User talk:Chrizz93

Welcome!

Hello, Chrizz93, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pam Ewing's paternal status??!!

When you refer to her as "legitimate," what do you mean? Did Digger knowingly raise her with knowledge that she wasn't his, or was he unaware of her paternity as well?--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that she was born into the marriage and had his last name. So I think stepfather is not quite right. Only Digger and Rebecca knew that she wasn't his child. Cliff and Pam didn't know. --Jany90 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Part 2"

Stop removing this phrase from the Pokemon episode list pages. This is needed to denote the fact that "Adventures in Unova and Beyond" is the second part of season 16. I told you weeks ago that it was necessary. Do not remove it again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary, you just claim it is. It may be a continuation but you can't really say it is Part 2 of it. But ruin the article as much as you want, I don't care anymore! --Jany90 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Peyton Sawyer article

Hello, Jany90. Are you still watching the Peyton Sawyer article? If so, will you help out with the matter I mentioned here? I'm thinking of simply having the lead state Peyton Sawyer or Peyton Elizabeth Sawyer for Peyton's name, and this is per the reasoning I gave in this discussion (now archived). That she married Lucas Scott is best left to the infobox. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I actually think it should stay as it is. Because she took Lucas' name after the marriage and that should be clarified right at the beginning as it is the normal handling with those articles (as far as I've seen). It always says the full name of the character (which is Peyton Elizabeth Sawyer Scott). --Jany90 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If you agree with that editor's latest edit, then why were you reverting the editor on the matter before this point, as seen here and here? Like I stated in the aforementioned, now archived discussion, there is no WP:Reliable source showing that Peyton kept her maiden name when she married Lucas. That makes calling her "Peyton Elizabeth Sawyer Scott" in the Wikipedia article WP:Original research, which is a Wikipedia policy violation. Like I also stated in that discussion, "when it comes to the married names, I don't think it's good to have that WP:Spoiler material in the lead; this is because fiction is always in the present for readers/viewers and many people who have not watched this series or watched to the end of the sixth season will not be familiar with Peyton Sawyer being known as Peyton Scott...until the end of that sixth season (or unless they have come across a spoiler on that matter). Peyton Sawyer is her WP:Common name, and that's what I think leads and infobox titles should stick to in the cases of fictional characters. I know that most fan editors don't think like that, however; they will add the married name as though the character is a real person."

So, to sum up, including the married name in the lead is mostly "the normal handling" of WP:Fancruft articles; that's not how WP:Good articles, for example, are supposed to be written. I'm likely going to take this matter to WP:TV for other editors' input, since they generally know how these types of articles should be formatted. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I was a little confused and lost track over the article ^^ :-P I would prefer Peyton Elizabeth Scott because that is the "state" of this figure and her "current" name (just as I reverted it several times). That's my opinion but if you feel to change it in any other way, I guess I can't do anything about it. And if this information goes into the infobox then I can accept it I guess. --Jany90 (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I started a discussion about this topic as a whole at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One Tree Hill female character articles

Hi Jany, I am Sophia. I have noticed that you have edited two articles of the One Tree Hill main characters, Brooke Davis and Haley James Scott. Haley's name is clearly stated as "Haley Bob James Scott" and I noticed you added a "née James" to it which makes no sense. You did a similar thing with Brooke Davis. When both Brooke and Haley's maiden name is mentioned along with the marital name, the "née" has no meaning. All three of the core girls of One Tree Hill , Brooke, Peyton and Haley kept their maiden names as well. So please get back to me regarding this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaIsabellaSherman (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are a WP:Sockpuppet, like I stated here. We won't be dealing with your name mess any longer, not for as long as we have been dealing with it anyway. Once you are indefinitely blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry, I will have these articles WP:Semi-protected if I see you at them again under any account. The Peyton Sawyer article, as you know, is already WP:Semi-protected. If I see a new registered account pop at these articles and do what you have been doing, I will have that account blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry as well.

And if you start a section on someone's talk page in the future, make sure that you start it in the appropriate place -- at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. As you can see, I moved your post to the correct spot and gave it a heading. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Jany, if you want to weigh in on the WP:Sockpuppet case, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahyadrisingh. It also tells you where to place your comment. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)