I'm not saying no memory remained but Sheila truly did move on.

It made absolutely NO sense to have Sheila give up on Diana, hurt & seriously betray her very best friend & accomplice, Sugar, and become solely focused on Scotty & Lauren after two decades, and go to extreme lengths to blow up Lauren (and even Tom, who was her lover at the time)! In my opinion, THAT'S what destroyed the Sheila character, THAT'S when she became a cartoon character. Just like Patty Williams, she became a caricature of her former self. That was before Sheila's surgery. It's John F. Smith, Kay Alden & Trent Jones that wrote that story, by the way.

Kimberlin Brown's accident changed the course of events; that's why they've had Lauren break Sheila's ankle. Sugar was at that police station in GC after stabbing Scotty in order to get back at Sheila. The real Sheila, at the same moment, was at that surgeon's office and asked him to make her look like somebody else. Months later, Lynn Marie Latham simply went along with the idea and the rest is history. All I'm saying is the character of Sheila was not so well written and executed under John F. Smith... Sometimes, it's better for characters not to come back if they're only gonna be written in a worse fashion. I'd love to see Sheila again but only if the story is really good.

Also, I do not think Wikipedia articles have any effect on what execs & writers may decide and future storylines. They have access to decades of film, digital files and scripts. That's what they'd consult. They might perhaps consult Wikipedia but articles should remain unbiased and neutral. Israell (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Beaconboof. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Beaconboof. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lady Ottoline Morrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Gilbert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]